Is Mukti A Myth?

[srikanthdk71]

Dear Friends, as you all know (those who are already familier with my postings) that I follow a monoist stance. I believe that there is Mukti. So, Dvaita cannot give you Mukti. If Dvaita was true, the last abode would be a Kailasa or a Vaikunta in the presence of Lord Shiva or Sriman Narayana. Still, you are not a Mukta, you still maintain the differnce between you and the lord in the Shivaloka or Vishnuloka. If there is Mukti, only one truth applies and that is Advaita. God made everything and everything is god. Unlike the 'Me' is identified as Srikanth, I have these different instruments of sense and action where my five fingers are different, and all organs are different but the truth is 'I'. In Vaishnava Sampradaya, the Samipya, Sannidhya and Sayujya is mentioned. It maintains that there is no Mukti according to Madhva principles. Infact he says that if 'Srilakshmi herself would maintain the differnce, what about us Mortals?'. The monoist principle doesnt focus on Bheda much as DarkWarrior rightly pointed out in one of the forums. Can we have an open dicussion as whether Mukti is the essence of all the Upanishads or is it just like promising something to gain popularity(for the Dharma).

[Amlesh]

A mind twisting question, Srikanth.

 

But a nice one.

[Dark Warrior]

I am a bit tired of debates at the moment, so I think I will pass. Let others carry it on.

 

However, I just want to clarify one thing - there is a difference between Madhvas and Sri Vaishnavas regarding moksha. The Madhvas maintain that even in Moksha, there is taratamya, ie, bheda between individual souls in terms of bliss experienced. This is however, based on a faulty understanding of the Taittiriya Upanishad.

 

I, being a Sri Vaishnava, believe that there is a state of oneness. The Jivatman is similar to Paramatma in many ways - both are incomprehensible, omnipresent (Jivatma's consciousness pervades the body, just as Paramatma pervades the whole world, which is His body), immutable, conscious, possess infinite Jnanam and Anandam. Jivatma in Samsara has its attributive consciousness expanded or contracted due to karma, but its substantiative consciousness remains intact (just like a flame is radiant, but the pervasiveness and reach of the radiance varies).

 

However, the Jivatma has some basic differences - It is mentioned as anu in Svetasvatara Upanishad (misinterpreted by advaitins) and it cannot create, preserve or destroy (Brahma Sutra 4.4.17). It is dependent on the Paramatma at all times. It also cannot become Lord of other entities, or control them.

 

In Moksha, we get a beautiful body, equal in grandeur to the Lord. We get Jnana and bliss equal to Him. We are able to be omnipresent and even take avatars like Him. We get just about everything by His grace, but we still maintain individuality, ie, we are separate and dependent on Him. Just like a guru raises a sishya and the sishya gets jnana equal to the guru, we become equal to Paramatma, yet we remain indebted to Him.

 

So, that is the meaning of Shruti vakya when it talks about a 'state of oneness', or 'He who knows Brahman becomes Brahman'. The pramana for SamyApathi Moksha is taken from the Mundaka Upanishad:

 

yada pasya pashyate rukmavarnam kartaaram isam purusham brahmayonim tada vidvan punya pape vidhuya niranjana paramam saamyam upaithi.( Mu Up 3.1.3)

 

When the jnani realizes the Lord, he attains highest equality with him.

 

The word 'paramam' emphasises 'for the most part', or 'highest possible'.

 

I shall debate no more in this thread. I just wanted to point out the difference between Madhvas and Sri Vaishnavas. In any case, whether you are a monist or a dualist is a personal choice. If you feel monism is correct, then there is nothing wrong in trying to progress in your beliefs.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Dear Srikant,

Before we discuss the issue we first need to define mukti. There are different meaning and flavers to this concept. Depending on the conceptualization and operationalization of mukti.

What is the essential conception ofMukti? What is the word meaning of Mukti? Mukti means freedom.

Freedom from what? On this there are different conceptions: (1) Freedom from birth death cycle – the samsara sagara- which also means freedom from karmic chain. If we take this definition then we have the following question associated with it: What happens to the self (soul) after it is freed from karma - After its physical body dies? There are four traditional possibilities:

Saloka Mukti : Living in the world of a god.

Samipa Mukti: Attaining close proximity to god

Sarupa Mukti: Obtaining the gods form

Sayujya mukti: Merging with the god .

These four muktis are pertaining to of results obtained from, worship of a god.

There is another way to look at the issue. In Kashmir Saivism , jeevas are supposed to be suffering with three impurities( malas) :

Anava mala (ego – limited agency, a sense of limited individual existence)

Karma mala (being bound deterministically by the chain of action reaction pattern)

Mayiya mala( subject to ignorance and illusion).

Siva is supposed to be free of all three of these mala and the esoteric doctrine is that Jiva is Siva with these three malas . In the process of freeying from these three malas there are stages of freedom ( mukti) ;

(1) Those creatures with all three malas intact are called Sakalas . They are the various creatures ranging from range from crimi ( protozoa) to various gods. ( here gods should be understood as various evolved creatures with superhuman capabilities but yet not free from the fundamental three faults) .

(2) Those who are free from Karma mala but with maya and anava intact are called Pralayakalas. They are free from karmic chain but yet do not posses knowledge, due to presence of ignorance.

(3) Those who ate free from karma as well as mayiya mala are called Vijnanakalas. They will have knowledge but still not free from the ego, limited agency.

(4) Those who are freed from Anava (and karma and Mayiya malas too) are called Mantras. Mantras are fully muktas as they are completely free from all three types of malas which are limiting.

