PDA

View Full Version : Krishna never used ' Vaikuntha ' word



hinduism♥krishna
11 October 2013, 01:28 AM
Namaste , hari ram.

Here is my simple question ? # To all my dear dvaitian vaishnawas . .

Why shri krushn never used vaikuntha in bhagavad gita ? Besides , In anu gita , uddhava gita also , he never used any vaikuntha word as final mosksh. If vaikuntha was really a final mosksh , then shri Krishna would have said like that ?

In bhagavad gita , krishna uses many words like , matbhavam , becomes bramhan , nondifferent from me , enter into the supreme . These all are indicating only advaitik philosophy . In anu gita too , krishna teaches advaita knowledge to his disciple arjuna.

Now the question # Is vaikuntha a state of bramh ?


edited : This is taken from my post #52 :

It is said that He who performs actions according to the systems postulated in Vedas by vishnu , will reach him either in a form or image or in an abstract power as is his liking.

But there is a mention about direct personal experiencing of God as a form, a living being.
This opinion is of the Pancharatra Agama. Those who embrace that opinion think that Vaikuntha is the highest place.
Now please note that in Vedanta the Lord has said that Vaikuntha was created by him outside the seven covers or planes of Maya but within the field of Maya.

There it is mentioned that Maya is a sport of the God and by that sport he has created Vaikuntha and therefore Vaikuntha is not perishable.Where Purshottma whose colour is like that of a cloud resides in a body which is created by his own will through his own Maya, there Guna Time Karma and Maya, being all only illusions cannot remain.

the opinion of Agama is that Vaikuntha is eternal and non-destructible and there is no birth and death and those who reach that level of consciousness reside there in their eternal freedom.
Vedanta however opines that at the time of total dissolution of the Universe, even Vaikuntha and Kailasa are annihilated because they are also forms .
At that time, only that which is beyond the Gunas remains as it is and it is the absolute Brahman which is eternal and non-perishable.


The state where, Time, Karma, Guan, Dharma, Maya are all not existing is really the absolute Brahman. In Vaikuntha the Sayujjyata liberation which can be attained is with Gunas but the absolute Brahman is the state where Maya is dissolved and that is complete Sayujjyata.


In this connection, the Brahma Sutra says those who considers atma and bramhan different have all the glory of God to enjoy but they do not become the bramhan.


If you are not one with God, you maintain a distance from God even at that height of achievement.
Then, what will be your future?! How long will you be in Vaikuntha-Loka, Kailasa, Brahma-Loka or the Heaven where God abides? How long will you stay there? To be in that condition will be to enjoy the contemplation of the Infinite but not to become the Infinite. You have the happiness of contemplating the Infinite but you cannot become the Infinite and do what the Infinite can do. This is a peculiar aphorism in the Brahma Sutra.But dvaitian vaishnawas constantly claims that you can not become bramhan.

If you cannot become infinite bramhan , you will be finite again; if you are finite, then you have to return, having not attained moksha.

Edited : This is from my #18 post

I think krishna has already told his real abode in bhagavad gita (8.21) .

From the Unmanifest all manifestations emerge at the coming of Brahma’s Day; at the falling of Night they dissolve in that Self-same thing called the Unmanifest. (BG 8.18)

And this multitude of beings comes into being again and again, and dissolves helplessly, O Partha, at the coming of the Night, it is born again at the advent of the Day.(8.19)


But higher than this Unmanifest, there is another being,Unmanifest and eternal, which, when all beings perish, does not perish. (BG 8.20)


" avyaktokshar......tat dhama paramam mam "

it is called the (akshara)eternal (avyakta)Unmanifest; they speak of it as the highest goal. After reaching it, they do not return; that is My Supreme abode.

conclusions :
1) krishna never mentioned vaikuntha word.

2) From 8.18 and 8.19 ,it is cleared that there are two unmanifests .One is when jiva merges during bramha's night ,which is called as 'temporary avyakta' and the other is 'akshar avyakta'which is beyond avyakta .

3) That supreme place is known as "akshar" ( imperishable and eternal ) and "avyakta" ( avyaya-formless-unmanifested) .

4) It is more than impossible to call vaikuntha as " avyakta place " .or " place which is beyond form and formless ." Scriptures simply call that place as 'aroopa' and formless to negate form .


Why it is called as "akshar" ?
If we call it Unmanifest, we do not praise it properly; because it cannot be comprehended by the mind of the intellect. Even if it assumes form, it does not lose its formless nature. And with the disappearance of its form, its eternity is not affected It is, therefore, called the Imperishable, known as eternally present.


Vaikuntha is supreme only in terms of eternal lokas. As vaikuntha can not be a " avyakta place " , it is not the highest place of vishnu . But it is generally considered as supreme by vishnu devotees who are entangled in forms .

In this way krishna opens the secret of his nature ,which is known as atmaroopa.

HARI OM HARI HARI HARI







Dhanyavad , RAM KRISHNA HARI

ShivaFan
11 October 2013, 09:03 AM
Namaste

Isn't the Bhagavad Gita part of the Mahabharata? What about this?

Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa Book 12 Santi Parva Section CCCXLIII

"I till the Earth, assuming the form of a large plough-share of black iron. And because my complexion is black, therefore am I called by the name of Krishna. I have united the Earth with Water, Space with Mind, and Wind with Light. Therefore am I called Vaikuntha."

or these other Vaishnav scripture?

Srimad Bhagavatam 9.4.18-20:

sa vai manah krishna-padaravindayor
vacamsi vaikuntha-gunanuvarnane
karau harer mandira-marjanadishu
srutim cakaracyuta-sat-kathodaye
mukunda-lingalaya-darsane drisau
tad-bhritya-gatra-sparse 'nga-sangamam
ghranam ca tat-pada-saroja-saurabhe
srimat-tulasya rasanam tad-arpite
padau hareh kshetra-padanusarpane
siro hrishikesa-padabhivandane
kamam ca dasye na tu kama-kamyaya
yathottamasloka-janasraya ratih

Sri Caitanya Charitamrita Madhya 21.3:

sarva svarupera dhama -- paravyoma-dhame
prithak prithak Vaikuntha saba, nahika ganane

Om Namah Sivaya

jignyAsu
11 October 2013, 09:11 AM
Namaste,

Lord Krishna describes His eternal abode to be the destination for liberated jivas in Bhagavad Gita. In Chapter 8, He describes all worlds starting with the abode of Lord Brahma to be subject to return but leaves of Sri Vaikuntha. Then He declares His abode to be the eternal abode as - "tad dhAma paramam mama" - that abode of Mine is eternal. And in 2nd chapter He says that there was never a point that we (individual souls) were not there and there will never be a point when we will cease to be.

