Is Mukti A Myth?

[srikanthdk71]

 

You may want to re-read posts where it was said the soul is trying to merge with the Consciousness. The keyword is 'merge'. If that soul was indeed the Consciousness, there is no need to merge. Like you stated, the piece of cotton is different from the barn when taken out.

 

The merge can happen only with like materials, like the various ornaments of Gold. The base is Gold only whether it is that or this. The properties or both are one and the same. The piece of Cotton appears different but the properties of the cotton in the piece and in the barn is one and the same.

 

 

What you are talking about is not advaita though. Advaita does not say anywhere that a soul merges with the supersoul.

 

Yes. Advaita says, the properties of the Atman and the Paramatman are one and the same. There is no difference as a soul and a supersoul. I think Radhika has explained how the soul is formed from the very super conciousness that pervade the universe.

 

 

Since you say you are writing out of your own experience which is verified, I have to ask you whether you experienced ONENESS with God anytime? If so you will be the first enlightened person in the world and first liberated member in this forum that I know of. Congrats!

 

Yes. Even you can experience it in Dhyana. The oneness is experienced in Samadhi State. That is why most of the people do not want to come out of it for years coz they are experiencing the ultimate and about enlightenment, No. There have been many like Shirdi Sai, many Avadhoots. If you want a practical experience, we shall meet at Kumbha Mela next year at Haridwar. Then probably, after seeing, you will believe. Its a promise.

[srikanthdk71]

 

Because the Vedas say so. Now I know you are God since you experienced oneness with God and writing in this forum based on your personal feelings of that experience. I have not experienced God yet. So you may be right.

 

Dear Justin, nobody can claim they have experienced the ultimate coz the nature of the mind is to find the best and is always craving for more. So, I may be wrong in saying I have experienced the best and you maybe wrong in thinking that I may have experienced. Guru Nanakji said 'Jin Khoja, Tin Paayiyaan, Gehri Paani Pet' which means, As you search more, you get more and as you get more you search more like the depth of an ocean.

[RamanaDasi]

Kathopanishad, Chapter 3

 

9 A man who has discrimination for his charioteer, who holds the reins of the mind firmly, reaches the end of the road. He arrives at last at the supreme goal (parama padam), the place of Vishnu.

COMMENTARY

This verse echoes a verse of the Rg Veda<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"></st1:place></st1:country-region>:

 

om tad vishnu paramam padam sada pashyanti surayah diviva caksuratatam, tad vipraso vipanyavo jagrivamsah samindhate visnor yat paramam padam om

 

(Rg Veda Samhita, Mandala 1, verse 22.20)

 

 

Translation: “The awakened man (vipra) is always conscious of Lord Vishnu's feet which he sees in his meditation. He sees the Lord's feet over his head like the sun in the sky (paramam padam). The devotee is always conscious of that ideal. The reality of Sri Vishnu is conspicuous and very clear to him (diviva caksur atatam). The reality of Vishnu is as clear and real as the sun in the sky (sada pasyanti surayah). ”

 

10 Beyond the senses are the objects the senses know and experience. Beyond these objects is the mind that comprehends them. Beyond the mind is the faculty of intellect and knowledge. Beyond the intellect is the individual self (jiva atma).

11 Beyond the individual jiva self there is Maya (the Unmanifest, the Mahat Tattva). Maya is superior to the jiva soul in that Maya has the power to overwhelm and entangle a jiva soul in the complexities of life within nature. But beyond Maya is the eternal Person known as the Purusha, the Higher Self. Beyond the Purusha there is nothing higher. He is the culmination. He is the highest goal of the journey.

COMMENTARY

The word “Vishnu” contains the Sanskrit root sound “visl” meaning “to pervade”. Vishnu is therefore the One who is all-pervading. Many other attributes of Vishnu are mentioned in hymns of the Rg Veda. He is said to be upholding the sky and earth (7.99.3). He maintains heaven (7.99.2). His form is extensive (7.99.1). His body is big (7.99.4). He created the sun, dawn and fire (7.99.4). He has a blissful spouse named Lakshmi (1.156.2). He comes to us when His Name is invoked (1.155.6). The Rg Paristha furthermore tells us that Vishnu bears a mace, discus and conch, and that emancipation (mukti) and the supreme goal of life (parama-padam) exist in the plane of existence of Vishnu (Rg Paristha 20.6).

