Basic questions on Vaishnavism

[Amrut]

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.

Namaste Viraja di,

Just like a drop has all qualities of ocean, but it cannot be ocean, hence the macroscopic qualities are absent (all-pervasive, omnipresence, etc)


--------

I would also like to ask a few questions like

Jiva resides in Vaikuntha. Does it also have a body, even a subtle one?

Most Vaishnava-s specially Gaudiya Vaishnava-s give definition of Jiva size as per Sv. Up. 5.9, which is as small as a point of light.

EDIT: Again, are we experiencing ourselves as Jiva or as physical body? - this is with regards to all 3 states and when staying in Vaikuntha. Someone must have known this. If the concept of Vaikuntha is not just a concept an a reality ,when someone must have experienced it and must have done abhivyakti of it (expressed it).

P.S. ameyAtmA, welcome to the forums :)

Hari OM

[jignyAsu]

Namaste,

Indeed as per VA the Jiva is aNu eternally. Paramatma not only is all pervading but also pervates atoms and jiva in its fullness as per Upanishad verses - "Bigger than big and smaller than small". I think this is common across all Vaishnava sampradayas. Its also well known that VA holds that muktAtma resides eternally in "Vaikuntha".

Regarding the question of whether it has a body or not, this is answered by Brahma Sutras itself where it is said that a mukthAtma may or maynot have a body. Also, he attains param samyam but Lord alone uses His creation powers. In Upanishads also is described a detailed path to moksha. All this implies separateness.

[Amrut]

Namaste,

Indeed as per VA the Jiva is aNu eternally. Paramatma not only is all pervading but also pervates atoms and jiva in its fullness as per Upanishad verses - "Bigger than big and smaller than small". I think this is common across all Vaishnava sampradayas. Its also well known that VA holds that muktAtma resides eternally in "Vaikuntha".

Regarding the question of whether it has a body or not, this is answered by Brahma Sutras itself where it is said that a mukthAtma may or maynot have a body. Also, he attains param samyam but Lord alone uses His creation powers. In Upanishads also is described a detailed path to moksha. All this implies separateness.

Namaste,

Thank you. Practical doubts :)

Does a jivan mukta live in Vaikuntha only and is the body permanent?

Is body eternal? To experience anything, does Jiva need body and 5 senses, or it can enjoy or 'bhoga'. To exist and to enjoy is different I guess, as a premature death may result in transition period, but the jivatman resides in any of the sthoola sharira (gross physical body) of another person or even an animal or a tree.

Apart from shastra-s, since this is reality, then someone must have described himself as jiva with / without body.

What I am saying is that has anyone described himself a as point of light, like say Azhvar or any other great saint. There has to be an AtmAnubhUti of what shastra-s say, specially when you say, as per shastra-s, there are Jiva mukta-s

Aum

[Amrut]

Namaste,

More doubts :)

I have tried my best to explain advaita concepts. Now it's my turn to request fellow Vaishnava-s to clear my doubts.

Unfortunately, from the posts by Vaishnava-s it looks like they do not accept smArta-Vaishnava-s and that there is no place for them. I wonder if all people believing and worshipping Vishnu have chosen any one of the established sampradaya, as I have met some people who do not identify themselves with any sampradaya, they simply reply, 'I am a Vaishnava, as I worship Krishna / Vishnu'. They must be smArta-s. HDF does not have a section dedicated to smArta-s, so a common Vaishnava forum and not Hare Krishna or VA, Dvaita forum is used.

Anyways, some doubts.

The argument goes that either anything can be real or unreal. There is no mithyA.

I experience myself as jiva and it cannot be Brahman. Since I experience this world and jivahood, both are real. This world cannot be illusion.

In this context, as a laymen, I experience myself as body and not as jiva. 99.9 % people do not experience subtle bodies, forget jivahood.

Hence I would say that I am body and not jiva. I do not experience myself as jiva. This body is real.

If I take the definition of Real as eternal (as Brahman, Jiva and Jagat are real and hence eternal), then this body is also real and hence eternal. The thing is I never experience myself as Jiva when alive. I do not know what is going to happen after death, no one comes back to tell what happens after death.

I just want to know the reason behind the assumption that 'I am Jiva'. If you point to shastra-s that say 'I am Jiva', then why am I not experiencing who I am? I understand that I am trapped in mAyA, which is real, but still I know that I am Jiva, who is bound by the Lord's mAyA. Why I do not experience myself as Jiva and why I experience myself as body?

Also let me know according to Vaishnavism, what is real and unreal. and please give e.g. of both and what categorizes as real and unreal i.e. e.g. jiva is real.

Hari OM

[ameyAtmA]

P.S. ameyAtmA, welcome to the forums :)
Thank You :)
The introductory post went into an FAQ sticky thread :o but...

Hello everyone. Namaste and thanks for giving me your association in this wonderful community of Hindu Dharma.
(Since this thread is about VaikunTha, will not divert it any further, and I have received welcomes from your hearts already :) )

ameyAtmA

[hinduism♥krishna]

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.
Namaste , viraja .
I don't agree with you at all . Yes , jiva is a part . But know that bhagavat purana has stated that the jiva constitues mind , intellect and prana . It is not real thing at all .Further says that it is imagined as a part . There shri krishna says that jiva gets merged in him at the time of moksha .
You said that atma is not all-pervading .It's absolutely wrong . The gita is enough to prove all-pervading nature of atma . I thing shri krishna has described atma as 'sarvagatah -omnipresent ' . Besides , there are many supports from upanishadas and bhagavat purana .

Shri krishna has described his real abode as ' avyakta -formless ' in BG 8.21 . He didn't mention vaikuntha loka there . I think vaikuntha is not formless which has doors to enter .

In case of moksha , kaivalya is regarded as the highest . Bramha-bhoota state is the base of sayujyata . It is oneness with bramhan . When person's mind gets absorbed in that bramhan , then it is called bramhabhoota state .It is the base to become complete bramhan . Beyond this ,there is highest mukti ' sayujyata oe kaivalya ' . It has not even the oneness or any duality .There that devotee becomes complete bramhan in which there is not even the feeling of 'I am bramhan '
The liberation which is known as Salokata and that which is called Sameepata became the ornaments in the ankles of Shri Hari and began to make tiny sweet sounds. Saroopta became the ankle-chains and Sayujjyata became Painjanas. All the happiness of the world is at the feet of Shri Hari and Trance finds resting place at these feet.

[Viraja]

Namaste , viraja .
I don't agree with you at all . Yes , jiva is a part . But know that bhagavat purana has stated that the jiva constitues mind , intellect and prana . It is not real thing at all .Further says that it is imagined as a part . There shri krishna says that jiva gets merged in him at the time of moksha .
You said that atma is not all-pervading .It's absolutely wrong . The gita is enough to prove all-pervading nature of atma . I thing shri krishna has described atma as 'sarvagatah -omnipresent ' . Besides , there are many supports from upanishadas and bhagavat purana .

Shri krishna has described his real abode as ' avyakta -formless ' in BG 8.21 . He didn't mention vaikuntha loka there . I think vaikuntha is not formless which has doors to enter .

In case of moksha , kaivalya is regarded as the highest . Bramha-bhoota state is the base of sayujyata . It is oneness with bramhan . When person's mind gets absorbed in that bramhan , then it is called bramhabhoota state .It is the base to become complete bramhan . Beyond this ,there is highest mukti ' sayujyata oe kaivalya ' . It has not even the oneness or any duality .There that devotee becomes complete bramhan in which there is not even the feeling of 'I am bramhan '
The liberation which is known as Salokata and that which is called Sameepata became the ornaments in the ankles of Shri Hari and began to make tiny sweet sounds. Saroopta became the ankle-chains and Sayujjyata became Painjanas. All the happiness of the world is at the feet of Shri Hari and Trance finds resting place at these feet.

Thank you, HLK. Then I think teachings of VA (as jignyAsu ji points out) is different from that of Advaita Vaishnavism (of Smarta sect) as in VA, one cannot attain oneness with Brahman. But, it is good to know a different school of thought. Well, I have to say, the smarta way of thinking atleast eliminates one question I had always in my mind - what is the future of mukta jeevatmas? I even used to think at some point in the vast infinity of time they do get to become the deity they worshiped themselves -- the smarta Vaishnavism concept seems to point to this. Thanks again.

[ameyAtmA]

But know that bhagavat purana has stated that the jiva constitues mind , intellect and prana . It is not real thing at all .Further says that it is imagined as a part .
Dear Hinduism-Love-Krishna,

You are sharing very good information, but can we please have the verse numbers in Shrimad BhAgavat which say this - "the jiva = mind+intellect+prANa" ? Because that will make everything utterly simple and clear.

Thank You

[hinduism♥krishna]

Thank you, HLK. Then I think teachings of VA (as jignyAsu ji points out) is different from that of Advaita Vaishnavism (of Smarta sect) as in VA, one cannot attain oneness with Brahman. But, it is good to know a different school of thought. Well, I have to say, the smarta way of thinking atleast eliminates one question I had always in my mind - what is the future of mukta jeevatmas? I even used to think at some point in the vast infinity of time they do get to become the deity they worshiped themselves -- the smarta Vaishnavism concept seems to point to this. Thanks again.

Namaste , viraja .

As vaikuntha has a form , it can not be the ultimate state of bramhan . Vaikuntha is the creation of god by the maya . The mukta-jivatmas of vaikuntha get sayujyata after the total dissolution of universe . But vaikuntha is not eternal imperishable . It is just imperishable .



Hari krishna hari hari

[jignyAsu]

Namaste,
I am not sure I understand all the points here but let me try. Also you have to excuse me for delays in replying as I am pressed for time these days.


Does a jivan mukta live in Vaikuntha only and is the body permanent?

As per VA there is no jivan mukti (and I bet as per all Vaishnava sampradayas), only sthitha pragnya. As long as there is karma one is there in this world with this body and all its imperfections.


Is body eternal?

I am not sure I understand this. But a muktAtma takes up a body of shuddha sattva after dropping both gross and subtle bodies, if it wants. In Brahma sutras there is a discussion on what body does it take during its travel to moksha. The conclusion is that the liberated soul can have a body or not or choose to have many many bodies as a leela.



Apart from shastra-s, since this is reality, then someone must have described himself as jiva with / without body.
What I am saying is that has anyone described himself a as point of light, like say Azhvar or any other great saint. There has to be an AtmAnubhUti of what shastra-s say, specially when you say, as per shastra-s, there are Jiva mukta-s
Aum
The general understanding is that shAstrAs provide pramANA for something that is beyond the understanding of the limited mind/senses. I am sure Alvars have described Jivatmas somewhere. Acharyas have also described Atma as being aNu, not necessarily point of light. The experience of Alwars is a pramANA for us but the Acharyas have also proved that their experience does not contradict the shAstrAs. What I mean to say is that shAstrAs is the ultimate reference for Vaishnavas and not individual experience.

Vaikuntha in essence has been understood to be an eternal indestructible abode where there is no time, space etc. In Purusha Suktham is also described the immortal world of the Purusha that is 3/4th. Obviously no one can describe such a world very well. The tragedy also is that those who go to Vaikuntha do not come back and shAstrAs is all that we got. Brahma Sutras also say that a mukthAtma can choose to see his ancestors if he wishes to. No one wished to see me so far :mad:

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste,

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.

[Amrut]

Namaste,




As per VA there is no jivan mukti (and I bet as per all Vaishnava sampradayas), only sthitha pragnya. As long as there is karma one is there in this world with this body and all its imperfections.

Ohh, no Jivan Mukti !!! Ok. Got it. how do you define a sthita Pragya. Should I check Ramanuja Bhashya of the relevant verses, or there is some more info in independent compositions.

Bhagavan in Gita talks about moksha. What kind of moksha or mukti do Vaishnava-s take into account, as Bhagavan himself has not clarified. Is this sampradAya specific?


I am not sure I understand this. But a muktAtma takes up a body of shuddha sattva after dropping both gross and subtle bodies, if it wants. In Brahma sutras there is a discussion on what body does it take during its travel to moksha. The conclusion is that the liberated soul can have a body or not or choose to have many many bodies as a leela.

What I meant is that - According to VA or any Vaishnava sampradAya, is the physical body considered as real?

Body perishes and finally transforms into ash or decomposes into panch mahAbhUta-s.

Since this is a friendly conversation, I do not press for pramANa-s. However if they are provided, they will be an asset, but do not provide if it is time consuming. Simple answers are more than enough.

What is the definition of the word 'Real'. Is it Eternal?

Are other 4 kosha-s considered as real?


The general understanding is that shAstrAs provide pramANA for something that is beyond the understanding of the limited mind/senses. I am sure Alvars have described Jivatmas somewhere. Acharyas have also described Atma as being aNu, not necessarily point of light. The experience of Alwars is a pramANA for us but the Acharyas have also proved that their experience does not contradict the shAstrAs. What I mean to say is that shAstrAs is the ultimate reference for Vaishnavas and not individual experience.

I agree that for what is physically visible, no pramANa is necessary.

If shastra-s describe a state, then it is considered as an authority, which should not be questioned. All agree with this. However, there must be someone who must have experienced the essence of shastra-s. My question is - are you aware of anyone who have experienced themselves as per definition of Jiva in Sv. Up 5.9

V-9:That individual soul is as subtle as a hairpoint divided and sub-divided hundreds of times. Yet he is potentially infinite. He has to be known.

I have seen Gaudiya VAishnava-s skip the second part. Lets be safe. Lets take first part

V-9:That individual soul is as subtle as a hairpoint divided and sub-divided hundreds of times ...

Has someone experienced themselves as such.

OR

Has someone been able to describe any of the description given of Jiva.

If VAishnava acharyas have written about jiva and their concepts, then they must have experienced it themselves. It just cannot be mere philosophy. If they have experienced all about jivahood, Vaikuntha, part and whole experience then this experience has to be reflected in their commentaries, teachings or independent compositions. Grammar is not a substitute for experience. After all, my common sense says, truth has to be experienced. That should also be reflected.

e.g. Meera bai should be able to see Krishna as person and should also enter into trance singing his glories. This is reflected in her songs.

I thought of Alvars, as they are dipped in bhakti. Again, a poet has not doctrine to defend. He/she can add the poetic beauty to all his / her experience and pen down what overflows from their heart. They are not bound by anything when expressing their feelings and their experience. It is their vishuddha ahetuki bhakti (purified, unconditional bhakti with no vested interest), that their songs and poems are soul lifting.


Vaikuntha in essence has been understood to be an eternal indestructible abode where there is no time, space etc. In Purusha Suktham is also described the immortal world of the Purusha that is 3/4th. Obviously no one can describe such a world very well. The tragedy also is that those who go to Vaikuntha do not come back and shAstrAs is all that we got. Brahma Sutras also say that a mukthAtma can choose to see his ancestors if he wishes to. No one wished to see me so far :mad:

I understand Vaikuntha is eternal and indestructible.

However I am confused as there is no time and space. Does it mean that it is beyond time and space. Can a jiva, who is always bound by time and space actually cross these boundaries.

What I have seen is that in all philosophies, there are 2 identities

1. Independent
2. Dependent

My intention behind asking questions is to better understand the concepts, so that while interacting with Vaishnava-s I can better understand them.

Maybe your future generations could wish to see you, if he becomes a mukta. You mentioned ancestors :)

Please take your time to reply. There is no hurry :)

Aum

[jignyAsu]

I just want to know the reason behind the assumption that 'I am Jiva'. If you point to shastra-s that say 'I am Jiva', then why am I not experiencing who I am? I understand that I am trapped in mAyA, which is real, but still I know that I am Jiva, who is bound by the Lord's mAyA. Why I do not experience myself as Jiva and why I experience myself as body?

The faith in shAstrA is a foremost requirement for a Vaishnava and that is not blind at all considering its long standing credibility. The reason why most do not experience truth is because we are enveloped by the real anjnyAna cause by our karmas. When we follow the shAstras, slowly ajnyAnas gets removed and we gain more and more experience of these truths.

Knowing that one is jiva is very easily inferable by focusing on I and mine. When we say "my house", "my wife" it clearly implies that we are different. consequently, when we extend it to say - "my hand", "my thought", "my memory" we can know that we are different from these.

When we say - I was conscious of that object before and now I am not - its an observer that is distinct from consciousness and the object. Infact, we are able to record different states of consciousness in memory only because we are different from consciousness and the objects. Also, when we get up in the morning and say that "I" wasn't aware of anything during sleep, it means the "I" existed all along. So, we say that the jivatma can be easily inferred. Then what is ego? When we say that I am a king, I am a beggar or I am a brahmin or this is my wife etc then it is a ego.

