Soulmates

[Neoved]

Namaste all.

The concept of soulmates is one I have heard about often in connection with Hinduism, but aside from general discussion of the nature of karma and reincarnation, I haven't found any reliable, authentic references or analyses of the idea.

Do any of the Hindu scriptures specifically address the concept of soulmates?

[philosoraptor]

Assuming that by the term "soulmate," you mean what people commonly mean by the term, I would have to say that, no, I have never read of such a thing being endorsed in Hindu scriptures.

This is not to say that Hindu scriptures are relevant to Hinduism. Many Hindus are of the view that Hindu scriptures are only relevant when we want to give lip service to their authority, but not so relevant when determining what is and is not right knowledge.

Now if you will excuse me, I believe there are a few other members who will want to chime in with their personal views on Hinduism and "soulmates." Those views might be more to your liking, so maybe you might regard them as correct on that basis. :-)

[Necromancer]

Namaste all.

The concept of soulmates is one I have heard about often in connection with Hinduism, but aside from general discussion of the nature of karma and reincarnation, I haven't found any reliable, authentic references or analyses of the idea.

Do any of the Hindu scriptures specifically address the concept of soulmates?
Namaste.

I am not familiar with the concept of 'soulmates' in Hindu Scriptures. I don't think it exists.

However, a couple who have highly compatible birth charts astrologically, may be seen as being 'soulmates'.

The idea of 'soulmates' is a Western one. Also, those who are deeply in love can view each other as 'soulmates', but after years of marriage, one can fall out of love just as easily as one can fall in love.

I much prefer the term 'kindred spirits' and according to Karma, couples are put together for a reason - to work through their collective/combined Karma.

Viewed in this light, couples can be 'soulmates' as their soul destinies are dependent and reliant upon each other.

@ Philosoraptor - I am sorry if I am about to sound like a nitpicking bitch, but must nearly every post you make be a cheap shot at those who provide personal opinions on this board?

I am not undermining the authority and value of the Holy Scriptures, but are concepts without Scriptural basis any more/less relevant?

For example - Vaishnava Scriptures will say that Vishnu is the Supreme Lord and Shiva is a 'demigod'. Shaiva Scriptures say the opposite. If we are to base our views according to 'Scriptural evidence' who is right and who is wrong?

Isn't it up to personal opinion and discretion to choose which path they follow?

I can understand and appreciate your point, but your line of reasoning is getting old real fast.

Sorry if I disrespect.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste all.

The concept of soulmates is one I have heard about often in connection with Hinduism, but aside from general discussion of the nature of karma and reincarnation, I haven't found any reliable, authentic references or analyses of the idea.

Do any of the Hindu scriptures specifically address the concept of soulmates?

Vannakkam: I mean no disrespect, but I've never heard this from any Hindu, nor seen it in scripture. So I wonder just where you did hear this from that brought you to say 'in connection with Hinduism'?

Most Hindus have arranged marriages, and that idea seems more congruent with love marriages.

Aum Namasivaya

[smaranam]

Namaste

Radha and KRshNa are soulmates
Lakshmi and NArAyaNa are soulmates
Gauri and Shankar are soulmates

So when VishNu descends here or anywhere else (takes avatAr), His soulmate(s) His various shaktis - Shridevi Bhudevi, all/some aspects of them, descend too.

Other than that, the concept of being married to/wanting to be married to the same person for 7 births is there - in smRti shAstra (scriptures remembered and retold rather than revealed or heard like the Vedas), itihAs (ancient history) and/or tradition (saMskRti). There are vrata (vows) that people (specially women) perform towards that end.

Shri Hari

[philosoraptor]

But the general rule is that familial relationships change with each new birth. One can be a man in one birth and a woman in another. One can be one's father in one birth, and in another birth that one can be one's father.

The only "soulmate" we have is our paramAtmA who is with us always, and when we realize that, then we can enjoy true bliss.

