Jahnava Nitai Das

Dear Sri ..., I was very happy to read your views on Hinduism and science. It is true that the great Rishis of ancient times were far more advanced then what is commonly known. The difference between their advancement and ours is that their aim was the self, or the atman, and as such they focused their spiritual technology towards that aim. The present society's aim is the body, not the self, and as a result all of our efforts are focused towards satisfying the body's demands of sense enjoyment. Our modern society has become very expert at this, just as the ancient Rishis were expert at satisfying the soul. The fault in modern society's aim is that they are working to satisfy the temporary body, which will one day die, and as such their accomplishments have no permanent value. We need to balance our scientific endeavours towards both matter and spirit; then only can our society attain its full perfection. The ancient Rishis understood this by virtue of their inner vision. It was because of this divine vision that their aim was to move away from the temporary to the permanent, from suffering to happiness, and from death to immortality. Yours in service, Jahnava Nitai Das, Bhaktivedanta Ashram [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 08-29-2001).]

"Which oil is good for Trataka meditation. Cow's ghee, til ka tel (sesame seed oil) , or anything else?. I am a software professional, and my eyes are getting weaker. Please suggest what I should do. Thankyou." If one is performing trataka meditation on a lamp, then til ka tel (sesame seed oil) is better than ghee. Actually castor oil is the best for trataka and it is what was used in older times. Castor oil is much better because it creates a very bright flame. The true trataka is meant to be performed not on a lamp, but on the sun at particular times of the day. At the time of the sunrise and at the time of sunset one is supposed to perform the meditation on the sun. At that particular time the sun's rays are shielded enough that there will not be damage to one's eyes. When one is not able to perform trataka on the sun (due to clouds or timing) then one is recommended to perform trataka on a lamp. The effect of trataka with a lamp is not as powerful as the effects received by meditating on the sun. But I would recommend you stick with a lamp, as if you do not perform the sun meditation properly you may damage your eyes. Trataka meditation is an ancient method for improving one's eye sight. The ten senses (karmendriyas and jnanendriyas) function according to the pancha-bhutas, five basic elements. The eye in particular functions by the element fire. It is by fire (light) that we can see, and it is this element that allows the eye to function. Fire produces two energies, namely light and heat. It is by light that form is manifested, and by heat that shape is manifested. Shape and form together create the appearance of an object. This is the adhibhautika level of control over sight. Beyond the elemental level of control there is the adhidaivika controller, who for the sense of sight is the sun god, Surya. It is by the control of the sun that the element fire is able to produce its energies. The third level of visual control comes from the self, or the adhyatmika purusha. It is the individual soul with his active consciousness that functions through the instrument of the eye. Loss of eye sight can be traced to one of these three levels. In most cases it is due to a disturbance in the adhibhautika level that one's eye sight weakens. Thus when one performs trataka meditation he restores this level of existence to its proper state of functioning by absorbing the elemental energies necessary for that organ to function. As mentioned above, the eye is powered by the fire element. By meditating on the flame of a candle, one's eyes absorb the heat and light from the candle flame (through sight), and the shape and form of the eye instrument is restored to its natural state. It is best if one starts practicing this meditation for 15 minutes a day, and gradually increases it. One should alternate between staring at the external flame, and concentrating on an internal flame in one's mind's eye. Stare at the flame of the candle without blinking until water begins to come from one's eye, then close your eyes and try to visualize the same flame within for an equal length of time. Continue alternating in this manner. Yours in service, Jahnava Nitai Das, Bhaktivedanta Ashram [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 08-29-2001).]

A letter from Dubai:

I disagree, for the eternal present, to which simultaneous can belong, has no connection with the limiting threefold time of the material world. No acharya has denied the existence of Brahman; simultaneous existence of various auspicious qualities is the description of Brahman given by many. The use of the word 'time' is not necessarily in reference to past and future, or the three limiting features. Eternal existence also functions in the present tense.

I don't know if your argument is serious or not. Simultaneous is on the plane of existence (sat), the eternal present. It has nothing to do with the three phases of time which exist in the material world. By your logic, nothing could 'simultaneously' exist in the Lord since according to you 'simultaneous' indicates material time. Maybe read your statement again and decide if you're serious about it. Your logic would extend to every aspect of the absolute. God could not be simultaneously black and white, God could not be simultaneously oppulent and loving, God could not be simultaneously eternal and full of bliss. In other words, you are proposing nirvishesha, absolute nonduality. That is not the teaching of Vallabha. Please send an email to your Vallabha website friend and confirm with him. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-25-2001).]

