Is Mukti A Myth?

[Bart Happel]

Dear Bija,

 

I think the real 'miracle' is that I can communicate with You.

[Bart Happel]

Edit:

 

I mean, if only consciousness exists and all material duality is a perceptual illusion, then all material communication or interaction between conscious individuals must be a perceptual illusion. So in order to experience communication, relevant changes of your consciousness must be very precisely synchronized with changes in my consciousness through this universal consciousness..

[bhaktajan]

 

Edit:

 

I mean,

if only consciousness exists

and all material duality is a perceptual illusion,

then all material communication or interaction between conscious individuals must be a perceptual illusion.

 

So in order to experience communication,

relevant changes of your consciousness must be very precisely synchronized

with changes in my consciousness

through this universal consciousness.

 

Very nicely framed poem.

 

Also, we are 1/10,000th the size of the tip of a hair strand --we are so very minutely small --this point in space is our individual ('not able to be further divided') address all ourown. As time progresses we are stirred to 'act'.

 

There is a commonality to the choice of actions [eat, sleep, mate, defend etc.] --these common pursuits attest to something 'absolute' at the root of all experiences [examples of such 'something absolute' would be: God's Personage, Brahman (the void), The material cosmos, clan devotion, mathematics and higher knowledge].

 

The Human pursuits are refined and passed down through the ages among the oldest cultures known --with best regards specifically in order to maintain a level of sophistication, or even just to blatantly maintain some sort of social status to society at large.

 

..................................................................

One who has no knowledge of

the potencies of the Supreme Truth

will realize the impersonal Brahman.

 

Similarly, when one realizes

the material potencies of the Lord

but has little or no information

of the the Lord's spiritual potencies,

he attains Paramatma realization.

 

Thus both Brahman and Paramatma realization

of the Absolute Truth

are partial realizations.

 

However, when one realizes

the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna,

in full potency

after the removal of the hiranmaya-patra (effulgence of the Brahmajyoti), one realizes vasudevah sarvam iti . . . (Bg. 7.19)

 

Lord Sri Krishna, who is known as Vasudeva,

is everything—Brahman,

Paramatma and Bhagavan.

 

He is Bhagavan, the root,

and Brahman and Paramatma are His branches.

In the Bhagavad-gita (6.46–47) there is a comparative analysis of the

three types of transcendentalists—the worshipers of the impersonal Brahman (jnanis),

the worshipers of the Paramatma feature (yogis) and

the devotees of Lord Sri Krishna (bhaktas).

 

It is stated there that the jnanis,

those who have cultivated Vedic knowledge,

are better than ordinary fruitive workers,

that the yogis are still greater than the jnanis,

and that among all yogis,

those who constantly serve the Lord with all their energies are the topmost.

 

In summary:

a philosopher is better than a laboring man,

a mystic is superior to a philosopher,

and of all the mystic yogis . . .

he who follows bhakti-yoga (constantly engaging in the service of the Lord) is the highest.

iso15p

....................................................................................

Please, everyone, don't hesitate to inform me if I'm bonkers.

[Justin]

After reading the several emotional poetry about quantum theories, non-dualism and mathematics in this thread, I too am inspired to borrow a few legendary poems. Here goes:

 

Roses are red

Violets are blue

Most poems rhyme

But this one doesn't.

 

-----

 

The man in the flan

Quite liked his gran

She was rather triangular, too

The man in the flan

In a frying pan

Was absolutely nothing like you.

 

(Unless however, you are him and you are reading this)

 

-----

 

A great quote:

 

"To understand something means to derive it from quantum theories, which nobody understands."

 

- Anonymous

[Bart Happel]

 

After reading the several emotional poetry about quantum theories, non-dualism and mathematics in this thread, I too am inspired to borrow a few legendary poems. Here goes:

 

Roses are red

Violets are blue

Most poems rhyme

But this one doesn't.

 

-----

 

The man in the flan

Quite liked his gran

She was rather triangular, too

The man in the flan

In a frying pan

Was absolutely nothing like you.

 

(Unless however, you are him and you are reading this)

 

-----

 

A great quote:

 

"To understand something means to derive it from quantum theories, which nobody understands."

 

- Anonymous

 

You are (still) only saying: “I just don’t buy it!”. Why don't you simply present some (counter) arguments?

