Regarding Thread 'Is Mukti a Myth'

[Matador30 0]

Hi

 

I was reading this thread, what I don't understand is why the infinite consciousness first creates the individuality in us & then expects us to realise we are not diferent from it. If the ego creates this individuality, who creates the ego ?

Thank you.

[theist 1]

 

Hi

 

I was reading this thread, what I don't understand is why the infinite consciousness first creates the individuality in us & then expects us to realise we are not diferent from it. If the ego creates this individuality, who creates the ego ?

Thank you.

 

Very intelligent question. The impersonalists have no answer for it. Their idea of the One great impersonal energy suddenly deciding (decision making can only be done by a person BTW, their first great mistake) to individualize itself and cause those individualized portions to suffer birth death old age and disease until they finnally realize they are not truly individuals is laughably absurd.

 

No need to spend too much time trying to make sense of impersonal philosophy because the truth is it makes no sense and is just a pile of word juggelry.

 

The truth is God is an eternal Person and a separate individual. We the small parts of God are eternal individuals in our own right but because we are parts of Him we also have a oneness with Him. A oneness and a difference at the same time.

 

The best example is the sun and sunshine. The sun is one. It has no equal.The sun is also the cause of all the tiny sparks of light,or protons, that flow from it.The sun and the sunshine are one but different. The proton never becomes the sun but can realize it's tiny purpose given to it by the sun which is to help illuminate all existence.

 

The proton has free will. It can cooperate with the purpose of the sun or it caan rebel and seek it's own way. At which time it becomes covered by a cloud (material nature) and appears to lose it's brillance. Actually it's brilliance is just cover by a cloud temporarily.

 

When the proton comes out of the cloud covering and is again shining in harmony with the sun's will that is called mukti or liberation. The proton again realizes it's true position as part of the sun.......and is happy ever after.

[sambya 0]

 

I was reading this thread, what I don't understand is why the infinite consciousness first creates the individuality in us & then expects us to realise we are not diferent from it. If the ego creates this individuality, who creates the ego ?

this is indeed a beautiful question.theist has given its answer from a dualistic point of view.i shall attempt to answer from a monistic point ,from whatever knowledge i have in this subject.

 

the very moment when you say the "infinite conciousness creates the individuality" you you are situated on a dualistic platform(one that percieves creator and the created as eternally seperate).

 

so when you are speaking from a dualistic veiwpoint there is no place for realisation of nondifference.

 

from a monistic point of view there is no creation at all.the only thing or phenomenon or existence is the brahman. it is our state of mind that makes us think that we exist in a material world.this state of mind is caused by maya.an example would illustrate the point:

 

when we step over a rope lying on the floor in a dark room we mistake it for a snake.but moments later we realise that it was a mere rope.but for those few moments when we got scared it was a complete snake in all its attributes.so the snake existed for those few fraction of seconds although there was no snake in reality at all.

 

similarly we are in a constant state of mistaking brahman as creation or cosmos.only difference is that this mistake is not so temporary as one in the example.

 

maya is the initial cause of this percieved individuality and ego is its sustainer.thats why in advaitic sadhana one begins with overcoming ego first and then eventually maya.

 

so when you are presuming the duality of creator and the created no one would expect you to strive for non different realisations. this would arise only if you assume non duality right since the begining. that is why true advaitists(monist) should refrain from claiming that everythings brahman untill they have realised that themselves.so long we are on the dualistic platform and performing dualistic activities like eating sleeping etc we have to respect personal god.

 

now the question arises since when are we conditioned as such ? this is very hard to answer. how this process of illusion started is impossible to explain,just as dualists cannot say since when were they ousted from goloka or kingdom of god to take birth in the material world.

 

but i believe that inability to provide an explanation is not a flaw to the religion itself.for god is infinite and beyond thought and speech.it is impossible to know him and his ways completely.and hence every religion gets a partial glimpse of the real phenomenon.so no religion can calim to be perfect.if any faith does claim as such it should be understood that they are least knowledgeble about god.