Further the mantras are also classified in to a hierarchical structure of a tree tire system of which mantras are at the lowest level. The two other kind of mantras are :

(5) Mantreswaras

(6) Mantramaheswara, and finally

(7) Siva.

In these the mantra level on words are called truly muktas. The distinction still exists between them in terms of the sakties – powers - that they master. Mantra is endowered with Kriya sakti, Mantra maheswara with Jnana sakti and Mantra maheswara with Icha sakti. These are the ones who are running the univers, creating maintaining and desolving.

Siva is transcendental. Merging with siva is equilant to merging with the Vedic Bhraman. The only differenceis that the Kasmir salivate concept of the ultimate state Siva is not the actionless passive stale state as it is normally attributed to (Sankarian) Bhraman, but a dynamic force that generating everything in the universe . Siva and Sakti are one. Sakti is Siva’s indistinguishable power.

Thus in this <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">Kashmir</st1:place> salivate schema, Mukti could mean six varying degrees and types of freedom from Pralayakala to Siva.

I have not answered your questions in this post. I don’t know the answer at this point of time. What I did is is to provide a full context of the meaning of Mukti its varying possible shades of meaning with scope of both dualist and monist conceptions of mukti so that discussion could take place with out vagueness and confusion.

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[kaisersose]

 

Dear Friends, as you all know (those who are already familier with my postings) that I follow a monoist stance. I believe that there is Mukti. So, Dvaita cannot give you Mukti. If Dvaita was true, the last abode would be a Kailasa or a Vaikunta in the presence of Lord Shiva or Sriman Narayana. Still, you are not a Mukta, you still maintain the differnce between you and the lord in the Shivaloka or Vishnuloka. If there is Mukti, only one truth applies and that is Advaita. God made everything and everything is god. Unlike the 'Me' is identified as Srikanth, I have these different instruments of sense and action where my five fingers are different, and all organs are different but the truth is 'I'. In Vaishnava Sampradaya, the Samipya, Sannidhya and Sayujya is mentioned. It maintains that there is no Mukti according to Madhva principles. Infact he says that if 'Srilakshmi herself would maintain the differnce, what about us Mortals?'. The monoist principle doesnt focus on Bheda much as DarkWarrior rightly pointed out in one of the forums. Can we have an open dicussion as whether Mukti is the essence of all the Upanishads or is it just like promising something to gain popularity(for the Dharma).

 

I am under time constraints, so I will make this short.

 

Mukti - or its equivalent - in Vaishnava terms is relying more on Pancharatra and Purana concepts and less on Upanishads. The Prashtana Trayi (PT) does not talk about Vaikunta or Lakshmi. But if you take the two out, what is left in the concept of Vaishnava liberation? Almost nothing.

 

The crux of the discussion comes down to this - does Brahman/Narayana have a permanent form or not? If the answer is yes, then there is a foundation for the Vaishnava concept of liberation, if not, then the answer is Advaita.

 

Everything I have read and understood makes it clear (to me) that the ultimate truth cannot have a Homo Sapiens, North Indian, 5 foot, 8 inches dhoti wearing, male form. It makes no sense at all and like I said I have not seen such a concept presented anywhere in the PT. It makes no sense to say Brahman has a permanent form with eyes and nose which he/it does not really need! It would be a stronger argument, in my opinion, to state Brahman's permanent form is an indescribable shape or even a cube or a cone. At least, then the questions of redundant eyes, a redundant nose, etc., are eliminated.

 

This is why the Advaita concept of Mukti is less imaginative than the others and hence, relatively more acceptable. Of course, my skeptical mind see flaws in Advaita Mukti too, but the same flaws are also found in the other competing versions. The most major flaw I see is the concept of permanence or eternity. Anyway, that is a different topic.

 

Cheers

[bhaktajan]

Yes the first question of the conclusion of the path of enlightenment is:

 

Is moksha/mukti Personal or Impersonal?

 

Loss of individuality is absolute or not?

 

What must be acertained is:

 

What is "Absolute"?

 

We may use the famous rule of 'neti neti' as a beginning process to answer this question ['neti neti' (not this, not that) is a "Scientific Method" of deduction --where all 'things' are stricken from a list of "Absolute" truths/goals/axioms-- until arriving at the, again famous, conclusion: Nirvana/Brahman (the void).

 

The advaitists purport that nothing-ness came first, correct?

 

The Vaishnava reading of sastra is that, 'Eternity & the Souls' original, primeaval reciprical-exchanges & audience with God the father in Heaven', is beyond the physics of the "void, aggregate elements, time, and petty repeated births of above mentioned souls"

 

The concept of a personal Transcendent God must be via exclusive sources.

 

Why does God not reveal himself directly? Because we are spirit-souls in the material world. We are very far from God the Transcendent Person.

 

The term, 'familararity breeds contempt' [especially by presumptous underlings] relates to the souls' predicament in the material samsara world.

 

1st we have the concession of The 'Splendors of Creation' et al., to recollect our predicament and our relative degree of self-contempt and/or self-conceit--in the Gita gives us reminders of where his appearences can be preceived, from sex-life to Grand Civic Dharmas.

 

2nd we must approach the in-good-standing 'Nunzio' [Public Relations secretary to the Pope in Vatican Rome] so as to be Briefed, before any personal face-time audience with high ranking dignataries.

 

Briefings may require lifetime(s) long preparation & attention to:

Vedanta learning,

Arcana (austerities of the mind, body and actions),

renunciation etc.