Dear Sri ..., Thank you very much for writing. I am happy you find our writing in the forums useful. There are a lot of distortions being propagated in the name of Hinduism, and I am trying as much as possible to clear up some of the very bad misconceptions being created. Acharyas always come to their conclusions through divine insight. Actually they do not "come to their conclusions", for a liberated soul knows everything knowable. They are known as sarva-jna, or omniscient, because the Lord empowers the liberated soul with complete knowledge. In presenting their commentaries on the Brahma-sutras, the acharyas write in a manner that will be understandable to non-liberated souls like us. Thus they present their conclusions after first raising the opponent's argument against their own conclusions. This is known as 'purvapaksha'. After presenting the opponents argument and the doubts that it naturally generates in ones mind, they then go on to defeat the improper conclusion and remove doubts by establishing the 'siddhanta', or perfect conclusion. The purpose of this writing style is to remove the doubts of the conditioned souls who are trying to understand transcendental subject matters through logic and argument, as opposed to the direct experience of the liberated souls. The majority of the Vedic texts (samhitas) are lost to us at present. Hardly 5% of them still exist in written form, of which much is filled with interpolation and other such distortions. With this in mind, the shastras themselves recommend one take shelter of the Srimad Bhagavatam in the age of Kali, for it has been given for the particular purpose of providing us light in this dark age. The Srimad Bhagavatam is the very form (rupa) of Bhagavan Sri Krishna. It is not just a book, but His own divine incarnation. It has arisen in this age of Kali just like the Sun, and wise men will receive light and knowledge from it in this age of darkness. The only way to develop proper spiritual knowledge is through sadhu-sanga and sadhu-seva (association with and service to spiritualists). Try to associate with saintly people and devotees as much as possible. Serve them humbly and listen to them submissively. This is the key to developing spiritual knowledge. When you engage in such a process of bhakti, the knowledge from the books that you study will blossom within your mind, and the true import of the scripture's intricate codes will be revealed to you by dint of your service and humility. Yours in service, Jahnava Nitai Das, Bhaktivedanta Ashram [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 08-29-2001).]

A letter from Singapore: [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-25-2001).]

"One who is born from sacrifice."

By the way, your sudden changes in methods of spelling words is a clear give away of your copying from other sources. Switching between hindi-ized words, sanskrit, northern pronunciation, southern pronunciation, etc., are dead give aways. You used to do this when you were criticizing other schools of philosophy, now you are doing the same with Vallabha's teachings.

I said: And you replied: Again you are really in a confused state. I am speaking about vaidika siddhantas and you are babling something about pancharatras. And as far as following pancharatras, they are followed by Madhva and Ramanuja as well; so you are wrong there, even though it had nothing to do with what I was speaking about. The theory of isvara and shakti is present in all Agamas (in a technical senses, not refering to pancharatras which are sometimes called as agamas). Even in the darshanas the theory of isvara and shakti are accepted to varying degrees. Anyway, I don't have time to discuss these topics with you. I would suggest you find a guru who will teach you these subjects, or at least take up a serious study of these topics in a systematic manner. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-25-2001).]

