Could somebody clarify this?

[Guest guest]

Respected devotees,

I am new to the list and also Sri Vaisnavism. I heard

that according to VisisTa advaita, the goal of life is mukti by merging

in to the Lord. Another view that I have heard is that upon mukti, one

goes to the abode of the Lord, Sri Vaikuntham (Similar to Gaudiya

conception) and serves the Lord with the Nitya SUrIs. If both the facts

are correct then how can the two be reconciled. Could somebody please

elucidate this.

 

Om Namo Narayana,

Regards, Ambarish

---------------------

Ambarish Srivastava

B-45 Nilgiri Hostel

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

Hauz Khas India 110016

Ph. Office 91-11-6596466

ambarish, esr00017

 

http://www.iitian.com : An Extraordinary place for Extraordinary people

[Guest guest]

Dear Ambarish,

 

As far as I know, The aim of a Mumookshu(a person who wishes for

deliverance) is only Nitya Kinkara, that is engaging oneself in the

continuous Service to the Lord in His Abode, Sri Vaikuntam.

This is the Visista Advaita view.

 

For Visista Advaita, Bhedam(The Individual soul and Suprme soul are

diffferent and their is a Servant- Master relationship between them) is

the hallmark.

Merging one with Lord(jeevan Mukthi) is a concept of Advaitins and not of

Visista Advaita.

 

Regards

 

KM Narayanan

 

 

 

 

ambarish on 09/04/2001 07:58:24 PM

 

Please respond to ambarish

 

bhakti-list

cc:

 

Could somebody clarify this?

 

 

Respected devotees,

I am new to the list and also Sri Vaisnavism. I heard

that according to VisisTa advaita, the goal of life is mukti by merging

in to the Lord. Another view that I have heard is that upon mukti, one

goes to the abode of the Lord, Sri Vaikuntham (Similar to Gaudiya

conception) and serves the Lord with the Nitya SUrIs. If both the facts

are correct then how can the two be reconciled. Could somebody please

elucidate this.

 

Om Namo Narayana,

Regards, Ambarish

---------------------

Ambarish Srivastava

B-45 Nilgiri Hostel

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

Hauz Khas India 110016

Ph. Office 91-11-6596466

ambarish, esr00017

 

http://www.iitian.com : An Extraordinary place for Extraordinary people

 

-----------------------------

- SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -

To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list

Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/

 

 

Your use of is subject to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

>Merging one with Lord(jeevan Mukthi) is a concept of Advaitins and not of

>Visista Advaita.

>

>Regards

>

>KM Narayanan

 

Shree Narayananji - Pranaams - As I understand, merging with the

Lord is not the concept of advaita either. Even in adviata Lord or

iiswara is sarvaj~naa and jiiva is alpaj~naa and there is no question

of merging of the two.

 

adviata means non-duality while merging implies two to start with.

 

Non-duality is only in terms of the essential substratum that

pervades everything - That is Brahman. Without going into details,

in adviata, Iswara and Brahman are not the same.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri. Sadananda

 

"K. Sadananda" <sada wrote:

> Shree Narayananji - Pranaams - As I understand, merging with the

> Lord is not the concept of advaita either. Even in adviata Lord or

> iiswara is sarvaj~naa and jiiva is alpaj~naa and there is no question

> of merging of the two.

> adviata means non-duality while merging implies two to start with.

 

I may be missing something here - but if Iishwara is sarvajnana and Jeeva is

alpajnaana, there exists at least one factor that distinguishes these two - a

clear indication of duality. How then is it that advaita claims non-duality?

 

 

Dasan

Ramakrishnan

[Guest guest]

Bhakti list members - I do not wish to continue the discussion on

adviata on this list since the list charter is very specific. I will

do so only if the orginizers of this list give me a green signal.

 

I would however respond individually to questions related to adviata

to the best I can. I would also direct those who are interested to

know more about advaita - to another list that caters to these

discussions - advaitin. - As one of the moderators

of this advaitin list, I welcome everyone to the list - since the

emphasis there is on inquiry, we welcome all philosophical

discussions if it is done with an attitude of inquiry, although the

list is focused on advaita.

 

As a general statement, it is important, however, to know how other

acharya-s have explained the scriptures. That helps to understand

one own philosophy much better - But that is my opinion - and the

opinion of Shreeman S.M.S Chari as well.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

>Dear Sri. Sadananda

>

> "K. Sadananda" <sada wrote:

>> Shree Narayananji - Pranaams - As I understand, merging with the

>> Lord is not the concept of advaita either. Even in adviata Lord or

>> iiswara is sarvaj~naa and jiiva is alpaj~naa and there is no question

>> of merging of the two.