 

Kind regards, Bart

[bija]

 

I mean, if only consciousness exists and all material duality is a perceptual illusion, then all material communication or interaction between conscious individuals must be a perceptual illusion. So in order to experience communication, relevant changes of your consciousness must be very precisely synchronized with changes in my consciousness through this universal consciousness.. by bart

Yes I understood what you meant...thx for the clarification. As we become purified and situated in the mode of goodness, our vision becomes clear. And remember super-soul is one, and so is love.

 

Atma means the supreme personality. The small jiva is also called atma because it is a part of Atma. So therefore we have terms like Param-atma and jiva-atma. Para-brahman and brahman.

 

Jan has pointed out some very deep truths in his post. On all those three levels he has mentioned there are newer and fresher levels of communication. Once we attain Bhagavan realization communication actually becomes full of rasa, love, and service.

[bija]

 

...then all material communication or interaction between conscious individuals must be a perceptual illusion. by Bart

I read one commentary on Patanjali's Yoga sutra onetime. a very good commentary. It is said vrittis (the mind chatter and impressions) are impersonal. I thought how is that possible? They are my vrittis, I am a person.

 

Then I realized oneday, the vritti is not the true self. So therefore the vritti leads us into conditioned life, they have very little to do with the reality of the realized soul. Therefore the spiritualist purifies (then applies) vritti in service. All things become spiritualized.

 

Once we purify the subtle body, in devotion, we never have to take birth again in the material world. Once we live in accord with Super-soul, higher will. Buddhi yoga - bhakti yoga.

[srikanthdk71]

All perceivable matter is nothing but vibrations of energy. Hence any matter can be converted to energy. There is nothing called "anti-matter". It would be appreciable if Bart/Ravindran or any good physicists around will be able to give us a better scientific analysis in detail.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

 

Yes it is a myth for a non-dualist. There is no one to experience mukti if that were to happen!

 

Dear Justin

Why should there be a separate experiencer? In fact for a nondualist, Mukti is precisly the absence of such separate experiencer. I will demonstrate the problem in this kind of argument with another clear example.

 

One western philosopher (I forgot which one) argued that death does not exist – it is not real- as it doesn’t exist within life. When we die there is no life - no consciousness to experience that we are dead. Hence to say there is death is meaningless. (This argument has to be understood in the context of rational philosophy where death is assumed to be the end of existence and not in a religious one where soul, and hence consciousness, survives death.)

Obviously there is a flaw in this argument. To say that we don’t exist to witness that we are dead – that we don’t exist as a dead being (buying that as a true claim for argument sake) is not equal to say that death itself is not a real fact but a myth. Isn’t it?

Similarly to say Mukti is a myth - simply because in mukti there is no individual self or ego - is a fallacious argument.

 

 

 

 

Analogically, after an individual rain drop of water merges with the sea there is no separate drop of water distinguishable in the sea. Thereby to argue that the merger cannot take place, and the merging of the drops of rain with the sea is a myth., is not correct. There is a problem in this kind of argument.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran.

[jeffster]

Hello Bija,

Thanks for your posts # 294 & 298 for carrying on the personalist banner. I am on the road with no or poor internet connections, and without my library, but I will rejoin the fray next weekend !! Keep up the bombardment. I, at least, hope to eventually drown in the ocean of love of Godhead. Die to live !! Hari Bol !!

Pranams, jeffster/AMdas

[bija]

I hope to die to live too ol' mate.

 

Take care...Haribol! Jaya Gurudeva!

[srikanthdk71]

 

I hope to die to live to ol' mate.

 

Selective Death. Huh?!

[Bart Happel]

 

All perceivable matter is nothing but vibrations of energy. Hence any matter can be converted to energy. There is nothing called "anti-matter". It would be appreciable if Bart/Ravindran or any good physicists around will be able to give us a better scientific analysis in detail.

 

Dear Srikanth,

 

Detailed analysis of the current paradigms of physics (quantum mechanics & general relativity) has been carried out in the past century by many great minds, and I doubt that anyone here will be able to provide a comprehensive presentation of this vast body of mathematics. And I don’t think it will be of much use in this discussion. If you want to know the details, you can look them up and study them. But allow me to make some general comments on the subject of (anti) matter, gravity and chaos.

