Is Mukti A Myth?

[jeffster]

Hello Srikanth,

Re: your post # 282 and your continued insistence that Krishna has a physical body, did I not mention previously the Ishopanishad sloka describing Him as the "veinless philosopher." A philosopher needs at least a mouth to speak philosophy, so it is proof that he has a body, and "veinless" suggests something other than a body made of the material elements.

Also, in post #324 you are requoting Ramana dasi's quote of Sankaracharya on his deathbed, "bhaja Govindam..." Sankaracharya must certainly be the most famous exponent of monism, although Vaishnavas consider him to be a veiled monist. So then why did he say "chant the names of Govinda" on his deathbed ? It can only mean that he realized that the Govinda conception of Transcendence is the more complete, or he wouldn't have said that.

Also, I use the term Vaishnava as the more or less generic term for my practice because Krishnite is not a term commonly used, and Hare Krishna in this country still more or less denotes a cult.

Regards, jeffster/AMdas

[srikanthdk71]

 

Hello Srikanth,

Re: your post # 282 and your continued insistence that Krishna has a physical body, did I not mention previously the Ishopanishad sloka describing Him as the "veinless philosopher." A philosopher needs at least a mouth to speak philosophy, so it is proof that he has a body, and "veinless" suggests something other than a body made of the material elements.

 

Feel free to understand the essence of Advaita than blindly refuting it as monoist. We can perhaps continue later. Truely speaking I cannot understand your language when you say 'The Lord is beyond thought, beyond limits, cannot be perceived ...' but still say it has beautiful form etc etc.

 

 

Also, in post #324 you are requoting Ramana dasi's quote of Sankaracharya on his deathbed......

 

Which idiot told you this story?

 

 

Also, I use the term Vaishnava as the more or less generic term for my practice because Krishnite is not a term commonly used, and Hare Krishna in this country still more or less denotes a cult.

Regards, jeffster/AMdas

 

All the best.

[Bart Happel]

 

"... 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. ..."

 

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

 

Dear Suchandra,

 

Do you really believe this is a correct description of the singular immaterial dynamic principle that underlies our manifest material reality, our soul and our consciousness? Obviously the notion of material aspects - versus non-material aspects of reality, as correctly described in the Bhagavad-gita, is wrongly mixed up here with the scientific notion of anti-matter.

 

Anti matter exists. It can be artificially created and stored within a magnetic field. Anti-matter is exactly the same as normal matter, except for the observable fact that all its fundamental properties are opposite to the fundamental properties of normal matter. And when, for example, an anti-hydrogen atom comes into contact with a normal hydrogen atom, both particles are not only annihilated, but their summed mass is explosively converted into ‘normal energy’. There doesn’t exist anything like ‘anti-energy’. Both anti matter and normal matter exist of normal energy. So at the most fundamental level all matter is the same: energy. Furthermore, because of the explosive character of anti-matter/matter annihilation, we wouldn’t want this to happen at a rate anywhere near the point that it could be a relevant process in our cosmic manifestation.

 

The distinction between material and non-material in Bhagavad-gita, simply serves to indicate the difference between our perceived material world and our non-material soul and consciousness. Never is the term ‘anti-matter’ used. Moreover, all matter in our material manifestation is explicitly and repeatedly described as an illusion created by our consciousness. At the most fundamental level everything in the universe is one (God). Call it energy, consciousness or spirit. No need for anti-matter.

 

I really can’t see what motivates people to come up with distorted idea’s like this. It only confuses our understanding of who we are and it is very obviously not the truth.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[ranjeetmore]

first thing: a persn who 'sees' krsna or Radha,ARE SO NOT the retards you make them to be,kaiser rose.

Thats coz a person who attains love of Godhead is in ANANDA,happiness.COMPLETE,INFINITE happiness.And as you mite hav cme to infer,every single entity is searching for happiness,every millisecond.

So whatever theory you are proposing,kaiserose,were to be true, why cant we all duplicate a 'meera' ?

Why your perfectly sane self cannot throw an esctatic fit like Meera.Can you or any other person(sane/insane) lie on a forest floor for 2 weeks,with hair in full erection and shivering ? You cant.You yourself wil run either to the mall(evry1 wants happines remember) in half an hour.No 1 can fake trances.Not the ones which fully display the 8 sattvic bhavas.

Your theory or rather speculation is useless and gives way to ur ignorance of the fact that every living entity wants happiness.