[sambya 0]

 

Their idea of the One great impersonal energy suddenly deciding (decision making can only be done by a person BTW, their first great mistake) to individualize itself and cause those individualized portions to suffer birth death old age and disease until they finnally realize they are not truly individuals is laughably absurd.

decision making is not done by the person but goes on in his conciousnes(remember conciousness as we know it in earth is not personal at all).if brahman or god is condensed absolute conciousness cant he make decisions?!!!

 

brahman never individualized itself ! even right now it is not individualized.its a state of illusioned thinking that leads us to the feeling of self( I ).its us who thinks that we are individuals.sorry if i have used the word 'us' , for in perfect unity nothing as such exist.

 

 

cause those individualized portions to suffer birth death old age and disease until they finnally realize they are not truly individuals is laughably absurd.

again right at the begining you are assuming that we are portions.advaita never dealts with portions or fragments at all. birth death nothing but the state of mind.it never takes place in the platform of reality(as per monist thought.).

 

when shall you change your ways theist ? even while replying to a post you have to begin by derogation.i wonder , how can such people turn devotees ?!!!!! i fail to understand why every individual of gaudiya vaishnav philosophy has to derogate or undermine other faiths before they can glorify themselves. is this resulting out of chronic insecurity of being ousted by other more intellectually apealing faiths ? things would have been so beautifull if instead of undermining advaita they would have concentrated on glorifying their own positive points like easy approach,emotional appeal,universal tolerance irrespective of caste etc.

 

that would have easily highlighted their cause and given the movement a pleasing and noble appearence,inatead of the pathetic repution that it faces now.

 

food for a thought.

[Deathless 0]

 

this is indeed a beautiful question.theist has given its answer from a dualistic point of view.i shall attempt to answer from a monistic point ,from whatever knowledge i have in this subject.

 

the very moment when you say the "infinite conciousness creates the individuality" you you are situated on a dualistic platform(one that percieves creator and the created as eternally seperate).

 

so when you are speaking from a dualistic veiwpoint there is no place for realisation of nondifference.

 

from a monistic point of view there is no creation at all.the only thing or phenomenon or existence is the brahman. it is our state of mind that makes us think that we exist in a material world.this state of mind is caused by maya.an example would illustrate the point:

 

when we step over a rope lying on the floor in a dark room we mistake it for a snake.but moments later we realise that it was a mere rope.but for those few moments when we got scared it was a complete snake in all its attributes.so the snake existed for those few fraction of seconds although there was no snake in reality at all.

 

similarly we are in a constant state of mistaking brahman as creation or cosmos.only difference is that this mistake is not so temporary as one in the example.

 

maya is the initial cause of this percieved individuality and ego is its sustainer.thats why in advaitic sadhana one begins with overcoming ego first and then eventually maya.

 

so when you are presuming the duality of creator and the created no one would expect you to strive for non different realisations. this would arise only if you assume non duality right since the begining. that is why true advaitists(monist) should refrain from claiming that everythings brahman untill they have realised that themselves.so long we are on the dualistic platform and performing dualistic activities like eating sleeping etc we have to respect personal god.

 

now the question arises since when are we conditioned as such ? this is very hard to answer. how this process of illusion started is impossible to explain,just as dualists cannot say since when were they ousted from goloka or kingdom of god to take birth in the material world.

 

but i believe that inability to provide an explanation is not a flaw to the religion itself.for god is infinite and beyond thought and speech.it is impossible to know him and his ways completely.and hence every religion gets a partial glimpse of the real phenomenon.so no religion can calim to be perfect.if any faith does claim as such it should be understood that they are least knowledgeble about god.

Why did this have to turn into an attack on Advaita? Can't you just state the way you feel and believe without having to attack others' beliefs?

[sambya 0]

 

Why did this have to turn into an attack on Advaita? Can't you just state the way you feel and believe without having to attack others' beliefs?

where did you see any attack on any belief in my post that you quoted above ?!!! do you mean to say i attacked advaita ? sorry , you are mistaken read my post again .

 

i have protested in my second post and not the one you quoted.and the protest was not against achintya bhedabhed but the narrow mindedness of most gaudiya vaishnavas.

 

and the reason why i did so would be evident if you read through theist's post.then perhaps you would ask the same question to theist !!!!!!!!

