Vibhava lokas

[Guest guest]

Narayana Narayana.

 

In the Gaudiya vaishnava sampradaya, they talk of a Goloka (or

Krsnaloka) as the supreme abode. I had never heard of that in

Srivaishnavism and presumed that Srivaishnavism did not entertain such

a notion. But recently in one of the posts, I saw someone quote a

Srivaishnava acharya (I think) that these are Vibhava lokas. Regarding

this I have some doubts. I humbly request our members to clarify these

doubts.

 

1) Are vibhava lokas recognised in Srivaishnavism? If so, can you

please quote the relevant Srivaishnava texts?

 

2) Are these vibhava lokas in Sri vaikuntha or are they outside?

 

3) If outside Sri vaikuntha, are they outside prakriti mandala or

within? (I vaguely recall the quote saying they are within)

 

4) If within, how does its attainment constitute moksha?

 

5) Are there separate vibhava lokas for Sri Rama, Sri Nrsimha, Sri

Varaha etc?

 

6) Why are these vibhava lokas not mentioned in the normally recognised

texts like Sri Vishnu Purana, Sri Bhagavatha Purana, Mahabharatha,

Srimad Ramayana etc.?

 

Narayana Narayana.

 

Dasanudasan,

Parthasarathy Srinivasan.

 

 

 

Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.

[Guest guest]

Dear Srinivasan,

 

You wrote:

> In the Gaudiya vaishnava sampradaya, they talk of a Goloka (or

> Krsnaloka) as the supreme abode. I had never heard of that in

> Srivaishnavism and presumed that Srivaishnavism did not

> entertain such a notion.

 

The Gaudiya Vaishnava theology is very different from the Vedanta

of Ramanuja. The Gaudiyas, to which sampradAya the Hare Krishnas also

belong, make distinctions between Krishna and Narayana, making the

former somehow superior to the latter, posit a Radha as being higher

than Lakshmi, believe that there was a "fall" from grace, etc. They

also have a very complex eschatology that posits many levels of

liberation, with different worlds, or "planets" as they like to

call them.

 

Most of these theological ideas have little basis in traditional

scripture, often facially do not make sense (to me, at least), and are

therefore not present in our sampradAya. The Gaudiyas have

interpretations which back them up, but they are usually based on

non-canonical texts which are not accepted by other traditions of

Vedanta. (The Goloka theology is primarily based on the Narada

Samhita, to my understanding).

> Regarding this I have some doubts. I humbly request our members

> to clarify these doubts.

>

> 1) Are vibhava lokas recognised in Srivaishnavism?

 

There is no such thing as a "vibhava loka" in Sri Vaishnavism.

The only terminology that is close is the notion of a "vibhava

avatAra", which means a bodily descent taken by Emberumaan at

one point in time, for the benefit of his devotees. Rama,

Krishna, Narasimha, etc., are examples of vibhava avatAras.

But this does not imply anything about a particular "planet"

on which these forms reside.

 

The positing of various "lokas" stems from thinking of Vaikuntha

primarily as a physical place. I suggest that Vaikuntha should be thought

of more as a *state* of consciousness where one has attained God,

rather than a particular physical place. Beyond all materiality,

Vaikuntha or parama-padam represents the state of moksha, where the

jIva stands unfettered by karma due to the grace of God. In this state,

how and why should God be limited to one particular form? All forms

simultaneously exist in this state, since consciousness itself is

unlimited. Or, in other words, for the delight of the individual jIva,

any form is present and brought to the attention of the jIva at any

time. So, the anubhavam of Krishna in Brindavana would be included in

the anubhavam of the jIva in parama-padam.

 

Ramanuja beautifully explains the multiple notions implied

by the term parama-padam. He writes in the Vedarthasangraha:

 

In some texts, the term "parama-pada" is used to mean the

highest state. In others, it means the true nature of the

individual self, freed from contact with matter, and in

still some other texts, it refers to the true nature of

Bhagavan. ... Now, all these three -- the highest state,

the pure state of the self, and God -- are the ultimate

goals to be attained. Hence they are described as parama-pada.

 

"How can all three be the ultimate goal?", one may ask.

