Mechanical and Organic

[Guest guest]

Mechanical andOrganic

 

There is an interesting discussion going on between two young stalwarts,

Sampath and Antaryami (Devanathan). One of the points seems to be (as far as

I could make out), whether gods have to experience the phala of their bad

karma in heaven. The very definition of svarga is that it is a place where

there is no sorrow at all.. Human beings who perform the meritorious deeds

laid down in the Srutis and smritis are said to go to heaven and be gods

there. When the puNya which entitled them to heaven is exhausted, they have

to be born again on the earth according to their residual karma. Since

heaven is a place where there is no suffering at all, they cannot experience

there the results of their bad karma which can give only sorrow.So the bad

karma as well as such part of good larma as was not of the type which could

entitle them to heaven will remain intact when they are born again on earth.

So Mundakopanishad says that they may even be born as lower creatures when

they come back from heaven. They can only exhaust their good karma, but

cannot acquire any new karma, good or bad, in heaven. The earth alone is the

place where good karma (as well as bad) can be earned.

 

It is generally said that even in heaven sorrow, jealousy, etc may arise on

seeing another person occupying a higher position, etc., and so it is not a

place of unmixed happiness. There will also be sorrow at the thought that

one has some day to leave heaven and come back. These are said only to

create dispassion towards even heavenly pleasures and cannot be taken to

mean that they suffer the effects of their bad karma there.

 

Nilakanta Dikshita has in his Nilakantavijaya champu humorously described

how a person who has been used to an austere life in this world while

performing various sacrifices finds himself a t a loss when he goes to

heaven and divine damsels try to entertain him with their company. He does

not know how to react! This is also only to show that the pleasuresof heaven

are trivial and not worth pursuing.

 

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nilakanta Dikshita has in his Nilakantavijaya champu

humorously described

how a person who has been used to an austere life in

this world while

performing various sacrifices finds himself a t a loss

when he goes to

heaven and divine damsels try to entertain him with

their company. He does

not know how to react!

 

This is one very good reason to allow the pairs of

opposites to exist in us NOW while we're embodied! In

the midst of the greatest joy, there can be an

awareness of sorrow, they can exist side by side in us

NOW. When I find myself feeling " depressed " I can at

the same time recall, bring to mind the opposite. If I

come into wealth, I can at the same time entertain

poverty in my " house " , internally. I can be " between "

the opposites (or try to, anyway!), neither of them or

both of them. We don't have to wait until death for

some wonderful heaven or hell, we can make room for

both of them, internally, now, while in incarnation...

 

If I die and go to one of the heavens, then I'll put

on whatever role is required there. If I go to one of

the hells, then the same will happen. I'll play the

role. But unless there is an " I " to know it, " I " won't

be in either place. If I know I'm in either

place/state then I'm not identified with either heaven

or hell...the perceiver cannot be perceived, the

perceived cannot be the same as the perceiver...one

guy's opinion, anyway! Best wishes, Steve

 

 

______________________________\

____

Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.

Make your homepage.

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

advaitin , vaibhav khire <vskhire wrote:

>

> Pranam Shri Murthyji,

> narayana145 <narayana145 wrote:

 

> Perhaps it is beneficial for some to construct and understand the

various philosophical intricacies of truth, who really is the

questioneer, and whether there is anything which can be questioned at

all etc. I am well aware that such logical constructs are nearer to

the truth and reality (although not true and real themselves) than

the questions being discussed here. But it still does not undermine

the importance of investigating how daily phenomena take place. It is

very well understood that going beyond the realm of karma is the sole

aim of life, but why is understanding the storage of karma (and then

going beyond it) not important?

>

> Lastly, I can very well understand it philosophically or

intellectually, that calling a particular sharira as 'mine' is

meaningless, in fact the concept of sharira itself is like a bubble

on surface of water. But as far as experience is concerned, there

does exist a sharira, I am still bound to my karma. Investigating

into the karma is thus an important step in being relieved of it.