 

did you even read through all the posts ,in the first place ???!!!!!!!!!!!!! ???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sambya 0]

after scrutininzing my previous two posts i thought that the following qoute of mine might have offended you :

 

 

that is why true advaitists(monist) should refrain from claiming that everythings brahman untill they have realised that themselves.so long we are on the dualistic platform and performing dualistic activities like eating sleeping etc we have to respect personal god.

clafication of this doubt would require an explanation. if you travel back in time and check out some orthodox advaitic sadhus of that era you would instantly find their faults. all of them are advaita practitioners,none of them has attained nirvikalpa and are subject to pain diesese hunger and such other dualistic concepts.they still are within the hold of ego and pride resulting from superiority complex(this arises from the belief that they are following a superior path).

 

and yet they literally missed no chance to derogate people who worship idols,believe in avatar,sing bhajans to god etc.

 

in other words every sadhana on dualistic platform was looked down severely. in this context remember that i am not speaking of saivaites or shaktas who also believe in advaita , but of pure monistic sadhus who believed only in meditation.

 

in recent history one of the foremost relizors of advaita and one of the few persons to come back after nirvikalpa was ramakrishna paramahamsa.

 

but even he condemmed such people who lived and existed on a dualistic platform and at the same time was so adept at rejecting dualistic sadhana. one can only say 'aham brahmasmi' only if he has realized it . a person performing all kinds of material activities and proudly proclaiming 'aham barahmasmi' is sheer hypocrisy.he has no authority to shout such and derogate other dieties.

 

thankfully in modern era a new advaita has sprung up thats gradually replacing the more orthodox version.some call it neo advaita.this is in fact one of the broadest harmonising religious concepts of mankind which treats avatar ,dieties,bhajans and all such concepts with equal importance.this advaita is much more closer to advaita of shaivas and shaktas who believed in advaita and yet had their mythology and ishtadev.

 

when i criticised advaitists it was reffered to such orthodox people as mentioned above and not against the philosophy itself.and its not just my criticism but an echo of advaita realized ramakrishna.in fact all through the rest of my post i spoke on advaita's behalf. i have to doubt your understanding of the english language or the education that i have recieved.

 

i hope i have provided a clear picture.

 

waiting for your reply.

[theist 1]

Yes it is I that attacked advaita. I disagree with them on almost everything including the definition of person. Without the 'I' consciousness has no meaning. Consciousness indeed is integral to the 'I'.

 

I won't get into another advaita vs. dvaita discussion. One can take their pick and take their chances.

 

I must say sambya I don't think you answered the original question. You may have, sorry if I missed it.

[sambya 0]

 

Yes it is I that attacked advaita. I disagree with them on almost everything including the definition of person. Without the 'I' consciousness has no meaning. Consciousness indeed is integral to the 'I'.

 

I won't get into another advaita vs. dvaita discussion. One can take their pick and take their chances.

 

I must say sambya I don't think you answered the original question. You may have, sorry if I missed it.

i did try to answer the main question in my first post.

 

who wants another advaita vs dvaita discussion again ? i just tried to show how sick your answers can get. it begins with derogation.

 

i am really unaware of bhakti shastras teaching this( criticising and demeaning others) anywhere.everywhere it is instructed to drop ninda(criticising) altogether. and shastra should be applicable evrywhere and not selectively. i dont know of krishna handing out a list of things that could be an exception to this law.

 

and i must appreciate your sense of reasoning. just because you disagree with someone , their veiws have to be wrong and they ought to be destroyed !!! is this what you mean to say ?

 

'I' denotes the feeling of self or sense of being as percieved by mankind. as all of us are in a conditioned state this 'I' is definately a conditioned 'I' . we simply have no idea about the original 'I' .our 'I' is rather a manifestation of ego ( both good and bad ) not conciousness. the sense of being that we have no idea of , is the real consciousness.

 

our conception of 'I' is limited to our own body , belongings , beliefs and some other living beings(friends and relatives). surely the complete 'I' or god is nothing of that sort !!! it is something that cannot be understood before realisation. that complete 'I' cannot be restricted to mere concepts of 'person'.

[Deathless 0]

 

where did you see any attack on any belief in my post that you quoted above ?!!! do you mean to say i attacked advaita ? sorry , you are mistaken read my post again .

