Gangajalji,
Thanks for the explanation.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
This is the reason why Ramakrishna Vedanta does not accept Kevala Advaita's position that Hindu Gods and Goddesses are ultimately unreal. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did Shankara say so ? I wanted to confirm that Shankara's advaita is not Kevala advaita. and does Shankara refute the validity of personal God? If yes, then why Bhaja Govindam and Soundarya Lahiri?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> According to Ramakrishna personal forms of Gods and Godesses are frozen consciosuness like ice due to the cooling effect of Bhakti while Brahman the impersonal reality is like water due to the heating effect of the sun of Jnana <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As Sunder ji pointed out earlier about Buddha being a avatara or not, when everything is Brahman, so does a Personal god and even a lowly life form. The way a agnani like me see it is Personal Gods and Godess are the manifestation of the Brahman in the Mayic Domain ( Saguna Brahman) and while the real formeless Brahman (Nirguna) is outside as well as inside the Mayic domain.
The only problem is that i understand these realities but realization is a far cry. Inshah Krishna ( <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> , realization is achievable.
Another question regarding
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> There are some people, however, who do not care about that highest experience and want to retain some difference with Brahman. These people who want to retain some difference stay in Brahmalok for the rest of this cycle and are released when this cycle ends.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't the Vishistadvaitis fall under this category?
Sunder ji (General Sundarji of the advaita Army?)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This identification with the ungrasped and ungraspable Reality is difficult to achieve. They are indeed seeing fear in the fearless.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does it not sounds similar to the 5th shloka in Srimad Bhagvat Gita Ch:12 ? Again . Is the workship or (identification) of the Nirguna Brahman called the Avyakthobasana, that Bhagavan talks about ?
In the Bhagavat Gita Book, there is a reference to Madhvacharya's commentary on the Bhagavat Gita insisting this point.
BTW, i wanted to ask, what is the actual meaning of the term avyaktham . Is avyaktham = Nirguna Brahman?
Thanks for your patience with me and sorry for asking too many clarification. Reading, listening and contemplation throws out a lot of things in the mind, which get cleared when i vent it out here. Also please let me know whether i am making a useful contribution or just fooling around.
<!--QuoteBegin-sridhar k+Nov 10 2004, 09:26 AM-->QUOTE(sridhar k @ Nov 10 2004, 09:26 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Does it not sounds similar to the 5th shloka in Srimad Bhagvat Gita Ch:12 ? Again . Is the workship or (identification) of the Nirguna Brahman called the Avyakthobasana, that Bhagavan talks about ?
In the Bhagavat Gita Book, there is a reference to Madhvacharya's commentary on the Bhagavat Gita insisting this point.
BTW, i wanted to ask, what is the actual meaning of the term avyaktham . Is avyaktham = Nirguna Brahman? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sridhar Aiya, Your quotation of Srimadh Bhagavad Gita 12:5 is quite apt..
<i><b>Klesho'adikatharasthesham Avykaktha asaktha chethasaam.
Avyaktha hi gathir dhukham dehavadbir'avaapsyathe...</b></i>
This connects with shloka 7.24, and 2.28
<i><b>Avyaktam vyaktim aapannam manyante maam abuddhayah
param bhaavam ajaananto mamavyayam anuttamam. 7.24
Avyaktaadini bhutani Vyakta-madhyani bharata
Avyakta-nidhananyeva Tatra ka paridevana.. 2:28</b></i>
As far as I understand the word Avyakta, it simply means UNMANIFEST, and not necessarily Impersonal or Absolute. Avyaktam usually means something that is not manifest YET. Something in it's causal form, which is not perceived by the five sense organs, nor is graspable by the mind ordinarily. Sometimes Maya is also called Avyakta. A seed is Avyakta, while a tree is vyaktha. Vyakthi (usually meaning person) means, the otherwise Unmanifest Consciousness, in a manifest-form.
As 2:28 explains, all 'beings' began as the causal state, and then identifies with the subtle, and gross body gradually.. This is what knowers call 'evolution' or pravritthi. During nivritthi, (involution?) the VYAKTHI goes back to it's causal form. (Yasmin sarvaani bhuthani bhavanthyaadhi yugagame, yasminscha pralayam yaanthi, punareva yugakshaye.) The Unmanifest state remains till the next cycle of creation begins.