In the Upanishads is mentioned a separate path taken by the liberated soul to the abode. Vedanta Sutras too end confirming that the liberated jiva can be with or without form and also he gets all powers except being Jagat Karana, thus refuting absolute oneness. Connecting all the dots and from all Puranas from Bhagavatam to Shiva Purana, we can understand that His dhAm is called Sri Vaikuntha.

Therefore in places where it seems advaitic like Him identifying with His abode (as in identifying with yagna, kratu etc) or us entering Him has to be interpretted in the right way such that above is not contradicted.

brahma jijnasa
11 October 2013, 05:03 PM
Namaste

Isn't the Bhagavad Gita part of the Mahabharata? What about this?

Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa Book 12 Santi Parva Section CCCXLIII

"I till the Earth, assuming the form of a large plough-share of black iron. And because my complexion is black, therefore am I called by the name of Krishna. I have united the Earth with Water, Space with Mind, and Wind with Light. Therefore am I called Vaikuntha."

or these other Vaishnav scripture?

Srimad Bhagavatam 9.4.18-20:

sa vai manah krishna-padaravindayor
vacamsi vaikuntha-gunanuvarnane
...

Sri Caitanya Charitamrita Madhya 21.3:

sarva svarupera dhama -- paravyoma-dhame
prithak prithak Vaikuntha saba, nahika ganane

Quotations that you gave from Mahabharata and Bhagavatam mean that "Vaikuntha" is just one of the Lord's names. Just like He can be called Vishnu, Rama, Krishna, etc, so He is also known as Vaikuntha.
But that was not hinduism♥krishna's question. His question was about the abode of the Lord which is called Vaikuntha.
In the Bhagavad Gita Lord Krishna does not mention his abode under the name Vaikuntha, but just as "abode". See verses 8.28 and 8.21 (http://vedabase.net/bg/8/en).

Vaikuntha as the spiritual world or Lord's abode is explicitly mentioned in the Puranas. See for example Bhāgavatam 3.15.13 (http://vedabase.net/sb/3/15/13/) where Lord Vishnu is called Vaikuntha (vaikuṇṭhasya) and His abode is also called Vaikuntha (vaikuṇṭha-nilayam). In fact the spiritual world is called Vaikuntha which means "free from all anxieties". Srila Prabhupada explained it in the purport to verse 3.15.13. In the spiritual world of Vaikuntha there are no sufferings from birth, death, old age and diseases, misfortune etc. and therefore nobody is anxious there. That is the meaning of the word "Vaikuntha" when referring to the world called "Vaikuntha" or the Lord's abode.

Attain liberation in Vaikuntha is final and ultimate. There is no type of liberation higher than that. Goloka as the world of Radha and Krishna, the gopis, their friends, cows, etc. is said to be the highest place in Vaikuntha.

regards

SanathanaDharma
12 October 2013, 05:14 AM
Dear Friend,

The question put forward by you is a very interesting one and the answer can be deduced using certain examples....

The term "Vaikunta" is very frequently used in many of the Puranas and especially in Srimad Bhagavatam and Vishnu Purana...

When one very carefully studies Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna stresses at many places that one has to attain Him ultimately....

Sri Vaasudeva very beautifully says in Bhagavad Gita 8.15

mam upetya punar janma
duhkhalayam asasvatam
napnuvanti mahatmanah
samsiddhim paramam gatah

[very rough translation]
Mahaatmanah gataah paramaam samsiddhim
The great souls, after achieving the supreme most siddhi or or spiritual perfection [in this context]

upetya maam
they completely surrender and approach Me

ashaashvata janma dukhalayam napunuvanti
such Mahaatmas will never obtain the ashaashvata[temporary] janma or birth in the dukhaalayam..this materialistic universe that is filled with misery....

Its very clear that, Sri Vaasudeva says those who obtain Him will never come back...

Now...lets get "back" to the term Vaikunta....Vaikunta according to the Puranas is described as the abode of Sri Hari...its that planetary system where Sri Maha Vishnu resides with Sri Maha Lashmi...

So, the question now...is Vaikunta that Supreme most place from where one never comes back?

Lets deduce some information from the Puranas....
Lets consider the story of the famous "Jaya" and "Vijaya"...they were the dwarapalakas or the Main Entrance guards at the Vaikunta...The point one must note is those two souls were already in Vaikunta...which means they had reached it already...when Sanaka , Sanatana, Sanananda and Sanatkumara [the four manas putras of chaturmukha Bramha] went to Vaikunta to have a darshana of Sri Maha Vishnu, the rajasa guna and the tamasa guna which was still existing in Jaya and Vijaya, made them stop those four kumaras and insult them... what happened later is something we all know...Jaya and Vijaya were cursed by the kumaras to go back those planets where people with these gunas live...lets stop here and analyse...Jaya and Vijaya who were in Vaikunta came back to lower planets...

But Sri Vaasudeva says those who reach Him will never come back....

Now there are two things one must very carefully understand....going to Vaikunta is one thing...attaining Paramaatma is another thing....
going to Vaikunta is like after putting a lot of effort, going to the location of a temple...attaining Paramaathma is like having the darshan of the main deity .....even after going to a temple, one must enter the garbha-gudi [sanctum sanctorum] and only then can one see the Deity there...but then its another point that one need not even go to a temple and still be immersed in Him within the mind....[ie not go to Vaikunta but still attain Him]

The next question that immediately arises is that "What is Vaikunta then"?

Sri Maha Vishnu is referred to as the "Parabhramha Swaroopa"...which means He is Parabramhas' roopa or very roughly.. a comprehend-able form...
Parabramha, cannot be comprehended by us because we have very limited intellect...and because of this when one wishes to understand and comprehend Parabramha inside this Materialistic Universe, there is a need for a comprehend-able form..and this is Sri Maha Vishnu...now Sri Maha Vishnu is ofcourse the comprehend-able form or swaroopa of Parabramha inside the Universe and hence although in reality He is located in each and every atom in this Universe, only for the sake of His devotees He is also present in Vaikunta...making it His abode...but then He who is the Karunamayi..[the most merciful one] does not stay only in Vaikunta...He takes birth in a prison to make His devotees happy[Devaki and Vasudeva]...He grows and plays in cow sheds to make His devotees happy[the friends and gopis in Brindavana ]...He visits forests with His devotees to make them happy....[Hanumaan, Shabari, etc...]...He goes to war-field to help His devotees[Arjuna and Pandavas]...He is everywhere....