This is at least true, as long as you are on the path of Jnana Yoga.

>

> That clarifies my stand and my inclination to ask questions about

this matter.

 

Namaste,

 

The drawback in this line of thinking is that one is inclined

to use an inappropriate instrument to clarify the understanding,

almost like using a telescope to study a gene.

 

The 'facts' of the subtle body have been studied in depth

through Raja Yoga 'saMyama' (pl. see Vibhuti Pada III:18 and several

following, as well as through Mantra(-Yantra-Tantra) sidhhi-s. In the

jnana yoga path, perfection in sadhana-chatushtaya is the ONLY path.

 

As Sadaji has emphasized, all siddhi-s other than Atma-siddhi

are trivial ('kShudra'), and hence are not elaborated.

 

The intellectual subtlety perhaps cannot proceed beyond

the 'Zero Mass Theorem' Frank-ji has dwelt on.

 

Spiritual sadhana in its innate sense seems to begin only after

the exhaustion of the intellectual conundrums of perception!

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Vaibhav,

 

In your message #38076 (Nov 17), you asked:

 

<<... there are still some questions which arise. Firstly, and this

has been stressed in various places and can be experienced by anyone

who is trying to do any mental activity while hungry or sick; the

mind is only a finer form of the gross body. The mind and the

physical body are not essentially two distinct entities, but are very

much linked to each other. What happens in a physical body, has an

effect on mind and vice versa. The difference in the two is of a

degree, and not of kind.

 

<<If that is so, then how is it that different laws should apply to

mind and body? Specifically, for a physical body, clearly,

a 'horizontal' motion is possible, i.e. it can move or can respond to

an impetus. So why should such a motion, albeit on a finer scale, not

be possible for the mind?>>

 

These questions are asked from the perspective of a structured world

of space and time. It's only in this structured perspective

that 'mind' appears to be a subtler form of gross body. This is

essentially a bodily perspective, with a complicating allowance made

for the addition of subtle forms of body. Here, in this complicated

bodily perspective, the body is conceived to have unusually subtle

senses which conceive subtle forms, in addition to the usual gross

senses which conceive gross objects.

 

But, by thus complicating our usual bodily perspective, what's

achieved is still mechanical. It is more complicatedly mechanical,

but it is not truly organic. It does not rightly consider the

question of how a purely subjective consciousness is found expressed

organically, in the differing and changing appearances of an

objective world.

 

To ask this organic question, the concept of a structured world is

insufficient, no matter how far the concept may be complicated by the

addition of subtle bodily activity. To ask how consciousness is found

expressed, no bodily perspective can be sufficient. We have to turn

away from the body's perspective of a structured space where

different objects co-exist. Thus leaving structured space behind, we

have to consider the perspective of our minds, through which

subjective consciousness is found expressed in the objective world.

 

Within each mind, there are no co-existing objects that can make up

any composite structure. From the mind's perspective, there is only

passing process. Mind's passing states do not form structures. They

only replace each other, in the course of time alone. This mental

perspective is governed by time and process alone, where the gross or

subtle body's perspective is governed by space-time structure. And in

that space-time structure, time is considered only as an additional

co-ordinate of space, so that space-time is found reduced to space

alone.

 

If we thus consider the differing perspectives of body and mind, this

difference of perspective is not one of degree. It is quite

emphatically a difference of kind.

 

As you point out, we do sometimes speak of mind as a subtler form of

body; and in this way of speaking, the difference between the two is

one of degree. But in this way of speaking, we inherently assume the

body's perspective of a structured world. This bodily perspective has

to be thrown into question, in order to attain the more subtle

perspective of passing process in our minds. And from that mental

perspective, body and mind are quite different in kind.

 

Being different in kind, these two perspectives need to be considered

separately. Where one is taken up, the other has to be left behind.