7:24 and 12:5 say pretty much the same thing. Here Sri Bhagavaan says that those 'jivas' where the consciousness identifies itself with the body will have difficult grasping the concept that it is the Unmanifest. In this state, the mind will still try and think of Sri Krishna as the body sitting on a chariot blowing a conch 5000 years ago. They think that they are the body, and hence God will be a human shaped entity too. Because 'they' have feelings and emotions of pleasure and servitude, God will have the same feelings too. This is the leading error ( Saamvadi Bhrama) that one commits. The Avyaktha is purely a saakshi who is an impartial observer.
With the Lord's Grace, and by meditating on the Mahavakyas, (Sravana, Manana, Nidhidhyasana) one can overcome this identification with the impermanent, and realize that only the Self exists.
Easier said that done? I think it is easier done than said.
<!--QuoteBegin-sridhar k+Nov 10 2004, 09:26 AM-->QUOTE(sridhar k @ Nov 10 2004, 09:26 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Gangajalji,
Thanks for the explanation.Â
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
This is the reason why Ramakrishna Vedanta does not accept Kevala Advaita's position that Hindu Gods and Goddesses are ultimately unreal. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did Shankara say so ? I wanted to confirm that Shankara's advaita is not Kevala advaita. and does Shankara refute the validity of personal God? If yes, then why Bhaja Govindam and Soundarya Lahiri?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> According to Ramakrishna personal forms of Gods and Godesses are frozen consciosuness like ice due to the cooling effect of Bhakti while Brahman the impersonal reality is like water due to the heating effect of the sun of Jnana <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As Sunder ji pointed out earlier about Buddha being a avatara or not, when everything is Brahman, so does a Personal god and even a lowly life form. The way a agnani like me see it is Personal Gods and Godess are the manifestation of the Brahman in the Mayic Domain ( Saguna Brahman) and while the real formeless Brahman (Nirguna) is outside as well as inside the Mayic domain.
The only problem is that i understand these realities but realization is a far cry. Inshah Krishna ( <!--emo& --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> , realization is achievable.
Another question regarding
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> There are some people, however, who do not care about that highest experience and want to retain some difference with Brahman. These people who want to retain some difference stay in Brahmalok for the rest of this cycle and are released when this cycle ends.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't the Vishistadvaitis fall under this category?
B <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sridhar ji,
Shankara's Advaita is kevala Advaita. Shankara's position is that Bhakti leads to purification of mind (chittasuddhi) and then one can strive for mukti. This is the reason for Bhaja Govindam and Soundarya Lahari. They are aids for chittasuddhi.
What Ramakrishna is saying in his analogy of frozen consciousness (ice) and water is that Saguna Brahman and Nriguna Brahmana are not two things. Saguna Brahman is Nirguna Brahman seen through the veil of Maya. Nirguna Brahman appears to the aspirant as Saguna Brahman as long as she has an I sense. What happens when the aspirant looses her I-sense can not be expressed in words. This is why Sruti says that words can not express Brahman.
Yes, Vishistadvaitas fall into the category fo people who do not want complete union.
<!--QuoteBegin-gangajal+Nov 11 2004, 12:47 AM-->QUOTE(gangajal @ Nov 11 2004, 12:47 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes, Vishistadvaitas fall into the category fo people who do not want complete union. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have a serious concern here. Since when did people's wish and choice matter in the grand scale on how the universal law operates? To my ears, It is like saying "I do not wish to die, and hence I am founding a new interpretation of vedanta which says "You are immortal." hence the body will be immortal. - like Virochana did during his 32 year brahmacharya with Prajapathi.
If by mere wanting I can avoid merging and emerging with the Cause, then logic and reasoning will be superfluous. At a 'vyavahaarika' level, I can understand the ice formation owing to the coolness of bhakthi etc. But it is only the intermediary stage. There IS a stage beyond this. To find it out is the quest that we have all undertaken.
No one said Maya does not exist, they only say it is anirvachaniyam - unspeakable of.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sunder+Nov 11 2004, 01:36 AM-->QUOTE(Sunder @ Nov 11 2004, 01:36 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-gangajal+Nov 11 2004, 12:47 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gangajal @ Nov 11 2004, 12:47 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes, Vishistadvaitas fall into the category fo people who do not want complete union. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have a serious concern here. Since when did people's wish and choice matter in the grand scale on how the universal law operates? To my ears, It is like saying "I do not wish to die, and hence I am founding a new interpretation of vedanta which says "You are immortal." hence the body will be immortal. - like Virochana did during his 32 year brahmacharya with Prajapathi.