 

 

In the Maitrayani-samhita of the Krishna Yajurveda there is a gayatri psalm with meditation on Vishnu, who is implored to bestow enlightenment. This gayatri mantra runs as follows: om tad keshavaya vidmahe narayanaya dhimahi tanno vishnu prachodayat. In this gayatri hymn the other names of Vishnu “Keshava” and “Narayana” are invoked. Keshava is a name of <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place>.

 

[srikanthdk71]

Identity of the individual self and Brahman in the Advaita perspective which is the Chapter 3 of Kathopanishad

 

1. There are various Upanishad passages which talk of Brahman, the all pervading consciousness as being available for recognition within the intellect or the mind. The Upanishads also expressly state that Brahman is not only nondual (“advayam”) but divisionless (“nirvikalpam”). Therefore Advaita Vedanta says that the atma in you, in me, in other human beings, in the animals, the birds, the insects, the plants and, in fact, in all living beings, be they denizens of this world or the other worlds, i.e., even the atma in gods (“Devas”) and demons (“Asuras”) is one and the same entity. Brahman and Atma are not different. They are just two words for the same entity. There is only one unbroken, undivided, all pervading consciousness. ("akhanda caitanyam" or “Brahma caitanyam”) When the focus of teaching is on the all pervading aspect, it is generally referred to as Brahman and when the focus is on the original consciousness available in the jivatmas, it is generally referred to as Atma. When the focus is on the source of cidabhasa, It is referred to as Sakshi. It is the same all pervading consciousness that is available in the jivatmas. And it is this that is invoked as the unchanging, constant I, by a pratyabhinja vritti. When the minds of the jivatmas are superimposed in the ‘field’ of the all pervading consciousness, there occur reflections of consciousness in the minds. The minds have the capacity to receive the consciousness and reflect it, unlike objects like the table, just as mirrors have the capacity to receive the sunlight and reflect it. The reflected consciousness is called "cidabhasa", in Sanskrit. Without the reflected consciousness, the mind cannot perceive objects, cannot know, cannot think, cannot react, cannot recall and cannot imagine. (The qualities of different minds are different. Some are cheerful, some are morose. Some are intelligent; some are dull the comparison is that a mirror coated with dirt will throw a dull light on a dark room and a clean mirror will throw a bright light.) The mind, in turn, lends the borrowed consciousness to the sense organs and the body; that is how the mind, the sense organs and the body become sentient. It is the mind cum cidabhasa (technically called ahamkara) that expresses as the changing I.

 

2. Deriving consciousness from the Atma, the mind perceives the external world through the sense organs. While the awareness of the existence of oneself as a self conscious human being and as the same person, in spite of the changes which the body and mind undergo cannot be explained without the Atma, the perception of particular objects or entertainment of particular thoughts in a voluntary, selective manner cannot be explained without the mind. If I am watching the T.V. with great interest, I may be eating at the same time, but if you ask me later what I ate , I will not be able to tell you. Another proof of the capacity of the mind to select what it wants is what is known as the “cocktail effect.” And it is the mind which perceives objects of the external world, at one time, projects a dream world at another time and becomes dormant at a third time. Atma, the eternal consciousness, is there all the time, without undergoing any of these changes. If Atma alone was there and there was no mind, there would be permanent perception of everything together at the same time (which will be utter confusion) if we assume Atma to be a knower or there will be permanent non-perception, if we assume Atma to be a non-knower.

[Amlesh]

Dear Srikanth, even though you don't like so much rhetorical literature; but still you know them so well.

[Amlesh]

If today you've been graced with so much intellectual capabilities, I suppose it's through them only.

 

[To Srikanth]

[Radhikakulakarni]

 

Lets take our case. So we are infinite we are God, but only that now we are under Ego and see everything as dual.

[That's exactly what I mean].

 

Do you agree that you are under Ego right now? Is this your ego writing stuff or the Infinite writing stuff in this forum? Am I the Ego writing back at you? Is this like 2 Ego's (me and you) talking about us being Infinite?

I agree with that. All those who identify themselves as individuals possess ego.

As for your question, it is of course two egos(me and you) as we identify ourselves as separate individuals who are talking about us/One Infinite.

[Justin]

 

The merge can happen only with like materials,

'merge' is quite misleading. It would be apt to say We are God but in ignorance!

 

 

like the various ornaments of Gold. The base is Gold only whether it is that or this. The properties or both are one and the same. The piece of Cotton appears different but the properties of the cotton in the piece and in the barn is one and the same.

Now you are saying that God and you are one and the same. Possibly enveloped in ignorance or ego as you call it. This does not seem right. First it implies that there is a 'you' which is ego and then there is a God. Second it has another contradiction in that you and God are one. Which means God is in ignorance and has an ego!!!