 

The relation between normal matter and energy is described by Einstein’s famous equation E = mc<SUP>2</SUP> (energy is mass times the squared speed of light). Anti-matter is the opposite of normal matter and it’s relation to energy can be described as E = -mc<SUP>2</SUP>. So there can be positively charged electrons and negatively charged protons. Such anti-particles can even form atoms such as anti-hydrogen - and anti-helium atoms. However, anti-matter can only be produced artificially in extremely small quantities at enormous costs by high-energy particle colliders (such as CERN). And when anti-matter comes into contact with normal matter both anti - and normal particles are annihilated in an explosion emitting pure radiation or energy. So for all practical understanding, anti-matter cannot exist in our universe, although it is speculated by some that other universes may exist that are entirely composed of anti-matter, in which normal matter can’t exist.

 

Another physical notion (that is sometimes confused with the notion of anti-matter) is ‘dark-matter’. In physics and cosmology, dark matter is ‘invisible’ hypothetical matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter accounts for the vast majority of mass in the observable universe. The observed phenomena which imply the presence of dark matter include the rotational speeds of galaxies, orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

 

Determining the nature of this missing mass is one of the most important problems in modern cosmology and particle physics. It has been noted, however, that the names "dark matter" and "dark energy" serve mainly as expressions of human ignorance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter ). Moreover, a chaos model of reality may resolve all gravitational problems in cosmology, by postulating that gravity is a global dynamical property of the ‘chaotic attractor’ of a unitary chaotic oscillation. If you want to know more about the nature of chaos and chaotic processes at an introductory level, I can recommend the book "Chaos: Making a New Science" by James Gleick.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[bija]

No Sri, not selective...happy death to all of us:).

[srikanthdk71]

 

In the Bhagavad-gita (6.46–47) there is a comparative analysis of the three types ......

 

The verses are:

 

6.46

 

tapasvibhyo 'dhiko yogī jñānibhyo 'pi mato 'dhikaḥ

karmibhyaś cādhiko yogī tasmād yogī bhavārjuna

 

6.47

 

yoginām api sarveṣāḿ mad-gatenāntar-ātmanā

śraddhāvān bhajate yo māḿ sa me yuktatamo mataḥ

 

The original Shankara Bhashya goes something like this. It is a word to word bhashya and not just a culmination.

 

46. A yogi is higher than men of austerity; he is considered higher even than men of knowledge. The yogi is also higher than men of action. Therefore, O Arjuna, do you become a yogi.

 

A yogi is adhikah, higher; tapasvibhyah, than men of austerity; he is matah, considered; adhikah, higher than, superior to; api, even; jnanibhyah, men of knowledge. Jnana here means scriptural learning. (A yogi is superior) to even those who possess that (learning). The yogi is adhikah, higher, greater; karmibhyah, than men of action-karma means Agnihotra etc.; (greater) than those who adhere to them. Since this is so, tasmat, therefore; O Arjuna, bhava, do you become a yogi.

 

 

47. Even among all the yogis, he who adores Me with his mind fixed on Me and with faith, he is considered by Me to be the best of the yogis.

 

Api, even; sarvesam yoginam, among all the yogis, among those who are immersed in meditation on Rudra, Aditya, and others; yah, he who; bhajate, adores; mam, Me; antaratmana,with his mind; madgatena, fixed on Me, concentrated on Me who am Vasudeva; and sraddhavan, with faith, becoming filled with faith; sah, he; is matah, considered; me, by Me; to be yukta-tamah, the best of the yogis, engaged in Yoga most intensely. [it has been shown thus far that Karma-yoga has monasticism as its ultimate culmination. And in the course of expounding Dhyana-yoga together with its ausxiliaries, and instructing about the means to control the mind, the Lord rules out the possibility of absolute ruin for a person fallen from Yoga. He has also stated that steadfastness in Knowledge is for a man who knows the meaning of the word tvam (thou) (in 'Thou are That'). All these instructions amount to declaring that Liberation comes from the knowledge of the great Upanisadic saying, 'Thou art That.']

[RamanaDasi]

Sri Adi Sankara Bhagavatapada wrote in his bhasya to Nrsimha-purva-tapani Upanisad:

 

mukta api lilaya vigraham kritva bhagavantam bhajanta

 

Even the unembodied mukta will make a form (vigraham kritva) so he can be with the Lord in his pastimes and do worship of Bhagavan (bhagavantam bhajanta)

[srikanthdk71]

 

Sri Adi Sankara Bhagavatapada wrote in his bhasya to Nrsimha-purva-tapani Upanisad....