The answer is this. The Lord is primarily the supreme goal

to be attained , so therefore he is "parama-pada". The other

two are included as constituent factors in the attainment of

Bhagavan, so they are also designated "parama-pada". [*]

 

In his entire discussion, Ramanuja never discusses multiple levels

of liberation (it is anathema to him), nor does he discuss multiple

worlds. After all, only one state (paramam-padam) is mentioned in

the Vedas, and that state constitues God-attainment -- why posit

anything else? Above all, why posit something so complex?

 

In general, my experience has been that the theology of Ramanuja tends

to be very straightforward. Almost always, what Ramanuja writes makes

sense immediately, without being contrived, and without violating some

basic common sense. I say this without being sycophantic or sentimental,

and I am sure that after a reading of his Gitabhashya or Vedarthasangraha

nearly anyone would immediately agree, even if in the end they disagree

with his conclusions.

 

So, my general rule of thumb is this. If something is unreasonably

complex, unnecessarily contrived, or just plain doesn't sit right

in my mind, chances are that it is in some way opposed to Ramanuja's

exposition of Vedanta.

 

emberumaanaar tiruvaDigaLE SaraNam,

Mani

 

P.S. I don't wish to get into a public argument with Hare Krishna

devotees on this subject. I am merely trying to present the

view of Ramanuja on this subject.

 

[*] Original text:

 

kvacit parasthAnam ca paramapada-Sabdena pratipAdyate;

kvacit prakRti-viyukta-AtmasvarUpam; kvacit bhagavat-svarUpam.

... trINyapy etAni paramaprAptyatvena paramapada-Sabdena

pratipAdyate.

 

katham trayANAm parama-prApyatvam iti cet, bhagavat-svarUpam

paramaprApyatvAd eva paramam padam; itaryor api bhagavat-

prAptigarbhatvAd eva parama-padatvam.

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namah:

 

Dear Sri Mani,

 

You wrote:

 

So, my general rule of thumb is this. If something is unreasonably

complex, unnecessarily contrived, or just plain doesn't sit right

in my mind, chances are that it is in some way opposed to Ramanuja's

exposition of Vedanta.

 

emberumaanaar tiruvaDigaLE SaraNam,

Mani

 

====

It is very detailed and a nice post that you have sent. Very informative.

 

Especially the General rule of thumb.

 

May Sri Ramanujacharya bless you and bless us with such lovely posts.

Thanks to Sri Srinivasan for posing that thoughtful question.

 

Regards

 

Narayana Narayana

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Srinivasan & Sri Mani,

 

The Following comments are based on an Archiraadi of Sri Pillai Lokacharya.

Pillai lokacharya in his Archiraadi, outlines the path a mummukshu takes to

attain moksha. The text is in four parts (or chapters). The first chapter

deals with the ills of the Leela World (entire world outside Viakuntam) and

provides some insight into the lifes of nityas in Vaikuntham. The second

chapter covers the detail the path to Viakuntha (or Paramapadam). The

chapter describes in detail how the soul that was guided by Perumal in the

Leela world is received by all the Nityas in the Nitya Vibhooti (Vaikuntha).

The third chapter describes the devine couch (Adisesha), Sri and Perumal

Himself. In this chapter Pillai Lokacharya starts with the Hair and

concludes with the nails on His toes, when describing the beauty of Perumal.

In the final chapter, he describes the conversation between Perumal and the

soul aspiring for Moksha.

 

>Narayana.

>

>I can appreciate that Vaikuntha is more of a state than a place where

>the dharma-bhuta-jnana of the jiva expands to infinity and covers the

>whole of existence. In this context, I have 3 questions:

>

 

Many of our poorvaachaaryas, such as Sri Pillai Lokacharya, Sri

Koorathaazhvaan (in his Vaikuntastavam) and Sri Ramanuja (in his Vaikuntha

gadyam) all address vaikuntha as a place (desam). There is no where in their

works or the commentaries on these texts, Vaikuntha is refred to as a state

of moksha. I believe that the d-b-jnana of the soul merges with Bhagavan and

the soul performs kainkaryam to perumal at His side.

>1) Does the expansion of dharma-bhuta-jnana mean that the mukta is

>omniscient like Bhagavan?

 

No

>2) Why cannot this happen while the jiva is here on earth, by the grace

>of Bhagavan?