 

 

Yes. Advaita says, the properties of the Atman and the Paramatman are one and the same. There is no difference as a soul and a supersoul. I think Radhika has explained how the soul is formed from the very super conciousness that pervade the universe.

If it is ignorance to say soul is different from the supersoul then there isn't a soul after all. Can't we just say that we all are the same ignorant God?

 

The problem is many do not know traditional Advaita but instead they study this modern feminine quantum spirituality which has no relation to real quantum science. There is no merging in traditional teaching. For the cotton piece isn't taken off from the cotton ball as you seem to indicate in this wierd parable. The term 'merge' itself denotes there are 2 entities.

 

 

Yes. Even you can experience it in Dhyana. The oneness is experienced in Samadhi State. That is why most of the people do not want to come out of it for years coz they are experiencing the ultimate and about enlightenment, No. There have been many like Shirdi Sai, many Avadhoots. If you want a practical experience, we shall meet at Kumbha Mela next year at Haridwar. Then probably, after seeing, you will believe. Its a promise.

What do you mean even I can experience. When you claim you have experienced ONENESS in dhyana you shouldn't be seeing me as different from you.

 

How do you know for sure that sai babas, swami prefix+ananda's, avadhoots are God? They all have contradicted each other as to what enlightenment is. Please do not believe anyone who tells you he is God and brings up a Gold rolex watch or a gold chain out of thin air and giving it to the influential folks.

 

If they are seeing everything as ONE they should not be pulling gold chains out of thin air or claiming to be lighting candles in water. They should not be seeing anyone else. As no one else other than God (which is themselves) would exist according to non-dualism.

 

A few of them may had some additional powers that normal people do not. This is found in people from other religions too. So it is not a unique feature of non-dualism.

 

Also some of these self-professed gods may be having mental disorders or a trauma masked as enlightenment. Some even get deranged overnight and the next morning experience bliss without any reason whatsoever. This can happen to a Canadian or a Ukranian or a pakistani who has not ever listened to any of the babas or ammas.

 

Whatever they are they certainly are not God. At best they are people who have some special abilities above average folks like us. No need to go to Haridwar. You may find a lot of these dudes in Nimhans.

[IamNotHeeHee]

 

I agree with that. All those who identify themselves as individuals possess ego.

As for your question, it is of course two egos(me and you) as we identify ourselves as separate individuals who are talking about us/One Infinite.

It is still your same ego that is saying you are that Infinite. There ain't much stock you can put on that assertion as well :-)

[Bart Happel]

Dear Justin,

 

At a microscopic - or quantum scale, our perceived reality appears to be non-causal. For example, the state of different quantum particles can be ‘instantaneously correlated’. This is called quantum entanglement. When of two entangled quantum particles the state of one particle changes, then the state of the other particle changes accordingly and instantaneously. Such non-causal correlation of quantum state may persist even if the particles are miles or light-years apart.

 

This can only mean 1 thing: What we perceive at a quantum scale as different or dual is actually one or non-dual. And since quantum reality is thought to underlie our entire perceived macroscopic reality, it is quite reasonable to assume that everything that we perceive as dual is actually one.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[srikanthdk71]

 

'merge' is quite misleading. It would be apt to say We are God but in ignorance!

 

Oh yeah.

 

 

Now you are saying that God and you are one and the same. Possibly enveloped in ignorance or ego as you call it. This does not seem right. First it implies that there is a 'you' which is ego and then there is a God. Second it has another contradiction in that you and God are one. Which means God is in ignorance and has an ego!!!

 

If it is ignorance to say soul is different from the supersoul then there isn't a soul after all. Can't we just say that we all are the same ignorant God?

 

The problem is many do not know traditional Advaita but instead they study this modern feminine quantum spirituality which has no relation to real quantum science. There is no merging in traditional teaching. For the cotton piece isn't taken off from the cotton ball as you seem to indicate in this wierd parable. The term 'merge' itself denotes there are 2 entities.

 

 

What do you mean even I can experience. When you claim you have experienced ONENESS in dhyana you shouldn't be seeing me as different from you.

 

Read post #204 for answer.

 

 

How do you know for sure that sai babas, swami prefix+ananda's, avadhoots are God? They all have contradicted each other as to what enlightenment is. Please do not believe anyone who tells you he is God and brings up a Gold rolex watch or a gold chain out of thin air and giving it to the influential folks.

 

If they are seeing everything as ONE they should not be pulling gold chains out of thin air or claiming to be lighting candles in water. They should not be seeing anyone else. As no one else other than God (which is themselves) would exist according to non-dualism.

