Nitya Suris

[Guest guest]

Mani writes:

 

* The question is a good one and can be stated in even

* broader terms. Since Vishvaksena (Senesha) is a

* nitya-suri according to our sampradaaya, his jnaana

* has been infinite for all time. Therefore, even

* Vishvaksena does not need a specific upadesha. Teaching

* of this form is only necessary for errant jivas such

* as ourselves.

 

It is not clear to me how from the viewpoint of a mukta,

one can distinguish itself between a jivan mukta (one who has

received moksa) from a Nitya Suri (one who has been in moksa eternally).

At the time of moksa, time ceases all meaning. It is no longer

relevant or sensible to speak of a before or an after, only

that which exists at the moment.

>From the viewpoint of muktas, God doesn't differentiate between the jivatmas

(atleast not that I know of). Similarly, once a mukta, there is no chance for

the jiva to be caught up in samsara once again. If this were possible, the whole

purpose of prapatti and moksa is negated. Therefore, there appears to me no way

for a jiva to ever differentiate itself from a Nitya Suri and a jivan

mukta.

 

Even from the viewpoint of errant jivas, it doesn't

seem possible to make a differentiation between a Nitya Suri and jivan

mukta. We have no knowledge of previous lives to make a relative

comparison of the state of a mukta at the present time with

the time past. Thus, from our viewpoint of jivas, all muktas

appear as Nitya Suris.

 

It seems to me that if one allows for Nitya Suris to be those muktas who has

been "sent" by Narayana to help those errant jivas, WITHOUT worrying about

their "eternality" (which does not seem sensible to me), then the

such problems of Narayana giving upadesa to Senesha disappears.

 

Why can't one merely view Nitya Suris as those mukta's who continue to interact

with errant jivas, without they themselves being caught up in samsara?

Is this a "way" to differentiate a Nitya Suri from a jivan mukta?

>From this viewpoint, one can suggest that any mukta can become a

Nitya Suri provided that Sri Narayana himself wishes so. Therefore, it would

imply that it would be ppossible for us to not only recieve upadesa from Sriman

Narayana (which Visistadvaita would admit), but also become Nitya Suris (if

we were to receive moksa and were so instructed by Sriman Narayana).

 

I am sure that this viewpoint is inconsistent with other aspects of

Visistadvaita. However, I am curious to know a bit more on the

nature of Nitya Suris. The notion of "eternal" gets used quite loosely

in philosophy, so it would be nice to hear a discussion on

the visistadvoitic notion of time.

 

Sumanth

[Guest guest]

How is a Nithya Suri different from a jeevan Muktha? What does eternal

moksham mean? I can understand jeevatmas attaining moksha through

karma,bhakti or yoga maargam, and that is valid for jeevan mukthas; are

Nithya Suris created in Moksha itself (or does that sound too

ignorant?); Are Chakrathazvaar, Periya Thiruvadi etc Nithya Suris? Are

they Narayana amsam or Nara amsam? I presume jeevan Mokshas are nara

amsam. Are they(Nithya Suris) just variying manifestations of Sriman

Narayanan? If so, the line between Dwaitham and Vishistadwaitham become

very feeble.

Lakshmi Gopal