If we can infer the above, then why do we need shAstrAs? To give us the true nature of Jivatma - This atma cannot be burnt, cut or wetted, There was no point in time you were not and no point in time you will cease to be etc.

This is also true wrt to Paramatma. Vast majority doubt His existence but this is only because of their ajnyAna. We can infer an intelligent designer easily seeing the complexity of this world. But why do we need the shAstrAs? To know His guNAs in truth - His infinite compassion, power etc.

When ajnyAnA is destroyed, they clearly realize all this and don't have to rely on Vedic wisdom anymore.

[Amrut]

Thank you, HLK. Then I think teachings of VA (as jignyAsu ji points out) is different from that of Advaita Vaishnavism (of Smarta sect) as in VA, one cannot attain oneness with Brahman. But, it is good to know a different school of thought. Well, I have to say, the smarta way of thinking atleast eliminates one question I had always in my mind - what is the future of mukta jeevatmas? I even used to think at some point in the vast infinity of time they do get to become the deity they worshiped themselves -- the smarta Vaishnavism concept seems to point to this. Thanks again.

Namaste Viraja di,

In simple terms, smArta-s are the ones who do karma kand, but later on move ahead with Jnana marg. Vishnu Tatva, Shiva Tatva, Param Padam, etc are all states of consciousness as per advaita.

However, if you do not move on to next ashram, and continue karma kand, then you may attain adobe of chosen deity, as fruit of your karma. Here adobe means a place, Kailash, Vaikuntha. As karma is not the end, agama-s are more related to temple worship and are supplementary to veda-s (as per my understanding), then a time comes, when a smArta acquire sufficient inner purity because of his karma kand procedures, they move on to sanyAsa ashram, which will be Jnana marg. However their love of their chosen deity may not diminish. We have Madhusudan Sarasvati (Krishna Bhakta and an Advaitin), and Appaya Dikshita (Shiva Bhakta and an Advaitin).

Let me give you a link (http://indiaspirituality.blogspot.in/2013/12/different-paths-for-different.html) to what Suta Samhita (commented by Vidyaranya Swami) says.

P.S. HLK is not following Adi Shankara or smArta. He follows ant Dyaneshvar and Sant Eknath. They were great saints. Sant Dyaneshavar made a buffalo sing bhAgavat PurANa. He is very popular in Maharashtra. Eknath bhAgavat is also available.

Aum

[Amrut]

The faith in shAstrA is a foremost requirement for a Vaishnava and that is not blind at all considering its long standing credibility. The reason why most do not experience truth is because we are enveloped by the real anjnyAna cause by our karmas. When we follow the shAstras, slowly ajnyAnas gets removed and we gain more and more experience of these truths.

Knowing that one is jiva is very easily inferable by focusing on I and mine. When we say "my house", "my wife" it clearly implies that we are different. consequently, when we extend it to say - "my hand", "my thought", "my memory" we can know that we are different from these.

When we say - I was conscious of that object before and now I am not - its an observer that is distinct from consciousness and the object. Infact, we are able to record different states of consciousness in memory only because we are different from consciousness and the objects. Also, when we get up in the morning and say that "I" wasn't aware of anything during sleep, it means the "I" existed all along. So, we say that the jivatma can be easily inferred. Then what is ego? When we say that I am a king, I am a beggar or I am a brahmin or this is my wife etc then it is a ego.

If we can infer the above, then why do we need shAstrAs? To give us the true nature of Jivatma - This atma cannot be burnt, cut or wetted, There was no point in time you were not and no point in time you will cease to be etc.

This is also true wrt to Paramatma. Vast majority doubt His existence but this is only because of their ajnyAna. We can infer an intelligent designer easily seeing the complexity of this world. But why do we need the shAstrAs? To know His guNAs in truth - His infinite compassion, power etc.

When ajnyAnA is destroyed, they clearly realize all this and don't have to rely on Vedic wisdom anymore.

I fully agree with you that first there has to be faith. The reward of faith is experience.

In words of Swami Chinmaya:

Faith is, `To believe what you do not see', the reward of which is, `you see what you believed'.

So when when I say, 'I am Jiva' does it mean that 'I am the knower of Jiva' or 'I know that I am Jiva'. Who is this 'I' that know 'Jiva? Is it separate form Jvia can an eye see itself. It can only see what is different and apart from it.

We can put same argument for 'I am Brahman'. But technically, Brahman is indescribable. Also as per advaita, Brahman is not to be experienced separately. After separation of 'I' from what is not 'I', what remains is just 'Brahman' - pure consciousness. This is what I have been doing since a long time, via OM. OM separates 'I' from non-self and establishes 'I' in it's source.

Is Jiva describable?

Please take you time to reply these questions. There is no hurry.

Sometimes, we may not get answers when we specifically search for them, but one day, we may stumble upon some lines that give answer to our question. Till then we will have to wait.

Aum

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste ,

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.

[Viraja]

Namaste Viraja di,

In simple terms, smArta-s are the ones who do karma kand, but later on move ahead with Jnana marg. Vishnu Tatva, Shiva Tatva, Param Padam, etc are all states of consciousness as per advaita.

However, if you do not move on to next ashram, and continue karma kand, then you may attain adobe of chosen deity, as fruit of your karma. Here adobe means a place, Kailash, Vaikuntha. As karma is not the end, agama-s are more related to temple worship and are supplementary to veda-s (as per my understanding), then a time comes, when a smArta acquire sufficient inner purity because of his karma kand procedures, they move on to sanyAsa ashram, which will be Jnana marg. However their love of their chosen deity may not diminish. We have Madhusudan Sarasvati (Krishna Bhakta and an Advaitin), and Appaya Dikshita (Shiva Bhakta and an Advaitin).

Let me give you a link (http://indiaspirituality.blogspot.in/2013/12/different-paths-for-different.html) to what Suta Samhita (commented by Vidyaranya Swami) says.

P.S. HLK is not following Adi Shankara or smArta. He follows ant Dyaneshvar and Sant Eknath. They were great saints. Sant Dyaneshavar made a buffalo sing bhAgavat PurANa. He is very popular in Maharashtra. Eknath bhAgavat is also available.

Aum

Namaste Amrut bhai,

I am not following what you meant by 'agama-s' in the message, but when I substitute it with the word 'niyamas' (as in one's assigned or taken-over duties), then it makes sense to me. Basically you are saying that a smarta follows agamic (niyamic) duties of temple worship and structured study of the vedas and performs duties like a karma-yogi (one without expectations) until there comes a stage when he can move to Jnana-marga alone. At this time, when he doesn't choose the jnana-path, he still attains salvation but reaches his chosen deity (what a blessing!).

I went through the link provided by you - it basically says there are various types of agamas which men follow, which are all going to one's chosen lord and initially he rewards people to calm them down into the marga of spirituality first and then slowly steers them into jnana-marga. I hope my basic understanding is correct. Thank you for the link. By the way, isn't it your blog? Nice information!

(I do know about sant Jnaneshwar - I have even seen the places he used to live in with his sister and brother who are believed to be amsas of ma Durga and Lord Shiva respectively (with Sant Jnaneshwar being considered Vishnu avatara). I have seen idols of the little sister frying a roti on the back of sant Jnaneshwar as his Kundalini got awakened and the back was as hot as a frying pan! Amazing incidents, all when they were little kids, and to speak of making a buffalo narrate the meaning of the veda - I saw the place where they made this happen too - all in VijayTV's 'Veedu Thedi Varuvaan Vittalan' (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=veedu+thedi+varuvan+vittalan&sm=1). :) Sorry HLK for this little diversion).

Thank you, Amrut bhai.

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

I have seen Gaudiya VAishnava-s skip the second part. Lets be safe. Lets take first part

What do you mean by that?

regards

[hinduism♥krishna]

Sant Dyaneshavar made a buffalo sing bhAgavat PurANa.

:) I think , it is bhagavad gita , not bhagavat purana .

Sant dnyaneshwar and eknath were the topmost devotees of shri krishna . Sant dnyaneshwar was the avatar of krishna/vishnu . His mission was to spread the importance of hari nama in kaliyuga and to teach bhagavat gita in simple words .When he was 16 years old , he wrote the commentry on bhagavad gita and later on at the age of 21 on 13th day of the second half of Kartik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kartika_%28month%29) in Shaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka_calendar) 1218, Dnyaneshwar entered into a permanent state of Sanjeevan Samadhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi) ,yogic path to attain bramhan, at Alandi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alandi) in Pune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pune) in Maharashtra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharashtra), India .His siblings also decided to take samadhi and within year's time they too reached at the supreme feet of vishnu . (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India)

AND EKNATH was among the disciple chain of dattatreya ( avatar of vishnu ) .

I salute to my guru and i consider them non-different from that absolute bramhan .


hari hari hari

[Amrut]

:) I think , it is bhagavad gita , not bhagavat purana .

Sant dnyaneshwar and eknath were the topmost devotees of shri krishna . Sant dnyaneshwar was the avatar of krishna/vishnu . His mission was to spread the importance of hari nama in kaliyuga and to teach bhagavat gita in simple words .When he was 16 years old , he wrote the commentry on bhagavad gita and later on at the age of 21 on 13th day of the second half of Kartik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kartika_%28month%29) in Shaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka_calendar) 1218, Dnyaneshwar entered into a permanent state of Sanjeevan Samadhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi) ,yogic path to attain bramhan, at Alandi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alandi) in Pune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pune) in Maharashtra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharashtra), India .His siblings also decided to take samadhi and within year's time they too reached at the supreme feet of vishnu . (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India)

AND EKNATH was among the disciple chain of dattatreya ( avatar of vishnu ) .

I salute to my guru and i consider them non-different from that absolute bramhan .


hari hari hari


Ok. Got it.

Hari OM

[Jaskaran Singh]

:) I think , it is bhagavad gita , not bhagavat purana .

Sant dnyaneshwar and eknath were the topmost devotees of shri krishna . Sant dnyaneshwar was the avatar of krishna/vishnu . His mission was to spread the importance of hari nama in kaliyuga and to teach bhagavat gita in simple words .When he was 16 years old , he wrote the commentry on bhagavad gita and later on at the age of 21 on 13th day of the second half of Kartik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kartika_%28month%29) in Shaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka_calendar) 1218, Dnyaneshwar entered into a permanent state of Sanjeevan Samadhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi) ,yogic path to attain bramhan, at Alandi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alandi) in Pune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pune) in Maharashtra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharashtra), India .His siblings also decided to take samadhi and within year's time they too reached at the supreme feet of vishnu . (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India)

AND EKNATH was among the disciple chain of dattatreya ( avatar of vishnu ) .

I salute to my guru and i consider them non-different from that absolute bramhan .


hari hari hari

Namaste,
This is really odd coming from someone as casteist as yourself. You do realize that d~nAneshvara was the child of a sannyAsI, right?

[jignyAsu]

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.

Namaste,

The phala adhyaya of Brahma sutra talks about only one phalam/end goal of Vedanta. It doesn't talk with 2 different phalas - one who stays seperate and other as one who unites. Besides the phala talked about here is a permanent one and a point of no return. The archirArdhi marga - path to the abode is being referred to here in great detail.



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.


The change that leads to moksha is not a finite becoming infinite but a finite experiencing infinite. So far the aNu jiva has been experiencing objects which have a beginning and an end - prakriti. Yamadeva tempts Nachiketa towards pleasures of heaven etc but NachikEta rejects it in order to get a bliss that is permanent. So, it is the object and not the subject that is in question.

The distance from God is because of jivas' Karma/ajnyAna. When this is destroyed there is no possibility of a fall because in them the knowledge shines like the sun with no trace of ignorance whatsover. Experiencing never ending bliss they never come back.

Lord Krishna points out in 8th chapter that those who attain Him do not take birth but all worlds from Brahma are subject to desctruction. So He is definetely talking about an indestructible abode here.

Ofcourse, we are yet to reconcile infinity with NirguNa Brahman here. I mean, will a jiva become infinite or nirguNA?

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste ,jijnyasu .

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 the craetion of maya . The Guna Time Karma and Maya (vaikuntha ), being all only illusions cannot remain in the niguna , nirvikar bramhan .

At the time of dissolution of universe , vaikuntha and kailasa both get annihilated . Becasuse both the lokas have form . This vaikuntha is the creation and the thing which is created has an end .

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

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 the craetion of maya . The Guna Time Karma and Maya (vaikuntha ), being all only illusions cannot remain in the niguna , nirvikar bramhan .

That is not true. The Lord has nowhere said that Vaikuntha was created, and it is nowhere said Vaikuntha being a creation of maya or an illusion.


At the time of dissolution of universe , vaikuntha and kailasa both get annihilated . Becasuse both the lokas have form . This vaikuntha is the creation and the thing which is created has an end .This is also not true. Nowhere in the scriptures is said that Vaikuntha will be destroyed! In fact it is said quite the opposite. It is said that Vaikuntha will never be destroyed. :cool1:
The scriptures clearly describe Vaikuntha as the eternal and imperishable abode of the Lord.

regards

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste


That is not true. The Lord has nowhere said that Vaikuntha was created, and it is nowhere said Vaikuntha being a creation of maya or an illusion.

This is also not true. Nowhere in the scriptures is said that Vaikuntha will be destroyed! In fact it is said quite the opposite. It is said that Vaikuntha will never be destroyed. :cool1:
The scriptures clearly describe Vaikuntha as the eternal and imperishable abode of the Lord.

regards


Namaste , can you post the verses describing about vaikuntha ?

In gita , shri krishna declared his abode as " avyakta -formless " .Then how vaikuntha would become that ultimate bramhan ? In this way , krishna completely denied the vaikuntha as supreme abode in indirect manner .:cool1: That imperishable , formless bramhan is beyond the form , name , imagination . The bramhan is where the mind can not reach , while the mind can reach at the vaikuntha and kailasa as they have form and are within the field of maya .

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Namaste , can you post the verses describing about vaikuntha ?

It seems that you quickly forget. In this thread we have already quoted several verses about that!
Should I repeat them again?

Bhagavad-gītā 18.56 (http://vedabase.net/bg/18/56/en) says that abode of the Lord is eternal (śāśvatam) and imperishable (avyayam). Eternal and imperishable means that this abode is never destroyed and that it exists forever, eternally. Word "imperishable" means "indestructible" or "impossible to destroy". :)

In Bhagavad gita 18.62 (http://vedabase.net/bg/18/62/) this abode is said to be eternal (śāśvatam):


sthānaḿ prāpsyasi śāśvatam

"you will attain transcendental peace and the supreme and eternal abode"


In gita , shri krishna declared his abode as " avyakta -formless "
Word avyakta is explained in the Sanskrit dictionary as "not manifest , unapparent , invisible , imperceptible" because we can not see it with material eyes.


In this way , krishna completely denied the vaikuntha as supreme abode in indirect manner . That imperishable , formless bramhan is beyond the form , name , imagination .

Lord Krishna did not deny Vaikuntha as the supreme abode of liberation because shruti said that yogi:


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

and also


"he reaches indeed that place, from whence he is not born again." (Katha Upanishad 1.3.8)

This "the end of the journey" and "he is not born again" tells us that this is a place of liberation, which is the ultimate goal for every yogi. :cool1:
These verses I have already quoted in this thread.
See also Bhagavad gita 8.21:


"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."

Here also "the supreme destination" and "place from which, having attained it, one never returns" tells us that this is a place of liberation, which is the ultimate goal for every yogi. :cool1:

Regarding Brahman.
Brahman manifests itself as both, as formless and with form.
Lord Krishna is described as The Supreme Brahman parabrahman in Bhagavad gita 10.12 (http://vedabase.net/bg/10/12-13/) :


paraḿ brahma paraḿ dhāma / pavitraḿ paramaḿ bhavān

Lord Krishna has a human like form! This form is Brahman itself, this form is atma or paramatma itself! I explained this in another thread. Should I repeat that?
So when a liberated soul reaches Lord Krishna in Vaikuntha, this liberated soul has reached "the supreme destination", has reached "My supreme abode", has reached "the end of the journey" for every yogi, has reached the ultimate goal for every yogi, has reached The Supreme Brahman (parabrahman): paraḿ brahma paraḿ dhāma. There is no something "more supreme" than this. This is final and ultimate. This is the most supreme (the best) that can be reached!

All this is confirmed by the Puranas also. There we have a description of The Lord's abode and His devotees who all together serve Him there, serve Him eternally! This abode is eternal and imperishable.

regards

[Viraja]

Namaste friends,

Although I wish to, I do not possess the knowledge or intellectual acumen to participate in a knowledgeable 'tarka' on matters spiritual.

However, I can offer my 2 cents, I have heard of these 2 sayings in the upanyasa by Sri Velukkudi Krishnan swami:

1. That formlessness or nirgunam and formfulness of sagunam are both like 2 sides of the same coin - which simply means that because lord dwells in Vaikuntham, he is not limited to saguna aspect alone, he can be nirguni and perform duties that can be performed only by formless attribute as needed.

