The jIva as as sarvajna, an infinite knower in moksha

November 4, 1999

Sri Balaji asks:

> How can an aNusvarUpa jIva (atomic-natured soul) be the

> receptacle for vibhusvarUpa Ananda (infinite-natured bliss) in

> mokSha (salvation)?

Sri Jay Nelamangala has very nicely summarized the Visishtadvaita

conception of knowledge, and how these fit in with the jIva.

Let me state a few points:

(a) the jIva is atomic (aNu)

(b) the jIva is of the nature (svarUpa) of consciousness

either growth or decay. It is 'nirvikAra'

(d) the jIva has the ability to know other things; in other

words in addition to being of the nature of consciousness,

it is also a " knower "

All these principles are accepted by all schools of Vedanta.

As Sri Nelamangala has pointed out, the inherent consciousness

of the jIva, being atomic, only reveals the notion of " I " (aham-buddhi),

or bare self-consciousness.

This can be understood by using light as an analogue for knowledge.

How can we perceive an object? If light is shined on it. Similarly,

objects external to ourself can only be " known " if jnAna (knowledge)

can " shed light " on it. But the jIva at the same time is said to

be an " atom " of consciousness, and therefore non-expansive and incapable

of shedding light on external objects.

So, something else other than the svarUpa of the jIva has to be posited

to explain how we know other things. As explained by Sri Nelgamangala,

in Dvaita, the " manas " is posited as an external organ which can act

as a channel for knowing external objects. In Visishtadvaita, we say

that consciousness of the form of an attribute (i.e., different from

the svarUpa of the jIva) allows the jIva to know something other than

itself. This is known as " attributive consciousness " or dharma-bhUta-

jnAna.

To summarize, we have the following:

(1) inherent, atomic, consciousness, which constitutes the " stuff " of

the jIva, and allows to simply say " I am "

(2) attributive consciousness, which allows the jIva to know

things external to itself (analogous to the concept of " manas "

in Dvaita)

Now, the svarUpa of the jIva, as stated above, is nirvikAra,

immutable. The attributive consciousness, however, is subject to

contraction and expansion, as one gains in knowledge, wisdom,

and the like, and as karma is cleaned off. The analogy here is

the following. Just as a lampshade shades and cuts off a lamp's

lustre, so does karma obstruct one's attributive consciousness,

and therefore causes its contraction. This is why jIvas are

ignorant, limited creatures in samsAra.

However, in moksha, all karma (lampshade) is removed, and the

knowledge (lamp's lustre) proceeds unobstructed. The jIva can

then perceive everything -- its consciousness is infinite.

There are pramANas which support this theory of the jIva.

This is how the jIva, while remaining atomic, can be a 'sarvajna',

omniscient, and how it can experience infinite bliss, once the

bonds of karma have been removed.

A question about Dvaita's concept of the jIva

------------

In Dvaita, it is said that the manas does not persist in

moksha. How does the jIva in moksha know things other than

itself? How does it know Brahman, without an external agent?

I ask this not as a challenge, but to understand the Dvaita

position.

bhaktAnghrireNu,

Mani

November 4, 1999

On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:48:51 -0800 (PST) Mani Varadarajan <mani

writes:

>

> Sri Balaji asks:

> > How can an aNusvarUpa jIva (atomic-natured soul) be the

> > receptacle for vibhusvarUpa Ananda (infinite-natured bliss) in

> > mokSha (salvation)?

[snip]

> Now, the svarUpa of the jIva, as stated above, is nirvikAra,

> immutable. The attributive consciousness, however, is subject to

> contraction and expansion, as one gains in knowledge, wisdom,

> and the like, and as karma is cleaned off. The analogy here is

> the following. Just as a lampshade shades and cuts off a lamp's

> lustre, so does karma obstruct one's attributive consciousness,

> and therefore causes its contraction. This is why jIvas are

> ignorant, limited creatures in samsAra.

>

> However, in moksha, all karma (lampshade) is removed, and the

> knowledge (lamp's lustre) proceeds unobstructed. The jIva can

> then perceive everything -- its consciousness is infinite.

> There are pramANas which support this theory of the jIva.

=======

[NVB] Can you quote the pramAnAs please?

The analogy of the lamp with the shade doesn't imply what you are saying

at all. Just because we remove the shade, we can't expect a 60 watt bulb

to shine like sun. The luminosity of a lamp depends on how powerful the

lamp is. In otherwords, your analogy actually supports ananda-taratamya

and not infinite bliss.

