Reincarnation

[satay]

Dear Satay,I never said that this is "dog's life".

How is puppet better than a dog?

[ramkish42]

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]

Dear Satay,I just meaned that we jivas are under the God'control and we exist only for His personal pleasure.

[Ram]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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
bhagavānvijñāpayatviti 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.

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]

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]

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.

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.