When we look through one perspective, the other must necessarily

disappear. We do of course quite often pretend that we are looking

through both perspectives at the same time, that we have achieved

their combination in some grandly composite picture of body-mind

totality. But this is just a confused mixing up of two contradictory

things. Such a confusion is precisely what Shri Shankara

called 'mithya'.

 

Instead of trying to put body and mind together, it is more accurate

to distinguish them as different levels of appearance. Bodily

appearances are of necessity more superficial, because their

differentiated structures must depend on mind in order to appear and

to be interpreted as showing us a structured world. Mental

appearances are deeper, because it's through their changing process

that bodily structures appear and are interpreted.

 

But mental appearances in turn depend on unchanging consciousness,

which knows them each from underneath. Advaita enquiry can only

reflect back there, into the knowing ground beneath all levels of

appearance. Such an enquiry is essentially one way. It must reflect

from surface appearances, back into an undifferentiated and

unchanging depth of reality.

 

From that reality, there is no proper recovery of any changing

descriptions of mental process, nor of any differentiated pictures of

a structured world. For an Advaita enquiry, all pictures and

descriptions serve only to reflect beneath them, to a reality from

which there is no true recovery of any mental or bodily appearance.

 

Strictly speaking, Advaita cannot rightly be used to provide any

pictures or descriptions or explanations of any bodily or mental

appearances. Such pictures or descriptions or explanations can only

be built up from assumed beliefs, to which Advaita enquiry must

skeptically reflect and thus destroy entirely.

 

Building pictures is the work of many arts and sciences, whose

foundations are inevitably dubious. Such arts and sciences can of

course be useful to Advaita in a preliminary way, by uncovering

deeper levels of appearance, beneath the surface of our built-up

pictures.

 

But Advaita enquiry must ultimately reflect beneath all assumed

foundations of belief, to a reality from which no picturing at all

can rightly be recovered. Where any pictures or descriptions or

explanations are sought, Advaita must be left behind, in favour of

some other art or science.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

--- vaibhav khire <vskhire wrote:

 

>

> Thus, this provides a consistent model to how a

> karma is stored in the subtle body.

 

Shree Vaibhavji - PraNAms

 

The discription you gave based on your understanding

of Swami Krishnanandaji is good. Since you are happy

with it, there is nothing more to it.

 

>

> From what my understanding is, this is the model of

> storage of karma, which I can comprehend. The stored

> vAsanAs after the death of the gross body are

> transferred to a new body (the model/procedure of

> which I am unable to understand).

 

I would say, the new body is formed by the vaasanaas

only - in other words a suitable yoni is selected to

get a particular body that is convenient to exhaust

the set of vaasanaas (praradba) that are ready to

fractify. It is not that vaasanaas are trasferred to

new body, new body is formed or dictated by the

vaasanaas - hence the vaasaanas are called kaarana

shariira or causal body. Vasaanaas remains as the part

of the total body or bodies (sthuula, sukshma and

kaaraNa)- Shankara defines moksha as ashariira having

no body since body is a product of karma.

 

>

> This is my current understanding. While I agree we

> each can come up with our own understanding, I would

> find it hard to believe that scriptures do not

> address this issue at all.

 

I am sure swami Krishnanandaji statements are based on

scriptures only. Take them as vedic truths and with

that faith go further.

 

> (If one thinks about it, Sri Shankara was quizzed

> even about sex in the course of his debates, so its

> highly unlikely that the issue of transmigration and

> karma is not discussed in complete detail by him.)

 

The above one is considered as imaginary story. A

jnaani is sarvajnaa in the sense that he knows the

essence of all not necessarily the details. Shankara

many not know how to make vegitable cutlet or pav

bhaji or quantum mechanics for that matter ( I donot

know either). Does that mean he has to take a

parakaaya pravesha to learn this or that or does he

care even if he flunks on that test.

 

Every jnaani is sarvajna in the sense they know THAT

(tat) knowing which everything is 'AS GOOD AS' known.

That is tatvam (truth) of everything is known.

