QUIZ # 2

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

Adiyen knows that the last quiz was not answered by me. That will be done

shortly as appropriately as the limits of adiyen's knowledge permits. I

cannot wait to get this quiz out on the net - just for some philosophic

entertainment! This is not to state that adiyen knows. If adiyen knows

the real truth behind this question, it would not be that amusing for me to

ask this quiz as I am today. Adiyen realizes that there are very learned

scholars on this net. This is not to test anyone and this email does not

mean that I know the answer to this quiz. Long time back, my cousin Murali

Kadambi asked this question to me. I gave him some answer that I felt will

be just enough to make him confused enough not to probe further in to this

( in other words I escaped from the predicament). I am not sure that he

was convinced. However, my answer was somewhat like - if some strange

questions are asked by children, their parents give this universal classic

answer " Just go to bed now, it is too late;You should be very sleepy, that

is why you are asking all these wierd questions".

 

Question:

 

Assume that a person X is chosen to get moksha. In the state of moksha,

that person will be absorbed in the knowledge of the divine blissful

Brahman who is Ananda maya! and will not think of his past bondage at all.

Even according to Visistadvaita, he will be spared from even the memories

of such sorrowful / sapless experiences of bondage. His experience will be

filled with "Brahman" knowledge and he eternally revels in the ultimate

bliss of that communion henceforth. He will not think or even for a moment

ponder about his past. He will not remember his brothers, sisters, home,

parents and all those experiences he experienced when he was in bondage. As

far as this mukta soul is concerned, the past experiences ceased to exist

from the moment, he got moksha.

 

What is wrong if one states that, since this experience of universe comes

to an end at the time of moksha, it is ok to state that this universe

experience was just like a dream, it is there during bondage and it

vanishes when one attains moksha. Since the universe experience vanishes

at the time of moksha, one can state that, "this universe experience is

unreal or illusory, due to the the rule that -" A thing can be technically

termed as illusion, if it appears to exist currently and later on vanishes

completely ( or sublates itself), never to be found again".

 

If this is so, there should not be much controversy or arguments between

ADVAITA and VISISTADVAITA. Finally these two schools are saying the same

thing. They may differ in the fashion in which the textbooks are written.

Any two authors with distinct genuine originalities, separated by a couple

of hundreds of years of time, who write about the same subject, say

"Ramayana" differ from one another slightly; But they are essentially

saying the same thing (Ramayana) in different styles or approaches.

 

QUIZ : So, is there a fallacy in the above logic? or is it fine to state

so?

 

 

*****Note it is adiyen's sincere feeling that this is not to offend anyone.

So bhagavatas, ignore and forgive me if this not to your taste******

 

Adiyen Krishna Kalale

[Guest guest]

Krishna Kalale <kkalale1 wrote:

> Assume that a person X is chosen to get moksha. In the state of

moksha,

> that person will be absorbed in the knowledge of the divine blissful

> Brahman who is Ananda maya! and will not think of his past bondage

at all.

> Even according to Visistadvaita, he will be spared from even the

memories

> of such sorrowful / sapless experiences of bondage. His experience

will be

> filled with "Brahman" knowledge and he eternally revels in the

ultimate

> bliss of that communion henceforth. He will not think or even for a

moment

> ponder about his past. He will not remember his brothers, sisters,

home,

> parents and all those experiences he experienced when he was in

bondage. As

> far as this mukta soul is concerned, the past experiences ceased to

exist

> from the moment, he got moksha.

>

> What is wrong if one states that, since this experience of universe

comes

> to an end at the time of moksha, it is ok to state that this

universe

> experience was just like a dream, it is there during bondage and it

> vanishes when one attains moksha. Since the universe experience

vanishes

> at the time of moksha, one can state that, "this universe experience

is

> unreal or illusory, due to the the rule that -" A thing can be

technically

> termed as illusion, if it appears to exist currently and later on

vanishes

> completely ( or sublates itself), never to be found again".

 

I don't think this is an acceptable argument. As per vishishhTAdvaita,

difference between the individual soul and paramAtman continues even

after moxa. The individual soul is also very much aware of it. As per

advaita this is not true. Also it is clear ffrom sha.nkaras bhAshhyas

that his use (sparing) of the word Ananda is quite different from

vishishhTAdvaita. The souls bliss of doing nityakai.nkaryam is not the

"bliss" of advaitasiddhi or kaivalyam. Just because both use the word

Ananda does not mean they are imlpying the same thing.

 

Not only that, as per sha.nkara the world is a superimposition to

begin with. It was, is not and will not be real. That is why "after

moxa" these do not "exist" in advaita. Sha.nkara points out in many

places there is nothing like "attaining the self", it is only a manner

of speech to instruct. The self is "attained" to begin with. Quite

obviously this is not vishishhTAdvaita. As per vishishhTAdvaita the

world is very much around, although it will not matter. It is like one

person saying "There is no Bombay" and the other person saying "It

does not matter whether there is a Bombay, I am going to stay in the

US and not go to India anyway". A slightly imperfect analogy, please

pardon.

> If this is so, there should not be much controversy or arguments

between

> ADVAITA and VISISTADVAITA. Finally these two schools are saying the

same

> thing. They may differ in the fashion in which the textbooks are

written.

 

I don't think so.

> Any two authors with distinct genuine originalities, separated by a

couple

> of hundreds of years of time, who write about the same subject, say

> "Ramayana" differ from one another slightly; But they are

essentially

> saying the same thing (Ramayana) in different styles or approaches.

>

> QUIZ : So, is there a fallacy in the above logic? or is it fine

to state

> so?

 

No it is not. I am saying this just to point out differences, I hope I

don't get taken to task for this. There is nothing like supremacy of

vishhNu over other devatas for advaita. As per sureshvara

(purushhvidhabrAhmaNa 377)

 

yaH prR^ithivAmitIsho.asAvantaryAmI jagadguruH |

harirbrahmA pinAkIti bahudhaiko.api gIyate |

 

The Lord of this earth, the one existing inside all that and the world

teacher, *is though one*, sung variously as Hari , Brahma, Pinaki,

etc (a name for shiva commonly found in the mahAbhArata).

 

Now, sureshvara identifies hari with the witness in Naishhkarmyasiddhi

1.1. It is just that hari, vishhNu etc mean different things in

different places. In one place it will mean a deva with form, in the

other the formless brahman. Just like sha.nkara uses Ishvara in most

places to mean brahman, but also uses it as an epithet of shiva (3

times in the kena bhAshhya). Just because sureshvara or sha.nkara use

some name like Narayana or hari in some places to denote brahman, it

does *not* mean they are using it the same way as Srivaishnavas!

 

The fallacy in the arguments given to "prove" advaita =

vishishhTAdvaita are all because of the non-recognition of the fact

that the same words are used to imply completely different things.

> *****Note it is adiyen's sincere feeling that this is not to offend

anyone.

> So bhagavatas, ignore and forgive me if this not to your taste******

 

With a similar feeling,

 

Rama