If by mere wanting I can avoid merging and emerging with the Cause, then logic and reasoning will be superfluous. At a 'vyavahaarika' level, I can understand the ice formation owing to the coolness of bhakthi etc. But it is only the intermediary stage. There IS a stage beyond this. To find it out is the quest that we have all undertaken.
No one said Maya does not exist, they only say it is anirvachaniyam - unspeakable of. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sundar ji,
Do all Advaitists succeed in complete union? It is a notoriously difficult thing to achieve. Once I asked my Guru, Swami Swahananda, whether he has ever seen any one having samadhi like that described in the Gospel. He told me that he has never seen anyone.
Then there is the argument that desire is what keeps us from realization. We are what we desire. Meditation is prescribed to weaken our desire for name and fame. Some people may desire not to have complete union. It would then be impossible for such people to experience union. After all even those people are also THAT.
I think there is a reason why desire prevents spiritual progress. Desire prevents the Kundalini shakti from activating various chakras (Of course Kundalini shakti may not even arise if desire is too strong).
Nirvikalpa Samadhi is achieved at the level of Sahasrara Chakra. If a person does not want union then she will fail to activate Sahasrara Chakra fully and will indeed never experience the union.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Do all Advaitists succeed in complete union? It is a notoriously difficult thing to achieve. Once I asked my Guru, Swami Swahananda, whether he has ever seen any one having samadhi like that described in the Gospel. He told me that he has never seen anyone.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With all due respects Gangajal ji, is this a trick question? <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> "All advaitists" is an oxymoron. All 'sadhakas' do not necessarily reach the goal in just one try. Nonetheless, with effort, and by understanding the scriptural teachings, and with viveka & abhyasa-vairagya the false notion of identity with the body will cease. In Absolute Advaita, there is no Union because there is no separation to begin with. This is Kaivalyam. Thanks for saying that it is 'notoriously difficult', as it only suggests that it is not 'impossible'.
I have a question, is Swami Swahananda the same one who translated Panchadasi? If so please do convey him my humble bowings. He may not have seen anyone in samadhi because sadakas (while on the way to the goal) do not advertise it. They may share their thoughts *after* the fact when it is safe, but never brag about it when they are still trying for it as it is counter productive. Nonetheless, trust me that the type of experiences as mentioned in the Gospel is quite common in history, and is documented.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Then there is the argument that desire is what keeps us from realization. We are what we desire. Meditation is prescribed to weaken our desire for name and fame.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, desire to realize itself is an impediment. Desires by itself has no significance other than acting as a distraction for the Dhrashta (Seer.) It's like the desire to thrive on beer & nachos and not exercise being a deterrent to having six-pack abs. Once the desire is given up, and the prescribed exercise is done, you get results.
Please refer to my link mentioning meditation to be SAMVADI BHRAMA. I hope you agree with this point. The desire to serve Ishwara for Eternity is also a leading error (Samvadi Bhrama.) The question is, is the desiring jeeva completely different from the object - i.e. Paramatma?
Wrt kundalini, did you have any experiences with it? Or do you know of anyone who has succeeded in raising it?
Guroos,
This is the reason I asked what does it mean when one school refutes the other. One cannot say one is founding a new vedanta which says i-am-immortal because one is not and that is for all to see. So at a very simple level one has to posit something that <b>at the very least cannot be negated.</b> Some go about this saying this is all god's will and he said it in XYZ AD or whatever and it was revealed to XYZ and thats that. Either you believe or you dont. There is no way you can say that is not true. You can choose to believe or you cannot or maybe the third way out is you can say maybe its true and may be its not.
Now indic schools and mahatmas and avataras (the little i know of them) said such-and-such is the case and may be even its true but when somebody comes out and says the exact opposite - advaita (diff versions) and dvaita - does one come out and say that is not true ? The person who proposes dvaita - can we safely say that he has had more experiences & has read more (and hence knows more) then any of us here have ? If he proposes something - is he being false ? Are his experiences not true ? How can we say our experiences are better placed then his experiences to judge that what he proposes is just one step in the direction to advaita ?
