Guest guest Posted September 9, 2002 Report Share Posted September 9, 2002 Dear Jyotishas, In the recent discussion, the sorriest part seems to be that no scriptural references were ever given (except Visti). That is rather unfortunate in that the current style of debating or discussing this issue is far away in quality from the classical style of providing scriptural references that are accepted by most schools of Vedanta implying 'ChaitanyacharitAmrta', 'Chaitanyopanishad' are to be ignored). Even the older giants would have been happier with this kind than forwarding as an clinching argument, the incongruous cliché "Great Silence will lead you there". This'd be the first and last mail of this kind from me and request that any objections etc be posted off the list, unless the administrator wants otherwise. Though off-topic, I am writing it to balance some imbalance I perceive in the discussion. They were rather many who argued that Jiva is one with Brahman while hardly two who felt otherwise. Yet another motive I have is to also give some idea of how certain philosophies have thought on this subject. A point perhaps already noted is that different philosophies define moksha, bandha or bondage, karma etc differently. Advaita has two schools of thought running under it: Vivarana and pariNAmavAda. The former says that this Jiva is identical to Brahman. An unreal upAdhi (conditioning factor) separates them and hence the perception of all duality, which is due to avidya. The latter says that this world (comprising jaDa and Jiva) are the products of material transformation of one Brahman. In both schools the prime role of avidya is accepted. It is also said that the Gods we worship, be it Narayana or Shiva or Ganapati or Surya or whoever, are all counted as Saguna Brahman, which in the final analysis is a phantasm. The underlying unity is that each of the Jivas is, in truth i.e. in the paramArthika satya, are nirguNa Brahman, which is undifferentiated consciousness. There is no duality *there*, nay not even of the thought and thinker; thus the kartRkarmavirodha of Shankaracharya. Moksha is getting to that state after which there is neither bliss nor pain, neither knowledge nor avidya, neither the quality nor the qualified etc. Many people confuse being 'sacchidAnanda' to having gotten moksha. That is wrong, so says the author of Vivekachudamani. Bandha is unreal and only jnAna can remove that. Till jnAna arrives, one delves in worship of Saguna Brahman, sandhyAvandana, karmas, astrology etc. Vishishtadvaita believes that there is Advaita, yes, it is Brahman, but it is not nirguNa. This Brahman has infinite auspicious qualities and is blemish less. Souls are separate in essence, but He, i.e., Paramatma, Bhagavan, is even the self of these Souls. Thus there is only entity in real hence the Advaita, but it is qualified with majestic attributes. For them, Brahman is Vishnu. Samsara i.e., bandhana is real and can be gotten over only by grace of Lord. One does not lose one's individuality in Moksha, instead attains infinite happiness. 4 types of moksha are accepted and explained easily as well. Dvaita believes that the souls are fundamentally different but absolutely dependent on Brahman. This might look very similar to the Vishishtadvaitic line of thought, but the difference is that while V'advaita considers the Jivas to be attributes of the Lord, just as his other attributes such as omniscience, dvaita disagrees on that and considers them as separate substances by themselves, though incapable of independent existence. Bandha is real and moksha is attainment of one's own nature. This nature of each Jiva is unchanging and is divided into sAttvika, rAjas and tamas types. It's only in former's moksha, that their very self nature of being blissful is exhibited. the 4 types of moksha is accepted here also. There is taratamya (gradation) in moksha. This is a result of gradation in intrinsic natures of the various Jivas, which itself exhibits in the sAdhanas performed. That sattvika, rAjasa and tamasa are not _just_ prakritic guNAs, but also the natures of soul can be seen in Bhagavad Gita 17.02, where the different types of bhakti are said to arise from inherent nature (svabhAvajA). Additional references are in