 

I know that this is a Vaishnava Upanishad of the Atharva Shaaka. I believe that bhashya on Nrsimhatapani is not at all the work of Sri Adi Shankara. Only the Basic Dashopanishads are believed to be authentic. You can refer to any authentic Advaitin who will agree to this or you can even refer the Wikipedia also. It may be the work of a blinder who misquoted even the basic Ganapati sloka of 'Shuklambaradharam devam...' as 'Shuklambaradharam Vishnum...' and blindly followed till date.

[RamanaDasi]

How do you know what you believe is true?

 

And what about abhavam baadariraha hyevam in Brahma Sutra 4.4.10

 

The meaning is clear enough. Badari says a liberated soul who has attained Brahmaloka can exist with or without a body according to his liking.

 

What Adi Sankara said in the verse I quoted is perfectly in keeping with this statement by Badri in Brahma Sutra 4.4.10.

 

Why would a non-material mukta soul like to have a body, if it were not for doing bhakti? If a liberated soul wanted a body so he could experience matter then he would fall from mukti because of his interaction with Maya. The only reason a mukta would want to have a body is to do bhakti to Narayana. What other reason do you imagine a mukta would want a body for? Would a mukta want to have eyes and ears so he could feel pain and experience samsara? Ridiculous.

 

bhajagovindam bhajagovindam govindam bhaja muudhamate sampraapte sannihite kaale nahi nahi rakshati dukrijnkarane

[Justin]

 

Why should there be a separate experiencer? In fact for a nondualist, Mukti is precisly the absence of such separate experiencer.

Exactly my point. There is no experiencer. The person who strives for mukti does not exist per non-dualism. So God is the only one experiencing mukti. If you say the person still exists or sees others existing separate from himself then that is not non-dualism.

 

 

Obviously there is a flaw in this argument. To say that we don’t exist to witness that we are dead – that we don’t exist as a dead being (buying that as a true claim for argument sake) is not equal to say that death itself is not a real fact but a myth. Isn’t it?

There sure is a flaw in the argument allright. Death of the body is a fact. Who experienced death? The person who died. What happens after death? The soul of the person still exists. Vedic texts say the soul still experiences after death. Garuda purana goes at lengths to describe the various states that soul passes through before it reaches Vaikunta.

 

But in the monist conception of mukti there is no monist (as you yourself agreed). In fact the example you provided fits in with the monist conception of mukti where it says there is no experiencer. Just like the flawed example of death not a fact because there is no one to experience it. You are arguing against yourself by using this example.

 

 

Similarly to say Mukti is a myth - simply because in mukti there is no individual self or ego - is a fallacious argument.

It is a myth to anyone who is striving to attain mukti. Because they are not the ones attaining it. It is supposed to be God who experiences it in the final analysis. And everyone knows that God does not need mukti. So it implies there is no mukti to be experienced by either the person or God. It is a myth.

 

According to their own philosophy Sankara or Ramana never existed in history if they claimed they were enlightened. If in fact they were God as they declared they are, they wouldn't have preached to an audience. Or went from town to town preaching their philosophy. I think they were deluded and had hallucinations that they were God.

 

 

Analogically, after an individual rain drop of water merges with the sea there is no separate drop of water distinguishable in the sea. Thereby to argue that the merger cannot take place, and the merging of the drops of rain with the sea is a myth., is not correct. There is a problem in this kind of argument.

The drop that fell into the sea has displaced the sea. You may not see it with your eyes but the displacement is a fact. You may have heard that an ocean is an ocean because of each drop of water that is in it.

 

If you are that much into analogies see this one. Put a drop of oil in a tumbler filled with water and you can see the oil drop sitting separately from the huge mass of water.

 

We can use a number of sensible analogies to describe anything that does not make sense. Such analogies including borrowing desperately from Quantum theories, where no parallels exist, is a sign of weakness of a philosophy.

[Bart Happel]

 

 

Exactly my point. There is no experiencer. The person who strives for mukti does not exist per non-dualism. So God is the only one experiencing mukti. If you say the person still exists or sees others existing separate from himself then that is not non-dualism. ...

 

 

It's like turning a switch in your mind Your consciousness is God's consiousness, it's different but one. Your perception is, of course, ignorant.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[kaisersose]

 

It's like turning a switch in your mind Your consciousness is God's consiousness, it's different but one. Your perception is, of course, ignorant.