2. Jeevas upon mukthi, shed their subtle body or Sookshma sareera upon crossing the Viraja river that surrounds Vaikuntha, then attain a form that is similar to that of the lord and reside then forever in Vaikuntha.

Thank you.

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste Viraja

Namaste friends,

Although I wish to, I do not possess the knowledge or intellectual acumen to participate in a knowledgeable 'tarka' on matters spiritual.

However, I can offer my 2 cents, I have heard of these 2 sayings in the upanyasa by Sri Velukkudi Krishnan swami:

1. That formlessness or nirgunam and formfulness of sagunam are both like 2 sides of the same coin - which simply means that because lord dwells in Vaikuntham, he is not limited to saguna aspect alone, he can be nirguni and perform duties that can be performed only by formless attribute as needed.

2. Jeevas upon mukthi, shed their subtle body or Sookshma sareera upon crossing the Viraja river that surrounds Vaikuntha, then attain a form that is similar to that of the lord and reside then forever in Vaikuntha.

Thank you.

Exactly, I totally agree.
The Lord as Person (bhagavan) is said to be both simultaneously, saguna and nirguna.

regards

[Sudas Paijavana]

The Lord as Person (bhagavan) is said to be both simultaneously, saguna and nirguna.

Pranam-s, Jijnasa:

I really like and admire that. If there is just one overarching "parmeshwara", then it befits that Most High One to be both saguna and nirguna.

To emptily and consistently suggest that it can only be one and not both shows that we apply our material-world logic in trying to understand "something" that defies all logic, for "He/She/It" is above all dependent and independent constraints.

[jignyAsu]

Namaste Amrut.

Kindly note that I am beginner in my sampradaya. The works by my purvacharyas are like ocean but my memory and knowledge is poor.


Namaste,
Ohh, no Jivan Mukti !!! Ok. Got it. how do you define a sthita Pragya. Should I check Ramanuja Bhashya of the relevant
verses, or there is some more info in independent compositions.


One place where I remember is from Bhagavad Ramanuja's Gita Bhashya - 2:55. This describes a sthitha prajnya. I think its safe to say that a/c to all Vaishnava sampradayas [non advaitis] as long as there is karma, there is body and associatiion with prakriti and so there's nothing called a jivan mukthi. In 5:23 He mentions moksha only after death.



Bhagavan in Gita talks about moksha. What kind of moksha or mukti do Vaishnava-s take into account, as Bhagavan himself has not clarified. Is this sampradAya specific?

It is very very sampradAya specific. For us it is param sAmyam a/c to BrSu and Upanishads - attaining supreme equality to Bhagavan but never oneness. For mukthAtmAs, shEshatvam or being subservient to Him remains because that's a property of Atma [as per BrihadUp]

For Madhvas no two souls are the same and a Brahma soul can experience Bliss much more than a human soul etc. When Upanishads talk about sAmyam they possibly interpret it as saying purnam. A glass is full and so is an ocean but the quantity varies. I also heard that genders are associated with souls. Also souls themselves are sattvic, rajasic and tamasic a/c to them.

You must have heard of Gaudiya thoughts already.

So you can picture the varieties here. But Vaishnavas in general do accept an indestructible abode of the Lord where mukthAtmAs end up. If I am not wrong, Sri Vallabhacharya's sampradaya is an exception to this.

Somewhere you have asked where Ramanujacharya has mentioned Vaikuntha. I will post it when I come across this. But the term He most often uses is "Nitya Vibhuti" to describe the permanent abode. He has used this in Vedartha Sangraha etc. THis Vibhuti is the Vaikuntha, where muktAs and nityAs reside. THis is referred to in the Vedas as parama vyOman, akshara parama vyOman or vishnu's paramam padam etc.

I will respond to the rest later.

[jignyAsu]

What I meant is that - According to VA or any Vaishnava sampradAya, is the physical body considered as real?
Body perishes and finally transforms into ash or decomposes into panch mahAbhUta-s.

......
What is the definition of the word 'Real'. Is it Eternal?

I am afraid I don' t have enough knowledge in this area, atleast not enough to be descriptive. Extensive discussions on this is there in Sri BhAshyA. Basically for VA there are 3 real entities - Paramatma, jivatma and prakriti. The body that we see is a product of prakriti/karma. Its temporary but real. Definetely real need not be eternal for us. Mitya for us would be a rabbit's horn or a sky flower.

For long, based on online resources, I thought that VA holds that dreamed objects are unreal but the dream experience is not. However I was corrected here saying that VA holds even dreamed objects as real. I don't understand how but I am still to check the sources - not high on my priority list as it doesn't impact my sadhana:-)
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=11069&page=3

Maya for us is not mitya but something amazing. Why is it amazing? The soul is by nature replete in jnyAnA and Bhagavan is also all pervading and inside our Atma. So it is not surprising when we see Him but is amazing that we cannot see Him. There should be another real entity - ajnyAnA that is blocking our vision by His mAyA.

In Sri Vaikuntha, the bodies that we hold is made of shuddha sattva and not by prakriti. As per Br Su, we can remain bodyless or choose our bodies but the goal is to perform Kainkarya to Bhagavan. Even when Avatara of Lord comes His ThirumEni(Body) is made of shuddha sattva..because how can He get prAkritic body without any karma? But some other sampradayas may not distinguish b/w Bhagavan and His Form.

I repeat that my knowledge in reality/mAyA is very limited.

[jignyAsu]

Oh and regarding the types of Moksha in Sri Vaishnava sampradaya, to experience Bhagavan in Vaikuntha is considered the Highest. However, by verse 7-16, is identified another kind of moksha- kaivalyArthi. Its hard to explain this but basicially it is liberation from prakriti but not experiencing Paramatma. He is drowned in the bliss that is natural to the soul - it could be considered as an escape from samsara.

Within the 2 sects of the sampradaya, one says it is permanent and within the realm of Vaikuntha and the other says that it is temporary and outside.

Sri Vellukudi krishnan swamy says that its one of the most useless discussion the 2 sect can have because there are no such kaivalyArthis anymore.

I will respond to the nature of jivatma later.

[Amrut]

Thank you JignyAsu.

I think that since the basic concepts are different (e.g. Dreams are also real, and real does not mean permanent), I think it would be better to do a step by step systematic study and atleast read Gita commentary of Sri Ramanuja.

I think this world and all creation is an expression of Ishvara.

Are there any basic granths like Adi Shankara's PrakaraNa grantha-s, which explain basic VA concepts? I may read them, not they are not my priority.

Hari OM

Shri Krishna arpaNamastu

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

To emptily and consistently suggest that it can only be one and not both shows that we apply our material-world logic in trying to understand "something" that defies all logic, for "He/She/It" is above all dependent and independent constraints.

Exactly. Gaudiyas would say that The Lord is transcendental to all material ideas and material logic. Transcendental means being beyond ordinary or common experience based on material ideas and material logic.

regards

[jignyAsu]

1. That formlessness or nirgunam and formfulness of sagunam are both like 2 sides of the same coin - which simply means that because lord dwells in Vaikuntham, he is not limited to saguna aspect alone, he can be nirguni and perform duties that can be performed only by formless attribute as needed.


Namaste Viraja,

I would doubt it if Swami actually said or meant so. "NirguNA" and "saguNA" pertain to guNAs of the Lord. For VA, an entity being both nirguNA and saguNA is a contradiction. Bhagavad Ramanuja resolved this by saying that "nirguNA" means that Lord is devoid of material/prakritic/negative attributes. "NirguNA" is not applied in any other sense than this.

Also, regarding Form, His Form is the beautiful thirumEni in Vaikuntha, Avatara and Divya Desams. But then because the whole jagat with its chit and achit is His shareeram and controlled by Him, all this is also His Form. When Upanishads say that He sees without eyes and hears without ears, it means that He does not need eyes/ears etc like we do but assumes them for the sake of His devotees.

Its more accurate to say that a Lord has many Forms than to say that He is both with and without Form. What I mean to say is that there's nothing that a Lord with Form like the One standing in the Hills of Thirumala can't do or can't control.

[jignyAsu]

Are there any basic granths like Adi Shankara's PrakaraNa grantha-s, which explain basic VA concepts? I may read them, not they are not my priority.

For any of the 3 Jagat Gurus their Bhashyas is the starting point. For VA, a short introduction is provided in Vedartha sangraha.

[Amrut]

Namaste Amrut bhai,

I am not following what you meant by 'agama-s' in the message, but when I substitute it with the word 'niyamas' (as in one's assigned or taken-over duties), then it makes sense to me. Basically you are saying that a smarta follows agamic (niyamic) duties of temple worship and structured study of the vedas and performs duties like a karma-yogi (one without expectations) until there comes a stage when he can move to Jnana-marga alone. At this time, when he doesn't choose the jnana-path, he still attains salvation but reaches his chosen deity (what a blessing!).

I went through the link provided by you - it basically says there are various types of agamas which men follow, which are all going to one's chosen lord and initially he rewards people to calm them down into the marga of spirituality first and then slowly steers them into jnana-marga. I hope my basic understanding is correct. Thank you for the link. By the way, isn't it your blog? Nice information!


Namaste Viraja di,

If you had done a little googling, you would have got an idea about 'agamas' (आगम) - aagama

Please find links below

The Agamas by Swami Sivananda (http://www.dlshq.org/religions/agamas.htm)
Agamas - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80gama_%28Hinduism%29)
Pancharatra Agama (http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/The-Pancaratra-Agamas~-A-Brief-Study-1.aspx)
Agamas - astrojyoti (http://www.astrojyoti.com/vedic-scriptures-of-india-6.htm)


Namaste


What do you mean by that?

regards


Namaste BJ,

What I was referring is that the full translation of the verse Sv. Up 5.9 provided by some is

V-9:That individual soul is as subtle as a hairpoint divided and sub-divided hundreds of times. Yet he is potentially infinite. He has to be known.

I have seen Gaudiya VAishnava-s skip the second part. Lets be safe. Lets take first part

V-9:That individual soul is as subtle as a hairpoint divided and sub-divided hundreds of times ...

This means the following part is not taken into account while defining size of Jiva


Yet he is potentially infinite.

I have seen this in Srila PrabhupAda's (SP) Gita commentary in English. Some may not have read Upanishads, but they quote this verse as SP has given reference to this verse in his Gita commentary / purport, mostly in chapter 2. In this reference, the part Yet he is potentially infinite. is absent.



For any of the 3 Jagat Gurus their Bhashyas is the starting point. For VA, a short introduction is provided in Vedartha sangraha.

Thank you.
Aum

[Viraja]

I would doubt it if Swami actually said or meant so. "NirguNA" and "saguNA" pertain to guNAs of the Lord. For VA, an entity being both nirguNA and saguNA is a contradiction. Bhagavad Ramanuja resolved this by saying that "nirguNA" means that Lord is devoid of material/prakritic/negative attributes. "NirguNA" is not applied in any other sense than this.

No, jignyAsu ji, I listened to him, and he did say the above.


Also, regarding Form, His Form is the beautiful thirumEni in Vaikuntha, Avatara and Divya Desams. But then because the whole jagat with its chit and achit is His shareeram and controlled by Him, all this is also His Form. When Upanishads say that He sees without eyes and hears without ears, it means that He does not need eyes/ears etc like we do but assumes them for the sake of His devotees.

Its more accurate to say that a Lord has many Forms than to say that He is both with and without Form. What I mean to say is that there's nothing that a Lord with Form like the One standing in the Hills of Thirumala can't do or can't control.

You have put it beautifully here. But I reassure I heard swami state 'nirguna and saguna aspects of the lord are like 2 sides of the same coin'. As I read your explanation, it appears to be a matter of wording, I'm sure swami meant the same as in saying, "though with form, there is nothing a saguna brahman cannot do, including activities carried out in formless aspect".

[Viraja]

Amrut bhai,

Thank you for the links on agamas. I will go through them.

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste BJ,

What I was referring is that the full translation of the verse Sv. Up 5.9 provided by some is

V-9:That individual soul is as subtle as a hairpoint divided and sub-divided hundreds of times. Yet he is potentially infinite. He has to be known.

I have seen Gaudiya VAishnava-s skip the second part. Lets be safe. Lets take first part

V-9:That individual soul is as subtle as a hairpoint divided and sub-divided hundreds of times ...

This means the following part is not taken into account while defining size of Jiva

Yet he is potentially infinite.

I have seen this in Srila PrabhupAda's (SP) Gita commentary in English. Some may not have read Upanishads, but they quote this verse as SP has given reference to this verse in his Gita commentary / purport, mostly in chapter 2. In this reference, the part Yet he is potentially infinite. is absent.

Namaste Indiaspirituality Amrut

Thank you for your reply. I'm glad that you drew attention to this detail in the translation of the verse 5.9 in Svetasvatara Upanishad:


bālāgra-śata-bhāgasya śatadhā kalpitasya ca /
bhāgo jīvaḥ sa vijñeyaḥ sa cānantyāya kalpate

Yes indeed, some translators translate expression cānantyāya kalpate as "Yet he is potentially infinite", but the vaishnava translators translate it differently.
Srila Prabhupada quoted this verse in his purport on Bhagavad gita 2.17, see http://vedabase.net/bg/2/17/en

Word anta some translators translate as "finite, limited" and an means "without", so ānantya they understood as "infinite".
However Baladeva Vidyabhusana, acarya who was the greatest Vedantist in the Gaudiya vaishnava tradition, said that word anta in this verse means "death", which is per Sanskrit dictionary, and thus ānantya means "deathless" or "immortal". So the second part of the verse bhāgo jīvaḥ sa vijñeyaḥ sa cānantyāya kalpate means that the soul (jīva) is qualified to become immortal, ie he is qualified for immortality or liberation (mukti).
All this means that this verse of Svetasvatara Upanishad 5.9 defines the size of a soul (jīva) as very small, practically atomic in size, and qualified to become immortal.

Vaishnavas would not agree that a soul (jīva) is potentially infinite because it is described as a fragment of the Supreme Lord in the Bhagavad gita 15.7 (http://vedabase.net/bg/15/7/en) :


mamaivāḿśo jīva-loke
jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ

In this verse jīva soul is described as a fragment (aḿśaḥ — fragmental particle) which is eternal (sanātanaḥ — eternal). So a jīva soul remains eternally just a fragment atomic in size. A jīva soul cannot be changed or cease to exist, but must remain a fragment atomic in size because it is described as eternal (sanātanaḥ — eternal). The soul must remain what it is otherwise it would be violation of being described as eternal (sanātanaḥ — eternal).
I hope this helps to understand the position of the vaishnavas.

regards

[grames]

Hi.,

This is very nice and same time a message from a humble person with so much humility.

My two cents...

What is real?
What is unreal?
What is illusion? - Is illusion real or unreal?
What is dream? - Is dream an illusion or real happening?

I think when we clarify ourselves and differentiate the above four, we will have answers for them. Vaishnavas in general are rationalists (again, in general and not all) and for any sort of knowledge, we require the means to get that knowledge. Perception, Anumana and Shruti (sabda - or words of Acharyas or alwars etc.) are accepted as pramana for prameya ie the object of knowledge. So, if any one of these three provides the knowledge about any object and its presence, availability or cognition even with boundaries of time, space, domain, dictum etc. are accepted as real. OTOH, what cannot be grasped, described or cognized by these three are "unreal" and there is no scope for existence of such unreal entity (unreal in vaishnava tradition is not a positive entity - Like how new era advaitin believe). ( what does not have the means to know, can never be attained anyways - There no map for "non existent City which is not Heaven")

The smoke seen on top of the mountain is real but the anumana or inference that, there must be fire will get the status of real only if it is so or the actual cause will be known say the ice - and that too when that cause is also real. In Realist Vaishnava world, there is no scope or room for any existence of unreal entity or it acting. (Son of barren woman is not possible and that is unreal - and such son cannot win a war and describing a honorable history of such war is unintelligent and waste of time and effort). unreal and non real has no 'real' existence! (Existence is a boundary condition and it also has to be real as it is already stated, only a real can be a cause and also can bear the effect) - There is no room for cause being unreal ever! ( Only a 'Sat' bear the cause and also its effect - Between "sat", there might be rooms for different perception limited by the boundary imposing factors including knowledge- If it is only One "Sat", there is no factors which can cause the "perception" or bear the effect as in "illusion" or dream or neither real nor unreal etc., there is no possibility of non existent unreal to describe that Sat assuming any sort of perception with unreal non existent boundaries - All that you read in the previous statement are called Word Jugglery or Paradox)

I am not "Lion", I am not "Rose", I am not "Atlantic", I am neither Europe nor Asia etc etc. will never reveal what you really are! These are not called unreal description of the real but "paradoxical" and in simple words, idiotic and useless! None of the above will give any help or idea that you are a 'real' human and you can bear a name that human in general use in couplet format and also you can be "grossly" described. ( Even the apparent real has to be real - as long as the boundaries of such perception is existing and controlling. Theory of relativity - As long you meet another great man, its fine you are the great man. You are the tallest but you are no longer tallest now as there is someone else who is taller than you. I am like a lion, until you get old and weak.)