You impy that the Devas and nitya-parshadas (eternal associates) of the Lord are different; but we find many cases where the devas are themselves nitya-parshadas. Thus your conclusion that devas speak material instructions and nitya-parshadas speak spiritual instructions is incorrect. Also one can find many instances of nitya-parshadas speaking material instructions to those who are interested in such conclusions. What to speak of the parshadas, the Lord Himself speaks all varieties of instructions to benefit all varieties of living entities. The devas are a category of life form. It has nothing at all to do with the level of spiritual understanding or advancement. Thus your conclusion is similar to saying something like "Germans always speak about pure devotion whereas Chinese always speak about material life." It is an absurd statement. In general the devas are pious living entities engaged someway or another in the service of the Lord, and thus there is a higher percentage of devotees among them then among the other human species. Based on the above point, this statement of yours is equally invalid. 'Deva' and 'parshada' are two completely unrelated categories. One refers to a species of birth, whereas the other refers to an eternal level of consciousness. So you accept that the jivas are not surrendered to the Lord at the present. Thus the argument that we are also devotees serving the Lord through His creation lila is false. You are arguing against an imaginary person. It is accepted that the material creation is the Lord's lila. What is disagreed upon is why some jivas are in this lila where they suffer, and others are in the Vaikuntha lila where they enjoy. So after all your talk about how the jiva is not the cause of his bondage because it is all Hari's own will, you finally come to the point of saying the jiva is the cause of his own bondage? Sankhya, Vaiseshika, Yoga, etc., of the shad-darshanas are not religions, they are systems of vedic philosophy (darshanas). You don't have a fundamental understanding of the divisions of religion and philosophy in Vedic thought, and you use technical words like shakta, vaiseshika, etc., in distorted manners. Shakta is a religion enunciated in the agamas. It is one of the five divisions of Vedic worship, the others being Shaiva, Saurya, Ganapatya, and Vaishnava. Gaudiya philosophy is neither based on the shaktagama, nor supports the conclusions of the shaktagama. You seem to want to justify your rejecting Gaudiya teachings by somehow finding fault with them. In the end, after so much talking, you finally say the same conclusion, that the jiva is the cause of his bondage. What's the point of going around in circles? Practically every vaidika siddhanta explains the function of God in terms of himself and his shakti. Your thinking that such a conclusion indicates that it is a shakta school is foolish. You have read too little of too many books, and the result is you do not have proper definitions for what you speak. In such a situation you like to speak on all sorts of topics, which just mislead readers who are not familiar with these topics. Then after a couple weeks you change your opinion like the grasshopper jumping from one patch of grass to another; but by then you have already confused many people. Your interest is not to help others in their spiritual life, it is simply to philosophize about reality. Thus you don't seem to feel bad about the manner in which you misrepresent conclusions. A couple months ago you were fighting and criticizing some other schools of philosophy, then like the grasshopper you hopped to another view. What about all the people you had mislead at that time? After a couple months you will again hop to someother view, and you won't think twice about what you speak in the present. It is true that some people preach due to their own insecurity in their faith. This is not how it should be. We should speak for the eternal benefit of all, and not just to smash our own doubts. As a general rule, one should not follow fly by night philosophers, for they may have changed their view by the time you wake up in the morning.

"The Name should be chanted keeping a careful count and one should try to increase this to one lakh of holy Names daily. In not being able to do so means one is simply 'fallen'. One should try to rise up from that state by chanting seriously." - Sri Bhakti Pramode Puri Maharaj

That was not the point of my mentioning the story. Perhaps the failure to create a new paragraph is what led you to believe so. The purpose of the story is self evident in the story itself. Those who wish to see value in it will. Those who wish to find mistakes can find many.

The 'Letters to the Editor' forum is read only, but you can continue any discussion you want in the spiritual discussions forum.

