PDA

View Full Version : Liberation



Lakshmi USA
22 March 2006, 06:00 PM
What would you exactly define Liberation. I have heard this across different discussions and somewhere I read that realisation of god is liberation.

please also share your experiences if it woudnt be too much to ask about liberation.

Sudarshan
22 March 2006, 11:56 PM
What would you exactly define Liberation. I have heard this across different discussions and somewhere I read that realisation of god is liberation.

please also share your experiences if it woudnt be too much to ask about liberation.

Liberation is the liberation from the wheel of life and death, which is a source of constant misery. Liberation is a state of bliss and consciousness.

No two religions talk of liberation in an identical way-

Advaita's liberation takes the form of two ways, one is krama mukti (gradual liberation) by moving through the higher worlds, and sadyO mukti (instantaneous liberation), which is absolute dissolution into the Brahman.

Vishsistadvaita's liberation takes the form of sayujya, which is a state of one-ness with God, but yet retaining an individuality.

Dvaita's liberation takes the form of either sAlOkya ( living in the world of Brahman), sAmIpya ( nearness to God), sArUpya( having an appearance similar to God) and sayujya.

Many western religions have only the concept of heaven, which is nothing glamorous or of lasting value to any Hindu school.

sarabhanga
23 March 2006, 02:03 AM
Namaste Sudarshan,

Vishishtadvaita considers that Jivatman is always a part of Paramatman.
Dvaita considers that Jivatman is always apart from Paramatman.

Sayujya (as the state of unity with God, but retaining individuality) is quite different in Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita.

In Vishishtadvaita, the Sayujya Jivatman is a part of Paramatman.
In Dvaita, the Sayujya Jivatman is very close (at the foot of God, or on the hand of God) but always technically apart from the Paramatman.

satay
23 March 2006, 05:19 AM
Namaste Sudarshan,

Vishishtadvaita considers that Jivatman is always a part of Paramatman.
Dvaita considers that Jivatman is always apart from Paramatman.

Sayujya (as the state of unity with God, but retaining individuality) is quite different in Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita.

In Vishishtadvaita, the Sayujya Jivatman is a part of Paramatman.
In Dvaita, the Sayujya Jivatman is very close (at the foot of God, or on the hand of God) but always technically apart from the Paramatman.

I am not against Dvaita and not being arrogant but it seems that in Dvaita we have a "dog's life" eternally!

satay

Sudarshan
23 March 2006, 06:02 AM
Namaste Sudarshan,

Vishishtadvaita considers that Jivatman is always a part of Paramatman.
Dvaita considers that Jivatman is always apart from Paramatman.

Sayujya (as the state of unity with God, but retaining individuality) is quite different in Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita.

In Vishishtadvaita, the Sayujya Jivatman is a part of Paramatman.
In Dvaita, the Sayujya Jivatman is very close (at the foot of God, or on the hand of God) but always technically apart from the Paramatman.

sayuja is very rare in Dvaita. As I understand only Sri is capable of it. Any dvaitins here may clarify otherwise.

Sudarshan
23 March 2006, 06:03 AM
I am not against Dvaita and not being arrogant but it seems that in Dvaita we have a "dog's life" eternally!

satay

Hmm, so you consider servitude to Bhagavan as "dog's life"?

Sudarshan
23 March 2006, 06:06 AM
Namaste Sudarshan,

Vishishtadvaita considers that Jivatman is always a part of Paramatman.
Dvaita considers that Jivatman is always apart from Paramatman.

Sayujya (as the state of unity with God, but retaining individuality) is quite different in Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita.

In Vishishtadvaita, the Sayujya Jivatman is a part of Paramatman.
In Dvaita, the Sayujya Jivatman is very close (at the foot of God, or on the hand of God) but always technically apart from the Paramatman.

Yes, I know that Sayujya in dvaita is different, and carries a different meaning for V.A. You are infinitely inferior to Bhagavan even in sayujya, in dvaita. Note that I did not expand the meaning of the word sayuja, becuase their sayuja is only a kind of oneness.

Namo Narayana
23 March 2006, 09:17 PM
sometimes i would like to consider god is in yourself and you can achieve your goal thru it. when you constantly pray the lord even without knowledge of vedantas , you will see that your prayers make you believe god is your mind.

contrarily sometimes i Like to believe god is great and the only one. that times i wasnt able to build my energy thru mind.

I think satay said dog's life means when you believe your mind is god it is a different feeling. it is not an insult to the god. God cannot be insulted. it is just a provision that you can raise yourself from you............
But i dont see a good taste in comparison of dogs life with being in dvaita . atleast a literal analogy like that is hard to understand. Probably only satay can explain that.

satay
23 March 2006, 10:46 PM
Hmm, so you consider servitude to Bhagavan as "dog's life"?

Ever looked at dog's life closely? A dog serves his master nicely. He wags his tail when the master sits. He licks master's feet when the master sits. He gets yelled at yet he comes back to the master sometimes with tears in his eyes but he comes back to the master.