So, what is illusion then? Illusion is actually creating a momentary perception of "actual real" (it is not surely super imposing or over imposing something as something else) and it is not only positive perception but also negative or both at once. It is not the Snake which is actually super imposed on the robe and the object robe remained object robe regardless of the perceiver's perception. (This is why, shruti pramana stands tall and perception is corrected or explained if it is faulty - but not ignored or thrown away as irrational or not wanted or Maya). Illusion is also of two types - The one just described is actually the "fault of the perceiver" and negative but there is a positive illusion as well. (Example is, how Krshna is perceived by a lot many as mere human form - unlike the robe which had no will to hide its reality or svarupa, Lord Krshna prefers to keep His svaRupa hidden and this is positive illusion because the cause of perception is inherent to the power of the object/subject). But, in both case, the effect of illusion is real, the process of :illusion: is also real but the "perceived object is also real until its validity with in the boundaries of time, perception or knowledge of the subject/object to the perceiver". At no point of time, any one of the above is "unreal" as pratyaksha proved and assisted the reality for the perception to takes place.

Dream - A orchestration of various features of the jiva - Creativity is the puzzle here and most of the vedantic examples ignore the dream creating never seen objects with in its play. Dream and illusion have similar frame of reality for the objects projected in the play - Dream is real - Dreamer must be real to have a dream and dream must be real for it to happen in first place - when dream is real, what was played must be real.( interestingly, all the dreams that can be talked must be in the PAST - You cannot talk about the dream that is going on now in ur physiological system or describe a future dream) and accounting the creativity part, which is biologically natural to the jiva, dream creates different "real" entities with in the boundary of the dream! After you wake up, there is no dream and when there is no dream, there is no scope for dream object. (This should not mapped to any sort of Advaitic philosophy as, here the Dream is real, Dreamer is real, Dream is for sure a process or biological event which is real, dream has participating real mediums like experience, mind, ego, creativity, rationality, logical correctness and of course, knowledge of multitude of real objects. If at all, Brahman is the only perciever, there is no scope for perception for anyone or anything else as there is no other real elements or real boundaries of perception(s) and there is no reality to dream object's dream). Dream objects cannot have independent experience in relation to the dreamer and it is either all objects of the play at once or none controlled by whether the dream is still happening or not. It is also unwise to assume or believe, the dream objects when they escape the dream will get the experience of being the dreamer! That's even more insane in the realist world! Since, the cause and effect are always associated, the word Mithya can have real meaning also, as "associated" as long as the boundary conditions exist of creation and destruction cycle and since these boundary reals are also under the control of the Lord, He is understood as, the complete Master of All and unaffected by His associations!



Hare Krshna!

[Amrut]

Namaste and Thank you Grames ji

Though my advaitic background makes it difficult to accept what you have said, I willl try not to bring Advaita approach in this. As you know, I am a poor at rational reasoning and a meditative creature.

A few questions. Should I say, my turn ;)


Existence is a boundary conditionIs it applicable to Ishvara?




(Existence is a boundary condition and it also has to be real as it is already stated, only a real can be a cause and also can bear the effect) - There is no room for cause being unreal ever! ( Only a 'Sat' bear the cause and also its effect - Between "sat", there might be rooms for different perception limited by the boundary imposing factors including knowledge- If it is only One "Sat", there is no factors which can cause the "perception" or bear the effect as in "illusion" or dream or neither real nor unreal etc., there is no possibility of non existent unreal to describe that Sat assuming any sort of perception with unreal non existent boundaries - All that you read in the previous statement are called Word Jugglery or Paradox)



Sat cannot associate with that is non-existence. Also what you have explained is all from our POV – sAdhaka POV (bottom-up), what we see. Is there also a way top-down? i.e. How Ishvara sees us?



Perception, Anumana and Shruti (sabda - or words of Acharyas or alwars etc.) are accepted as pramana for prameya ie the object of knowledge. So, if any one of these three provides the knowledge about any object and its presence, availability or cognition even with boundaries of time, space, domain, dictum etc. are accepted as real. OTOH, what cannot be grasped, described or cognized by these three are "unreal" and there is no scope for existence of such unreal entity (unreal in vaishnava tradition is not a positive entity - Like how new era advaitin believe). ( what does not have the means to know, can never be attained anyways - There no map for "non existent City which is not Heaven")
You missed 3 pramANas. There are a total six pramANa-s

"pratyaksa", "anumana", "upamana", "sabda" "arthapatti" and "anupalabdhi". Kanchi ParamAcArya says that Vaishnava-s accepts only 3 pramANa-s

Explanation (http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part13/chap1.htm) of pratyaksha and anumana pramANa-s
Explanation (http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part13/chap3.htm) of other pramANa-s

Ok, let’s move ahead. If dreams are real, then whatever you have done in dream, you should have to bear fruit of your dream-karma – right? Is this true?

Suppose if I murder some people in dream, will I be hanged to death either in real waking world or real dream world? Or if I become a super man and save a pretty girl (hey it's my dream :D), obviously she is attracted to 'super man'. So will be come closer to me in real dream, in the same episode or some future episode? Cause and effect.

If I see sea shell as silver, as per you, it is real, atleast for the time I see it as silver, as if it is unreal, it cannot be seen at all (no existence). So, until ignorance, I must be able to sell it and get a good amount of cash? Right. I am not counting Illusion, as I think I Vaishnavism, in general, there is no illusion. Ishvara appearing different is not considered as illusion, but it is his lIlA (Lila). So we can understand that we see only a part of him, which he, the almighty Ishvara, out of compassion and love, shows us.

Similarly, if I see water in a desert area, then, it must be real too, atleast until I see it. Since it is real (there is no illusion and real does not mean eternal), hence all should see the same water in desert, not only that, until I see water, all others should also be able to drink water. Right?
Definition of unreal is same as that of Advaita.

Illusion: So illusion is false perception of a real thing. To see what is actually not there. Is it right? It is true that the object wrongly perceived exits, as without it, no illusion can be formed, but what about the illusion itself? But then you say, both cause and effect have to be real?, so technically there is no illusion. Right?

Sorry I do not get this:


But, in both case, the effect of illusion is real, the process of :illusion: is also real but the "perceived object is also real until its validity with in the boundaries of time, perception or knowledge of the subject/object to the perceiver
". At no point of time, any one of the above is "unreal" as pratyaksha proved and assisted the reality for the perception to takes place. So if pratyaksha is proved i.e. whatever you see, be it temporary or permanent, it has to be real, as unreal cannot be seen or recognized by any pramANa. So what is left is real. Even what we call as illusion, at some point of time, it must be real too. Is this correct sir?


I am not "Lion", I am not "Rose", I am not "Atlantic", I am neither Europe nor Asia etc etc. will never reveal what you really are! These are not called unreal description of the real but "paradoxical" and in simple words, idiotic and useless! None of the above will give any help or idea that you are a 'real' human Only saying I am not this, I am not this, is not enough. You also have to think you am I see NirvANa SaTaka. It is an exploration, a search of the tenth person who forgets to count himself, and the search continues till he counts himself, but never mind, this is a Vaishnava Forum. Also much has been said.

Let it be. Does it mean that I am body, as some point of time. I see myself, others see me, right?

If you say, Amrut is dumb, he doesn't understand anything, does it mean that Amrut is not body, but is a quality of intellect - dumbness (idiot or genius are related to intellect.) If I say, I am intelligent, what does it mean? I am not body and I am intelligent or I am both or I am still a body. Is intelligence a quality of body?

If I am dumb for you, but intelligent for other person or say, if one person says, Amrut is so kind and humble, and another one at the same time says, Amrut is an idiot, he is conman. Then can both be true? Here, there is no Lord who purposefully hides my attributes. I am a plain simple guy. But 2 persons give opposite definition? Can both be true, that too at the same time? what is the truth?

Lastly, what is the order of praMANa-s in terms of descending authority?

e.g. sabda (shruti) and pratyaksha

I do not see Lord, but shruti says there is Lord. Which one Should I take? first. Generally, as a laymen, I would take pratyaksha as the first praMANa, as it is readily available to me. What if Shruti contradicts my pratyaksha pramANa, as in this case, there is no Ishvara? What is the reality? In other words, which pramANa is to be held as supreme authority. Is there any explanation given in Vaishnava philosophy?


Aum

[grames]

Dear Amrut.,


Interesting questions and actually you have missed few very important points in the message itself and so why you raised the doubts...let me answer them if i can...

First, you are right about the picked question..."existence is boundary condition" but, this is not made as universally applicable - The Ishwara lakshna or Jiva, Jada Lakshna where "existence" is an attribute that is never lost. "Existence of the object "IN" perception is the bounded one" and also all that are created has this boundary conditions ( of Sristi and Pralaya). An entity's existence and reality is not always perceived as is - when you are under the spell of that "boundary conditions" or Maya! The you here can only mean the entities with the ability to "perceive" or the one with consciousness!


Though my advaitic background makes it difficult to accept what you have said,

Thats right! Only realists keep the distinction of Ishwara different from Jiva and Jada! SInce, realists know that "perceptional reality is temporary, they easily advice and lead you to the "constitutional reality" that is permanent. In this way, the Soul is witness to its very condition and gets the inspiration and become ambitious to get rid of the temporary designation or misery due to the "temporary" associations.


Is it applicable to Ishvara?
My answer is, not just to Ishwara and i think i clarified just above...Ishwara creates all these with His will and He is accepted and understood as perfect with all the potential at His disposal. So, all these happens by the wink of Narayana - So, He does not have anything faulty ever - NityaPariPooranaKalyaGunatva describes what He is so, the one who is consciously creating all these myriad of things by utilizing His own energies at His own disposal but for the benefit of bringing back the Jivas to their destiny!(There is no status of any sort of deduction of Brahmanhood to Brahman in any pov in vaishnava tradition - to be technically clear, Brahman never affected by the spell of Maya or undergo transformation by Maya or forget His svarupa and He is the possessor of the Maya as well - Accepting the Attributes to the Brahman alone unlocks the crux and paradoxes we encounter rationally and that is the foundation of Vaishnava traditions. Even if He dreams, that dream will be dream unlike our dream which happens with out our control of consciousness - Advaita will confuse if you have to talk the Ishwara view - Cos, nothing can be explained once such Brahman is Nirguna, NirVishesha, NishKala etc. as such Brahman need not cognize Himself or witness any unreal or neither real nor unreal things or worst, go through planes of reality or different status of reality - As, from Ishwara pov, the Objective is Always existing and there is no room for CHANGE)

You missed 3 pramANas. There are a total six pramANa-s

"pratyaksa", "anumana", "upamana", "sabda" "arthapatti" and "anupalabdhi". Kanchi ParamAcArya says that Vaishnava-s accepts only 3 pramANa-s

Thats right! Vaishnava school ( not going to attest for all, in general) do not see the necessity of the later three along with "Sambhava" and also Parisesa which were means to knowledge in other schools of SadDharshana. Shri Ramanuja in my "Opinion", also packs the rest under either perception and/or inference as these can be contained with in these two. They are not neglected but included in Pratyaksha and/or anumana itself.


Ok, let’s move ahead. If dreams are real, then whatever you have done in dream, you should have to bear fruit of your dream-karma – right? Is this true?
That's right! As long as you have such jurisdiction governing the dream objects. :). You cannot ask for applying the "dreamer's" world Laws to the "Dream object's world" and this is also another proof that, why we as jivas do not have control over our actions but always governed and dictated by the Laws of Nature. (Another anumana for the proof of Lord being the controller of Maya). So, in the dream, if the punishment for murder is death, and if the dream has the time and sequence for such lawful events, that will happen in the drama and surely the dream object will be then punished. Connection of two dreams and continuation of dreams are not useful for our explanation of real once you understand, the laws governing the dream is still with in the ability of the dreamer (i have written long ago about a inherent justice process called "Domestication" and that will inspire your dream justice as well). So, why wait for another episode Mr Romeo, why not win the heart and have the perfect romantic life in one dream? What stops you? Time? Imagination? Logic? Compatibility or Fear? The cause, "She is attracted" is in the dream and the "effect" or predetermined expectation that she has to come to You, is also in the same dream. If that gets stored in your memory system, it may replay with same judgement or predetermination.

So, until ignorance, I must be able to sell it and get a good amount of cash? Right.
When you want to sell it, there involves another Sat which may want to know the object's reality and not the seller's perception. In this real world, it happens and i know so many of my friend's bought fake Ray-Ban glasses believing it is Real one. This process is called "Cheating" and knowingly or unknowingly, if you override the reality of the "object" because of your faulty perception, it results in papa Karma - Nowhere the reality of the object is changed. The fake glass is also real btw otherwise no one will buy it :). Now, who says you can sell what is there on your mind? You have to actually sell the "object" and not the "perceived object" so, there is no room for you to sell your "perceived object" which is silver and the actual object is always shell and it can be sold only for the price of shell!
(I am answering this Q knowing it is unnecessary because, i want you to understand that, the object being real has nothing to do with this commerce)

I am not counting Illusion, as I think I Vaishnavism, in general, there is no illusion.
No. That is not the right understanding! Illusion is possible but it is also real is the understanding. Illusion is not permanent is the point.

Ishvara appearing different is not considered as illusion, but it is his lIlA (Lila).
Ishwara is real and One in all His appearance or Rupas! No question of Illusion here! Teaching difference to Ishwara and/or His attributes or Rupa is unacceptable to Vaishnavaism! (This will become separate topic of discussion and hope you understand that). The illusion is projected to the Jiva, Jiva do not see the Ishwara by another set of factors and jiva do not ever see due to its very own inability - tamas svabhava. Ishwara as a subject is never changing and always real!

until I see water, all others should also be able to drink water. Right?
This is where i guess you assumed that Vaishna schools does not admit "illusion" but it is not the case. They do admit and camel is the best example for it. :). With the faulty perception, it is surely the tempation to go and drink the water and quench the thirst but when the reality is, there is no water but it is effect of "change of temperature or air density - the Real Causes). Will the camel run forever to know the status of reality? or will it stop when there is no more mirage? Mirage is not particular to someone's eye alone and it is visible to all who are in the place where it is happening. Not sure why or what is the purpose of that asking.

Illusion: So illusion is false perception of a real thing. To see what is actually not there. Is it right? It is true that the object wrongly perceived exits, as without it, no illusion can be formed, but what about the illusion itself? But then you say, both cause and effect have to be real?, so technically there is no illusion. Right?
I do follow you and i attribute this confusion due to your affiliation or faith. I think, i have explained illusion which can be positive, negative and both at once. Your lengthy statement shows sight of clarity that, Yes Illusion as a process is Real, Preceived Object in the Perceivers mind is also Real with in the boundaries of Perception but none of these has any effect on the reality of the actual object. ( Robe never turned to Snake and it always remained Robe - Perceiver understood it as Snake and during that moment, the object reality of Robe remained Robe only - not Snake - Perceiver understood the object as Robe - the Object even now remain Robe only. The understanding will not be, this is no longer snake, not snake, neither snake nor robe but Oh, its a Robe). So, the process or event, perception reality, reality of the object all are real but the perception reality might be faulty aided by the boundary condition influenced by factors. Hope, that clarifies and of course, these are rationally provable as we are witness to such things in our day to day life as well.


Only saying I am not this, I am not this, is not enough. You also have to think you am I see NirvANa SaTaka.

This is not inspiring because, what is taught in length that, JADA is not conscious and it is the Jiva which acts through the BME complex. In the samsara, Jiva is the only doer (not 100% in vaishnava schools) and also the Sakshi or witness of its own action as it is the cause of its own actions. I eat, i meditate etc. are real events and i wonder if you ever meditate with the feel, "none exists" or with the reminder "I am Brahman"! There is no second subject to meditate and if the subject is cognized, such subject is already Nirguna and ever liberated Brahman. If it is not cognized, there is no point in meditation and true to the philosophy of Advaita, it cannot be a gradual progress to BE "brahman" but all at once. So, if i remember myself as "SataKa", i am lost to cognize the Brahman and if i cognize self as/is the Brahman, i am no longer a "SataKa". These are mutually exclusive and when one exists, the other is not possible and existence of "Jiva as Jiva" is unreal as well so, its the very same Brahman who is meditating on His own svaRupa but it is never changed in first place.