In "ekam sat.." does sat mean advaita ? Or does it mean mukti ? How can we reconcile these positions ? If we say sat=mukti then we can say all schools are cool but if we say sat=advaita-proposal we are saying dvaita is false or are we ? I would like to think we are not.. <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Also another possibly unrelated question -> isnt the desire for mukti another desire ?
>With all due respects Gangajal ji, is this a trick question? [smile.gif] "All advaitists" is an oxymoron. All >'sadhakas' do not necessarily reach the goal in just one try. Nonetheless, with effort, and by >understanding the scriptural teachings, and with viveka & abhyasa-vairagya the false notion of >identity with the body will cease. In Absolute Advaita, there is no Union because there is no separation >to begin with. This is Kaivalyam. Thanks for saying that it is 'notoriously difficult', as it only suggests >that it is not 'impossible'.
Sundar ji,
I meant by Advaitists sadhakas who accept Advaita as the highest experience. A sadhaka who follows Vishistadvaita would of course deny the existence of Nirguna Brahman.
What you have stated here is theory. In practice, sadhaka keeps on trying to activate sahasrara chakra (assuming she has pierced all the other chakras) . From the practical point of view, whether there is a union or whether there is no separation is not a relevant question. The question about union
or separation is only of academic interest.
>I have a question, is Swami Swahananda the same one who translated Panchadasi? If so please do >convey him my humble bowings. He may not have seen anyone in samadhi because sadakas (while on >the way to the goal) do not advertise it. They may share their thoughts *after* the fact when it is safe, >but never brag about it when they are still trying for it as it is counter productive. Nonetheless, trust >me that the type of experiences as mentioned in the Gospel is quite common in history, and is >documented.
Yes, Swami Swahananda is the one who translated Panchadasi. It is not a question about him not seeing anyone in samadhi. I suspect (I am not sure) that Swami Swahananda has himself reached at least the lower stage of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. What I was saying is that in the Kathamrita, Sri Ramakrishna would go into Samadhi as soon as someone mentions about God. Then sometimes Sri Ramakrishna's samadhi would be so deep that he would not be able to come out of it without someone repeating the mantra at his ears. Sadhakas who have reached such high stage are very rare. I must disagree with you that these higher experiences are common.
>Yes, desire to realize itself is an impediment. Desires by itself has no significance other than acting as a >distraction for the Dhrashta (Seer.) It's like the desire to thrive on beer & nachos and not exercise >being a deterrent to having six-pack abs. Once the desire is given up, and the prescribed exercise is >done, you get results.
>Please refer to my link mentioning meditation to be SAMVADI BHRAMA. I hope you agree with this >point. The desire to serve Ishwara for Eternity is also a leading error (Samvadi Bhrama.) The question >iis, is the desiring jeeva completely different from the object - i.e. Paramatma?
Again you are giving theoretical arguments. I am approaching it from the practical point of view. For example, you say,"Once desire is given up". The difficulty is that it is not easy to give up desire. The sadhaka may think that she has no desire but she has some desire unwittingly. Once some of us were talking with a RKM monk. He suddenly asked us to tell him about his defect. Clearly he was stuck at a point and wanted us to tell him about his defects. This particular monk has been practicing meditation for more than 30 years and still has not reached perfection.
You have read the Kathamrita. You know that Sri Ramakrishna talks of three kinds of aspirants. The
first kind completely merge with the Divine like salt in water, the second kind are half soaked but do not
completely merge while the third kind remains different. This is the practical experience. Krishna also mentions the three kinds of worshippers in the Gita. Sri Ramakrishna also mentions that Brahman remains eternally frozen for some kinds of sadhakas. So while I know that from the point of view of Advaita you are right, from the practical point of view there are sadhakas who maintain difference.
>Wrt kundalini, did you have any experiences with it? Or do you know of anyone who has succeeded in >raising it?
You know that no practitioner will discuss their experience. Swami Swahananda told me not to tell even him my experiences if I have them. I believe that the Swami has certainly succeeded in raising Kundalini. There is a person in my family who has certainly riased Kundalini and actually even gone past Savikalpa Samadhi. She does not know too much theory but she told me that she did ask her Ishta Devata to show where he lives. Her Ishta Devata told her that she would not be able to live if she is shown that.