Regards

-Nataraj

[snip]

>

> This is how the jIva, while remaining atomic, can be a 'sarvajna',

> omniscient, and how it can experience infinite bliss, once the

> bonds of karma have been removed.

> bhaktAnghrireNu,

> Mani

>

_________________

Get the Internet just the way you want it.

Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!

Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

November 4, 1999

--- Nataraj BV <ntj2 wrote:

> =======

> [NVB] Can you quote the pramAnAs please?

> The analogy of the lamp with the shade doesn't imply what you are saying

> at all. Just because we remove the shade, we can't expect a 60 watt bulb

> to shine like sun. The luminosity of a lamp depends on how powerful the

> lamp is. In otherwords, your analogy actually supports ananda-taratamya

> and not infinite bliss.

I am sorry for posting the above. I forgot that this thread is just a

presentation of

vishishtadvaitic views and not a debate.

Regards

-Nataraj

>

> Regards

> -Nataraj

>

=====

November 4, 1999

Nataraj BV writes:

> I am sorry for posting the above. I forgot that this thread is just a

presentation of

> vishishtadvaitic views and not a debate.

I am happy to supply clarifications to the extent of my

knowledge. So please feel free to ask questions.

However, I am not qualified to " debate " anyone on these

issues, and I would likely inadequately defend the position,

and incorrectly attack another position. I see nothing to be

gained by substandard debate. Furthermore, the very approach

and texts used to decide the " verdict " are very different

between the sampradAyas, so in an email forum such as this,

a debate is fruitless and counterproductive.

It is like two mice fighting over rulership of the earth,

when neither of them understand its vastness or complexity.

What I *do* object to is the claim that a modern, English-educated

person with a little bit of Sanskrit knowledge and a desire to destroy

opposing views can show logical inconsistencies in the positions of

ancient and great philosophers who studied tarka, vyAkaraNa, nyAya,

etc., and whose systems have been elaborated and defended to a great

extent by subsequent thinkers. We owe the great acharyas more respect

than that. Thinking that a single question pokes a real hole in, say,

Sri Ramanuja's philosophy is rather arrogant. This is why little

people like us " debating " the merits of Madhva vs. Ramanuja is

stupid.

Mani

November 4, 1999

>A question about Dvaita's concept of the jIva

>------------

>In Dvaita, it is said that the manas does not persist in

>moksha. How does the jIva in moksha know things other than

>itself? How does it know Brahman, without an external agent?

>I ask this not as a challenge, but to understand the Dvaita

>position.

Dear Mani,

Good question. The answer is simple. The " internal organ " to the self

which fecilitates this knowledge

is called as " Saakshi " in Madhwa-Siddantha. Just as the knowledge that "

I slept well for so long "

happens to us after waking up from deep-asleep everyday and during that time

Manas is sleeping as well and so is inactive. So, this knowledge can only

happen by the operation of Saakshi.

and it does produce that knowledge without an external agent like Manas.

I hope I have clarified your question. VMS is publishing an article on

" Saakshi Pramana in Brahma Mimamsa Shastra " written by me. When it is in

its final form, I will send you a copy of the newsletter.

Harihi Om Tatsat,

Jayakrishna

----------

RJAY Consultants Inc.,

Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496

Email: jay

----------

Mani Varadarajan <mani

< >

Wednesday, November 03, 1999 6:49 PM

The jIva as as sarvajna, an infinite knower in

moksha

>

>Sri Balaji asks:

>> How can an aNusvarUpa jIva (atomic-natured soul) be the

>> receptacle for vibhusvarUpa Ananda (infinite-natured bliss) in

>> mokSha (salvation)?

>

>Sri Jay Nelamangala has very nicely summarized the Visishtadvaita

>conception of knowledge, and how these fit in with the jIva.

>Let me state a few points:

>

> (a) the jIva is atomic (aNu)

> (b) the jIva is of the nature (svarUpa) of consciousness

> © the svarUpa of the jIva is not subject to modification --

> either growth or decay. It is 'nirvikAra'

> (d) the jIva has the ability to know other things; in other

> words in addition to being of the nature of consciousness,

> it is also a " knower "

>

>All these principles are accepted by all schools of Vedanta.

>As Sri Nelamangala has pointed out, the inherent consciousness

>of the jIva, being atomic, only reveals the notion of " I " (aham-buddhi),

>or bare self-consciousness.