The main point on which Sri Vaasudeva stresses everywhere is that to reach Him...only because attaining Him is the supreme most solution...He does not ask His devotees to go to Vaikunta only because even in Vaikunta there is a possibility that one might come back...but then when one attains Sri Maha Vishnu, one need not worry about anything else...what Sri Krishna time and again talks about is attaining Him ...not reaching a particular destination......and that, my friend, is the reason why Sri Krishna never talks specifically about Vaikunta

[Of course there are some contradicting statements in the Puranas which adds more ambiguity...but if you are interested we can discuss that later....]

chakreshvari
20 November 2013, 04:55 PM
I thought Vaikuntha was Sri Vishnu's planets name where he recides.

hinduism♥krishna
22 November 2013, 07:21 AM
When shri krishna says you should attain me .it doesn't mean that you should attain vaikuntha.It only means one should attain shri krishna's soul ,which is often called as bramhan . In uddhava gita,Krishna himself describes how jiva merges in atman .

HARE KRISHNA

Amrut
22 November 2013, 09:03 AM
Namaste,

My study in Vaishnav Philosophy is very very limited. Out of curiosity, I just checked translations by VAishnava Acharya-s of BG 2.51, 8.11, 15.4, 15.5, 18.56, which contains the word 'padam' and the famous 9.25 (anya devata verse)

Surprisingly, I did not find that any acharya used to word 'Vaikuntha' or tried to explain Pada here means 'Vaikuntha', nor did they quote BhAgavat Purana.

In BG 8.11,

Sri RAmAnuja explains us the meaning of 'pada' as, 'What is attained by the mind as its goal is called 'pada''
Sri MAdhavA explains us the meaning of 'pada' as, 'Since the aspirants attain that consciousness it is known as pada.m' and quotes Narada Bhakti Sutra which says the same.

More surprisingly, in 9.25, acharya-s focused on saying like Vishnu is param or only and only Vishnu / Krishna has to be worshipped. They did not add that Shiva should not be worshipped.

One may say that it automatically implies that anya-devata includes everyone except Krishna. But there is a difference.

When I say - Speak the truth

I am speaking positively

When I say - Speak the truth and do not speak lie

There is both positive and negative upadesha. There is tight logic where there is no escape window.

I think they adopted a nahi ninda nyaya.

It's just Krishna Krishna Krishna and nothing else. Mind does not think of anything else. Shiva automatically drops as one can surrender to only one form of God.

Hanuman only chanted RAma Nama and not Krishna NAma. When Krishna appeared, he requested Bhagavan to give darshan as Rama

Meera Bai chanted only Krishna's name. She would not chant RAma Nama nor Narasimh nAma

Though all avatars of Vishnu are one and the same, mind can concentrate on only one form.

EDIT: I think this is one of the reason why we have different sahasranama's for Vishnu, Rama, Krishna, Laxmi-Narsimha and stotra-s dedicated to each form of God. Though you can technically say all forms of Vishnu are one and same, still they have distinctive personality.

Rama would not do that Krishna did, he would not play flute, nor would play politics (which was necessary and not against dharma), etc. Rama would not do what Parashurama did nor did Rama lived like and Avadhoot.


Acharya-s had opportunity and they were much intelligent than us. If we can connect, they too could have connected padam with Vaikuntha.

They also had chance to call Shiva ans 'Jiva' or as Demi-God, but they chose to remain silent.

Gita is more popular and widely read then Upanishads and laymen generally do not read Brahma Sutras.

Can anybody clarify please.

Om Namo NArAyaNAya

Devi Dasi
25 November 2013, 04:27 AM
Please consider the wisdom of Srila Prabhupada's explanation in the Purport to this sloka:


yatredyante katha mrishtas
trishnayah prasamo yatah
nirvairam yatra bhuteshu
nodvego yatra kascana


SYNONYMS
yatra -- where; idyante -- are worshiped or discussed; kathah -- words; mrishtah -- pure; trishnayah -- of material hankerings; prasamah -- satisfaction; yatah -- by which; nirvairam -- nonenviousness; yatra -- where; bhuteshu -- among living entities; na -- not; udvegah -- fear; yatra -- where; kascana -- any.


TRANSLATION
Whenever pure topics of the transcendental world are discussed, the members of the audience forget all kinds of material hankerings, at least for the time being. Not only that, but they are no longer envious of one another, nor do they suffer from anxiety or fear.


PURPORT
Vaikuntha (http://vedabase.net/v/vaikuntha) means "without anxiety," and the material world means full of anxiety. As stated by Prahlada Maharaja: sada samudvigna-dhiyam asad-grahat. The living entities who have accepted this material world as a residence are full of anxiety. A place immediately becomes Vaikuntha (http://vedabase.net/v/vaikuntha) whenever the holy topics of the Personality of Godhead are discussed by pure devotees. This is the process of sravanam kirtanam vishnoh [SB 7.5.23 (http://vedabase.net/sb/7/5/23/en1)], chanting and hearing about the Supreme Lord Vishnu. As the Supreme Lord Himself confirms:
naham tishthami vaikunthe (http://vedabase.net/v/vaikunthe)
yoginam hridayeshu va
tatra tishthami narada
yatra gayanti mad-bhaktah
"My dear Narada, actually I do not reside in My abode, Vaikuntha (http://vedabase.net/v/vaikuntha), nor do I reside within the hearts of the yogis, but I reside in that place where My pure devotees chant My holy name and discuss My form, pastimes and qualities." Because of the presence of the Lord in the form of the transcendental vibration, the Vaikuntha (http://vedabase.net/v/vaikuntha) atmosphere is evoked. This atmosphere is without fear and anxiety. One living entity does not fear another. By hearing the holy names and glories of the Lord, a person executes pious activities. Srinvatam sva-kathah krishnah punya-sravana-kirtanah (Bhag. 1.2.17 (http://vedabase.net/sb/1/2/17/en1)). Thus his material hankerings immediately stop. This sankirtana (http://vedabase.net/s/sankirtana) movement started by the Society for Krishna Consciousness is meant for creating Vaikuntha (http://vedabase.net/v/vaikuntha), the transcendental world that is without anxiety, even in this material world. The method is the propagation of the sravanam kirtanam process throughout the world. In the material world everyone is envious of his fellow man. Animalistic envy exists in human society as long as there is no performance of sankirtana (http://vedabase.net/s/sankirtana)-yajna (http://vedabase.net/y/yajna), the chanting of the holy names -- Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare/ Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare. The Pracetas therefore decided to remain always in the society of devotees, and they considered that to be the highest benediction possible in human life."

http://vedabase.net/sb/4/30/35/en1

brahma jijnasa
25 November 2013, 06:13 PM
Namaste Indiaspirituality Amrut

My study in Vaishnav Philosophy is very very limited. Out of curiosity, I just checked translations by VAishnava Acharya-s of BG 2.51, 8.11, 15.4, 15.5, 18.56, which contains the word 'padam' and the famous 9.25 (anya devata verse)

Surprisingly, I did not find that any acharya used to word 'Vaikuntha' or tried to explain Pada here means 'Vaikuntha', nor did they quote BhAgavat Purana.
...
Acharya-s had opportunity and they were much intelligent than us. If we can connect, they too could have connected padam with Vaikuntha.