 

i have protested in my second post and not the one you quoted.and the protest was not against achintya bhedabhed but the narrow mindedness of most gaudiya vaishnavas.

 

and the reason why i did so would be evident if you read through theist's post.then perhaps you would ask the same question to theist !!!!!!!!

 

did you even read through all the posts ,in the first place ???!!!!!!!!!!!!! ???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So sorry Sambya, I meant it at theist. Sorry for the mistake.

[Deathless 0]

 

Yes it is I that attacked advaita. I disagree with them on almost everything including the definition of person. Without the 'I' consciousness has no meaning. Consciousness indeed is integral to the 'I'.

 

I won't get into another advaita vs. dvaita discussion. One can take their pick and take their chances.

 

I must say sambya I don't think you answered the original question. You may have, sorry if I missed it.

You disagree with the Advaita position. Okay, fine. Whatever. That doesn't mean you have to attack it every chance you can fit it in.

[Deathless 0]

 

after scrutininzing my previous two posts i thought that the following qoute of mine might have offended you :

 

 

clafication of this doubt would require an explanation. if you travel back in time and check out some orthodox advaitic sadhus of that era you would instantly find their faults. all of them are advaita practitioners,none of them has attained nirvikalpa and are subject to pain diesese hunger and such other dualistic concepts.they still are within the hold of ego and pride resulting from superiority complex(this arises from the belief that they are following a superior path).

 

and yet they literally missed no chance to derogate people who worship idols,believe in avatar,sing bhajans to god etc.

 

in other words every sadhana on dualistic platform was looked down severely. in this context remember that i am not speaking of saivaites or shaktas who also believe in advaita , but of pure monistic sadhus who believed only in meditation.

 

in recent history one of the foremost relizors of advaita and one of the few persons to come back after nirvikalpa was ramakrishna paramahamsa.

 

but even he condemmed such people who lived and existed on a dualistic platform and at the same time was so adept at rejecting dualistic sadhana. one can only say 'aham brahmasmi' only if he has realized it . a person performing all kinds of material activities and proudly proclaiming 'aham barahmasmi' is sheer hypocrisy.he has no authority to shout such and derogate other dieties.

 

thankfully in modern era a new advaita has sprung up thats gradually replacing the more orthodox version.some call it neo advaita.this is in fact one of the broadest harmonising religious concepts of mankind which treats avatar ,dieties,bhajans and all such concepts with equal importance.this advaita is much more closer to advaita of shaivas and shaktas who believed in advaita and yet had their mythology and ishtadev.

 

when i criticised advaitists it was reffered to such orthodox people as mentioned above and not against the philosophy itself.and its not just my criticism but an echo of advaita realized ramakrishna.in fact all through the rest of my post i spoke on advaita's behalf. i have to doubt your understanding of the english language or the education that i have recieved.

 

i hope i have provided a clear picture.

 

waiting for your reply.

I feel so bad that you felt as if you'd made a mistake when I had! I'm so sorry sambya for upsetting you and making you go to all that trouble due to my idiotic mistake!

[Matador30 0]

 

so when you are presuming the duality of creator and the created no one would expect you to strive for non different realisations. this would arise only if you assume non duality right since the begining. that is why true advaitists(monist) should refrain from claiming that everythings brahman untill they have realised that themselves.so long we are on the dualistic platform and performing dualistic activities like eating sleeping etc we have to respect personal god.

Thank you everyone for answering.

 

Dear Sambya Ji are you implying that Brahman can be realised only after death, cause only after death one doesn't have the need to eat & sleep.

[sambya 0]

 

Dear Sambya Ji are you implying that Brahman can be realised only after death, cause only after death one doesn't have the need to eat & sleep.

 

no brahman is realised in living state . one can realize brahman in this birth itself ,provided one does have the capacity and requisites to do so.

but after the ultimate realization( not the part realization in course of sadhana ) you realise the unity(brahman) and you get liberated . this liberation or mukti might be seen by ignorant persons as death , but actually its a cessation of the material existence.

 

one cannot have a body without having the feeling of self(I) . The moment you think 'my body' ego comes in . but at the final stage of realization ego gets destroyed totally. so the idea of body vanishes . biologically you die within 22 days of nirvikalpa samadhi.