 

If q2 is a follow up of q1, there is no answer. However, to expand on a

different path, in Archiradi, Pillai Lokacharya says that Perumal appears in

front of the soul, only when the soul is freed from the body (or is about to

be freed). The reason he gives is that Perumal wants to teach patience to

the mummukshu desiring salvation. He also wants to teach the person that the

same body that he hates can be made to adopt prctices which will take him

towards salvation.

>3) Does this dharma-bhuta-jnana reveal the jnanaanandaika-nature of

>Bhagavan also? In other words, does the mukta directly perceive the

>swarupa (essential substantive nature) of Bhagavan (apart from his

>rupa)?

>

 

Yes, but not in the Leela world of Perumal.

> >Ramanuja beautifully explains the multiple notions

> >implied by the term parama-padam. He writes in the

> >Vedarthasangraha:

> > In some texts, the term "parama-pada" is used to

> >mean the highest state. In others, it means the true

> >nature of the individual self, freed from contact

> >with matter, and in still some other texts, it refers

> >to the true nature of Bhagavan. ...

>

>It is interesting to note that in all the three meanings, the notion of

>a physical place is not present.

>

 

On the contarary, Ramanuja in his Vaikuntha gadya, gives a good description

of Vaikuntha, and Pillai Lokacharya expands on this into minute details. If

we take into account the works of Azhwaars, 8 of whom have composed paasuram

on this divya desam (Vaikuntham), acharyas works, starting with

Koorathaazhwaan, Ramanuja and Pillai Lokacharya, they all seem to be

consistent in their perception of Vikuntha.

 

aazhwaar emperumaanaar jeeyar thiruvadikalE Saranam

 

 

Venkatesh K. Elayavalli Cypress Semiconductor

Data Communications Division 3901 N. First St. MS 4

Phone: (408) 456 1858 San Jose CA 95134

Fax: (408) 943 2949

 

email: elayavalli (external)

Home Page Location: http://www.srivaishnava.org

 

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Narayana.

 

Sri Mani Varadarajan wrote:

>The positing of various "lokas" stems from thinking

>of Vaikuntha primarily as a physical place. I

>suggest that Vaikuntha should be thought of more as a >*state* of

consciousness where one has attained God,

>rather than a particular physical place. Beyond all

>materiality, Vaikuntha or parama-padam represents the

>state of moksha, where the jIva stands unfettered by

>karma due to the grace of God.

 

I can appreciate that Vaikuntha is more of a state than a place where

the dharma-bhuta-jnana of the jiva expands to infinity and covers the

whole of existence. In this context, I have 3 questions:

 

1) Does the expansion of dharma-bhuta-jnana mean that the mukta is

omniscient like Bhagavan?

2) Why cannot this happen while the jiva is here on earth, by the grace

of Bhagavan?

3) Does this dharma-bhuta-jnana reveal the jnanaanandaika-nature of

Bhagavan also? In other words, does the mukta directly perceive the

swarupa (essential substantive nature) of Bhagavan (apart from his

rupa)?

>Ramanuja beautifully explains the multiple notions

>implied by the term parama-padam. He writes in the

>Vedarthasangraha:

> In some texts, the term "parama-pada" is used to

>mean the highest state. In others, it means the true

>nature of the individual self, freed from contact

>with matter, and in still some other texts, it refers

>to the true nature of Bhagavan. ...

 

It is interesting to note that in all the three meanings, the notion of

a physical place is not present.

 

Narayana.

 

Vishnudasadasan,

P.Srinivasan

 

 

 

Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.

[Guest guest]

Dear bhAgawatas,

 

Parthasarathy Srinivasan wrote:

> 1) Does the expansion of dharma-bhuta-jnana mean

> that the mukta is

> omniscient like Bhagavan?

 

The answer to this is (technically) YES. But Vyasa in his sUtra says:

"bhOga mAtra sAmya lin~gAccha." -- Only in the experience of bhOga

(Ananda) or bliss is the jeevAtma equal to the bhagawAn. The qualities

of "satyakAma, satyasankalpa, apahatapaapma, sarvaj~na" etc also will

apply to the jeevatma in the state of moksha just like that of

bhagawAn, except that these qualities that the jeeva inherits are the

result of bhagawAn's grace. Also, vyAsa says "jagad-vyApAra varjyam

....", i.e., the jeeva will not inherit the power to

create/support/destroy the world or to be Sriyahpati - the consort of

SrI.