The 10th person example is good but, it is a very big example to remind something very simple. :) We call it reminder and reals only can be reminded or designated.


Does it mean that I am body, as some point of time. I see myself, others see me, right?

Thats right. As long as you were thinking and believing your the body, that perception is real. But, once the boundary condition of rationality awakens, oh i am growing old, my skin changes, my body shape and size changes etc. the anumana helps to understand, something else in me is existing as a witness and that something else alone is conscious. This why, vedantin goes to length to remind the real fact that, dear fellas you are not Body but Jiva and the reincarnation is inevitable etc. If you didn't even recognize that i am body at any point of time, there is no way you will detect or infer the existence of the actual real object hidden with in this body which is the Atman. Only a real can aide to detect another real. (There is No real map to unreal city or unreal map to real city)

If I say, I am intelligent, what does it mean? I am not body and I am intelligent or I am both or I am still a body. Is intelligence a quality of body?
Good question. When you meditate, ask this question to yourself! ( Donno how will you ask though especially during meditation) :). Intelligence is attribute of Jiva or Jiva itself? Does anything else aide in the intelligence? Rationally and scientifically also as per BG, Intelligence is given and thus temporary real and there is an intelligence that is also given as permanent as gift of Moksha. So, just asking question will not reveal the actual truth or real and you still require the means of truth to aide such realization. So, if i say, I am God, I am Amrut, I am Obama, I am Neil Amstrong, I am Modi, it is waste of my own time or yours since none of these are my body attributes or my atma's. We simply ignore it as NonSense! So, to make sense, we still have to take shelter in the Pramana that will establish the premeya.


If I am dumb for you, but intelligent for other person or say, if one person says, Amrut is so kind and humble, and another one at the same time says, Amrut is an idiot, he is conman. Then can both be true?
Yes. Thats right again. All are true not in the object Amrut but in the opinion generator's mind or simply in the opinions (your statements are very clear and the opinions generated are not "binding" on Amrut - what is Amrut does not live in opinions but what are opinions are also real cos you are also making a question on that). I also explained, there is both positive and negative illusion and they can both exhibit at once when it is product of a conscious entity - by the power of will.


Lastly, what is the order of praMANa-s in terms of descending authority?
e.g. sabda (shruti) and pratyaksha
I will just give you a link... Shri Madhva school - Pramana (http://www.uttaradimath.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90)
If you can get access to Pramana Lakshna or PL Chandrika, please give a read and i don't think i can explain it fully here


I do not see Lord, but shruti says there is Lord. Which one Should I take?
Good Question. You do not see Lord - is a problem statement but Shruti says, Lord exist! Now, either your Prayaksha may be at fault or Shruti must be. What is the aide to prove shruti is wrong? The Lord is not described or congnized yet in your Pratyaksha - so, your only resort is Shruti to validate if your Pratyaksha is in sync and so on, go on and understand the way to witness and recognize Lord as Shruti is accepted as utlimate source of knowledge. You cannot produce a Lord in your own idea and thought if you are sincere in your research or quest to find the Lord. So, now shruti says, the Great Lord exists and to gain Him, you have to nivartti and vrtti and when you are qualified, He will reveal Himself to you by His grace! When you follow the Shruti's guidance and instructions to see the Lord, the PratyakSha is not contradicted as being part of that process, you are witness as well. You don't require Shruti's help to know, you are getting older day by day but Shruti also says the same that you migrate from youth to old age and then to another body! They are in Sync and thus no contradiction. All have equal status with their applicability constraints as explained in the link and keeping them in sync is the wisdom of realized soul and so why, Acharya's are required and self teaching is dangerous as you may not know how to reconcile or keep the contradictions in sync. In general, not just vaishnavaism, the knowledge learning though the valid means of knowledge includes the Acharya as the top most supreme authority (provided that acharya meets all the requirements of an acharya in first place and such requirements are completely fulfilled by Pratyaksha and anumana itself but the reference for such is given by the shruti)

Hare Krshna

[Amrut]

Namaste Grames ji,

Thank you so much for a detailed reply. You spend so much of time in typing, but if I take a charvaka view, then I could raise many questions also, including the 2 pramANA-s itself, which I will type it down a little later.

The problem I see in you is that you only and only take NirguNA Brahman into account and not saguNA Brahman. This itself is a very lengthy discussion and for that purpose, you will have to study basic texts like Tatva Bodh, Vivek Chudamani and then commentaries by Adi Shankaracharya on Prasthantrayi.

If you stick Brahma Satya Jagat MithyA, then you wont be able to understand his commentary. SaguNa Brahman and 2 levels of truth, absolute and relative (which you also acknowledge) is also accepted by Adi Shankara.

AdhikAra bheda must be taken into consideration. Advaita does accept attributes to Brahman. It only says that rise above attributes that too at appropriate time, when one attains sufficient inner purity.

Infact I could include all of VA arguments into Advaita. How? For time being they are suitable to the mental state of questioner. As one progresses, we can negate them as well, but not before disciple has reached a particular level. Again this happens by the grace if Ishvara. Adi Shankara says so


For example, in the Bhashya for the Ishavasyopanishad 9, at the end Shankara says: न हि शास्त्रविहितं किञ्चिदकर्तव्यतामियात् [Nothing enjoined by the scriptures can be unworthy of performance.] Of course, it is another matter that the Mundakopanishad Chapter I - Section 2, for example, has extensively criticized the karma portions of the Veda.

The Bhashya in the Brihadaranyka Upanishad 4.4.22 where the mantra: तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति यज्ञेन दानेन तपसा अनाशकेन itself speaks volumes on Shankara's respect, regard and devotion to the veda pUrva bhAga. He concludes the discussion thus: एवं कर्मकाण्डेन अस्य एकवाक्यतावगतिः [In this manner, that is, the relevance of the Veda PUrva-prescribed nitya karma that are meant for acquiring chitta shuddhi, the Moksha-teaching Jnana KANda becomes aligned as one 'complete shAstra'.] Thus, for Shankara, the Veda pUrva bhAga is an indispensable element in the attaining of the goal of the Upanishads.


In the Bhashya to the Brahmasutra 2.3.41 - तदनुग्रहहेतुकेनैव हि ज्ञानेन मोक्षसिद्धिर्भवितुमर्हति [ The attainment of Moksha is possible indeed through the Knowledge owing ONLY to the grace of Ishwara.]

Source (http://creative.sulekha.com/a-major-embarrassment-to-the-dvaitins_474576_blog)

My understanding says that it is a mistake not to accept saguNa Brahman. Only thing is that you will have to rise above guNa and abide in NirguNa Brahman.

As a chArvAka / lokayata:

e.g.

AnumAna:

anumAna can only be accepted if it experienced or seen. By reaching the place where smoke comes out, I can see the fire, hence it is real. Whatever the assumption be, if it is not proved scientifically, it cannot be accepted as truth.

So if I am chatting with another girl, who is 20 year old for months and then one day I fix a date and visit at some place, that girl might be a 40 year old aunty or even a man. Worst he could be a conman and can steal my kidney and sell it or if he is a terrorist, he can implant a bomb in my stomach.

What I think is that my imagination or wrong perception, though witnessed by mass cannot be true. Even if I imagine something or day dream that I am in palace and it releases stress-relieving hormones, science does not consider this as reality. It is just psychological and not a reality. Science does not consider dream as reality, thats why it is called as dream.

Shruti pramANa

Same logic applies to shruti, including it being apurusheya (unauthored), it simply cannot be proved. Perhaps, categorizing whatever cannot be explained convincingly under faith or act of God or Lila is not at all fair. It is totally unscientific and real.

We have not seen Vaikuntha, those who reach never come back, so who is going to give us description of Vaikuntha. Simply just because it is said, I cannot accept it, also if it is non-returnable destination, then no one can ever describe it, so the description is also a fake one.

Also Ishvara cannot be accepted as in BG it is said

नादत्ते कस्यचित्पापं न चैव सुकृतं विभुः।
अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः।।5.15।।

5.15 The Omnipresent neither accepts anybody's sin nor even virtue. Knowledge remains covered by ignorance. Thereby the creatures become deluded.

??

We also know from Gita that Lord protects his devotees and even takes avatars. But today I see that even Godmen are either trapped or are guilty of offense and that their own disciples poison their Guru to death, in a greed to acquire power and property or due to ego problems. If God cannot even protect his own devotee, who spread is word and his glory, then what about me, a laymen? What about the faith of 1000's that shatters, what is their mistake?

So this statement that God protects devotees also is not proved

Aum

[Amrut]

OK, I can push on and on, and your answers can give rise to new questions. To keep questioning would not serve any purpose. We both sincerely discussed issues. I would also question your explanation about dream and fruits of karma in dream, but let it be, we will be stretching too hard. After all the hard work if you hear ‘I disagree’, then it is dis-heartening. Luckily, by the grace of God and Guru, I have not felt any dis-heartening when you did not get your answer and I failed to give rational explanation. I was and am very very peaceful.

Just like one should not explain Shastra-s to a totally materialist person, so should not all the subtle concepts not to explained to laymen. More I bring down my level and become an atheist, more difficult it is to explain scientifically or even rationally (logically).

After all it boils down to faith, in shastra-s, our faith in God and our goal in life. So this is what it matters.

Instead of rational arguments, I suggest that you or anyone else please give basic explanation of basic terms and pramANa-s. Since I do not want to refute any philosophy, but just to know it better, I will stop it right there without arguing rationally. I think this will be more constructive. You will too recognize this since you too spent a lot of time typing answers.

What do you think, should just basic concepts be explained and than left to the reader? Not trying to convince anyone is a good thing :)

What attracts is a lofty character, like that of Lord Buddha. Do you ever read him having debates like Adi Shankara or Vaishnava Acharyas? He didnt even name his religion. For most time, it were simple practical instructions, be good, do not harm, non-injury, non-violence, etc. The moment I see Lord Buddha's statue, I am filled with compassion (dayA), at this time, even shastra-s does not matter, hence there will be no one to hate Buddha, even the staunch Vaishnava-s have not spoken about Lord Buddha as they have spoken about Adi Shankara.

What is surprising is that while typing all these, I am emotionally disturbed at all. I didnt expect this. Surely it is a grace of Ishvara :D - Ya I and all Advaitins accept Ishvara, as a higher authority and we surrender to NirguNa Brahman, with firm faith that there is a NirguNa Brahman. But how can you surrender to that which is beyond surrender (guNa), so we surrender to SaguNa Brahman or say our bhAva to surrender to NirguNa Brahman is well appreciated by mAyA and Ishvara and they both Adi Shakti and Shiva help me to rise above guNa-s and attain Shivatva. They both themselves sidetrack their own existence for the sake of my progress. I am left with no words to express by gratitude.

Aum

[grames]

Dear Amrut.,

Thanks for the comments and also two responses to my message. When thoughts and answers for the questions flow in my mind, i do type it really fast as i learnt actual type writer typing.

I am little confused as i thought i am just answering your questions and not giving any "judgments" on whether you should change your opinion or faith and that is not my business but yours. I learnt some from your questions as it forced me to think and present the answers in a coherent manner and the thought process validates my faith along with clarity of understanding. If it is a debate on "is Advaita" valid, then i think my take on that will be very different. :). What is told or conveyed is validity of what you can "ever" experience as per vaishnava schools and for Vaishnava schools, there is no secondary Saguna Brahman but it is Only that Brahman who is addressed as Nirguna for a context and then NityaParipoornaKalyanaGunatva.

I guess, at least it is explaining real, unreal, illusion and dream with little bit of context and what alone it can be - along with what it cannot be. The Pramana for you can be different and that is not a contest here but i just stated what is acceptable to Vaishnava's as Pramana ( and again, said there are little differences between vaishnava schools here) and it is just an information not a challenge or question.

Now let me say few things and i guess and hope this should make you feel good and comfortable. When we discuss or share our knowledge, our experience and our learning, we are not "selling" some product for any commerce. We are sharing for two reasons.. first, to validate ourselves and second to give what we know to someone who is seeking that. Anything beyond these two are not worthy and very uninteresting. I was very argumentative but my arguments helped me to understand my own faith much more clearly and also helped me to search for more and more materials, acharya's writings, disclosure etc. to strengthen my faith or find answer for the questions i do not have answers for. Remember, irrational faith is just sentiments and will not become a philosophy or religion but whether you can know it is rational or not is not the problem of the religion or philosophy but just individual's. I believe, we all are learning and we all are imperfect and incomplete in our quest and we are not arguing here for prove anything new that is not proven already or disproved. So, do not set any expectation that, i have to embrace your view or assume anyone is going to demand such things from you as such acceptance, change of thoughts or migration of faith is always individual's choice and that freedom is everyone's right and power. So, do not be disturbed and if i made any comments or references that is very personal to you or about you, forgive and point that out through an IM and i will surely rectify or correct! Otherwise, please take it easy and share your questions and no one here is the judge and we all are sitting in the same desk in front of that God Almighty with same qualification!

Hare Krshna!

[Amrut]

Dear Amrut.,

Thanks for the comments and also two responses to my message. When thoughts and answers for the questions flow in my mind, i do type it really fast as i learnt actual type writer typing.

I am little confused as i thought i am just answering your questions and not giving any "judgments" on whether you should change your opinion or faith and that is not my business but yours. I learnt some from your questions as it forced me to think and present the answers in a coherent manner and the thought process validates my faith along with clarity of understanding. If it is a debate on "is Advaita" valid, then i think my take on that will be very different. :). What is told or conveyed is validity of what you can "ever" experience as per vaishnava schools and for Vaishnava schools, there is no secondary Saguna Brahman but it is Only that Brahman who is addressed as Nirguna for a context and then NityaParipoornaKalyanaGunatva.

I guess, at least it is explaining real, unreal, illusion and dream with little bit of context and what alone it can be - along with what it cannot be. The Pramana for you can be different and that is not a contest here but i just stated what is acceptable to Vaishnava's as Pramana ( and again, said there are little differences between vaishnava schools here) and it is just an information not a challenge or question.

Now let me say few things and i guess and hope this should make you feel good and comfortable. When we discuss or share our knowledge, our experience and our learning, we are not "selling" some product for any commerce. We are sharing for two reasons.. first, to validate ourselves and second to give what we know to someone who is seeking that. Anything beyond these two are not worthy and very uninteresting. I was very argumentative but my arguments helped me to understand my own faith much more clearly and also helped me to search for more and more materials, acharya's writings, disclosure etc. to strengthen my faith or find answer for the questions i do not have answers for. Remember, irrational faith is just sentiments and will not become a philosophy or religion but whether you can know it is rational or not is not the problem of the religion or philosophy but just individual's. I believe, we all are learning and we all are imperfect and incomplete in our quest and we are not arguing here for prove anything new that is not proven already or disproved. So, do not set any expectation that, i have to embrace your view or assume anyone is going to demand such things from you as such acceptance, change of thoughts or migration of faith is always individual's choice and that freedom is everyone's right and power. So, do not be disturbed and if i made any comments or references that is very personal to you or about you, forgive and point that out through an IM and i will surely rectify or correct! Otherwise, please take it easy and share your questions and no one here is the judge and we all are sitting in the same desk in front of that God Almighty with same qualification!

Hare Krshna!

Namaste Grames,

I understand what you are saying, but the rational and scientific is also subjective. What is rational for you is not for others. That is why I changed my stand from an Advaitin to a charvaka, there was no other purpose. trust me. I knew what I was typing. In my case, I never questioned what my guru said or what shastras say. It was faith that propelled me. There was no rational thinking on my part, but I meditated a lot. I meditate daily in brahma muhurata. I learned very little shastras, but have repeated them a lot.

Please be assured that, like you, I too am not competing. those lines on advaita were typed instinctively. I often get lost when I type and I realize that an hour has passed :)

They were for clarification and not for refuting your understanding and were a follow up to your statements like thinking 'I am not this ..' is good for nothing.

Everyday, all things are wiped out of my memory and I have to read my earlier posts to know what I have written.

None is here to change you or me :). My way of thinking is: think only that much which allows you to work. spirituality and shastras have to be practically applicable. Answer depends upon mental make-up and current mental status.

Since I do not have the basic knowledge about Vaishnavism, only what I have read here and there online, so I requested Jignyasu to give a link to a basic text. This was because one needs to have step by step systematic study. This type of study will clear many doubts, hence there is no need to think much.

All you need is faith. I chant OM and surrender to OM or say Paramatman with the faith that Brahman exists. There should be no doubt about existence of Brahman. Somehow I had this faith from the beginning of my spiritual life.

We two are very different. If you have noticed, in other threads, there is an attempt to lift one spiritually and not just give satisfactory answers, even while interacting with Jopmala ji.