>

>This can be understood by using light as an analogue for knowledge.

>How can we perceive an object? If light is shined on it. Similarly,

>objects external to ourself can only be " known " if jnAna (knowledge)

>can " shed light " on it. But the jIva at the same time is said to

>be an " atom " of consciousness, and therefore non-expansive and incapable

>of shedding light on external objects.

>

>So, something else other than the svarUpa of the jIva has to be posited

>to explain how we know other things. As explained by Sri Nelgamangala,

>in Dvaita, the " manas " is posited as an external organ which can act

>as a channel for knowing external objects. In Visishtadvaita, we say

>that consciousness of the form of an attribute (i.e., different from

>the svarUpa of the jIva) allows the jIva to know something other than

>itself. This is known as " attributive consciousness " or dharma-bhUta-

>jnAna.

>

>To summarize, we have the following:

>

> (1) inherent, atomic, consciousness, which constitutes the " stuff " of

> the jIva, and allows to simply say " I am "

> (2) attributive consciousness, which allows the jIva to know

> things external to itself (analogous to the concept of " manas "

> in Dvaita)

>

>Now, the svarUpa of the jIva, as stated above, is nirvikAra,

>immutable. The attributive consciousness, however, is subject to

>contraction and expansion, as one gains in knowledge, wisdom,

>and the like, and as karma is cleaned off. The analogy here is

>the following. Just as a lampshade shades and cuts off a lamp's

>lustre, so does karma obstruct one's attributive consciousness,

>and therefore causes its contraction. This is why jIvas are

>ignorant, limited creatures in samsAra.

>

>However, in moksha, all karma (lampshade) is removed, and the

>knowledge (lamp's lustre) proceeds unobstructed. The jIva can

>then perceive everything -- its consciousness is infinite.

>There are pramANas which support this theory of the jIva.

>

>This is how the jIva, while remaining atomic, can be a 'sarvajna',

>omniscient, and how it can experience infinite bliss, once the

>bonds of karma have been removed.

>

>A question about Dvaita's concept of the jIva

>------------

>In Dvaita, it is said that the manas does not persist in

>moksha. How does the jIva in moksha know things other than

>itself? How does it know Brahman, without an external agent?

>I ask this not as a challenge, but to understand the Dvaita

>position.

>

>bhaktAnghrireNu,

>Mani

>

>>nAham kartA hariH kartA tatpUjA karmachaakhilam.h|

>taThaapi matkR^itaa pUja tatprasaadhEna naanyaThaa|

>tadbhakti tadphalam.h mahyam.h tatprasaadaat.h punaH punaH |

>karmanyaasO harAvevam.h vishNOsthR^iptikaraH sadhA ||

>

> " I am not the doer, shri Hari is the doer, all the actions that I do are

His worship. Even then, the worship I do is through His grace and not

otherwise. That devotion and the fruits of the actions that come to me are

due to His recurring grace "

>If one always practices to do actions with a dedicated spirit to Hari, in

this way, it pleases Vishnu.

> --- Quoted by Sri madhvAchArya in GitA tAtparya

November 4, 1999

Dear Fellow Madhvas,

Permit me to express my viewpoints regarding the " debate "

or " friendly stating of the position " and regaring some points Mani has raised.

It is good to carry on the " debate " format. Synthesis and summary can follow.

For me personally as perhaps for most of us time to indulge in these

activities is a luxury - life obtrudes. Hence all I and some others may be

able to do are to offer quick rejoinders albiet not well thought out. However

such process can lead to " knowledge " of shastras...etc even if miniscule.

That may be all some on this list will ever see. So I for one am for

continuing this dialogue/debate.

Now to some specific points raised by Mani. Let me begin with a later posting

where he says :

>However, I am not qualified to " debate " anyone on these

>issues, and I would likely inadequately defend the position,

>and incorrectly attack another position. I see nothing to be

>gained by substandard debate. Furthermore, the very approach

>and texts used to decide the " verdict " are very different

>between the sampradAyas, so in an email forum such as this,

>a debate is fruitless and counterproductive.

