Guest guest Posted August 31, 1999 Report Share Posted August 31, 1999 Narayana Narayana. I have a doubt in Visishtadvaita metaphysics. I understand the following: 1. It is said that the self, in its essential nature, is a sesha of the Lord. 2. Ignorance of this fundamental fact is caused by Avidya. 3. On self-realisation, when avidya dissipates, the self realises its essential nature of seshahood. My doubt is: If a person attains Atma-swarupa-jnana, would he also not realise his seshahood and enjoy Sriman Narayana? If so, why does Srivaishnavism reject kaivalya (atma) seeking? I have also read in an old posting (on kalai differences) that some consider kaivalya-muktas will be in the fringe of Sri Vaikuntha and some consider they will be outside Sri Vaikuntha. How is this justified when an atmajnani would also automatically realise his essential liegehood to Narayana? A follower of the path to Atma-swarupa-jnana may not know his essential leigehood to Narayana, but on realisation, wouldn't he know? - that is the question. I humbly request our members to clarify this doubt. Narayana Narayana. Parthasarathy Srinivasan. Bid and sell for free at http://auctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 1999 Report Share Posted September 2, 1999 Dear Sri Srinivasan: The answers to your questions on Kaivalyam and its difference(lower staus) from Moksham are answered by Sriman S.M.S.Chari in his books on VaishNavam and thesitic mysticism of AlwArs . Understanding the difference between kaivalyam and Moksham is an important aspect of appreciation of our sampradhAyam. I hope you can acquire these two books with the help of Sriman Krishna Kalale . With best Wishes, V.Sadagopan At 02:42 AM 8/31/99 -0700, you wrote: >Narayana Narayana. > >I have a doubt in Visishtadvaita metaphysics. I understand the >following: >1. It is said that the self, in its essential nature, is a sesha of the >Lord. >2. Ignorance of this fundamental fact is caused by Avidya. >3. On self-realisation, when avidya dissipates, the self realises its >essential nature of seshahood. > >My doubt is: > >If a person attains Atma-swarupa-jnana, would he also not realise his >seshahood and enjoy Sriman Narayana? If so, why does Srivaishnavism >reject kaivalya (atma) seeking? I have also read in an old posting (on >kalai differences) that some consider kaivalya-muktas will be in the >fringe of Sri Vaikuntha and some consider they will be outside Sri >Vaikuntha. How is this justified when an atmajnani would also >automatically realise his essential liegehood to Narayana? > >A follower of the path to Atma-swarupa-jnana may not know his essential >leigehood to Narayana, but on realisation, wouldn't he know? - that is >the question. > >I humbly request our members to clarify this doubt. > >Narayana Narayana. > >Parthasarathy Srinivasan. > > >Bid and sell for free at http://auctions. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.