 

So, while the only nirupAdhika (unconditioned) sarvaj~na (omniscient

entity) is the Lord, the mukta jIva acquires aupAdhika (conditioned)

sarvaj~natva (omniscience) conforming fully to the sEsha's true

svaroopa. In other words, the sEsha does not start feeling like the

Lord Himself, since that is not the sEsha's true svaroopa.

> 2) Why cannot this happen while the jiva is here on

> earth, by the grace

> of Bhagavan?

 

The mukta jIva is beyond the confines of space and time and as such (as

Mani points out) this question of whether the jIva will or will not

attain the quality of omniscience "here on earth" is really moot. It

is really a state of conscience (again as Mani has written) and

confirmed by Sri Krishna: "EshA brAhmi sthitih pArtha ...". That

state is called brAhmi sthitih. In fact, when I had the bhAgyam of

talking to H.H. SrI Rangapriya swAmi of Bangalore, I asked him about

the existence of a score of religions and philosophies and whether or

not their viewpoints were right or wrong. HH pointed out exactly this

verse and said: "While other religions rely for their *TRUTH* totally

on a prophet of some kind that came to this earth, we rely on an

unalterable indisputable state of conscience."

DISCLAIMER: I am interpreting the statements of the great AcArya with

my limited knowledge, and any obviously or not-so-obvious erroneous

viewpoints are totally my creation.

 

Mani, the existence of the VishNu lOka is unmistakable according to the

pAncarAtra texts and also in the vEdas. e.g.,

1. "na tatra suryObhAti, na candra tArakam ...": In that lOka of

vishNu, there are no suns, moons, and stars.

2. "tad vishNO: parampadam | sadA pashyanti sUrayah |" The nithya

sUris are blessed to have the constant vision of vishNu in the

paramapadam.

3. There are several phrases like "tamasah parastAt" (beyond the tamO

guNa) and "rajasah parAke" (beyond the guNa of rajas) in the vedas that

denote the existence of the vishNu lOka as a separate entity.

 

Also as SrimAn Venkatesh Elayavalli has pointed out, rAmAnuja himself

has the "vaikunTa gadya" to his credit, and other later AcAryas have

made liberal use of this work in their own works: e.g., desika's

paramapada sOpana.

 

So, let me summarize what I think of the state (or place) called

paramapadam. It is both a state and a place as a result of God's

grace. It is a state where the true sESatva of the soul shines forth

with the absence of all ego, and also a place where the Lord out of his

compassion displays His splendor and His kingdom for His own enjoyment

and also grants the jIva a full taste of it. However, what we think

conventionally of place (and time) does not apply to vaikunTam.

> 3) Does this dharma-bhuta-jnana reveal the

> jnanaanandaika-nature of

> Bhagavan also? In other words, does the mukta

> directly perceive the

> swarupa (essential substantive nature) of Bhagavan

> (apart from his

> rupa)?

 

Regarding whether the Lord will reveal his swaroopa (essential

substantive nature), I believe that will be instantly realizable since

the jIva is a sEsha of the Lord in all of the three senses that

rAmAnuja points out (Adheya - supportee, niyAmya - controllee, sEsha -

object of pleasure of the Lord).

 

|| sarvam srI krSNArpaNamastu ||

-- aDiyen, muraLi kaDAmbi

 

 

 

 

Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.

[Guest guest]

Sri P. Srinivasan writes:

> 1) Does the expansion of dharma-bhuta-jnana mean that the mukta is

> omniscient like Bhagavan?

 

Yes, this is what it means. Near the end of the Brahma-Sutras,

Badarayana discusses what the nature of the mukta actually is.

The conclusion is that the jIva is equal in all respects to

Brahman, save the ability to create the universe, confer liberation

on others, and be infinite in "svarUpa" or essential nature.

The words used in the sUtras is "bhoga-mAtra-sAmyam", and "jagad

vyApAra varjam", meaning that in the aspect of enjoyment (which

implies omniscience), the jIva is completely equal to Brahman,

but in the matter of creation (jagad-vyApAra), the jIva is

inherently limited.