Do you think that we exist as part and parcel of bhagwan to end up in a dog's life or is there something more to the mystery?

Gita 18.55
bhaktya mam abhijanati
yavan yas casmi tattvatah
tato mam tattvato jnatva
visate tad-anantaram

What is the meaning of 'visate' here?

Anyway, I don't see anything wrong in a dog's life if the master is bhagwan himself!
satay

Sudarshan
24 March 2006, 01:45 AM
Ever looked at dog's life closely? A dog serves his master nicely. He wags his tail when the master sits. He licks master's feet when the master sits. He gets yelled at yet he comes back to the master sometimes with tears in his eyes but he comes back to the master.

Do you think that we exist as part and parcel of bhagwan to end up in a dog's life or is there something more to the mystery?


Dvaita does not say moksha is dog's life. It just says that jiva is paratantra( dependent on the Lord) for existance. Vishsitadvaita also has the same opinion. Paratantra does not mean a slave or servant. It simply means the jiva derives his energy from the Lord. Beyond that jiva has a lot of powers and can do anything he wishes. Powers of the jiva are virtually unlimited by earthly comparisons even in dvaita.



Gita 18.55
bhaktya mam abhijanati
yavan yas casmi tattvatah
tato mam tattvato jnatva
visate tad-anantaram

What is the meaning of 'visate' here?


visati is to enter. Does not automatically imply sayujya.



Anyway, I don't see anything wrong in a dog's life if the master is bhagwan himself!
satay

Good. Why assume that you are svatantra when there is no indication of any kind? Are we able to even manage and control the very insignificant things in life? We are truly paratantras only, or we have to assume so until it can be verified in samAdhi or moksha.

sarabhanga
24 March 2006, 03:45 AM
The good man is devoted to his ever-faithful dog, and each supports the other, although the human master is always in control, because the master always knows best. The dog is the perfect example of a devotee, and his master is a Guru.

The God-man knows that he stands, by comparison with God, in exactly this same relationship.

It is no coincidence that GOD and DOG are linguistic reflexions of one another!

The natural, untamed, “Shudra” nature of wild dogs is not shameful or wrong ~ it is only natural; but no wise person brings a wild dog into polite society without very firm restraint (i.e. Ahimsa).

A dog snatched directly from the wild can be somewhat tamed, although such a dog could never be completely trusted (especially when it is left alone and the master is not watching).

A truly successful “conversion” of any wild dog into a domestic hound will only be achieved in the next generation ~ when the pups are raised in a more civilized environment with a wise and resourceful master (or “re-born in the spirit of the lord”).

The God-man waits patiently for the remains from his own Master’s table, and trusts implicitly that the Master knows best what he himself cannot understand.

When the GOD commands, the DOG responds instantly and unfailingly.

The totally devoted, but otherwise untrained, “Vaishya” puppy knows that the Master is commanding, although it really has no idea what the instructions are or what behaviour should follow them.

With time and effort, the young dog now knows what to do, and with age and experience its confidence and abilities grow, until one day that once ignorant innocent puppy is raised to be the leader of all the hounds.

And, once the community is established, this domesticated tribe of hounds becomes a completely self-training affair.

Generation after generation growing and learning and teaching the others by repeated example, and at the head of the pack there is just one dog (who is god, for his own), although every one of them knows something that all the wild dogs don’t know ~ and that is, that there is a greater authority beyond their own truly god-like pack-leader.

The true Word of the one true God is thus naturally interpreted (and only interpretable) through the wisdom of the elder ~ through the one living Guru of that family of hounds ~ and in every generation of the hounds there MUST always be an inspired experienced leader to re-present the mysterious commands from above to the lower ranks for use under present conditions, and they follow the leaders true responses and reactions to the best of their own abilities.

Jaya Guru Datta!

agyat_theunknown
28 March 2006, 08:22 AM
It is getting free from all attachments i.e. all associations of 'my' which are present in the mind, including 'my' as 'I am...'. The liberation from 'my desires' becomes obvious and hence, all vaasanas/tendencies/latencies. This is becoming free from the 'cycle of desires'. Mind will still generate desires, but when you get this realisation, you can easily let them pass. They will come and go in the mind, you as 'self' being an inactive observer. But, what about 'my need'? 'My need' is the minimum basic requirements of 'my body' to sustain life. If there is this understading - 'I am not the body', you understand 'The need is for the body'. Allow your body to fulfil its need (not desires). And yes, wait for the death for complete liberation... complete liberation from maya, the mindspace! http://spiritual-forum.net/iboard/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif

beevee
28 March 2006, 02:44 PM
Liberation as per Bivalmangala in his 'Krishna Karnamrita', is waiting with folded hands to serve that devotee who has cent-per-cent sold out to the lotus feet of Nanda-nandan, Gopala. In other words, there is a short cut for those who realize time is of the essence in this world.:)