PDA

View Full Version : Reincarnation



coolbodhi
01 April 2006, 08:01 PM
Hi,
If atma is eternal and unborn who and what keeps getting reincarnated?

Ram
02 April 2006, 01:38 PM
Namaste Coolbodhi,

Only the jivatman gets into bondage and goes through the reincarnations, while the paramatman is always free. Both are unborn though. This creation of the world is a sport engaged by God to give the souls the opportunity to attain salvation. Without this merciful offering of God, the souls that "broke" off from God, and caught in the cycle of Karma, have no chance of redemption. Hence the need to make maximum use of every birth and direct it towards God realization which frees all bondage

Your name sounds familar.:)

Singhi Kaya
03 April 2006, 03:02 PM
Hi,
If atma is eternal and unborn who and what keeps getting reincarnated?

Our Ego! .

sanju
12 April 2006, 04:33 AM
Our Ego! .can you explain what exactly ego is here

Arjuna
12 April 2006, 07:46 AM
Our Ego!

I think "ego" (personality) never reincarnate, it persishes. Being composed or dharmas and vanasas, it desintegrates after the death of the gross body. These elements are used for the formation of new "egos".
In certian sense reincarnation is to be achieved, it isn't occuring to common people. To reincarnate one has to have a "soul", some permanent and yet individual essence. Only when one becomes aware of him/herself as Consciousness, he is truely *alive* and able to persist as individual after death.

Singhi Kaya
12 April 2006, 09:17 AM
I used the term Ego loosely - ego is the most gross outward expression of the pure-"I" in us. Also called "AsmitA". This is at the end of mind. It is also not permanent, it's dissolution means we are one with cosmos. So end of birth, rebirth.

Arjuna
12 April 2006, 10:21 AM
No, asmita is not an ego. It literally means "I-am-ness" and that's it.

(Ok, i understood what U mean to say :) )

Singhi Kaya
12 April 2006, 10:27 AM
I used the term Ego loosely - ego is the most gross outward expression of the pure-"I" in us.

sigh! I really really need to work on my english

Singhi Kaya
12 April 2006, 10:34 AM
Ego is attachment to our body and many more things - Ego is a filtered down and impure reflection of asmita through mind. When one crosses various layers of mind, asmitA is the only barrier beween Jiva and so called cosmic conciousness.

-- Also there are several stages of cosmic conciousness. So views of all realized masters are not exactly equal on everything. The highest stage of cosmic conciousness is Puroshottama.

But who cares, all these are our ideas at this stage, I like them because it helps me to take rational decesions. It alows me to giv more weight to words of Krishna above anyone else even though other's may be jivan mukta or realized souls. And there are often conflicts.

coolbodhi
13 April 2006, 11:57 AM
Back to the OP, what exactly incarnates?

ramkish42
13 April 2006, 03:41 PM
Hi Cool

Unborn is unborn in real. As verily said, nithyo nithyaanaam; chethno chethanaanaam

Here you are linking two aspects.

1. Origination of Atma
2. Incarnation of Atma is life on earth.

Atma is said unborn for it is part of god, separated but not begotten by any.

This Atma incarnates on earth because of Karma. To destroy the left over karma, a soul comes back to earth, this we call reincarnation. Many ask me, how this happened in the very first. I should I do not know. For that fact nobody knows when this happened at very first. All we know is very first origination of Atma is like Infinity on one side and end of Atma permanently is another infinity on the other side. We know only what is in between these two phases.

With in these two phases, left over Karma, forces an Atma to come back to earth to destroy it left over so that it may reach god. In this process, out of own will we increase our karma balance so that we come back again for sure. Hence god came many times to show us path.

Sarva dharman parithyajya maam ekam charanam vrajeh
Aham twa sarva papebyo moksha isyami maa chuchaha

I thank for making way to quote my favourite phrase herein. If this answer is inadequate request you to be specific so that I can answer it to the best of my knowledge.

orlando
13 April 2006, 05:01 PM
Hi Cool

Unborn is unborn in real. As verily said, nithyo nithyaanaam; chethno chethanaanaam

Here you are linking two aspects.

1. Origination of Atma
2. Incarnation of Atma is life on earth.

Atma is said unborn for it is part of god, separated but not begotten by any.

This Atma incarnates on earth because of Karma. To destroy the left over karma, a soul comes back to earth, this we call reincarnation. Many ask me, how this happened in the very first. I should I do not know. For that fact nobody knows when this happened at very first. All we know is very first origination of Atma is like Infinity on one side and end of Atma permanently is another infinity on the other side. We know only what is in between these two phases.

With in these two phases, left over Karma, forces an Atma to come back to earth to destroy it left over so that it may reach god. In this process, out of own will we increase our karma balance so that we come back again for sure. Hence god came many times to show us path.

Sarva dharman parithyajya maam ekam charanam vrajeh
Aham twa sarva papebyo moksha isyami maa chuchaha

I thank for making way to quote my favourite phrase herein. If this answer is inadequate request you to be specific so that I can answer it to the best of my knowledge.

I follow Visistadvaita philosophy of Srimad Ramanuja-acharya.
According to it, the soul or jivatma is eternal and permanent. The soul has no beginning or end.Neither God Him-self has created the souls.Even the karma of jivatmans (souls) has no beginning.
Please read what Lord Krishna says inthe second chapter of Srimad Bhagavad Gita (I will use the Prabhupada's translation):
12.Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

BG 2.13: As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.

BG 2.14: O son of Kuntī, the nonpermanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course, are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons. They arise from sense perception, O scion of Bharata, and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed.

BG 2.15: O best among men [Arjuna], the person who is not disturbed by happiness and distress and is steady in both is certainly eligible for liberation.

BG 2.16: Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal [the soul] there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both.

BG 2.17: That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable soul.

BG 2.18: The material body of the indestructible, immeasurable and eternal living entity is sure to come to an end; therefore, fight, O descendant of Bharata.

BG 2.19: Neither he who thinks the living entity the slayer nor he who thinks it slain is in knowledge, for the self slays not nor is slain.

BG 2.20: For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

BG 2.21: O Pārtha, how can a person who knows that the soul is indestructible, eternal, unborn and immutable kill anyone or cause anyone to kill?

BG 2.22: As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, the soul similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones.

BG 2.23: The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind.

BG 2.24: This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same.

BG 2.25: It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable and immutable. Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body.

BG 2.26: If, however, you think that the soul [or the symptoms of life] is always born and dies forever, you still have no reason to lament, O mighty-armed.

BG 2.27: One who has taken his birth is sure to die, and after death one is sure to take birth again. Therefore, in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament.

BG 2.28: All created beings are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, and unmanifest again when annihilated. So what need is there for lamentation?

BG 2.29: Some look on the soul as amazing, some describe him as amazing, and some hear of him as amazing, while others, even after hearing about him, cannot understand him at all.

BG 2.30: O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any living being.


The Jivatmas (souls) and Paramatma (Supreme Soul) are the same thing only according to Advaita Vedanta,but not according to vaishnava philosophies like Visistadvaita.

What exactly incarnates?
Answer:the soul incarnates.

Regards,
Orlando.

coolbodhi
13 April 2006, 06:21 PM
Hi Cool

Unborn is unborn in real. As verily said, nithyo nithyaanaam; chethno chethanaanaam

Here you are linking two aspects.

1. Origination of Atma
2. Incarnation of Atma is life on earth.

Atma is said unborn for it is part of god, separated but not begotten by any.

This Atma incarnates on earth because of Karma.

My question is, if Atma is unborn what keeps taking birth?

Doesn't incarnation mean rebirth? If Atma is unborn meaning it never had a birth how can it then have a rebirth?

coolbodhi
13 April 2006, 06:23 PM
I What exactly incarnates?
Answer:the soul incarnates.

Regards,
Orlando.

If incarnation means rebirth then how can soul have a rebirth when it never had a birth to begin with?

rkannan1
13 April 2006, 06:32 PM
If incarnation means rebirth then how can soul have a rebirth when it never had a birth to begin with?

That is not what he says to my knowledge.

The word "incarnate" refrs to transmigration of souls here.

That is, the soul does not get (re)created here, but that soul takes a material body and is born. This is called as reincarnation.

sarabhanga
14 April 2006, 12:27 AM
Namaste Ramkish,

Unless the separation of Jivatman and Paramatman is eternal, the separation must be born and the separated Jivatman cannot be unborn.

If the Jivatman and Paramatman have always been separated and must remain so forever, then this goes against very much Shruti.

rkannan1
14 April 2006, 12:42 AM
Namaste Ramkish,

If the Jivatman and Paramatman have always been separated and must remain so forever, then this goes against very much Shruti.

Which Sruti ? Does it not depend on the interpretation ?

To my knowledge there is no Sruti which says Jivatman and Paramatman are identical.

sarabhanga
14 April 2006, 05:28 AM
Namaste Kannan,

If the undivided Brahman is Aja, and the divided Jiva is also Aja, then Dvaita is eternal and Advaita cannot exist. And the non-existence of Advaita certainly goes against very much Shruti ~ the Mandukyopanishad, for example.

Dvaita philosophy belongs with Jativada, whereas Advaita philosophy belongs with Ajativada.

Advaita mixed with Jativada gives some form of Vishishtadvaita, while Dvaita mixed with Ajativada makes nonsense of both Veda and Vedanta.

If the Purusha has always been divided, then Prajapati’s Atma-Yajna was superfluous!

rkannan1
14 April 2006, 10:16 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga,


Namaste Kannan,

If the undivided Brahman is Aja, and the divided Jiva is also Aja, then Dvaita is eternal and Advaita cannot exist. And the non-existence of Advaita certainly goes against very much Shruti ~ the Mandukyopanishad, for example.
Mandukya does not talk about Jiva, it talks about Brahma.


Dvaita philosophy belongs with Jativada, whereas Advaita philosophy belongs with Ajativada.

Advaita mixed with Jativada gives some form of Vishishtadvaita, while Dvaita mixed with Ajativada makes nonsense of both Veda and Vedanta.
This is advaita's view, need not be necessarily right.


If the Purusha has always been divided, then Prajapati’s Atma-Yajna was superfluous!
Purusha in Purusha Sukta refers to Brahma(n) and not the Jiva.

ramkish42
14 April 2006, 11:33 AM
Hi

I think Cool's question is answered by Shri R Kannan.

Now that you had raised a query, let me answer that

This query subtly deals with bhedaabheda theory. Separation of Jiva and Parama is eternal and Unity of Jiva and Param is eternal again. Thus this verse is born

poornamathaha poornamitham ....
........sishyathe

I do not know whether I will able to explain with details of this world, but let me try.

Let me take the very usage of our words. WE say My hand, My legs, (My hand pains etc)so on and so forth. This clearly demarkates two things - bheda of Mine vis-a-vis others and bheda of what is mine vis-a-vis myself. As the phrase goes, you are not your hand, but still your hand is part of you, at the same time you will exist even without your hand, however, you hand may not exist without you. (if this sounds confusing, sorry for that)

This is subtle example of bheda - abheda theory

Otherwise, wise to say is body and soul theory. All jivas are different form Parama in the sense, soul is different from body. They are part of Parama, as body is a part of parama.

Many ask me why is this Irony? I thank them for not seeing this as fallacy prima facie. We are talking about Omnipotent and Omni present functions of god here, hence, if you say there is nothing, I have to respond back saying, god appears as nothing in that part. This is because the whole bhrahmaanda is part of Lord, and he has so many such parts, hence there is no place that is devoid of god.

One more thing I would like to add here, which is offline to this topic
Can I, by any means, get a email of replies posted for threads I am involved in or an indication that reply is posted. If moderator can look into this I would be much grateful

nekozuki
15 April 2006, 10:21 AM
People always ask "How do I get past life memories"? The thing with me is that they will spontaneously happen. Like if I hear a certain sound it will trigger a memory that is not a memory of this life, it works in post traumatic stress patients also. Could sound be the key to unlocking your past?

Singhi Kaya
15 April 2006, 10:49 AM
Do you remember your pastlife? or get memories which are clearly past life?

nekozuki
15 April 2006, 10:58 AM
The memories I get from hearing a certain sound are bits and pieces. There's one where I'm on a green hill with my father in that life and he's talking to a soldier, the time is in the Roman era. The other one is where there is nothing but desert and I'm just flying around O_O I could never make much sense out of that one. I've had a dream where I was in India and I remember a woman who was half snake, weird isn't it? It was a little too realistic to be "just a dream" although I think the nagini was symbolic. The tidal wave dream I will mention in the Atlantis thread.

orlando
15 April 2006, 02:43 PM
People always ask "How do I get past life memories"? The thing with me is that they will spontaneously happen. Like if I hear a certain sound it will trigger a memory that is not a memory of this life, it works in post traumatic stress patients also. Could sound be the key to unlocking your past?

I hope my reply will interest you.
In Yoga-sutra,chapter 2,verse 39,Patanjali says:
39. When he is fixed in non-receiving, he gets the memory of past life.
Commentary by Swami Vivekananda to this verse:
When a man does not receive presents, he does not become beholden to others, but remains independent and free. His mind becomes pure. With every gift, he is likely to receive the evils of the giver. If he does not receive, the mind is purified, and the first power it gets is memory of past life. Then alone the Yogi becomes perfectly fixed in his ideal. He sees that he has been coming and going many times, so he becomes determined that this time he will be free, that he will no more come and go, and be the slave of Nature.

In chapter 3,verse 18,Patanjali says:
18. By perceiving the impressions, (comes) the knowledge of past life.
Commentary of Swami Vivekananda to this verse:
Each experience that we have, comes in the form of a wave in the Chitta, and this subsides and becomes finer and finer, but is never lost. It remains there in minute form, and if we can bring this wave up again, it becomes memory. So, if the Yogi can make a Samyama on these past impressions in the mind, he will begin to remember all his past lives.

Note that Chitta means mind.
I used the translation at http://www.yoga-age.com

Regards,
Orlando.

nekozuki
15 April 2006, 03:30 PM
hmmmm that is very interesting :) Thank you Orlando.

sarabhanga
16 April 2006, 03:26 AM
Namaste Kannan,

So when the Mandukya states "This Atma is Brahma", you would read merely "This Brahma is Brahma"?

And when it states "He who knows this merges his self in the Self", you would read "He who knows this merges Brahma in Brahma"?

I do not disagree with the sentiment, but there is more to it than that.

And Prajapati divided His own Paramatma in order to create the manifest diversity of Jivatmanah ~ and if one Paramatma and many Jivatmanah have always existed, then Prajapati had no reason for His original Self-Sacrifice!

rkannan1
16 April 2006, 09:51 PM
Namaste Kannan,

So when the Mandukya states "This Atma is Brahma", you would read merely "This Brahma is Brahma"?
The upanishad starts with the explanation of Omkara as sarvam(Brahma or Purna), trikaalaatitam(akshara) etc. Then it goes on to explain more about this Brahman denoted by Omkara.

The word Brahma denotes Purnatva. The word Atma denotes the controller of all else. This same Brahma is then called in this context as the inner controller of all else by the verse ayamaatmaa Brahma. In the same verse that identity of that inner controller and Brahma is also established.

Your argument is not convincing for this same upanishad in the previous verse uses words like Aksharam, trikaalaatitam etc. to describe Brahma. Similarly AtmA(controller of all else) is used in context to describe the same Brahma.

The whole context is explanation of OMkara ie. Brahma, where Jivas have no place at all.


And when it states "He who knows this merges his self in the Self", you would read "He who knows this merges Brahma in Brahma"?

I do not disagree with the sentiment, but there is more to it than that.
The word used is samvisatyAtmanAtmAnam ya evam veda, ya evam veda

Note the root Vis, which means "to enter" and NOT "merge".

It means "those who know thus, by his self, ie. mind which is unattached to sense objects, enters(not merges) into the AtmA(Brahma) ie. obtains Mukti".

This explanation is more logical keeping with the context of the Upanishad. The whole subject of this Upanishad is Brahma(OMkara) and not Jiva.


And Prajapati divided His own Paramatma in order to create the manifest diversity of Jivatmanah ~ and if one Paramatma and many Jivatmanah have always existed, then Prajapati had no reason for His original Self-Sacrifice!
Can you please quote the context.

ramkish42
18 April 2006, 02:04 PM
Namaste Kannan,

So when the Mandukya states "This Atma is Brahma", you would read merely "This Brahma is Brahma"?

And when it states "He who knows this merges his self in the Self", you would read "He who knows this merges Brahma in Brahma"?

I do not disagree with the sentiment, but there is more to it than that.

And Prajapati divided His own Paramatma in order to create the manifest diversity of Jivatmanah ~ and if one Paramatma and many Jivatmanah have always existed, then Prajapati had no reason for His original Self-Sacrifice!

Points suggested by Shri R Kannan is tough for any ordinary person like me, hence I present what I understand from my gurus.