>

>> adviata means non-duality while merging implies two to start with.

>

>I may be missing something here - but if Iishwara is sarvajnana and Jeeva is

>alpajnaana, there exists at least one factor that distinguishes these two - a

>clear indication of duality. How then is it that advaita claims non-duality?

>

>

>Dasan

>Ramakrishnan

>

>-----------------------------

> - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -

>To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list

>Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

> >

>>I may be missing something here - but if Iishwara is sarvajnana and Jeeva is

>>alpajnaana, there exists at least one factor that distinguishes these two - a

>>clear indication of duality. How then is it that advaita claims non-duality?

>>

>>

>>Dasan

> >Ramakrishnan

>>

 

With Shreeman Mani's approval I am posting this to the list just to

clarify the position of advaita as I understand. Shree Ramakrishna's

question raises the basic issue of advaita and there is lot of

misunderstanding particularly for those who are not familiar with the

correct import of advaita - particularly the identity of jiiva with

Brahman - the scriptural declarations of 'aham brahma asmi and tat

tvam asi, ayam aatma brahma, praj~naanam brahma are given the primary

importance in advaita. Before he takes up suutra bhaashya,

Bhagavaan Shankara presents 'adhyaasa bhaashya' explaining the

fundamental error involved. Bhagavaan Ramanuja makes considerable

effort in his Shree Bhaasya, in discussing the adviatic position as

puurva paksha. I have just began to learn this under the guidance of

Shreeman S.M.S. Chari. From my perspective, I want to know exactly

what are Bhagavaan Ramanuja's objections and how far these objections

valid. I do however feel that one should study Shankara's

interpretation before one studies laghu and mahaa puurvapaksha-s of

Ramanuja and his siddhaanta-s. I have been writing extensive notes

on Shankara Bhaashya in the advaitin list and these are stored in a

separate folder called 'Brahmasuutras'. Those who are interested can

down-load these for their individual study. We are currently

discussing Sutra 5. The study of first four suutra-s are important

both in Shankara Bhaasya and Sreebhaashya.

These notes can be accessed at

advaitinNotes+on+Brahmasuutra/

for personal study. One may have to become a member of the list at

least till one can down loads these notes! You are always welcome

to become a member of the list and learn from the discussions.

 

Here is my understanding in response to the question raised by Shree

Ramakrishna.

I do not wish to get into debate on the issues but only present

advaitic perspective as I understand.

-------------------

 

Advaita means non-duality - it is not mono-ism - it is the negation

of the duality. Since one experiences duality, in our day to day

experiences, it inquires into the truth of this duality that one

experiences and comes to the conclusion that the duality that one

experiences is only 'apparent' and not real. Hence reality is

different from that what appears as plurality - the concept of

'maaya' is brought in to explain why plurality that appears is

mistaken as reality.

 

It is like Gold - appearing as many ornaments - The ornaments in

terms of names and forms and utilities are different - but truth of

the apparent plurality is non-dual - gold - is it not? Hence what

is real - is defined as that which remains the same in all periods of

time - trikaala abhaaditam satyam - Ring, bangle, chain etc are

different - names and forms and their utilities, the date of birth

and date of death - are different - yet from the gold point - gold it

was, gold it is even when one calls it as ring etc., and gold it

shall be. Gold has remained as gold yet it appears as many - ring,

chain etc. This example is based on the interpretation of Chandogya

Upanishad mantra-s - yathaa soumya - ekena loha maninaa sarvam

lohamayam vij~naaata, vaachaarambhaNam vikaaro naamadheyam syaat loha

mityeva satyam. The upanishat gives two more examples like this. -

Just as gold that manifests as golden ornaments is known by inquiring

into the nature of an ornament, that it is the essence or substratum

of all gold ornaments - Gold alone is the 'sat' padaartham here.

Creation is the only ' vaachaarambhanam' - it begins with the

'thought' process and it is only an (apparent) modification - into

names and forms. Thus the creation of one into many is explained in

Ch. Up. - It starts - with 'sadeva soumya idam agra aseet - My dear

boy, what was there before the creation was only ' existence' - it is

one without a second - ekam eva advitiiyam' - it is not inert

existence or jadam but a conscious existence - it decided to become

many - it is one becoming many - tad aikshata - bashu syaam - prajaa

ye yeti.. Etc.

