theist

shvu, Why are you so sure there is not something beyond this state?What convinces you that individuality can't be a spiritual reality?

Isn't it really just a reaction to samsara.As in, "Individuality appears to just result in broken dreams birth and death etc.,so the answer must be to sacrifice my individuality."

What proof is there that there is not a spiritual world filled with variety?

At least he had his destination straight at the end.

Impersonal philosophies are not very appealing.Buddhist or Advaita."I am suffering therefore let me die."Rather morbid in a sense.

Since Brahman can't be illusioned it would seem to follow that illusion itself doesn't exist.We may think illusion exists but that is just an illusion.Even the fact that we think we are thinking is illusion.

Am I close shvuji?

shvu,

The more I try to understand the concept of jivan-mukta from the advaita viewpoint the more I become bewildered.

If at the attainment of mukti the jiva no longer exists, then how could there be a jivan-mukta?

Are you saying that the jivan-mukta exists only in the conceptual minds of the remaining onlookers?But in reality there is 'no one home', so to speak?

shvu:"Wrong. This says nothing to refute my position. I was talking about post-Mukti, while you are talking about Pre-mukti."

Are you saying that Sankara spoke from a platform of pre-mukti in all his teachings?

If so what does that do to the idea of jivan-mukta?

And if so why should we accept what he said?

Thanks for the reply Guestji.Your points are heard and well taken.I have this habit of placing more import on the past and future while neglecting the present.

Hare Krsna

Nor does Anu Gita consider Krishna to be false. All it implies is that the Brahman is Supreme and that Krishna is only the Sadguna Brahman - hence relevant only in the temporal mode and not eternal.

 

 

Herein lays the problem.This is like putting a stake in a vaisnavas heart.

Ädi 7.40 - While Lord Caitanya Mahäprabhu was passing through Väränasi on His way to Vrndävana, the Mäyävädi sannyäsi philosophers blasphemed against Him in many ways.

Ädi 7.41 - The blasphemers said,Although a sannyäsi, He does not take interest in the study of Vedänta but instead always engages in chanting and dancing in sankirtana.

Ädi 7.42 - This Caitanya Mahäprabhu is an illiterate sannyäsi and therefore does not know His real function. Guided only by His sentiments, He wanders about in the company of other sentimentalists.

Ädi 7.43 - Hearing all this blasphemy, Lord Caitanya Mahäprabhu merely smiled to Himself, rejected all these accusations and did not talk with the Mäyävädis.

Rascal...Oh my!LOL What is the big deal anyway.We are all various types of rascals, and that is being kind.Everyone running around trying to be God in various ways.

Don't impersonal schools view devotees as mere sentimentalists, not able to comprehend the full reality yet.So they humor us in this condenscending way.."That's right little bhakta just keep chanting and engaging in your bhakti-yog sadhana,someday you will come to realize that you have been worshipping yourself all along."

Each proponent considers his position superior and that of others inferior.It's ok.Don't get hung up on these trifles.

I understand there is a difference of opinion.Mayavadi's consider Krsna's form maya.We do not.

We consider the Brahman effulgence as having a source;Krsna's form.They don't accept that.

We accept that the jiva has an eternal indivduality that remains even when merged in the Brahman effulgence.They would object to that idea.

We propose that the jiva even has form in relation to Krsna's lila's in spiritual realms that lay beyond the glaring brahmajyoti.They would see that as an anthropomorphic fantasy.

The Vaisnava conclusions are different from Advaita.There is no need to artifically try to merge these two view-points.That is a discredit to both.It is also impossible.They are not saying the same thing and there is no need to pretend they are.

They are however perfectly harmonized in acintya bhedabheda.

...to give you a full answer,so I will defer to others.

First I need to look up orthogonal to find out what it means /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gifOh, right angle in relation to..ok.

As I understand it Krsna's form is composed of eternity knowledge and bliss.He is all cognizant at every point of His form.Meaning His hair can see,He can taste through His eyes etc.

He was here playing human.So I imagine He displayed all human functions to the observer.Perhaps even leaving behind a form when shot in the heel by an arrow.

If one accepts He is God then of course there can be no problem.For instance it is said that God exhales universes and breathes them back into His form.Assimilation is no problem for universes, so why rice, milk and ghee should be a problem?

As I said I'll leave it to others for a better answer.

shvu:"What do you think Shankara means when he refers to Krishna's form as maayaa ruupam?"

Prabhupada:"So the Mäyävädi rascals theory is that the Absolute Truth is impersonal, and when He comes to be present before us as person, He accepts a material body. This is their theory, mäyä, Mäyäväda, that Krsna's body is also bone and skin. That is their theory. They accept, Yes, Krsna is God, but He has accepted a body of flesh and bone. This is Mäyäväda theory..."SB lec 1.3.28

...then let me try to understand exactly what is meant by sayujya-mukti.

Is it possible that a living entity can realize himself as a separate individual as Brahman in constituiton and yet not realize the Personality of Godhead?

Would this be two different meanings existing simultaneously?

One as shvu describe it, with no sense of the self remaining,and another with a sense of one's individuality intact?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

Murali,

But verse 33 says he sees himself as well as the Lord.Isn't that different than sayuja?I see it as a basic placement in santa-rasa.No?

...for premptive strikes.Identify all leaders of these radical Islamists(not Muslims) and hunt them done like the disease infested vermin they are.Forget the courts,and kill them where they're found.