Meditation teaches what shastras and rational thinking cannot teach or clarify. This is my personal experience. I have been meditating since I was 18 and shifted to advaita some 9-10 years back. It is Ishvara, who is seated in my heart, that guides my meditation and teaches my via experience and giving proper direction and vision. Shastras give clarity and how you can apply in practical life and in meditation. Rest Ishvara takes care. Always think - God exist (Hindi: Ishvara Hai). Do not doubt this fact. Allow him to take control of yourself, your life. This may not look advaitic, but it is faith. Without this faith, which is a foundation, one cannot be a practising advaitin.

It is God who will reveal that how different paths reconcile. Meditation gives broad vision. Even now when I am typing, peace and bliss are flowing through me. They flow the whole day, all by grace of Ishvara.

Since advaita has 4 qualities vivek, vairagya, etc as pre-requisites, hence I don to discuss actual advaita here and the path of neti-neti, but give practical explanation with an attempt as to how you can progress and put your next step in spirituality.

Be assured, I never competed, even when you push me with your argument here or in another thread :)

Today, it's all blank here. So no issues. At any time, knowingly or unknowingly, if I have hurt you, then please forgive me, it is surely unintentional. I have reached a state, where I cannot think negative, it breaks my meditation and that is unacceptable. This life is a happening, everything happens spontaneously, nothing is planned from my side, not even future plans for business or saving money for either health or anything else :)

So this is my life.

More later.

Aum

[Amrut]

Namaste Grames ji,

Just a thought came in my mind. I will take only one issue.

If the explanation of dream being real is an accepted pramANa of Vaishnavism, then I will have to accept it as it is.

If I move out of sampradAya, then I would not agree with dream being real, as any action must bear it's fruit immediately or in future. Tow dreams are not even connected.

I will take only one issue. It is good for both of us to handle.

---

The more you question, the more your mind is clouded. Arjuna had to keep asking for 18 chapters while RAjA Janaka had to listen from Ashtavakra Gita just once and he was enlightened. Gargi ( I guess I am wirte), had ot listen 9 times before she was realized.

So I guess that too much thinking is not good. Natural questions are obvious, but more you are inwardly pure, less will be the doubts, even though you have not read any shastras or have not meditated or do not belong / stick to any sampradAya. Please note that it is not blind acceptance. More the inner purity, more is the faith. You have tremendous faith in the words of Guru that his words touch your heart and your entire life changes because of one statement and you become a yogi from bhogi just because of one statement or one incident in life.

Aum

[Amrut]

Namaste Grames ji,

Would you mind letting me know to which sampradAa you belong?

Hare Krishna

[Amrut]

Namaste,

I referred to BG 2.16 commentaries by Vaishnava acharyas

नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः।
उभयोरपि दृष्टोऽन्तस्त्वनयोस्तत्त्वदर्शिभिः।।2.16।।

Of the unreal there is no being; the real has no nonexistence. But the nature of both these, indeed, has been realized by the seers of Truth.

As per my understanding, none of the acharyas consider this physical body as real.

They define unreal as that which is perishing. So what is temporary cannot be considered as real.

They also define real as that which is eternal and changeless. Soul is eternal and changeless. Madhavacharya says that ishvara, prakriti and jiva are eternal, but not the body and so pleasures and pain associated with them cannot be real.

Now I am totally confused. What should I take as real and unreal? The illusion can be taken as unreal as it is perishable.

Source (http://bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-02-16.html) and commentaries on Gita Super Site (link in my signature)

Aum

[grames]

Dear Amrut.,

Honesty and being true to yourself is very noble and vary rare indeed and you are very special indeed.

It was faith that propelled me. There was no rational thinking on my part, but I meditated a lot.

I know it and i think i have made a statement already. :) Yes, there is nothing wrong as your faith will give you the reward at the right time.

After explaining the "dream", how are you still saying "dream karma" has to have bearing in the waking state when the laws governing these two are very different and controlled by different conscious entities. It does not require change of Sampradaya amrut, it warrants understanding and also appreciating the fact as fact.

Back to BG 2.16 - This verse has so many different meanings and not sure why you again mix up real and unreal with existence and how sat and asat bhava are explained in this verse. You are forcefully mapping the meaning to suite your "faith" and this is where it blocks the understanding. Copy pasting from Gita translations adhering to Shri Madhava school

na asataH vidyate bhAvaH na abhAvaH vidyate sataH
ubhayOH api dRuShTaH aMtaH tu anayOH tatva darshibhiH BG 2.16

1. From the unrighteousness results no happiness, from righteousness results no miserable; of both these facts, the conclusion as handed down is actually observed by those who have seen the Truth
2. For prakrti (asat) there is no non-existence, for Brahman (sat) there is no non-existence. Verily, both these examples are seen by the seers.
3. From non-existence, there is no production and from existence there is production
4. From tamasmic jiva, there is no Bhakthi or Bhava and from Satvik Jiva there is no non-existence of Bhava
5. What is not laid down in Vedas, there is no existence and what is laid down in vedas there is no non-existence
... and more

I think, vaishnava view is completely different even in other sampradayas and not sure if you are able to understand the fact that, they are not attempting to define "reality" here. Whether they are permanent or not - in the context of previous verse describing the relative nature of the prakriti whereas the next verses are describing the Atma which is not going to undergo these relative changes that are experienced by the body alone as long as it exists.

This is Shri Prabupad translations

Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent there is no endurance, and of the existent there is no cessation. This seers have concluded by studying the nature of both.

Perishable itself is an attribute and something being real but perishable is not an invalid status. This is unacceptable "only" to Advaitin but in our day to day life, all that we witness has to be thrown away to uphold this view. Prakriti is not perishable in Shri Madhvacharya's system and also in Gaudiyas as it is eternal but its effects are owing to the laws of conservation of energy ( believe, it is same in other vaishnava sampradaya as well but i am not very sure)

Rationality itself is not relative to individuals - not sure why are you trying to sanction this and i request you not to do this as your own faith then goes to sentiments instead of science. Your personal understanding of rational facts or source of truth might be different and that is fine but don't throw away the foundation of faith as 'not required' and irrational faith produce nothing good as it does't not keep your faith in a state that cannot be shaken. Second, it is not about just reading and understanding and they are called nivartti plus vritti and until you know the girl is beautiful, you are not even going to be attracted and to be attracted fully, it is very much required to know the Greatness of the Lord by knowing His knowable majestic guna leela which in itself is the beginning and end.

Hare Krshna

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Thinking about whether this world is real or unreal, and also about dreams, are they real or not, will not help us much in life.
Suppose that someone says "I suffer a variety of miseries and pain in life in this material world during wakefulness and dreams, and I feel the suffering of mind and body, but it's all unreal".
Is it helpful to think like that in life? "I suffer , ... I suffer, but it's all unreal" -- will not be of much help in our life. How can I feel something that does not exist?
For all the suffering there must be some basis in reality or we would not even be able to experience anything.
How can the soul who is real experience something that does not have some basis in reality?

regards

[Amrut]

Thank you Grames ji and BJ ji.

I would remain very busy upto 25th Dec. In between if I get time, I may reply.

Aum

[Amrut]

Namaste Grames ji,

I only ask if Dream is real, then the actions must bear it's fruits? Do they as per Vaishnava sampradAya.

Regarding the translations, I had another look, but I still have to read them again to grasp the meaning. Perhaps reading 4 commentaries is not suitable.

Rationality or logical thinking, depends upon the mental maturity, prakruti, etc. One person cannot think in the same way as another.

Even in Vaishnava tradition, Ishvara, his glories and his lilA are all concepts until they become experience. This is true to all. I think that just reading about lilA is not going to help and how can know the ways of the Lord? It's all faith based.

The process of Advaita is quite different and form Vaishnava POV, I accept what you say. In Advaita a person is in search of peace, completeness, Bliss and in finding the true nature of Self.

Also kindly note that Advaita has 2 POVs - Practical Reality (VyavahArika satya) and Absolute Reality (pArmArthika satya). The word illusion and mithyA are so strongly propogated that we often miss other things.

The two levels of truths are also shruti based. But this is another thread in itself and more explanation will derail this thread.

What I was to know is - What is Real and unreal? I will put it in another words, as unreal is often translated as mithyA, which is IMO not a correction translation.

Satya = Real = Truth
Asatya = False = ??
mithyA = in between = not eternal, appears in only one state = mithyA = ??

Which one will you translate as unreal?

I only what to know Vaishnava position, nothing?

Namaste Brahma jijnasa ji


Thinking about whether this world is real or unreal, and also about dreams, are they real or not, will not help us much in life.
Suppose that someone says "I suffer a variety of miseries and pain in life in this material world during wakefulness and dreams, and I feel the suffering of mind and body, but it's all unreal".
Is it helpful to think like that in life? "I suffer , ... I suffer, but it's all unreal" -- will not be of much help in our life. How can I feel something that does not exist?
For all the suffering there must be some basis in reality or we would not even be able to experience anything.
How can the soul who is real experience something that does not have some basis in reality? It might not in Vaishnava tradition, but matters a lot in Advaita. It makes on introvert. I am chanting OM and practising advaita since a decade. I know it's usefulness.

MithyAtva or Real nature has to be realized, else it is just empty talk. Sri Ramakrishna says that if a thorn is pierced in your feet, will the pain go away if you simply say there is no such thing as thorn ...

First you will have to take another thorn (paroksha Jnana) and remove the first thorn (Ajnana), then throw away both thorns. It is this in-between phase that people do not think seriously, but it is extremely important. It is the sadhanA kALa.

Soul, itself does not experience on it's own. It needs a body. It experiences this world through body. If body is not available, can soul feel anything? If soul can feel, enjoy this world, do karma and enjoy fruits on it's own, then there is no need to have a body. Perhaps the same soul keeps changing the body, but itself does not undergo change. MAyA (Prakruti) is constantly changing, this world is constantly changing.


The experience may be common, but intensity or effect of any incident is not same e.g. If you see an accident on road, you feel compassion, but you move on, now you recognize the the victim is your relative, now the impact of this incident is more comparatively, now if the victim is your family member, the impact is still higher. You must act and take your family member to hospital.

If a person is sleeping in gutter at the same place, for him this accident is non existent, perhaps you may think he is in sorry state, but for that person he is dreaming of himself living in palace.

So what is truth? Is the person in sorry state or is the person in a palace? Everything is relative and of changing nature. For one person what is true, is not true for another person. This is my common observation in day-2-day life.

Again, I am not putting advaita in here, else, I may say that the stock of accident, if it is real, then has to be permanent. But let it be, this is not advaita.

All I want to know Vaishnava position and then I will stop. If I do not stop, then please remind me to stop.

Last question is - Is vairagya given importance in Vaishnavism, as everything you experience is real, including dream, illusion, etc, then why is it so compelling to chant God's name? I do not see God, not know his lilA. But the 'real' worldly pleasures are experienced and I enjoy them, then what is the compelling reason to Renounce the world. Vaishnava acharyas were sanyAsin-s too. Reading books is not going to produce vairAgya, it only sharpen intellect at best, but nothing more. Perhaps, no one has seen Vaikuntha, but this world, which is an expression of Lord, is experienced daily.

Why do not people change after years of regular worship, reading shastra-s, singing and listening bhajans? SAme level of raaja-dveSa, prejudice, I see it all around me? Many times I fail to understand that why people fail to surrender to the control and sustainer of this universe. Another time, I am in pain to see this state of theirs after years of practice.

Aum

[Amrut]

Second, it is not about just reading and understanding and they are called nivartti plus vritti and until you know the girl is beautiful, you are not even going to be attracted and to be attracted fully, it is very much required to know the Greatness of the Lord by knowing His knowable majestic guna leela which in itself is the beginning and end.

Hare Krshna

Namaste,

I fully agree that there should be a greater attraction for Lord as compared to this world.

But this world is his lilA, or say his own manifestation. So how am I going to know God? by knowing this world? or is it first world, then Lord or does knowing this world meaning knowing this Lord? - Is this a right approach?

How should I 'know' Lord's divine play other than reading books.

I also agree that for a asthika, thinking should not contradict shruti.

I also realize that just like a chewing gum becomes tasteless after someone, so will this thread. Hence I think we should not take it too long.

Please answer the questions in simple way and there is no compelling reason to think rationally, just simple definitions of core concepts or point me a link that does the same.

As the answers will fall within Vaishnav sampradAya, hence I will stop here itself. Proving them rationally is not needed.

Aum

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste Indiaspirituality Amrut

Sri Ramakrishna says that if a thorn is pierced in your feet, will the pain go away if you simply say there is no such thing as thorn ...

This was exactly my point. How can the soul who is real experience something that does not have some basis in reality, something that is totally unreal? If the soul has experience of something then that something must have some basis in reality, ie that something can not be totally unreal. This is vaishnava position.
Another point: Vaishnavas say that this world can not be totally unreal because it was created by the Lord who is ultimate reality or Supreme Brahman, Lord Vishnu. In vaishnava philosophy the Lord, Vishnu, Narayana or Krishna is not a manifestation of maya, He is not illusion or unreal, but just the opposite, He is ultimate and Supreme reality or Supreme Brahman!


Soul, itself does not experience on it's own. It needs a body. It experiences this world through body. If body is not available, can soul feel anything? If soul can feel, enjoy this world, do karma and enjoy fruits on it's own, then there is no need to have a body. Perhaps the same soul keeps changing the body, but itself does not undergo change. MAyA (Prakruti) is constantly changing, this world is constantly changing.

This does not mean that the world is completely unreal. In the scriptures the world is sometimes described as unreal and sometimes as real. Dreams can also be described like that.
This tells us that the world is not entirely unreal. The world is real but it is not permanent and eternal reality. The world is not ultimate reality, it is just temporary reality. This is vaishnava position on world.


So what is truth? Is the person in sorry state or is the person in a palace? Everything is relative and of changing nature. For one person what is true, is not true for another person. This is my common observation in day-2-day life.

Again, I am not putting advaita in here, else, I may say that the stock of accident, if it is real, then has to be permanent. But let it be, this is not advaita.


While we live in this world we use and we do many things which have their foundation in the nature of this world. For example, for our own spiritual progress we use our own body to meditate, to utter the mantra, to read and listen to the Vedas, etc. Is all this real or unreal or what?
Also we study the scriptures, the Vedas. Thus the scriptures, the Vedas are a manifestation which appears in this world in the form of a book or sound that we hear. Is all this real or unreal or what? If all the manifestations which appear in this world we proclaim as unreal or illusory, then why not discard them as useless illusion? We don't discard them as useless illusion because they are not unreal! They help us in spiritual progress. This is vaishnava position.


Last question is - Is vairagya given importance in Vaishnavism, as everything you experience is real, including dream, illusion, etc, then why is it so compelling to chant God's name? I do not see God, not know his lilA. But the 'real' worldly pleasures are experienced and I enjoy them, then what is the compelling reason to Renounce the world.

Even maya or illusion is real. For example a disease is real, but that does not mean I need want to be sick forever. Nobody wants to be sick. Everyone wants to get better. Similarly, this world is a reality, a temporary reality in which souls live in the illusion that they are material body. Just because this world is real, does that means I should want to be sick forever in this world, to suffer miseries of birth and death over and over again? Vairagya (renunciation from the world) is important for spiritual progress. It can help us to achieve liberation and become mukta (liberated soul).
There are many things described in the scriptures that require acceptance by faith: soul, God and His lilas (pastimes), reincarnation, karma, Vaikuntha, liberation, ... etc.


Why do not people change after years of regular worship, reading shastra-s, singing and listening bhajans? SAme level of raaja-dveSa, prejudice, I see it all around me? Many times I fail to understand that why people fail to surrender to the control and sustainer of this universe. Another time, I am in pain to see this state of theirs after years of practice.

Obviously these people are not much advanced in spiritual life. :)
Instead to be established in the self they are rather established in the lower qualities of nature rajas (passion) and tamas (ignorance).
Is it not said in the Bhagavad Gita 7.19 (http://vedabase.net/bg/7/19/) that one surrenders unto Lord Krishna only if he is actually in knowledge, and this will happen after many births and deaths, and also such a great soul is very rare:


"After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare."

regards

[Amrut]

Namaste BJ ji,

There is no contradiction whatsoever from logical or Adviata POV, the way you have explained.

If you take vyavahArika satya (practical reality), prAtibhAsika satya (dream reality) and pArmArthika satya (absolute reality).

So even accoridng to advaita , this world is real, Ishvara creates this world, etc. Ishvara is not mAyA, but mAyA pati. This is accepted by all.

But, what we know to be Ishvara with attributes is because we are under influence under mAyA, hence we see him with attributes.