Katha Upanishad and Chandogya Upanishad. Sudarshan has given what Sri Chaitanya's philosophy is. In addition, pls note that Sri Chaitanya by himself has not left literature other than shikshAshtaka, an instruction set of eight verses. Their philosophy is more 'classicized' by Baladeva Vidyabhushana who wrote Govindabhashya and by Rupa and Jiva Gosvamis. The idea here is that service to Lord Krishna is an end in itself, i.e. one of the forms of Moksha. I am not sure, but sAyujya is not considered acceptable, though possible. Thus, 4 types of moksha are considered, though the one of them is different from what is accepted in V'advaita and dvaita. A point that all of them agree upon is this: (1) Brahman should be inquired into. Knowledge of Brahman should be obtained. (2) This Brahman is the creator etc of this world comprising matter and Jivas and (3) The knowledge of this Brahman can be obtained only through shAstras (My comment: and not through silence. One obtains imagination and fantasy through silence, nothing worthy). Thus is the literal and incomplete translation of firs three Brahmasutras. All of them accept that Brahma sutras by themselves are authoritative for they are given by Sage Vedavyasa after a good deliberation of the multitude of Vedantic sources. The very reason why shAstras should be considered authoritative is because of their unauthoredness (All sampradayas except that of Prabhupada consider them thus as not authored by anybody, not even God, while he considers them as of non-human origin). The link between unauthoredness (apaurusheya) and authority (prAmANya) is that it is only an author who can introduce flaws in a text; texts by themselves cannot have flaws, so a text which has no author is flawless. One can doubt if such texts can ever be found. Well, Vedas are such. And the Vedas only. All the other texts we know, i.e., the Mahabharata including Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana, Puranas inc Srimad Bhagavatam, even Brahma sutras, Smritis, Brihatparashara horashastra... ALL are subservient to Vedas for gaining authority. If anything in the Vedas contradicts a text, that part of the latter can be conveniently dumped without a second thought. However it is also that one's validated and corrected experiences form a stronger basis of truth than all the scriptures put together. A Thousand scriptures can make neither fire cold nor crow white, declared Shankaracharya. However, he also cautions an aspirant to restrain from projecting hallucinations as truth. With that introduction, I think I have mentioned sufficient reasons as to why the elders preferred to refer scriptures than sit through silence. Another reason not explicit in such an approach is the possibility of imaginations and fantasies being projected as THE truth or one aspect of it. It is only the later day philosophers, without absolutely no background in Vedanta or its rigorous methodology, that have given out declarations often contradicted by their own seniors' works. (One could have taken recourse to 'creativity' if they were aware of such differences, which unfortunately isn't the case. A classical example is that of Ramakrishna and his disciples who think that Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman are two sides of the same coin. Such a notion has been criticized, severely so, by Shankaracharya in his BrahmasutrabhAshya., who adduces the reasons rather than asking us to sit through silence to grasp the truth.) If scriptures were to the basis, a non-biased and a courageous (for, one should be bold to ask, 'Without even knowing what the final experience should be like, how can you say that logic cannot take us through?) reader will feel that the truth is definitely in difference of the Jiva from Brahman, even in the final stages. Even to question, 'what will happen if you lose your individuality' is pointless -- the scriptures simply say that such is not possible at all. The Brahmasutras are more than clear in highlighting the difference of a Jiva from Brahman in moksha: (a) jagadvyApAravarjaM (which says that even a mukta jIva is ineligible to create this universe after the next praLaya. Similarly a mukta jIva does not become the Lord of Shri in mukti) (b) bhedavyapadeshAchcha