Bhakti as the ultimate goal beyond mukti

[Guest guest]

Then Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu gave the additional conception, explaining, "Calculative dedication in Vaikuntha is one thing but spontaneous dedication to Krishna in Goloka is another. And the highest ideal is not spontaneous dedication to power and majesty, but to Love beauty."For this to exist there must be life, and concious units to exchange with.

 

Sri Caitanya only has written 8 slokas called Siksastakam. There is no mention of Vaikuntha or Goloka in His writings. All the religious aspects such as forms and abodes of a religion's God were made by His sectarian followers. Sri Caitanya has mainly discussed on a 5th stage of conscience, were the Ultimate Reality was realized, and the way He has realized and relished It.

 

All the religious process that was created in His name is also temporary. Some states that it will be the religion for the next 10,000 years. It's temporary. Upanisadic precepts are eternal, that's to say the philosophy's God is eternal. His realization will always depends on His own free will, not from any religious (dharma) process, yoga, austerities, mantra, and so on.

 

In Gitopanisad Hari clear states:

 

sarva-dharman parityajya / mam ekam saranam vraja

aham tvam sarva-papebhyo / moksayisyami ma sucah (Gita 18.66)

 

So, one should only surrender to Hari's will, after giving up all sort of dharma. This should included all yuga-dharmas, such as harinama sankirtana and the religious process related to it.

 

[Guest guest]

Dedication to Krishna is nectar and exploitation of this material energy is poison, and what the followers of Sankara and Buddha want is the middle position, where everything is harmonised into death, the plane of cessation of difference, freedom from suffering. That is brahman-nirvana, the final peace, devoid of trouble where all are buried in eternal slumber. If you prefer that you can go there. But what you find in this world is the reflection of the original whole, perverted into exploitation. On the other side is dedication. In the group of servitors practicing pure dedication, even their quarrel becomes beautiful. Whatever is found here is found there totally. Try to understand this general principle. A poison may be utilised as medicine when applied properly. The mayavadi (impersonalists) cannot find any harmony in difference, they can only find harmony in the conception of non-differentiated Brahman consciousness. They cannot keep up the beautiful harmony in variety held by the vaishnavas. Rather they consider that everything must be merged, homogenized into one, to solve the problems of the world, for there to be freedom from pain. Other than that they have no solution, but only disturbance. (Dasanudas)

 

This is a typical viewpoint of someone who could never understand the sanatana-dharma's "darsanas" that have been brought into limelight by the three Acaryas who are called "Tri-mata-acaryas": Adi Shankara ---Advaita --- Non-Dualism; Ramanuja ----Visista Advaita -- qualified Non-dualism; Madhwa ----- Dwaita --- Dualism.

 

The speaker seems to talk in the name of all vaisnavas, but Gaudiyas are not even included into one of the 4 Vaisnavas-sampradayas of Kali-yuga (it is not proved their link with Madhva). His conceptions are very biased, as suddha-advaita-vada, that is a vaisnava philosophy would reject his point of view in toto.

 

He seems to reject other aspects of the Ultimate Reality, as follows :

 

1.This Ultimate Reality is infinite and all comprehensive.

2.The diverse names and forms to be found in this universe are but the manifestations of the self same Ultimate Entity. In other words that One Ultimate Entity has become Many.

3.The power of this Ultimate Reality are simply incomprehensible. And one very peculiar characteristic of this aspects is the fact that even the mutually conflicting qualities can reside together in it.

4.The ultimate Reality is both personal and impersonal. And the personal aspect repeatedly incarnates itself.

5.All this activity is only a sport on part of this Ultimate Reality.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Satyaraja dasa:

Vedanta-acaryas are proposers of philosophy's Absolute Truth. They are not explaining a religious process. There is a great difference between philosophy's Absolute and religion's God. The God aspect is not vividly described in these Upanishad, but because there is an Absolute present as ' a priori ' it is decided that He must be the God .

 

Shrooti is not the exclusive reference of the Vedantins. For their unified exegesis, all three major Vedanta schools refer, as their primary scriptural authority, to the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Vedanta Sutras. As you will see these are a mix of shrooti AND smirti.