1. This Atma is Brahma - refers to gunas and not to swarupa aikiya. Most of guna vishesha attributed to Atma is found in Brahma, hence guna vishesha is depicted in such phrases

2. He who knows this merges his self in the Self - This calls for idea of soul - god relationship.

Advaitins feel - soul is god but other feel, soul is part of god - is related with body - soul relationship. Like we have a body and soul, same way, our souls form body of god, - this is further explained by Part and whole idea - being body of god, our souls are mere parts of god. If the question arises, whether size of god diminishes as the division of soul-god happens, then Isha answers it with poornamathah peace sloka saying infinity remains as infinity.

Thus the knower merges his self in the self, meaning reaches god

3.
And Prajapati divided His own Paramatma in order to create the manifest diversity of Jivatmanah ~ and if one Paramatma and many Jivatmanah have always existed, then Prajapati had no reason for His original Self-Sacrifice
I think my previous point will answer this well.

sarabhanga
20 April 2006, 04:06 AM
Namaste Kannan,

So Brahma means “fullness”; and Atma means “controller of all else” and also “Brahma”?

brahman can actually mean “growth, expansion, evolution, development, swelling of the spirit or soul, pious effusion or utterance, outpouring of the heart in worshipping the gods, prayer, the sacred word, the Veda, a sacred text, a text or Mantra used as a spell, the sacred syllable Om, religious or spiritual knowledge, holy life, the one self-existent impersonal Spirit, the one universal Soul (or one divine essence and source from which all created things emanate or with which they are identified and to which they return), the Self-existent, the Absolute, or the Eternal (not generally an object of worship but rather of meditation and knowledge)”.

Fullness is a possible result of expansion, but this is secondary.

Atman is “the breath; the soul or principle of life and sensation; the individual soul, self, or abstract individual; essence, nature, character, or peculiarity; the person or whole body considered as one and opposed to the separate members of the body; the body; the understanding, intellect, or mind; the highest personal principle of life; effort or firmness; the sun or fire; or a son”.

And “the controller of all else” is also secondarily derived as an implication of the primary meanings.

This abstract individual is the Absolute; this breath is expansion; this individual soul is the one universal Soul; this essence is the one self-existent impersonal Spirit; this whole body is the Veda; this understanding is spiritual knowledge; this effort is worship; this fire is the one divine essence and source, from which all created things emanate or with which they are identified, and to which they return; this Sun is the Eternal; this son is the Father; and this Jivatman is the Paramatman ~ all of these are valid interpretations.

“This Brahman is Brahman” is correct but redundant; and “this controller of all else is the fullness” is at best obscure!

saMvish means “to approach near to, associate or attach one’s self to something”, “to enter together or enter into something”, “to merge one’s self into something”, “to lie down, rest, or repose in or upon something”, “to sleep with something or someone, or to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with someone”, “to sit down with something or someone”, “to engage in or have to do with something”, or “to place or lay together or on, or bring to something or somewhere”.

Knowing thus, he approaches the Self by his own self; he associates his own self with the Self; he attaches his own self to the Self; he enters into the Self by his own self; he enters his own self together with the Self; he merges into the Self by his own self; he rests his own self on (or in) the Self; he seats his own self with the Self; he engages with (or in) the Self by his own self; and he brings his own self to the Self ~ all of these are valid interpretations.

And what is it “to merge”?

Merge means “to dip, plunge, or immerse (especially oneself) in something”, “to incorporate or embody one item in a greater or superior one”, “to cause something to be or to be absorbed into something else, so as to lose its own character or identity”, “to join, blend, gradually combine, or amalgamate in (or into or with) something”, or “to be absorbed and disappear”.

And thus: he immerses his own self in the Self; he incorporates or embodies his own self in the Self; he loses his own self in the Self; he joins his own self with the Self; he amalgamates his own self into or with the Self; he absorbs his own self in the Self; and his own self disappears in the Self ~ and all of these are valid interpretations!

The context of the Purusha’s original Atma-Yajna is in Creation, and the first subdivision of a diversity of particular souls from the one unborn and eternal universal Soul.

Before the one and only loaf can sustain a multitude of mouths, it must first be divided in the ritual process of Self-Sacrifice (or Atma-Yajna)!

ramkish42
22 April 2006, 09:40 AM
“This Brahman is Brahman” is correct but redundant

Shri Sarabhanga (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/member.php?u=5)ji

I reasonably understand this is about tatvamasi. Request you to consider the decipheration as suggested by Shri Madhavaacharya and Shri Raghavendra Swami as atatvamasi svethakethoithi and comment on it pls

Shall we be learned by your grace

Jai shree krishna

rkannan1
22 April 2006, 11:35 PM
Namaste Kannan,

So Brahma means “fullness”; and Atma means “controller of all else” and also “Brahma”?

Namaste Sarabhanga,

I think I made this clear already. Just like the usage of words like trikaalaatitam(beyond time), aksharam(indestructible) to describe Omkara(Brahma), so is the word AtmA(controller of all else) used here. Also the oneness of Paramatma is made clear in this verse ayamaatmaa Brahma. That is all. There is no mention of Jivatma anywhere.

Purnatva(Brahma) refers to fullness ie property of being self-sufficient in every way.

As for your statement, there is no question of redundancy here.

rkannan1
22 April 2006, 11:46 PM
Namaste Kannan,

saMvish means “to approach near to, associate or attach one’s self to something”, “to enter together or enter into something”, “to merge one’s self into something”, “to lie down, rest, or repose in or upon something”, “to sleep with something or someone, or to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with someone”, “to sit down with something or someone”, “to engage in or have to do with something”, or “to place or lay together or on, or bring to something or somewhere”.

Knowing thus, he approaches the Self by his own self; he associates his own self with the Self; he attaches his own self to the Self; he enters into the Self by his own self; he enters his own self together with the Self; he merges into the Self by his own self; he rests his own self on (or in) the Self; he seats his own self with the Self; he engages with (or in) the Self by his own self; and he brings his own self to the Self ~ all of these are valid interpretations.

And what is it “to merge”?

Merge means “to dip, plunge, or immerse (especially oneself) in something”, “to incorporate or embody one item in a greater or superior one”, “to cause something to be or to be absorbed into something else, so as to lose its own character or identity”, “to join, blend, gradually combine, or amalgamate in (or into or with) something”, or “to be absorbed and disappear”.

And thus: he immerses his own self in the Self; he incorporates or embodies his own self in the Self; he loses his own self in the Self; he joins his own self with the Self; he amalgamates his own self into or with the Self; he absorbs his own self in the Self; and his own self disappears in the Self ~ and all of these are valid interpretations!

The context of the Purusha’s original Atma-Yajna is in Creation, and the first subdivision of a diversity of particular souls from the one unborn and eternal universal Soul.

Before the one and only loaf can sustain a multitude of mouths, it must first be divided in the ritual process of Self-Sacrifice (or Atma-Yajna)!

This is all speculation and extrapolation. There is no need to presume advaitic sense of moksha at all.

The verse just says that jivatma enters into Paramatma.

Again I stress, the root vis means "to enter". Where is the question of merging ? If you interpret it as merging, then it is your forcible extrapolation.

TruthSeeker
28 April 2006, 03:51 AM
Hi,
If atma is eternal and unborn who and what keeps getting reincarnated?

If you knew the answer to the question, you wont reincarnate. In short, no person in the world knows an answer to this. Those who know cease to exist here.:)

Better to focus on what to do to avoid getting reincarnated, than to try to probe into its cause which cannot be found.

orlando
28 April 2006, 06:00 AM
If you knew the answer to the question, you wont reincarnate. In short, no person in the world knows an answer to this. Those who know cease to exist here.:)

Better to focus on what to do to avoid getting reincarnated, than to try to probe into its cause which cannot be found.

Namaste.
Dear TruthSeeker,every sampradaya has its own explanation.And so its cause can be found.
We get reincarnated because of our karma!It is so simply!!And it is the jiva (soul) that gets reicarnated.Again it is so simply!!
Please don't turn a simply topic in an x-file! :)
I belong to Ramanuja-sampradaya.According to it,the karma is without beginning.Even the jiva (soul) is without beginning.According to my sampradaya,one can obtain Moksha only by prapatti (surrender) to Sriman-Narayana.
You said "If you knew the answer to the question, you wont reincarnate."
This is not true.Even if one knows what reincarnates,that doesn't mean that one knows also how to avoid to reincarnate.
I request you to not turn a simply topic in an x-file! :D
The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (5.9) says how a soul is:

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

"When the upper point of a hair is divided into one hundred parts and again each of such parts is further divided into one hundred parts, each such part is the measurement of the dimension of the spirit soul."

In the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (3.1.9) the measurement of the atomic spirit soul is further explained:

eṣo 'ṇur ātmā cetasā veditavyo
yasmin prāṇaḥ pańcadhā saḿviveśa
prāṇaiś cittaḿ sarvam otaḿ prajānāḿ
yasmin viśuddhe vibhavaty eṣa ātmā

"The soul is atomic in size and can be perceived by perfect intelligence. This atomic soul is floating in the five kinds of air (prāṇa, apāna, vyāna, samāna and udāna), is situated within the heart, and spreads its influence all over the body of the embodied living entities. When the soul is purified from the contamination of the five kinds of material air, its spiritual influence is exhibited."

orlando
28 April 2006, 06:03 AM
I hope you already know what Srimad Bhagavata Purana is.Please read what Lord Kapila,incarnation of Lord Vishnu,says in Srimad Bhagavatam,Canto 3,Capitolo 31.By http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto3/chapter31.html
(1) The Supreme Lord said: 'Of one's karma and under divine guidance does the living entity through the particle of semen of a man enter the womb of a woman to dwell there for obtaining a body. (2) On the first night the sperm and ovum mix, at the fifth night there is a bubble and in about ten days it is thereafter like a plum, lump of flesh or an egg. (3) Within a month a head appears and after two months limbs like arms and feet do form; nails, [the beginnings of] hair, bones, skin, reproductive organs and the apertures have there appearance within three months. (4) In about four months do the seven ingredients separate [body-fluids and other elements], in five months do feelings like hunger and thirst take place and in six months does the fetus start to move around in the amnion [males from the right, females from the left it is said]. (5) From the nutrition taken from the mother, the body of the fetus grows staying in that impossible hollow, whereabout stool and urine form a breedingplace for germs. (6) All the time aching for food, it is, being so tender, affected by infestations and so suffers with all its body a great deal residing there, moment after moment falling into unconsciousness. (7) Because of the excessive bitterness, heat, pungency, saltiness, dryness, the sour etc. of the food taken by the mother, it is in every limb affected feeling pain. (8) Enclosed by the amnion in that place surrounded by the intestines it lies with its head in its belly arched with a bent neck and back. (9) Like a bird in a cage with no freedom of movement, when it is lucky, it still remembers what has happened in all its hundreds of births, of which, remembering such a long time, it may sigh; what peace of mind can it then achieve? (10) From the seventh month on being endowed with consciousness it is pushed down though by the pressure of labor not being able to keep that place, just like the worm coming from the same belly.

(11) The frightened living entity bound to its seven constituents [nails, skin, fat, flesh, blood, bone, marrow], then faltering, with folded hands and words of prayer appeals to the Lord who placed him in the womb. (12) The human soul says: 'May He protect me who protects the whole universe in accepting different forms, walking the earth with His lotus feet - let me take refuge unto that shelter that will take my fears away; unto Him who deemed this untrue condition was what I deserved. (13) I, the pure soul, covered by the gross consisting of the elements, the senses and the mind, in its being bound to its activities, has fallen into this state of delusion [mâyâ]. Let me offer my obeisances so that I may keep to the completely pure and changeless One of unlimited knowledge who resides in the heart of the repentant. (14) I, unfit for it, separated by the covering of this material body made of the five elements with its senses, material preferences, sense-objects and ego, am offering my obeisances unto You, the Supreme Person transcendental to material nature and its living entities, who's glories are not obscured by a material body. (15) By the deluding quality of Your outer appearance is this body through the modes and the karma bound to wander on its path in repeated birth and death, suffering considerably with a spoilt memory; may again this entity realize Your true nature. How else would divine mercy be found? (16) Who else but the divinity of You, that as a partial representation dwells in as well the animate as the inanimate, would give the knowledge of past, present and future? Unto You, whom the living souls are pursuing on the path of fruitive activities to be freed from the threefold miseries [caused by oneself, nature and others], we must surrender. (17) Embodied within the abdomen of another body, fallen into a pool of blood, stool and urine and strongly scorched by gastric fire, is this body from that place desiring to get out, counting its months of when it as person of only a miserable intelligence, will be released, o Lord. (18) As one being only ten months old I was by You, o Lord so full of mercy, awakened. What else can I do but to pray with folded hands in return to thank in gratitude for that incomparable mercy of indeed You alone who are the refuge of the fallen ones ? (19) This living entity can only see from its bondage to the seven layers of matter [23-29:40-45] what is agreeable and disagreeable, but being endowed with another body of selfcontrol within myself, I indeed am able to recognize You, the oldest of the personal of me, the internal guidance, seen as residing within the heart as well as outside. (20) Although I my self, Almighty One, having to live with many miseries outside of this abdomen, do not wish to depart for that pitfall, I will have to live according the false identification of this continual cycle of birth and death wherein one who goes there is captured by Your Mâyâ. (21) Therefore will I, not agitated any longer, deliver myself quickly from the darkness, with myself as a friend, indeed for another time, by putting my mind on the feet of protection and thus save me from this plight of having to enter so many wombs.'

(22) Kapila said: 'Thus desiring from within the womb, does the ten-month's old living entity extol the Lord at the time of being pushed downwards by the pressure of labor to take birth. (23) Because of that pressure its head is turned downwards and, suddenly with great difficulty suffering, it comes out breathless bereft of all memory. (24) Like a worm coming down on the earth, smeared with blood, it moves its limbs and cries loudly, having lost the wisdom in reaching the opposite state. (25) Not understanding to the wish of others has he, being maintained by his folks and unable to refuse, fallen into circumstances he did not wish for. (26) Laying down in fouled linen [dirty diapers etc.] is the child pestered by germs [suffering rashes on its body] it cannot scratch away from its limbs, not being able to sit, stand or move around. (27) Flies, mosquitos, bugs and other creatures bite the baby its tender skin and being just like vermin pestered by other vermin, it, deprived of wisdom, cries. (28) This way undergoing infancy in distress and even in its childhood out of its ignorance not achieving what it wants, is its anger kindled and is it overtaken by sorrow. (29) With the false of the developing body, it, because of that anger, develops at the cost of the soul enmity as a lusty person being destructive towards other lusty people. (30) Living constantly in the body made of the five elements it accepts the ignorant of the nonpermanent of I and Mine and is thus of a foolish resolve. (31) Engaged in actions in the service of the body, is the soul, bound thereto, going repeatedly for another life in the material condition and thus pursuing the physical, because of that bondage to the dark motives of fruitive action, is a hindrance formed [the socalled kles'as]. (32) If, with the unrighteous on his path, he associates endeavoring for the pleasure of his genitals and stomach, does the living entity enter the darkness as before. (33) Thus associated he loses his sense of truth, purity, compassion and gravity; his spiritual intelligence, prosperity, modesty and his good name; his mercy, control of mind and senses and his fortune.

orlando
28 April 2006, 06:04 AM
(34) With coarse fools bereft of selfrealization one is of bad association and one should not try to make it with the pitiable women and their dancing dogs. (35) No association of a man gives an infatuation and bondage to other things like that of a man attached to women or a fellowship of men attached to women. (36) The father of man [Brahmâ] bewildered at the sight of his own daughter as a stag ran shamelessly to her when he saw her in the form of a deer [compare 3-12-28]. (37) Except for the wise Nârâyana, there is among all the living entities born from Brahmâ indeed no male who's intelligence is not distracted by Mâyâ in the form of a woman.

(38) Behold the strength of My Mâyâ in the shape of a woman that even makes the conquerors of the world follow her to her heels by the mere movement of an eyebrow. (39) One who aspires to reach the culmination of yoga should never live together with a woman; they say that to the selfrealization obtained by rendering service to Me, cohabiting with women is the gateway to hell for such a one. (40) The woman created by God represents Mâyâ slowly encroaching, which must be regarded, like a dead well covered by grass, as death for the soul. (41) She, who from being attached to women became a woman, thinks, due to the illusion of My mâyâ, that coming to the form of a man will bring her wealth, progeny and a house. (42) She herself should [similarly] consider the mâyâ of it, consisting of her husband, children and house, as the death brought about by His authority that is alike the singing of the hunter [compare the verse in the Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu 1.2.255 that allows association of the sexes in a devotional setting]. (43) On account of the body possessed by the living entity, it so wanders from one world to another, incessantly taking pleasure in its material activities. (44) So verily it attains to a body suitable, made of the material elements, the senses and the mind; when that comes to an end it is called death but when it manifests it is called birth. (45-46) As the perception of the fixed place of an object becomes impossible from a rigid view, so too does one take birth from the misconception of considering the body to be oneself. Of both the sight and the seeing is the seer then indeed not able to perceive, just like the way the eyes are not capable of seeing all the different parts of an object at a time. (47) On account of death one should not be terrified, be miserly or eager for material gain; realizing the true nature of the living being one should on this planet move steadfast and free from attachment. (48) One should relate to this world arranged by Mâyâ, in relegating the body to see it right through reason, strengthened by devotional service in detachment.'
Regards,
Orlando.