 

Kind regards, Bart

 

His post has so many mistakes thast it would take me an hour to point out the number of mistakes in each line.

 

This is what happens when we get on a soap pedestal and pontificate on topics that we are not willing to devote time to understand. The only outcome is he ends up looking like a fool. Anyway, as long as it does not bother him...

 

It is amusing to see Justin & co visualize what has been categorized as transcendental or in other words something that cannot be visualized or even imagined. Anything they imagine is not it. But again, it is highly unlikely they are gonna get ithis concept.

 

Cheers

[bija]

Only great souls can visualize the transcendental reality. Others (many of us on this forum both monists and vaisnavas) may not have yet reached such profound levels of self-realization. If we choose to share our growth and journey openly and honestly, whether it be scientific or spiritualist, why should that be despised?

 

The only way to have a glimpse of the Inconceivable is to follow the great souls who have seen more, and to contemplate their descriptions. Ofcourse it depends where we repose our faith where we will go for that. Or otherwise by the divine will of sadhu or God we may glimpse some higher aspect of our own being.

 

So the sadhaka who has reposed his faith in a certain vessel (for example sadhu and sashtra) will begin practice. One practice can be meditating on the names, forms, qualities, and pastimes of God.

 

It may be humorous for some to see the attempts of the neophyte devotee, but a self realized soul would never laugh or degrade at any sincere souls attempt to find God and peace - whether the soul is a monist or a vaisnava. The acid test of one's realization simply may be how much respect one shows for the other. Any sane man can see these things.

 

Sadly in this world sweet relations are a rare thing. So it seems that scripture is correct when it says we should seek intimate association among the saints of like mind. Sometimes one may break these rules due to some motivation, which is hidden from the critical minded.

 

This will be my last post on this thread. It has been very enjoyable discussion, thank you Ravindran, Bart, Srikandth, Jeffster and Justin.

 

 

From the Brahma Samhita.

evam jyotir-mayo devah

sad-aanandah paraat parah

aatmaaraamasya tasyaasti

prakrityaa na samaagamah

 

Anvaya

evam – thus (existing in great opulence); devah – Shri Govinda, the controller

of Gokula; jyotir-mayah – the effulgent Supreme Controller; sadaanandah

– who is the original form of eternal bliss; paraat parah – who

is greater than any other lord and controller; aatma-aaraamasya tasya –

delights with His internal potency; na asti samaagamah – and has no

meeting; prakrityaa – with His external potency.

 

TRANSLATION

Thus it is seen that Bhagavaan Gokuleshvara is the selfeffulgent

worshipable personality, the Supreme Absolute

Truth and the embodiment of eternal bliss. He is absorbed

in amorous pastimes with His internal potency in His own

eternal abode, and He has no direct connection with the

dull material nature.

 

TIKAA TRANSLATION

Now we will explain the deep intentions of Brahmaaji in uttering

this verse. Just as mantras such as Purusha-sukta in the Vedas

have defined Bhagavaan Shri Krishna as being one with the universal

form, similarly the creator, Vishnu, is described here in the verse

beginning evam as being non-different from Bhagavaan Shri Krishna,

the presiding deity of Goloka.

The word deva indicates Shri Govindadeva, the eternally selfeffulgent

presiding deity of Goloka. He is called deva because He

is ever absorbed in pastimes, which are of two types: pastimes in

which His transcendental opulence is predominant, and pastimes

in which His transcendental sweetness is predominant. Shri Mahaa-

Vishnu’s pastime of creating the cosmos, from which all moving

and non-moving living entities in the universe have sprung forth,

is a manifestation of only one-fourth of Bhagavaan’s opulence.

The expression sad-aananda indicates the sac-cid-aananda

svarupa of Bhagavaan, who exists as the purusha in His eternal

form of bliss. The inherent constitutional nature of the purusha is

the state of being the predominating male enjoyer. According to

the statement of shruti: “vijnaanam aanandam brahma – Brahman

is the origin of knowledge and bliss.” Here Brahman has been

referred to by the use of a noun that is neither masculine nor

feminine, but neuter. Since Bhagavaan is the Supreme Personality

engaged in pastimes, why would He give up His form as enjoyer

and become an impersonal entity, devoid of masculinity? He

is self-satisfied, and takes pleasure in His own aatmaa; He does

not have to depend upon anyone else. Therefore He is impartial

and independently capable of accomplishing everything.