 

On the various threads I have noticed a predisposition to viewing the shrootis and other sacred texts as some sort of sole authority. However, there are several core means of valid knowledge (pramaana-s)accepted by the Vedantins. These are

1. perception (pratyaksha)

2. comparison (upamaana)

3. non-cognition (anupalabdhi)

4. inference (anumaana)

5. postulation (arthaapatti) and

6. testimony (shabda) - scriptural authority

 

When Satyaraja suggests that the shrootis provide an abstract treatment of the Divine and that the theistic conclusion is a "decision", it does not mean that the conclusion (decision) is fanciful, arbitrary and un-vedantic. If the theistic conclusion from the shrooti is the result of correct inferences, logical comparisons and so on (i.e. VALID means of non scriptural knowledge), then these conlusions are authoritatively vedantic.

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 06-22-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Talasigaji is correct in his premise. He is expanding the concept of a philosophic God as postulated by Vedanta-acaryas.

 

One should observe, however, that a religion's God does not follows this premise. The theist conclusion of His existence, form, abode, associates and so on are exposed by texts such as Puranas, Agamas, Tantras, Pañcaratras, and so on that mention different process on how to attain such existences, forms, abode, associates, and so on.

 

There is a lot of difference between these religions' Gods and the Ultimate Reality as mentioned by Vedanta-acaryas.

 

[shvu 1]

 

On the various threads I have noticed a predisposition to viewing the shrootis and other sacred texts as some sort of sole authority.

 

They are.

 

Sruti is the sole source to know about God, creation, afterlife, the ultimate Goal, etc which cannot be known otherwise. Some may speculate that there must be a creator, sustainer,etc, but it is undisputably true only when it is revealed by God himself. pratyaksha and anumAna aid in interpreting Sruti in the right way. They are different for different people, thus resulting in different interpretations of Sruti.

 

Cheers

 

[shvu 1]

 

Sankaracharyya and Buddha both preferred [?] that the ultimate goal be non-differentiated, unknown and unknowable, and they finished [?] there. Do you wish to go there? Elimination of all diversity may be [??] a very peaceful position, a deep slumber, and that is their goal[!].

forgive them [the author], o lord, for they know not what they are doing.

 

Cheers

 

[Maitreya 0]

Originally posted by shvu:

forgive them [the author], o lord, for they know not what they are doing.

 

Cheers

shvu, who are you praying to?

 

 

[shvu 1]

 

shvu, who are you praying to?

Just kidding, maitreya.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

According some Gaudiyas' vision, krsna-prema is the aim of their bhakti, and that bhakti is the ultimate goal beyond mukti

 

It is stated that the bliss and joy of a union between soul and god is so intense, it is almost impossible to describe this feeling except as an intense and prolonged orgasm. In the ultimate union, one sees love overflowing the body and soul. This is an experience related by a seer who has realized this aspect of the Ultimate Reality. Indeed it is a very beautiful way to describe his own experience.

 

But the logic of the Gaudiyas' path is as follows; "If you observe our process of sadhana you will feel this bliss and joy of the union with Hari that may be compared to an intense and prolonged orgasm. We call this krsna-prema. To feel this is to attain Hari. "

 

It is not guaranteed that you will realize Hari Himself, but that you will feel something like those who had realized Him in this specific aspect.

 

This seems to follow the same logic on how to attain the moon; "If one is faithful on the premise that the moon is made of blue cheese to taste blue cheese should be the same as to be at the moon. So, the moon is attainable by tasting blue cheese."

 

By following their reasoning, if someone is tasting soft cheese instead of blue cheese, he will be placed in a monotonous and tedious Brahman, devoid of the intense and everlasting orgasm caused by blue cheese.

 

[This message has been edited by Satyaraja dasa (edited 06-22-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean by 'realize'.(Maitreya)

 

The Vedanta-acaryas (Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhava, and others) had fully explained the meaning of 'to realize the Ultimate Truth.' Countless saints had described the same conclusion.

 

Gaudiyas do not follow any sruti text. They follow Bhagavata and they consider it as the natural commentary on Vedanta. The kind of realization that they are postulating is of a religion's God, that is not to be considered as Absolute.

 

Influenced by saktas, they are seeking after the same kind of feelings presented by Hari's saktis, by worshiping them by a Tantric process. There is not even any sastric evidence besides their own sastras on the real and eternal existence of these saktis' feelings.

 

The concept of krsna-prema as postulated by them is the orgasm as felt by the main sakti during her sexual intercourse with Hari (maha-bhava). This is purest Tantra.