TruthSeeker
28 April 2006, 07:26 AM
Different views can be considered merely as the opinions of different sages. Since there are contradictory views, accepting a particular view is subject to your predilections only.

Since you said that each sampradaya has its own explanation, it follows that it need not be the absolute truth. Regarding the theory of Karma, it has its own drawbacks. Can you please explain how the first karma ( brushed off as beginningless) came about?

I did not really mean that a cause cannot be found. Human intellect is simply insufficient to understand the nature of this beginningless Karma. By the time you have sufficient spiritual maturity to understand it, you probably cease to exist in the world as well....

orlando
28 April 2006, 08:05 AM
You asked:"Can you please explain how the first karma ( brushed off as beginningless) came about?"
According to my sampradaya,there is no "first" karma because it is,as I earlier said,without beginning.The jivas (souls) are uncreated like God Him-self.
The jivas exist because God exist.
By http://www.ramanuja.org/intro.html
Brahman also stands in relation to the universe and the individual souls as the Self of each, providing the basis for their reality. As such, Brahman has matter and individual souls as His body, and is therefore the Supreme Being in whom all reality is comprehended. All that we see is but a spilling from the plenitude of His glorious, all-pervasive essence. This is why the favorite devotional name for God among Sri Vaishnavas is Narayana -- He in whom all beings rest.

Regards,
Orlando

TruthSeeker
28 April 2006, 11:24 AM
According to my sampradaya,there is no "first" karma because it is,as I earlier said,without beginning.The jivas (souls) are uncreated like God Him-self.
The jivas exist because God exist.


But the objection still stands.All sampradayas accept jivas and karma to be beginningless. Who do you think is the cause of the first karma - God or jiva? Dont you consider jiva to be an amsa of Brahman, and if so, how could a part of God be sinful.(having karma)?

If you still claim that there is no first karma, that is equivalent to saying that you do not know the answer. Secondly, do you really beleive that you have been transmigrating for an infinite period of time from a beginningless past? What makes you think a God that did this or alllowed this has a quality called mercy, a quality of God so highly emphasied in your sampradaya?


Honestly, I do not find any non advaitic explanation satisfy me. Holding this phenomenon to be grimly real tantamounts to making God cruel, or if it is the jiva's fault to be sinful for an infinite(or even a finite) period of time, then it cannot be divine as you suggest. The phenomenon can be understood only be properly understanding the concept of time, which is not strictly real according to advaita.

orlando
28 April 2006, 11:45 AM
But the objection still stands.All sampradayas accept jivas and karma to be beginningless. Who do you think is the cause of the first karma - God or jiva? Dont you consider jiva to be an amsa of Brahman, and if so, how could a part of God be sinful.(having karma)?

If you still claim that there is no first karma, that is equivalent to saying that you do not know the answer. Secondly, do you really beleive that you have been transmigrating for an infinite period of time from a beginningless past? What makes you think a God that did this or alllowed this has a quality called mercy, a quality of God so highly emphasied in your sampradaya?


Honestly, I do not find any non advaitic explanation satisfy me. Holding this phenomenon to be grimly real tantamounts to making God cruel, or if it is the jiva's fault to be sinful for an infinite(or even a finite) period of time, then it cannot be divine as you suggest. The phenomenon can be understood only be properly understanding the concept of time, which is not strictly real according to advaita.

I really beleive that I have been transmigrating for an infinite period of time from a beginningless past.
I still state that Lord Vishnu is mercyful.
We jivas (souls) are made only for His personal pleasure.In short,we are like puppets in the hand of a puppet master.
In the material world there is chaos and suffering because the Lord Him-self wants in that way.A puppet master has the right to do what he wants with his puppets.The creation,the sustainement and the destruction of the universe is a mere leela (play) for the Lord.However it is not a cruel sport.
Because a person enjoy or suffers only according to his karma.As I earlier said we jivas are exist for His personal pleasure.
In his commentary to Vedanta-sutra(1.1.1.),Srimad Ramanuja-Acharya says:
MAY my mind be filled with devotion towards the highest Brahman, the abode of Lakshmi who is luminously revealed in the Upanishads; who in sport produces, sustains, and reabsorbs the entire Universe; whose only aim is to foster the manifold classes of beings that humbly worship him.


You could say that Lord is not mercyful at all.We Sri vaishnava and other vaishnava reply that we are not able to understand His leela (play).
Regards,
Orlando.

TruthSeeker
28 April 2006, 12:13 PM
Hmm, so you are saying that all this for the pleasure of God? Really? All of us agree that God has no unfulfilled desires(Aptakama), so what pleasure can he derive from this? Especially when watching the jiva suffer in ignorance? If you are in bondage due to the desire of God, are you required to do something to liberate yourself or does it happen according to the whims and fancies of the creator?

Inability to understand the play of God, is not such a good explanation, you know. That is why I said earlier that it is better to focus on what should be done to liberate oneself rather than focus on finding out why we are in bondage. You are here due to your karma, but the cause of karma itself is untraceable.

orlando
28 April 2006, 01:55 PM
Namaste.
Well,I just take literally what my sampradaya teach me.My sampradaya's asnwers already satisfy me.
Regards,
Orlando.

TruthSeeker
28 April 2006, 03:07 PM
That is good. People must understand that others are also quite content with the answers provided by their sampradayas, and it is quite irritating when an opposing beleif is shoved down your throat, or your own beleif thrashed. They say that bullies are the biggest cowards. Those who raise most hue and cry about other faiths are also the most sensitive people and get deeply hurt when their own beleifs are attacked.

Probably you are born in Vaishnava family and was brought up like that. Most people adopt the religion of their parents. In my view this is perfect. My parents are not religeous and I have not been exposed to any religion. So I do not really know which sampradaya I belong to, so I study all beleifs and have my own unbiased conclusions. I am very secular by nature and varied beleifs are no problem for me. All debates based on superiority of various Gods or philosophies are moot for me, except for an academic interest.

orlando
28 April 2006, 03:19 PM
Namaste.
Shri TruthSeeker,I wasn't born in a vaishnava family.I became a vaishnava.I knew hindu religion though books.Then I discovered Sri Vaishnavism in internet.
Regards,
Orlando.

TruthSeeker
28 April 2006, 03:43 PM
Way Cool! I like that.

sarabhanga
02 May 2006, 06:26 AM
Namaste Ramkish,


the Mandukya states “This Atma is Brahma”
The second line of the Mandukyopanishad begins: All this is verily Brahman; this Atman is Brahman (ayamAtmA brahma ~ the Anubhavabodha Vakya).

The Upadesha Vakya (tattvamasi) appears in the Chandogyopanishad.

The interpretation “All this is Brahman; and this Brahman is Brahman” provides only repetition and makes the Mahavakya superfluous!

ramkish42
02 May 2006, 07:04 AM
Namaste Sarabhangaji,


The second line of the Mandukyopanishad begins: All this is verily Brahman; this Atman is Brahman (ayamAtmA brahma ~ the Anubhavabodha Vakya).
There is no denial. The query I have for this is - is the identity established is based on swarupa or guna. When said A is nothing but B, there must be some similarities and it should be based on something. What is the basis by which is identity is established


The Upadesha Vakya (tattvamasi) appears in the Chandogyopanishad.
Verily correct. But when Shri Madhvaacharya commented on this line, he commented based on atattvamasi and not on tattvamasi. So I thought I can learn from you by asking you to comment on atattvamasi


The interpretation “All this is Brahman; and this Brahman is Brahman” provides only repetition and makes the Mahavakya superfluous!
I agree. Verily dualist does not say brahman is brahman. What is intended is Atma is brahman and identity established gunavaikiyam. Dualists say Atma in its original form, forms the body for the very lord, as we do not say I GAVE IT TO YOUR HAND but we say I GAVE IT TO YOU - in the similar sense these words are used

with thanks
Dasan seeking your blessings

sarabhanga
02 May 2006, 07:28 AM
Namaste Kannan,


Atman is “the breath; the soul or principle of life and sensation; the individual soul, self, or abstract individual; essence, nature, character, or peculiarity; the person or whole body considered as one and opposed to the separate members of the body; the body; the understanding, intellect, or mind; the highest personal principle of life; effort or firmness; the sun or fire; or a son”.

And “the controller of all else” is secondarily derived as an implication of these primary meanings.

brahman can actually mean “growth, expansion, evolution, development, swelling of the spirit or soul, pious effusion or utterance, outpouring of the heart in worshipping the gods, prayer, the sacred word, the Veda, a sacred text, a text or Mantra used as a spell, the sacred syllable Om, religious or spiritual knowledge, holy life, the one self-existent impersonal Spirit, the one universal Soul (or one divine essence and source from which all created things emanate or with which they are identified and to which they return), the Self-existent, the Absolute, or the Eternal (not generally an object of worship but rather of meditation and knowledge)”.

“Fullness” is a possible result of expansion, but this is secondary.

All of the following would be valid interpretations:

This abstract individual is the Absolute;
this breath is expansion;
this individual soul (i.e. Jivatman) is the one universal Soul (i.e. Paramatman);
this essence is the one self-existent impersonal Spirit;
this whole body is the Veda;
this understanding is spiritual knowledge;
this effort is worship;
this fire is the one divine essence and source, from which all created things emanate or with which they are identified, and to which they return;
this Sun is the Eternal;
this son is the Father;
and this Jivatman is the Paramatman.

“This Brahman is Brahman” is correct but redundant; and “this controller of all else is the fullness” is at best obscure!


There is no mention of Jivatma anywhere. The verse just says that Jivatma enters into Paramatma.What was that? :confused:


saMvish means “to approach near to, associate or attach one’s self to something”, “to enter together or enter into something”, “to merge one’s self into something”, “to lie down, rest, or repose in or upon something”, “to sleep with something or someone, or to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with someone”, “to sit down with something or someone”, “to engage in or have to do with something”, or “to place or lay together or on, or bring to something or somewhere”.

All of the following would be valid interpretations:

Knowing thus, he approaches the Self by his own self;
he associates his own self with the Self;
he attaches his own self to the Self;
he enters into the Self by his own self;
he enters his own self together with the Self;
he merges into the Self by his own self;
he rests his own self on (or in) the Self;
he seats his own self with the Self;
he engages with (or in) the Self by his own self; and
he brings his own self to the Self.

If you deny the sense of “merging”, then it is your forcible restriction!

I have not presumed any “advaitic sense of moksha” here at all!



Merge means “to dip, plunge, or immerse (especially oneself) in something” (i.e. to enter into something),
“to incorporate or embody one item in a greater or superior one”,
“to cause something to be or to be absorbed into something else, so as to lose its own character or identity”,
“to join, blend, gradually combine, or amalgamate in (or into or with) something”, or
“to be absorbed and disappear”.

And thus, all of the following would be valid interpretations:

he immerses (enters or merges) his own self in the Self;
he incorporates or embodies his own self in the Self;
he loses his own self in the Self;
he joins his own self with the Self;
he amalgamates his own self into or with the Self;
he absorbs his own self in the Self; and
his own self disappears in the Self.

TruthSeeker
04 May 2006, 12:34 PM
Namaste Ramkish,



2. He who knows this merges his self in the Self - This calls for idea of soul - god relationship.


Why so?

According to VA, the soul is omniscient like the Lord. Every liberated soul experiences exactly the same omniscience. Omniscience by very nature implies complete stillness of thought(including individuality) or time sense. There is nothing the soul does not know that God knows, which automatically implies that individuality is contradicted. If you have an individual soul, and it thinks that "I am soul" and God thinks that "I am supersoul", the soul and God cannot be considered to have the same consciouness. Which automatically refutes Vishsishtadvaitin's concept of soul having the same bliss and omniscience as God.






Advaitins feel - soul is god but other feel, soul is part of god - is related with body - soul relationship. Like we have a body and soul, same way, our souls form body of god, - this is further explained by Part and whole idea - being body of god, our souls are mere parts of god. If the question arises, whether size of god diminishes as the division of soul-god happens, then Isha answers it with poornamathah peace sloka saying infinity remains as infinity.


If you divide God into parts, Mandukya is contradicted. Turiya is eka pad. If you say that the parts are just for a concept, then it is redundant. Simply put, God(Absolute) cannot have eternal parts. The concept of eternal gross and subtle forms of Brahman are nothing better than advaita's concept of sublation.

ramkish42
04 May 2006, 01:18 PM
According to VA, the soul is omniscient like the Lord. Every liberated soul experiences exactly the same omniscience. Omniscience by very nature implies complete stillness of thought(including individuality) or time sense. There is nothing the soul does not know that God knows, which automatically implies that individuality is contradicted. If you have an individual soul, and it thinks that "I am soul" and God thinks that "I am supersoul", the soul and God cannot be considered to have the same consciouness. Which automatically refutes Vishsishtadvaitin's concept of soul having the same bliss and omniscience as God.

Welcome Truth

As per our philosophy bliss enjoyed by Lord is not same as that of Soul. For the fact, soul is privileged to serve the eternal couples which is clearly absent for God. There is some difference. Verily both bliss are infinity, hence such differences do not count much. At the point of infinity the question which infinity is bigger does not arise

Say, if Truth knows all that Ramkish knows, as per you contention, truth and ramkish should be same. New born twins should be considered as only one if the contention goes correct

Intelligence is an attribute, same attribute can be present in many places, but at the same time we have take other attributes also into account


If you divide God into parts, Mandukya is contradicted. Turiya is eka pad. If you say that the parts are just for a concept, then it is redundant. Simply put, God(Absolute) cannot have eternal parts. The concept of eternal gross and subtle forms of Brahman are nothing better than advaita's concept of sublation.

First pls do understand, division is not segregating and taking one part to some corner where god does not exist. This whole stuff is god, As I identify TruthSeeker using some attributes, some tools and some idea, I identify his parts with similar things. Parts are not just concepts, it carries authority of Brhadaaranyaka.

Further reply to this will pull me into debate of Advaiti Vs Visishtadvaiti hence, I prefer to abstain at this point

sarabhanga
04 May 2006, 10:17 PM
Namaste,

Akala Brahman (Paramataman) is Aja; and if Kala Brahman (i.e. Brahman with parts ~ including all individual Jivatmanah, all characteristics and qualities, and all divisions of space and time, and all dualistic relations such as subject and object, and even the distinction of Dharma and Adharma) is also Aja, then there was no need for Creation.

Even if the unborn eternity of Kala Brahman only admits the eternal division of many Jivatmanah, then Prajapati’s Atma-Yajna would remain superfluous.

If Jivatman and Karma (which is absolutely dependent on Time and Duality) are both unborn and eternal, then the whole notion of Akala or Nirguna Brahman is compromised, and the Brahman can never be (or have been) without Action or Karma.

If Karma is eternal, then Duality is eternal, and Maya (or Shakti) is eternal; and so Advaita is impossible, Sadashiva cannot exist, Prajapati’s Atma-Yajna was pointless, perfect Yoga and total Pralaya are impossible, and peace can NEVER be fully attained (even by the Brahman).

In Sanatana Dharma, the primary consideration is Eternity, and all that is truly unborn and eternal is a veritable Deity. And so, unless it can be admitted that Brahman has created the diversified Atman from himself, it must be understood that the “One God” of supposedly monistic Hinduism actually has many equally ultimate Gods (i.e. every Jiva must be an individual equally indestructible God, and all Action must equally be deified).

If Jivatman and Karma are coeternal with Paramatman, then there has never been a moment of true peace, even in Heaven.

From its fundamental derivation, the term Narayana means "Son of Man"; and if Karma (action) is eternal, then it is misleading to suggest that Narayana is the one "in whom all things rest" !

[WARNING: Ajativada and Dvaitavada do not mix! The two philosophies, when taken together, may cause some bizarre side-effects.]

Om Shanti :)

TruthSeeker
05 May 2006, 12:48 AM
Nmaste Ram.



As per our philosophy bliss enjoyed by Lord is not same as that of Soul. For the fact, soul is privileged to serve the eternal couples which is clearly absent for God. There is some difference. Verily both bliss are infinity, hence such differences do not count much. At the point of infinity the question which infinity is bigger does not arise


I think you are wrong. VA clearly equates the bliss and jnana of jiva and Brahman. And this is well emphasised in the works of Ramanuja.