There is a particular category of devas known as the 'adityas', of which there are twelve. One of these adityas becomes the sun god for a particular period of time, and then another one will take the post after him. It is just like the position of Yama. At a particular time one person will be acting as Yamaraja, and then another person will take over that function. They are all jivas; they are not vishnu-tattva; they are not Lord Narayana, but when an aditya becomes the sun god he is empowered by Lord Narayana. This is why he is known as Surya Narayana. It is similar to the case of Vyasa Muni, who is an empowered jiva. The difference between the Vyasa category of empowerment and the Surya category of empowerment is that Vyasa does not perform administration, whereas the sun god is the administrator of the universe. By the diffusion of Surya's energies of heat and light he manages the entire universe. Everything that functions and moves within the universe is empowered by his heat and light. Surya is a very unique living entity in that the paramatma (Supersoul) present in his heart is a different form of the Lord than the general paramatma present in the hearts of all living entities. His paramatma is described as a two-handed effulgent personality possessing a golden mustache. Surya is also the original teacher of the Vedas. Thus he has two functions, one in administration and one in education. He is already situated beyond liberation, and that's why he does not have a four-handed paramatma within his heart. The four-handed paramatma leaves the living entity when the jiva is situated constitutionally. That is the point of liberation: muktir hitvanyatha rupam sva-rupena vyavasthitih. Every object in creation has light in it due to the presence of the fire element of the pancha-bhutas. If there is fire there is also light. Thus every object emits light to some degree. An object that does not emit light cannot be seen. The moon and other heavenly bodies also emit light by borrowing from the sun. All the planets and stars are effulgent, but they aren't as effulgent as the sun, and their rays of light are not administrative rays, they are only influencing rays. The vedic conception does not accept many suns within one universe. There are innumerable universes, each universe possessing fourteen planetary systems which are illuminated by one sun. There are other fiery heavenly bodies, just as the sun is primarily a firey planet. Some move in circular orbits and others move back and forth like the Dhumaketu. Though there are many fiery planets, their fire does not function as the stimulator of every other object within the universe. It is something like the traffic department's police vehicle and the vehicles of other's driving in the street. The police drive on the roads to make sure that the traffic is alright, the roads are safe, etc. The other cars are only traveling for their own function; they are not doing anything for the road. Like this, the sun's functioning is administrating the universe. The sun's fire provides the energy for every object to move and expand. In addition to this the sun's control goes all the way down to the working of the elements, their movements and interaction. This is why there is a conception of the sun being the controller of everything, God. Other firey planets have fire and are hot, but they are not controlling the elements nor administrating the universal diffusion of energy for action. Thus they are not considered as 'suns'. The Bhagavatam states: yan-madhya-gato bhagavams tapatam patis tapana atapena tri-lokim pratapaty avabhashayaty atma-bhasha "In the midst of that region of outer space is the most opulent sun, the king of all the heavenly bodies that emanate heat. By the influence of its radiation, the sun heats the universe, maintains its proper order and gives light to help all living entities see." The words tapatam patih indicate that the sun is the supreme among those heavenly bodies that produce heat. Thus it is accepted in the Vedic texts that there are other firey planets, but they cannot compare to the Sun for the above mentioned reasons. The Aditya Hridayam is a prayer to the sun god for getting victory in the war. It is also chanted for getting rid of sickness and becoming free from loans. The Surya Purana is a late compilation taking verses from other more ancient puranas. Any text that speaks about the sun in the Puranas has been taken and joined to make this Surya Purana. In India this text is usually prominent where ever there is a sun temple. For example there is a Suryanar Koil in Tamil Nadu, and in Orissa there is the Konarak temple. In such places the Surya Purana is prominent. The most authorized texts concerning the sun are the Tejo-bindu Upanishad and the Surya Upanishad. Krishna states, "nakshatranam aham sashi". A common translation for nakshatra is "star", which is fine in a general sense. But we should not take the technical scientific definition of "star" and think that nakshatra refers to it. In the Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary, "star" is defined as: "Any of the small points of light, including planets and meteors, that are seen in the sky at night." This is the meaning that we should keep in mind when Lord Krishna says, "Among stars I am the moon." In the night sky, nothing is brighter and more effulgent than the moon. Thus that aspect of supremacy represents Lord Krishna. The light of the moon does have impact on vegetation, but this is not a science that has been researched sufficiently by western scientists. In Ayurveda certain plants must be grown and picked by moon light for them to be effective in curing disease. This can be tested scientifically. The modern Ayurvedic producers do not follow this method, and as a result their medicines are hardly 100th as effective as the medicines produced by the traditional method. The tradditional method also requires certain bija-mantras to be chanted into the medicine for several lakhs of counts, and finally there must be worship of Dhanvantari (the incarnation of Vishnu who established Ayurveda). All of these procedures create a subtle effect on the medicine which can be visibly see by the effect and even by taste. It is unfortunate that hardly any Ayurvedic doctors follow these scriptural rules when producing medicine, and as a result the Ayurvedic science is almost lost. Yours in service, Jahnava Nitai Das, Bhaktivedanta Ashram [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 08-29-2001).]

I said: And you replied: You seem to be slipping off the topic. No one is arguing that the Lord does not favour his devotees. You have already stated that everyone was a devotee of the Lord, including those that the Lord put into the suffering of samsara. Thus your quote is completely non-relevant. A reminder of what you said: Already it has been pointed out that some of us missed the passing out of eternal satisfaction, which Hari was giving to all the conditioned living entities. Also it has been pointed out that Krishna says this world is a place of suffering (duhkhalayam), not a place of eternal satisfaction. Now it is being pointed out that you claim all the jivas suffering are devotees of the Lord. Again my point was, "What determines that we are put into the suffering lila, and another living entity is put into the blissul Vaikuntha lila." Your answer is we can't understand God. My response is such a God is apparently being partial to some devotees by giving them ananda and giving others duhkha (suffering) without any choice of their own. I for one would rather be in the ananda lila; maybe you are happy in the present lila of suffering birth and death. I can accept that I am here because of my own fault; you prefer to pass the blame to a God who just flips a coin; some go here, some go there. The creation is the lila of the Lord, but who takes part in this lila is left to the living entity to choose.