I disagree. Whether we are qualified or not is immaterial. Every one of

faces philosophical questions - Who am I ? Is there a purpose to this

creation ? Is there a creator ? and I mean EVERYONE. Whether one is qualified

or not one is forced to face these questions. Since the length of one's stay

here is uncertain - one cannot wait till one is qualified. The questions

press on us. As to " verdicts " if there is any objective " truth " it must

be independent of " sampradAyas " or that the " truth " is so complex the

" sampradAyas " are like " blind men feeling the elephant " each seeing only

part of the whole - which remains great and mysterious.

>It is like two mice fighting over rulership of the earth,

>when neither of them understand its vastness or complexity.

The mice are acting from whatever knowledge they have. I find that nobler

than just giving up.

>What I *do* object to is the claim that a modern, English-educated

>person with a little bit of Sanskrit knowledge and a desire to destroy

>opposing views can show logical inconsistencies in the positions of

>ancient and great philosophers who studied tarka, vyAkaraNa, nyAya,

>etc., and whose systems have been elaborated and defended to a great

>extent by subsequent thinkers. We owe the great acharyas more respect

>than that. Thinking that a single question pokes a real hole in, say,

>Sri Ramanuja's philosophy is rather arrogant. This is why little

>people like us " debating " the merits of Madhva vs. Ramanuja is

>stupid.

Like it or not there has been a break in our tradition and most of us fall

into the above category, i.e, " English-educated ... " . Many of us are also

educated in the " scientific method " . That to me says not accept or respect

blindly no matter who professes; as Feynman put it " what one fool can do

another can do better " . What he meant was that we should not be awe-struck

by " greatness " - indeed if Madhva was in " awe " of the great philosphers

preceding him he might have said that all that is worthy of saying has already

been said. Being a physicist I have used example from my area, others can

come up with other examples. To state more explicitly Feynman came after

Einstein and yet made fundamental contributions to physics. He must have

thought it still worth while to do physics inspite of great names like

Einstein and Newton who preceded him.

If we are to reclaim our tradition and indeed make it come alive we have to

question and continue to build . Otherwise Indian philosophy will remain

dead and nothing new will emerge. Implicit in this statement is of course

the belief that " everything worthy of saying has NOT been said " . If this makes

me arrogant so be it.

Now to come to an earlier posting. I speak here as " a modern, English-educated

person with a little bit of Sanskrit knowledge " , but I have no desire to

" destroy " any philosophical position. Anyway to proceed boldly (or is it

" arrogantly " ?) where " the greats have gone before " :

>This can be understood by using light as an analogue for knowledge.

>How can we perceive an object? If light is shined on it. Similarly,

>objects external to ourself can only be " known " if jnAna (knowledge)

>can " shed light " on it. But the jIva at the same time is said to

>be an " atom " of consciousness, and therefore non-expansive and incapable

>of shedding light on external objects.

External objects can be known not just through sight but by touch,smell ..etc

What is needed is an " interaction " (physics jargon). In case of light

- photons deflected off an object from a source impinge on the retina leading

to a whole set of biological processes in the optic nerve .. etc cause the

sensation of " seeing " . So I shall assume that Mani is using the phrase

" shed light " in this " interaction " sense. So in order for Jiva to " see "

it need not " shed light " itself but merely recieve - to belabour the physics

analogy. Perhpas Mani can explain this in more detail.

>So, something else other than the svarUpa of the jIva has to be posited

>to explain how we know other things. As explained by Sri Nelgamangala,

>in Dvaita, the " manas " is posited as an external organ which can act

>as a channel for knowing external objects. In Visishtadvaita, we say

>that consciousness of the form of an attribute (i.e., different from

>the svarUpa of the jIva) allows the jIva to know something other than

>itself. This is known as " attributive consciousness " or dharma-bhUta-

>jnAna.

what is the nature of " attributive consciousness " ? how does it differ

from " svarUpa " ? Incidentally, modern physics has given up the notion of a

" point particle " . An elementary particle like an electron is surrounded by

a cloud of " virtual " particles arising and decaying spontaneously from the

vaccuum. Therefore in physics atleast, the concept of someting " localized "

does not necessarily imply " non-expansive " . So logical consistency (as seen

in above argumentation regarding atoms being non-expansive) alone is not

sufficient. Indeed with the present emphasis on " fields " as opposed to

" particles " the " atomic " (read elementary,partless,point ..etc) can be at the

" same time " everywhere !!!

While the above example from physics may superficially taken to be analogous

to VisistAdvaitic position there is a a crucial difference. The " electron "

is BOTH ( " atomic " and therefore) " localized " and " everywhere " . Defies logic!