 

That is my understanding.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Shri Shri Shastri ji,

Pranams. Your view on Karma and Gods is taken to support my claim

against Sampath ji's argument. Actually Sampath argues that Swarga

being the Boga lokaH, it is only Sukha that is experienced there and

there is no scope for the Papa there. To this we shall take into

account the Gangesa's theory on Apurva vadah which he extends from

Sloka Vartika to consider Sukha as the Pratiyogi (counter positive)

of Dukkha abhava that exists with the Boga at Swarga Lokah. Further

the dukkha abAva in Swarga lokaH is not the antyantAbAva (complete

non-existence, but it is the anyonyAbAva. The `existence' of Dukkha

anyonyAbAva invariably associated even with the SukhAbAva which may

be regarded as the asAdAranam Karanam for dukkha in Swarga LokaH (

special significant cause). Further Advaitin do not accept any

aprAkrta sarIra in swarga lokAh (even in Hiranyagarba lokaH) to

admit a special status for Devatas as exceptions in reaping Papa.

All devatas are subjected to only prAkrta SarIra and hence the papa

ksaya along with Punya ksaya happens at a same rate. So to say, only

reaping Papa does the very exhaustion of Punya to the Devata which

can be postulated by the ArthApatthi pramAna if I am right. Even in

Sabda khanda of Tattva cintAmani, the SwargakAma is taken as

atmanepada (by sanksrit grammar) where the term accomplishment is

regarded with the potential to `produce' result of the papa and

Punya. It is the Apurva that is the locus of intermediatory link

that serves as the cause for transaction (punya and papa at the same

time) and hence called vyApAravat kAranam karanam.

With Narayana Smrthi,

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Devanathan,

What I said was that only puNya is enjoyed in svrga as a deva and he comes

back to the earth to experience whatever puNya and pApa is left. If pApa is

also experienced in svarga there will be nothing left for taking a new body

on the earth. But Mundaka up. says 'hInataram vA viSanti " . He may even be

born as an animal etc when he comes back if what is left contains a large

proportion of pApa. What you have quoted are from Nyaya and purva mimamsa

and not advaita. In the bhAshya on Mund. 1.2.10 Sankara interprets sukRte

nAkasya

pRshThe as 'on the heights of heaven, in the abode of enjoyment'. Thus

heaven is only for enjoymentof puNya. It is nowhere stated that the result

of pApa is also experienced in svarga.

The definition of svarga also is--yanna duHkhena sambhinnam na ca grastam

anantaram-- which means there is not an iota of sorrow and enjoyment of joy

is not followed by sorrow as in this world. So svarga is a place of unmixed

happiness.

S.N.Sastri

 

 

On 11/26/07, antharyami_in <sathvatha wrote:

>

> Hari Om,

> Shri Shri Shastri ji,

> Pranams. Your view on Karma and Gods is taken to support my claim

> against Sampath ji's argument. Actually Sampath argues that Swarga

> being the Boga lokaH, it is only Sukha that is experienced there and

> there is no scope for the Papa there. To this we shall take into

> account the Gangesa's theory on Apurva vadah which he extends from

> Sloka Vartika to consider Sukha as the Pratiyogi (counter positive)

> of Dukkha abhava that exists with the Boga at Swarga Lokah. Further

> the dukkha abAva in Swarga lokaH is not the antyantAbAva (complete

> non-existence, but it is the anyonyAbAva. The `existence' of Dukkha

> anyonyAbAva invariably associated even with the SukhAbAva which may

> be regarded as the asAdAranam Karanam for dukkha in Swarga LokaH (

> special significant cause). Further Advaitin do not accept any

> aprAkrta sarIra in swarga lokAh (even in Hiranyagarba lokaH) to

> admit a special status for Devatas as exceptions in reaping Papa.