 

I have not quoted the name of the Rolex Sai Baba. I too dont believe in babas who at the end of the day does things for material gains. But you have to experience the Naga Sadhus and various other souls who do not speak to the world and quite happy with what they have and experience. Since they dont speak much, there is no question of contradiction. I do agree with you that contradictary suffix-anandas/giris/bharatis/tirthas are not sure of the path and believe that service to humanity means service to a school of taught.

 

 

A few of them may had some additional powers that normal people do not. This is found in people from other religions too. So it is not a unique feature of non-dualism.

 

Also some of these self-professed gods may be having mental disorders or a trauma masked as enlightenment. Some even get deranged overnight and the next morning experience bliss without any reason whatsoever. This can happen to a Canadian or a Ukranian or a pakistani who has not ever listened to any of the babas or ammas.

 

Whatever they are they certainly are not God. At best they are people who have some special abilities above average folks like us. No need to go to Haridwar. You may find a lot of these dudes in Nimhans.

 

The Kumbhamela is not something like a group of mad people coming together. To experience Kumbhamela you have to be there. But if you believe in Nimhans more than a Kumbhamela you can stay there.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Dear Justin,

 

There is a clear distinction between madness and spiritual enlightenment, though to a normal ( here I mean the statistical normality, the average typical mejority of folks, falling under the mid portion of a normal curve - not in the sense of 'Healthy') both may look like one. An analogy is useful here. Light in very high frequency (ultravilot and beyond) and very low frequency (infrared and below) both look the same to the human eye . Both are invisible and hence dark. Human eye cannot distinguish between them. (We can only distinguish the freqency bands falling in between them as the different colour light spectrum). This does not mean infrared is same as ultraviolet. They are far apart - indeed two extreem ends of the spectrum.

 

Similarly madness is subnormal . Enlightment is supernormal. Both differ from normal, the middle category, and may be confused to be same by the standards of the normals. The difference between subnormal (or abnormal) and supernormal is that subnormal is a helpless slave of mind Supernormal is a master of mind with powers. Subnormal is mad. Asupernormal is an Adept.

 

But of course analogy may not satisfy you, I guess. Let me illustrate the difference with a concrete real life data. I knew of a case of a boy who was severly Schizophrenic, subjected to colossal hallucinations, dellusions and completely unable to survive independantly. His parents tried everything posible including psychiatric institutionalised treatment for many years withnout success. Then someone advised the parents to seek a particular agori who was living in Banaras crematory, at that time, who is considered to be mad by many as he used to live in crematory and used to eat dead human flesh of the funeral fire as his regular food. No one dared to even approach him. He never talked to anyone at the first place. The parents of the boy out of desparation as well as by the testimony of his well-wisher, accepted to try this and took the boy to the agori. The mother pleaded the agori, with tears flowing, to save his son.

 

The aghori who himself looked to be completely mad, stared at the boy with intense eyes and screemed " You fool! none with out a guide can explore the realms all alone. It is a dangerous. You have fallen in this pit. Just get out of here and go to the surface realm of the normal , and be contented to live there . Wait till your turn . When time is ripe you will be guided to these realms safely. Dont wander around alone again". That is all he said and dismissed the parents by sign and went back to silence again. The boy visibly seems to have been jittered at his yelling and seems to be shocked for a while , As they reached home the boy started talking and behaving normally. He became normal for good. The disease never releapsed back again.

 

Latter the parents asked the boy what did the agoribaba tell him (obviously they did not understand the message). Boy told them that the realm of the mind is very deep vast and mysterious ,and the normals live in a small portion of it at its surface. One day the mind opened up for him, and he saw the immensity of it and started wandering and exploring . In his exploration he went too far from the normal region and got trapped in a deeper portion with out knowing how to return back to the familiar corner. Everybody thought he was mad and were treating accordingly. Psychiatrist dint know what they were doing and were pumping him with chemicals in their ignorance. It was not helping him . Actually it was further harming him. The agori perfectly understood him and explained his condition to him. And the agori mysteriously showed him the way back. In a single jolt he flipped back to the normal surface portion of his mind and the agori closed the door to the depth,with the promise to guide him safely in a future date.Till then the boy must wait. This is the instruction .

 

This was the boy's explanation. In any case he is very normal now for many many years, and the agori could cure a tough case of schizophrenia in few seconds, which the psychiatrists were struggling for years without success.