 

There are two Upanishad vAkyas here of importance:

 

paramam sAmyam upaiti / [The knower of Brahman] attains the highest

similarity to It.

 

tAdRg eva bhavati / [in the state of moksha] the jIva becomes just

like [brahman].

> 2) Why cannot this happen while the jiva is here on earth, by the grace

> of Bhagavan?

 

The answer to this question lies in understanding what it means for

us to be on this earth, and what the state of liberation entails.

SamsAra means bodily existence on earth, because of association with karma.

Each one of us is paired with a body so that we can experience and expend

our karma. Moksha means the transcendence of all karmas, so much so that a

body is completely unnecessary. The jIva, freed from its association with

a karma-based body, can return to its rightful place, blissfully and

irrevocably in communion with Brahman.

 

The key Vedanta vAkya here is from the Mundaka Upanishad, in the same

verse as the first passage quoted above:

 

tadA vidvAn puNya-pApe vidhUya, paramam sAmyam upaiti |

 

Then, [when one's meditation has acquired the vividness of perception],

the knower of Brahman, casting aside all merit and demerit, attains

the highest similarity to Brahman.

 

There "puNya-pApe vidhUya" (casting aside...) refers to disentanglement

from the body, which is merely an expression of such karma. Nothing

is left for the jIva but Vaikuntha-prApti, reaching the abode of Brahman.

 

Alvar explains this as "maraNam aanaal vaikundham kodukkum piraan" --

God is that great benefactor who gives Vaikuntham upon death.

 

In short, to answer your question explicitly, if the jIva is here on

earth, it is under the sway of karma. When the grace of Bhagavan operates,

the jIva is taken to Vaikuntha, the state of moksha, because all karma

has been removed. It does not make sense for a jIva to stay here and

yet still be liberated.

> 3) Does this dharma-bhuta-jnana reveal the jnanaanandaika-nature of

> Bhagavan also? In other words, does the mukta directly perceive the

> swarupa (essential substantive nature) of Bhagavan (apart from his

> rupa)?

 

Yes -- because without perception of these qualities one would hardly

recognize God as God. Recall that jnAna and Ananda are two of the five

svarUpa-nirUpaka-dharmas, qualities that reveal the essential nature of

God. These are unconditional existence (satyam), unconditional

consciousness or knowledge (jnAnam), infinitude (anantam), blissfulness

(Ananda), and purity (amalatva). These five attributes are to be

included in every meditation on God, as these attributes constitute

the *definition* of God's nature. In liberation, when one's indirect

(paroksha) meditative knowledge gets transformed into direct (aparoksha)

perception, these attributes, which had been part of the meditation

earlier, are known in complete clarity and are definitely revealed

to Brahman.

> It is interesting to note that in all the three meanings, the notion of

> a physical place is not present.

 

As a clarification, in Ramanuja's original words, "sthAnam" is used when

referring to parama-padam. This can mean either a state or a place. I think

the word intentionally has a double meaning.

 

emberumaanaar thiruvadgaLE SaraNam,

Mani

[Guest guest]

Sri Venkatesh wrote:

> Many of our poorvaachaaryas, such as Sri Pillai Lokacharya, Sri

> Koorathaazhvaan (in his Vaikuntastavam) and Sri Ramanuja (in his Vaikuntha

> gadyam) all address vaikuntha as a place (desam). There is no where in their

> works or the commentaries on these texts, Vaikuntha is refred to as a state

> of moksha.

 

Dear Venkatesh,

 

Please be very careful before you make statements like the one above.

I feel you are being overly aggressive when you write that "*nowhere*

in their works or ... commentaries ... Vaikuntha is referred to as a

state ...". Such a statement is not borne out by even a casual reading of

our predecessors' writings.

 

Please peruse Sribhashya and other works of our pUrvAcharyas,

where in many places the state of liberation is referred to as

moksha-avasthA, or moksha-daSA. Both avasthA and daSA only mean

"conditions" or "states". No acharya worth his salt would deny

that Vaikuntha is a *state* of consciousness (they have to be

faithful to the teachings of the Mandukya Upanishad, for example).