In the Bhagavad gita Lord Krishna does not mention his abode under the name Vaikuntha, but just as "abode". In the Bhagavad gita there are several Sanskrit terms that are used as an "abode".
See for example verse 8.28 (http://vedabase.net/bg/8/28/en) where the word sthānam is used. In verse 8.21 (http://vedabase.net/bg/8/21/en) and verse 15.6 (http://vedabase.net/bg/15/6/en) the word dhāma is used.
What is interesting to note is that the verses of Bhagavad gita 8.21 and Katha Upanishad 1.3.8-9 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15012.htm) are very similar:


"That which the Vedāntists describe as unmanifest and infallible, that which is known as the supreme destination, that place from which, having attained it, one never returns — that is My supreme abode." (Bhagavad-gītā 8.21)

'But he who has understanding, who is mindful and always pure, reaches indeed that place, from whence he is not born again.' (Katha Upanishad 1.3.8)

'But he who has understanding for his charioteer, and who holds the reins of the mind, he reaches the end of his journey, and that is the highest place of Vishnu.' (Katha Upanishad 1.3.9)

The only difference between them is that word dhāma is used in Bhagavad-gītā 8.21, whereas in Katha Upanishad 1.3.9 word padam is used in the sense of "place, abode". Those two words dhāma and padam are synonymous and mean the same thing "abode".

In the Bhagavad gita 18.56 (http://vedabase.net/bg/18/56/en) word padam is used: śāśvataḿ padam avyayam. In Gaudiya vaishnava sampradaya Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakur commented on this verse:


"... bhakta attains my eternal dhamas (padam), such as Vaikuntha, Mathura, Dvaraka, and Ayodhya"

Here Visvanatha Cakravarti took the word dhāma to mean padam, and he says that it refers to Vaikuntha and some places in the Vaikuntha such as Mathura, Dvaraka, and Ayodhya. According to this view places such as Mathura, Dvaraka, and Ayodhya are not only the material places on the earth, but they also exist in the spiritual world of Vaikuntha as an eternal abodes of the Lord Krishna, Narayana and Rama.

regards

Amrut
25 November 2013, 11:31 PM
Thank you brahma jijnasa ji for your help.

I will study these verse once again along with Gita commentaries of 4 Vaishnava acharya-s. I do not have source of Upanishad Bhashya-s, so I will have to depend upon moola sloka.

I agree that material world is not the only world, indeed there are spiritual counterparts, but it requires divine eyes.

Thank you once again.

Jai Shri Rama

Amrut
26 November 2013, 10:40 AM
Namaste Devi Dasi ji and welcome to the forums :) Thanks for the explanation, but the verse you pointed does not answer my question.

Namaste brahma jijnasa ji,

I went through the verses 821, 8.28 and 15.6.

Both Madhavacharya and Ramanujacharya describe the word 'dhAma' as lumisense i.e. prakASa and connects PrakASa with Jnana (Knowledge).

Further in 15.6, Ramanuja says taht the light of light means Jnana, which illumines us with the knowledge of external objects - ref where sun does not shine, moon does not shine, etc which I understand that by our own consciousness one has knowledge of Sun and Moon.

I didn't find the word Vaikuntha in any one of the commentaries on the above verses.


BG 8.21: Or the term 'dhama' may signify 'luminosity'. And luminosity connotes knowledge. The essential nature of the freed self is boundless knowledge, or supreme light, which stands in contrast to the shrunken knowledge of the self, when involved in Prakrti. The description given above is that of Kaivalya, the state of self-luminous existence as the pure self

Note: Luminosity means PrakASa (prakaasha)

Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhava has connected words and hav explained the meaning of the word 'padam' and 'dhAma'. Are you aware of any verses in Gita or PrasthAntrayi where Sri Ramanuja or Sri Madhava used the word 'Vaikuntha' to explain padam and dhAma?

Gita Commentaries are available along with Sanskrit text online. Hence references given from Gita are easy to study.

Om NamO NArAyaNAya

Indiaspirituality

Devi Dasi
26 November 2013, 09:19 PM
Namaste Devi Dasi ji and welcome to the forums :) Thanks for the explanation, but the verse you pointed does not answer my question.

Hare Krsna,

I was responding to the original post: "Now the question # Is vaikuntha a state of bramh ?

I personally feel bramhan is beyond vaikuntha which is unseen , undescibable , infinite and beyond any loka."

The nature of this world is more than material, and the nature of the realms of divinities are of a subtle nature. But the Divine is beyond materiality and antharjami, living within our very hearts. So the "realms" of the Divine exist in material, subtle, and transcendental (non-material) plane as well existing ultimately as states of consciousness.

Haribol.

brahma jijnasa
27 November 2013, 03:19 AM
Namaste Indiaspirituality Amrut

I didn't find the word Vaikuntha in any one of the commentaries on the above verses. ...
Are you aware of any verses in Gita or PrasthAntrayi where Sri Ramanuja or Sri Madhava used the word 'Vaikuntha' to explain padam and dhAma?

Currently I'm not aware of any verse commenting which Ramanuja or Madhvacarya (not Madhava) explained that it refers to Vaikuntha explicitly, but in commentary on the Bhagavad gita 18.62 Ramanuja explained eternal abode (sthānam śāśvatam) by quoting several shrutis including


tadviṣṇōḥ paramaṅ padaṅ sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ

"That supreme place of Visnu which the sages see." (Rig Veda 1.22.20)

and also


sō.dhvanaḥ pāramāpnōti tadviṣṇōḥ paramaṅ padam

"He reaches the end of the journey, the Highest abode of Visnu" (Katha Upanishad 1.3.9).

Now, although he does not mention explicitly that it refers to Vaikuntha, it is clear that it refers to "supreme place (abode) of Vishnu". We know from the Puranas that Lord Vishnu's abode is called Vaikuntha. So we can call it "Lord Vishnu's abode" or Vaikuntha. What else could it be if not Vaikuntha?