[ranjeetmore]

srikantdk,

 

Please be sure of ur beliefs,

Its either PURE advaita as Shankaracharya taught OR it is PURE speculative tosh.

Choose.

If its the latter,let me tell you that speculation is consequential to the point of satisfying the self's ego.The pettyness of it all has no universal application or appeal whatsoever.

But if you are sticking to Sri shankaracharya's philosophy alone,then you have to discard all speculation.

[Justin]

 

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

"only experience exists"!! Do you understand what you are talking about?

 

Experience cannot exist without an experiencer. Experience is not a material object like your computer to exist even after you leave it and go to the restroom for a bowel ablution. The rest of your analysis of death is meaningless where you say that God (knower, experiencer of all 4 states) experienced death.

 

 

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.

If the only thing that exists in mukti is God as you said above, it is flawed. There is no liberation for God. Such a God who is devoid of any good qualities isn't worth pursuing.

 

 

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.

You are out of your kidney! All I said is that Sankara and Ramana were not liberated individuals. According to their own philosophy they were still in ignorance before they died.

 

 

What else have you heard of?

That you need to have a refresher course in Advaita.

 

 

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

The oil would still be sitting separately from water even if it is rid of its impurities. Oil is oil and water is water. The properties of oil are different than water. You may need to sit in a 2nd grade class for this is the basics they teach in primary school.

 

 

If you believe Quantum Theories can prove a philosophy, it means that the philosophy is True in all its respects.

Quantum theories have never proved non-dualism.

 

 

If you feel that story books are more convincing to you and the strength of your philosophy is dependent on stories, Cheers.

Now who first brought up the story of drop of water in a sea? Stories are usually given by non-dualists to bring some sense to their philosophy. Otherwise no reasonable thinking person would believe the world is an illusion.

 

Like I said we can put forth any number of stories, analogies and quantum theories to prove that someone saw a flying teapot. But that does not make the flying teapot a fact.

[Bart Happel]

 

...

 

If the only thing that exists in mukti is God as you said above, it is flawed. There is no liberation for God. Such a God who is devoid of any good qualities isn't worth pursuing.

...

Can you please elaborate a bit more on this, Justin? If your consciousness is (part of) God’s consciousness, then Srikanth’s conjecture does make sense, doesn’t it?

 

Kind regards, Bart

[Justin]

 

Can you please elaborate a bit more on this, Justin? If your consciousness is (part of) God’s consciousness, then Srikanth’s conjecture does make sense, doesn’t it?

Kind regards, Bart

I agree with Srikanth's conjecture that for a non-dualist Mukti is not an experience. It is a state devoid of experiencer. So any non-dualist trying hard to attain mukti ultimately does not get to experience it. It is a myth for a non-dualist

[Bart Happel]

 

I agree with Srikanth's conjecture that for a non-dualist Mukti is not an experience. It is a state devoid of experiencer. So any non-dualist trying hard to attain mukti ultimately does not get to experience it. It is a myth for a non-dualist

Mukti is not a myth. And your experience is always God’s experience. When you think you are fundamentally different from God, you are mistaken.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[IamNotHeeHee]

 

Mukti is not a myth. And your experience is always God’s experience. When you think you are fundamentally different from God, you are mistaken.

 

Kind regards, Bart

:-D

Bart, you are a funny bloke

"Justin is not different from God. Justin's experience is God's experience. BUT, Justin is mistaken"

You may want to clarify who is mistaken - Justin or God.

 

Where from are you getting your conjecture that God and Justin are the same - shAstras or, is it your personal opinion....

 

You are also suggesting that God is experiencing mukthi.

 

Now there is no mention anywhere in the scriptures that God experiences mukthi, or desires to experience mukthi.

 

Why would God want to experience mukthi anyway. He should have no purpose to experience neither pleasure nor pain.

[Bart Happel]

 

... "Justin is not different from God. Justin's experience is God's experience. BUT, Justin is mistaken" ...

This is, indeed, exactly the confusion addressed in this tread. How can one be part of God? Let’s suppose you are part of God. Then who is experiencing? Both you and God are experiencing, although your experience may be different from God’s experience. If, on the other hand, you are not a part of God, then God would be ignorant of your experience, which is unthinkable because God is omniscient. Furthermore, you must be part of God because everything in reality is one.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[Justin]

 

Both you and God are experiencing, although your experience may be different from God’s experience.

Kind regards, Bart

And this is not non-dualism that you are trying so hard to argue for This is not the God that is talked about in Vedas.