I remain yours truly,

" a modern, English-educated person with a little bit of Sanskrit knowledge "

though desirous of " shastraic knowledge "

Shri Kanekal

======================================================================

Shri Kanekal phone: (301)286-6517

Code 696 FAX : (301)286-1648

Goddard Space Flight Center

Greenbelt Road

Greenbelt, MD 20771

======================================================================

November 4, 1999

KANEKAL writes:

> The questions

> press on us. As to " verdicts " if there is any objective " truth " it must

> be independent of " sampradAyas " or that the " truth " is so complex the

> " sampradAyas " are like " blind men feeling the elephant " each seeing only

> part of the whole - which remains great and mysterious.

Therefore, we should not haphazardly attack or debate the

others' position as worthless (as has been done on this list)

without properly studying them from experts in the field.

If we don't have competency to speak authoritatively on

either philosophy, we should merely try to learn from each

other, instead of trying to poke holes and destroy someone

else's philosophy for the sake of showing that one's own

tradition is correct.

> What he meant was that we should not be awe-struck

> by " greatness " - indeed if Madhva was in " awe " of the great philosphers

> preceding him he might have said that all that is worthy of saying has

already

> been said.

Where was Sri Ananda Tirtha and where are we? He understood all

the philosophies extant in his time, found them unsatisfactory,

and proceeded to create a new, revolutionary interpretation of

Vedanta. He spoke from a position of knowledge. We speak from a

a position of ignorance. Therefore, " debating " is silly. I cannot

believe we are even trying to compare our silly argumentation with

the dialectics of the greats, such as Ananda Tirtha, Jaya Tirtha,

Vedanta Desika, and Ramanuja.

> External objects can be known not just through sight but by touch,smell ..etc

> What is needed is an " interaction " (physics jargon).

[... physics analogy deleted ]

> While the above example from physics may superficially taken to be analogous

> to VisistAdvaitic position there is a a crucial difference. The " electron "

> is BOTH ( " atomic " and therefore) " localized " and " everywhere " . Defies logic!

Once again, I have stated that atIndriya entities have to be

known only from Sruti pramANas. That is primary.

That having been stated, do not take any analogy too far.

It has to agree first with the Sruti pramANas.

Now, let us look at what you are saying. Forget the electron.

Take a flame. The flame is the source of light. One can say

that it illumines itself. The luminosity or rays of the flame

is an attribute of the flame. It casts its light about.

Therefore, there is no defying of logic here. There is a

point source of light -- the flame -- and there is luminosity,

which sheds light on other things. This is an analogy.

Similarly, there is a point source of consciousness --

the svarUpa of the jIva. The attributive jnAna is *different*

from this. This jnAna casts light on other things, so we can

know other things. That is all.

I really don't have patience for uninformed criticisms. Please

read up on Raghavendra Tirtha's criticisms of Visishtadvaita

if you want a serious critique of Ramanuja's philosophy, for

example. Not being learned in the Dvaita school, I am not going

to make silly criticisms that are easily answered. There is not

much point to that.

dAsan,

Mani

November 5, 1999

After so many twists and turns, this has taken a good course. I would

like to give my humble opinion in two parts. In the first part I will

try to answer some of the views and explain " Ananda Taratamya " in

general terms and in the second part I will try to give some Pramanas.

How should it matter whether we call this " debate " , " a friendly

discussion " , " exchange of thoughts " or " sharing philosophical ideas " .

The main guideline is that it should be impersonal and congenial.

Sri Rajaram Cavale wrote:

>We should not become fanatical about our belief system. Of all the

>religions of the world, Hinduism is the only one which can tolerate and

>recognise other's points of view. Why can we not keep it that way and

>improve upon it by respecting the others' points of view with in our own

>community? We should start keeping our house in order first before we

>set to correct others. I feel that serious philosophical debates should

>be carried out only on serious academic list, for example, on 'Dvaita

>list' and keep everything simple on the VMS list.

Why should the discussion be treated as " fanatical " or " intolerant " ?

The main purpose is to arrive at the truth. For those disinterested in

these discussions, their goal is only a " delete button " away.

Sri P.R. Mukund wrote :

>Just to add my two cents worth, I feel that for a debate to have any

>meaning, the following should be true:

>1. The people debating should be equals in background.

>2. The rules of debate should be clear.

>3. There should be a referee who has no personal agenda in the outcome

> of the debate.