 

The question now to us is Is the agori mad or he is a grand healer? He seems to be the master of mind and that is no madness. If he lives in crematory and doing weird thing like eating human flesh that is not madness. That is experimenting with mind - with its mysterious unconscious forces (like cannibolistic urge which is there in all of us in the depth of our unconscious, which we are hardly aware of). He is a scientist of mind.

 

Tantra is a science of mind and soul. There are very knowledggible adepts in this science. But to ordinary normals (mediocres) like us they look very weird and mad. That is because we dont understand them.

 

I think you should take Srikant's invitation seriously and go to Kumbamela. If you are lucky you will meet some interesting adepts there. That will change your life perspective forever, in an interesting way. However the choice is yours. If you choose to live a 'normal' life it is your choice. For me normality is boring and is worse than madness, as normality is a form of madness -very uninteresting kind.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

 

---------

 

An anecdote on madness: "There are two kinds of mad people : those who live inside the asylum and those who live outside, the former are curable the latter uncurable''.

 

( The uncurable variety is called 'Normals')

[srikanthdk71]

One more thing Ravindranji I would like to add. Who doesnt know Dirubhai Ambani and his dream company 'Reliance'. How many of them know it was a boon of a Aghori who was taken care by Dirubhai granted him boon of the highest of riches in the world.

[bija]

Great post Ravindran! Thx for speaking truth of it. In self-exploration, and analysis of many friends, I found that psychosis is a lower field and based in ignorance, above the norm is the subtle realms and working of material energy (abilities of a controlled mind based in more goodness)...and even higher is selfless service in love. The lower field is very false in appearance, the upper field is the land of siddhis. Many speak about these things with no idea. You should study transpersonal mate and do good things...Haribol!

[Ravindran Kesavan]

 

You should study transpersonal mate and do good things...Haribol!

 

Dear Bija,

I am already in to it.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[Justin]

 

The Kumbhamela is not something like a group of mad people coming together. To experience Kumbhamela you have to be there. But if you believe in Nimhans more than a Kumbhamela you can stay there.

Ouch! what happened to your Godliness bud? The halo around your head has turned into some dark matter is it? I am surprised that a self-declared God like you have to suggest that I am mad!

 

If you read my posts, I did not say Kumbh mela is a bunch of mad people. You are just trying to twist my words. Nice try.

 

Kumbh mela is a religious event. There are sane people who come there because they sincerely believe in God. Such folks have great devotion to the Lord making Kumbh mela the grand event it tends to be.

 

And then there are those who have hallucinations that they are God. Such people should not have a reason to attend Kumbh Mela because it doesn't exist for them.

[Justin]

 

I think you should take Srikant's invitation seriously and go to Kumbamela. If you are lucky you will meet some interesting adepts there. That will change your life perspective forever, in an interesting way. However the choice is yours. If you choose to live a 'normal' life it is your choice. For me normality is boring and is worse than madness, as normality is a form of madness -very uninteresting kind.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

 

---------

 

An anecdote on madness: "There are two kinds of mad people : those who live inside the asylum and those who live outside, the former are curable the latter uncurable''.

 

( The uncurable variety is called 'Normals')

 

Dear Ravindran

 

If you enjoy mad people better than normal people its your choice. People who talk about such things are just trying to give a false sense of broadmindedness. In reality they would never live their life in a mental hospital. Are you currently living in a asylum or you are just saying for effect?

[Bart Happel]

Dear Justin,

 

It seems obvious to me that you do not have a single argument against mukti and its monistic implications (except perhaps something that goes like: “I just don’t buy it!”, and some arguments against wrong statements), whereas several posters in this thread presented quite good arguments in favor of mukti and monism, as well as some interesting explanations or personal experiences. So unless you can disprove monism in principle, you’ve lost this debate in my opinion. That is, your position is clear, but it is not any threat to the monistic position. I suggest you take a deep breath and admit defeat. You’ll get over it.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[Justin]

 

Dear Justin,

Is this some kind of fashion to refer "Dear" every post. Are you writing a formal letter each time

 

 

It seems obvious to me that you do not have a single argument against mukti and its monistic implications (except perhaps something that goes like: “I just don’t buy it!”, and some arguments against wrong statements),

There has not been a single knowledgeable premise FOR either non-dualistic mukti or for claiming that science supports it. If the premise is itself flawed the conclusions of non-dualism are also baseless. Just blind belief and self-consolation that Quantum theory supports it. I have raised enough questions that you struggled to even think of a constructive answer. Instead all you could do is write some mumbo jumbo on quantum wierdness and hand wave the question.

 

 

So unless you can disprove monism in principle, you’ve lost this debate in my opinion.