That is what even this site on Srivaishnavism appears to confirm:

"

26.Why should we aspire to reach God’s abode when he is present every where and he is keeping me happy here in the earth itself?
Once a king went to forest for hunting, along with his servants and his one-year-old son. He lost his son in the forest. He returned to his city with grief. Few forest-dwelling-tribal people found the prince in the forest crying helplessly. They took him to their settlement and brought him up for few years. The prince never knew who he is and thought that he is also a tribal. He never did which is suitable for his royal status but followed the entire tribal customs and practices. In fact, he had no scope to distinguish the greatness of the pleasures suitable for a prince and the daily routines of his tribal life. He took his tribal life as such. Also, he never has any knowledge about his father who is a king but always looking for his lost son.
Similar to this lost-prince, the jivaatmans are in the samsaara, bewildered by the prakruthi, which has satva-rajas-tamas attributes. They rarely realize that the “pleasures” that they get in samsaara like mundane comforts are not pleasures but agony in disguise. They never think about the Lord Shreeman Narayana: who is looking forward to uplift the suffering souls in the samsaara.
Coming back to our prince, one day, few Rishis by their wisdom, identified this prince who has assumed miserable life. They approached the Prince and explained to him the truth. They explained the pleasures of the royal state and the miseries in his present life. They also approached the king and informed about the prince. The king was overjoyed and considering the only relationship that he has with the prince, he accepted the prince. He did the samskaaras for the prince and then made him to get the equal enjoyment that he has.
Like this, the Aacharas out of mercy make the jivaatman to realize his swaroopa “Seshatvam”. They bless him with pancha-samskaara and Bhara-nyaasa. They make the Lord to accept the jivaatman. The Lord Shreeman Narayana mercifully accepts the jivaatman and grants equal bliss that he has.
Therefore, one has to be a mumukshu (aspiring for moksha). He has to necessarily adopt the saadyOpaya and then reach the Parama-pada Vaikunta and do eternal service to Lord Shreeman Narayana. This is what is perfectly suitable for the jivaatman’s swaroopa. The Lord Shreeman Narayana is omnipresent. But we are not able to enjoy him because of our karma. We are bound in the material world and are suffering in it because of our karma. Enjoying the mundane comforts and being satisfied in it is not appropriate to our swaroopa. Therefore, we have to aspire to reach God’s abode and get our swaroopa realized appropriately. "

From http://www.srivaishnavam.com/index.html (check the FAQ section)



Say, if Truth knows all that Ramkish knows, as per you contention, truth and ramkish should be same. New born twins should be considered as only one if the contention goes correct


A poor example. Two new borns know very little and can hardly be compared to two sarvanjanas. Our comparison is solely between two omniscient souls.




First pls do understand, division is not segregating and taking one part to some corner where god does not exist. This whole stuff is god, As I identify TruthSeeker using some attributes, some tools and some idea, I identify his parts with similar things. Parts are not just concepts, it carries authority of Brhadaaranyaka.

Further reply to this will pull me into debate of Advaiti Vs Visishtadvaiti hence, I prefer to abstain at this point

That is not my point. Parts will imply "divisions" within Brahman. If such a part does not divide the Brahman in anyway, the very concept is redundant. Just like the lines of latitudes and longitudes drawn on a map.

This is how I read it.

VA has equated the bliss and also the jnana of both jivatma and paramatma. Thus, in mukti, we have an infinite number of souls that have identical spheres of activity that match Brahman. Apply common sense to this sphere and there cannot be any master-slave relationship, which is impossible under these conditions. Nor is any activity possible for an omniscient being(not even thought), and must be essentially niguna.

Regarding the ability to create the universe, advaita says the same thing. No jiva can create anything, only Isvara can. As long as jiva remains in pranjna, it is identical to the state explained by Ramanuja, without the ability to create, sustain and destroy the universe. In Turiya, the concept of creation is not even needed.

I beleive that Shankara meant his philosophy for intellectuals, and may have even hyped up advaita a bit due to polemical requirements. Ramanuja meant his philosophy to be understood by the common man, infact every layman. He essentially stated the same message as Shankara - as equating of bliss and knowledge will prove, but presented it in a way so that it could be understood by everyone. If you are open minded, you will find that the state of mukti described by VA is only superfically different from that of advaita. Since advaita claims that Pranjna is always associated with Turiya, I will go ahead and state that there is even no difference whatsoever. ( except that VA descriptions of Vaikunta etc have to understood in a figurative sense)

orlando
05 May 2006, 02:17 AM
From its fundamental derivation, the term Narayana means "Son of Man"; and if Karma (action) is eternal, then it is misleading to suggest that Narayana is the one "in whom all things rest" !


Namaste Sarabhanga.
If at http://home.comcast.net/~chinnamma/sahasra/ yoo go to 26,you will find the following:

26.246 - nArAyaNahThe Supporter of the hosts of souls.Om nArAyaNAya namah. All the previous nAma-s referred to nArAyaNa through His otherincarnations or through His many guNa-s. Now SrI vyAsa gives the namethat only refers to mahA-vishNu, and that is not used to refer to anyother gods (such as the nAma-s rudra, Siva etc., which also occur in thevishNu sshasranAma to refer to mahAvishNu). SrI Bhattar points outthat this nAma is spoken of in every upanishad, and the veda itselfgives the derviation of the name nArAyaNa thus - yacca ki~ncit jagat sarvam dRsyate SrUyatepi vA | antar-bahiSca tat-sarvam vyApya nArAyaNah sthitah || "Whatever object there is in the Universe that is seen or heard,nArAyaNa remains pervading all that, both inside and outside". SrI Bhattar gives several references to bring out the greatnessof this nAma. "nArAyaNAya vidmahe vAsudevAya dhImahi | tanno vishNuh pracodayAt || (taitti. nArAya. 6.1.28) "nArAyaNa param brhma tattvam nArAyaNah parah | nArAyaNa paro jyotir-AtmA nArAyaNah parah ||(taitt. NArAya. 6.11) "eko ha vai nArAyaNa AsIt| na brhamA na ISAnah na Apah naagnishomi yau na eme dyAvA pRthvI na nakshatrANina sUryah na candramAh| (mahopanishad) etc. SrI Sankara gives the following interpretation: nara refers toAtman; nAra refers to ether and the other effects produced from it; He,as their cause, pervades them and they are thus His abode (ayana).Hence He is named nArAyaNa. He gives the following quote frommahAbhArata supporting this interpretation: "narAjjAtAni tattvAni nArANIti tato vidhuh | tAnyeva cAyanam tasya tena nArAyaNah smRtah || (anu.Parva. 13.1.2) "The tattva-s are called nAra since they are sprung from nara(Atman); He is called nArAyaNa as they are His abode". Anotherinterpretation he gives is "narANAm jIvAnAm ayanatvAt pralaya iti vA -Whom the jIva-s appraoch and enter (He is the abode of the beings duringpralaya). This is supported by 'yatpryantyabhisamviSanti' - Whom theyapproach and enter - taittirIya upanishad 3.1. Or He is nArAyaNa sinceHe is the seat of the nAra-s or the tattva-s - nArANAm ayanam yasmAttasmAn-nArAyaNah smRtah - brahmavaivartapurANa. (Note that this thirdinterpretation is that He is their seat, whereas the firstinterpretation was that they are His seat). Manu-smRti gives thefollowing definition - "Apo nArAh iti proktAh Apo vai narasUnavah | tA yadasyAyanam pUrvam tasmAn-nArAyaNah smRtah ||(manu-smRti 1.10) "nAra refers to waters (the panca-bhUta-s before theyinter-mixed and became visible through forms etc.) which He created. Asthey are His original abode (i.e., during prlaya), He is callednArAyaNa". SrI satyadevo vAsishTha draws the parallel between theworld being born out of the waters in which nArAyaNa is floating, andthe child that is born out of the mother's womb after being supported bythe waters in the mother's body. In narasimha purANa, we have the following - "nArAyaNAya nama ityayameva satyah samsAra ghora visha samharaNAya mantrah | SRNvantu bhavyamatayo yatayo'starAgA uccaistarAmupadiSAmyaham Urdhva-bAhuh || (narasimha purANa18.31) "This is the real mantra that destroys the deadly poison ofsmasAra - nArAyaNAya namah. This I proclaim loudly with uplifted hands;let the ascetics, with passions curbed and inteleects clear, listen tome". SrI rAdhAkRshNa SAstri reminds us that the mantra-devatA thatwe worship through the gAyatri mantra is SrIman nArAyaNa - dhyeyah sadAsavitRmandala madhyavartI nArAyaNah. The dharma cakram writer refersus to divya-prabandham - "nalam tarum Sollai nAn kaNdu koNdEn nArAyaNAennum nAmam" to remind us of the greatness of this nAma japam. It is very important to note SrI Bhattar's concluding statementof his vyAkhyAnam on this nAma. He points out that the secret of thissacred mantra should only be properly learned by approaching an AcArya,and not by reading the explanations like the one presented. His wordsare that he does not want to say anything more on this nAma because itsgreatness can only be learned from an AcArya, and is thus a matter thatshould be seen by four eyes (the two eyes of the disciple and the twoeyes of the AcArya) and not by six eyes viz. he does not want to addhis two eyes further. So no amount of explanation on paper can bringout the greatness of this nAma.
26.247 - narah
a) He who is imperishable.b) The Leader.Om narAya namah. SrI Bhattar gives the meaning that nara refers to one withimperishable possessions, both sentient and non-sentient (both of whichare eternal by nature). SrI Sankara gives the meaning "Leader" to nara, and gives thequote from vyAsa (the source is not identified in my book) - nayati itinarah proktah paramAtmA sanAtanah - Because He directs everything, theeternal paramAtman is called nara. SrI satyadevo vAsishTha also starts with the root as nR nayeto lead, and gives the meaning as nayati - One who leads, or nRNati -One who takes things away. He is nara since He takes this Universe fromkalpa to kalpa through many kalpa-s. nara also refers to water orfluid, since this takes things from one place to another as it flows.That there was only water everywhere before sRshTi took place issupported by the following vedic quote - tama AsIt tamasAgUDhamagre'prakRtam salilam sarvamA idam (Rg 10.129.3). The dharma cakram writer points out that just as a mother leadsa child with the child's welfare in mind, and does not mind discipliningthe child for its own good when the child goes and eats dirt, or theteacher tries to discipline a student who is not learning the knowledgefrom the teacher, so also nara, viz. mahAvisNu, leads us all for ourgood even if He has to mete out some punishment occasionally to get ourways straightened out.

Regards,
Orlando.

sarabhanga
05 May 2006, 02:33 AM
Namaste Ramkish,

स य एषोऽणिमैतदात्म्यमिदँ सर्वं तत्सत्यँ स
आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो इति भूय एव मा
भगवान्विज्ञापयत्विति तथा सोम्येति होवाच ॥

sa ya esho'nimaitadātmyamidam sarvam tatsatyam sa
ātmā tattvamasi śvetaketo iti bhūya eva mā
bhagavānvijńāpayatviti tathā somyeti hovāca ||

“Now, that which is that subtle essence (the root of all), in it, all that exists has its self. It is the True.
It is the Self; and thou, O Svetaketu, art it.”
“Please Sir, inform me still more”, said the son. “Be it so, my child”, the father replied.

The Upanishad states: आत्मा तत्त्वमसि [ātmā tattvamasi] ~ and NOT आत्माऽतत्त्वमसि [ātmā'tattvamasi], which would read as:
“It is the Self, and thou, O Svetaketu, art NOT it” !

Such a deliberate distortion of the Upanishad is unworthy of any further consideration, and anyone who promotes such rubbish deserves condemnation. :mad:

orlando
05 May 2006, 02:42 AM
Namaste.
Shri TruthSeeker,please note that I don't want engage in a debate of Advaiti Vs Visishtadvaiti at all.I just want defend VA.



That is not my point. Parts will imply "divisions" within Brahman. If such a part does not divide the Brahman in anyway, the very concept is redundant. Just like the lines of latitudes and longitudes drawn on a map.

This is how I read it.

Please read Brihadaranyaka Upanishad,third adhyaya,seventh brahmana:
III-vii-1: Then Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, asked him. ‘Yajnavalkya’, said, ‘in Madra we lived in the house of Patanchala Kapya (descendant of Kapi), studying the scriptures on sacrifices. His wife was possessed by a Gandharva. We asked him who he was. He said, "Kabandha, the son of Atharvan". He said to Patanchala Kapya and those who studied the scriptures on sacrifices, "Hapya, do you know that Sutra by which this life, the next life and all beings are held together ?" Patanchala Kapya said, "I do not know it, sir". The Gandharva said to him and the students, "Kapya, do you know that Internal Ruler who controls this and the next life and all beings from within ?" Patanchala Kapya said, "I do not know Him, sir". The Gandharva said to him and the students, "He who knows that Sutra and that Internal Ruler as above indeed knows Brahman, knows the worlds, knows the gods, knows the Vedas, knows beings, knows the self, and knows everything". He explained it all to them. I know it. If you, Yajnavalkya, do not know that Sutra and that Internal Ruler, and still take away the cows that belong only to the knowers of Brahman, your head shall fall off’. ‘I know, O Gautama, that Sutra and that Internal Ruler’. ‘Any one can say, "I know, I know". Tell us what you know.’
III-vii-2: He said, ‘Vayu, O Gautama, is that Sutra. Through this Sutra or Vayu this and the next life and all beings are held together. Therefore, O Gautama, when a man dies, they say that his limbs have been loosened, for they are held together, O Gautama, by the Sutra or Vayu.’ ‘Quite so, Yajnavalkya. Now describe the Internal Ruler.’
III-vii-3: He who inhabits the earth, but is within it, whom the earth does not know, whose body is the earth, and who controls the earth from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
III-vii-4: He who inhabits water, but is within it, whom water does not know, whose body is water, and who controls water from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
III-vii-5: He who inhabits fire, but is within it, whom fire does not know, whose body is fire, and who controls fire from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
III-vii-6: He who inhabits the sky, but is within it, whom the sky does not know, whose body is the sky, and who controls the sky from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
III-vii-7: He who inhabits air, but is within it, whom air does not know, whose body is air, and who controls air from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
III-vii-8: He who inhabits heaven, but is within it, whom heaven does not know, whose body is heaven, and who controls heaven from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
III-vii-9: He who inhabits the sun, but is within it, whom the sun does not know, whose body is the sun, and who controls the sun from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
III-vii-10: He who inhabits the quarters, but is within it, whom the quarters does not know, whose body is the quarters, and who controls the quarters from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
III-vii-11: He who inhabits the moon and stars, but is within it, whom the moon and stars does not know, whose body is the moon and stars, and who controls the moon and stars from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
III-vii-12: He who inhabits the ether, but is within it, whom the ether does not know, whose body is the ether, and who controls the ether from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
III-vii-13: He who inhabits darkness, but is within it, whom darkness does not know, whose body is darkness, and who controls darkness from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
III-vii-14: He who inhabits light, but is within it, whom light does not know, whose body is light, and who controls light from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the gods. Now with reference to the beings.
III-vii-15: He who inhabits all beings, but is within it, whom no being knows, whose body is all beings, and who controls all beings from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the beings. Now with reference to the body.
III-vii-16: He who inhabits the nose, but is within it, whom the nose does not know, whose body is the nose, and who controls the nose from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
III-vii-17: He who inhabits the organ of speech, but is within it, whom the organ of speech does not know, whose body is the organ of speech, and who controls the organ of speech from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
III-vii-18: He who inhabits the eye, but is within it, whom the eye does not know, whose body is the eye, and who controls the eye from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
III-vii-19: He who inhabits the ear, but is within it, whom the ear does not know, whose body is the ear, and who controls the ear from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
III-vii-20: He who inhabits the mind (Manas), but is within it, whom the mind does not know, whose body is the mind, and who controls the mind from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
III-vii-21: He who inhabits the skin, but is within it, whom the skin does not know, whose body is the skin, and who controls the skin from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
III-vii-22: He who inhabits the intellect, but is within it, whom the intellect does not know, whose body is the intellect, and who controls the intellect from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.
III-vii-23: He who inhabits the organ of generation, but is within it, whom the organ of generation does not know, whose body is the organ of generation, and who controls the organ of generation from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. He is never seen, but is the Witness; He is never heard, but is the Hearer; He is never thought, but is the Thinker; He is never known, but is the Knower. There is no other witness but Him, no other hearer but Him, no other thinker but Him, no other knower but Him. He is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. Everything else but Him is mortal.’ Thereupon Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, kept silent.

orlando
05 May 2006, 02:43 AM
Now please read Adhyatma Upanishad:
Om! That (Brahman) is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite. The infinite proceeds from the infinite. (Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe), It remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone.
Om! Let there be Peace in me! Let there be Peace in my environment! Let there be Peace in the forces that act on me!