I noticed in the last two days there have been many,many different people sending me an email with an attached file. The email always reads the exact same, something like: "Hi, I am sending this for you to check." Or something like that. I notice the emails are all people who have written to me sometime or another. And I have received these types of virus in several accounts. The attachement file name is always different, usually a .pif file or something. I am just posting this here in case any of you are also getting these emails. It only started two days back, so I assume it is a new virus, and quite active and fast at propagating (judging from the various people who have sent it to me).

Rama should be 'Raama' with a short 'a' at the end. But in singing there are also certain rules by which one may adjust sounds for particular moods and for particular timing. I am not suggesting that everyone who sings 'raamaa' is following this, but that there are circumstances when it may be done. But in speaking, it should be 'raama' and 'krishna', for 'krishnaa' is a name of draupadi and several other female personalities. Of course this is external, and the faith in one's heart is primary over the pronunciation. There is a story in the Puranas of a man who was passing stool in a field when a boar started chasing him with his sharp tusks. The man came to a cliff and had no where to go, so he jumped off and yelled 'haraam' which is a bad word in some non-sanskrit languages. The man fell to his death. But there was a rishi meditating in a cave of that cliff, who by his mystic vision saw the man attain a four armed form and go to Vaikuntha. He was very angry and met with Brahma to complain. He said, "I have been doing tapas and meditation for thousands of years, and I am still in this cave, but this unholy man has yelled some obscentity while falling to his death and he has attained Vaikuntha! This is injustice." At that time Narada arrived and explained how the syllable 'raam' was spiritual sound, and it is heard by Sri Ramachandra, whereas the syllable 'ha' was material sound vibration, and was ignored by the Lord. Thus to the Lord's ears he only heard the man calling 'raam' at the time of death. Ramachandra had taken a vow that whoever calls His name at the time of death, He will come and deliver that person from the material existence. Thus to uphold his vow he came to deliver this man who had unknowingly called his name in an indirect manner. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-23-2001).]

I think Hari may have missed a few people with that "always satisfying stuff". The creation is certainly a lila of the Lord for reclaiming the fallen conditioned souls from avidya. But why one living entity is put into the suffering samsara lila and another is put into the full of bliss vaikuntha lila? It is because of their own choice and free will. To me it shows that God is partial to some living entities, which is not true.

That is what the Bhagavatam states: sthitir vaikuntha vijayah "The actually realm of the living entitiy is the victorious abode of Vaikuntha." And the Gita also states: dukhalayam ashashvatam "The material world is a temporal place full of suffering." Put two and two together and you have your statement above.

To be honest, I try to type words the way they will be typed by people in a search engine. So even if it may not be correct, I will usually follow the common way the words are written. For example, I would write avatar instead of avatara, since very few people will do a search for 'avatara' but many would do a search for 'avatar'. Anyway, back to that lesson we were supposed to learn...

nigama-kalpa-taror galitam phalam shuka-mukhad amrita-drava-samyutam "The Srimad Bhagavatam is the ripened fruit of the Vedas. Coming from the lips of Sri Shuka Muni, it is the sweetest nectar." I didn't follow the rest of you post. I couldn't make the connection between A and B. But the nectar part was clear that you were aluding to the effulgent light of Srimad Bhagavatam. Hari is everything (vasudevah sarvam iti), but everything is not Hari. When one only sees the first part, his understanding is incomplete. Please do. I enjoy reading the writings of acharya's such as Shankara. It will certainly benefit all of us and help us to understand the illusory nature of the material world.

You keep saying shruti, shruti, but up till now you have never quoted a single verse from shruti. Except for those four or five verses in the 'Did Rama eat Meat thread?' which you just copied from someone else without even looking in the text for context. You are really deluding yourself if you think your views are somehow 'shruti' when in reality you have yet to study the shruti under a guru in a traditional manner. And yes, it is required that one study the shruti under a bonafide guru and receive diksha into that line of learning. Those born in Brazil really have no access to learning shruti in the strict sense, and if Shankara was alive today he would probably be running around South America looking to pour lead in people's ears. With that in mind, your claimed allegiance to something which you are barred from studying by tradition is quite odd. Of course by the process of pancharatrika diksha even a mleccha can become a brahmana and become qualified to study shruti. But seeing how you reject other texts other than shruti (such as the pancharatras), you are pretty much stuck. Even the smartist smarta doesn't have the view that you hold in regards to shruti. It is a creation of the amazon rain forests.