[Necromancer]

But the general rule is that familial relationships change with each new birth. One can be a man in one birth and a woman in another. One can be one's father in one birth, and in another birth that one can be one's father.

The only "soulmate" we have is our paramAtmA who is with us always, and when we realize that, then we can enjoy true bliss.
Namaste.

Now that was very beautifully said!

+1 rep.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[Necromancer]

Namaste.

I am pondering philosoraptor...pondering...

If I am to be reborn as a father, wife, sister, brother et cetera of another person (whom I may/not know in this lifetime)....that is to fulfill some undone Karma with that person/s right?

Now, if/when I do realise 'I am Atman' what becomes of the Souls of others? Of everybody else?

This 'relationship' between people indicates there are two/more Souls present and each Soul has their own Karma to work through.

So, if two or more Souls work through that Karma together (Until they realise 'I am Atman' in the meantime), they will be 'Soulmates' no?

*Now Scripture might be nice at this point.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[Necromancer]

Namaste & triple post combo.

What I am asking, in essence, is how the Jivanmukta views Souls still bound up by the wheel of Karma?

To see them as all part of paramAtmA is erroneous and a lie, because of their conditioned nature, still bound up by the iron shackles of mind and Karma.

Also, according to the preface to Isopanishad, Brahman has no 'parts' anyway because it is ever...full.

To see them as not a part of the whole mans one hasn't realised anything and totally negates the above.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[Neoved]

Vannakkam: I mean no disrespect, but I've never heard this from any Hindu, nor seen it in scripture. So I wonder just where you did hear this from that brought you to say 'in connection with Hinduism'?

Most Hindus have arranged marriages, and that idea seems more congruent with love marriages.


This is something I've heard anecdotally over the years when Hinduism has come up in conversation--conversations, I should add, that have occurred entirely among non-Hindus.

My own knowledge of the scriptures is limited, at the moment, to the Bhagavad Gita and some of the Upanishads, and my explorations into Sanatana Dharma are at this point entirely solitary and unassisted, so I'm not surprised to learn that this may not be as common an idea as I thought.

That said, the influence of the monism/dualism debate on this issue hadn't even occurred to me--this post certainly went in a more exciting direction than I intended!

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Smaranam presented some good points.
Indeed we can see that the Lord and His lady are connected forever. They are always together, their relationship is eternal. So there are divine couples Radha Krishna, Sita Rama, Lakshmi Narayana, Uma Sadasiva, ... etc.
Is there something similar in the relationship between ordinary jiva souls?
Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 7.11.29 (http://vedabase.net/sb/7/11/29/en) says:


"The woman who engages in the service of her husband, following strictly in the footsteps of the goddess of fortune, surely returns home, back to Godhead, with her devotee husband, and lives very happily in the Vaikuṇṭha planets."

Thus, just as the relationship between Lakshmi, goddess of fortune, and Lord Narayana is forever, husband and his faithful wife who have developed divine consciousness can stay together after they attain liberation in Vaikuntha.
The example given in this verse of Bhāgavatam is that just as goddess of fortune Lakshmi is devoted to her Lord and stays together with her Lord, so a wife devoted to her husband stays together with her husband in the spiritual realm of Vaikuntha.

regards

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste, bramha .

Its somewhat right. But i m disagreed with radha - Krishna. There is no evidence that there is eternal relationship between radha and krishna. Besides in all Veda and 18 major puranas there is no mention of goloka wherein there is consideration of radha with Krishna.

I think you have misinterpreted above shloka which you have quoted. That shloka only states that for woman , worshipping his devotee husband is same as worshipping bhagavan. After death they both go to vaikuntha and live there. It doesn't mean that there is still a relationship of devotee with wife in vaikuntha. However the question is ' does devotee remember who was his wife after attaining vaikuntha where is there is no mind and it's reactions ? ' . ' Will devotee remember his previous lifes when he stays in vaikuntha? '

Bhagavan krishna doesn't live in goloka. His saguna form lives in Vaikuntha and this has numerous proofs in shastras. That's why he is called as vaikunthah and vaikunthapatihi.