 

[Audarya lila 0]

Dear Satyaraja Dasa,

 

Krsna reveals himself to whoever he chooses to. Gaudiya Vaishnava's do recommend a process of sadhana which, if practiced honestly and with dedication, will put the sadhaka in a better position to recieve the mercy of Krsna. Practice and the fruit of the practice. Similar and sometimes indistinguishable. We are hearing and chanting and praying for service - yet this process is service - it is really quite a wonderful process to be involved in.

 

If someone adopts the process of hearing and chanting and is following nicely but isn't recieving the fruits of that practice what will be the conclusion? The practice itself is faulty? The application is faulty? Will that person leave and then simply say that the grapes were sour anyway? I hope not. Spiritual life is dynamic and the only reason any of us isn't at the highest stage of realization is our own offensiveness and misunderstanding. Honesty, sincerity and constant practice and determination is what is wanted.

 

The Guadiya conception is one which asks the practicioner to become selfless and become a servant to all. This is a good proposition and one which most practitioners of any faith based system would find consistent with their own belief system. What is the fruit - to become more humble than a blade of grass and tolerant to the extreme. Giving all respect to others and not expecting any in return. In that condition one can chant the Holy Name constantly.

 

It is a rare soul indeed in whom practice and precept are synonymous. We all would do well to find such a rare soul and learn from him/her.

 

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa

 

 

[amanpeter 0]

Influenced by saktas, they are seeking after the same kind of feelings presented by Hari's saktis,

by worshiping them by a Tantric process. There is not even any sastric evidence besides their

own sastras on the real and eternal existence of these saktis' feelings.

 

The concept of krsna-prema as postulated by them is the orgasm as felt by the main sakti during

her sexual intercourse with Hari (maha-bhava). This is purest Tantra.

Satyaraj prabhu, I regret having to say that you're completely `out to lunch`. One can only imagine what you may be eating! I could explain Srimati Radharani and Her sakhi-manjaris further, along with `love in separation`, but why encourage even more offensive misunderstanding? You appear to actually enjoy creating controversy, whatever the cost. Personally, I'd much rather make `love not war`, brother. JAI RADHE!

 

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

No offense meant to anyone...

[Guest guest]

shvu:

Sruti is the sole source to know about God, creation, afterlife, the ultimate Goal, etc which cannot be known otherwise.

Even the shrooti does not say what shvu says.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Satyaraja dasa:

He is expanding the concept of a philosophic God as postulated by Vedanta-acaryas.

If you look at the lives of the great Vedantin saints their theistic (personal God) conclusions are stimulated by the experience of the Lord. It is not a conclusion of some dry philosophical speculation as one sees in Western Universities. All scholars acknowledge that the Sanatan Dharma philosophies are experiential.

 

Therefore these philosophical schools are experience driven and, in the context of this discussion, driven by the experience of the divine. The various schools of vedanta are different approaches to explain and test the validity of the experiences in terms of the valid means of knowledge which also includes the Revelations known as shrootis.

 

Unfortunately, Shvu's preoccupation with shrooti as the only means to knowing God, tends to disregard the experiential emphasis of the vendantins. For instance, without pratyaksha (perception)how could one know the shrootis? Therefore, even with this little example, one can see that pratyaksha must at least be equal to shabda as a valid means of knowledge.

[shvu 1]

 

If you look at the lives of the great Vedantin saints their theistic (personal God) conclusions are stimulated by the experience of the Lord.

 

Can you quote an example?

 

It is not a conclusion of some dry philosophical speculation as one sees in Western Universities. All scholars acknowledge that the Sanatan Dharma philosophies are experiential.

Do you mean to say that until one actually has some kind of experience, he cannot believe in God? So does one begin to seek to find out if there is a God, or does one set out to seek God with the premise that God exists as stated in Sruti? According to you only the former is possible. So I request you to give an instance where Shankara or Ramanuja or Madhva set out to see if there exists a God. Any one instance will do.

 

Therefore these philosophical schools are experience driven and, in the context of this discussion, driven by the experience of the divine. The various schools of vedanta are different approaches to explain and test the validity of the experiences in terms of the valid means of knowledge which also includes the Revelations known as shrootis.