I want to tell you something else. This is one of my personal experiences. A few years ago I found Madhvacarya's commentary on the Katha Upanishad. I was curious to see how he commented on those verses that are relevant to vaishnava philosophy, verses such as 1.3.8 and 1.3.9 etc. where Lord Vishnu's abode is mentioned. I noticed that he has not written any commentary to these verses. He also did not comment on these verses neither in Bhagavad gita. I was stunned. Later, when I thought a little bit about it I realized why it is so. It is usually said that acarya writes a commentary when something needs to be clarified, when something is not obvious or easily understandable. If he thinks that everyone will understand what it is about, he would not comment because he considers it unnecessary. One who is not a vaishnava can be perplexed with that, but every vaishnava can easily understand that "Lord Vishnu's abode" or when Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad gita "My abode" it refers to Vaikuntha (or Lord Krishna's Goloka) described in the Puranas. What else could it be?

regards

Amrut
27 November 2013, 04:00 AM
Namaste Indiaspirituality Amrut


Currently I'm not aware of any verse commenting which Ramanuja or Madhvacarya (not Madhava) explained that it refers to Vaikuntha explicitly, but in commentary on the Bhagavad gita 18.62 Ramanuja explained eternal abode (sthānam śāśvatam) by quoting several shrutis including


tadviṣṇōḥ paramaṅ padaṅ sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ

"That supreme place of Visnu which the sages see." (Rig Veda 1.22.20)

and also


sō.dhvanaḥ pāramāpnōti tadviṣṇōḥ paramaṅ padam

"He reaches the end of the journey, the Highest abode of Visnu" (Katha Upanishad 1.3.9).

Now, although he does not mention explicitly that it refers to Vaikuntha, it is clear that it refers to "supreme place (abode) of Vishnu". We know from the Puranas that Lord Vishnu's abode is called Vaikuntha. So we can call it "Lord Vishnu's abode" or Vaikuntha. What else could it be if not Vaikuntha?



Namaste BJ,

I understand what you are saying, but I am surprised why acharya-s gave alternate definitions of Pada and dhAma.


It is usually said that acarya writes a commentary when something needs to be clarified, when something is not obvious or easily understandable.

I fully agree with you.

Kind Regards

Amrut
27 November 2013, 04:19 AM
Pranams BJ,

Are aware of any other grantha-s written by founding acharya-s, in which the word 'Vaikuntha' is directly used.

Kind regards

brahma jijnasa
27 November 2013, 06:54 AM
Namaste Indiaspirituality Amrut


I understand what you are saying, but I am surprised why acharya-s gave alternate definitions of Pada and dhAma.

It seems that they did not consider it necessary to say that dhāma and padam refer to Vaikuntha because they thought it was clear and obvious to everyone (to every vaishnava). :)
An acarya writes a commentary when something needs to be clarified, when something is not obvious or easily understandable. They thought "My abode" and viṣṇoḥ paramaḿ padam will be clear to everyone.
However, they have explained the alternative meanings of words dhāma and padam because they thought it would not be clear to everyone. Sanskrit words in the verses often have multiple meanings, so they wanted to clarify this additional meanings. I think that we should not think that they thought dhāma and padam do not refer to Vaikuntha because it does not make sense.


Are aware of any other grantha-s written by founding acharya-s, in which the word 'Vaikuntha' is directly used.

Currently I'm not aware of any apart from some Gaudiya vaishnava acaryas such as Visvanatha Cakravarti, as I have already mentioned.

regards

hinduism♥krishna
27 November 2013, 07:35 AM
Namaste Indiaspirituality Amrut


Currently I'm not aware of any verse commenting which Ramanuja or Madhvacarya (not Madhava) explained that it refers to Vaikuntha explicitly, but in commentary on the Bhagavad gita 18.62 Ramanuja explained eternal abode (sthānam śāśvatam) by quoting several shrutis including

tadviṣṇōḥ paramaṅ padaṅ sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ

"That supreme place of Visnu which the sages see." (Rig Veda 1.22.20)and also
sō.dhvanaḥ pāramāpnōti tadviṣṇōḥ paramaṅ padam

"He reaches the end of the journey, the Highest abode of Visnu" (Katha Upanishad 1.3.9).



Namaste ,I don't think padam can be used as loka (vaikuntha) .There is much difference between loka and padam . Mostly padam is used to indicate the desired state .Here it is used as a state of bramhan. So what is vishnu's padam ? It is the atmic nature . Krishna has already said in gita " Though I come into being(human) , my REAL NATURE atmaroopa doesn't get tainted " .

HARE KRISHNA. ;)

hinduism♥krishna
27 November 2013, 08:12 AM
Namaste ,

I think krishna has already told his real abode in bhagavad gita (8.21) .

From the Unmanifest all manifestations emerge at the coming of Brahma’s Day; at the falling of Night they dissolve in that Self-same thing called the Unmanifest. (BG 8.18)

And this multitude of beings comes into being again and again, and dissolves helplessly, O Partha, at the coming of the Night, it is born again at the advent of the Day.(8.19)


But higher than this Unmanifest, there is another being,Unmanifest and eternal, which, when all beings perish, does not perish. (BG 8.20)


" avyaktokshar......tat dhama paramam mam "

it is called the (akshara)eternal (avyakta)Unmanifest; they speak of it as the highest goal. After reaching it, they do not return; that is My Supreme abode.

conclusions :
1) krishna never mentioned vaikuntha word.

2) From 8.18 and 8.19 ,it is cleared that there are two unmanifests .One is when jiva merges during bramha's night ,which is called as 'temporary avyakta' and the other is 'akshar avyakta'which is beyond avyakta .

3) That supreme place is known as "akshar" ( imperishable and eternal ) and "avyakta" ( avyaya-formless-unmanifested) .

4) It is more than impossible to call vaikuntha as " avyakta place " .or " place which is beyond form and formless ." Scriptures simply call that place as 'aroopa' and formless to negate form .


Why it is called as "akshar" ?
If we call it Unmanifest, we do not praise it properly; because it cannot be comprehended by the mind of the intellect. Even if it assumes form, it does not lose its formless nature. And with the disappearance of its form, its eternity is not affected It is, therefore, called the Imperishable, known as eternally present.


Vaikuntha is supreme only in terms of eternal lokas. As vaikuntha can not be a " avyakta place " , it is not the highest place of vishnu . But it is generally considered as supreme by vishnu devotees who are entangled in forms .

In this way krishna opens the secret of his nature ,which is known as atmaroopa.

HARI OM HARI HARI HARI

Amrut
27 November 2013, 09:09 AM
Namaste Indiaspirituality Amrut



It seems that they did not consider it necessary to say that dhāma and padam refer to Vaikuntha because they thought it was clear and obvious to everyone (to every vaishnava). :)
An acarya writes a commentary when something needs to be clarified, when something is not obvious or easily understandable. They thought "My abode" and viṣṇoḥ paramaḿ padam will be clear to everyone.
However, they have explained the alternative meanings of words dhāma and padam because they thought it would not be clear to everyone. Sanskrit words in the verses often have multiple meanings, so they wanted to clarify this additional meanings. I think that we should not think that they thought dhāma and padam do not refer to Vaikuntha because it does not make sense.


Namaste,

I concur.