I don't think that after liberation man lives with his pious wife in vaikuntha. Vedas got tired when finding nature of soul and u r directly giving woman relationship to the soul ?

Indirectly you are stating there are two relationships to the soul. One is with bhagavan shri krishna and other with wife's soul. However veda doesn't mention about any relationship of soul with ishwara or with his wife.


Thank you.

Hati om tat sat !

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

From your previous posts on other threads I've already seen that your understanding of scriptures differs from the generally accepted Vaishnava understanding of the scriptures. Here I can tell you what I have learned from the Vaishnavas.

But i m disagreed with radha - Krishna. There is no evidence that there is eternal relationship between radha and krishna. Besides in all Veda and 18 major puranas there is no mention of goloka wherein there is consideration of radha with Krishna.

Goloka and eternal relationship between Radha and Krishna are described in Brahma-vaivarta Purana. See here: http://brahma-vaivarta-puranam.blogspot.com/2007/08/sri-brahma-vaivarta-purana-complete.html


58 Sri Radha is more dear to Me than life. Day and night She rests on My chest.

14 Why did the saintly goddess Radha, who lives in Goloka and is Lord Hari’s dearest lover, come to Vraja and become a girl of Vraja?

94 She is the first goddess, the root of all nature, She stays always in Goloka, but by Lord Krsna’s order She has come, without entering a mother’s womb, to this world.

14 In Vaikuntha He appears in many forms as four-armed Lord Narayana, the beloved of Laksmi. In Goloka and Gokula He appears in His original form as two-armed Lord Krsna, the beloved of Radha.

From these verses we see that Sri Radha is eternal resident of Goloka, see above "She stays always in Goloka".
Sri Radha's eternal relationship with Sri Krishna we see from "Day and night She rests on My chest", and also from "Radha, who lives in Goloka and is Lord Hari’s dearest lover" and "In Goloka and Gokula He appears in His original form as two-armed Lord Krsna, the beloved of Radha." which clearly tells us that Lord Krsna is known as the beloved of Radha. This description of Lord Krsna as "In Goloka and Gokula He ... the beloved of Radha" sounds like a description of the essence (The most important ingredient; the crucial element; The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing) of His existence.


Bhagavan krishna doesn't live in goloka. His saguna form lives in Vaikuntha and this has numerous proofs in shastras. That's why he is called as vaikunthah and vaikunthapatihi.

See above "In Goloka and Gokula He appears in His original form as two-armed Lord Krsna, the beloved of Radha."
That Lord Krsna has a saguna form is Adi Shankara's idea. Vaishnavas do not accept this view. Vaishnavas think Lord Krsna's form is nirguna, spiritual eternal form of bliss and knowledge. His form is Brahman, it is not made of material gunas sattva, rajas and tamas. That's why it's called "nirguna" which means "not made of material gunas sattva, rajas and tamas".


I don't think that after liberation man lives with his pious wife in vaikuntha. Vedas got tired when finding nature of soul and u r directly giving woman relationship to the soul ?

Indirectly you are stating there are two relationships to the soul. One is with bhagavan shri krishna and other with wife's soul. However veda doesn't mention about any relationship of soul with ishwara or with his wife.

See above "In Vaikuntha He appears in many forms as four-armed Lord Narayana, the beloved of Laksmi."
How can Lord Narayana have a relationship with Sri Lakshmi in Vaikuntha? Lord Narayana is atma and Sri Lakshmi is atma too. Why could not atma have a relationship with atma in Vaikuntha?
Atma may have a relationship with atma in Vaikuntha, be it paramatma or jiva-atma (jivatma).


I think you have misinterpreted above shloka which you have quoted. That shloka only states that for woman , worshipping his devotee husband is same as worshipping bhagavan. After death they both go to vaikuntha and live there. It doesn't mean that there is still a relationship of devotee with wife in vaikuntha.