> All devatas are subjected to only prAkrta SarIra and hence the papa

> ksaya along with Punya ksaya happens at a same rate. So to say, only

> reaping Papa does the very exhaustion of Punya to the Devata which

> can be postulated by the ArthApatthi pramAna if I am right. Even in

> Sabda khanda of Tattva cintAmani, the SwargakAma is taken as

> atmanepada (by sanksrit grammar) where the term accomplishment is

> regarded with the potential to `produce' result of the papa and

> Punya. It is the Apurva that is the locus of intermediatory link

> that serves as the cause for transaction (punya and papa at the same

> time) and hence called vyApAravat kAranam karanam.

> With Narayana Smrthi,

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Devanathan,

> What I said was that only puNya is enjoyed in svrga as a deva and

he comes

> back to the earth to experience whatever puNya and pApa is left.

 

> > Shri Shri Shastri ji,

> > Pranams. Your view on Karma and Gods is taken to support my claim

> > against Sampath ji's argument. Actually Sampath argues that Swarga

> > being the Boga lokaH, it is only Sukha that is experienced there

and

> > there is no scope for the Papa there. To this we shall take into

> > account the Gangesa's theory on Apurva vadah which he extends from

> > Sloka Vartika to consider Sukha as the Pratiyogi (counter

positive)

> > of Dukkha abhava that exists with the Boga at Swarga Lokah.

 

Namaste,

 

Gita, 9:20-21, seem to imply that those who enjoy

the heavenly worlds are already cleansed of their sins (and thus

deserving of heaven), and on exhaustion of their merits they return

to the mortal world. Hence, only the agami (kriyamana) karma would be

the cause for creating or exhausting papa karma in the mortal world.

 

traividyaa maa.n somapaaH puutapaapaa

yaGYairiShTvaa svargatiM praarthayante .

te puNyamaasaadya surendraloka\-

mashnanti divyaandivi devabhogaan.h .. 9\-20..

 

20. Those who are versed in the Vedas, who are drinkers of Soma and

are purified of sin, pray for the heavenly goal by worshipping Me

through sacrifices. Having reached the place (world) of the king of

gods, which is the result of righteousness, they enjoy in heaven the

divine pleasure of gods.

 

Those, again, who are ignorant and desirous of pleasures, trai-

vidyah, who are versed in the three Vedas, who know the Rk, Yajus and

Sama Vedas; somapah, who are drinkers of Soma; and who, as a result

of that very drinking of Soma, are puta-papah, purified of sin;

prarthayante,pray for; the svargatim, heavenly goal, the attainment

of heaven-heaven itself being the goal [Ast. adds this portion-

svareva gatih, heaven itself being the goal.-Tr.]-; istva, by

worshipping; mam, Me, existing in the forms of gods such as the Vasus

and others; yajnaih, through sacrifices such as the Agnistoma etc.

And asadya, having reached; surendra-lokam, the place (world) of the

kind of gods, of Indra; (which is) punyam, the result of

righteousness; te, they; asnanti, enjoy; divi, in heaven; the devyan,

divine, heavenly, supernatural;; deva-bhogan, pleasures of gods.

 

 

te taM bhuktvaa svargalokaM vishaalaM

kShiiNe puNye martyalokaM vishanti .

evaM trayiidharmamanuprapannaa

gataagataM kaamakaamaa labhante .. 9\-21..

 

21. After having enjoyed that vast heavenly world, they enter into

the human world on the exhaustion of their merit. Thus, those who

follow the rites and duties prescribed in the three Vedas, and are

desirous of pleasures, attain the state of going and returning.

 

Bhuktva, after having enjoyed; tam, that: visalam, vast; svargalokam,

heavenly world; te, they; visanti, enter into; this martyalokam,

human world; ksine, on the exhaustion; of their punye, merit. Evam,

thus, indeed; anuprapannah, those who follow in the manner described;

trai-dharmyam, [A variant reading is trayi-dharmam.-Tr.] the rites

and duties prescribed in the three Vedas-merely the Vedic rites and

duties; and are kama-kamah, desirous of pleasures; labhante, attain;

only gata-agatam, the state of going and returning, but never that of

independence. This is the meaning.