At relative / empherical level, we accept all that you have said, but when you cross mAyA, then only pure consciousness remains. It is not that Ishvara is not that, but he appears without guNa-s. This is the stand.

Like you have said, shastra-s have body are necessary for personal progress, but we all know that

1. Shastra-s are useless if you cannot get liberated through them (mere chit-chatting and vAda-vivAda)
2. After getting liberation, shastra-s are useless i.e. of no more use, as the purpose is fulfilled.

We consider this world as mithyA, is more appropriate, as we do not say this world is completely non-existence, but it is not unchanging and not eternal, nor is this body. Hence they should not be given importance as compared to Brahman which is eternal, changeless, immutable, etc. Hence comes vairAgya.

Only at appropriate level, when one completely detaches from body and mind, the world appears as mithyA, three guNa-s no more influence you.

But as I have said, the word Advaita and mithyA are almost synonymous and that mithyA is always taken as 'illusion' and non-existence that this mess is created.

I again say, if you read Tai. Up. 1/11 Shankara Bhashya or BG 15.6 shankara bhashya, then you will realize that Adi Shankara has himself said what you have said.

Anyways, I would say have concluded that to be real, it does not have to be unchanging and eternal.

I have no problem either with your logic or when compared to Advaita.

Aum

[Amrut]

Namaste,

From personal observation I have seen that just calling Brahman as SaguNa or NirguNa does not help, both have to be considered.

Hari OM

[grames]

Dear Amrut.,

Good long message but i am confused now. You are asking questions but not ready to even understand the answers that are given already but sticking to your pov. In fact, wanted to clarify for the fact that, here we are ONLY sharing the Vaishnava view as your question is to understand the Vaishnava view (and not to prove or disprove or deduct right from wrong is what i believe)


I only ask if Dream is real, then the actions must bear it's fruits? Do they as per Vaishnava sampradAya.
In the post #43 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=111959&postcount=43)i have already answered this but not sure if you took that answer as "Vaishnava" view or contesting it now. With in the dream, if there is a jurisdiction of law where Karma is counted and punished, it will be is the answer. (Since you admitted that from your Advaitic background, it is not possible for you to accept this but, from the science background, it should be acceptible as what happens in dream happens only in the dream i am not bargaining but just reminding what is vaishnava view). Law of Nature or the Karmic justice is not governed by Maya but by the Lord through Maya as per Vaishnavas and that is where your advaitic background will get in to paradox and for now, please take it as Vaishnava view. For the Q, what happens in your dream world has no bearing in the dreamers world - mostly the dream is actual reflection of your real world or world where you conscious controls your action and thoughts.

Rationality or logical thinking, depends upon the mental maturity, prakruti, etc. One person cannot think in the same way as another.
Very true and this is fact as well and i do fully agree to this statement. But, rationality should be there is the point and for whatever reason, if anyone say their belief or faith doesn't require any rational support regardless of their level of maturity and knowledge, they will fail because it is mere sentiment. It is not wrong to say, my faith is due to my father's faith and so on but at one point in the ladder, there should be rationality or divinity and with out which, we will end up being just blind goats. Such differences in the aspect, degree of knowledge, destiny and rewards, quantity of enjoyment, fulfillment all are very much detailed in the TattvaVada school of Vaishnava.


Even in Vaishnava tradition, Ishvara, his glories and his lilA are all concepts until they become experience.
Nope. They are not! Not sure why you again missed the point and they are not concepts but they are what Shruti Pramana says. Shri Madhva says, The Supreme Lord is cognizable only through the right scriptures and only Good men will comprehend that. In fact, Vedantic traditions do not ignore the Shruti paramana and the problem for you now is, you are advocating something but sacrificing the same simultaneously for argument sake and you very well know that with out Sagunatva, there is no explanation to what you call "Practicality" view in your faith and you do not consider that Sagunatva as mere concept (if you do, you have no way to progress in your own faith and do Baja Govindam please). "Experience" in Vaishnavaism is called the Bagavat Anubhava - Not Brahmanhood experience and experiencing the "Paramatma, Brahman and Bagavan is the progressive growth supplemented by the spiritual bliss for the ultimate destiny of Lord Vishnu. (Prema being the top most is another subject altogether). No where these are mere concepts but they all have strong shruti support ( i hope you have read the link for Pramana i have given as they guide you what can be means to reveal what subject and knowledge)


This is true to all. I think that just reading about lilA is not going to help and how can know the ways of the Lord? It's all faith based.
It is only for those who ignore the authority of Shruti and they alone can say it is just faith based, but since Vaishnava schools are based on Vedanta, they are Shruti based or what we call "Vedantic" schools. Rationality is not the driver but rationality cannot be compromised either and make sure this subtle difference is kept in mind. (Vaishnava schools do not believe in ascending learning and it is always the descending learning and only for ascending learning you require rationality as the driver but for descending learning, the knowledge should fit in to be rational is the point). Excerpt from Vishnu Tattva Nirnaya

The Taittiriya-sruti says: "No one who does not know the Vedas understands this great all-experiencing Atman, understanding of Whom is the way to liberation"
The Katha-sruti says: "This knowledge is neither attainable nor refutable by reasoning. Only when it is imparted by a teacher it leads to direct realization"
The Pippalada-sruti says: "Neither the senses nor inference lead to the knowing of this One. Only the Vedas do so and hence they are called "Vedas".

So, i don't want you to assume i am advocating a "Dry" rationality being everything here but being "irrational" cannot be an excuse to hide the weakness in the philosophy or thoughts.

In Advaita a person is in search of peace, completeness, Bliss and in finding the true nature of Self.
It is not very different for a Vaishnava either except for the last one... Jiva's very nature is serving & enjoying and when the jiva serve the "material" energy of Lord, it suffers due to resulting Karma and when the jiva engages in the service of Lord, it is in bliss as it will not result in Karma but Bhakthi. (Turning of the attention and engagement towards the Lord happens only when the self realizes its complete dependence on the Lord for everything including its very own existence - that is called Self Realization for a Vaishnava)

Also kindly note that Advaita has 2 POVs - Practical Reality (VyavahArika satya) and Absolute Reality (pArmArthika satya).
hmm..as of i know, Shri Shankara schools say there are three levels of reality :) and actually such proposition will not stand for either "Brahman" or Deluded "Brahman" and it is not for our arguments in this thread ( if you want to argue on these, you can open another thread - The three levels of Satya in advaita thread is for Advaitin and you won't see much contribution from Vaishnavas there). For making sense to this thread, for Vaishnavas a "real" is a real and no confusion by prefixing the real as "Practical" and Absolute etc. Same time, vaishnavas do not ignore the fact that real can be temporary or bounded by influencing factors (Explained already in detail) and such understanding can satisfactorily explain every phenomena that we experience, witness or aspiring to.

The word illusion and mithyA are so strongly propagated that we often miss other things.
Such confusion or so called clarity exists only in Advaitic schools and not in vaishnava schools. We should not try to map what is explained and understood as "real" by Vaishnava school very same as what the "Advaitic" school is believing. For you, it might be just Practical Reality but for realists, it is just real!

What I want to know is - What is Real and unreal? I will put it in another words, as unreal is often translated as mithyA, which is IMO not a correction translation.

Satya = Real = Truth
Asatya = False = ??
mithyA = in between = not eternal, appears in only one state = mithyA = ??

Which one will you translate as unreal?

What stopped you understanding the details in the message #43 which deals with this. Mithya does not have to do anything with "reality" and vaishnava schools do not utilize the Mithya in the context of eternal reality as Advaita upholds. It is paradoxical in Advaita and if the world is "Practically Real" from the 'being' experiencing the world (The jiva Anubhava or anubhava of reflected/deluded/conditioned/illusioned Brahman), then it must be real without an iota of doubt. (If the shruti is taught to ParamArthika Brahman, then Jagat can qualify for Neither Real or unreal - cos ParamArthika Brahman alone can grasp both the realities at once but there won't be anyone or anything else to teach Shruti to such Nirguna Brahman and He is Self Aware). As Jiva, you will never experience the ParamaArthika and as Nirguna Brahman, there is no experience of Jiva (at least should not be as they are mutually exclusive - again paradoxical and also against Shruti - Brahman must be knower of all experience even if He is not going to go through it or subjected to). So, the Jiva should either keep this real as real or reject it and get detached from this unreal but uphold it as un real in first place. Since, we are Jiva (at least i am 200% very sure i am only a Jiva who will never become Brahman,) the only effort we need is to accept the "practical reality" as real (no need or requirement for a ParamaArthika as that is always existing and it is not "attained") so a word with a meaning "neither real or unreal" sounds very much useless for a "Practically real" jiva like me and Shruti wasting its verbose on such things which are not attained or obtainable looks unwise. But, with out hesitation you are diluting the strength of this "practical real" as un real or neither real nor un real for no useful purpose or with out any reason and that is unacceptable.


I only what to know Vaishnava position, nothing?
Yathartham Pramanam! Read the link given for Pramana and also read the message #43 once again - Its already explained!

Btw, people started to assume vaishnava schools are "Bajana" schools alone and please be advised that, different approach to Lord Vishnu is possible and all the three forms of Yoga (Karma, Gnana and Bhatkhi) are followed with out dilution in Vaishnavaism.

Sri Ramakrishna says that if a thorn is pierced in your feet, will the pain go away if you simply say there is no such thing as thorn ...
Why it shouldn't tickle? Or give cold feeling to the feet? Or why can't it burn the skin? Why it has to pierce? Is that Jada Vastu dreaming same across all reflection of the Brahman, aka Jiva?
Again, true to Advaita of Shri Shankara, the moment you hear the MahaVakya, the Brahman should reveal and the auto-realization should be immanent but in reality, it doesn't happen even for Orthodox hard core advaitins. Ramakrishna is not Shri Shankara follower and his Advaita is not same as your advaita and do not mix up all advaita as one and same except for the conclusions. I am sure, you are not going to give up on what you have written many times in this forum that, Practical reality cannot be given up or thrown away and only when asked for WHY NOT, you will say it is Practical real but it is Neither real or unreal etc! So, the thorn is practical real and it piercing you is also practical real - So, it must be even more wise if you say, there is NO PAIN instead of there is no thorn! But, do u know why you must say there is no thorn??

Forget about your preaching of Sadhana when i have the power to throw away the thorn from mind.. oh no no...i cannot throw away the thorn from mind as that thron is non-existent but i can throw away the mind.. no no..i don't have something called mind cos i am the Brahman and NOTHING HAPPENED!

Soul, itself does not experience on it's own. It needs a body.
Thats right but context is missing. Soul does experience the material world and the body is ONLY THE MEDIA and not the experiencer itself. You are now confusing again...even advaita, the experiencer is always the Atman and not the body and body or senses are ONLY the means! (Conscious entity alone can experience and act and if you want to contest this, i think you require more learning in your own school of thought. Only the atma gets the karma and that too when the rationality with the free will is gifted and acting).

Everything is relative and of changing nature. For one person what is true, is not true for another person. This is my common observation in day-2-day life.
Advaitic confusion again. What is true to you is TRUE TO YOU and what you have witness does not becomes universal experience or witness! Period! Only when you bring in the EkaJiva, all is Brahman and no other second real idea and mess up with the "relative and apparent real", none are clear, scientific or rational but they are all explainable by the understanding of Vaishanava terms with out leaving any confusion. ( Again refer to #43 please). What you did not witness still can have its own reality in its own existence and there are so many stars in this universe that you or i ever witnessed so far but some of them are getting revealed as they find it by the adventure of science. Relativity will not have two realities from same plane and i am not even sure if you know Einstein theory on this but please do refer.

Only for you, a Real has to be permanent (not just permanent but for Advaita eternal as well)


Is vairagya given importance in Vaishnavism, as everything you experience is real, including dream, illusion, etc, then why is it so compelling to chant God's name? I do not see God, not know his lilA.
To see God and to serve Him and experience and continue in the misery free existence. All these are inspiring only when we witness that, the world is painful and really pinching, we do not have any sort of control over the nature that is controlling us and no way to win the birth, death cycle which are all real. This experience is cheap, forgoes as it comes, relative as there is happiness and pain and not permanent. ( see, i am also using the word not permanent but the sense is different). Its not about reading books as you are portraying and remember, for a Vaishnava in all sampradayas the Acharya word is final and Acharyas are showing the Path to that Mukunda as in the ladder of Acharyas, the first one is Lord Himself and no need to ask for another proof of His very own existence. The Vairagya is required as you are knowledgeable enough to know the misery of samsara as you are witnessing it and experiencing it and over coming samsara is not easy and it is the very daunting task and such effort brings the ultimate reward of Moksha!

The fake self sanctioned Gurus carry no merit or respect in the vaishnava schools and this is the logic behind why you MUST be following one of the sampradaya Acharya!


Why do not people change after years of regular worship, reading shastra-s, singing and listening bhajans?

Fakers! They are still attached to the material pleasure, Kama Krodha and Moha! They do not know the pleasure of Mukunda but falsely attaching to Mukunda still give them more power and opportunity to enjoy their sensual desires. But, your question is noble and it is sad that you are directing it towards vaishnavs but you should ask this in general because so many Anandas, Advaita Mutt seers as well are exposed in the news and attend criminal cases in the courts? How someone like them can continue to keep the trust of so many followers and show them path to any sort of realization? Does Advaita helps them? Yeah it might...once they accept that, all is FALSE or MITHYA whatever that means. Cheating has no religion my dear!

Hare Krshna!

[grames]

Dear Amrut.,

This is your personal Advaita or something else as you are going to take resort to Neither Real nor Un Real schools :)

If Practical real has to be accepted as existing because you want to act accepting such reality, the view that gives such reality has to be existing at the least! ( Like saying, you as Jiva in Vyavaharika Satyam - Sat in Satyam here means real but not temporary - Temporary status violates the Single Entity Brahman as another entity gets existence - If it is not Temporary, then it cannot be real as per your advaita - So, it must be un real - if it is un real, then we cannot agree or accept this un real as practical real and it should grant automatic nirvana - That doesn't happen so it must be neither real as long as i continue to be a jiva or even for jivan Mukthi nor un real as i have to accept it and live in accordance with it - By doing this NRNUR, i have shot down the problem of not giving any sort of answer to this classic problem of "Jagat Mithya")

But, alas this idea is not Shree Shankara's and this neither real nor un real has already met the end at the hands of Madhva schools Acharyas like Shri Jaya Tirtha, refer Nyaya Sudha and subsequent series on the Sudha!

[Amrut]

Namaste Grames,

What I am saying that PramANa-s i.e. accepting shruti as authentic is a faith. When I say God is concept, even after reading loads of shastra-s, as authentic, until we realize this truth, we just have to have faith that since shastras- say it must be true, this is true for all, not sampradAya specific. What matters is actual direct realization that up-roots doubts.

Tell me how many people, upon getting sick, remember Doctor and stand in a queue? I have seen even saitns (belonging to all sampradAya) undergoing operation. If there is faith (Yoga Kshema vahAmyaham), then why is there not such faith that 'God will cure me'? or 'I accept what God gives' Is not taking medicine against the wish of Lord. If Lord wants to keep you alive and fit, is it out of his reach? that too when you have surrendered to him or is prarabhdha stronger than Ishvara or is it that Ishvara does not change prarabhha?

My question of regular worship though asked for Vaishnava-s is true for all, including Advaita.

I have been stressing the practical application and hence Sri Ramakrishna. I am not mixing up philosophies or may be I am a Neo? :)

mAyA as neither real nor unreal is said in Panchadasi (as far as I remember). But if you separate vidyaranya from Adi Shankara then I cannot say anything.

VyavahArika satya is given for explanatory purpose, and that famous mithyA :) is given as absolute reality. Later on the real existence of the world is negated. If you mix both then I do not have anything to offer and opening a thread would meaning raining of shastra-s, which I do not want.
some concepts are for explanatory purpose. First assume they are true, later on realize they are not reality, but mithyA. As i have said these two 'realities' are shruti based. Even Yoga accepts these. Refer Patanjali yoga Sutra 2.22

I would end here as this is getting advaita v/s Vaishnava.

I suppose you are a follower of Madhava. You chose not to declare what sampradAya you follow. I would not ask again, respecting your privacy.

Thank you for giving clear picture and Vaishnava sampradAya.

Let us continue to practice our paths. Good Luck. :)

It has been nice little loong talk ;)

All taken positively.

Hari OM

[Amrut]

Dear Grames, Just one last question, sorry for opening up

there are 4 established sampradAya-s and there is fifth one, Gaudiya Vaishnava. All have different philosophies, specially in the end i.e. final destination and the status and position of Jiva.

there has to be a difference, else there wont be different concepts and hence no need to open different independent sampradAya-s, though there could be branches by great acharya-s.

So which one of the view is true?