For heaven's sake these are informal discussions and how could we ensure

above requirements.

>4. Both parties debating should be only interested in arriving at

> the truth.

Of course. Aren't we all. But the simple fact is that both parties start

with the firm belief that what they are saying is truth. A healthy

discussion is the key, by which all of us will benefit.

Sri Gopal Krishna Potti specified how the discussion should go and

who should do it and how all " Ashtamutts swamijies " should take part

and how " the swamijies " of other system should join. Strange in deed

is the way, he wants to make this an international event with his

guidelines. How can we even expect all those swamijies to rush to

the needs of a small group of individuals that too with a philosophical

thirst of this kind! More over, swamijies' taking part in high level

discussions happened earlier, some times recorded, some times not.

Is this not supposed to be an informal, simple, plain-hearted and

beginner-level philosophical discussion?

Sri Mani wrote :

>It is important to understand that Brahman is not Isvara + Jiva + Jada

>in a mathematical summation. I am pretty sure Sri Balaji understands

>this, but the Visishtadvaita idea is being misstated. Brahman is

>Isvara, who has the jIva and prakRti (jada) as attributes, and are

>therefore comprehended within Isvara's being. This is the body-soul

>relationship that is so fundamental to Ramanuja's interpretational

>approach. In a manner similar to how each of us has a body, which

>we use to express ourselves, Isvara has jIva and prakRti as its

>body, in the sense that the jIva and prakRti are completely supported,

>controlled, and pervaded by Isvara. Since they are comprehended

>in this body-soul analogy, they are One, just as when we conventionally

>point to someone, we see them as one, with the body connected to

>the soul. Yet, they are internally distinguishable, with Isvara being

>the foundation. This is known as Visishtaikya -- unity of the

>attributed Isvara.

>Because the jIva and prakRti are the body of Brahman, they are

>sometimes spoken of as Brahman itself, just as when we say

> " I am dark " , we mean " My body is dark " , and not " My jIva is

>dark " . Yet, the adjective " dark " is still used to describe " I " .

>Similarly, because Brahman is the Innermost Self, the jIva

>and prakRti, being adjectives or attributes of Brahman, are

>also sometimes described as Brahman. This terminology is also

>adopted in the Gita.

There are a couple of things to be noted. If a statement is given to

represent figurative meaning, we have to extend it only to that extent.

For ex. when we say " the king fights like a lion in the battlefield " ,

we mean that he fights ferociously and not that he fights on his fours.

Also the same kind of rules in the usage can not be applied for day

to day things and philosophy. If a person goes to the doctor and says

" I am not sick. Only my body is sick " (like a philosopher), the doctor

will give a prescription to see the psychiatrist. A " Seer " and a " seen

thing " are always different, otherwise there is no " function of seeing " .

>The reason that selves are said to be identical in essential

>nature is based on many, many statements from commonly accepted

>Sruti and smRti. For example:

> Gita 14.2 says " mama sAdharmyam Agatah " --

> they attain similarity of attributes with me;

> Mundaka Upanishad says, " vidvAn puNya-pape vidhUya niranjanah

> paramam sAmyam upaiti " -- the knower (of God), casting aside

> all merit and demerit (i.e., karma), and becoming stainless,

> attains the highest similarity.

> Another Upanishad says " tAdRg eva bhavati " -- they become

> just like Brahman.

> The Gita says in so many places that one sees the same jIva

> in so many diverse bodies.

> Brahma Sutras say, " bhoga-mAtra-sAmyam " -- (the jIva is) equal

> only in the experience of Ananda.

In all these and * many, many statements *, the inference has to be

carefully made. A similarity is not to be mistaken for equality.

The word " mAtra " also means " a tiny fraction " . Then the question comes,

if there are more than one interpretation, which one has to be taken.

The answer for that lies in " shastra samanvaya " . There should not

be any inconsistencies. In vedas, purAnas, upanishads, mahabharata and

perhaps even in some of the compositions of great saints in

Visishtadvaita tradition extoll that even Brahma, Laxmi and other gods

(inclusive of muktas) can not completely comprehend Lord Hari. That

being the case, how can a mukta jIva be equated to Lord Hari.

Then how should the statements like above have to be taken.

The similarity extends in the following way.

1. Just Hari has full bliss to His capacity which is infinity (so infinite

bliss), the mukta jIva has full bliss to his capacity which is finite.

2. The mukta jIva will have the state of a-vrijinatva (sinlessness) which

Brahman has.