 

Now, you are correct when you write that Vaikuntha is described as

a "desam" or "place". I am certainly not denying this, as the

Brahma-Sutras themselves provide picturesque descriptions of the

jIva leaving the earthly body and travelling to Vaikuntha. Even

Sankaracharya accepts this, as this is a doctrine taken straight

from the Upanishads (see Kausitaki).

 

However, please understand that Vaikuntha is not a place or planet

like Venus or the moon. It is a place because it is *not here*.

It represents a condition where the jIva is completely free of

all association with karma and is completely under the sway of

the grace of God. (See Desika's Vaikuntha Gadya bhAshya for

such an etymological understanding of the word "Vaikuntha").

In such a circumstance, what does it really mean for it to be

a "place"? I leave it for you to explain.

> I believe that the d-b-jnana of the soul merges with Bhagavan ...

 

Can you explain this statement? What kind of "merging" happens?

As far as I know, this statement is not an accurate reflection

of any philosophical tenet of Visishtadvaita. It makes no sense

for dharma-bhUta-jnAna (knowledge which functions as an attribute

of the jIva) to merge with anything.

 

Thanks,

Mani

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Murali Kadambi wrote:

> Mani, the existence of the VishNu lOka is unmistakable according to the

> pAncarAtra texts and also in the vEdas. e.g.,

> 1. "na tatra suryObhAti, na candra tArakam ...": In that lOka of

> vishNu, there are no suns, moons, and stars.

 

To comment from the infinitessimalitude of my personal experience and

reflection upon this topic, rather than from actual erudition of the

relevant scriptures, I suggest that the above description need not be

taken to imply solely the spatio-physical character of Sri VaikunTham.

 

Those lines are no more indicative of Sri VainkunTham as a place than

is Sri Krishna's elucidation of the Atman, when He asserts "na enam

cindanti SastrAni, na ca enam kledayati apaH..." (weapons do not cleave

it, water does not wet it, the Wind does not dry it...), indicative of

the Atman as a physical thing!

 

In both instances, it is purely a case of resorting to a picturesque and

at the same time functional explanation of the highest order in the face

of verbal description being unsuitable to express a profound,

reference-less experience,

 

For example, how do we describe the sweetness of a sugarcane to a person

devoid of the sense of taste? We could adopt the mundane approach to

elaborate its orthogonality to senses like vision, touch, etc., or adopt

the vividness of the Vedas' and Sri Krishna's technique, by negating

specific spatial, visual etc. experiences.

 

However, I think that visualization of Paramapadam as a spatial realm

might be felt to be an aid to meditation. I strongly suspect that it is in

this sense that the more physical descriptions are to be rightly viewed.

 

Hari Om,

Srikanth

[Guest guest]

Narayana.

 

Dear Sri Mani:

 

Thanks for clarifying my doubts regarding dharma-bhUta-jnana and

moksha.

>Sri P.Srinivasan wrote:

>> ... does the mukta directly perceive the

>> swarupa (essential substantive nature) of Bhagavan

>> (apart from his rupa)?

 

Sri Mani wrote:

>Yes -- because without perception of these qualities

>one would hardly recognize God as God.

 

I have a simple question nagging me here: If jnana and Ananda are

qualities (or attributes) of Bhagavan, what is He in substance?

Attributes describe a substance, but are not the substance. If the 5

svarUpa-nirUpaka-dharmas are attributes, what is He in substance? In

visishtadvaita, is He substantively jnAna (unlimited consciousness)?

 

P.S: I ask these doubts not to raise any arguments or enter into dry

philosophical debates but to clearly know Him Whom we love.

 

Narayana.

 

Vaishnavadasan,

P.Srinivasan

 

 

Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.

[Guest guest]

Dear Srikanth,

 

Some excerpts of our discussion:

 

I wrote:

> Mani, the existence of the VishNu lOka is

> unmistakable according to the

> pAncarAtra texts and also in the vEdas. e.g.,

> 1. "na tatra suryObhAti, na candra tArakam ...":

> In that lOka of

> vishNu, there are no suns, moons, and stars.

 

You wrote in reply to my e-mail:

> I suggest that the above

> description need not be

> taken to imply solely the spatio-physical character

> of Sri VaikunTham.

 

( ... deleted for brevity ...)