What I feel is that they gave alternate meanings to suit people of different prakriti.

So pada and desa does not exclusively mean loka.

We can take literal meaning or we can take another meaning.

Yogi-s / TAntrika-s devise esoteric interpretations and co-relate everything with kundalini and chakra-s.

Different interpretation, Dvaita / Advaita, etc can be taken, all according to temperament.

Aum

Amrut
29 November 2013, 02:18 AM
Pranams Brahma Jignasa ji,

I was referring to Vallabhacharya bhashya and 8.21 does contain the word Vaikuntha. The commentary that I referred is in Sanskrit. Upon connecting other related verses, I feel that vaikuntha is dhama and is pada and is knowledge.

I can only understand sanskrit in tits ad bits so I reply on someone who can honestly translate it into english. Commentary is available at Gita Supersite beta. Commentaries on bhagavad-Gita.org contain added words and sometimes added lines, which are not found in sanskrit commentaries. An e.g. is famous anya-devata verse and Madhav Bhashya.

What I was thinking is that 'Vishnu' is all pervading. Vishnu lives in Vaikuntha. Vaikuntha is where there is Vishnu. Hence Vaikuntha is all omnipresent.

This is an alternate meaning, which can be taken along with literal meaning of a divine kingdom.

On the other hand, if we say, Vishnu is in our heart, then our heart is Vaikuntha.

I also feel that sometimes, we can directly read moola sloka, without referring to any any commentary and see commentary only if we need any clarification. This has to be done with caution.

What I feel is that Acharya-s have left alternate meaning so that devotees of different mental makeup can progress accordingly. If enter into the world of Yoga and Tantra, where verses, logic, etc are connected with chakras and kundalini, then we can devise yet another meaning. Symbolic interpretation is also a way of approach.

Judging from commentaries of all acharya-s, we can conclude that we can safely take the meaning that suits us and helps us progress in spirituality.

OM NamO NArAyaNAya

smaranam
29 November 2013, 08:34 AM
Someone very dear, who is no more, wrote this a while ago:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=110291&postcount=18

if it helps any...

Another very dear one, perhaps doe-eyed? shares this wisdom from Shrila PrabhupAd :
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=111205&postcount=9

~ ~

hinduism♥krishna
29 November 2013, 08:59 AM
Namaste ,

How vaikuntha can be " avyakta " ( formless) ? :)

It will be better if you prove it with scriptural supports.

Hari om.

smaranam
29 November 2013, 09:34 AM
Namaste Myself,

It is vyakta to the divine eyes, wearing premAnjana, by the grace of ... you know...

(premAnjana chhurita bhakti vilochanena,
santa sadaiva hRdayeshu viloka yanti
yAm shyAmasundaram achintya guNa-svarUpam
govindam Adi purusham tam aham bhajAmi - Bramha sauMhita)

~ ~

hinduism♥krishna
29 November 2013, 09:57 AM
:) You have used poetic language.

As vaikuntha is not "avyakta" , so vaikuntha can not be a supreme abode of vishnu.

Shri krishna's real abode is atma, which is beyond vyakta and temperory avyakta.

smaranam
29 November 2013, 10:06 AM
Shri krishna's real abode is atma, which is beyond vyakta and temperory avyakta.
Yes, true... but VaikunTha is manifest wherever there is that kind of devotion.

ye yathA mAm prapadyante
tAmstathaiva bhajAmyaham - BG 4.11
As one surrenders to Me, I reciprocate accordingly...

brahma jijnasa
29 November 2013, 04:39 PM
Namaste Indiaspirituality Amrut

Yes, it seems that the various interpretations are possible.
Vaikuntha is the abode of the Lord described in the Puranas such as Bhagavatam canto 3, chapter 15: http://vedabase.net/sb/3/15/en
This abode of Lord Vishnu is mentioned in the Rig Veda 1.22.20, and Katha Upanishad 1.3.8-9 says it is "the end of the journey" of a yogi who "reaches indeed that place, from whence he is not born again". Bhagavad gita says (see post #10) sthānam, dhāma and padam means Lord Krishna's abode.
Other interpretations are possible also.
In this thread in post #2 ShivaFan quoted Mahabharata where Lord Krishna says that Vaikuntha is one of His names "I have united the Earth with Water, Space with Mind, and Wind with Light. Therefore am I called Vaikuntha."
In post #4 I mentioned that Lord's abode is called Vaikuntha which means "free from all anxieties". See also post #9 by Devi Dasi about "without anxiety".
You mentioned explanation by acaryas: "light means Jnana", "luminosity" etc.
The Lord's abode is self-illuminated and there is no need for some light source such as the sun and moon.

regards

Sudas Paijavana
29 November 2013, 05:54 PM
Vaikuntha is the abode of the Lord.................
This abode of Lord Vishnu is mentioned in the Rig Veda 1.22.20


Pranam-s, Jijnasa-ji:

Just a small correction. Let us take a look at the verse in question:

“The Gods be gracious unto us even from the place whence Vishnu strode through the seven regions of the earth!” (R.V.1.22.16)
“Through all this world strode Vishnu; thrice his foot he planted, and the whole [earth] was gathered in his footstep’s dust!” (R.V.1.22.17)
“Vishnu, the Guardian, he who deceives no one, made [these] three steps; thenceforth establishing his high decrees.” (R.V.1.22.18)
“Look, everybody, on Vishnu’s [magical] works, whereby the Friend of Indra, close-allied, has let his holy ways be seen.” (R.V.1.22.19)
“The princes evermore behold that loftiest place where Vishnu is, [that place] laid as it were an eye in heaven [itself].” (R.V.1.22.20)
“This, Vishnu’s station most sublime, the singers, ever vigilant, lovers of holy song, light up.” (R.V.1.22.21).

As per the anukramani-s, this verse is found in Mandala 1, hymn 22, dedicated/revealed to Rishi Medhātithi KāNva from numerous Gods: Ashvins, Savitur, Agni, Indrani & Varunani, Dyava-Prithivi, and Vishnu (who has the most number of verses in this hymn, totaling 6).

There are two places being described here, regarding Vishnu: the "station" is the Yajna-altar/cauldron/fire-pit, and the "loftiest place" is where Vishnu is, from where he originates to walk those most holy steps, leaving everything else in the dust of his footsteps, for he is the wide-strider.

Let's take a closer look at the Sanskrit of verse 20 and 21:

tád víṣṇoḥ paramám padáṃ sádā paśyanti sūráyaḥ divī́va cákṣur ā́tatam (R.V.1.22.20)

tád víprāso vipanyávo jāgr̥vā́ṃsaḥ sám indhate víṣṇor yát paramám padám (R.V.1.22.21)

No where is the term, "VaikuNTha", used. However, Vaishnava-s use "paramam padam" to attribute it as a justification for a mystical application for the Puranic VaikunTha. This can be confusing, and is a half truth. While many Rig Vedic hymns laud Vishnu's abode as most sublime, this abode doesn't really have a name, for it is just "paramam".