[bhaktajan]

 

 

sambhava—worship of the Supreme Lord, the cause of all causes

 

 

 

 

In my opinion:

The simple way to worship the Supreme Lord in this age of disturbance is to hear and chant about His great activities.

The mental speculators, however, think that the activities of the Lord are imaginary; therefore they refrain from hearing of them and invent some word jugglery without any substance to divert the attention of the innocent masses of people.

The Upaniñads indirectly draw our attention to the primeval Lord, Çré Kåñëa,

but the Bhagavad-gétä, which is the summary of all the Upaniñads,

directly points to Çré Kåñëa.

Therefore one should hear about Kåñëa as He is by hearing from the Bhagavad-gétä or Çrémad-Bhägavatam, and in this way one’s mind will gradually be cleansed of all contaminated things.

Çrémad-Bhägavatam (1.2.17) says:

“By hearing of the activities of the Lord, the devotee draws the attention of the Lord. Thus the Lord, being situated in the heart of every living being, helps the devotee by giving him proper directions.”

The Bhagavad-gétä (10.10) confirms this: dadämi buddhi-yogaà taà yena mäm upayänti te.

The Lord’s inner direction cleanses the devotee’s heart of all contamination produced by the material modes of passion and ignorance.

Nondevotees are under the sway of passion and ignorance. One who is in passion cannot become detached from material hankering, and one who is in ignorance cannot know what he is or what the Lord is.

Thus when one is in passion or ignorance, there is no chance for self-realization, however much one may play the part of a religionist.

Anyone can qualify as a brähmaëa if he follows the path of devotional service under the guidance of a bona fide spiritual master. Çrémad-Bhägavatam (2.4.18) also says:

 

 

 

kiräta-hüëändhra-pulinda-pulkaçä

 

äbhéra-çumbhä yavanäù khasädayaù

ye ’nye ca päpä yad-apäçrayäçrayäù

çudhyanti tasmai prabhaviñëave namaù

 

 

 

Any lowborn person can be purified by the guidance of a pure devotee of the Lord, for the Lord is extraordinarily powerful.

When one attains brahminical qualifications,

Automatically the science of God is unveiled before him. By knowing the science of God,

One who attains this stage is a liberated soul and can see the Lord in every step of life. This is the perfection of sambhava [sambhava—worship of the Supreme Lord, the cause of all causes].

[tackleberry]

 

 

Everything I have read and understood makes it clear (to me) that the ultimate truth cannot have a Homo Sapiens, North Indian, 5 foot, 8 inches dhoti wearing, male form.

 

Where in the Vaishnava literature do you find such descriptions of God? Can you please point to some references?

[Dark Warrior]

 

I am under time constraints, so I will make this short.

 

Mukti - or its equivalent - in Vaishnava terms is relying more on Pancharatra and Purana concepts and less on Upanishads. The Prashtana Trayi (PT) does not talk about Vaikunta or Lakshmi. But if you take the two out, what is left in the concept of Vaishnava liberation? Almost nothing.

 

Um, isn't Bhagavad Gita part of Prasthna Trayam? And apparently, you are defining a concept of Vaishanavism I have never even heard of. Who told you that we think mukti is more in Pancharatra? For the record, the Chandogya and Kaushitaki Upanishads give a pretty detailed account of the Archiradi Marga, which is the Vaishnava concept of mukti.

 

We are not fools to claim a Vedantic backing without Upanishadic knowledge, you know. Just honest Vaidikas who have many decent commentaries on the Upanishads.

 

As usual, you are making assumptions without understanding the facts. Can you please tell me exactly how Vaishnavas rely too much on Puranas and Pancharatra? We use them as ancillory texts and not as primary texts.

 

Dude, we accept texts ONLY if they do not contradict the Veda. The Pancharatra does not contain anything that is absent in Vedas. The Vyuha theory is accepted by even Adi Sankara.

 

And there is no concept of Vaishnava liberation in PT? You have gotta be kidding!!

 

'Om Tad Vishnoh Parama Padam Sada Pashyanti Suriyah' is indeed implying that there is an abode of Vishnu that is to be achieved. Purusha Suktam calls the Purusha as the Husband of Lakshmi.

 

Bhagavad Gita clearly mentions an abode to be achieved, as Lord Krishna mentions that His abode is not lighted by fire, sun or stars, etc.

 

Even according to Advaita, the abode of Vishnu exists and is conveyed by Veda. Adi Sankara however, thinks that all this is just vyavaharika, and that Nirguna Brahman is the ultimate reality.

 

The next point is this - What makes you think the Puranas and Pancharatra are unvedic? Because a bunch of indologist nerds in the 19th century came and dated these scriptures? If you must know, I have read some of the works of Max Muller, Gavin Flood and Friedhelm Hardy on dating of scripture. However, Indology is not the subject of the thread.

 

Vedantins have always accepted Puranas as Vedic. Chandogya Upanishad calls them 5th Veda. Sri Sankara and Sri Ramanuja show a great reverance for Vishnu Purana, and Sri Madhva has proven the authenticity of Bhagavata Purana. If you are of the opinion that the Puranas contain mundane, fantastical stories, please read the commentaries given by Sri Krishna Suri or Sri Madhva. Every word of Vishnu and Bhagavata Purana has a deep meaning.

 

Pancharatra is also mentioned by Satapatha Brahmana. Sankara rejects it based on his interpretation. He accepts the philosophy propounded by Pancharatra, but thinks the text adds some material that isn't in Veda.