 

(Shankara Bhashya - tr. Sw. Gambhirananda)

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

 

namaskAraH SrI Sastri ji,

mahASaya,

 

SrI devanathan ji has written:--

Actually Sampath argues that Swarga

> > being the Boga lokaH, it is only Sukha that is experienced there and

> > there is no scope for the Papa there.

 

MY REPLY:-- This is a grotesque misunderstanding as well as

mis-interpretation of my words. If you kindly refer to my earlier

posts, I wrote as below while answering SrI Vaibhav ji:

 

In Message #38132:--

 

" dEvAs are not bound by the law of karma in the sense that **for

whatever karma they do, they are not bound by its results.** Their

existence in that particular body is only for the purpose of enjoyment

and when the karma which was responsible for their dEva form gets

exhausted, they take birth on earth again with a remnant of either

good or evil karma according to which they get their births on earth. "

 

## Now I request Devanathan ji and other respected members to look at

my statement where I have said: **for whatever karma they do, they are

not bound by its results.**

 

*WHATEVER karma* denotes that dEvAs do both puNya and pApa but it is

called either puNya or pApa only when judged from the perspective of

the One who either suffers or benefits from their actions. dEvAs do

not accrue any karma for such actions. I know this much. If there are

any mistakes I request the learned members to correct them with

*proper* references from Scriptures.

 

## And I have never said that pApa karma of earthly birth is

experienced in svarga. That is absurd to say that one experiences the

results of his pApa in svarga. There are 7 hells for the purpose of

experiencing pApa karma phala. :-))

And I don't think Devanathan ji has forgot so early the discussion we

had on kramA mukti in Orkut recently wherein he had a view that

everyone goes first to chandralOka to get their qualification tested

there and then they descend either to yama lOka or remain on

chandralOka. I have shown proper references from SrI Sankara brahma

sUtra bhAshya where AchArya refutes such a view and establishes that

only the qualified ones go to chandralOka and not others. Those who

are not qualified go *directly* to yama lOka.

" Just as a man climbs on a tree for the purpose of breaking fruit or

blossoms, not either without any aim or for the mere purpose of coming

down again " , says SrI Sankara.

 

So Devanathan ji has to remember that I would never say that even pApa

in experienced in svarga. Only puNya is experienced there.

 

Whatever references Devanathan ji has been presenting here, they all

*only* show that dEvatAs are kartAs. But they no where establish that

they accrue new karmas in other lOkAs.

 

As far as my knowledge goes, there is no where any mention in

scriptures saying that the jIva experiences either in this world or

another, the fruits of his " karma done in other lOkas " .

 

Hara Hara Vyom Vyom !!

 

Yours,

SAMPATH.

 

P.S:-- I request SrI Sastri ji for his kind clarification(after

reading my present post) on

the following statement made by SrI Devanathan ji:

" Shri Shri Shastri ji,

> Pranams. Your view on Karma and Gods is taken to support my claim

> against Sampath ji's argument. "

 

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

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

> Dear Shri Devanathan,

> What I said was that only puNya is enjoyed in svrga as a deva and he

comes

> back to the earth to experience whatever puNya and pApa is left. If

pApa is

> also experienced in svarga there will be nothing left for taking a

new body

> on the earth. But Mundaka up. says 'hInataram vA viSanti " . He may

even be

> born as an animal etc when he comes back if what is left contains a

large

> proportion of pApa. What you have quoted are from Nyaya and purva

mimamsa

> and not advaita. In the bhAshya on Mund. 1.2.10 Sankara interprets

sukRte

> nAkasya

> pRshThe as 'on the heights of heaven, in the abode of enjoyment'. Thus

> heaven is only for enjoymentof puNya. It is nowhere stated that the

result

> of pApa is also experienced in svarga.