3. The mukta jIva will have the state of akAmahatatva (invulnerability to

yearnings).

There may be some more similarities between Mukta jIva and Sri Hari, but

definitely not infinite bliss.

extending the definition of above statements to " infinite bliss " will

lead us to same kind of quandary as in " lamp shade " or " fighting like a

lion " , when the comparison is extended beyond a point.

>Now, I understand that Sri Ananda Tirtha has his own interpretations

>of all these verses, usually citing different etymologies, etc.

>I am not one to say that this is " wrong " ; but they do not seem

> " svArasya " , or the most obvious interpretation *to me*.

That is unfortuanate. He was very versatile and he gave quotes for

his interpreatation from sadAgamAs (which are vedas, upanishads,

pancharatras, Mularamayana, Mahabharata and puranas etc. which are

consistent with these). Even in the controversial statements like

" a-tattvamasi " , he gave interpreataions which were accepted by

non-dvaita scholars.

>Others are free to disagree. (This is most often why a debate on many

>issues between Visistadvaita and Dvaita is fruitless. Not only

>does Dvaita cite and use many, many texts which are not considered

>authoritative and simply unknown to other Vedantins, the entire

>approach of Dvaita is different -- they use different etymologies

>compared to Visishtadvaitins, so the very meaning of words is

>different. A debate often is simply not possible.

This is very unjust statement. The great saints like " Trivikrama

Panditcharya " who were also well versed in tarka, vyakarana, nyaya

mImAmsa etc. never made such an accusation and some how some people

started this kind of false accusation.

At the end of this letter, I will give one of the pramanas, for

gradations of " ananda " in mukti, from " Brihadaranyakopanishad, which

was given by Sri Madhvacharya.

>It is like a Christian debating a Muslim about the validity of the

>Koran -- it is a matter of belief.)

Not really. Muslims and Christians do not have common source. But

these philosophical schools have same source " vedas " etc. There

was an absolute necessity for the correct interpretation of

vedas etc.

Sri Mani further wrote :

>Now, the svarUpa of the jIva, as stated above, is nirvikAra,

>immutable. The attributive consciousness, however, is subject to

>contraction and expansion, as one gains in knowledge, wisdom,

>and the like, and as karma is cleaned off. The analogy here is

>the following. Just as a lampshade shades and cuts off a lamp's

>lustre, so does karma obstruct one's attributive consciousness,

>and therefore causes its contraction. This is why jIvas are

>ignorant, limited creatures in samsAra.

>However, in moksha, all karma (lampshade) is removed, and the

>knowledge (lamp's lustre) proceeds unobstructed. The jIva can

>then perceive everything -- its consciousness is infinite.

>There are pramANas which support this theory of the jIva.

>This is how the jIva, while remaining atomic, can be a 'sarvajna',

>omniscient, and how it can experience infinite bliss, once the

>bonds of karma have been removed.

Actually three questions can be asked.

In moksha, 1. Does jIva have " Sarvajnatva " (omniscience) (say S) ?

2. Does jIva have " Sarva svatantrya " (All-independence) (say (A) ?

3. Does jIva have " Ananta ananda " (Supreme infinite bliss equal to God)

(say B) ?

From these eight possibilities arise.

1. All three 2. Only S 3. Only A 4. Only B 5. Both S and A.

6. Both S and B 7. Both A and B 8. None of the three.

Sri Ananda tiirtha takes the position 8.

All the vedas say that only Lord knows Himself completely. Even the

Mukta jIva does not know the Lord completely. So his omniscience is

ruled out. So the possibilities 1., 2., 5. and 6 are ruled out.

Even the mukta jIva can not be all-independent as there can not be

more than one independent entity. It is like accepting two kinds of

infinities. So 3 and 7 are ruled out. Now if 4 is true, how can a

dependent jiva have the infinite bliss which is same as independent

Brahman. The feeling of dependency itself curtails the infiniteness.

Only 8 is the logical alternative.

Sri Mani further wrote :

>It is like two mice fighting over rulership of the earth,

>when neither of them understand its vastness or complexity.

No matter how humble we are, we are not humble enough. I fully agree

with this statement if one person or a group of persons from Dvaita or

Visishtadvaita is tying to claim rulership over the respective

philosophical realm through this discussion. Such not being the case,

the aforesaid statement does not hold. We are only trying to scratch

the surface with simple discussions.