 

Your bias against Puranas is your own business. I have no problems with it. However, no Vedantin harbors the view that Vishnu Purana is unvedic, or that Bhagavad Gita is composed by some 'Krishna cult follower'. While you can express your views (and I respect them), please don't cite them as reasons for criticising Sri Ramanuja or Sri Madhva.

 

If it is so obvious that Krishna is a nonvedic god and that the Puranas are unvedic, I do not know why every Vedantin (including Sankara) hails Brahman as the Son of Devaki.

 

 

The crux of the discussion comes down to this - does Brahman/Narayana have a permanent form or not? If the answer is yes, then there is a foundation for the Vaishnava concept of liberation, if not, then the answer is Advaita.

 

There are clear pramanas in veda that says that the form of Brahman is eternal. Want to see?

 

yat te rUpaM kalyANAtamaM tat te pashyAmi

 

~ IshAvAsya Upanishad

 

yadi manyase suvedeti daharamevaapi nuunaM tvaM vettha brahmaNo ruupam

 

~ Kena Upanishad.

 

 

 

Chandogya also says the eyes of Brahman are like two lotuses blossomed by the sun.

 

Rig Veda makes a reference to the navel of the unborn.

 

In my first post itself, the vakya 'Yada Yada Pashyate Rukmavarnam' from Mundaka Up. conveys my point, which says that Brahman is golden (luminiscent). This signifies a rupa.

 

Once again, Advaita relies on its own assumptions and relegates this to 'Saguna Brahman' category. However, the Shrutis are clear that the world is real on all counts. Does it make sense to say that all 32 Brahma Vidyas of the Upanishads are unimportant because they are also ultimately unreal?

 

Your belief that Sankara interpreted things well is indeed an 'illusion'. Anybody can write a commentary based on his own imagination. Sankara struggles with the Isa Upanishad, Gita and Brahma Sutras, which all emphasise on Savisesha Brahman and reality of the world.

 

 

Everything I have read and understood makes it clear (to me) that the ultimate truth cannot have a Homo Sapiens, North Indian, 5 foot, 8 inches dhoti wearing, male form. It makes no sense at all and like I said I have not seen such a concept presented anywhere in the PT.

 

Nice sarcasm. Can you give me a reason why the omnipotent Brahman CANNOT have a dhoti or, take an avatar in Bharatavarsha for no reason at all?

 

Have you actually read the Bhagavad Gita, part of the PT? Where Arjuna asks Krishna, show me your rupa with the conch, lotus, disc, etc. Sankara certainly accepts it. And Krishna was not 5 foot 8. In the Dwapara yuga, people were taller. He was probably 7 feet tall.

 

And can you accuse the Lord of being partial to humans? He has not just come in a human like form. He has come as a fish, a boar, a horse, a tortoise, etc. Sounds silly to you? Well, to me, it verifies what He says in Gita, 'I am equal to all'. All would include animals, who are also jivatmas.

 

Of course, I believe you maintain a unique stance that the Bhagavad Gita was written in 200 BC by some guy who invented a god....however, that isn't the opinion of even traditional advaitins. You are, of course, welcome to your opinions if you are an outsider/atheist.

 

 

It makes no sense to say Brahman has a permanent form with eyes and nose which he/it does not really need! It would be a stronger argument, in my opinion, to state Brahman's permanent form is an indescribable shape or even a cube or a cone. At least, then the questions of redundant eyes, a redundant nose, etc., are eliminated.

 

Can you fall in love with a cube or a cone? Don't you dress up, put on some scent, etc. to take a girl out on a date? Well, Narayana is the Purushottama who wishes to make Himself attractive to the Jivatma.

 

It makes no sense because you do not understand why He assumes this form. Why does Bhakti Yoga sound inferior to you? It is the same meditation as prescribed by Yajnavalkya 'Meditate lovingly on Brahman' in the Brihadaranyaka. After all, an object of meditation is loved by the meditator and this is nothing but bhakti.

 

First of all, the Svarupa of Brahman is formless. He is indescribable, except that He has the attributes of Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam, Anandam, etc. It is this Svarupa that pervades and is present in every living entity.

 

At the same time, this Svarupa is present inside a divine body. This body is not made of material elements. This body is insentient, but completely divine.

 

If you read the JitantE stotram of Rig Veda, it says 'Brahman's form is not for Himself, but for His devotees'. This piece explicitly says that Brahman does nt need eyes to see, or ears to hear. He merely manifests them for the pleasure of His devotees. Read the Ramayana. Lord Rama's wide lotus eyes were the object of much adoration. Who can resist them? Not even Arjuna. Can you meditate on a formless svarupa? Nope. But Brahman has enough jnanam to realise that His devotees need Him with a rupa. Both Rupa and Svarupa are nityam, because time is eternal and has no beginning.

 

It is to look attractive to Jivas that Lord NarayaNa has donned this four armed form. As Arjuna says 'Padma Patra Vishalaksha...' which means 'Oh Lord with the wide lotus eyes, you make your devotees fall in love with you intensely'. This is the commentary of Adi Sankara himself (Vishnu Sahasranama) where he himself admits that the Lord's form (Saguna, according to him) is to please His devotees.

 

This is the beauty of it - He does not need these Lotus Eyes. He does not need this flute, or these beautiful limbs. But who can't help falling in love with such a rupa? Even Adi Sankara, the great advaitin, shows much bhakti when he commentates on the Sahasranama. He has come in this form for us, and not because He needs them.