In the cave of the body is eternally set the one unborn. The earth is His body. (Though) moving within the earth, the earth knows Him not. The eater is His body. (Though) moving within the water, the water knows Him not. The fire is His body. (Though) moving within the fire, the fire knows Him not. The air is His body. (Though) moving within the air, the air knows Him not. The ether is His body. (Though) moving within the ether, the ether knows Him not. The mind is His body. (Though) moving within the mind, the mind knows Him not. The intellect is His body. (Though) moving within the intellect, the intellect knows Him not. The ego is His body. (Though) moving within the ego, the ego knows Him not. The mind-stuff is His body. (Though) moving within the mind-stuff, the mind-stuff knows Him not. The unmanifest is His body. (Though) moving within the unmanifest, the unmanifest knows Him not. The imperishable is His body. (Though) moving within the imperishable, the imperishable knows Him not. The Death is His body. (Though) moving within Death, Death knows Him not. He, then, is the inner-self of all beings, sinless, heaven-born, luminous, the sole Narayana.


VA has equated the bliss and also the jnana of both jivatma and paramatma. Thus, in mukti, we have an infinite number of souls that have identical spheres of activity that match Brahman. Apply common sense to this sphere and there cannot be any master-slave relationship, which is impossible under these conditions. Nor is any activity possible for an omniscient being(not even thought), and must be essentially niguna.
Your words make no sense.They are just speculation.



I beleive that Shankara meant his philosophy for intellectuals, and may have even hyped up advaita a bit due to polemical requirements. Ramanuja meant his philosophy to be understood by the common man, infact every layman.

Please note that Srimad Ramanuja didn't "mean his philosophy for the understanding of someone".He really believed that his VA philosophy was right.Why don't you read his biography at http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/sampradayas_fs.html
Just some quotes:

Sri Ramanuja
Ramanuja and the Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya
When the religion of the Vedas became weakened due to the influence of less intelligent men who blindly performed ritualistic ceremonies and wantonly killed animals in the name of Vedic injunctions, Buddha appeared on the scene as a great reformer. Totally rejecting the Vedic literatures and substituting his rational, atheistic views, Buddha advocated the path of ahimsa —nonviolence and nirvana —the negation of reality as we know it— as the ultimate goal of life. Soon after, the philosophy of Shankaracarya overpowered Buddhism and spread throughout India.

The authority of the Upanishads and other Vedic literatures were revived by Shankara and employed as weapons to fight the Buddhist doctrine. Interpreting the Vedas to draw a particular conclusion, Shankara established the doctrine of non-dualism, adwaita-vedanta, stating that all living entities were on an equal level with God. He prominently stressed those texts which afforded an answer to the rationalistic atheism of the Buddhists, yet the teachings of Shankara were also not wholly theistic, and thus a further unveiling of the ultimate reality was destined. That destiny was fulfilled through Sri Ramanujacharya.

Ramanuja was born in India during the year 1017 A.D. when, according to astrological calculations, the sun was in the zodiacal sign of Cancer. His parents were Asuri Kesava and Kantimati, both from aristocratic families. Ramanuja passed his childhood days in Sriperumbudur, the village of his birth. At the age of 16 he was married to Rakshakambal.

Only four months after his wedding, Ramanuja's father was struck with a severe illness and died. Upon the death of his father, Ramanuja became head of the household and decided to move to Kanchi, a holy city famed for its scholars and magnificent temples.

In Kanchi there lived a scholar named Yadava Prakash, who was renowned for his scholarship in the doctrine of adwaita-vedanta, non-dualism. No one could surpass Yadava in his ability to explain Shankara's commentaries on Vedanta-sutra. Ramanuja enrolled in Yadava's school and engaged in the study of Sanskrit and Vedic literature. Although not at all convinced by the Shankarite conception, Ramanuja learned his lessons well and soon became one of Yadava's favorite students. Thinking Ramanuja to be a sincere follower of the conclusions of Shankara, Yadava showed Ramanuja special affection. But that affection did not last for long.

One day, after delivering a discourse on the Chandogya Upanishad, Yadava asked Ramanuja to massage his body with oil, as was the customary service to be performed by a student in those days. While giving the massage to his teacher, another student came to Yadava for some clarification on a point from the morning discourse. The boy had failed to grasp the meaning of the seventh verse of the first chapter, which began with tasya yatha kapyasam pundarikam evam akshini. Yadava proceeded to expound an interpretation which described the sublime qualities of the Godhead in a manner which was flagrantly objectionable. On hearing the words of his teacher, the heart of Ramanuja, which was full of love for the Supreme Godhead, was saddened, and hot tears streamed down from his eyes and fell on the thigh of Yadava. Looking up at the touch of the hot tears, Yadava could understand that something was troubling Ramanuja. When he inquired about Ramanuja's distress, Ramanuja replied, "O great and wise master, I have been sorely afflicted at heart to hear such an unbecoming explanation from a noble soul like you. How sinful it is of you to debase the Supreme, who is endowed with all gracious qualities and who is the source of all beautiful things in this world. From the mouth of such a learned man as yourself I would never have expected such a low and deceitful interpretation!"

Yadava became so angry that he could hardly control himself. "Well then," he scorned, "maybe you would like to give your own interpretation since you obviously think you know better than I!"

In a very gentle voice Ramanuja replied, "Revered sir, there is no need to give a low-minded interpretation to the verse when the real meaning is direct and glorious."

"Then let us hear this meaning of yours which is so glorious!" said Yadava. Ramanuja then stood and with great humility recited the meaning of the verse. "The two eyes of the Supreme are as lovely as two lotuses that are blossomed by the rays of the sun."

"I see," said Yadava. "You speak as though there actually was such a 'Supreme Person.' That is due to your childish ignorance. You have not learned your lessons properly. You should always remember that the Supreme is without form, without name, and without attributes. That is the teaching of the great Shankara. In the future you should not voice your foolish sentiments!" The words of Yadava were painful to Ramanuja's ears, but out of respect for his teacher he remained silent.

A few days later a second incident occurred. While explaining a verse from the Taittiriya Upanishad beginning with satyam jnanam anantam brahma, Yadava said that Brahman was intelligence, truth, and the infinite. Hearing this explanation, Ramanuja politely added, "Brahman is endowed with the qualities of intelligence, truth, and the infinite— this means that He is not covered by ignorance as are ordinary living entities, He is never untruthful, and His energies are unlimited, not limited. The Supreme Brahman is the reservoir of all good qualities, yet He is superior to those qualities, as the sun globe is superior to sunlight."

The agitation which Yadava felt within his mind made his voice tremble. "You young fool!" he shouted. "Your conclusions do not agree with those of Shankara or any of the previous masters! If you are going to persist with this useless talk about a personal God, why come here at all simply to waste my time? Why don't you start your own school and teach whatever you like? Now get out of my classroom immediately!"


He essentially stated the same message as Shankara - as equating of bliss and knowledge will prove, but presented it in a way so that it could be understood by everyone. If you are open minded, you will find that the state of mukti described by VA is only superfically different from that of advaita. Since advaita claims that Pranjna is always associated with Turiya, I will go ahead and state that there is even no difference whatsoever. ( except that VA descriptions of Vaikunta etc have to understood in a figurative sense)
Shri TruthSeeker,the state of mukti described by VA is not superfically different from that of advaita.It is very different.The jivas keeps his individuality and enjoy eternal bliss by serving the Divine Couple.The individual jiva is omniscient,blissful,happy.In Advaita,the jiva doesn't still exist.It has lost his individual existence.There is big difference between VA mukti and Advaita mukti.
If one interprets the VA description of Vaikunta in figurative sense,one must understand that Sri Vaikunta is a place where the jivas enjoy infinite bliss in company of the Divine Couple.
Regards,
Orlando.

TruthSeeker
05 May 2006, 04:20 AM
Your words make no sense.They are just speculation.


Can you explain how a jiva can have the same bliss and knowledge as Brahman, without having the omnipotence? It is just disguised advaita.





Please note that Srimad Ramanuja didn't "mean his philosophy for the understanding of someone".He really believed that his VA philosophy was right.Why don't you read his biography at http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/sampradayas_fs.html
Just some quotes:


But why would Ramanuja state that in public? Would anyone openly preach that his philosophy is for the common man? His views can be well understood as an outsider. To a disciple of Ramanuja, you cannot come out of this. I have not stated anywhere on this forum that VA is wrong - I have said that it is just "reduced" advaita....




Shri TruthSeeker,the state of mukti described by VA is not superfically different from that of advaita.It is very different.The jivas keeps his individuality and enjoy eternal bliss by serving the Divine Couple.The individual jiva is omniscient,blissful,happy.In Advaita,the jiva doesn't still exist.It has lost his individual existence.There is big difference between VA mukti and Advaita mukti.


Serving the divine couple is contradicting jivas equivalent bliss with God. Dear Bhakta God, you have failed to understand the concept of omniscience. Omniscience implies absence of thought. A jiva which has thoughts cannot be omniscient. Try to first understand what omniscience is. To surmount this problem, VA introduces two types of jnana, svarupa jnana and dharma bhuta jnana. Svarupa Jnana is the "I"ness unqiue to the jiva, whereas Dharma Bhuta Jnana is identical for all souls including God. Dont you think the "I" ness is redundant given that their dharma bhuta jnana is identical?




If one interprets the VA description of Vaikunta in figurative sense,one must understand that Sri Vaikunta is a place where the jivas enjoy infinite bliss in company of the Divine Couple.
Regards,
Orlando.

Obviously you are free to beleive that jivas ride horses, even make merry with women etc as described in the mukti of Ramanuja or Madhva. Oh, and yeah, it has scriptural support - read Chandogya 8.12.2-3. Is this what your Acharya thought about mukti? How can you serve the divine couple while rejoicing with women?:)

Sorry, advaitins dont read literally on these passages. They are for the common man. The scripture is trying to convey message about a state that is indescribably blissful - these are mere figurative descriptions.

orlando
05 May 2006, 05:37 AM
Can you explain how a jiva can have the same bliss and knowledge as Brahman, without having the omnipotence? It is just disguised advaita.

By http://www.srivaishnavan.com/faq_soul.html
23.What happens to the soul, after attaining moksha?
24.Were these qualities with the soul even in this world?
25.What are his powers, after attaining moksha?
26.After attaining liberation, in the Paramapada, does the Jivatma become one with Paramatma?
27.What do the Vedas say in this regard?
28.Are there any limitations or restrictions to this freedom of the soul, when he reaches Paramapada? Can he do anything he pleases?
29.Does this limitation not restrict or curtail the happiness of the released soul? 30.Even in Paramapada, Jivatma does not have powers to create, support or destroy the world. Are there any other powers or qualities, peculiar to the Lord?

By http://www.srivaishnavan.com/ans_soul.html#23
23.His essential qualities of intelligence, happiness, etc. shine in their normal splendour. The soul (Jivatma) becomes free from all sins, free from sorrow, etc; having the highest degree of intelligence and happiness.
24.These qualities rightly belong to the soul, even in this world. But, as I mentioned earlier, they are hidden, because of the impurities and defects, due to his association with the body. So when he leaves the body and leaves this world and attains moksha; his essential in-born qualities shine in their normal splendour. In this world, the soul is like a gem, covered with dirt. When he attains moksha, the dirt is cleaned; the soul becomes like a clear gem having its fullest brilliance.
25.His powers become unlimited. He can get whatever he wants. He can do whatever he wants. He can take any body, if he likes. He can move without a body also. In short, whatever he desires, he can do. He enjoys things. He serves Lord Narayana, either with body or without body.
26.No, the Jivatma does not become one with Brahman. But he acquires all the auspicious and divine qualities of Brahman.
27.The Vedas say that in the Paramapada, the Jivatma attains the highest degree of equality with Brahman. He is permanently free from the bondage of births and deaths. He enjoys the Lord, in the company of others.
28.Yes, his powers are unlimited, except with regard to one matter. That is, except regarding creation, support and destruction of the world. The powers to create, support and destroy the world, are entirely that of Brahman. So in these matters alone, the released soul does not have the powers.
29.No, it does not. Because, the released soul attains the same pleasure and happiness as that of Brahman, who creates, supports, and destroys the world.He attains the highest degree of equality with Brahman. This can be explained with an example. There are a father and his son. The father cultivates the land. He harvests the grains and he cooks. The meal is shared, both by the father and the son. So, the son does not till or plough the land. The father is tilling the land and is harvesting the proceeds. Still, the son has the pleasure of eating the produce, just like his father. So, the pleasure remains the same, both for the father and the son. In the same way, although the released soul does not create the world, he gets the same pleasure as the Brahman in this regard.30.The following qualities are special to the Lord: 1. Being the cause of the world.
2. Giving of moksha to Jivatma.



Serving the divine couple is contradicting jivas equivalent bliss with God. Dear Bhakta God, you have failed to understand the concept of omniscience. Omniscience implies absence of thought. A jiva which has thoughts cannot be omniscient. Try to first understand what omniscience is. To surmount this problem, VA introduces two types of jnana, svarupa jnana and dharma bhuta jnana. Svarupa Jnana is the "I"ness unqiue to the jiva, whereas Dharma Bhuta Jnana is identical for all souls including God. Dont you think the "I" ness is redundant given that their dharma bhuta jnana is identical?
Shri TruthSeeker,please note that omniscience means know everything.And not to not have thoughs.



Obviously you are free to beleive that jivas ride horses, even make merry with women etc as described in the mukti of Ramanuja or Madhva. Oh, and yeah, it has scriptural support - read Chandogya 8.12.2-3. Is this what your Acharya thought about mukti? How can you serve the divine couple while rejoicing with women?:)

Sorry, advaitins dont read literally on these passages. They are for the common man. The scripture is trying to convey message about a state that is indescribably blissful - these are mere figurative descriptions.

orlando
05 May 2006, 05:38 AM
There are other scriptureal supports.
Please read Srimad Bhagavata Purana,Canto 1,Chapter 9.
By http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto2/chapter9.html

(1) S'uka said: 'Without the drive of the [Super-]soul, o King, there will never be any good in the spirited consciousness of the beyond relating to the material body, which is then to the seer completely like in a dream. (2) Driven in matter the many forms that appear to have manifested experience different sorts of enjoyment according the modes of the material world and thus they think of 'I' and 'mine'. (3) Whenever indeed, in his own glory of transcendence to the time of the material energy, he [the living entity] enjoys the freedom from misconceptions, then, in that fullness, he will give up those two. (4) 'The reality of the soul is the goal of purification' is what the Supreme Lord factually told the Creator showing him His Form when he was without any misunderstanding in vows and worship (5) He, the first godly person in the universe, as the supreme spiritual teacher, began from his own divine position [on the lotus of the creation] to reflect on the matter of where it came from and he could not figure out what the directions and the ways were of how all should be put together materially.


(6) Once when he was immersed in thinking thus, he heard two syllables being spoken which were the sixteenth [ta] and the twenty-first [pa] of the spars'a-alphabeth and, joined together, became known as the wealth of the renounced order, o King [tapas means penance]. (7) When he heard that, he looked all sides to see the speaker, but there was no one to be found and from where he sat in his divine position he then thought it the best to pay attention to doing penance as he was instructed. (8) With a spotless vision for a thousand godly years, he as the controller of both life and mind, enlightened all the worlds executing such a penance in the past, being of all the ones doing penance the one of the severest practice.



(9) For him, the Supreme Lord being pleased by his penance, manifested His own abode [also called Vaikunthha, the place without fear], beyond which no other world is found and which is worshiped as the place where the five miseries of material life [ignorance, selfhood, attachment, hatred and death-fear] have completely ceased with persons who without illusion and fear of existence are of perfect selfrealization. (10) There, the mode of goodness prevails over the other two of passion and slowness without them ever being mixed with it, nor is there the influence of time, the external energy - or what to say of [the influence of] others; there both the enlightened and the unenlightened souls worship the Lord as devotees. (11) Sky-bluish and glowing with lotuslike eyes, very attractive and youthful with yellowish dress, all of them there have the four arms and the luster of pearls and effulgence of fine ornaments. (12) Some radiate like coral or diamonds, with heads blooming like a celestial lotus with earrings and garlands. (13) That place, radiating with the rows of brilliant high rising, excellent buildings and celestial ladies with electrifying complexions of the great devotees of the Lord, is as beautiful as a sky decorated with clouds and lightning. (14) The goddess there is doing devotional service to the lotus feet of the Lord, being of praise with the help of diverse paraphernalia and a following of dearmost associates who, moved by the company [of Apsaras] that took to the shelter of the [everlasting season of] spring, are singing their songs. (15) There one surrounds the Lord of the entire community of devotees, of the goddess, of the Universe and the sacrifice - the Almighty One, who is being served in transcendental love by the foremost associates like Sunanda, Nanda, Prabala and Arhana. (16) The servitors affectionately facing Him are intoxicated by the very pleasing sight of His smile, reddish eyes, His face with His helmet and earrings, His four hands, yellow dress, His marked chest and the goddess of fortune at His side. (17) Seated on His highly valuable throne He, accompanied by the opulence of His four [matter, original person, intellect and ego] sixteen [the five elements, perceptive and working senses, and mind] and fivefold energies [sense objects of form, taste, sound, smell and touch] and other personal prowesses He sometimes shows [the eight siddhis or mystic powers], verily enjoys His abode as the Supreme Lord.