If one is true, does it mean that it automatically disqualifies or say refutes other 4?

If I say, Sri Ramajuna refuted Advaita nd establish VA, and later on Sri Madhava Refuted Ramajuna to establish Dvaita as superior, does this mean that each founding acharya has refuted pUrvAcArya and has established in own system as supreme, each citing reference from Shruti-s and all accepting same shturi as pramANa-s.

Again, there is no uniformity in the supreme being. some say Vishnu is supreme and Krishna is his avatar and other say Krishna is original supreme personality of Godhead and so Vishnu is his avatar or manifestation and they say Krishna existed for ever from beginning to end (Lord is ever present)?

So again why the difference and strictly speaking

This type of Brain storming should be helpful, as diamond is not easily formed.

This question for my rational friend :) Consider this as shooting :D from a poor rational but a good friend - hey are we not friends?.

P.S.: Also know that I have read whatever you have typed, though I may not have replied to it. Your efforts are not in vain. I need to go offline now, very busy.

Aum

[Amrut]

Namaste Grames ji,

Please clarify one more doubt please - if you do not mind :)

it is said that Vaikuntha is final destination. If we take Arjuna e.g., he is an excellent devotee of Krishna bhagavan. The questions are

1. Why did Arjuna became angry nad was in grief when he saw his son abhimanyu die in unfair way, when bhagavan had explained him sthitapragya

2. In final years, all Pandava-s live for heaven. I suppose that Arjuna was also accompanying them and there was Draupadi and then a Dog joined them.

Why did they all went ot Svarga and not Vaikuntha, atleast Arjuna should have gone to vaikuntha.

I will not ask in such a way - DOES Vaishnavism has answers?

These are just my person doubts w.r.t Vaishnavism. Adi Shankara has given answer in his Gita Bhashya. But from I am a bit confused. If we take that Arjuna received Upadesha 3 times, this makes even tough for me to believe that why did Arjuna did not ascend to heaven.

Will this not give wrong signal or did I miss something here. Please correct me. As an asthika this is much needed explanation.

Hari OM

Amrut

P.S. I hope you have read Advaita Siddhi of Madhusudan Saraswati, who was earlier a Nyaya expert and a dvaitin ;) and you know adhyAropa apavAda, Vedanta Prakriya pratyabhigna of Swami Sacchidananda Saraswati of Adhyatma prakashan karyalaya

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

I suppose you are a follower of Madhava.

Who is Madhava?

regards

[grames]

Dear Amrut.,

Thanks for the messages and participation and i think this thread will be useful for some who has questions and also who wants to understand the answers.

You are now entering in the cyclic arguments and arguments should clear our thought process or flow but when it gets cyclic, we end nowhere. Shastra being pramana is a fact and not a faith as it is operating on a different domain and this is accepted, agreed and also proved by many seers. To be rational, you require logical or factual support for the thought or process and pramana provided the means and there it remains rational. This is not at all a question for any follower of Vedanta - The question or objection raised here, do we understand that Shastra and does it remain logically intact and conclusive or is it still operating with mere faith and that's it. The answer is different for different people and if you believe it is just a faith, be it so but for "Vaishnava", their philosophical model is rational and it is the only answer you should be satisfied with in this thread.

There is no direct realization of absolute truth with out undergoing the process of qualification be it any vedantic school and demanding such direct realization is in fact possible if and only if you go through the process of qualification as per Vaishnava Darshana. For those who haven't taken up the process or progressed in the process, there is no room for proof or any sort of realization. Shastra are not to read but to know and put in to practice and those who sincerely practice surely progress in their goal - we just follow their foot steps and this is the way of living for a Vaishnava.

For realists, the disease is real and realists do not ignore God and are aware of their Karma pala and remedies. Vaishnavas do not reject their material life but utilize it for their spiritual progress and that is why it is called a gift. Only short sighted assume a Doctor is not God sent - and only a over whelmed will believe God doesn't exist since he has to die meeting a horrible accident. For a Vaishnava, they are all deeds and play of Lord that works perfectly under His direction and Vaishnava witness the hands of God in everything. ( The idea of all loving God in the Christian sense is not the philosophy of Vaishnavas and do not mistake or bring in questions in this line of thinking)

There are only four sampradayas and only the political jokers are adding one more and not sure what is your interest in that. The four Vaishnava sampradayas surely deals with the same Bhagavan, the ultimate Aspect of the Lord but the methods, means are slightly different and they are TattvaTraya in their basic model in general. They all are true and suites different seekers and connects with the Lord in different ways! It is not promoted that, Lord will make every jiva as only a mother, only a father, only a lover etc. and the variety of eternal relationship itself is unlimited. The differences between sampradaya and with in sampradaya is not hidden or marketed as so we all are "Vaishavanava" and we all have same philosophy etc. No. Its not the case and the regardless of the difference in the philosophy, in the steps, stair case and elevator etc. they surely are leading to the lotus feet of the same Lord Vishnu.

The vaishnava schools did not come in to existence to refute "Advaita" alone and it is only false pride of some advaitin who even call Dvaita is stepping stone to Advaita etc. The four Sampradayas did not come to existence in Kali Yug and the ladder of discipline succession includes first generation of creation as well Lakshmi Herself apart from the Lord. So, the four views existed along with the creation and assuming that the business of these sampradaya is to refute each other and make their life out of it is also wrong. As much as devotion to Lord exists along with its means & ways to reach His lotus feet, the opposite also does exist where the ways & means will keep the practitioner far away even eternally from Him! It is not true that Shri Madhva refuted Shri Ramanuja and established one another Vaishnava Sampradaya and those who talk like this do not even know the names of other two sampradaya guru's and so please bear in mind, they are not competing schools but schools leading the followers to the feet of Lord Vishnu in slightly different ways and means by strictly adhering to the Veda and SD way of life.

The question of Supreme Form is very subtle and i fear, someone with Advaitic background can understand anything if i explain such here. Even for a Vaishnava who is not yet jumped deep in to the RasaVada or Bhava Schools, cannot understand these philosophical mellows. But, one thing that is undisputed and equivocally accepted is Vishnu Tattva and all forms of Lord as Vishnu Tattva with no differences at all and assuming such difference as Vishnu dvesha.

All the Sattvic are beloved to Lord Krshna - Arjuna is one such sattvic jiva - But even after hearing the complete Bagavat Gita, he did not become Jivan Muktha etc. but only his Bhakthi towards Lord expanded and he remained a Bhakta. Arjuna is first class vaishnava and he received the knowledge from Lord Krshna for dull headed souls like me and we should always be thankful to him. Does that mean, Krshna will transform arjuna in to someone extra ordinary that he did not wish for yet. Answer is, No and Krshna never interfere in the affairs of individuals until such drive is initiated and conducted and "surrendered" fully by the soul. The later on stories in MahaBharata describe lot more details on how Arjuna did not shed his ego, how his bow lost its power and left arjuna weak who cannot protect anyone etc.

The way how Lord functions is not describable and the very same Lord takes a Gajendra in to Vaikunta for a single call but leave us alone for multiple janma even after countless cry for His help. The Laws of Nature and Karma is very complex web and i am not going to write about it in this thread and sorry for that. But, such facts makes it understandable how hard it is to get the devotion towards Lord and why it is the worthiest of all that as a jiva we can ever get. Jiva's travel to Vaikuntha and to different Vyuha forms are explained in Vaishnava schools and again i am not sure how knowing such details will help you when you are not fundamentally a Vaishnava school follower or have any faith in them.

Yes. You are very much sounding like a Neo but not over blown from Shankara Advaita. I have read the writings mostly translations of MadhuSudhana's contributions and also the comparison of the famous Nyaya Amruta with Advaita SIddi. All the arguments put forth my M.S are proven untenable even before he came up with such ideas and for those who know the great stalwart in Madhva school with the name Shri Vyasa Thirta, was popular and has given the complete maze technique (or we call chess game with every possible next steps included) for upholding the TattvaVada system from any sort of assault and also for any sort of protection to Advaita from the canons of TattvaVada. If you can get hold of NyayaSudha, it will be a great treatise and Nyaya Amruta is expansion of the NyayaSudha.

http://www.nyayamruta.org/downloads/advvsnyayanew.pdf

Until someone gets initiation in to a sampradaya, they do not belong to any sampradaya and that is where i stand.

Hare Krshna

[Amrut]

Namaste


Who is Madhava?

regards


Namaste,

Madhava is Sri Madhavacharya. Just like we sat Adi Shankara and Ramanuja, and do not use any prefix (Sri) or suffix (acharya) in general talk, and is a standard practice as we wish to focus more more what they have said. this does not mean disrespect.

Grames ji Hare Krishna !

Thank you so much for all comments. Most important is the way we end, surely this has ended peacefully, with each holding up and not going beyond a point.

Just one question


There are only four sampradayas and only the political jokers are adding one more and not sure what is your interest in that.

Is not Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's schools accepted as a Vaishnava school?

I would no end up saying I agree or disagree, as this thread was to understand basics of Vaishnavism. So there is no question of agreeing or not.

This is why, before you stepped in this thread out of courtesy and because of helping nature of yours, I had just asked to explain basic concepts like reality, unreality. To know the definition, I think you do not even need to refute any system.

e.g. If the reply is that, 'real cannot produce anything that is not real and hence the cause and effect is both real, though it may be temporary' and I believe in the reply or say get convinced, then the knowledge session (I do not say discussion) ends here. If doubts arises, like dream etc, then further questions, which are actually doubts, have to be answered.

I have learned that if the question is not asked or objection is not raised, then there answer should not be given anticipating the next question / objection from the questioner. In no way I am blaming you or complaining. Everything is perfectly fine and I am still at peace, all by the grace of Guru and God.

Thank you all, Jignyasu ji, BG ji and Grames ji for all your help in making me understand Vaishnavism.

Let us all continue towards our own spiritual path. May Sriman NArAyaNa veil our ego and give us the true knowledge, the import of the veda-s.

May the great Lord Narasimha, who killed demon named Hiranyakashyap shower blessings on us.

Hiranyakashyap = hiraNya + aksha = gold + eyes or say wearing golden jewels i.e. it the one who is greedy about lust or gold or worldly matters i.e. the one who is attracted towards worldly objects and represents Ego, is destroyed by the great Lord, who is Parabrahman himself.

Hiranyakashyap and his brother represents ego and perishable body and Lord is Paramatman, Pralshad is jiva, a great devotee, who is saved from the ego.

Let our ego be annihilated by Paramatman is my prayer.

Om Namo NArAyaNa

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste Indiaspirituality Amrut

Madhava is Sri Madhavacharya. Just like we sat Adi Shankara and Ramanuja, and do not use any prefix (Sri) or suffix (acharya) in general talk, and is a standard practice as we wish to focus more more what they have said. this does not mean disrespect.

I did not think you were disrespectful, I just asked because there is a difference between Madhva and Madhava. I heard that in the past lived Advaita scholar named Madhava. In order to differentiate him from the leader of Dvaita vaishnava sampradaya called Madhva or Madhvacarya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhvacharya) I think it's better to call one Madhava and the other Madhva.


Is not Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's schools accepted as a Vaishnava school?

It is said that Sri Caitanya's tradition called Gaudiya vaishnava sampradaya is a branch of Madhvacarya's vaishnava sampradaya. Also it is said that there are only 4 vaishnava sampradayas and Sri Caitanya's tradition called Gaudiya vaishnava sampradaya being just a branch of Madhvacarya's is not one another additional fifth vaishnava sampradaya. However the fact is that Gaudiya vaishnava sampradaya is a sampradaya on its own. This can easily be seen due to the several facts: Gaudiya vaishnava sampradaya has developed into an independent tradition that has its own acaryas, has its own philosophy (which is different from Madhvacarya's Dvaita!) and has its own devotional practices (worship, temples, customs, etc) which may differ from Madhvacarya's. All that tells that it is a completely independent tradition (sampradaya), and I see no problem in calling it 5th vaishnava sampradaya.


Let us all continue towards our own spiritual path. May Sriman NArAyaNa veil our ego and give us the true knowledge, the import of the veda-s.

May the great Lord Narasimha, who killed demon named Hiranyakashyap shower blessings on us.

My small offering:


"To show them special mercy, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance." (Bhagavad-gītā 10.11)

"Therefore the doubts which have arisen in your heart out of ignorance should be slashed by the weapon of knowledge. Armed with yoga, O Bhārata, stand and fight." (Bhagavad-gītā 4.42)

regards

[Amrut]

Thank you BJ ji for explanation and quotes. BG is very very special and each sloka is a gem of it's own, though they are connected like a chain.

Actually I didnt figure this difference. I always use Vidyaranya instead of madhava (with an 'a' ;) )

Hari OM

[grames]

Amrut.,


We cannot go beyond a point for many reasons, you are not ready to see beyond what you do know in advaita so far and in fact, you were not able to understand or digest what is said here and also did not pick any single question to answer as i know they all are traditional questions against Advaita. Since, i am not interested to turn this thread to Vaishnava VS Advaita, i am putting a full stop as the quality of questions and the intend no longer sound genuine and healthy to me. Asking just questions is not considered a discussion in my opinion and as i stated earlier, do we show any sign of admitting the knowledge giving it the maximum importance up and above our so far faith? If the answer is No, then it is not a discussion but we are just typing and filling pages of HDF's. Someone who blindly believe and operate with their faith alone with out improving knowledge on their own faith are no different from a Semitic man who we consider are not qualified for the science and life style of knowing God.

If at all you are sincere with your questions, please read the link of NyayaAmruta i have given and go to chapter 2 straight away and know for the fact that, a lot more definition of Mithya was understood by Shri Vyasa Tirtha from different Advaitic schools and how all of them were dealt and proven untenable. Interestingly, the history says Shri Vyasa happens to educate (not teach) Advaita to Advaitins of his times. :). So, give yourself a chance to know more about Advaita by reading NyayaAmruta so that you can strengthen your faith first.

The reason why i am considering lack of quality is because you are mixing up and asking random questions - Its the NEO who consider S.Brahman on equal footing with N.Brahman and Shri Shankara Advaita does not have room for such things and such idea are very much condemned by Shri Shankara.

Is not Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's schools accepted as a Vaishnava school?

Who is to accept and who is to authorize? People? followers? or God? When Shri VidyaBhushana, the revered guru in this parampara clearly affiliates himself and the philosophy of his school to Shri Madhvacharya, are we even considering we are taller and more knowledgeable than the one who gave the identity of Tattva to the Gaudiya schools?

This answer is very specific to B. J here...

5th is only symbolic and not traditional so it is far more meaningful to stick to the initiation chain that originates from Shri Madhvacharya even though, Shri Chaintanya MahaPrahbu appeared and spearheaded this school to be considered another new Sampradaya itself. (it will be another long but not useful debate to discuss whether Gaudiya philosophy is new - or acceptance of the foundation pillars of all four sampradayas and churned in to one - or add-on of Rasa to the Srimadacharya's philosophy - or the loud and precious message of the Alwars etc.). At least, know for the fact that, Shri Chaitanya MahaPrabhu did not initiate anyone - it is very complex case for the 5th Sampradaya believers. :). Shri BV clearly states that,

"Those who accept the authority of Sri Krsna Caitanya but secretly do not accept this disciplic succession of spiritual preceptors are actually agents of Kali." -- Sri Mahaprabhur-siksa

I also like to provide this link where some more clarifications are given
http://gosai.com/writings/validity-of-the-gaudiya-parampara-and-madhvacarya

The above should settle some of the popular internet believes!

Hare Krshna!

[Amrut]

Amrut.,


We cannot go beyond a point for many reasons, you are not ready to see beyond what you do know in advaita so far and in fact, you were not able to understand or digest what is said here and also did not pick any single question to answer as i know they all are traditional questions against Advaita.

Namaste,

??? Was I supposed to ask questions or answer questions raised by you and why they were against advaita? Is it so important to ask questions against advaita? All I had asked were simple questions which had ended with requesting for basic text like Tatva Bodh that explains concepts from Vaishnava POV. This was before you stepped in this thread. If this is not open mindedness then what is?

I am surprised !!!

This was your first response in this thread (post #41)


I am not "Lion", I am not "Rose", I am not "Atlantic", I am neither Europe nor Asia etc etc. will never reveal what you really are! These are not called unreal description of the real but "paradoxical" and in simple words, idiotic and useless! My question is why was this statement needed.

Simply answer the real as - this and this is called real. Add that for anything to be real, it is not necessary to be permanent, so real thing can be perished. Thats it.

Anyways, thanks for the help, lets close the topic.

Hare Krishna

[grames]

What "IT IS NOT" also enjoys some merit when you explain what IS IT! The intend is not to score pointers but to make the context of it clear.

Apologies if it created any discomfort and thanks as well.

Hare Krshna!