 

 

This is why the Advaita concept of Mukti is less imaginative than the others and hence, relatively more acceptable. Of course, my skeptical mind see flaws in Advaita Mukti too, but the same flaws are also found in the other competing versions. The most major flaw I see is the concept of permanence or eternity. Anyway, that is a different topic.

 

Cheers

 

Nirguna Brahman is logically untenable. Brahman means 'to grow', 'pervade'. That means, beng Brahman itself implies that He has an attribute, eh?

 

The Vishnu Sahasranama also has the words 'Nirguno Mahan'. This gives rise to two meanings, 'He who has no attributes' or 'He who is beyond all attributes'. The first meaning is illogical, as the Sahasranama describes Vishnu gloriously. Then, the second meaning is close to the Vaishnava definition of 'beyond sattva, rajas, tamas'!! Too bad Sankara does not think of using the same 2nd definition in the Veda as well. Read Sankara Bhashya for Vishnu Sahasranama.

 

Shvu, I understand your atheistic stance. But first understand that Vaishnavas do not jump to Puranas without clarifying the Veda. We have no need to read the Veda or interpret it with Puranas by our bedside. The Veda itself houses the concept of an eternal form, gives a decent description of it, and provides means of meditation. Secondly, do not come to hasty conclusions about Vedanta just because Advaita is 'popular'. Bhagavad Gita condemns the theory of falsity of the world in one sloka. Advaitins dodge it by saying they believe in the reality of the world as long as they are not liberated. However, it is evident what the sloka addresses.

 

Now, I really bow out of this thread. Mind, I don't care if people criticise Dvaita or VA. After all, Advaitins would never accept Dualism and hence, you can bash our philosophy all you want. I just don't want people making assumptions about Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva without understanding the basics.

[kaisersose]

I thought this was common knowledge?

 

 

Where in the Vaishnava literature do you find such descriptions of God? Can you please point to some references?

 

1. Descriptions of Vaikunta and in general stories of Vishnu and Lakshmi resting on Adi Shesha, etc. In all instances, it is understood that he has a human looking form, about average height, Indian style clothes, dark skinned, south Asian look.

 

2. Krishna came down in his original form - Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

 

The same concept holds true for Shiva too and most other Gods in the Hindu Pantheon.

 

Cheers

[kaisersose]

 

Um, isn't Bhagavad Gita part of Prasthna Trayam? And apparently, you are defining a concept of Vaishanavism I have never even heard of. Who told you that we think mukti is more in Pancharatra? ...

 

DW,

 

That was a long post. Let me clarify what I mean.

 

1. I am referring to the popular Vaishnava concept of Mukti which is finding a place in Vaikunta at he Lotus feet. Vaikunta, Lotus feet, Lakshmi, the ocean of milk, Adi-Sesha, etc., are not vedic concepts. Unless we looked at the Pancharatra, we would not even know these names. That is my point.

 

2. The concept of Mukti that I described, is more from a Dvaita perspective. If VD differs in anyway, then I would not know about it.

 

The only point I was contesting was the human form of Vishnu/Brahman and that too purely on logical grounds - not from an Advaita perspective.

 

Cheers

[srikanthdk71]

Well, Mukti is presented by Ravindranji in both the monoist and dvaitin point of view and when kaisersose says that the Purusha/Almighty cannot be just subjected to a form, DW argues with the subject that formless cannot be perceived or a form like a cone or a circle will not hold importance. This is quite interesting debate and there is also one small query into all this.

 

Why is the 'Purusha' only a Male, ie., only a Shiva(in case of the Shaivism) and Vishnu (for Vaishnavas) enjoy the main focus and the Devi Purana and the female gods are always inferior to their male counterparts. The division in gods itself as male/female has created confusion. When I say this I mean that there is no Parvati/Lakshmi tradition. So when mukti is debated, and mukti is for all, the creator should be devoid of all differences. Again, the Purusha Sukta tries to explain that all is within when it includes all Varnas like 'Brahmanosya Mukhamaaseet, Bahurajanya kritah, Ooru tadasya yad vysyah..' which includes all as one. The God cannot be perceived as a neutor as neutors do not enjoy respect in the society. Yet the Ardhanareeshwara form tries to close that gap. Hence, when a form was given, the Male enjoyed the forefront and the Woman followed suit as the consort of the Male. If Mukti was like what Ravindranji pointed out, its still a point to ponder.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Hello everyone,

Why God is a human male? Every society conceived their thoughts and systems -religious or secular - in terms of cultural symbolism. The male dominant society conceived everything superior and valuable - including god - as males and attributes belonging to males. This kind of 'religiosity' which is verymuch culturally conditioned is to be distinguished from 'spirituality' which is culture-free and universal . The Vedic Brahman and Mukti are such universal concepts according to my understanding.

 

Mukti is to be conceived as freedom from all sort of limitation imposed by not only from the culture but also the biological. The limitation comes from the ego- the self boundry. the ideas : I am a male, an Indian, a human , a Vaishnavite (or communist , or a capatalist), all are limiting myself and are arbitory notions. The true 'I' am in fact free from all such orbitrarily defined ego boundries. This is the true meaning of the Vedic Notion of 'I am Brahman'. We - all sentient beings - are all one. And seeing this oneness is a spiritual wisdom. Seeing difference is spiritual ignorance.

 

Whence shall he have grief, how shall he be deluded who sees everywhere the Oneness?