It is the other way around. By study of the revelation, it is known beyond doubt that there is a God and then they set out to seek. Shankara (a vedAntin) says in his brahmasutra bhasya 1.1.2,

 

"brahman cannot be established independent of scriptures. anumAna, etc can only give strong suggestions of a first cause. But what one establishes through reason can be refuted by another more intelligent than he. So no conclusion can be arrived at, independent of shAstra"

 

shAstrayonitvAt - bs 1.1.3

 

shAstra being the means of right knowledge.

 

Here again Shankara says in his bhAsya, "brahman having no characterestics, cannot be established thru anumAna or upamAna. It can be known only thru shAstra".

 

Unfortunately, Shvu's preoccupation with shrooti as the only means to knowing God, tends to disregard the experiential emphasis of the vendantins. For instance, without pratyaksha (perception)how could one know the shrootis? Therefore, even with this little example, one can see that pratyaksha must at least be equal to shabda as a valid means of knowledge

Looks like you have misunderstood what I said. While pratyaksha is required to know sruti, the knowledge of an enternal supreme, is known only thru shruti and not by any other means, as shown above.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by Maitreya:

 

I think that Satyaraja is trying to illustrate that a spiritual state may be invoked in the absence of the original context by the use of simulated context. This is analogous to many things in life including say, music. For instance, if one were to listen to a classical raaga performed by a good musician and the subject of the raaga is the feeling of sadness at the departure of friends early in the morning, one may indeed have these feelings on hearing this raaga, and begin to cry, and feel different bodily sensations even though one is listening to the raaga in the company of close friends and it is evening. (By the way this musical experience is another example of a tantric process namely: the invocation of a spiritual state by use of material instruments in accordance with certain formulas and strict applications.)

 

What Satyaraja has not explained is why such an experience resulting from a simulated context is qualitatively the same as the experience in the Original context. By this absence of explanation it seems to me that he is infering that the former experience is in some way invalid. However, one may perceive, in real life, that the experience within a simulated context, such as listening to music, can give rise to conditions and effects that are quite real. In homeopathy the simulative approach often results in tangible healing.

[dasanudas 0]

The kamikazis of Pearl Harbour had nothing on the Kama-Kazis of The Absolute Truth, even tho both are willing to die for their cause, their reward is far from Krsnas' paradise.

God bless the honorable soul whose sacrifice is genuine.The Lord is always dancing in the sweet heart of his devotee. Of whom He is well pleased.

 

May sraddha, sadhu and Prema be with you.

dasanudas

[Maitreya 0]

Originally posted by shvu:

Just kidding, maitreya.

 

Cheers

 

I know shvu, but I always have hope for you.

 

[shvu 1]

 

I know shvu, but I always have hope for you.

Thanx maitreya, I appreciate the concern.

 

Cheers

[Maitreya 0]

 

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

We call this krsna-prema. To feel this is to attain Hari. "

 

It is not guaranteed that you will realize Hari Himself, but that you will feel something like those who had realized Him in this specific aspect.

 

Satyaraja, how does one have Krishna-preme without having realized Hari?

 

Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean by 'realize'.

 

 

[Maitreya 0]

Originally posted by Maitreya:

 

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by shvu:

{a long message posted 22 June 2001 7:30PM critiquing Talasiga postings}....

Shvu's latest posting appears to be fettered by the following:

 

1. confusing a reference to experience as a reference to belief

 

2. confusing a reference to knowing God with a reference to establishing God as a discursive conclusion

 

3. inferring that the reference to the shrooti by Seekers as a basis for belief in God excludes the reference to the shrooti by the Enlightened as an authority to validate their Divine experience and as a basis to expound on God.

 

4. mistaking a commentary by Adi Shankara as being equal to a shrooti in reply to the inferred question, "Which shrooti states that the only way to know God is through shrooti?'

 

5. the failure to acknowledge that, if knowledge through "x" (say, shrooti) is dependent on "y" (say, perception), then "x" is subrated by "y".

 

In fairness to shvu, and for clarity in sustainable discussion, I invite him to take this opportunity to reviewhis posting before I respond to it.

 

 

[Guest guest]

What Satyaraja has not explained is why such an experience resulting from a simulated context is qualitatively the same as the experience in the Original context. By this absence of explanation it seems to me that he is infering that the former experience is in some way invalid.(Talasigaji)

 

You got into the point. Material experiences are harmonized by senses, mind, intelligence and ahankara. Hari's realization is something beyond any material experience, and therefore senses, mind, intelligence, and ahankara cannot harmonize it.