[Bart Happel]

 

And this is not non-dualism that you are trying so hard to argue for This is not the God that is talked about in Vedas.

I wouldn't know that. Tell me about it..

[ranjeetmore]

bart.

U are God.

Then lift the Govardhana mountain.(you can NOT consider THAT a myth coz Sri Shankaracharya has described Parabhramn with 'Giridhari')

Do it.

Then i'l worship.I'l worship myself.Then v'l both dance together as Gods.

Ok?

[Bart Happel]

 

bart.

U are God.

Then lift the Govardhana mountain.(you can NOT consider THAT a myth coz Sri Shankaracharya has described Parabhramn with 'Giridhari')

Do it.

Then i'l worship.I'l worship myself.Then v'l both dance together as Gods.

Ok?

I don’t claim to be anything. And I’m certainly not an expert on Vedic literature. My knowledge is scientific, i.e., based on observable and reproducible phenomena in our manifest reality. Although current scientific knowledge is obviously incomplete when it comes to the most fundamental principles of matter and mind, scientific experimental data can be verified by anyone and therefore it must be considered true knowledge. The scientific method may or may not lead to an ultimate theory to fit all the data and clarify everything in the universe and who we are, but scientific knowledge can certainly be used to dismiss apparent nonsensical ideas such as any claims about anti-matter being an essential part of our cosmic manifestation or even our mind and consciousness.

 

I think current incomplete scientific theories of quantum reality reflect human ignorance. I argued, however, that a theory may exist that is not only a more complete model of quantum reality, but also seems to clarify the religious concept of ‘simultaneous oneness and difference’. Moreover, the model may explain the relation between matter and energy and between our ignorant perception and consciousness.

 

Recently I noticed that this model corresponds remarkably well to Srila Prabhupada’s ‘advaitic’ ideas and even to the Buddhist notion of ‘form and emptiness’. The concept of mukti then also seamlessly fits in. This is not to say, however, that the model is the truth or even that it is a complete model of reality. But it might be interesting to see if it can resolve the dualism/monism controversy at least in principle and thus contribute to general religious understanding. Therefore, the model must be able to withstand criticism. However, to test the model against criticism, I need debatable counter arguments from scripture or science. Not just some half baked unfounded idea’s or loose terms or utterances. If you think I’m wrong, then you should be able to provide arguments in support of your position and/or against my position.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[Justin]

Dearest Bart,

 

Enough counter arguments were presented to you earlier and in other threads by me as well as many others. You have only a bit of knowledge in both science and scriptures as your responses reflect that. You are no scientist.

 

Now if you keep wanting people to constantly argue against a strawman proposal all the time, it is a waste of their time. Counter arguments are placed when there is a good enough argument in the first place. So far you have been repeating the same personal theory for each counter argument. The response is usually in fashionable words like quantum entanglement and mandelbrot to describe this universe and God.

 

It is clear that you have already assumed you are right and any contrary opinion to yours is wrong. So any number of counter arguments presented is a waste of time.

 

With love and kind regards,

 

Justin.

[RamanaDasi]

 

 

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

 

Whose ideas are you repeating here? Adi Sankara's commentary to Brahma-sutra Pada 4.4 doesn't say anything in any place about "3 encasements".

 

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.

Here is Radhika's statement in #124

 

 

 

Dear members,

I believe that the ego of being a soul is encased in three bodies, the physical, the astral and the causal. Once you are out of these, there is nothing that remains and you are one with the Infinite. The Infinite does not have any particular form. It is nothing but the consciousness that prevails in the entire universe. That is what we call God or Supreme Soul.

But once this is attained, there is no difference. The very nature of this Supreme Consciousness is that it has powers to create, maintain and destroy. It is a part of its nature and therefore it can again create many encasements within itself which mark the birth of new souls.

Radhika

 

Radhika's belief about how there can be "the birth of new souls" is contrary to the teachings of the Upanishads.

 

 

In the Katha Upanishad we read this:

 

18. For the self there is never birth nor death. Nor, having once been, does He ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

19. He who thinks that the self is the killer or that he is killed does not understand. One who is in knowledge knows that the self does not kill or get killed.

20. More subtle that the most subtle, greater than the most great, the Higher Self is hidden in the heart of all creatures here. That person who is without desire, all sorrows spent, beholds It, the majesty of the Higher Self, by the grace of That Supreme Being.

 

 

Verses 18 and 19 are repeated word-for-word in the Gitopanshad.