 

 

 

Isha Upanishad

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moksha is to attain this oneness consciousness. One way to settle this debate on moksha conclusively is to attain moksha , practically. There is indeed an experience of oneness of all and freedom from all conditioned and limiting conception, which can be expreienced if we care to find out. This is done by transforming our consciousness (from the ego bounded state to unbounded Paramatma - a state of unity consciousness). The techniques of transformation of consciousness from individual consciousness to unity consciousness are well developed in Indian spiritual traditions. To accomplish the required transformation of consciousness, Indians have devised practical tools. ‘Vidyas’, they are called in Upanisads. They are also referred to as ‘Tantra’ (technique) in Tantric traditions and ‘Upaya’ (means) in Kashmir Saivism. It is not the scope of this post to cover the techniques in detail, but a classifications system of the techniques merits mention. We shall adopt the classification system of Kashmir Saivism for this purpose, because this classification system seems to be a universal all exhaustive system, covering every possible spiritual technique.

For the transformation of consciousness Kashmir Saivism prescribes three types of techniques. The first type is the easiest to most of the individuated ego–intact people. The technique it self is an ‘ego–intact’ technique. The technique does not demand one to be ego-less or ego-free. It prescribes actions that are performed by ego with ego-intact. Various practices of Bakthi, (Devotion), worship of gods, recitation of mantras, performance of rituals, acts of charity and various other meritorious acts all fall under this category. Since, ego is intact in these techniques they are classified under the name ego-intact techniques - ‘Anavopaya’. The Aim of these techniques is however to reconstruct the ego boundary itself.

The next type of technique-called Saktopaya - is to leave the objects of ego- be it a mantra, a deity or any other object of the self, and to investigate the ego itself. Attention is to be turned on to the self. When one remains constant in this self-inquiry, one is bound to discover that the ego boundary is arbitrary and illusory and one is in fact the Transpersonal Consciousness. Ego drops away naturally.

The third type of technique - called Sambavopaya - is the simple swapping of the self-identity. One normally identifies oneself with the empirical self. But why identify with empirical self, when one is actually transpersonal self? Hence swap your identification from empirical self to transpersonal self, as you are already transpersonal self.

This simple swapping of our ontological assumption from that 'I am an empirical self', to that 'I am the Universal self' is called Sambavopaya. It is a very simple technique but by its very simplicity, very difficult to accomplish by many. Usually only very few spiritually advanced souls are said to be benefiting by this technique. They comprehend the truth as soon as they hear it - "You are Brahman" - from a teacher’s mouth and their identity gets swapped and they get enlightened instantly.

K.Ravindran

[srikanthdk71]

 

The simple way to worship the Supreme Lord in this age of disturbance is to hear and chant about His great activities.

 

The mental speculators, however, think that the activities of the Lord are imaginary; therefore they refrain from hearing of them and invent some word jugglery without any substance to divert the attention of the innocent masses of people.

 

Agreed that the simple way is to worship the Supreme Lord in this age of disturbance. The imaginary feeling is not the activities of Lord but overall the Lord himself. What is He/She/It? Can He/She/It be attained with this He/She/It difference? There is the mental jugglery.

 

 

The Upaniñads indirectly draw our attention to the primeval Lord, Çré Kåñëa, but the Bhagavad-gétä, which is the summary of all the Upaniñads, directly points to Çré Kåñëa.

 

Who is the Karta of Bhagavad Gita, it is Sri Krishna himself. So he doesnt show you anything outside him. He tells everything is him and within him. The Him within Krishna is the 'I' of me or you. So, it is an indirect pointer to all of us. It clearly says to look within yourself for answers rather to look outside. This is my perception.

 

 

Therefore one should hear about Kåñëa as He is by hearing from the Bhagavad-gétä or Çrémad-Bhägavatam, and in this way one’s mind will gradually be cleansed of all contaminated things.

 

Hearing about Krishna or Bhagavad Gita or a Srimad Bhagavatam is done by millions of people 24x7 round the clock in India. The person who is reciting the story or the people who are listening gets positive vibrations for the moment till they are hearing or telling. Later, the same daily routine continues. So, the effect is not permanent in doing so is what common experience tells. No cleansing happens. It is all temporary.

 

 

“By hearing of the activities of the Lord, the devotee draws the attention of the Lord. Thus the Lord, being situated in the heart of every living being, helps the devotee by giving him proper directions.”

 

I thought Lord is ever attentive and we need not do anything to draw his attention rather the Lord himself draws our attention towards him as you rightly say that he is in every heart. So was he in the Heart of Krishna which he realised and was able to portray and we are still trying to find answers outside or in a gross form.

 

The Bhagavad-gétä (10.10) confirms this: dadämi buddhi-yogaà taà yena mäm upayänti te.

 

The Lord’s inner direction cleanses the devotee’s heart of all contamination produced by the material modes of passion and ignorance.

 

Nondevotees are under the sway of passion and ignorance. One who is in passion cannot become detached from material hankering, and one who is in ignorance cannot know what he is or what the Lord is.

Thus when one is in passion or ignorance, there is no chance for self-realization, however much one may play the part of a religionist.

 

This is an inner word of Sri Krishna which applies to all of us. It has many subtle meanings. You already have pointed out that self-realisation is the path to almighty. Where is the self and what is to be realised is left to the individual thinking.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

 

Who is the Karta of Bhagavad Gita, it is Sri Krishna himself. So he doesnt show you anything outside him. He tells everything is him and within him. The Him within Krishna is the 'I' of me or you. So, it is an indirect pointer to all of us. It clearly says to look within yourself for answers rather to look outside. This is my perception.