Nevertheless, He is eternally busy in pastimes with His own pleasure

potency. He never touches the inert material nature, nor

does He have any connection with it. For example, in Shrimad-

Bhaagavatam (2.9.10) it is stated: “na yatra maayaa kim utaapare –

maayaa cannot enter that region.”

The material modes of passion and ignorance, or even goodness

mixed with passion and ignorance, are not found in that

Vaikuntha-dhaama. There, only pure goodness is eternally present.

In that realm, there is no influence of time, what to speak of

qualities such as attachment and aversion. The illusory nature,

which is the cause of worldly happiness and distress, cannot even

enter that place. It is inhabited forever by the associates of

Bhagavaan, who is praised by both demigods and demons.

 

TAATPARYA

The one supreme transcendental potency or internal potency of

Gokuleshvara Shri Krishna has manifested the pastimes of Goloka, or

Gokula. By the mercy of this divine potency, the living entities

who are manifestations of the marginal potency can also enter

into those pastimes. Mahaa-Vaikuntha is the covering of Goloka.18

Its extreme outer border is Brahma-dhaama, and beyond Brahmadhaama

lies the Virajaa River. The inferior external energy, which

is the shadow of the spiritual potency, is situated on the other

side of that Virajaa River. Therefore, the illusory energy (maayaa)

cannot attain the direct association of the supremely pure saccid-

aananda-svarupa of Shri Krishna. To say nothing of associating

with Him, she even feels ashamed to come within His sight.

 

*18

Here, Mahaa-Vaikuntha refers to the supremely opulent abode of Naaraayana.

[suchandra]

 

So God is the only one experiencing mukti.

 

"The perfection of science will occur when it is possible for the

material scientists to know the qualities of the antimaterial particle

and liberate it from the association of nonpermanent, material

particles. Such liberation would mark the culmination of scientific

progress.

 

There is partial truth in the scientists' suggestion that there may

exist also another world consisting of antimaterial atoms and that a

clash between the material and antimaterial worlds will result in the

annihilation of both. There is a clash which is continually going on:

the annihilation of the material particles is taking place at every

moment, and the nonmaterial particle is striving for liberation. This

is explained in the Bhagavad-gita as follows:

 

The nonmaterial particle, which is the living entity, influences

the material particle to work. This living entity is always

indestructible. As long as the nonmaterial particle is within the lump

of material energy--known by the names of gross and subtle

bodies--then the entity is manifest as a living unit. In the

continuous clashing between the two particles, the nonmaterial

particle is never annihilated. No one can destroy the antimaterial

particle at any time--past, present or future.

 

Therefore, we think that the theory maintaining that the material

and antimaterial worlds may clash, resulting in the annihilation of

both worlds, is correct only within the context of the scientists'

limited definition of antimatter. The Bhagavad-gita explains the

nature of the antimaterial particle, which can never be annihilated:

 

The fine and immeasurable antimaterial particle is always

indestructible, permanent and eternal. After a certain period,

however, its encagement by material particles is annihilated. This

same principle also operates in the case of the material and

antimaterial worlds. No one should fear the annihilation of the

antimaterial particle, for it survives the annihilation of material

worlds.

 

Everything that is created is annihilated at a certain stage. Both

the material body and the material world are created, and they are

therefore subject to annihilation. The antimaterial particle, however,

is never created, and consequently it is never annihilated. This also

is corroborated in the Bhagavad-gita:

 

The antimaterial particle, which is the vital force, is never

born or created. It exists eternally. It has neither birth dates nor

death dates. It is neither repeatedly created nor repeatedly

destroyed. It is eternally existing, and therefore it is the oldest of

the old, and yet it is always fresh and new. Although the material

particle is annihilated, the antimaterial particle is never affected."

~ Easy Journey to Other Planets , Ch 1, Antimaterial Worlds

[srikanthdk71]

 

How do you know what you believe is true?

 

Lack of proper evidence. Thats the reason I also asked you to confirm with authentic Advaitins that you know.

 

 

And what about abhavam baadariraha hyevam in Brahma Sutra 4.4.10

 

The meaning is clear enough. Badari says a liberated soul who has attained Brahmaloka can exist with or without a body according to his liking.