 

Iswara is defined as the creator -from T. UP. - yatova imaani

bhuutani jaayante, yena jaatani jiivanti, yat prayam tyabhisam

vishhaanti - tat vij~naanasaswa -tat brahma iti. That which the whole

universe is originated, sustained and goes back into - this is what

is called 'tatasha lakshana' by which Iswara is recognized. - That

is the incidental qualification. The swaruupa lakshana of Brahman is

- satyam j~naanam anatam brahma. -( a detailed discussion of taTasta

lakshaNa and swaruupa lakshaNa, etc are discussed in the referenced

Notes).

 

Brahman in advaita is absolute undifferentiated one without a second

- essentially sat - chit and ananda aspect. existence -

consciousness and infiniteness - These are not considered as

attributes and but intrinsic nature. ( one has to go into in depth

analysis of what is an attribute and what is a locus of these

attributes - the epistemological issues involved to understand the

ontological aspects of these correctly).

 

Iswara - is a conceptual notion of Brahman to explain the apparent

plurality that we see - and ask the question, "who is the creator of

this intelligent orderly universe?'. If I have to create a watch - I

should have the 'know-how' of how to create a watch - If I have to

create the whole universe, then I have to be sarvaj~naa since all the

laws that are discovered and yet to be discovered are within the

universe and I should be knower of all these to create all these -

Hence Iswara is sarvaj~naa, sarva shaktimaan etc. in the same sense

as Bhagavaan Ramanuja describes the Lord as 'anata kalyaana guNa

ashraya'.

 

Any creation involves two aspects - nimitta kaaraNa, intelligent

cause and upaadana kaaraNa, material cause. If Iswara has to create

this universe, the question arises as to 'where does he get the

material for creation?' - It cannot be separate from Him, since if it

is then one questions where did that material come from and who

created that material. Hence he has to be material cause as well -

hence the above statement of the Upanishad - yatova imaani bhuutaani

..... from Taittiriiya Upanishad that I quoted. (Both Shankara and

Ramanuja subsribe that Brahman is upaadana kaaraNa of jagat while

details of their interpretations differ - Shree Madhva considers

Brahman as only nimitta kaaraNa and not upaadana kaaraNa)

 

Jiiva - is conscious entity identifying with the local equipments -

body, mind and intellect rather than than global equipments, the

whole universe. Existence, consciousness and ananda (happiness)

(ananda is also infiniteness or limitless since any limitation cause

unhappiness -anantam eva ananandam). According to advaita, 'sat chit

and ananda' identifying only with local equipments - that include -

sthuula, suukshma and kaaraNa shariira-s - is jiiva or microcosmic

entity and the same sat chit ananda identifying with totality - all

universe consisting of names and forms - is Iswara. In the statement

'I am a jiiva or individual' - the first part - I and am- or aham

involves both 'sat and chit aspect' In the identification as 'I am

an individual' - the individual or jiiva part is considered as 'error

or adhyaasa' - since it involves identification with the local

equipments - body, mind and intellect - 'aham brahma asmi' - or I am

Brahman - identification that I am not only sat and chit but anaanda

or happiness as well since happiness involves free from all

limitations or anantam - hence satyam, j~naanam and anantam is my

essential nature.

 

Thus from the essential aspect - the substratum that pervades -

advaitic position is that I am the 'sat chit ananda' that is one

without a second. The identity of jiiva and iiswara is only from

this essential aspect which is one without a second.

 

I said creation involves 'thought' process - With total mind the

creator is Iswara and with the individual mind it is jiiva - Gold can

identity itself I am the one that pervades all the ornaments - I am

one without a second, but a golden ring without inquiring properly

may think I am only ring (naama, ruupa) undergoing all the six

modifications associated by being a ring - birth, death and all the

suffering in between - It is like waves think I am separate from the

ocean and I am a small wave, the other fellow is big wave and he is

going to swallow me etc. But waves are not different from ocean - As

a ocean it can declare - all waves are in me but I am not in them in

the sense that they arise in me, supported by me and go back into me

yet their individual sufferings do not belong to me. Hence Krishna's

declaration - mayaa tatam idam sarvam jagat avyakta muurtinaa,

mastaani sarva bhuutani na cha aham teshhu avasthitaH| - I pervade

this entire universe in an unmanifested form - all beings are in me

but I am not in them. - Are the waves different from ocean or are

they the same as the ocean with local perturbations seen as waves

with names and forms?. From the ocean point it is its glory to

manifest as waves - pasyam me yogam aiswaram - See my glory says

KrishNa.