[kaisersose 0]

 

Yes it is I that attacked advaita. I disagree with them on almost everything including the definition of person. Without the 'I' consciousness has no meaning. Consciousness indeed is integral to the 'I'.

 

A valid argument. Consciousness as we know it, makes little sense without an I.

 

But a similar argument applies to all religious positions. Consciousness and memory make little sense without a physical brain/body. The argument is dealt with by saying it is beyond what we can know [transcendental] and so our material knowledge and experience fall short of understanding this.

 

However, if we are willing to take this position, then we should be honest enough to accept that similar logic applies to the Advaita position too. Consciousness may exist without an I, but our limited abilities cannot comprehend the concept.

 

The point is, we should apply scrutiny uniformly across the board. Selective criticism does not help.

 

Cheers

[RamanaDasi 0]

 

A valid argument. Consciousness as we know it, makes little sense without an I.

 

 

Consciousness can exist without ahankara ("I")

 

This is precisely what Nirvisesh-Brahma is.

 

Ego-less consciousness.

 

The lovers of Krishna in Vraja are all ego-less beings. They are "self-forgetful", in the words of one Krishna bhakta.

 

Some people are striving for self realization, but it seems to me that in many ways the notion of self-realization is a smoke-screen that people with big egos hide behind. Like in the Christian religion where religionists condemn the heathens, the so called personalists are seen condemning the impersonalists (while simultaneously these personalist teachers are enjoying an ego centered life in a five-star materially-focused lifestyle paid for by gullible disciples).

[Matador30 0]

 

no brahman is realised in living state . one can realize brahman in this birth itself ,provided one does have the capacity and requisites to do so.

 

but after the ultimate realization( not the part realization in course of sadhana ) you realise the unity(brahman) and you get liberated . this liberation or mukti might be seen by ignorant persons as death , but actually its a cessation of the material existence.

 

one cannot have a body without having the feeling of self(I) . The moment you think 'my body' ego comes in . but at the final stage of realization ego gets destroyed totally. so the idea of body vanishes . biologically you die within 22 days of nirvikalpa samadhi.

 

Wait a minute, so only after cessation of material existence can one have the ultimate realization i.e unity with brahman, but we need material existence to share our experience with the ignorants, is this experience / realisation temporal ? I read on wikipedia that Nir-vikalpa is point of no return & you have said RamaKrishna Paramhansa returned from Nir-vikalpa, may be R.P. never reached that level, so it was possible for him to return, may be it was his ego playing tricks on him. The same can be said for Buddha.

 

hope you will bear with me.

[kaisersose 0]

 

Hi

 

I was reading this thread, what I don't understand is why the infinite consciousness first creates the individuality in us & then expects us to realise we are not diferent from it. If the ego creates this individuality, who creates the ego ?

Thank you.

 

This question applies to all traditions of Vedanta. The soul is beginningless as is ignorance. This is the common position of all three schools of Vedanta.

 

So if you disagree with this fundamental foundation, then keep in mind that you are disagreeing with Advaita, Dvaita and V-Dvaita on something that the three have no disagreement about. Hence, you have to to ask your question differently - if you still have it.

 

Cheers

[Matador30 0]

 

The soul is beginningless as is ignorance.

Now you have hit the nail on the head. Thank you so much.

 

Can I say that the two co-exist, but one cease to exist in the presence of the other ?

[sambya 0]

 

Wait a minute, so only after cessation of material existence can one have the ultimate realization i.e unity with brahman, but we need material existence to share our experience with the ignorants, is this experience / realisation temporal ?

 

 

actually its after ultimate realization that material existence ceases . first comes the realization then the cessation of material existence .

 

here the term 'material existence' should be taken as physical existence in a body .but if it is interpreted as 'materialistic existence' then it should be noted that it's already over before ultimate realisation.

 

a person transcends materialistic existence at high spiritual levels , he may not have attained the ultimate realization for that. it is said that once kundalini crosses the throat chakra there is no more chance of falling down in a sadhana. that can be understood as cessation of gross materialistic existence.

 

 

no one can share nirvikalpa experiance with any person . even ramakrishna couldnt describe it ever . thats because when you come down to the dualistic plane from the monistic one you need a minimal ego . this is the positive ego of a man. in order to speak you must have this minimal ego .and the moment this fraction of ego comes in , its no longer describable any longer due to it(nirvikalpa) being situated on a perfectly egoless platform .