 

This is an inner word of Sri Krishna which applies to all of us. It has many subtle meanings. You already have pointed out that self-realisation is the path to almighty. Where is the self and what is to be realised is left to the individual thinking.

 

That Krishna is a realized person just like many rishis , seems to be the correct understanding as there are many seems to have the same perspective and experience of Krishna. One such personality speaking like Krishna is the woman Vak, daughter of the sage Ambhrana , She knew like Krishna that she was Brahman.Rg veda as wellas Atarva veda gives her mantras in Rastrasukta. What follows is this sukta taken from Adharva Veda Kanda 4 Sukta 30:

 

I go about Rudras, the Vasus, I with Adityas, and All-gods; I bear Mitra and Varuna, I Indra and Agni, I both Asvinis.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

I am queen gatherer of goodthings, the first that has understood the matters of sacrifice; me here the gods distributed manifoldly, making me of many stations enter into many.

I my own self say this, (which is) enjoyable of gods and of men; whoever I desire, him I make formidable, him priest him seer him wise.

By me does he eat food who look abroad, who breath, who indeed hears what is spoken; Unknowing they dwell upon me; hear you , heard-of one; I say to you what is to be credited.

I stretch the bow for Rudra, for his shaft to slay the bhraman hater; I make strife for the people; in to haven-and-earth I have entered.

I bear the heady soma, I Tvasta, also Bhaga; I assign prosperity to the giver of oblations, to the very Zealous, the sacrificer, the presser of soma.

I give birth to the father in his head; my womb is within waters, the ocean; thence I extend myself to all beings; even sky I touch with my summit.

I myself blow forth like the wind, taking hold upon all being; beyond sky, beyond the earth here – such have I become by greatness.

The translation by W. D. Whitney , I believe is of poor quality but we do get a sense of the grand experience this women seer is talking about.Krishna is to be taken as a brahmajani - a self/brahman realised soul - like Vak. Every soul can and must reasise Brahman.

 

K.Ravindran

 

 

 

[IamNotHeeHee]

 

We - all sentient beings - are all one. And seeing this oneness is a spiritual wisdom. Seeing difference is spiritual ignorance.

 

And this statement is said by the Visishtadvaitins, Dvaitins and Harekrishna's in the reverse order - Those who see oneness are spiritually ignorant and those who see differences are spiritually wise.

[danyavaads]

Time out. Will everyone please clarify their clarifications, to make things clearer. Hee hee. I'll check back in 10 to 12 months to see how things unfolded.

 

And HEY! Just because I said "hee hee" does NOT make me a heehee. I'm no heehee. OTAY?

[jeffster]

A brilliant exposition by Dark Warrior. The only tiny thing I would add is from verse 8 of Sri Ishopanishad where, in the purport, Prabhupad says, "In the Brahma-samhita (5.32) it is further stated that with each and every part of His body He can do the work of the other senses. This means that the Lord can walk with His hands, accept things with His legs, see with His hands and feet, eat with His eyes, etc. ..."

jeffster/AMdas

[srikanthdk71]

 

A brilliant exposition by Dark Warrior. The only tiny thing I would add is from verse 8 of Sri Ishopanishad where, in the purport, Prabhupad says, "In the Brahma-samhita (5.32) it is further stated that with each and every part of His body He can do the work of the other senses. This means that the Lord can walk with His hands, accept things with His legs, see with His hands and feet, eat with His eyes, etc. ..."

jeffster/AMdas

 

Dear Jeffster, indeed a brilliant exposition by DW. Verse 8 of Ishopanishad talks about the bodiless, spotless, transcendent self existant nature. It is purely talking about the Atman. To support the Dvaitin point of view, the purport is necessary and more over Brahma Samhita is a text revered in Gaudiya Vaishnavism which was non-existant before Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

[jeffster]

Hello Srikanthdk71,

My understanding from the introduction to my copy of Brahma-samhita is that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu found the Brahma Samhita in the manuscript library of the Adi-kesava temple in what is now Kerala, before called Travancore state. Actually he found 1 chapter, although it is believed that there were 100 chapters. But the point is that the text was already extant before Mahaprabhu discovered it.

Text 8 of Ishopanishad does state that the Supreme is unembodied, but is suggesting that the Supreme has no physical body as we know it because it also states that the Supreme has no veins. It would not be necessary to suggest that the Supreme has no veins if it has already been stated that He has no body. The statement that the Supreme has no veins suggests the fact that the Supreme has an entirely spiritual body devoid of veins, a transcendental body.

jeffster/AMdas

[Ravindran Kesavan]

 

And this statement is said by the Visishtadvaitins, Dvaitins and Harekrishna's in the reverse order - Those who see oneness are spiritually ignorant and those who see differences are spiritually wise.

 

Dear Not-HeeHee,

 

I dont know I am adderessing you rightly. That is a strange name. I dropped 'I am' part . If I am in any way offending you by this please do let me know next time.

 

The Dualist perspective is all right as a doctrine but to attribute inteligence and wisedom to seeing difference and attributing lack of inteligence or wisdom to seeing oneness behind the myriads of things is untenable. To see plurality is natural and that is how all creatures see the world anyway with their gross senses . All creatures see myriads of things- a divided and fractured and pluralistic world. There is no integence or wisdom required to see myriads of the things. Only sense perception is required for this. No inference or thinking is involved in this. Where as seeing the underlying oneness behind myriads of things requires inference, thinking and intelligence or an intuitive wisdom ,as it is not directly given in perception. This has to be either infered by reason or experirenced by a intuitive mode of knowing.