To see an actual mentioning of the term, "VaikuNTha", please see hymns R.V.10.47, R.V.10.48, R.V.10.49, and R.V.10.50. These four, as per the anukramani-s, are addressed to Indra-VaikuNTha. 10.47 is addressed to VaikuNTha Indra specifically, revealed to Rishi Saptagu Angirasa, while 48-50 are revealed to a Rishi with name of VaikuNTha Indra. See this link for clarification: click me (http://www.sanskritweb.net/rigveda/rv10-046.pdf).

hinduism♥krishna
29 November 2013, 09:54 PM
Pranam-s, Jijnasa-ji:

Just a small correction. Let us take a look at the verse in question:

“The Gods be gracious unto us even from the place whence Vishnu strode through the seven regions of the earth!” (R.V.1.22.16)
“Through all this world strode Vishnu; thrice his foot he planted, and the whole [earth] was gathered in his footstep’s dust!” (R.V.1.22.17)
“Vishnu, the Guardian, he who deceives no one, made [these] three steps; thenceforth establishing his high decrees.” (R.V.1.22.18)
“Look, everybody, on Vishnu’s [magical] works, whereby the Friend of Indra, close-allied, has let his holy ways be seen.” (R.V.1.22.19)
“The princes evermore behold that loftiest place where Vishnu is, [that place] laid as it were an eye in heaven [itself].” (R.V.1.22.20)
“This, Vishnu’s station most sublime, the singers, ever vigilant, lovers of holy song, light up.” (R.V.1.22.21).

As per the anukramani-s, this verse is found in Mandala 1, hymn 22, dedicated/revealed to Rishi Medhātithi KāNva from numerous Gods: Ashvins, Savitur, Agni, Indrani & Varunani, Dyava-Prithivi, and Vishnu (who has the most number of verses in this hymn, totaling 6).

There are two places being described here, regarding Vishnu: the "station" is the Yajna-altar/cauldron/fire-pit, and the "loftiest place" is where Vishnu is, from where he originates to walk those most holy steps, leaving everything else in the dust of his footsteps, for he is the wide-strider.

Let's take a closer look at the Sanskrit of verse 20 and 21:

tád víṣṇoḥ paramám padáṃ sádā paśyanti sūráyaḥ divī́va cákṣur ā́tatam (R.V.1.22.20)

tád víprāso vipanyávo jāgr̥vā́ṃsaḥ sám indhate víṣṇor yát paramám padám (R.V.1.22.21)

No where is the term, "VaikuNTha", used. However, Vaishnava-s use "paramam padam" to attribute it as a justification for a mystical application for the Puranic VaikunTha. This can be confusing, and is a half truth. While many Rig Vedic hymns laud Vishnu's abode as most sublime, this abode doesn't really have a name, for it is just "paramam".

To see an actual mentioning of the term, "VaikuNTha", please see hymns R.V.10.47, R.V.10.48, R.V.10.49, and R.V.10.50. These four, as per the anukramani-s, are addressed to Indra-VaikuNTha. 10.47 is addressed to VaikuNTha Indra specifically, revealed to Rishi Saptagu Angirasa, while 48-50 are revealed to a Rishi with name of VaikuNTha Indra. See this link for clarification: click me (http://www.sanskritweb.net/rigveda/rv10-046.pdf).

Namaste sudas.

Very informative ! Well said.

Hari om ♥

Amrut
30 November 2013, 12:23 AM
Highest PraNams Sudas bhai,

Very well said. This post is very informative. thank you for sharing this info with us.

You have done indepth study of Rig veda.

Please accept my praNam-s __/ \__

Thank you SmaraNam di a.k.a Govinda for pointers

Aum

brahma jijnasa
01 December 2013, 01:09 AM
Namaste

Let's take a closer look at the Sanskrit of verse 20 and 21:

tád víṣṇoḥ paramám padáṃ sádā paśyanti sūráyaḥ divī́va cákṣur ā́tatam (R.V.1.22.20)

tád víprāso vipanyávo jāgr̥vā́ṃsaḥ sám indhate víṣṇor yát paramám padám (R.V.1.22.21)

No where is the term, "VaikuNTha", used. However, Vaishnava-s use "paramam padam" to attribute it as a justification for a mystical application for the Puranic VaikunTha. This can be confusing, and is a half truth. While many Rig Vedic hymns laud Vishnu's abode as most sublime, this abode doesn't really have a name, for it is just "paramam".

We can either accept or refuse to accept that Rig Vedic mentioning of víṣṇoḥ paramám padáṃ refers to Puranic Vaikuntha.
In Rig Veda 1.154 we have Lord Vishnu described as the one who with three steps passed over all the worlds. Vaishnava acaryas explained that the description refers to Lord Vishnu's form as Trivikrama and his famous three steps, the story is well known from the Puranas.
In Rig Veda 10.82 we have "the Unborn's navel" (see translation by Griffith at http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10082.htm), here again we have one story well known from the Puranas. The story says that Lord Brahma (and the whole world) comes forth from the lotus growing in the navel of Lord Vishnu.
We can either accept or refuse to accept that Rig Veda in these instances refers to the Puranic stories. Personally I have no problem to accept it because all the vaishnava acaryas accept that all the texts, be it Vedic or Puranic etc, has a unique purport. I explained this in another thread:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=111111#post111111

regards

Sudas Paijavana
01 December 2013, 01:25 AM
Pranam-s, Jijnasa:



We can either accept or refuse to accept that Rig Vedic mentioning of vṣṇoḥ paramm padṃ refers to Puranic Vaikuntha.

But, that is what the Purana-s say, not the Rig Veda.


In Rig Veda 1.154 we have Lord Vishnu described as the one who with three steps passed over all the worlds. Vaishnava acaryas explained that the description refers to Lord Vishnu's form as Trivikrama and his famous three steps, the story is well known from the Puranas.

My point exactly: it's well known from the Purana-s. The epithet of "wide-strider", as per the Rig Veda, does not profess Shri Vishnu in a different "form".


In Rig Veda 10.82 we have "the Unborn's navel" (see translation by Griffith at http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10082.htm), here again we have one story well known from the Puranas. The story says that Lord Brahma (and the whole world) comes forth from the lotus growing in the navel of Lord Vishnu.

We have to utilize the anukramani-s. Hymn 10.82, as per the anukramani-s, is "authored" by Rishi Vishvakarma Bhauvana, dedicated to Devata Vishvakarma. It is not dedicated to Shri Vishnu. Hymn 10.82 has a theology of its own, like every other hymn of the Rig Veda.