 

we cannot have a faintest idea what it(nirviklpa) might be like .ramakrishna used to say " how can you describe the taste of ghee to one who has never tasted it ?? "

 

 

? I read on wikipedia that Nir-vikalpa is point of no return & you have said RamaKrishna Paramhansa returned from Nir-vikalpa, may be R.P. never reached that level, so it was possible for him to return, may be it was his ego playing tricks on him. The same can be said for Buddha.

 

there has been instances of extremely rare individuals who have come down from this level for liberation of the ignorant masses . this is considered to be a feat possible only by an avatar .

 

but today there are numerous interpretation of this term ' avatar '.

some opine that avatar is not a descend of god but a ascend of humanity . its a ascending process than a descending phenomeneon . some rarest of rare individuals transcend the usual spiritual laws and attain avatar hood.

 

its upto to an individual to believe it or not.

[melvin 1]

Stages of My Life

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

1. I was born on November 3, 1957

2. At 5 yrs of age I went to kindergarten( Colegio del Santo Nino)

3. At 6 yrs of age I received my 1st holy communion

4. At 12 I graduated Primary school(Colegio del Santo Nino)

5. At 17 I graduated Secondary school( Univ. Of Southern Philippines)

6. At 18 I entered College(Velez College) taking the course BSMT

7 At 21 I learned to chant Hare Krsna

8. At 22 I entered medical school( Univ. of the Visayas)

9. At 25 I got married.

10. At 29 I obtained my physician`s license

11. At 30 I started writing Hare Krsna articles in the local newspapers

12. At 35 I started working as a government doctor

13. At 49 I had my 1st heart attack

14. At 51 I`m still writing Hare Krsna articles.

 

So, do you think I`m liberated at this point in time?

[sambya 0]

 

Stages of My Life

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

1. I was born on November 3, 1957

2. At 5 yrs of age I went to kindergarten( Colegio del Santo Nino)

3. At 6 yrs of age I received my 1st holy communion

4. At 12 I graduated Primary school(Colegio del Santo Nino)

5. At 17 I graduated Secondary school( Univ. Of Southern Philippines)

6. At 18 I entered College(Velez College) taking the course BSMT

7 At 21 I learned to chant Hare Krsna

8. At 22 I entered medical school( Univ. of the Visayas)

9. At 25 I got married.

10. At 29 I obtained my physician`s license

11. At 30 I started writing Hare Krsna articles in the local newspapers

12. At 35 I started working as a government doctor

13. At 49 I had my 1st heart attack

14. At 51 I`m still writing Hare Krsna articles.

 

So, do you think I`m liberated at this point in time?

 

what does that mean ??!! no !!! none of us are !! a liberated soul wound'nt roam about internet at all !!!!!!!!

[melvin 1]

 

what does that mean ??!! no !!! none of us are !! a liberated soul wound'nt roam about internet at all !!!!!!!!

Sambya, a self-realized soul roams the internet because he wants to teach out of compassion everyone the value of chanting the Hare Krsna maha mantra. That is the self-realized soul`s eternal mission before he became egoistic.

[Matador30 0]

 

its upto to an individual to believe it or not.

ok, thanks

 

 

This question applies to all traditions of Vedanta. The soul is beginningless as is ignorance. This is the common position of all three schools of Vedanta.

is there any textual reference to this ?

[kaisersose 0]

 

is there any textual reference to this ?

 

That is easy. Most of it comes from the Gita as is usually the case with rebirth logic.

 

Soul:

There was never a time Arjuna, when you did not exist, nor a time when you will cease to exist. [2.12]

 

Bondage:

The concept of beginningless ignorance/bondage is derived from the above as follows.

 

1) The soul is beginningless and has been moving from one body to another [2.20, etc]

2) Release from bondage = liberation = no more rebirth. [8.15, etc]

 

From 1,2 it follows rebirth occurs due to bondage. It follows bondage is also beginningless along with the soul.

 

There is no dispute here among the 3 traditions. The dispute comes in how bondage ends and what happens next.

 

Cheers