It has been disproved so many times by various great saints in history. I am only asking questions from a different perspective. You have to remove your blinders to see that truth. For some people the belief is so ingrained that it is not possible to differentiate the forest for the trees.

 

 

That is, your position is clear, but it is not any threat to the monistic position. I suggest you take a deep breath and admit defeat. You’ll get over it.

I have to admit that I have been thus far blinded by quantum entanglement and word jugglery that I thought was non-dualism. I was ashamed to think that I was one with the world. So tried to rationalize my blind faith by resorting to quantum physics and putting a brave facade to my superstitious beliefs of non-dualism. Thanks for waking me up from my dreams. It pains me when someone points out the faults in my thinking. And instead of accepting the truth I try to think ill of that person

 

On a serious note Dear Bart, you seem to be frustrated by my post each time. Since you cannot stand the heat, I suggest you ignore my posts and quit giving motherly banter each time. Maybe you will learn something

 

Kind regards,

 

Justin.

[jeffster]

Hello Bart, Srikant, Ravindran, Radhika & other monists on this thread,

There have been valid arguments from the Vaishnava side, also, particularly Bija's and my quotes from shastra. However, it appears that you monists do not accept shastra, or certainly not Vaishnava shastra. This points out the fundamental difference between the approaches of the two systems. Monism is an ascending system, relying on the power of the practitioner to eliminate maya using the method of "neti, neti" - not this, not this. The Vaishnavas use the descending method and instead of attempting to discern ultimate reality by their own limited power, they humbly admit that they are limited and conditioned and take help from guru, shastra and sadhu. This, as has already been pointed out, is the easier of the two methods and gives the quicker results. Krishna corroborates this in Gita, as has already been quoted here by Bija. But since you don't accept Krishna or His philosophy, I have composed a little poem for you:

 

From the Mona-gita of Mona, goddess of monism

 

I am changeless and supreme,

I even transcend "serene."

From me all benedictions flow.

I guide you through your earthly woes.

 

If you're afraid of personality,

Then you should certainly worship me.

For I would grant your every wish,

If you could but offer me a dish.

 

But I cannot speak philosophy,

For I've no hands, nor mouth, you see.

You cannot offer me a treat,

For I'm an Im-personality.

 

 

Fortunately Krishna is not limited as is Mona.

 

Regards, jeffster/AMdas

[bija]

 

From the Mona-gita of Mona, goddess of monism

 

I am changeless and supreme,

I even transcend "serene."

From me all benedictions flow.

I guide you through your earthly woes.

 

If you're afraid of personality,

Then you should certainly worship me.

For I would grant your every wish,

If you would only offer me a dish.

 

But I cannot speak philosophy,

For I've no hands, nor mouth, you see.

You cannot offer me a treat,

For I'm an im-personality.jeffster

I like this poem! So many hands and feet in this world, but oh' never possible for its maker. The limitless must have limit:rolleyes:. (ofcourse I do not accept that - we can either accept no body or accept and will be granted)

[Bart Happel]

 

... The limitless must have limit ...

Dear Bija,

 

I don't understand..

 

Kind regards, Bart

[bija]

I was being sarcastic Bart, why should there not be a spiritual world of form? We may choose to have body or not have spiritual body. But saying that the Supreme in the land of spiritual form is always master. The vedanta sutra confirms that too. This form is eternal and not of matter like the monists insist.

 

Please read Krsna book by Srila Prabhupada Bart, it will show how sweet that land of form is. If we meditate on that we will attain according to Vedanta Sutra. It is pure spiritual existence and not of maya as the mayavadi insists.

 

http://mybloop.com/go/U7utpy Krsna book one.

http://mybloop.com/go/G668fm Krsna book two.

http://mybloop.com/go/T6X75J Krsna book three.

 

http://nitaaiveda.com/All_Scriptures_By_Acharyas/Baladeva_Vidyabhushana/Vedanta_Sutra/Chp_4.htm

Adhikarana 5

The Soul's Desires Are Fulfilled

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

Now the author of the sutras will describe the truth that all the desires of the liberated soul are at once fulfilled. In the Chandogya Upanishad (8.12.3) it is said:

sa tatra paryeti jakshan kridan ramamanah stribhir va yanair va jnatibhir va

"Laughing and enjoying pastimes, he is happy in the company of wives, relatives, and chariots."

Samshaya (doubt): Does the liberated soul's meeting with his relatives and the others happen because of an endeavor of his part or does it happen spontaneously simply by his desire?

Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): In the material world even kings and other powerful people, of whom it is said that their every desire is fulfilled, must still exert some effort to attain that fulfillment. In the same way the liberated souls attain their desires by willing accompanied with action.

Siddhanta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sutras gives His conclusion.

Sutra 8

sankalpad eva tac chruteh

sankalpat—by desire; eva—indeed; tat—that; chruteh—because of the Shruti-shastra.

Indeed it is by desire, because of the Shruti-shastra.

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

Simply by willing the liberated souls attain what they wish. How is that known? The sutra explains, "tac chruteh" (because of the Shruti-shastra). In the Chandogya Upanishad (8.2.1) it is said:

sa yadi pitriloka-kamo bhavati sankalpad evasya pitarah samuttishthanti. tena pitrilokena sampanno mahiyate.

"If desires to go to Pitriloka, simply by his will he finds the pitas standing before him. In this way he finds himself glorified by the residents of Pitriloka."

In this way the Shruti-shastra affirms that he attains his wishes by merely willing that they be fulfilled. Any other view cannot be accepted here. In the previously quoted passage of Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (4.5.13), the statement was qualified by other evidence from the scriptures. In this passage, however, we see not other statements of scripture that might qualify or change the clear statement of these words. However, this kind of liberation, where the soul's own happiness and glory and power are prominent, is not liked by they who are eager to taste the nectar of service to the Supreme Lord. They reject it and they speak many words criticizing it.

Adhikarana 6

The Supreme Lord is the Master of the Liberated Souls

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

Now the author the sutras will show that the liberated soul, whose every desire is fulfilled, takes shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead alone.

Samshaya (doubt): Is the liberated soul subject to the orders of anyone other than the Supreme Personality of Godhead, or is the soul not subject to the orders of anyone other than the Supreme Personality of Godhead?

Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): As a person who enters a king's palace must obey the orders of many people there, so the liberated soul who has entered the palace of the Supreme Personality of Godhead must also obey the orders of many others.

Siddhanta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sutras gives His conclusion.

Sutra 9

ata eva cananyadhipatih

atah eva—therefore; ca—also; ananya—without another; adhipatih—master.

Therefore there is no other master.

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

Because (atah), by the grace of the Supreme Personality of Godhead all the liberated soul's desires are at once fulfilled, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the liberated soul's only master (ananyadhipatih). There is no other master for him. Taking shelter of the Supreme Lord, the liberated soul shines with great splendor. If this were not so then there would be no difference between the liberated soul and the soul trapped in the world of repeated birth and death.

By worshiping the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the liberated soul attains the condition where his every desire is at once fulfilled. Feeling merciful to him, the Supreme Lord gives limitless transcendental bliss to the soul who thus takes shelter of Him. In this way the Lord becomes very pleased. That the Lord thus fills the liberated soul with bliss will be explained in sutra 4.4.20. It has already been demonstrated that the individual spirit soul is part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, and the Supreme Lord is the supreme controller and enjoyer.

Because the liberated soul is in a position where his every desire is at once fulfilled, his only master is the Supreme Lord. He has no other master. For this reason ordinary prescribed duties and prohibitions no longer apply to him. If they did apply to him he would no longer be in a position where his every desire is at once fulfilled. This view is held by some philosophers.

 

Adhikarana 7

The Spiritual Body

Introduction by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

Now the author of the sutras will show that the liberated soul has a spiritual body.

Samshaya (doubt): Does the liberated soul who has attained the association of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as described in Chandogya Upanishad (8.12.3), have a spiritual body or does he not? Can he have any body he wishes, or can he not?

Purvapaksha (the opponent speaks): Here Badari Muni gives his opinion.

Sutra 10

abhave badarir aha hy evam

abhave—in non-existence; badarih—Badari Muni; aha—says; hi—because; evam—thus.

Badari Muni says there is none, for thus it is said.

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

Badari Muni thinks that the liberated soul has no body. The body and its paraphernalia are all created by past karma. Because he is free from all past karma, the liberated soul does not have a body. Why is that? The sutra explains, "aha hy evam" (thus it is said). The word "hi" here means “because". In Chandogya Upanishad (8.12.1) it is said:

na ha vai sa-sharirasya satah priyapriyayor apahatir asti. ashariram vava santam priyapriye na sprishatah

"He who has a body cannot become free of pleasure and pain. Only one who has no body is untouched by pleasure and pain."

This means that as long as the body is present it is not possible to be free of sufferings. That is why the Upanishad explains:

asmat sharirat samutthaya

"The soul then leaves the body."