> The definition of svarga also is--yanna duHkhena sambhinnam na ca

grastam

> anantaram-- which means there is not an iota of sorrow and enjoyment

of joy

> is not followed by sorrow as in this world. So svarga is a place of

unmixed

> happiness.

> S.N.Sastri

>

>

> On 11/26/07, antharyami_in <sathvatha wrote:

> >

> > Hari Om,

> > Shri Shri Shastri ji,

> > Pranams. Your view on Karma and Gods is taken to support my claim

> > against Sampath ji's argument. Actually Sampath argues that Swarga

> > being the Boga lokaH, it is only Sukha that is experienced there and

> > there is no scope for the Papa there. To this we shall take into

> > account the Gangesa's theory on Apurva vadah which he extends from

> > Sloka Vartika to consider Sukha as the Pratiyogi (counter positive)

> > of Dukkha abhava that exists with the Boga at Swarga Lokah. Further

> > the dukkha abAva in Swarga lokaH is not the antyantAbAva (complete

> > non-existence, but it is the anyonyAbAva. The `existence' of Dukkha

> > anyonyAbAva invariably associated even with the SukhAbAva which may

> > be regarded as the asAdAranam Karanam for dukkha in Swarga LokaH (

> > special significant cause). Further Advaitin do not accept any

> > aprAkrta sarIra in swarga lokAh (even in Hiranyagarba lokaH) to

> > admit a special status for Devatas as exceptions in reaping Papa.

> > All devatas are subjected to only prAkrta SarIra and hence the papa

> > ksaya along with Punya ksaya happens at a same rate. So to say, only

> > reaping Papa does the very exhaustion of Punya to the Devata which

> > can be postulated by the ArthApatthi pramAna if I am right. Even in

> > Sabda khanda of Tattva cintAmani, the SwargakAma is taken as

> > atmanepada (by sanksrit grammar) where the term accomplishment is

> > regarded with the potential to `produce' result of the papa and

> > Punya. It is the Apurva that is the locus of intermediatory link

> > that serves as the cause for transaction (punya and papa at the same

> > time) and hence called vyApAravat kAranam karanam.

> > With Narayana Smrthi,

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hari Om

Shri Shri Sastri ji,

Pranams. I dont find any reason for rejecting my argument there just

because it is based on Mimamsa- Nyaya that proves Punya-Papa ksaya

simultaneously in Swarga lokaH. There is no hard and fast rule to

deny morphing Mimamsa-nyAyas to Vedanta; for the former is not alien

to latter. In fact DharmarajAdhvarIndra proves the the expectency of

padajanya padArta upastiti with Akansa by the BalAbalAdikarana

(Jai.Su. III.iii.14) Mimamsa nyAya of Jaiminiya Sutra with reference

to SAbara bashya, where the locus of relative strength of expectency

is assesed with a case study of Vaisvadeva yaga that desiderates

deterministic apprehension of 'Amiksa - expectancy of whey

pertaining to the vakya 'VAjibyo vAjinam'.

 

The main point that I wanted to emphasize is that the exhaustion of

Punya in Swarga lokaH is only due to the fructification of Papa.

More, Devatas are subjected to samsaya-niscayAtmaka mano vrttis that

accrues the Karma Vasanas even in Swarga lokaH. The mano

dharmas 'kAma samkalpa sandehau shraddha shradde drtItare; hrIr dhIr

bhIr' for antahkarana in a prAkrta SarIra is applied even to Devatas

that indicates the punya-pApa ksaya at swarga lokaH. Statements such

as " yanna duHkhena sambhinnam na ca grastam anantaram " are

arthavAdas; for Rg.Veda IX.113. refers Moksa by the Svarga Sabda and

we have references like 'Svarge Sokam atItya gachati'where it must

be understtod that while Sukha boga in Swarga, the joy is so high

that it 'seems' as though there is no 'iota' of Dukkha, but actually

the very Sukha Boga is due to Punya-Ksaya which is directly

proportional to the magnitude of experiencing Papa.