In Bhāgavatam 7.11.29 we have śrīḥ iva "exactly like the goddess of fortune" mentioned twice. Word iva "exactly like, in the same manner as" in śrīḥ iva tells us that just as (exactly like, in the same manner as) goddess of fortune Lakshmi is devoted to her Lord and stays together with her Lord, so a wife devoted to her husband stays together with her husband in the spiritual realm of Vaikuntha (śrīḥ iva "exactly like the goddess of fortune").

Everyone knows that goddess of fortune Lakshmi is devoted to her Lord and stays together with her Lord always.
A wife devoted to her husband stays together with her husband in the spiritual realm of Vaikuntha because she is compared with goddess of fortune Lakshmi: śrīḥ iva "exactly like the goddess of fortune".


However the question is ' does devotee remember who was his wife after attaining vaikuntha where is there is no mind and it's reactions ? ' . ' Will devotee remember his previous lifes when he stays in vaikuntha?

Attaining liberation in the spiritual realm of Vaikuntha is compared with the awakening from a dream. Our life in this material world is compared with a dream from which we have to wake up. When we achieve liberation it is as if we woke up from the dream.
When one wakes up from sleep, does he remember his dream? It is possible.

regards

[philosoraptor]

From your previous posts on other threads I've already seen that your understanding of scriptures differs from the generally accepted Vaishnava understanding of the scriptures.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?


pot.... kettle....

[brahma jijnasa]

I am not accusing hinduism♥krishna of anything.


Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?


pot.... kettle....

From the discussion between you and me so far we have seen that we differ in opinion on many issues.
It seems that we differ in opinion on this issue about Soulmates too. Do we? :)

regards

[philosoraptor]

I am not accusing hinduism♥krishna of anything.



From the discussion between you and me so far we have seen that we differ in opinion on many issues.
It seems that we differ in opinion on this issue about Soulmates too. Do we? :)

regards


We differ in the opinion about whether your understanding of scripture is consistent with the generally accepted Vaishnava understanding of scriptures.

[Servant_Of_Datta]

Greetings to all,

I do not profess to be a big scholar or anything, my knowledge is extremely limited.. But I think the soulmate principle applies when a soul is bown as an undivided entity, and it's shakti (or power) is born as its couterpart. That marriage is as far as I know an ideal one. They are 'soul mates'. I read of this In the Sreepada Sreevallabha Charitamrutam, a life history of Sri Sreepada Sreevallabha, the first incarnation of Datta.

Regards,

Servant_Of_Datta

[smaranam]

Greetings to all,

I do not profess to be a big scholar or anything, my knowledge is extremely limited.. But I think the soulmate principle applies when a soul is bown as an undivided entity, and it's shakti (or power) is born as its couterpart. That marriage is as far as I know an ideal one. They are 'soul mates'. I read of this In the Sreepada Sreevallabha Charitamrutam, a life history of Sri Sreepada Sreevallabha, the first incarnation of Datta.

Regards,

Servant_Of_Datta

Namaste Servant_Of_Datta, and welcome to HDF.

I remember reading about Dattatreya's shakti AnaghAdevi in Sreepada Sreevallabha Charitamruta (abridged).

So AnaghA-Datta are soulmates. This resonates with what I said, but not as scientifically as you have -

Radha and KRshNa are soulmates
Lakshmi and NArAyaNa are soulmates
Gauri and Shankar are soulmates

So when VishNu descends here or anywhere else (takes avatAr), His soulmate(s) His various shaktis - Shridevi Bhudevi, all/some aspects of them, descend too.

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

[IcyCosmic]

I was once enamoured by this glorious concept, only to find no validity in the common societal concept of 'soulmates' after sitting with Hinduism.
There is still legitimacy to the concept in my eyes, but not soulmates that are bound for each other since birth, perfect for each in every way, but rather..
Any woman, who has elevated with you to such a point where the depth of your relationship can be said to be bound by each others souls.
That is equally as beautiful, no?