I'm not sure if this was the verse I was looking for as I remember it a little differently.The mind plays tricks, that's why I need to look it up.Anyway it relates.I included the sanskrit for those that can understand it.It follows nicely on those that Murali posted.

_________

TRANSLATION SB 3.28.28

The body of such a liberated yogi, along with the senses, is taken charge of by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and it functions until its destined activities are finished. The liberated devotee, being awake to his constitutional position and thus situated in samädhi, the highest perfectional stage of yoga, does not accept the by-products of the material body as his own. Thus he considers his bodily activities to be like the activities of a body in a dream.

PURPORT

The following questions may be posed. As long as the liberated soul is in contact with the body, why don't the bodily activities affect him? Doesn't he actually become contaminated by the action and reaction of material activities? In answer to such questions, this verse explains that the material body of a liberated soul is taken charge of by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is not acting due to the living force of the living entity; it is simply acting as a reaction to past activities. Even after being switched off, an electric fan moves for some time. That movement is not due to the electric current, but is a continuation of the last movement; similarly, although a liberated soul appears to be acting just like an ordinary man, his actions are to be accepted as the continuation of past activities. In a dream one may see himself expanded through many bodies, but when awake he can understand that those bodies were all false. Similarly, although a liberated soul has the by-products of the body children, wife, house, etc.he does not identify himself with those bodily expansions. He knows that they are all products of the material dream. The gross body is made of the gross elements of matter, and the subtle body is made of mind, intelligence, ego and contaminated consciousness. If one can accept the subtle body of a dream as false and not identify oneself with that body, then certainly an awake person need not identify with the gross body. As one who is awake has no connection with the activities of the body in a dream, an awakened, liberated soul has no connection with the activities of the present body. In other words, because he is acquainted with his constitutional position, he never accepts the bodily concept of life.

______

I edited it and took out the transliterations due to so many bugs.sorry.

The reason they have explaination for these questions is that they have no clear philosophical understand of what the soul is.

Take the example from above of the fall from paradise story.The forbidden fruit that Adam ate was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.God told him not to eat that fruit because if he did he would surly die.He tasted the fruit of that tree,(fell into duality consciousness)and died to his own transcendental nature.

But the present Christians generally take it that then Adam died and passed on the curse to all his descendents(humanity) and so we now have to die for his mistake.The original sin.

If they knew that, they the soul, was the one being spoken of here they would see that the original sin refers to their/our own personal desire to try to enjoy matter through exploitation in various forms.And that we each committed our own personal "original sin".

Anything we can do to help them understand that the body is not the self will be very helpful.

Discussions on religion also fall under the influence of the three material modes of nature,unless one is a fully realized bhakta.

Knowledge is transmitted best when the sattva guna is dominate.

There is a verse in SB which speaks very directly to this point.But I can't remember where it is.Somewhere in the first nine cantos I think. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I can imagine Supersoul continuing the play with the jiva that had absorded himself in either Brahman realization or as the verse from SB spoke of it, absorbtion in the Lord's pastimes.

I don't see how the advaitins can fully explain it though without acknowledging Supersoul.

ethos,I'm not going to engage in this particular conversation.The topic is interesting and I am sure it will be touched on many times and in many ways in the future.

If my simple statements above are inadequate then so be it, I have nothing to add.

Hare Krsna brother soul

shvu:"To whom are the onlookers? Onlookers, etc are perceived only by someone who can perceive duality, i.e., someone who is not liberated. And as long as one still perceives duality, the universe continues to exist. In the case of a Jiivan mukta, there is no individual anymore who perceives duality and hence there are no onlookers."

But you are still describing separate classes of jivas.According to this theory, maya must have had a separate existence,with her own will to act on the Brahman in such a way as to break up the Brahman into fragments by covering them.

When one of those little brahman bits(technical term)becomes jivan mukta there are all these other little bits(jivas)still caught in duality.

How can you then refer to the Brahman as unchangable,unbreakable,and that it can't be cut up by matter?

Isn't it really that the jivas are always individual and some accepting sayuja-mukti simply fall into a state of deep slumber forgeting that the universes are real, while others remain caught in duality?

Hare Krsna

shiva:"wy don't we ask Krishna ?"

Great suggestion.He will re-mind us.

shvu,

How does Advaita account for the presence of those onlookers?

Why isn't one liberation enough since there is only One?

ethos,

I find it helpful to try and see past the external trappings of eastern religion and western religion.If some one from any culture,simply bows down before the authority of the Lord and asks for mercy, is that not the process?Do you think the Lord in the heart won't hear that person's prayer because of the land his body took birth in?

If I see someone praying to God as the Supreme Person I know that the Caitya-guru is active in inspiring that person.It is no mystery.

Krsna is approached by those in distress,seeking money,the curious and those who have developed knowledge.What is the difference in consciousness of someone in India praying for money and someone in California praying to God for money?

When I encounter someone who has knowledge of God, I know he received it from the Lord and His devotees.Maybe he received yesterday from within directly from Supersoul or in a past birth by hearing a devotee speak.

Now I'm going to spend my time hearing from those whose knowledge is more developed, that's a fact.But these terms Hindu and Christian etc. have no value to me.Even a person who claims no religion may have faith in the Supreme Being.

Remember the Lord is independent,and whom He chooses to bestow His Grace unpon is up to Him.Time place circumstance are no hinderance to Him.All our so-called righteous acts fall short.Better to be a sincere contrite person praying in a Church,though illiterate, than a vastly erudite pandit chanting pious slokas in a temple, but with a proud heart.

Jaya Yeshua! Jaya Krsna!