Guest guest Posted May 11, 2003 Report Share Posted May 11, 2003 Namaste Members, I was just going through the life of Kumarila Bhatta. I also infer his view was Mimamsa. Meaning...that Karma alone exists, if we do our karma properly.....thats enough. I request members to throw more light on this.. The Veda.. says.. "Satyam vada".. "Dharam Cara"..... Each one of us has been given some set of duties to be performed.. is it enough if we peform those... What is that which is above Karma? How is atma-jnana obtained above Karma? Regards. Kamesh B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2003 Report Share Posted May 12, 2003 --- kamesh B <kamesh wrote: > Namaste Members, > > I was just going through the life of Kumarila Bhatta. I also infer his > view was Mimamsa. > > Meaning...that Karma alone exists, if we do our karma > properly.....thats enough. > > > How is atma-jnana obtained above Karma? > > Regards. > > Kamesh B Shree kamesh - j~naana cannot be the result of any karma. karma depends on the purusha -that is purusha tantra - depends on doer - that was the discussion of free-will all about. knowledge does not depend on the doer - knowledge will takes the place if the mind is ready to receive it. Mind free from agitations is the mind that can receive the knowledge. Hence role of karma is purification of the mind. When the mind is free from agitations (pure) self-knowledge can remove self-ignorance. Here knowledge itself is the end and the means - while for karma the knowledge of how to do is not the end of that - one still has to do it- like reading cooking book. Knowledge of how to cook is not the end in itself. That type of knowledge one gains in the karmakaanda. In the j~naana kaanda - the means is the end itself. There is nothing to do but something to realize. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2003 Report Share Posted May 12, 2003 advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > > --- kamesh B <kamesh@v...> wrote: > > Namaste Members, > > > > I was just going through the life of Kumarila Bhatta. I also infer his > > view was Mimamsa. > > > > Meaning...that Karma alone exists, if we do our karma > > properly.....thats enough. > > > > > > > How is atma-jnana obtained above Karma? > > > > Regards. > > > > Kamesh B Namaste IMO, It is logical if one follows the Vedanta to assume there is only karma and prana and that prana/energy is supplied by Saguna Brahman, and that is all It supplies. Even many instances of 'Grace', or divine intervention are karmic rewards. The only intervention that I can see is the bridge supplied by a Jivanmukti, because the body is still in the world. A Jivanmukti is in the supreme state whereas an avatar or bodhisattva isn't for they still have a mind to wish and desire to help humanity. They have put off moksha so to speak.........ONS....Tony. It is all concepts anyway.........ONS....Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2003 Report Share Posted May 13, 2003 --- Tony O'Clery <aoclery wrote: The only intervention that I > can see is the bridge supplied by a Jivanmukti, because the body is > still in the world. > A Jivanmukti is in the supreme state whereas an avatar or bodhisattva > isn't for they still have a mind to wish and desire to help humanity. > They have put off moksha so to speak.........ONS....Tony. Tony, Only difference between Jivanmukta and avataara is the first has gone up and the second has come down. The equipments or upaadhi's what was there before for jiivanamukta and for avataara what is needed for the purpose he came down. But the state is the same- Both have the knowledge that "I am Brahman". That understanding does not differ. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2003 Report Share Posted May 13, 2003 Namaste! Sadananda said: >Tony, Only difference between Jivanmukta and avataara >is the first has gone up and the second has come down. Sounds like elevators in an office building! Actually, this talk of Avatars reminds me of something Sadanadaji once told me regarding karma that seems quite plausible to me. Since Bhaktas often have an 'Avatar' as the object of worship, this comment seems relevant to our topic. Basically, Sada said that an Avatar arises as a response to 'collective karma'. Now, I do try to avoid 'gratuitous speculation' regarding deities, etc. However, some notion of karma seems necessary to me if one has a basic belief in Divine Consciousness, mukti, salvation, realization, enlightenment, a purpose to existence, whatever you want to call it... The materialist view of the universe as particles and energy blindly in motion seems untenable to me, for reason that we need not go into here. Life is fundamentally a spiritual school. But once the idea of karma is accepted, then the idea of collective karma starts to seem quite plausible, at least to me. If there is a basic intelligence behind the cosmos, as I believe, then one would expect larger, correlated structures to build up in the spiritual psychodrama called life, namely, people linked by conscious or subconscious spiritual bonds as they grope their way to realization. This can be at the family, community or global levels. (Remember that there is probably life on other planets, so we are on *this* one for a reason!) This neatly explains the various faiths. The different religions arise as a response from 'God' or the Consciousness to the spiritual needs of large groups of Jivas, depending on their level of consciousness. So even though I now see inadequacies in traditional Christian doctrine [my opinion only! ... and please note my careful choice of words], I can also take a more subtle view and realize that Christianity probably arose because many people, at a certain stage of their spiritual development, can benefit from the concept of a savior dying for their