Radhika and Srikanth, please note the word "unborn" and contemplate its meaning. This is what the Vedas teach. The idea that the individual soul is born and then dissolves into the Brahman consiousness is opposite to the teachings of the Rishis and the Vedas.

 

When the atma attains yoga with Paramatma the atma is one with the Supreme, as per the example of a green bird entering into a green forest. This is the conclusion taught by Sri Ramanuja.

 

When the atma is merged in the Brahma-jyoti they are passive and not Lordly. Sutra 4.4.17 states that the liberated jiva-atma who is Brahman (aham Brahasmi) does not have the power that the param-atma (Param-Brahma) always possesses.

 

The jiva and the paramatma are one and filled with bliss but the jiva-atma-jyoti is limited whereas the Paramatma is unlimited. This is clearly stated by Badarayana in sutra 4.4.17

 

Please study the Vedanta with an open mind free from the prejudices of sectarianism.

[RamanaDasi]

 

And this is not non-dualism that you are trying so hard to argue for. This is not the God that is talked about in Vedas.

Krishna himself teaches non-dualism to Uddhava in Srimad Bhagavatam. In the Srimad Bhagavat Purana (11.28.19) we read Sri Krishna saying:

 

Gold remains gold both before and after ornaments are made of it. It only gets different names such as ring or necklace. Similarly, the Reality, the Cause of creation, is the same both before and after worldly objects receive their various names and forms.

There are many verses in Bhagavatam saying the God is "All" and that the supreme being is non-dual. Indeed it is true that god is non-dual Oneness but the tiny atoms called "jiva" are not God. They are just tiny atoms of light shining from the Supreme Light called Param-Brahma.

[Bart Happel]

 

Dearest Bart,

 

Enough counter arguments were presented to you earlier and in other threads by me as well as many others. You have only a bit of knowledge in both science and scriptures as your responses reflect that. You are no scientist.

 

Now if you keep wanting people to constantly argue against a strawman proposal all the time, it is a waste of their time. Counter arguments are placed when there is a good enough argument in the first place. So far you have been repeating the same personal theory for each counter argument. The response is usually in fashionable words like quantum entanglement and mandelbrot to describe this universe and God.

 

It is clear that you have already assumed you are right and any contrary opinion to yours is wrong. So any number of counter arguments presented is a waste of time.

 

With love and kind regards,

 

 

Dear Justin,

 

I’m asking people not to dismiss my proposal without arguments, i.e., not to waste my time (although I don’t mind too much). And it’s clear that you don’t have counter arguments. So please Justin, don’t waste my time. And if you think I’m making a mistake, I kindly ask you (again) to point it out to me. But I don’t think you can, for I’m quite sure that if you could, you would have done that already. And for your information; I’m a real genuine scientist. But is that relevant? A debate is about arguments, not about PhD’s.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[srikanthdk71]

 

srikantdk,

 

Please be sure of ur beliefs,

Its either PURE advaita as Shankaracharya taught OR it is PURE speculative tosh.

Choose.

If its the latter,let me tell you that speculation is consequential to the point of satisfying the self's ego.The pettyness of it all has no universal application or appeal whatsoever.

But if you are sticking to Sri shankaracharya's philosophy alone,then you have to discard all speculation.

 

Ranjeet, if that was the case there would not have been a single acharya after Sri Adi Shankara if it would be termed as speculative tosh. They would have stuck. Let me also tell you that without speculation, truth cannot be perceived. Theories should be true yesterday,today and tomorrow irrespective of changes with time. Now, the time has arrived to be more scientific and rational in approach where the Puranas look like story books, the Bhashyas of the acharyas are termed as individual opinions etc. I believe in experience and then tally it with the scriptures. That looks more convincing than getting lost and confused in the innumerous quotes and theories.

[srikanthdk71]

 

"only experience exists"!! Do you understand what you are talking about?

 

Tell me you are not understanding what I am talking about.

 

 

Experience cannot exist without an experiencer. Experience is not a material object like your computer to exist even after you leave it and go to the restroom for a bowel ablution.

 

Thats all you know and believe.

 

 

The rest of your analysis of death is meaningless where you say that God (knower, experiencer of all 4 states) experienced death.

 

Read again before coming to a conclusion. Read all the 3 question and answers.

 

 

If the only thing that exists in mukti is God as you said above, it is flawed. There is no liberation for God. Such a God who is devoid of any good qualities isn't worth pursuing.

 

Liberation is not for god, but for the individual who was the experiencer present in the Gross,Subtle(Astral) and Causal.