or even clearer © bhedavyapadeshachchAnyaH and many more. No wonder, Shankaracharya admits that not more than 2 out of 550+ brahmasutras agree with advaita. Even in the original texts, one can never find references to becoming 'one' with Brahman. Where are the scriptural references to that? The ones posted below by Visti are said to be from an upanishad called Kalisantarana upanishad, which does not define the different 'stages' of mukti. Instead it says that there are different 'types' of mukti (it says that these are the four types of mukti for a person who has given up on the 16 kalAs). A point abt this Upanishad is that it is considered dubious by many. Even then, this concept of 4 types of mukti cannot be rounded off as imagination, as it can be found in Maha Narayanopanishad of Taittariya aranyaka. Now, even there, sAyujya is not mentioned as becoming one with Brahman). Even the scriptural statement, 'pare.avyaye sarve ekIbhavanti' does not help. The locative, the adjectives, 'unchanging', 'the other' do not help advaita. There are other scriptural statements like, 'yatri hi dvaitamiha bhavati', which are explained by the advaitin to show aikya in moksha, but that also has been refuted with more powerful logic. If anybody is interested, let me know. Regarding difference between Jiva and B in moksha, the Vedas and Upanishads are replete with references. For example, the Taittariya Upanishad says "satyaM j~nAnamanantaM brahma . yo veda nihitaM guhAyAM parame vyoman.h so.ashnute sarvaan.h kaamaan saha . brahmaNA vipashchiteti" (Whoever knows the secret doctrine that Brahman is satya (blemishless is the hidden meaning, 'true' is bland superficial meaning), GYAnamaya, infinite... He shall enjoy all pleasures **alongside** with Brahman." Yet another from the same upanishad is "kAmAnnI kAmarUpyanusaJNcharan.h" (which says that a mukta jIva enjoys different pleasures possessing different forms). All this is different from a merger scenario. It is not even that the above mentioned are 'lower' forms of mukti while sAyujya, obtainable through jnAna, is actual moksha. In Gita 14.2, the Lord says that one who possesses this knowledge will only become like me (mama sAdharmyamAgatAH). 'Tattvamasi' also is no solution, (whether through silence or otherwise) or a scriptural statement which proves identify of Jiva and Brahman. The problems are (i) an out of context reading of the text and (ii) ignoring all the nine illustrations given by Sage Uddalaka to his son, shvetaketu. The father, in order to mellow his boastful, just returned from college, son, asks him to stay on water for fifteen days and asks him to recite whatever he knew. Upon the latter expressing his inability, the sage starts his fantastic illustrations to prove how dependent we are on Brahman and why we should NOT assume that we are Him. Wouldn't the whole exercise of subjugating Shvetaketu be out of place if the intention were to just tell him that He is identical to all powerful Brahman. Even advaitins like Vachaspati Mishra agrees that the illustration of rivers merging into sea, juices from different flowers merging in the beehive do not talk of identity of Jiva and Brahman. Also, it is very clear that most of the people including the maintainers of website cited by Visti are unaware of how advaita (whose followers I presume are these maintainers of this site) rather Shankaracharya interprets 'Tattvamasi'. According to classical Advaita, the equation of 'tat' = 'tvam' is not as straightforward as '2+3=5' or something so axiomatic. For the vedas declare that 'tat' to be a repository of infinite virtues, each infinite in themselves (cf. Srimad Bhagavatam 6.4.48: mayyanantaguNe.anante guNato.anantavigrahe) and 'tvam' i.e. oneself as limited in size (ShvetashvatAra up.), ability, knowledge, bliss etc. How can we equate two distinct beings of such diverse natures? To solve this, they come up with a concept of 'taTastha laxaNa' or 'jahajalladalaxaNa', which in essence means that these qualities are acquired and not inherent. In other words, the God we worship is a Being we invest with attributes of majesty etc, in our ignorance. So too, our ignorance is assumed and not real. Thus bereft of all unreal qualities, the Jiva and Brahman are nothing but