(18) The Creator of the Universe, who was overwhelmed by the sight of that audience, was in his heart full of ecstasy and with his body full of divine love he bowed down with tears in his eyes before the lotus feet of the Lord - an example which is followed by the great liberated souls.

orlando
05 May 2006, 05:39 AM
Now please read Srimad Bhagavata Purana,Canto 3,Chapter 15
By http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto3/chapter15.html
(1) Maitreya said: 'Diti understood that of the powerful semen of the great Prajâpati, others in power would be in trouble and thus she bore it in doubt about how it for a hundred years would affect the godly. (2) The world was deprived of light from it and the diverse local divinities who saw their power diminished, turned to God [Brahmâ] wondering about where the darkness expanding in all directions came from. (3) The godly said: 'Of this darkness you know of, o mighty one, we are very afraid because we are not unmanifest as you are; your supreme divine ways are unaffected by the touch of time. (4) O god of gods, sustainer of the universe, you as the crownjewel of the spiritual and material worlds of all local divinities, know of all intentions of all living beings. (5) Our respects, o original source of strength and objective knowledge. Having obtained this body of external energy and accepting the differentiated of your mode of passion, we offer our obeisances to you as you are the original unmanifest source. (6) Those with unswerving devotion meditate upon you as the origin of all beings; all the worlds are linked by your self which is the supreme generator of cause and effect. (7) Of them who are mature in the practice of yoga and attained to your mercy controlling the senses and the mind by the breath, there is no defeat anywhere. (8) Of whose directions all living entities are led like a bull by the rope, of him whose force of control cannot be undone, to that chief, to you, we offer our obeisances. (9) Him, you, we ask to act to our good fortune, o great Lord, as from the darkness all our prescribed duties have been suspended. By the magnanimous mercy of your glance, we, the surrendered, are able to see. (10) O god, this semen of Kas'yapa deposited in the womb of Diti, causes complete darkness in all directions like a fire that is overloaded with fuel.'

(11) Maitreya said: 'Smilingly he the self-born, o mighty armed one, who by the prayers is understood as the original possessor of all opulence, replied the godly satisfying them with sweet words. (12) Brahmâ said: 'Those headed by Sanaka [Sanâtana, Sanandana en Sanat-kumâra] where, before you, born from my mind and traveled the peoples of the spiritual and material worlds without any desire. (13) Once upon a time did they, by the Supreme Personality of Lord Vishnu freed from all contamination, enter Vaikunthha, the heavenly abode worshiped by people everywhere. (14) All the persons living there have the same form as the Lord of Vaikunthha and live without desire because of their devotional service of continuous worship of the Supreme Personality. (15) There the original person is the Supreme Lord Himself who is understood by scripture in accepting, in the mode of goodness, the uncontaminated of His own associates, which increases our happiness about the personification of the religious principles. (16) At Vaikunthha, where everything is spiritual and personal, there are forests in the name of happiness that yield to all desires with trees that throughout all seasons are filled with splendid flowers and fruits. (17) Highly elevated they along with their wives are always singing there, free from all inauspicious qualities, of the Supreme Lord, deriding even the mind expanding fragrance of the mâdhavi flowers full of nectar blossoming in the midst of the water. (18) The tumult of pigeons, cuckoos, cranes, cakravâka's, and gallinules, swans, parrots, partridges and peacocks but for a moment is stopped by the loud humming of the king of the bumblebees as he sings the glories of the Lord. (19) The fragrance of the mandâra, kunda, kurabaka, utpala, campaka, arna, punnâga, nâgakes'ara, bakula, lily and pârijâtâ, being worshiped in the good mindedness of the austerity of Vaikunthha, finds there its full glory in a garland of tulsî-leaves. (20) Simply by obeisance to the Lord His feet the devotees attained to palaces, made of lapis lazuli with emeralds and gold, of which the inhabitants have large hips and beautiful smiling faces. But with their minds absorbed in Krishna this does not give rise to any lust with their friendly laughing and joking. (21) Assuming the beautiful body of the goddess of fortune do their leg bangles tinkle as they are playing with lotusflowers in the house of the Lord where they, free from all faults, see to it that its gold decorated walls are wiped crystal clear in the care for others to be worthy of the grace. (22) In the ponds with banks of coral they offer in their gardens surrounded by their maidservants the Lord tulsî leaves, seeing in the clear nectarine water the tilaka high on their noses, thinking their faces thus kissed by the Lord as being part of His beauty. (23) Alas, how unfortunate are the ones who never get near to this Vaikunthha creation of the vanquisher of all sin, but rather hear of other subject matter in bad words that kill the intelligence. Such persons, away from the values of life, are, devoid of all shelter, thrown into the darkness. (24) Those and us who so desired certainly attained to the human form of life and knowledge of the subject matter of the Absolute with the religious principles. Where one is not in such respect of the Supreme Lord, one is alas performing in the bewilderment of His all-pervading illusory energy. (25) Although in association [of Vaikunthha] one refrains from strict austerity and the following in the footsteps of the important wise, one certainly desires there to hear, above hearing from us, about the good qualities from His associates. Discussing amongst one other the glories, in ecstasy of the attraction they are with tears in their eyes and have their bodies shivering.'

(26) The sages [led by Sanaka] upon reaching that place by dint of their spiritual potency attained to an unprecedented supreme happiness seeing it illumined by the highly elevated of the best of devotees and predominated by the Teacher of the Universe, who of all the world is the only one worthy of worship.


Please note the second part of the verse 10: (20) Simply by obeisance to the Lord His feet the devotees attained to palaces, made of lapis lazuli with emeralds and gold, of which the inhabitants have large hips and beautiful smiling faces. But with their minds absorbed in Krishna this does not give rise to any lust with their friendly laughing and joking. (21)

orlando
05 May 2006, 06:08 AM
Shri TruthSeeker,you asked:Obviously you are free to beleive that jivas ride horses, even make merry with women etc as described in the mukti of Ramanuja or Madhva. Oh, and yeah, it has scriptural support - read Chandogya 8.12.2-3. Is this what your Acharya thought about mukti? How can you serve the divine couple while rejoicing with women?


Please note the second part of the verse 20:(20) Simply by obeisance to the Lord His feet the devotees attained to palaces, made of lapis lazuli with emeralds and gold, of which the inhabitants have large hips and beautiful smiling faces. But with their minds absorbed in Krishna this does not give rise to any lust with their friendly laughing and joking. (21)

About Chandogya Upanishad:
VIII-xii-2-3: Bodiless is air; and white cloud, lightning, thunder, these also are bodiless. Now as these arise out of the yonder Akasa, reach the highest light and appear each with its own form, even so this serene one rises out of this body, reaches the highest light and appears in his own form. He is the Highest Person. There he moves about, laughing, playing, rejoicing with women, vehicles or relations, not remembering this body in which he was born. As an animal is attached to a chariot, even so is the Prana attached to this body.


Regards,
Orlando.

orlando
05 May 2006, 06:10 AM
Please read my previous posts at pag.6 of this topic.

sarabhanga
05 May 2006, 07:56 AM
Namaste Orlando,

Further to your compilation:

nA (from nR) simply indicates “man”.

nara is generally “a man or a person”, and particularly “the primeval Man or eternal Spirit pervading the universe” ~ i.e. Paramatman.

nAra is “relating to or proceeding from men”, and thus “human or mortal”

nArAyaNa is a patronym derived from nara ~ i.e. “the son of the original Man (with whom he is generally associated)”.

Nara is the Lord Paramatman, and Narayana is the Lord of Jivatman ~ and as such Narayana may be defined as “the supporter of all souls”.

Narayana may refer either to Brahma or to Vishnu or Krishna.

“Whatever object there is in the Universe that is seen or heard, Narayana remains pervading all that, both inside and outside.” This may be a description of Narayana, but it is NOT a derivation of that term.

As “the primeval Man” (Paramatma or Brahma) Nara may certainly be described as “He who is imperishable”.

TruthSeeker
05 May 2006, 09:04 AM
Please read my previous posts at pag.6 of this topic.

You have not given any explanation for "rejoicing with women" but just pasted something irrelevant. From what you pasted, it appears that you support that literal interpretation.

By the way, you may refer to the Kau****aki Brahmana Upanishad for a detailed description of Vaikunta, and how a mukta is greeted in Vaikunta or Brahmaloka. In my interpretation, this is a beautiful symbolic presentation of abstract ideas, however it will impress you from a literal view too. You got to admire our sages who can provide such beautiful ideas even in story form.

TruthSeeker
05 May 2006, 09:23 AM
29.No, it does not. Because, the released soul attains the same pleasure and happiness as that of Brahman, who creates, supports, and destroys the world.He attains the highest degree of equality with Brahman. This can be explained with an example. There are a father and his son. The father cultivates the land. He harvests the grains and he cooks. The meal is shared, both by the father and the son. So, the son does not till or plough the land. The father is tilling the land and is harvesting the proceeds. Still, the son has the pleasure of eating the produce, just like his father. So, the pleasure remains the same, both for the father and the son. In the same way, although the released soul does not create the world, he gets the same pleasure as the Brahman in this regard.30.The following qualities are special to the Lord: 1. Being the cause of the world.
2. Giving of moksha to Jivatma.


These two extra powers will generate more bliss, no?

Sage Visvamitra was able to create Trishanku Universe by himself along with all people and it is still exisiing, according to mythology. Is it right that only God has the power of creation?





Shri TruthSeeker,please note that omniscience means know everything.And not to not have thoughs.

Omniscience means the knowledge of everything, past,present and future, and beyond time. It clearly negates any thought process like "I am going to eat, then I am going to bed etc" because such a serial process of thoughts are contradictory to omniscience. If jiva knows everything, then why does he need to focus his mind( which is called a thought) to concieve of anything?

Automatically, it will also eliminate such thoughts like "I am seeing the divine couple now. Next, I will dance, sing etc." To define mukti, even if we accept VA, is an uninterrupted and unchanging vision or thought of God, and cannot involve any actions.

If Lord Narayana is omniscient, he will then know what a muktas actions will be. The jiva will also know how he will act. It looks almost like some robotic exercise. That is why omniscience and any action cannot go together. Say that the individual soul is different from God, and is eternally absorbed in the bliss of Brahman - that will make far more sense from the perspective of VA.

orlando
05 May 2006, 10:40 AM
These two extra powers will generate more bliss, no?

Sage Visvamitra was able to create Trishanku Universe by himself along with all people and it is still exisiing, according to mythology. Is it right that only God has the power of creation?





Omniscience means the knowledge of everything, past,present and future, and beyond time. It clearly negates any thought process like "I am going to eat, then I am going to bed etc" because such a serial process of thoughts are contradictory to omniscience. If jiva knows everything, then why does he need to focus his mind( which is called a thought) to concieve of anything?

Automatically, it will also eliminate such thoughts like "I am seeing the divine couple now. Next, I will dance, sing etc." To define mukti, even if we accept VA, is an uninterrupted and unchanging vision or thought of God, and cannot involve any actions.

If Lord Narayana is omniscient, he will then know what a muktas actions will be. The jiva will also know how he will act. It looks almost like some robotic exercise. That is why omniscience and any action cannot go together. Say that the individual soul is different from God, and is eternally absorbed in the bliss of Brahman - that will make far more sense from the perspective of VA.

I found the story of Visvamitra and Trishanku at http://www.srichinmoylibrary.com/sri-chinmoy-indian-meals/part10/5.html

Sage Visvamitra obtained siddhis (occult powers) though austerities.
However please note that if God would have not created the original universe Shri Visvamitra didn't neither exist!!!
It is perfectly right that only God has the power of creation.And then give moksha is not a jiva's job.
Please remember that we jivas are like puppets in the hands of a puppet master.You can't change this fact.I can't too.We jivas exist only for His personal pleasure.This is the purpose of our existence.
You can't change this fact.This universe is a 1/4th of Nitya Vibhuthi (Lord's playground).The other 3/4ths are at Vaikunta.
For example,I think you already know how the young Lord Krishna behaved.:D
For example He stealed yogurt!He eated some yogurt and then gave some yogurt to the monkeys!!!
By http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto10/chapter8.html
(26) Within a short time, o King, began Râma and Krishna in Gokula without the help of their knees with ease to walk around on their legs alone. (27) But then awakened the Supreme Lord the heavenly bliss with the ladies of Vraja in His together with Balarâma happily playing with other kids in Vraja. (28) The gopîs with eyes for Krishna eager just to hear again and again about His childish pranks assembled in the presence of His mother and said: (29) 'Once He untimely released the calves and smiled upon the anger aroused; some or another way He stole and ate from the pots the palatable curd, milk and butter and gave the monkeys each a share to eat; if they don't want to eat He breaks the pot and when He can't find any He gets angry at the people of the house and goes pinching the babies. (30) Hung out of reach He devises a way piling up things or turning over a mortar and knows He His way to the contents making a hole in the hanging pot. He knows His way around in a dark room with enough light to see from the shining jewels on His body and awaits the time the gopîs are busy with their household affairs! (31) He's so naughty that He sometimes freely urinates in a clean spot in our houses and that cunning, resourceful thief now sits there like a nice boy!' Being there discussed the gopîs all these things, but seeing Him sitting before them looking afraid with His beautiful face, could the gopîs happy to see Him with their complaints against Him only smile and rejoice and could they truly not be angry with Him. (32) Once when He was a little older came Balarâma and the other kids of the neighborhood to tell His mother: 'Krishna has eaten earth!'

(33) Yas'odâ anxious about His welfare took Krishna chiding by the hand and looked worried into His mouth to inspect Him and said: (34) 'Why You unruly boy have You secretly eaten dirt, what is it that I hear from Your older brother and all Your playmates?'

(35) 'O mother I didn't eat any dirt, they have it all wrong; if that what they say would be true, then look right now into My mouth!'

(36) 'If so, then open wide', she ordered Him and He, the Supreme Personality, the Lord to whose opulences there's no limit, opened in His pastime of being a human child His mouth. (37-39) Within His mouth she [for the second time, see chapter 10.7: 35-37] saw the whole universe with all beings moving and unmoving and the sky in all directions, the mountains, the continents, the oceans, the surface of the earth, the blowing wind, the fire, the moon and the stars. She saw the planetary systems, the waters, the light, the firmament with all of outer space and all [divinities] bound to change, the senses, the mind and the three modes. Seeing the variety of that along with the time of living of each soul, the natural instincts, the karma, what is all desired and the different subtle bodies, including Vraja and herself within in the wide open mouth of the body of her son, was she struck with disbelief:


The Creator plays with His creatures.The puppet master plays with his puppets.Please accept this fact.
Regards,
Orlando.

satay
05 May 2006, 10:48 AM
The Creator plays with His creatures.The puppet master plays with his puppets.Please accept this fact.
Regards,
Orlando.

and this conclusion is completely wrong!

There is more to it than simply a "dog's life"

orlando
05 May 2006, 10:49 AM
You wrote:"Omniscience means the knowledge of everything, past,present and future, and beyond time. It clearly negates any thought process like "I am going to eat, then I am going to bed etc" because such a serial process of thoughts are contradictory to omniscience. If jiva knows everything, then why does he need to focus his mind( which is called a thought) to concieve of anything?

Automatically, it will also eliminate such thoughts like "I am seeing the divine couple now. Next, I will dance, sing etc." To define mukti, even if we accept VA, is an uninterrupted and unchanging vision or thought of God, and cannot involve any actions.

If Lord Narayana is omniscient, he will then know what a muktas actions will be. The jiva will also know how he will act. It looks almost like some robotic exercise. That is why omniscience and any action cannot go together. Say that the individual soul is different from God, and is eternally absorbed in the bliss of Brahman - that will make far more sense from the perspective of VA."

Please note that a mukta can move without a body also.It must not necessarily dance and sing for past-time.
And then please note a thing:Lord Krishna,who is Lord Vishnu Him-self,was omniscient but he behaved as if He didn't know that Lord Brahma had stealed His young friends.It is a leela (play).

Regards,
Orlando.

orlando
05 May 2006, 10:55 AM
Dear Satay,I never said that this is "dog's life".
Serve the Lord gives very much bliss to a person.
And however that conclusion is not wrong.

orlando
05 May 2006, 10:56 AM
Of course Lord is very mercyful.But we are not able to understand His leela.
Please don't misunderstand my statements.

satay
05 May 2006, 11:21 AM
Dear Satay,I never said that this is "dog's life".


How is puppet better than a dog?

ramkish42
05 May 2006, 11:23 AM
I think you are wrong. VA clearly equates the bliss and jnana of jiva and Brahman. And this is well emphasised in the works of Ramanuja.