 

One should try to classify Hari's realization as the 5th stage of conscience, placing samadhi and its several gradations as the 4th stage. One may attain samadhi by yoga, tantra and religious practices. However, still there is no guarantee that someone placed in samadhi will ever attain the 5th stage of conscience, or Hari's realization 'in toto'.

 

There is not a previous experience on 5th stage of conscience, therefore it cannot be evoked by any material stimulus such as a mantra, yantra, or any tanctric process. We agree that these processes may cause samadhi, the 4th stage, but not the 5th stage. Only Hari's personal grace (pusti) may cause this specific situation, that may occur even if someone is not placed in the 4th stage of material conscience. Even if he is placed in a very low condition of conscience such as an inanimate being, Hari may cause him to attain this 5th stage of conscience by His grace immediately.

 

As there is no previous experience of this 5th stage of conscience, it is clearly inferred that any former experience is completely invalid to describe this situation, or to attain it.

 

The sastric support to this assertive is Gitopanisad verse 18.66. The marga that follows this precept is called pusti-marga, by Sri Vallabhacarya; and his doctrine is suddha-advaita-vada.

 

[shvu 1]

Shvu's latest posting appears to be fettered by the following:

 

1. confusing a reference to experience as a reference to belief

 

Whoosh ! went straight over my head. Perhaps you can provide more info?

 

2. confusing a reference to knowing God with a reference to establishing God as a discursive conclusion

 

Went straight over my head again. I am not smart enough to understand your conclusions [ad hoc perhaps?]. More info, please.

 

3. inferring that the reference to the shrooti by Seekers as a basis for belief in God excludes the reference to the shrooti by the Enlightened as an authority to validate their Divine experience and as a basis to expound on God.

 

I asked for an example, earlier and am still patiently waiting for one.

 

4. mistaking a commentary by Adi Shankara as being equal to a shrooti in reply to the inferred question, "Which shrooti states that the only way to know God is through shrooti?'

 

No mistakes. We are discussing the positions of Vedantins with respect to shruti. Shankara as seen, is clear that your angle does not work. That was one example. For a vedAntin, It begins with faith in the shruti. Quite obviously, no one can know about who created the world, thru experience, as you put it. But if you think someone experienced this, I would like an example. If it can be determined by experience, then why have the Sruti at all, is another question.

 

It is the position of the vedAntins that God cannot be known thru means other than shruti. For more details, refer to the Kenopanishat, where it is said it is beyond understanding, etc.

 

5. the failure to acknowledge that, if knowledge through "x" (say, shrooti) is dependent on "y" (say, perception), then "x" is subrated by "y".

 

How so? Perception is always there by default. Perception exists for those who founded other schools too. The brahma-sutras reject the logic of the other schools wrt to the ultimate, simply on the grounds that it is not based on shAstra. Which is the whole point here.

 

In fairness to shvu, and for clarity in sustainable discussion, I invite him to take this opportunity to review his posting before I respond to it.

 

My position as you can see remains unchanged. Instead of going on with your own hypothesis, it would help if you provide some substantial evdience to show that some traditional vedAntin supports this "experience independent of shruti" idea. Then one can begin to take you seriously.

 

Just to refresh your memory, the topic of the discussion is, according to traditional vedAntins (I use traditional to reject neo-vedAntins, in case you are going by one of the neo guys), shruti is the sole means to know about the supreme, creation, etc which simply cannot be determined thru any other means, beyond dispute.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 06-23-2001).]

[Guest guest]

This is an curious posting, Satyaraja Dasji.

 

The salient elements in your posting appear to be:-

 

1. God realisation is the highest state of consciousness.

 

2. God realisation can only be had by God's Grace and is not dependent on the recipient having a particular state of consciousness.

 

3. The integrative process of material consciousness is faciltated by the instruments of the senses, mind, intellect and ego identity.

 

4. God is beyond the material and therefore the instruments of the senses, mind, intellect and ego identity serve no facility in relation to God consciousness.

 

5. The terms of a former experience cannot validly be extrapolated to predict the nature of a new experience whose content is markedly different to the content of the former experience.

 

Before I respond, is this a good summary of the elements in your posting?

 

(PS I will be back in circa 36 hours - I have some programs to attend to)