the same undifferentiated (akhaNDa) nirguNa. Such is the case of twisting scriptures in advaita. In any case, who told these folks that these attributes are unreal and acquired. The Shvetashvatara Upanishad declares otherwise: parA.asya shaktirvidhaiva shrUyate ****svAbhAvikI**** j~nAnabalakriyA. Also, if this kind of deletion is possible, one can equate anything to anything. One might also refer to the Mahabharata, Moxadharma (which is a part of shanti parva) where Bhishma elucidates various theories of mukti and clearly rejects merging as not only impossible, but also dangerous one to aspire for. The thing about amshas (parts) is that there are two types of amshAs: svarUpAmsha, where the terms are identical, like between Vishnu, Narayana, Rama, Sankarshana, Aniruddha etc, and bhinnAmshA where the terms are different: tasyAishvarasya dashAmsho mamasampada: my wealth is one tenth of his. here, the terms are unrelated. One should make a difference between the two. Also, the bhAgavata quotes by Visti on two birds is present in many places, starting from RgVeda to muNDaka upanishad to Bhagavata purANa. This clearly depicts differences between Jiva and paramatma. They are both in the body. Just that they are in the same location does not mean they are identical. This is because the Paramatma pervades the entire Universe, including the space occupied by the Jiva. (tad sR^iShTvA tadanupravishad). This is also how verses such as 'Seeing Me in everybody, seeing everybody in Me' should be intepreted and not as mentioning identity (which is also refuted by Gita's 7.12 and the brahmasutra: sambhoga prAptiritichenna vaisheShyAt.h). I wish to clarify that it is not that silence is not needed. But after one has done sufficient hearing of shrutis from valid Gurus and rumination and contemplation.. shrotavyo mantavyo nidhidhyAsitavyaH. It is in dhyAna done after sufficient rumination that silence is needed. But not before that. Till then, One should question these tenets the way one would question a foreign tenet, or the way a child would question. Such Scientific and analytic rigor can only give way to 'vyavasAyAtmikA buddhiH ekeha kurunandana' (2.41), not impotent recourses to "Great silence". See, even the Lord asks us to apply our minds. yatpadaM vedasamvedyaM kaTAksheNApi vIkshituM na kshamante vimatayaH tamupAse shriyaHpatiM || Regards, Nomadeva Visti Larsen [vishnu] Saturday, September 07, 2002 5:39 PM vedic astrology Re: [vedic astrology] Re: Astrology and Islam - To Visti Vyam Vysaadevaaya Namah Dear Kautilya, There more to this, check bellow.. i always refer to the 4th type when we talk about moksha/mukti There are 4 types of Mukti: Saalokya Mukti : When a devotee worships a particular god, he will ultimately obtain a place in the heavenly abode of that particular god. This is called as ‘Saalokya Mukti’. The method of worship followed here is called as ‘Charya’. It is a method in which the seeker considers himself a slave and the god as the Supreme Lord. Saaroopya Mukti : A devotee practising even more intense devotion will not only obtain a place in the heavenly abode, but will also acquire the qualities of the god he worships. The method of worship followed here is called as ‘Kriya’. Kriya here means performing Pooja, Homa and other rituals. Saameepya Mukti: If the worship is even more intense, the seeker will not only acquire the qualities of the god he worships, but will also gain a godly form and a place very near to God. This method is called ‘Yoga’. Here Yoga means the eight steps of Ashtanga Yoga. Saayujya Mukti : When the worships transcends the Saguna form and reaches the Nirguna form, the seeker will realise that Jeevatma and Paramatma are one and the same. This is called Saayujya Mukti. The instrument to obtain this is ‘Jnana’. Jnana means realising the Atma Tattva with the help of Nitya Anitya Vastu Viveka. The source is: http://www.dattapeetham.com/india/bhaktimala/junejuly98/lessonsinvedanta32.htm Realising the Atma, means to realise the truth.. Who are you really? Best wishes, Visti. Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2002 Report Share Posted September 9, 2002 Jaya Jagannatha Dear Nomadeva, That was a great read and I fully agree with you that scriptural references are a must as obviously there were atleast three different schools involved.Thank you for the information. Hare Krishna Sudharsan Nomadeva Sharma wrote: Dear Jyotishas,In the recent discussion, the sorriest part seems tobe that no scriptural references were ever given(except Visti). That is rather unfortunate in that thecurrent style of debating or discussing this issue isfar away in quality from the classical style ofproviding scriptural references that are accepted bymost schools of Vedanta implying 'ChaitanyacharitAmrta', 'Chaitanyopanishad' are to beignored). Even the older giants would have beenhappier with this kind than forwarding as an clinchingargument, the incongruous cliché "Great Silence willlead you there".This'd be the first and last mail of this kind from meand request that any objections etc be posted off thelist, unless the administrator wants otherwise. Thoughoff-topic, I am writing it to balance some imbalance Iperceive in the discussion. They were rather many whoargued that Jiva is one with Brahman while hardly twowho felt otherwise. Yet another motive I have is toalso give some idea of how certain philosophies havethought on this subject. A point perhaps already noted is that differentphilosophies define moksha, bandha or bondage, karmaetc differently. Advaita has two schools of thought running under it:Vivarana and pariNAmavAda. The former says that thisJiva is identical to Brahman. An unreal upAdhi(conditioning factor) separates them and hence theperception of all duality, which is due to avidya. Thelatter says that this world (comprising jaDa and Jiva)are the products of material transformation of oneBrahman. In both schools the prime role of avidya isaccepted. It is also said that the Gods we worship, beit Narayana or Shiva or Ganapati or Surya or whoever,are all counted as Saguna Brahman, which in the finalanalysis is a phantasm. The underlying unity is thateach of the Jivas is, in truth i.e. in theparamArthika satya, are nirguNa Brahman, which isundifferentiated consciousness. There is no duality*there*, nay not even of the thought and thinker; thusthe kartRkarmavirodha of Shankaracharya. Moksha isgetting to that state after which there is neitherbliss nor pain, neither knowledge nor avidya, neitherthe quality nor the qualified etc. Many people confusebeing 'sacchidAnanda' to having gotten moksha. That iswrong, so says the author of Vivekachudamani. Bandhais unreal and only jnAna can remove that. Till jnAnaarrives, one delves in worship of Saguna Brahman,sandhyAvandana, karmas, astrology etc.Vishishtadvaita believes that there is Advaita, yes,it is Brahman, but it is not nirguNa. This Brahman hasinfinite auspicious qualities and is blemish less.Souls are separate in essence, but He, i.e.,Paramatma, Bhagavan, is even the self of these Souls.Thus there is only entity in real hence the Advaita,but it is qualified with majestic attributes. Forthem, Brahman is Vishnu. Samsara i.e., bandhana isreal and can be gotten over only by grace of Lord. Onedoes not lose one's individuality in Moksha, insteadattains infinite happiness. 4 types of moksha areaccepted and explained easily as well.Dvaita believes that the souls are fundamentallydifferent but absolutely dependent on Brahman. Thismight look very similar to the Vishishtadvaitic lineof thought, but the difference is that while V'advaitaconsiders the Jivas to be attributes of the Lord, justas his other attributes such as omniscience, dvaitadisagrees on that and considers them as separatesubstances by themselves, though incapable ofindependent existence. Bandha is real and moksha isattainment of one's own nature. This nature of eachJiva is unchanging and is divided into sAttvika, rAjasand tamas types. It's only in former's moksha, thattheir very self nature of being blissful is exhibited.the 4 types of moksha is accepted here also. There istaratamya (gradation) in moksha. This is a result ofgradation in intrinsic natures of the various Jivas,which itself exhibits in the sAdhanas performed. Thatsattvika, rAjasa and tamasa are not _just_ prakriticguNAs, but also the natures of soul can be seen inBhagavad Gita 17.02, where the different types ofbhakti are said to arise from inherent nature(svabhAvajA). Additional references are in KathaUpanishad