Krishna has many names such as shyama which indicate his color is of a blue tint, and not brown as Shivu speculates.

Hari's 'modus operandi' is explained by Sri Hari Himself in scriptures such as Bhagavad Gita. What the shruti states is that Hari is not fully knowable, but it is possible to know about Hari and His method of acting and relating with us. Of course perhaps I am not understanding what it is you mean by 'modus operandi'. Please tell me which word from the shruti properly translates as 'modus operandi', then I can get a clearer understanding of what you are conveying. As far as Krishna's own words, he states: jnatva mam, shantim ricchati "Knowing me, one attains peace." Thus it is clear that Brahman is knowable, and every shruti statement that says otherwise should be understood in connection with Sri Krishna's own direct statement. The shruti does not speak about some 'modus operandi' of Hari, they simply state that Brahman cannot be known. At the same time, there are twice as many shruti statements that say Brahman can be known and must be known - for that is the goal of life. Regarding the conception that everything is just Hari: One who thinks we are also Hari engaged in His lila of material creation has no destination to attain, for we are already engaged within His lila causing ananda to Him through creation. We should ask ourselves why this Jiva Hari is taking part in the creation lila and not the Vaikuntha lila, and why has Hari put us in the suffering lila and not the ananda lila? There is a cause that we are not seeing - a cause that is not Hari. Though Hari is the cause of all causes as the facilitator of action and generation, still the jivas have their free will by which they may choose their fate. Hari is the cause of the power to choose, as well as the cause of the fulfiment of their choice, but the choice is the product of the jiva. Hari is supremely nuetral and not involved in choosing which jivas suffer and which enjoy. karya-karana-kartritve hetuh prakritir ucyate purushah sukha-duhkhanam bhoktritve hetur ucyate "Nature is said to be the cause of all material activities and effects, whereas the living entity is the cause of the various sufferings and enjoyments in this world." It is the jiva who is the cause of his own suffering, not Sri Hari. Those who mistake the jiva to also be Hari are influenced by illusion. Though, as His energy they are one with Him, still the jiva is always vibhinna. This is stated by Krishna in the Gita mamaivamsho jiva-loke jiva-bhutah sanatanah "The living entities are eternally my fragmental parts." Madhva cites the following verses from Padma Purana which stresses the importance of the difference between Hari and jiva: upapadayet paratmanam jivebhyo yah pade pade bhedenaiva na caitasmat priyo vishnos tu kashcana "One who sees the living entity and the Supreme Lord as always distinct is very dear to the Lord." yo hares caiva jivanam bheda-vakta hareh priyah "One who preaches that the living entities are separate from the Supreme Lord is very dear to Lord Visnu." The Hari Vamsha gives us the proper conclusion on this matter as follows: The Hari Vamsa confirms this as follows: sarvam harer vashatvena shariram tasya bhanyate ananyadhipatitvac ca tad ananyam udiryate na capy abhedo jagatam vishnoh purna-gunasya tu “Because everything is under the control of the Supreme Lord, Hari, everything is considered to be His body. He is the original source and master of everything, and therefore nothing should be seen as different from Him. Nonetheless, one should not foolishly conclude that there is absolutely no difference between the material universe and Lord Vishnu, who is full of His own unique spiritual qualities.” Though generally one's guna and karma develop one's next body, it is actually the state of the mind at death that determines this. This is clear from the countless sinful souls who attained good birth by various activities of sukriti at the time of death. Despite having lived sinful lives, and despite being influenced heavily by the lower modes of nature, by chance they were able to absorb their minds in some higher thought when their body died. yam yam vapi smaran bhavam tyajaty ante kalevaram tam tam evaiti kaunteya sada tad-bhava-bhavitah "Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits his body, that state he will attain without fail." Could it be that you are hinting at brahma-parinama-vada, the conception that Brahman transforms to become the material universe? That is clearly rejected by Vyasa in his Vedanta-sutras.