I think I made it clear - when the bliss is infinity there is no question of which infinity is greater arises, call an infinity by its very name. Real problem is when you miss out few statements of mine and stick to few others, you wont be able to comprehend. See the set as a whole

Verily you miss the bliss of new borns, that is what I can say for now.

Keep reading my Visishtadvaita thread, slowly and steadly you will get all answers

Jai shree krishna

orlando
05 May 2006, 11:59 AM
Dear Satay,I just meaned that we jivas are under the God'control and we exist only for His personal pleasure.

Ram
05 May 2006, 02:50 PM
and this conclusion is completely wrong!

There is more to it than simply a "dog's life"

Oh dear, a dog's life in Vaikunta? And comparison with puppets, oh, dear!

What does Swami Desikan say?

saikaaM pa~nchaashataM yaam.h atanuta vinataa nandanaM nandayiShyan.h
kR^itvaa maulau tadaaj~naaM kavi kathaka ghaTaa kesarii ve~NkaTeshaH.
taametaaM shiilayantaH shamita viShadhara vyaadhi daivaadhi piiDaaH
kaa~Nxaa paurastya laabhaH kR^itamitara phalaistaarxya kalpaa bhavanti..

(Garuda Panchasat.52 )

Note the last line phalaistaarxya kalpaa bhavanti

orlando
05 May 2006, 03:51 PM
Oh dear, a dog's life in Vaikunta? And comparison with puppets, oh, dear!

Well,I found that comparison in internet.


What does Swami Desikan say?

saikaaM pa~nchaashataM yaam.h atanuta vinataa nandanaM nandayiShyan.h
kR^itvaa maulau tadaaj~naaM kavi kathaka ghaTaa kesarii ve~NkaTeshaH.
taametaaM shiilayantaH shamita viShadhara vyaadhi daivaadhi piiDaaH
kaa~Nxaa paurastya laabhaH kR^itamitara phalaistaarxya kalpaa bhavanti..

(Garuda Panchasat.52 )

Note the last line phalaistaarxya kalpaa bhavanti

Shri Ram please note that not everyone know sanskrit.I don't know it too.
Please could you write the english translation?
Regards,
Orlando.

Ram
06 May 2006, 06:30 AM
Shri Ram please note that not everyone know sanskrit.I don't know it too.
Please could you write the english translation?
Regards,
Orlando.

In Garuda Panchasat, Swami Desikan has elaborately praised Garuda Bhagavan and has explained the result of meditating on Garuda Bhagavan. These verses were inspired to him by Lord Garuda, and it is mentioned in the final verse( 52).

In that final verse, the benefits of meditating on Garuda Bhagavan is mentioned. All evils due to poison are removed (viShadhara vyaadhi), all evils due to karma (daivaadhi piiDaaH), all desires (kaa~Nxaa paurastya laabhaH ), and above all becomeing equal to Bhagavan Garuda himself. (taarxya kalpaa bhavanti.)

Thus, you can see that mukti in Srivaishnavism is not a puppet. It is becoming equal(or almost equal) to Garuda Bhagavan himself. There are no dilutions.

In an earlier verse, it is even more stunning:

yo yaM dhatte svaniShThaM vahanamapi varaH spar****o yena yasmai
yasmaad.h yasyaahava shriir.h vidadhati bhajanaM yatra yatreti santaH.
praayo devaH sa itthaM hari garuDa bhidaa kalpitaa roha vaaha-
svaabhaavyaH svaatma bhavyaH pradishatu shakunir.h brahma sabrahmataaM naH.. 4

Note the phrase in bold, where an advaitin may be tempted to argue that Garuda is actually equated to Vishnu himself. In any case, the word kalpitaa there literally refers to an unrealistic difference between Vishnu and Garuda. I have to check with a leading Vaishnava scholar to know what exactly is meant here.

What I intend to state is that mukti in VA is not any state of separation from God. You are only thinly different from Bhagavan, else any equalities in their bliss would be absurd.

Garuda Panchasat throws light on many aspects of VA in a very subtle way and is a very tough composition. I would like to post a full translation, but I have to check with a scholar before doing so. Many of the verses in GP, actually refer to both Vishnu and Garuda. Some scholars say that Swami Desikan was such a poetic genius that he referred to both Vishnu and Garuda in all the 52 verses, and we are just unable to trace the hidden meaning. There are very few equals to Swami Vedanta Desika in many fields. You must be proud to be his disciple.

Truth Seeker JI has got some points right, but I think identity with Vishnu is never preached anywhere in Srivaishnavism. That would be a blasphemous beleif according to Vaishnava sampradaya. You have to assume yourself to be a servant of God until you are liberated, failing to do so will result in ego, and spiritual downfall. But in moxa there cannot be such things -- it is simply unparallled enjoyment. I cannot imagine how it is like, because being like Garuda Bhagavan is something unimaginable from an earthly point of view.

Ram
06 May 2006, 07:31 AM
Can you explain how a jiva can have the same bliss and knowledge as Brahman, without having the omnipotence? It is just disguised advaita.

But why would Ramanuja state that in public? Would anyone openly preach that his philosophy is for the common man? His views can be well understood as an outsider. To a disciple of Ramanuja, you cannot come out of this. I have not stated anywhere on this forum that VA is wrong - I have said that it is just "reduced" advaita....





Since you are so keen to prove that Vishsitadvaita is "reduced" advaita, let us have some balance.

I also think that advaita is "reduced" Vishistadvaita.

That is, Shankara was a Vishsitadvaitin towards intellectuals, but professed to be an advaitin for the sake of the common man who had become too arrogant to equate himself to God.

Here is a verse from Shankara's Vishnu Shatpadi.

satyapi nedhapagame naTh tvAham na mAmkInastvam |
sAmudrO hi taranga: kvacana samudrO na taranga: ||

O Lord! Even though there is no difference between us , I belong to You and not vice-versa. Just like the ocean is made of waves but the waves are not made up of ocean.

This is Vishsistadvaita. There is even no doubt that Shankara has an "I" that is different from God. Since Shankara is said to be an avatar of Shiva, this cannot even be the apparent dualty seen by a jivan mukta. The reference to Lord in the verse confirms that Shankara was not "Lord" and lacked the powers to create and destroy as exactly explained by Sri Ramanuja. Individual soul is equal to God in everything, except for the powers of creation and destruction, and brought out by Shankara here.

TS, Now it is your turn!

Ram
06 May 2006, 03:42 PM
Namaste Ramkish,

स य एषोऽणिमैतदात्म्यमिदँ सर्वं तत्सत्यँ स
आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो इति भूय एव मा
भगवान्विज्ञापयत्विति तथा सोम्येति होवाच ॥

sa ya esho'nimaitadātmyamidam sarvam tatsatyam sa
ātmā tattvamasi śvetaketo iti bhūya eva mā
bhagavānvijńāpayatviti tathā somyeti hovāca ||

“Now, that which is that subtle essence (the root of all), in it, all that exists has its self. It is the True.
It is the Self; and thou, O Svetaketu, art it.”
“Please Sir, inform me still more”, said the son. “Be it so, my child”, the father replied.

The Upanishad states: आत्मा तत्त्वमसि [ātmā tattvamasi] ~ and NOT आत्माऽतत्त्वमसि [ātmā'tattvamasi], which would read as:
“It is the Self, and thou, O Svetaketu, art NOT it” !

Such a deliberate distortion of the Upanishad is unworthy of any further consideration, and anyone who promotes such rubbish deserves condemnation. :mad:

I disagree with the rendering of atattvamasi, but it is neither rubbish nor deserves condemnation, because it is a perfectly valid one. No advaitins of former times have challenged this translation on any technical reasons.

Ram
06 May 2006, 03:51 PM
Sage Visvamitra was able to create Trishanku Universe by himself along with all people and it is still exisiing, according to mythology. Is it right that only God has the power of creation?



Creation defined in Hindu scripture does not refer to this mini creation at all. The universe is consisting of countless Brahmandas, and each Brahmanda has its creator. These are not equal to God in anyway, they just create acording to the power given to them by God. The Thrishanku svarga must have created within one of these Brahmandas. Visvamitra did not become God by this feat, and nor can be grant mukti(on his own) to anyone. During the pralaya, Visvamitra's svarga will vanish along with the Brahmanda.

sarabhanga
07 May 2006, 07:14 AM
OK Ramji, you are quite correct ~ I was misunderstanding the use of the apostrophe.

If a simple vowel (not a diphthong), short or long, be followed by a similar vowel, short or long, both of them will merge into the similar long vowel.

Therefore, AtmA atattvamasi would indeed become AtmAtattvamasi ~ not AtmA'atattvamasi ~ and taken alone, either interpretation is possible. :o

And thus, if the whole Upanishad can be interpreted in accordance with attatvamasi, and that can be justified through a consistent interpretation of the Brahmasutras, then the idea could be justified. :)

TruthSeeker
11 May 2006, 02:47 PM
Since you are so keen to prove that Vishsitadvaita is "reduced" advaita, let us have some balance.

I also think that advaita is "reduced" Vishistadvaita.


Quite possible. Neither of us is not enlightened to come to a valid conclusion. You follow your convictions, and me mine.




That is, Shankara was a Vishsitadvaitin towards intellectuals, but professed to be an advaitin for the sake of the common man who had become too arrogant to equate himself to God.

Here is a verse from Shankara's Vishnu Shatpadi.

satyapi nedhapagame naTh tvAham na mAmkInastvam |
sAmudrO hi taranga: kvacana samudrO na taranga: ||

O Lord! Even though there is no difference between us , I belong to You and not vice-versa. Just like the ocean is made of waves but the waves are not made up of ocean.

This is Vishsistadvaita. There is even no doubt that Shankara has an "I" that is different from God. Since Shankara is said to be an avatar of Shiva, this cannot even be the apparent dualty seen by a jivan mukta. The reference to Lord in the verse confirms that Shankara was not "Lord" and lacked the powers to create and destroy as exactly explained by Sri Ramanuja. Individual soul is equal to God in everything, except for the powers of creation and destruction, and brought out by Shankara here.

TS, Now it is your turn!

I know these verses very well. I can quote you more verses in your favour. So? Advaita is called non dualty for this very reason, it always implies some kind of non dualty in dualty. If no dualty were possible, we could call it as oneness, instead of non dualty.

Pranjna always exists in Turiya. When viewed from the perspective of a jnanin, mukti is advaita. When viewed from the perspective of a bhakta, mukti is Vishistadvaita. I dont see any contradictions. Here, Sri Shankara is obviously in the mode of a bhakta. jivanmuktas may oscillate between these states of ecstacy and perfect stillness.

It is wrong to think that advaita is "advaita" as stated in the philosophy of advaita. Can you even imagine the concept of advaitam? It is impossible to even think of such a state. It is left undefined, as is called Nirguna. The arguments against Nirguna are made on the assumption that it is something bound by human logic. Some classical advaitins may go to the extreme while defining advaitam - ex negativa, in terms of negatives. I dont like that approach - but definining it as positives creates logical fallacies in the philosophy of advaita. Brahman is self luminous, and take any attribute you like and scale it infinite fold. Do this for every attribute, that is Brahman. Ever heard of the term Sahasra Koti Govinda?


As I said earlier, if you strip your God of form, that will be close to advaitic Brahman though not identical. As long as Brahman is described by some form, it ceases to be Turiya.

saidevo
03 September 2006, 09:44 PM
The Mechanism of Reincarnation

To complement the discussions abour reincarnation here, I would like to present here the Theosophical view about the mechanism of reincarnation. To start with, let us recap some basics:

Seven Worlds
The space in the universe (and our solar system) has seven dimensions. The first three of these are in the physical world, and increments by one with the other worlds: astral world, mental world, causal world, monodic world, and the divine world. Each world has matter made of its own ultimate atom.

The Hindu equivalents of these seven worlds are: Bhur-loka, Bhuvar-loka, Suvarloka, Maharloka, Janarloka, Taparloka and Satya-loka. The popular pranayamam shloka 'Om Bhuhu, Om Bhuvaha, Ohum Suvaha, Om Mahaha ... bhurbhuvasuvarom' speaks of these seven lokas.

What is popularly known as the heavens are the seven sub-planes of the mental world. The lowest sub-plane of the astral world constitutes the hell.

Seven Principles
Human soul is clothed with seven principles:

Physical body
This is the biological body, with five senses of action (karmendryas), five senses of knowledge (jnanedryas) and the brain (the physical medium of the mind). The biological body contains matter from the three lower sub-planes of the physical world: solid, liquid and gaseous.

Etheric double
This is an exact replica of physical body but with only matter from the four higher sub-planes of the physical world (these are just four grades of ether). This is the body where the seven chakras reside and regulate the flow of prana. This is the body that determines the health aura of a person.

Astral body
This is a body made of emotional energy. The astral body has the shape of the physical body with matter from the astral world. In the dream state during sleep, human consciousness is focussed on the astral body that travels in the astral world. Thus, your lucid dreams are your expriences in the astral world.

Mental body
Made of matter from the mental world, this body is where our thoughts originate. Concrete thoughts take shape in mental matter, descend to astral world and finally enter the medium of the physical brain. In the deep sleep state, human consciousness is focussed on the mental body, that resides on the four lower sub-planes of the mental world.

Causal body
Home of the higher manas where thoughts are in abstract terms, this body is resident in the three upper sub-planes of the mental world. The causal body is well developed with yogis and helps them experience the bliss of meditation.

Buddhi
This is the discrminating principle, that warns us inwardly when we are about to do something that does not help us spiritually.

Atma
The human soul, also called the Self, is part of the Cosmic Consciousness or Brahman.

Ego
Thus we have: atman, the divine monad, giving birth to the divine ego, which latter evolves forth the monadic envelope or divine soul. Jiva, the spiritual monad, has its child, which is the spiritual ego, and this in turn evolves forth the spiritual soul or individual; and the combination of these two, considered as a unit, generally speaking, is atma-buddhi; bhutatman, the human ego -- the higher human soul, including the lower buddhi and higher manas; pranatman, the personal ego -- the ordinary human soul or person -- including manas, kama, and prana; and finally the beast or animal ego -- the vital-astral soul: kama and prana. (Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary)

The Mechanism of Reincarnation
At death of the physical body, the soul lives in the astral world until its astral body is dead, then enjoys the fruits of its good karma in a heaven of the mental world. When this is over, because of the left-over karma, the soul descends into the lower worlds for another birth.

The following is a discussion from the book The Causal Body by Arthur E. Powell.



...after the death of the physical body, the ego steadily withdraws through plane after plane, until eventually he is clothed only in his causal vehicle. At physical death, the life web, together with prana is withdrawn into the heart, round the physical permanent atom. The physical permanent atom then rises along the Sushumna-nadi --- a canal running from the heart to the third ventricle - into the head, to the third ventricle of the brain. Then the whole of the life-web, collected round the permanent atom, rises slowly to the point of junction of the parietal and occipital sutures, and leaves the physical body - now dead.

As the ego vacates each of his bodies, the permanent atoms of those bodies pass into a dormant condition , and are retained in the causal body in that quiescent state. Wile the man is in his causal body only, he thus has within that body the physical permanent atom, the astral permanent atom, and the mental permanent molecule, or unit,as it is more usually called. These three, wrapped in the buddhic life-web, appear as a brilliant nucleus-like particle in the causal body. They are, of course, all that now remains to the ego of the physical, astral and mental bodies of his previous incarnation.

...when the life on the higher mental sub-planes comes to an end, we perceive that Trishna i.e.,desire for further experience, reasserts itself, and the ego once more turns his attention outwards, stepping over the threshold of devachan into what has been called the plane of reincarnation, bringing with him the results, small or great, of his devachanic work.

With his attention turned outwards, as said, the ego sends forth a thrill of life, which arouses the mental unit. The flow in the spirillae of this unit, and in the other permanent atoms in their turn, which during the period of repose, has been small and slow, is now increased, and the mental unit, thus stimulated, begins to vibrate strongly.

The life-web begins to unfold again, and the vibrating mental unit, acting as a magnet, draws around itself mental matter, with vibratory powers resembling, or accordant with, its own.

The devas of the Second Elemental Kingdom bring this material within reach of the mental unit, and, in the earlier stages of evolution, they also shape the matter into a loose cloud around the permanent unit: but, as evolution proceeds, the ego himself exercises an ever increasing influence over the shaping of the material.

When the mental body is partially formed, the life-thrill from the ego awakens the astral permanent atom, and a similar procedure takes place, a cloud of astral matter being drawn round the astral permanent atom.

In his descent to incarnation, we thus see that the ego does not receive ready-made mental and astral bodies: instead, he receives material out of which these bodies will be built, in the course of the life that is to follow. Moreover, the matter which he receives is capable of providing him with mental and astral bodies, of exactly the same type as those he had at the end of his last mental and astral lives, respectively.