and Chandogya Upanishad.Sudarshan has given what Sri Chaitanya's philosophyis. In addition, pls note that Sri Chaitanya byhimself has not left literature other thanshikshAshtaka, an instruction set of eight verses.Their philosophy is more 'classicized' by BaladevaVidyabhushana who wrote Govindabhashya and by Rupa andJiva Gosvamis. The idea here is that service to LordKrishna is an end in itself, i.e. one of the forms ofMoksha. I am not sure, but sAyujya is not consideredacceptable, though possible. Thus, 4 types of mokshaare considered, though the one of them is differentfrom what is accepted in V'advaita and dvaita.A point that all of them agree upon is this: (1)Brahman should be inquired into. Knowledge of Brahmanshould be obtained. (2) This Brahman is the creatoretc of this world comprising matter and Jivas and (3)The knowledge of this Brahman can be obtained onlythrough shAstras (My comment: and not through silence.One obtains imagination and fantasy through silence,nothing worthy).Thus is the literal and incomplete translation of firsthree Brahmasutras. All of them accept that Brahmasutras by themselves are authoritative for they aregiven by Sage Vedavyasa after a good deliberation ofthe multitude of Vedantic sources. The very reason why shAstras should be consideredauthoritative is because of their unauthoredness (Allsampradayas except that of Prabhupada consider themthus as not authored by anybody, not even God, whilehe considers them as of non-human origin). The linkbetween unauthoredness (apaurusheya) and authority(prAmANya) is that it is only an author who canintroduce flaws in a text; texts by themselves cannothave flaws, so a text which has no author is flawless.One can doubt if such texts can ever be found. Well,Vedas are such. And the Vedas only. All the othertexts we know, i.e., the Mahabharata includingBhagavad Gita, Ramayana, Puranas inc SrimadBhagavatam, even Brahma sutras, Smritis,Brihatparashara horashastra... ALL are subservient toVedas for gaining authority. If anything in the Vedascontradicts a text, that part of the latter can beconveniently dumped without a second thought.However it is also that one's validated and correctedexperiences form a stronger basis of truth than allthe scriptures put together. A Thousand scriptures canmake neither fire cold nor crow white, declaredShankaracharya. However, he also cautions an aspirantto restrain from projecting hallucinations as truth.With that introduction, I think I have mentionedsufficient reasons as to why the elders preferred torefer scriptures than sit through silence. Anotherreason not explicit in such an approach is thepossibility of imaginations and fantasies beingprojected as THE truth or one aspect of it. It is only the later day philosophers, withoutabsolutely no background in Vedanta or its rigorousmethodology, that have given out declarations oftencontradicted by their own seniors' works. (One couldhave taken recourse to 'creativity' if they were awareof such differences, which unfortunately isn't thecase. A classical example is that of Ramakrishna andhis disciples who think that Saguna Brahman andNirguna Brahman are two sides of the same coin. Such anotion has been criticized, severely so, byShankaracharya in his BrahmasutrabhAshya., who adducesthe reasons rather than asking us to sit throughsilence to grasp the truth.)If scriptures were to the basis, a non-biased and acourageous (for, one should be bold to ask, 'Withouteven knowing what the final experience should be like,how can you say that logic cannot take us through?)reader will feel that the truth is definitely indifference of the Jiva from Brahman, even in the finalstages. Even to question, 'what will happen if you lose yourindividuality' is pointless -- the scriptures simplysay that such is not possible at all.The Brahmasutras are more than clear in highlightingthe difference of a Jiva from Brahman in moksha:(a) jagadvyApAravarjaM (which says that even a muktajIva is ineligible to create this universe after thenext praLaya. Similarly a mukta jIva does not becomethe Lord of Shri in mukti)(b) bhedavyapadeshAchcha or even clearer© bhedavyapadeshachchAnyaH and many more. No wonder, Shankaracharya admits thatnot more than 2 out of 550+ brahmasutras agree