<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Nov 11 2004, 03:04 AM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Nov 11 2004, 03:04 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Guroos,
This is the reason I asked what does it mean when one school refutes the other. One cannot say one is founding a new vedanta which says i-am-immortal because one is not and that is for all to see. So at a very simple level one has to posit something that <b>at the very least cannot be negated.</b> Some go about this saying this is all god's will and he said it in XYZ AD or whatever and it was revealed to XYZ and thats that. Either you believe or you dont. There is no way you can say that is not true. You can choose to believe or you cannot or maybe the third way out is you can say maybe its true and may be its not.
Now indic schools and mahatmas and avataras (the little i know of them) said such-and-such is the case and may be even its true but when somebody comes out and says the exact opposite - advaita (diff versions) and dvaita - does one come out and say that is not true ? The person who proposes dvaita - can we safely say that he has had more experiences & has read more (and hence knows more) then any of us here have ? If he proposes something - is he being false ? Are his experiences not true ? How can we say our experiences are better placed then his experiences to judge that what he proposes is just one step in the direction to advaita ?
In "ekam sat.." does sat mean advaita ? Or does it mean mukti ? How can we reconcile these positions ? If we say sat=mukti then we can say all schools are cool but if we say sat=advaita-proposal we are saying dvaita is false or are we ? I would like to think we are not.. <!--emo& --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Also another possibly unrelated question -> isnt the desire for mukti another desire ? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rajesh,
The question is not whether the Dvaita or Advaita experiences are true or false. Everybody agrees that the dvaita, Vishistadvaita and advaita systems are based on actual experiences. The only question is which one of them is the ultimate experience. It is at this point that real differences occur.
Sat is not mukti. Sat is existence.
Desire for mukti is also desire but a good desire. It is only at the very highest level that you have to give up that desire. I have given below a poem by Ramprasad a Sakta master. He gives up desire and even desire for liberation after he has become master - not before that.
Once for all, this time, I have thoroughly understood.
From one who knows it well, I have learnt the secret of bhava(spiritual
mood).
A man has come to me from a country where there is no night,
And now I can not distinguish day from night any longer:
Rituals and Devotions have all grown profitless for me.
My sleep is broken: how can I sleep any more?
For now I am wide awake in the sleeplessness of Yoga.
O Divine Mother, made one with thee in yoga-sleep at last,
My slumber I have lulled asleep evermore.
I bow my head, says Prasad, before desire and liberation;
Knowing the secret that Kali is one with the highest Brahman,
I have discarded, once for all both righteousness and sin.
For those who can read tamil,kumudham bakthi magazine has a running series on Brahmasutra. Here is the link
Brahmasutram- an introduction
Kumudham has a Anmiga magazine called Bakthi ,
Bakthi Magazine
and VIkatan has Sakthi at Vikatan
Over the past few weeks, I noticed that I am falling silent more often (while I am traveling to work, or while even watching TV or chanting Sri Vishnu Sahasranamam), and during this 'silent' or 'quiescent' period, even though I am looking at objects, and even this body, the I-ness is seen disctinctly. It is a major major turning point (as the previous meditations used to be a 'Dhyana' and with eyes closed.
This new sadhana is irrespective of eyes being open or closed, as, duing those still periods, the eyes and ears (sight and hearing) also seem distinct. At this point, during the sadhanas I do not have questions, nor do I seek answers. It has become just awareness and observation.
All this is possible only because of the Great Guru and Karunamurthy, Dayasagara, Sri Vidhyaranya Swami who presents Advaita in an understandable way (in his masterpiece, the Panchadasi.)
I know there is still a long way to go before the Chidabasa (Jeeva) realizes that it is indeed the Eeshwara and finally the Nirguna Brahman. But till then, writing on this thread is just as fun. <!--emo& --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Now I am trying to realize the Vakyavritthi which is the explicit explanation of THATH TVAM ASI. (You are that.)
http://www.celextel.org/ebooks/adi_sanka...vritti.htm
Sunder (I)ya,
Thanks for the excellent link. So many classics with simple translation.
Welcome back Sunder guroo..