-----
(from the book The Etheric Double)
The Etheric Double is actually built in advance for the incoming Ego, by an elemental which is the joint thought-form of the four Devarajas, each of whom presides over one of the four etheric sub-planes of physical matter. The primary business of this building elemental is to construct the etheric mould into which the physical particles of the new baby-body are to be built.
-----

We may add, however, that during human ante-natal life the prolongation of the Sutratma is formed, consisting of a single thread, which weaves a network, a shimmering web of inconceivable fineness and delicate beauty, with minute meshes, reminding one of the closely woven cocoon of the silkworm.

Within the meshes of this web the coarser particles of the bodies are built together. Thus if the bodies are looked at with buddhic vision, they all disappear, and in their places is seen this web of life, as it is called, which supports and vivifies all the bodies.

During the ante-natal life, the thread grows out from the physical permanent atom and branches out in every direction, the growth continuing until the physical, body is full grown. During physical life the prana, or vitality, courses along the branches and meshes.

The ordinary ego is, of course, by no means in a position to choose a body for himself. The place of his birth is usually determined by the combined action, of three forces: these are: [1] the law of evolution, which causes an ego to be born under conditions which will give him an opportunity of developing exactly those qualities, of which he stands most in need; [2] the law of karma. The ego may not have deserved the best possible opportunity, and so he has to put up with the second or third best. He may not even have deserved any great opportunity at all, and so a tumultuous life of small progress may be his fate. We shall return a little later to this question, of the karma of an ego; [3] the force of any personal ties of love or hate that the ego may have previously formed.

We have seen that as the ego descends to a fresh incarnation, he has to take up the burden of his past, much of which has been stored as vibratory tendencies in his permanent atoms. These germs or seeds are known to Buddhists as Skandhas, a convenient word for which there seems to be as yet no exact equivalent in English. They consist of material qualities, sensations, abstract ideas, tendencies of mind, mental powers, the pure aroma of all these having been built into the causal body, the remainder being stored, as stated, in the permanent atoms and mental unit.

Hence it is the law of Karma which guides the man unerringly towards the race and nation herein are to be found the general characteristics that will produce a body and provide a social environment fitted for the manifestation of the general character, built up by the Ego in previous earth-lives, and for reaping of the harvest he has sown.

yajvan
30 September 2006, 01:31 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Hi,
If atma is eternal and unborn who and what keeps getting reincarnated?

Namaste coolbodhi,

I thought to add my humble opinion on this matter on vasanas, or those impressions that are gained by the native life-to-life. These vasanas form the foundation of the individual, birth after birth. Some say they are the root cause for re-birth, as the impressions for unfulfilled desires are brought life-after-life to be fulfilled. Becoming enlightened stops this progression.

I bring this up because as we gain deeper silence in the discovery of SELF, these vasanas have smaller impressions on us as our consciousness becomes clearer and we lose the clutter.

Patanjali talks much of this in his yoga-sutras... you probably know vasana by another name, samskara, which is an approximation.

I was taught this analogy. In ignorance consciousness we receive impressions in chitta and its like a chisel making a line on a piece of granite. Its deep and it stays for a very long time. As one meditates and gets clearer, the impressions are more like a stick drawing a line in sand. Its there, you see it, yet the sand falls in on itself and the line is "captured" back into the sand. Then we meditate a bit more, consciousness expands, more purity and the impressions are like a line being drawn in water. Its there and then its not. More transcending , more purity (sattva infusion) and now the impressions are like drawing a line in the air! subtly there, but then gone. NO binding influence; No karmic baggage, no lasting impressions, no vasanas. Bingo! your done.

The only remnants is the thing called Lesh-avidya, or the remains ( left overs or coloration) of ignorance just due to acting in this world.
Now, you may want to note how you handle situations over time (this really has changed for me)... this gives you a glimpse of how impressions are made into your circuitry. Are they deep, shallow? are you craving for things or do objects and desires have less hold on you? A good gage to consider the vasana impressions.
As we progress, a few things arise:
Sattwapatti or purity of mind. All mental modifications are reduced to identification with the Self.
Asamsakti or detached state. Being unaffected by anything in the world, due to the knowledge of the Self.

pranams,

Sudarshan
10 January 2007, 03:03 AM
So, according to Hindu beliefs, once a soul has attained enlightenment, do they have any association with souls that have been reincarnated?

And, souls in the astral realm waiting to be incarnated, do they have knowledge of their past life, any contact with the people living?

For example. let's say two sisters are killed together, one has attained enlightenment, one has not. According to Hindu beliefs, as they leave their physical bodies, do they have any relationship, are they aware of each other up to a certain point as souls? And, does the enlightened sister have memory, association with the sister who has been reincarnated to another life?

Enlightened souls typically fall in two classes - those that are in the highest realms of heavens, like Satya Loka. These souls can communicate with other souls in bondage in various ways, and are omniscient.

Another are those that are fully liberated beyond the manifested universe. As to the question if these souls can interact with the universe the answer is quite varied and no single answer could be called authoritative. According to advaita, no individual soul persists to communicate. Dvaita thinks that the liberated ones, even though the individuality survives, the soul is not in touch with the world and are in entirely different realm. In Vishistadvaita, the concept of muktas incarnating in the world in fully accepted, as participating in this glory sport of God.

Souls in the astral realm usually do not possess knowledge of past birth unless it is very advanced yogically. Most beings in astral world cannot communicate with us, , just like us.

Agnideva
10 January 2007, 09:24 AM
Namaste Mysticalgypsi,


And, souls in the astral realm waiting to be incarnated, do they have knowledge of their past life, any contact with the people living?
As Sudarshan says, it is generally believed that it very rare that those in the astral realm have knowledge of previous births, and can communicate with those in the physical realms. There’s an interesting episode related to this in the Autobiography of a Yogi, which I think you’re currently reading. In one chapter, Yogananda claims to have had a vision of his master, Yukteshwar Giri, after his death. In the vision, Yukteshwar tells Yogananda that he is now living in an astral realm called the Hiranya Loka, and is guiding beings unto higher planes of existence. This communication is clearly an exception and is possible due to Yukteshwar’s yogic prowess.


So, according to Hindu beliefs, once a soul has attained enlightenment, do they have any association with souls that have been reincarnated? According to some, liberated beings (muktas) do take birth in this world. Yogananda also speaks about this in his book, in passing. He calls them Paramuktas. He says that the difference between Paramuktas and ordinary gurus is that the Paramuktas can guide a large number of beings unto enlightenment, whereas ordinary gurus can only guide a few.

Regards,
A.

Sudarshan
10 January 2007, 10:21 AM
As Sudarshan says, it is generally believed that it very rare that those in the astral realm have knowledge of previous births, and can communicate with those in the physical realms. There’s an interesting episode related to this in the Autobiography of a Yogi, which I think you’re currently reading. In one chapter, Yogananda claims to have had a vision of his master, Yukteshwar Giri, after his death. In the vision, Yukteshwar tells Yogananda that he is now living in an astral realm called the Hiranya Loka, and is guiding beings unto higher planes of existence. This communication is clearly an exception and is possible due to Yukteshwar’s yogic prowess.


Communication is generaly not possible, but allowed under certain kArmic conditions. Haven't we heard of spirits creating trouble for others? Normally, only spirits that you have wronged in the past can trouble you, and not at random.( that is why we have little fear from spirits inspite of millions of them roaming here) Pitri devas usually cant commuicate unless they are spiritually advanced. Very advanced souls, devas and high beings(muktas) can easily communicate.

When I was living at Madurai, the house opposite to mine had plenty of problems with spirits, and clothes would catch fire without any reason or the people had unexplained swelling on their body. ( like that). The family struggled like that for a long time until one day luckily the then ShankarAcArya happened to visit the neighbourhood and he was able to fix the problem. Yet, the spirit caused caused problem only in that house and spared the neighbourhood and must be purely kArmic.

Sudarshan
11 January 2007, 12:29 AM
Ok, Namaste and thanks so much.

So, at the moment of death is the soul void of memory of this life? And, how long before they are reincarnated?


Could be immediately, but theory tells us a minimum of four months is needed, because the child in the womb acquires a soul only in the seventh month. The actual time might range from a few months to thousands of years. Yogis, if they die without getting full enlightenment may enjoy a blissful period lasting thousands of years before incarnating again with the knowledge of the previous.



Do souls ever recognize each other in the astral world?


Yes. Most of the souce material is the garuDa purANa. But they will recognize many fathers, mothers, friends, enemies, relatives of many previous births( to the extent the soul can recall), so it should be rather bizzarre.



As far as spirits, do you think spirits are separate from other beings and always remain spirits of various types, or are spirits=to souls in your mind?


Spirit=soul.

Agnideva
11 January 2007, 09:31 AM
As far as spirits, do you think spirits are separate from other beings and always remain spirits of various types, or are spirits=to souls in your mind?
Namaste Mysticalgypsi,

This is going to be sort of extraneous information, but may help you understand the Hindu belief in transmigration, afterlife, astral worlds, etc.

In Hinduism we believe that there is more than just the physical body and the Ātman (embodied soul). The body and the Ātman are sort of separated by layers of sheaths (koshas).

There are five koshas:

1. Annamaya Kosha (Sheath of Food)
2. Prānamaya Kosha (Sheath of Vital Energy)
3. Manomaya Kosha (Sheath of the Mind)
4. Vijńānamaya Kosha (Sheath of the Intellect)
5. Ānandamaya Kosha (Sheath of Bliss)

In the scheme that I am aware of (there may be other schemes), #1 is called the physical body (sthūla sharīra). #2, #3 and #4 are together called the astral body (sūkshma sharīra). #5 is called the causal body (kārana sharīra). The Ātman is beyond, or rather “encased” by, the three bodies or the five sheaths.

When we live in the physical plane of existence, we experience the world through the physical body. After death and before rebirth, we may temporarily inhabit one of the many worlds that make up the astral plane of existence, and experience through the astral body. Upon liberation from samsāra, but before final oneness, one may inhibit and develop in the causal plane of existence (in worlds like janaloka, tapaloka, satyaloka), and experience through the causal body. So, when we speak of after-death experiences, astral worlds, spirits communicating, etc., we are speaking of beings who are now experiencing through their astral bodies.

I hope that helps. :)

OM Shanti,
A.

saidevo
11 January 2007, 10:16 AM
Namaste MysticalGypsi,



So, at the moment of death is the soul void of memory of this life? And, how long before they are reincarnated? Do souls ever recognize each other in the astral world?


Yogananda in his book 'Autobiography...' reports in Chapter 11 thus, as spoken by his guru Yukteswar, as to the recognition of relatives and friends from past lives of a disembodied soul living in the astral world:



The earth-liberated astral being meets a multitude of relatives, fathers, mothers, wives, husbands, and friends, acquired during different incarnations on earth, 43-5 as they appear from time to time in various parts of the astral realms. He is therefore at a loss to understand whom to love especially; he learns in this way to give a divine and equal love to all, as children and individualized expressions of God. Though the outward appearance of loved ones may have changed, more or less according to the development of new qualities in the latest life of any particular soul, the astral being employs his unerring intuition to recognize all those once dear to him in other planes of existence, and to welcome them to their new astral home. Because every atom in creation is inextinguishably dowered with individuality, 43-6 an astral friend will be recognized no matter what costume he may don, even as on earth an actor's identity is discoverable by close observation despite any disguise.


This passage throws up some interesting points:

1. Suppose A, a disembodied soul living in the astral world, had its relatives and friends, say B,C, and D from past lives--all of them currently living in the astral world (may be awaiting reincarnation).

2. Since B,C and D are from the past lives of A, they would be in different stages of evolution. In other words, their current astral bodies would be different from the counterparts of the physical that A knew in past lives.

3. A can still recognize B,C and D and vice versa, though their current astral bodies are different from what A had known in his past lives.

4. How can A recognize B,C and D unless he has memory of his past lives? Yukteswar says "the astral being employs his unerring intuition to recognize all those once dear to him in other planes of existence". It seems to me that this intution also gives the ability to remember past lives as otherwise it would be illogical to suppose that the intution can work only for recognition of B,C and D.

I remember to have read somewhere (not sure where) that a disembodied soul possesses the eight siddhis, though to a restricted extent. In the astral world where the soul lives immediately after death of the physical body, it will naturally seek the region where its immediate relatives and friends live.

On the death of the astral body, when the soul passes to the mental world (known as the heavens) and enjoys the fruits of its good karma, it interacts with the mental bodies of its previous and past life friends and relatives, and this is not possible without the memory of past lives.

Only in the physical body, I think, the soul cannot know its past lives, unless it is sufficiently evolved.



As far as spirits, do you think spirits are separate from other beings and always remain spirits of various types, or are spirits=to souls in your mind?

Spirits are not human souls. They have a varieity of different classifications. Among the devas themselves there are eight types. And then there are nature spirits and spiritus associated with specific types of work in the astral and mental worlds. (The Hindu count of 33 crores of devas makes sense because such a large force would be needed to administer the seven worlds!) In the lower astral region (called the hell) live the ghosts of human beings who were in the bottom most in spiritual evolution. These entitis greatly suffer because of their past life propensities. For example, a drink-addict would crave for a drink in the astral region where he happens to reside, but woudn't be able to quench his thirst because of the lack of physical body, so he would haunt the bars and try to satisfy his third with the astral counterpart of the liquor fumes emanating there!

For more details on the astral body and astral life read A.E. Powell's compilation at:
http://www.theosophical.ca/AstralBodyByPowell-A.htm
http://www.theosophical.ca/AstralBodyByPowell-B.htm

yajvan
13 January 2007, 01:46 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Back to the OP, what exactly incarnates?

Namaste to all on this post,
you ask good questions. These questions are taken up in the Upanishads.
If one looks to the Chhandogya Upanishad there is a great info on what happens after dropping the body and how one returns. I will create a seperate post if interested, yet look to the bottom of this post for the content.

From a Jyotish orientation allow me to address coolbodhi's question on what comes back.

Lets go with the answer first, then work forwards. What comes back is the mindstuff and the jiva. The body is no more. As a vessel it did its job to house the mind and the spirit. What is 'encoded' is called vasana's and you can read several posts on this , its on this forum. Here's the location:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=627

Now, lets work forwards. all of us are considered the makings from the tripod of life, the Lagana or Ascendent ( ruled bt Brahma) and the physical body creation of this incarnation, the moon ( chandra, and of the mind) and the Sun (Surya, and the ruler of the atma, the soul). These 3 make up the core of you. The body comes and goes as its elements returns back to the elements.
What is of interst is the sum of your actions and where you can go after one drops the body, and how one comes back to this Bhu Loka.
If one constructs a death chart, some call Punya chakra, at the time of death, one can see (that is, a good Jyotisha) your next station. What are these stations? and what, in one's death chart, gives the indication of the next postion? First the stations:

Brahma loka - Jupiter is significator - Akasha is the tattva
Bhu Loka - Sun and Mars are significators - agni is the tattva
Demi gods and deva's - Moon and Venus significators - jala is the tattva
Tala loka down to Patala-loka - Saturn is significator - vayu is the tattva
Naraka loka below the Patala -loca - Mercury is significator - prthvi is tattva
When one drops the vessel that holds the mind and the atman , this is owned by the 11 rudra ( we talked of this on another post too) , they bind prana to the body. No prana, no binding and the Jiva+mind is no longer contained within the physical body. So , based upon the merits and demerits, one goes to one of the places above.

At the time of death, the Jyotisha looks at the chart, and then looks to the Drekkana division ( Drekkana is pronounced dreshkana) or the 1/3rd division of each sign/rasi and looks for the rule that guides this prediction.
That is, and recall from above the tripod of life conversation? the Jyotish evaluates where the sun and moon and their strenth in the chart.
That is, what graha owns ( we say lords) these strategic postions? Jupiter, Mars, etc etc. This indicates ones next station.

Some folks come right back to earth , that means the sun and mars is of greatest impact in the drekkana division. What is right back? According to tradition, its one muhurta, or 48 minutes. Now, hold that idea, as my panampara instructs that the shortest time is 12 days. One muhuruta is considered the indicator of the day, and the moon, so one day before coming back to this plane, and up to 9 years before returning , if indicated by ones death chart to return to this earth.

When one looks at a chart, and tells the native looks like your last station was amonst the siddha's and gandarva's - the native is so happy, but fails to realize why he fell back from that station and arrive back to Bhu loka?

More if there is interest...
if you care to read Srimad - Bhagavatam, chapt 11.14 on, this will help.

And the Chhandogya Upanishad, the conversation of Svetaketu ( a most profund name to have) and his conversation with the king Pravahana Jaivali. He asks Svetaketu, do you know where people go after they depart from this world? Do you know where people come when they are reborn in this world? Do you know what path the soul ascends ( devayana and pitriyana)? Why is the yonder world not filled people and not over flowing? And do you know the 5 oblations...the fifth, as liquid becoming a human being?
To these questions, the student says he does not know...
This is great and insightful reading. For those hungry for knowledge , is very enlightening.

pranams,