withadvaita. Even in the original texts, one can neverfind references to becoming 'one' with Brahman. Whereare the scriptural references to that?The ones posted below by Visti are said to be from anupanishad called Kalisantarana upanishad, which doesnot define the different 'stages' of mukti. Instead itsays that there are different 'types' of mukti (itsays that these are the four types of mukti for aperson who has given up on the 16 kalAs). A point abtthis Upanishad is that it is considered dubious bymany. Even then, this concept of 4 types of mukticannot be rounded off as imagination, as it can befound in Maha Narayanopanishad of Taittariya aranyaka.Now, even there, sAyujya is not mentioned as becomingone with Brahman).Even the scriptural statement, 'pare.avyaye sarveekIbhavanti' does not help. The locative, theadjectives, 'unchanging', 'the other' do not helpadvaita. There are other scriptural statements like,'yatri hi dvaitamiha bhavati', which are explained bythe advaitin to show aikya in moksha, but that alsohas been refuted with more powerful logic. If anybodyis interested, let me know.Regarding difference between Jiva and B in moksha, theVedas and Upanishads are replete with references. Forexample, the Taittariya Upanishad says "satyaMj~nAnamanantaM brahma . yo veda nihitaM guhAyAM paramevyoman.h so.ashnute sarvaan.h kaamaan saha . brahmaNAvipashchiteti" (Whoever knows the secret doctrine thatBrahman is satya (blemishless is the hidden meaning,'true' is bland superficial meaning), GYAnamaya,infinite... He shall enjoy all pleasures **alongside**with Brahman." Yet another from the same upanishad is"kAmAnnI kAmarUpyanusaJNcharan.h" (which says that amukta jIva enjoys different pleasures possessingdifferent forms). All this is different from a mergerscenario. It is not even that the above mentioned are'lower' forms of mukti while sAyujya, obtainablethrough jnAna, is actual moksha. In Gita 14.2, theLord says that one who possesses this knowledge willonly become like me (mama sAdharmyamAgatAH).'Tattvamasi' also is no solution, (whether through silence orotherwise) or a scriptural statement which provesidentify of Jiva and Brahman. The problems are (i) anout of context reading of the text and (ii) ignoringall the nine illustrations given by Sage Uddalaka tohis son, shvetaketu. The father, in order to mellowhis boastful, just returned from college, son, askshim to stay on water for fifteen days and asks him torecite whatever he knew. Upon the latter expressinghis inability, the sage starts his fantasticillustrations to prove how dependent we are on Brahmanand why we should NOT assume that we are Him. Wouldn'tthe whole exercise of subjugating Shvetaketu be out ofplace if the intention were to just tell him that Heis identical to all powerful Brahman. Even advaitinslike Vachaspati Mishra agrees that the illustration ofrivers merging into sea, juices from different flowersmerging in the beehive do not talk of identity of Jivaand Brahman.Also, it is very clear that most of the peopleincluding the maintainers of website cited by Vistiare unaware of how advaita (whose followers I presumeare these maintainers of this site) ratherShankaracharya interprets 'Tattvamasi'. According toclassical Advaita, the equation of 'tat' = 'tvam' isnot as straightforward as '2+3=5' or something soaxiomatic. For the vedas declare that 'tat' to be arepository of infinite virtues, each infinite inthemselves (cf. Srimad Bhagavatam 6.4.48:mayyanantaguNe.anante guNato.anantavigrahe) and 'tvam'i.e. oneself as limited in size (ShvetashvatAra up.),ability, knowledge, bliss etc. How can we equate twodistinct beings of such diverse natures? To solvethis, they come up with a concept of 'taTastha laxaNa'or 'jahajalladalaxaNa', which in essence means thatthese qualities are acquired and not inherent. Inother words, the God we worship is a Being we investwith attributes of majesty etc, in our ignorance. Sotoo, our ignorance is assumed and not real. Thusbereft of all unreal qualities, the Jiva and Brahmanare nothing but the same undifferentiated (akhaNDa)nirguNa.Such is the case of twisting scriptures in advaita. Inany case, who told these folks that these attributesare unreal and acquired. The Shvetashvatara Upanishaddeclares otherwise: parA.asya shaktirvidhaiva shrUyate****svAbhAvikI**** j~nAnabalakriyA. Also, if this kindof deletion is possible, one can equate anything toanything.One might also refer to the Mahabharata, Moxadharma(which is a part of shanti parva) where Bhishmaelucidates various theories of mukti and clearlyrejects merging as not only impossible, but alsodangerous one to aspire for.The thing about amshas (parts) is that there are twotypes of amshAs: svarUpAmsha, where the terms areidentical, like between Vishnu, Narayana, Rama,Sankarshana, Aniruddha etc, and bhinnAmshA where theterms are different: tasyAishvarasya dashAmshomamasampada: my wealth is one tenth of his. here, theterms are unrelated. One should make a differencebetween the two.Also, the bhAgavata quotes by Visti on two birds ispresent in many places, starting from RgVeda tomuNDaka upanishad to Bhagavata purANa. This clearlydepicts differences between Jiva and paramatma. Theyare both in the body. Just that they are in the samelocation does not mean they are identical. This isbecause the Paramatma pervades the entire Universe,including the space occupied by the Jiva. (tadsR^iShTvA tadanupravishad). This is also how versessuch as 'Seeing Me in everybody, seeing everybody inMe' should be intepreted and not as mentioningidentity (which is also refuted by Gita's 7.12 and thebrahmasutra: sambhoga prAptiritichenna vaisheShyAt.h).I wish to clarify that it is not that silence is notneeded. But after one has done sufficient hearing ofshrutis from valid Gurus and rumination andcontemplation.. shrotavyo mantavyo nidhidhyAsitavyaH.It is in dhyAna done after sufficient rumination thatsilence is needed. But not before that. Till then, Oneshould question these tenets the way one wouldquestion a foreign tenet, or the way a child wouldquestion. Such Scientific and analytic rigor can onlygive way to 'vyavasAyAtmikA buddhiH ekeha kurunandana'(2.41), not impotent recourses to "Great silence".See, even the Lord asks us to apply our minds. yatpadaM vedasamvedyaM kaTAksheNApi vIkshituMna kshamante vimatayaH tamupAse shriyaHpatiM ||Regards,Nomadeva-----Original Message-----Visti Larsen [vishnu (AT) lbq (DOT) dk]Saturday, September 07, 2002 5:39 PMvedic astrologySubject: Re: [vedic astrology] Re: Astrology and Islam- To VistiVyam Vysaadevaaya NamahDear Kautilya,There more to this, check bellow.. i always refer tothe 4th type when we talk about moksha/muktiThere are 4 types of Mukti:Saalokya Mukti : When a devotee worships a particulargod, he will ultimately obtain a place in the heavenlyabode of that particular god. This is called as‘Saalokya Mukti’. The method of worship followed hereis called as ‘Charya’. It is a method in which theseeker considers himself a slave and the god as theSupreme Lord. Saaroopya Mukti : A devotee practising even moreintense devotion will not only obtain a place in theheavenly abode, but will also acquire the qualities ofthe god he worships. The method of worship followedhere is called as ‘Kriya’. Kriya here means performingPooja, Homa and other rituals. Saameepya Mukti: If the worship is even more intense,the seeker will not only acquire the qualities of thegod he worships, but will also gain a godly form and aplace very near to God. This method is called ‘Yoga’.Here Yoga means the eight steps of Ashtanga Yoga. Saayujya Mukti : When the worships transcends theSaguna form and reaches the Nirguna form, the seekerwill realise that Jeevatma and Paramatma are one andthe same. This is called Saayujya Mukti. Theinstrument to obtain this is ‘Jnana’. Jnana meansrealising the Atma Tattva with the help of NityaAnitya Vastu Viveka.The source is:http://www.dattapeetham.com/india/bhaktimala/junejuly98/lessonsinvedanta32.htmRealising the Atma, means to realise the truth.. Whoare you really?Best wishes, Visti. Finance - Get real-time stock quoteshttp://finance.------------------------ Sponsor ---------------------~-->4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Nowhttp://us.click./pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/.8XolB/TM---~->Archives: vedic astrologyGroup info: vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......Your use of is subject to Finance - Get real-time stock quotes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.