 

I have given more details perhaps than is needed - but at least

clarifies the apparent vs real and in what respects the advaita is

implied - one gold plus many ornaments - appears to be plural. But

this apparent appears to be real until one inquires into the truth of

the apparent - Then what appears need not be the truth and the truth

is that it is just one non-dual gold all the time even when it exists

as many ornaments. That is a-dvaita.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

K. Sadananda writes:

> >>I may be missing something here - but if Iishwara is sarvajnana and Jeeva is

> >>alpajnaana, there exists at least one factor that distinguishes these two -

a

> >>clear indication of duality. How then is it that advaita claims non-duality?

>

> With Shreeman Mani's approval I am posting this to the list just to

> clarify the position of advaita as I understand. [...] reality is

> different from that what appears as plurality - the concept of

> 'maaya' is brought in to explain why plurality that appears is

> mistaken as reality. [...]

> Iswara is defined as the creator -from T. UP. - yatova imaani

> bhuutani jaayante, yena jaatani jiivanti, yat prayam tyabhisam

> vishhaanti - tat vij~naanasaswa -tat brahma iti. That which the whole

> universe is originated, sustained and goes back into - this is what

> is called 'tatasha lakshana' by which Iswara is recognized. - That

> is the incidental qualification. The swaruupa lakshana of Brahman is

> - satyam j~naanam anatam brahma.

 

Dear Sri Sadananda,

 

I read your explanation of this fundamental question

with interest. I also do not want to engage in extensive

Advaita vs. Visishtadvaita debates, since email is an

inappropriate forum to discuss these intricacies. However,

I would like to present a few reasons as to why on the

face of it, the answers you provide are unconvincing.

 

The question Sri Ramakrishna asks is very simple. When

two dissimilar things -- the Supreme Soul and the individual

soul, one infinite and blissful, the other finite and not

currently blissful -- are accepted, how can the two be

equated?

 

Advaita's answer, as you have explained it, is that

the creatorship and fundamental rootedness of the

universe in the Supreme Self is an 'incidental' (taTastha)

characteristic, despite being so elaborately spoken

of in the Upanishads. You have also said that the 'mAyA'

concept must be brought in to explain why plurality

is "mistakenly" taken for reality.

 

If you see all your explanations, they posit ideas which

are taken from *outside* the core texts themselves and which

seem opposed to logic. You must be familiar with the principle

of Occam's razor -- when you have two competing theories that

explain the same situation, the one that is simpler is better.

 

We have several statements cited by you yourself in the

Upanishads that the Supreme Principle is the cause of the

origin, sustenance, and dissolution of the universe.

The same Supreme Principle is described as infinite,

conscious, and full of bliss in the same text. Why not

agree that the two refer to *exactly* the same principle,

without positing an external adjunct (mAyA)?

 

It appears that the author the Brahma-Sutras would agree.

As we are agreed, the Brahma-Sutras codify and clarify the

philosophy of the Upanishads. The first sUtra declares that the

discussion is about 'Brahman', the Supreme Principle. The second

sUtra immediately declares that this Supreme Principle is defined

as the *cause*, etc., of the universe. From this perspective,

it's very straightforward. Creation is real, for we perceive

it and its reality is not denied anywhere. Isvara is the same

as the Supreme Principle, because the Upanishad and the Sutras

equate the two, and do not assume any distinction, even notional.

The jIva is finite and under the sway of karma, so therefore

confuses the body with the self and is unaware of the truth

that Isvara is the underlying ground of the universe, both

materially and instrumentally. Is this not more easily

understood?

 

For example, your explanation of creation as involving

 

... 'thought' process - With total mind the

creator is Iswara and with the individual mind it is jiiva - Gold can

identity itself I am the one that pervades all the ornaments - I am

one without a second, but a golden ring without inquiring properly

may think I am only ring (naama, ruupa) undergoing all the six

modifications associated by being a ring - birth, death and all the

suffering in between ...

 

seems needlessly complex and convoluted, and once again has

little basis in the Upanishads. Visishtadvaita agrees that

there is unity in the universe, and that the jIva is ignorant

when it thinks that it is separate and independent. The

Supreme Self and the individual self are one in that the

Supreme Self forms the essential ground and inseparable

substratum for the individual self. The individual self

is totally pervaded and controlled by the Supreme Self.

Any thought of the individual self *must* include the

thought of the Supreme Self to be correct, because the

individual self is an attribute, a mode, of the Supreme Self.

 

This seems on the whole a simpler and more consistent

explanation.

 

Mani