We can either accept or refuse to accept that Rig Veda in these instances refers to the Puranic stories. Personally I have no problem to accept it because all the vaishnava acaryas accept that all the texts, be it Vedic or Puranic etc, has a unique purport. I explained this in another thread:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=111111#post111111

And, I completely understand that. That's your inalienable right.

My only contention is that the Rig Veda does not mention VaikuNTha as the abode of Shri Vishnu. His abode is always listed as either an adjective or a noun, and never as a proper noun. And, this abode is always described as "most sublime", "most high", etc. I am sure that on this both you and I can agree, at the very least, right? :p

Omkara
01 December 2013, 02:04 AM
Sudas, that is rather hypocritical. Yoy deny the authority of the Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishads and Puranas by saying they are later than the Samahitas but accept the Anukramanis which are even later than the Puranas.

Sudas Paijavana
01 December 2013, 02:09 AM
Sudas, that is rather hypocritical. Yoy deny the authority of the Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishads and Puranas by saying they are later than the Samahitas but accept the Anukramanis which are even later than the Puranas.

Pranam-s,

No way, Jose. I do not deny the authority of the Brahmana-s, Aranyaka-s, Upanishads, nor of the Purana-s. Rather, I don't concentrate as much on them (unless it is the Brahmana-s of the Rig Veda).

And, which anukramani-s are you referring to? The one from 400BCE-300BCE (that is older than all of the Purana-s and even a few Upanishads and Brahmanas, BTW) or the 12th Century AD commentary (by...I forgot his name)...? And, Omkara that's kind of a misdirected statement, because a few Vedic shākhā-s do the exact same thing, disregarding various scriptures in light of other scriptures. It's a part of their curriculum. Heck, not even Sampradaya-s are exempt from similar behavior either. But, the current integrated Bashkala and Shakalya shAkhA-s utilize the anukranami-s from 400BCE-300BCE, while the 1200AD commentary is just only that - a commentary.

brahma jijnasa
01 December 2013, 02:24 AM
Namaste

No way, Jose. I do not deny the authority of the Brahmana-s, Aranyaka-s, Upanishads, nor of the Purana-s. Rather, I don't concentrate as much on them (unless it is the Brahmana-s of the Rig Veda).

If you do not deny their authority, than why don't you try to figure out the Rig Veda according to their descriptions?

regards

Sudas Paijavana
01 December 2013, 02:26 AM
If you do not deny their authority, than why don't you try to figure out the Rig Veda according to their descriptions?

Pranam-s,

That's a good question, Jijnasa.

Well, because there is no imminent need for me to utilize their descriptions. But, they all [rather most of them] are divine and holy scriptures.

brahma jijnasa
01 December 2013, 03:51 AM
Namaste

Pranam-s,

That's a good question, Jijnasa.

Well, because there is no imminent need for me to utilize their descriptions. But, they all [rather most of them] are divine and holy scriptures.

No offense, but then you are the only person in this universe who do accepts the authority of these scriptures but lacks the desire to realize them in accordance with their descriptions. :)

So it seems that you are very, very much in love with the Rig Veda. I appreciate that.
Rig Veda is so much favorite to you that you're not interested in reading almost anything else.

I will compare it to something that is said. It is said that Srimad Bhagavatam is most dear to the Vaishnavas, and sometimes it is said that there is no need for any other scripture.

regards

Sudas Paijavana
01 December 2013, 03:58 AM
No offense, but then you are the only person in this universe who do accepts the authority of these scriptures but lacks the desire to realize them in accordance with their descriptions. :)

So it seems that you are very, very much in love with the Rig Veda. I appreciate that.
Rig Veda is so much favorite to you that you're not interested in reading almost anything else.

Highest Pranam-s, Mere Bhaiyya:

What do you mean, "no offense"?! You literally just gave me a wonderful compliment. After all, I'm very original. :p


I will compare it to something that is said. It is said that Srimad Bhagavatam is most dear to the Vaishnavas, and sometimes it is said that there is no need for any other scripture.

Exact-freaking-ly! Now you truly understand me, brother. And, please acknowledge that I believe the Srimad Bhagavatam is a very important scripture and is of divine origin. Furthermore, if we step back from all the theological differences and just take a look at the SB and admire it from afar, we can take into account that the SB is of wonderful quality, and very well "written". It's is a scripture of art, is it not?

When I say that I don't give a lot of attention to other scriptures, I do not mean that they are not important or not worth my time. But rather, what I am trying to convey is that, they are not my area of focus or "bhakti". I will concede this, however: the SB is a "literary" work of sublime art.

Viraja
02 December 2013, 10:39 AM
According to Vishistadvaita siddhanta, the atma is never the same as the paramatma, the atma, even in its mukthi state is different from paramatma (and so was it originally, that is, before being binded by samsara). This necessitates the muktha jeevatmas to recide in 1 place, also known as 'Vaikuntha'. According to SriVaishnavam, there are 2 divyadesams that are not of this world, namely paramapadam and Thirupparkadal (ksheerabdi) which is surrounded by the holy 'Viraja' river and this shows the presence of Vaikuntha. Goloka supposedly is a place in Vaikuntha.

Amrut
02 December 2013, 10:42 AM
Namaste Viraja di,

I am under an impression that as per VA, Jiva is Brahman qualitatively, but not quantitatively.

Aum

ameyAtmA
02 December 2013, 10:49 AM
This necessitates the muktha jeevatmas to recide in 1 place
or perhaps in one state? while possibly scattered in different locations?
This one type of state is the VaikunTha state.

ameyAtmA

Viraja
02 December 2013, 10:52 AM
Namaste Viraja di,

I am under an impression that as per VA, Jiva is Brahman qualitatively, but not quantitatively.

Aum

Namaste Amrut bhaiya,

I am not sure what it is meant by either of the terms 'qualitatively' and 'quantitatively' (I guess you mean jeevatman is same as paramatman as per VA too except for being confined to 1 single atman vs. everything in universe). But from what I read of VA, the jeevatman carries many of the same attributes of paramatman but is different from it. For example, the jeevatman is not all-pervasive, as in being able to be part and parcel of every atom of the cosmos, whereas the paramatman is all-pervasive. I request more knowledgeable members on VA to correct my understanding, also it would be nice to hear VA perspective on where jeevatman would reside after attaining mukthi. (Since the topic talks about Krishna :) ).

PS: One might also bring into picture the various mukthi states - Kaivalyam, Sayujyam and so forth.. In VA Siddhanta, for instance, I have heard there is no provision for that type of mukthi (Sayujya?) which is the same as 'oneness with Brahman'.

Regards.