> However, I think that visualization of Paramapadam

> as a spatial realm

> might be felt to be an aid to meditation. I strongly

> suspect that it is in

> this sense that the more physical descriptions are

> to be rightly viewed.

 

(AdiyEn):

While I have to admit I did not understand the intent of some parts of

your reply to my e-mail, I suspect that your point is exactly my point.

 

For more clarifications on my views or if your point is that

paramapadam is actually only an avasthA (a state of consciousness) and

that paramapadam should be viewed as a "spatial realm only for purposes

of meditation," please read on.

 

If vaikunTam were avasthA alone, how would you even start describing

It? Besides, whose consiousness is it an avasthA of? The paramAtma's

or the mukta's? Also, is it only one avasthA or a multitude of

avasthAs, and what is the substratum for these avasthAs?

 

While I do agree that the conventional spatial and temporal

descriptions that we are used to here on earth do not apply in

VaikunTam, some other spatial and temporal coordinates have to be valid

in order to even say that the Lord *sits* on the Adisesha, or that

VaikunTam in manned on *all four sides* by four pairs of dwArapAlas, or

for that matter that the jIvAtma *performed* cAmara service to the

Lord. It is for this purpose that VaikunTam is made of a spiritual

substance (one of the dravyas according to RAmAnuja) called nitya

vibhuthi. One property of a dravya is that it is a substratum for

modification (see Desika's definitions in nyAya siddhAn~jana or

tattva-mukta-kalApa). VaikunTam exists the way it does because of

Lord's nithya and anithya sankalpa. The jIvAtma and (obviously) the

paramAtma use time and space to serve and be served respectively

without at the same time being conditioned by them.

 

So, to summarize, VaikunTam is definitely a state of a mukta's

consciousness, but only to the extent that it (vaikunTam) has become

the object of the mukta's knowledge. VaikunTam with all its multitude

of avasthAs of streams flowing, of the various jIvAtmas serving the

Lord in infinite number of ways, and with an infinite other dynamic

occurences is far easier described as a lOka than an avasthA.

 

|| sarvam sree krSNArpaNam astu ||

 

-- aDiyEn, muraLi kaDAmbi

 

 

 

Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Srikanth:

 

Most of us have been trained in Scientific

disciplines and yet come from VedAnthic

backgrounds .It is in this context your

excellent analysis of the case in point

impresses me as a credible synthesis

of the two views . I like your reference

to the explanation of some thing that is

beyond description for functional understanding .

 

Thanks very much ,

 

V.Sadagopan

 

At 03:32 AM 9/8/99 -0500, you wrote:

>

>Hi,

>

>On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Murali Kadambi wrote:

>

>> Mani, the existence of the VishNu lOka is unmistakable according to the

>> pAncarAtra texts and also in the vEdas. e.g.,

>> 1. "na tatra suryObhAti, na candra tArakam ...": In that lOka of

>> vishNu, there are no suns, moons, and stars.

>

>To comment from the infinitessimalitude of my personal experience and

>reflection upon this topic, rather than from actual erudition of the

>relevant scriptures, I suggest that the above description need not be

>taken to imply solely the spatio-physical character of Sri VaikunTham.

>

>Those lines are no more indicative of Sri VainkunTham as a place than

>is Sri Krishna's elucidation of the Atman, when He asserts "na enam

>cindanti SastrAni, na ca enam kledayati apaH..." (weapons do not cleave

>it, water does not wet it, the Wind does not dry it...), indicative of

>the Atman as a physical thing!

>

>In both instances, it is purely a case of resorting to a picturesque and

>at the same time functional explanation of the highest order in the face

>of verbal description being unsuitable to express a profound,

>reference-less experience,

>

>For example, how do we describe the sweetness of a sugarcane to a person

>devoid of the sense of taste? We could adopt the mundane approach to

>elaborate its orthogonality to senses like vision, touch, etc., or adopt

>the vividness of the Vedas' and Sri Krishna's technique, by negating

>specific spatial, visual etc. experiences.

>

>However, I think that visualization of Paramapadam as a spatial realm

>might be felt to be an aid to meditation. I strongly suspect that it is in

>this sense that the more physical descriptions are to be rightly viewed.

>

>Hari Om,

>Srikanth