Also, in Shrimad-Bhagavatam it is said:

dehendriyasu-hinanam

vaikuntha-pura-vasinam

"They who live in the spiritual world have neither bodies nor senses."

Sutra 11

 

 

aha hy evam jaiminir vikalpamananat

 

aha—says; hi—because; evam—thus; jaiminih—Jaimini Muni; vikalpa—opinion; amananat—by thought.

 

 

Jaimini Muni has that opinion, because it is said thus and because that view is accepted.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

Jaimini Muni thinks the liberated soul has a body. Why is that? The sutra explains, "vikalpamananat" (because that view is accepted). In the Bhuma-vidya passage of the Chandogya Upanishad (7.26.2) it is said that the liberated soul can manifest many different bodies simultaneously:

 

 

sa ekadha bhavati dvidha tridha bhavati pancadha saptadha navadha caiva punash caikadasha smritah. shatam ca dasha caikash ca sahasrani ca vimshatih.

 

 

"He becomes one. Then he becomes two. Then three. Then five. Then seven. Then nine. Then eleven. He becomes one hundred and ten. He becomes one thousand and twenty."

 

Because the individual spirit soul is atomic in nature, it cannot expand itself to become many different bodies, so these bodies must be possessions of the atomic soul. Nor can it be said that this statement of the Upanishad is not true, for this is in a passage describing the process of liberation. The body described here must actually exist, and also it must not have been created by past karmic reactions. This will be explained later with a quote from the Smriti-shastra.

 

In the next sutra Vyasadeva gives His opinion.

 

 

Sutra 12

 

 

dvadashaha-vad ubhaya-vidham badarayano 'tah

 

dvadasha—twelve; aha—days; vat—like; ubhaya—both; vidham—kinds; badarayanah—Vyasadeva; atah—therefore.

 

 

Vyasadeva says it is of both kinds, like the twelve days.

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

 

Lord Vyasadeva thinks that because the liberated soul's every desire is at once fulfilled both conditions must be true. This is so because statements describing both conditions are found in the scriptures. Therefore it should be accepted that the liberated soul may have a body, and again he may not have a body. This is like the twelve days. A twelve-day yajna becomes, by the wish of the yajamana, either a satra, which has many yajamanas, or an ahina, which has many yajamanas. There is no contradiction in this. In the same way the liberated soul may, by his own wish, either have a body or not have a body. That is the meaning. The truth is that they who by the power of transcendental knowledge have broken the bonds of material existence are in a situation where all their desires are at once fulfilled. Those amongst them who desire to have a body can at once have any body they wish. This is described in Chandogya Upanishad (7.26.2). They who do have no desire to have a body do not have a body. This is described in Chandogya Upanishad (8.12.1). They who desire always to employ a spiritual body in the service of the Supreme Lord eternally manifest such a body by their spiritual powers. That is how it should be understood. In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad (2.4.14) it is said:

 

 

yatra tv asya sarvam atmaivabhut tat kena kam pashyet

 

 

"Everything there is spiritual. What is the nature of the seer? What is the nature of the seen?"

 

In the Madhyandina-shruti it is said:

 

 

sa va esha brahma-nishtha idam shariram martyam atishrijya brahmabhisampadya brahmana pashyati brahmana shrinoti brahmanaivedam sarvam anubhavati

 

 

"Devoted to the Supreme Lord, the individual soul leaves his mortal body and meets the Lord. By the Lord's grace he sees. By the Lord's grace he hears. By the Lord's grace he perceives everything."

 

In the Smriti-shastra it is said:

 

 

vasanti yatra purushah

sarve vaikuntha-murtayah

 

 

"Everyone there has a spiritual form like that of the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

 

The spiritual desire of the soul is cultivated from the very beginning of his devotional activities. This is described in the "yatha kratuh" maxim and also in the following words of the Smriti-shastra:

 

 

gacchami vishnu-padabhyam

vishnu-drishtyanudarshanam

 

 

"I walk with Lord Vishnu's feet. I see with Lord Vishnu's eyes."

In the Smriti-shastra it is again said:

 

 

muktasyaitad bhavishyati

 

 

"This is the nature of the liberated soul."

[Bart Happel]

Dear Bija,

 

I still don't understand..

 

Kind regards, Bart

[bija]

God has no limits. So why should we say he has no form? If it is just because the world of form in this world is suffering therefore we negate, then that is limited vision.

 

But ofcourse if a soul desires to have no form, that is possible. It depends where we find our deepest satisfaction, as it is for the devotee too, who wishes to play with Krsna. The soul may manifest a spiritual body similar to the Lord's spiritual body, which is full of rasa.