 

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[srikanthdk71]

 

Hello Srikanthdk71,

My understanding from the introduction to my copy of Brahma-samhita is that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu found the Brahma Samhita in the manuscript library of the Adi-kesava temple in what is now Kerala, before called Travancore state. Actually he found 1 chapter, although it is believed that there were 100 chapters. But the point is that the text was already extant before Mahaprabhu discovered it.

 

Who knows? The common understanding is that it was not quoted by the predecessors. Anyway, it is part of the Vaishnavite tradition and finds mention in the Pancharatras as a part of the various Samhitas by different Rishis and it is believed to be taken from the Shrutis.

 

 

 

Text 8 of Ishopanishad does state that the Supreme is unembodied, but is suggesting that the Supreme has no physical body as we know it because it also states that the Supreme has no veins. It would not be necessary to suggest that the Supreme has no veins if it has already been stated that He has no body. The statement that the Supreme has no veins suggests the fact that the Supreme has an entirely spiritual body devoid of veins, a transcendental body.

jeffster/AMdas

 

No dear, any form or for that matter a body(physical or spiritual or transcendental) is finite. That is common understanding. Any form (a Vishnu, Shiva or Brahma) is confined to boundries. So it cannot cover the entire cosmos. The question still arises what is outside the form? Hence, to be eternal and infinite devoid of boundries, the Supreme has to be formless. Since as DW rightly pointed out that formless cannot be perceived, a beautiful form was given in the right perspective to denote the Satva, Rajas and Tamas which pervades the whole cosmos. Yes, it is the journey to start from duality to find the Oneness or all-pervasiveness.

[kaisersose]

 

Hello Srikanthdk71,

My understanding from the introduction to my copy of Brahma-samhita is that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu found the Brahma Samhita in the manuscript library of the Adi-kesava temple in what is now Kerala, before called Travancore state. Actually he found 1 chapter, although it is believed that there were 100 chapters. But the point is that the text was already extant before Mahaprabhu discovered it.

jeffster/AMdas

 

The defense is again known only through a Gaudiya source. Outside this tradition, this text has never been known before or after. Hence, it becomes a circular defense - a certain Gaudiya text is stated to be authentic because the Gaudiyas offer a story for its legitimate origin. It is appropriate to quote this text when discussing with other Gaudiya Vaishnavas who will accept its authenticity on faith alone, but it will not work well with outsiders.

 

Every tradition has such a proprietary text. Madhva had his Brahma Tarka (missing now) which no one ever heard of. The Advaitins sometime use Yoga Vashista, which is another similar proprietary text. Authenticity of these texts is purely on basis of faith.

 

Cheers

[Justin]

 

The Dualist perspective is all right as a doctrine but to attribute inteligence and wisedom to seeing difference and attributing lack of inteligence or wisdom to seeing oneness behind the myriads of things is untenable.

I agree that to a monist it is untenable.

 

To see plurality is natural and that is how all creatures see the world anyway with their gross senses .

Because difference is real and not imaginary, it is not only natural but also the truth. If you feel this isn't the truth, you have to provide proof.

 

 

All creatures see myriads of things- a divided and fractured and pluralistic world. There is no integence or wisdom required to see myriads of the things. Only sense perception is required for this. No inference or thinking is involved in this.

If I say I claim I saw a flying teapot and you disagree, it will be arrogant of me to assume you are not a wise person because you used sense perception to figure out that there is no such thing as a flying teapot

 

 

Where as seeing the underlying oneness behind myriads of things requires inference, thinking and intelligence or an intuitive wisdom ,as it is not directly given in perception. This has to be either infered by reason or experirenced by a intuitive mode of knowing.

Ravindran, there is no inference or reason to assume all is one. All inference and reason denote that things are different. Even if you use inference and perception, it fails you in your analysis because it is your inference and perception. Don't you think the VAs, tattvavAdins, Iscon, Vallabha's and the later achAryas have clarified that difference is real by clearly refuting monism.

 

In addition, it is also condescending if I were to call a person ignorant because he did not see the flying teapot I saw? Its because I have used neither inference or perception to have seen a teapot. However, it is not condescending for the other person to call me ignorant because he clearly has a reason to do so.

 

No offence taken and I do not blame you. It is a fashion of non-dualists to categorize people who think differently as lower level individuals.

[kaisersose]

 

No offence taken and I do not blame you. It is a fashion of non-dualists to categorize people who think differently as lower level individuals.

 

I think you misread him. He did not categorize dualists as less intelligent.

 

He is saying dualism is what is perceived by default and therefore no additional intelligence/effort is necessary in this case. However, in the case of oneness, it is not directly obvious and therefore additional intelligence/effort would be required to understand the concept.

 

It is like the 'you are not the body' concept. By default, I am my body, without which there is no I. No intelligence/thought is necessary to see things this way. But to see myself as something other than my body, a lot of thought and self-convincing has to happen. It is not that people who seen themselves as the body are less intelligent than people who believe they will exist without their bodies. It is just that, the former choose the option that requires lesser imagination.

 

Like I said earlier, the usage of monism and dualism is incorrect in this context as Dvaita/Vaishnava theology is Monist too.

 

As per Advaita, oneness can only be perceived at Mukti. It cannot be perceived before that, and any intelligent or rational view of oneness is still not the real thing, just like any vision of Vishnu for the bonded individual is just imagined and not real. At this point for everyone here, duality is just as real to Advaitins as it is to everyone else.

 

Cheers