 

What Adi Sankara said in the verse I quoted is perfectly in keeping with this statement by Badri in Brahma Sutra 4.4.10.

 

Abhavadhikaranam tell about the causal state of the 3 encasements in our body. The above it true and correct.

 

 

Why would a non-material mukta soul like to have a body, if it were not for doing bhakti? If a liberated soul wanted a body so he could experience matter then he would fall from mukti because of his interaction with Maya. The only reason a mukta would want to have a body is to do bhakti to Narayana. What other reason do you imagine a mukta would want a body for? Would a mukta want to have eyes and ears so he could feel pain and experience samsara? Ridiculous.

 

First of all, hats off to your Bhakti. Nobody can refute anything against it. The questions you have posed is very valid but it is subject to a boundry of belief. Posts # 124,140,165,166,182 by Radhika has addressed it on a global note. Please go through the same. It may give you a new dimension of understanding.

 

 

bhajagovindam bhajagovindam govindam bhaja muudhamate sampraapte sannihite kaale nahi nahi rakshati dukrijnkarane

 

Balastavat kreedasaktah, Tarunastavat Tarunisaktah, Vriddahastavat Chaintasaktah, Parame Brahmani Kopinasaktah

[srikanthdk71]

 

Exactly my point. There is no experiencer. The person who strives for mukti does not exist per non-dualism. So God is the only one experiencing mukti. If you say the person still exists or sees others existing separate from himself then that is not non-dualism.

 

In Mukti/Moksha experiencer does not exist. Only Experience (enormous creative power) exists. No question of 'To Whom?' coz its devoid of the experiencer.

 

 

There sure is a flaw in the argument allright. Death of the body is a fact. Who experienced death? The person who died. What happens after death? The soul of the person still exists. Vedic texts say the soul still experiences after death. Garuda purana goes at lengths to describe the various states that soul passes through before it reaches Vaikunta.

 

Let me try this word by word.

 

1. Yes, Death of the body is a fact.

2. Who experienced Death?

A. The experiencer who stayed within the body, who is present in all the 3 states (Awakened/Dream/Deep Sleep). The knower who is present even when your mind is absent in Deep Sleep.

3. What happens after death?

A. Unless the experiencer is present, the experience is present.

 

 

But in the monist conception of mukti there is no monist (as you yourself agreed). In fact the example you provided fits in with the monist conception of mukti where it says there is no experiencer.

 

The question has already been tried to address in my first answer.

 

 

Just like the flawed example of death not a fact because there is no one to experience it.

 

Death is a fact to the Material body. Not to the Astral and Causal.

 

 

It is a myth to anyone who is striving to attain mukti. Because they are not the ones attaining it. It is supposed to be God who experiences it in the final analysis. And everyone knows that God does not need mukti. So it implies there is no mukti to be experienced by either the person or God. It is a myth.

 

Mukti is not an experience. It is a state devoid of experiencer. You are God and a subject to Creation/Sustainer/Destruction which will be your nature. There is no YOU or IT or HIM there. There IS.

 

 

According to their own philosophy Sankara or Ramana never existed in history if they claimed they were enlightened. If in fact they were God as they declared they are, they wouldn't have preached to an audience. Or went from town to town preaching their philosophy. I think they were deluded and had hallucinations that they were God.

 

No enlightened person stakes a claim. Neither Jesus,Muhammed,Zarathustra or any of them. I think you are too poor in History before thinking so. Infact you know nothing even about Ramana. Think, Refer and speak before coming to a conclusion. Use your own brains. Do not try to be a mouthpiece of any organisation or belief.

 

 

The drop that fell into the sea has displaced the sea. You may not see it with your eyes but the displacement is a fact. You may have heard that an ocean is an ocean because of each drop of water that is in it.

 

What else have you heard of?

 

 

If you are that much into analogies see this one. Put a drop of oil in a tumbler filled with water and you can see the oil drop sitting separately from the huge mass of water.

 

Unless the oil is devoid of impurities it sits seperate. Remove all impurities, it is water again.

 

 

We can use a number of sensible analogies to describe anything that does not make sense. Such analogies including borrowing desperately from Quantum theories, where no parallels exist, is a sign of weakness of a philosophy.

 

If you believe Quantum Theories can prove a philosophy, it means that the philosophy is True in all its respects. If you feel that story books are more convincing to you and the strength of your philosophy is dependent on stories, Cheers.