 

 

You are out of your kidney! All I said is that Sankara and Ramana were not liberated individuals. According to their own philosophy they were still in ignorance before they died.

 

Nobody needs anybodys certificate and they do not belong to the Patent Culture like you.

 

 

That you need to have a refresher course in Advaita.

 

Do you know A of Advaita when you have spoken all this. It is clear who needs a course.

 

 

The oil would still be sitting separately from water even if it is rid of its impurities. Oil is oil and water is water. The properties of oil are different than water. You may need to sit in a 2nd grade class for this is the basics they teach in primary school.

 

How did the oil form? What is the base of that liquid?

 

 

Now who first brought up the story of drop of water in a sea? Stories are usually given by non-dualists to bring some sense to their philosophy. Otherwise no reasonable thinking person would believe the world is an illusion.

 

Remove all stories. There is no dualist Theory. No Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna will exist. Now Justin, what will be the base of your Arguements?

 

 

Like I said we can put forth any number of stories, analogies and quantum theories to prove that someone saw a flying teapot. But that does not make the flying teapot a fact.

 

Absolutely true.

[srikanthdk71]

 

Whose ideas are you repeating here? Adi Sankara's commentary to Brahma-sutra Pada 4.4 doesn't say anything in any place about "3 encasements".

 

No ideas borrowed. If Abhaavadikaranam tells anything apart from the causal state, let me know.

 

 

Radhika's belief about how there can be "the birth of new souls" is contrary to the teachings of the Upanishads.

 

Nope. Thats exactly the gist of Brahmasutras.

 

 

In the Katha Upanishad we read this:

 

18. The knowing Self is not born; It does not die. It has not sprung from anything; nothing has sprung from it. Birthless, eternal, everlasting and ancient, It is not killed when the body is killed.

19. If the killer thinks he kills and if the killed man thinks he is killed, neither of these apprehends aright. The Self not, nor is it killed.

20. Atman, smaller than the small, greater than the great, is hidden in the hearts of all living creatures. A man who is free from desires beholds the majesty of the Self through tranquillity of the senses and the mind and becomes free from grief.

 

 

 

Verses 18 and 19 are repeated word-for-word in the Gitopanshad.

 

Radhika and Srikanth, please note the word "unborn" and contemplate its meaning. This is what the Vedas teach. The idea that the individual soul is born and then dissolves into the Brahman consiousness is opposite to the teachings of the Rishis and the Vedas.

 

Oh yeah, "Ekam Sad Viprah Bahudhaa Vadanthi" - RgVeda. Refer to post #266 for what Vedas also say.

 

 

When the atma attains yoga with Paramatma the atma is one with the Supreme.....

 

That means to say, they were ONE, they became ONE.

 

 

Please study the Vedanta with an open mind free from the prejudices of sectarianism.

 

I am open to all thoughts. Are you? What do you mean by sectarianism? Arent you believer in the Dualist perspective? In the same way, I believe the Monoist and for my belief, I do not want the so labelled "Vaishnavas" to endorse my beliefs.

[RamanaDasi]

 

Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Radhika's belief about how there can be "the birth of new souls" is contrary to the teachings of the Upanishads. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

Nope. Thats exactly the gist of Brahmasutras.

You are wrong.

 

The Upanishads and Vedanta say the jiva, Maya and Parambrahma are all unborn

 

 

 

Shwetasvatara Upanishad

 

4.5. There is one unborn being (female, Maya), red, white, and black, uniform, but producing manifold offspring. There is one unborn being (male) who loves her and lies by her; there is another who leaves her, while she is eating what has to be eaten.

4. 6. Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating.

4.7. On the same tree man sits grieving, immersed, bewildered, by his own impotence (an-isa). But when he sees the other lord (isa) contented, and knows his glory, then his grief passes away.

 

 

 

 

[srikanthdk71]

 

You are wrong.

 

So be it.

 

 

The Upanishads and Vedanta say the jiva, Maya and Parambrahma are all unborn

 

It says, they are one and the same.

[RamanaDasi]

Maya and Parambrahma are one and the same? Then why strive to escape Maya? This is a childish view of Vedanta. You should find someone to teach you the real conclusions of the Veda before you go off spouting your big ideas in forums such as this.

 

You remind me of the toy steam train that goes from Sealdah to Darjeeling. On your way to Darjeeling you can enjoy a nice cup of tea and a jolly conversation with your fellow travellers but all the things you are saying are just hot air coming out of your chimney.