sins. It can serve as a kind of 'prop' for a deeper level of inner realization, for those who have difficulty with more abstract concepts, such as Self, Consciousness, etc. Likewise, within the Hindu tradition, I think that one can make the case that the Visistadvatia of Ramanuja represents a somewhiat 'lower' (i.e. more dualistic) stage of consciousness and the uncompromising Dvaita of Mahdva an even 'lower' (even more dualistic) stage. Of course, non-Advaitins will immediately feel slighted, but this is really not my intention. For one thing, I fully realize that my grasp of Advaita, meager as it is, is primarily at the intellectual level. So in no way do I feel spiritually more 'advanced' than the vast majority of Dvaitins, dualists, etc. Besides, one of the beauties of Advaita is that one no longer need think in terms of people being more or less 'advanced', *as long as one is in the paramArthika state*. But since we are not quite in that state, these distinctions are valid, though at least we know that they are not ultimately valid as an indication of one's intrinsic worth. Such notions as intrinsic worth or merit dissolve when the Jiva itself does. Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2003 Report Share Posted May 13, 2003 Dear Tony, > Likewise, within the Hindu tradition, I think that one can >make the case that the Visistadvatia of Ramanuja represents a >somewhiat 'lower' (i.e. more dualistic) stage of consciousness and "manasaiva idamAptavyam nEha nAnAsti kimchana" - kaTopanishat "PoorNamadaha PoorNamidam" "Om svaapyayAt Om " 1.1. These shruti's say there is absolutely no difference between an 'avatAra' roopa and the 'moola-roopa'. kaTopanishat warns against thinking that there is difference between one avatAra and another or between moola-roopa and one avatAra. "mrutyOssa mrutyumApnOti ya iha nAnEva pashyati" There will be enough confusion out there as long as these shruti's have not been understood with proper 'samanvaya'. >the uncompromising Dvaita of Mahdva an even 'lower' (even more >dualistic) stage. I don't blame you for thinking like this. Many advaitins think that the Parabrahman of Dvaita is the SaguNa brahman of advaita. NirguNa brahman when comes into contact with mAyA becomes Ishwara who is the Creator or SaguNa - brahman , and all advaitins think that the Parabrahman of Dvaita is that SaguNa-brahman. Against that idea, the following may be noted: Firstly, the parabrahman of dvaita is the Vedic Brahman - Brahman as expounded by Veda, it is the subject-matter of enquiry into the meaning of Veda. Following veda, such a Brahman is called 'VishNu'. It is not the 'Vishnu' of VaishNava faith, because, faith gives no room for enquiry. VishNu of religion is an imagination, but Vedic Vishnu is the Reality. No need to say that Veda does not mention of two Brahmans anywhere either. Secondly, the parabrahman of dvaita as given by Veda, has no 'cause' for it. "vAsudEva idam agra Aseet" says vEda. "yO dEvAnAM nAmadhA Eka eva tam samprashnam bhuvanAyantyanE' - rig vEda "sarvasya vashee sarvasyEshAnaha sarvasya adhipatihi | nAnyatOsti drishTaa shrOtaa mantA vijnAtaa" - brihadAraNyaka Neither NirguNa-brahman nor mAyA nor anything else is the 'cause' for the Vedic Brahman. What makes NirguNa-brahman come into contact with mAyA?. Thirdly, the Brahman of Veda is given by Veda itself as "brihantO hi asmin guNaaha" - "The attributes in It are all Complete". So, this Vedic Brahman of dvaita has nothing to do with the attributeless NirguNa brahman of advaita, nor any derivative of NirguNa-brahman such as saguNa-brahman. Fourthly, It is that Vedic Parabrahman that is to be known by the entire Veda "vEdaischa sarvaihi ahamEva vEdyO" - geetha. So, it is neither the NirguNa brahman nor SaguNa brahman that needs to be understood from Veda. "mattaha parataram na anyat kimchit asti dhananjaya" - Geetha. There is nothing higher ( such as NirguNa brahman ) than Me says SriKrishna I can go on and on. The point to note here is that, it is a lack of study of prasthAna-traya that makes one think that saguNa-brahman of advaita is same as the parabrahman of dvaita. As such there is no connection between the two concepts. Thus, the Parabrahman of dvaita is neither the NirguNa-brahman, nor maayaa nor saguNa-brahman of advaita. So instead of speculating on vEdaanta, it is better to start a serious study of prasthAna-traya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2003 Report Share Posted May 14, 2003 praNAm Jay prabhuji Hare Krishna You wrote : No need to say that Veda does not mention of two Brahmans anywhere either. > Prabhuji there is a mention of lower & higher (apara & para) brahman in the shrutis. Pls. see praShnOpanishad I donot know the reference but I remember that OmkAra is both the higher & lower brahman. There is clear mention of apara brahman that is Ishvara & para brahman. We can have a look at Mundaka also. wherein it is mentioned brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2003 Report Share Posted May 14, 2003 Dear Bhaskar-jI, > Prabhuji there is a mention of lower & higher (apara & para) brahman in >the shrutis. Pls. see praShnOpanishad I donot know the reference but I >remember that OmkAra is both the higher & lower brahman. Here are a couple of them. I firmly believe that any argument, discussion, should finally lead to a further study of shAstra, then only both parties come out as winners. "dve vaava brahmaNo ruupe, muurtam.h chaivaamuurtamcha" - this is in BrihadAraNyaka. "Etatdvai satyakAma param chAparam cha brahma yadOmkAraha" - this is in PrashnA Let me know which one you would like to discuss further in the context of that upanishat. Your emails have always been pleasant. Keep them coming. PS: why do you call everyone Prabhuji? Is there a special reason? 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.