<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Dec 27 2004, 03:13 AM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Dec 27 2004, 03:13 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Welcome back Sunder guroo.. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks again Rajesh ji, it is nice to be back after a trip to Bharat. Went to Hyderabad, and then a short trip to Damanjodi (Tribal area in Orissa.) I had planned on buying lots of books from India, but ended up coming back with just a few. (Among others, I have 'Varivasya Rahasyam' Bhashyam by Sri Bhaskararaya, and Saundarya Lahari translation by Sri Subhramanya Shastri.) I am yet to read the formet, and practise the latter.
Indian Influence on the development of Quantum Mechanics.
<i>Erwin Schrodinger, discoverer of wave mechanics was deeply influenced by the philosophical wisdom of the East. Schrodinger read widely and thought deeply the teachings of Hindu scriptures. He was particularly fascinated by Vedanta and Upanishads and developed a kinship with Budha and his techniques. Schrodinger also wrote about "The Basic view of Vedanta" by expounding Sankara's version of advaitha and non-dualism.</i>
What is life ? (Schrodinger's paper.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In Christian terminology to say: 'Hence I am God Almighty' sounds both blasphemous and lunatic. But please disregard these connotations for the moment and consider whether the above inference is not the closest a biologist can get to proving also their God and immortality at one stroke. In itself, the insight is not new. The earliest records to my knowledge date back some 2,500 years or more. From the early great Upanishads the recognition ATHMAN = BRAHMAN upheld in (the personal self equals the omnipresent, all-comprehending eternal self) was in Indian thought considered, far from being blasphemous, to represent the quintessence of deepest insight into the happenings of the world. The striving of all the scholars of Vedanta was, after having learnt to pronounce with their lips, really to assimilate in their minds this grandest of all thoughts. Again, the mystics of many centuries, independently, yet in perfect harmony with each other (somewhat like the particles in an ideal gas) have described, each of them, the unique experience of his or her life in terms that can be condensed in the phrase: DEUS FACTUS SUM (I have become God). To Western ideology the thought has remained a stranger, in spite of Schopenhauer and others who stood for it and in spite of those true lovers who, as they look into each other's eyes, become aware that their thought and their joy are numerically one -not merely similar or identical; but they, as a rule, are emotionally too busy to indulge in clear thinking, which respect they very much resemble the mystic. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sunder Garu,
How is your reading of Ramanuja's Bhaskya on Brahma Sutra proceeding? Awaiting your simple explanation for the benefit of dumb folks like myself. Should nt be asking you this when i have just been bookmarking all your wonderful links but haven't really started reading.
One question. Is there a difference b/w moksha and mukthi?
Sarvam Krishnarpanam.
01-19-2005, 10:26 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-19-2005, 11:20 AM by Sunder.)
<!--QuoteBegin-sridhar k+Jan 19 2005, 09:40 AM-->QUOTE(sridhar k @ Jan 19 2005, 09:40 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->How is your reading of Ramanuja's Bhaskya on Brahma Sutra proceeding? Awaiting your simple explanation for the benefit of dumb folks like myself. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Vanakkam Saar. I am honestly yet to read the Sri Bhashyam. A friend of mine owns a copy of it, and I need the time to borrow it - amidst the other books I am reading now. I hadn't put it as priority #1 as, the reading of Shankara bhashya itself satisfies all the answers. I shall make it a point to read it in the coming days.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->One question. Is there a difference b/w moksha and mukthi?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The root word for both Mukthi and Moksha seems to be the same - (mukh or mukhsyathi, to let go; to liberate.) I think they are used interchangeably in most cases. Moksha is counted as one of the four Purusharthas (which is the trivarga - Dharma, Artha, Kama.)
I can only take a potshot here...
Mukthi is relief - you can get relief from headaches, relief from financial troubles, illness etc. You cannot get Runa-moksha, you can only get runa-mukthi (debt-relief).
Moksha is a 'state' where you are free (relieved) from EVERYTHING. Moksha is final liberation, or going back to your Original state.
I do not have an authoritative answer on this, but this is just my interpretation.
Nandri, Sunder Saar. I remember you posting that you had bought a copy of the bashya from India. On this forum, we don't see a Vishitadvaitin viewpoint.
I may be completely off the mark, but what i have noticed is that Vishitadvaitins mostly use the term Moksha while advaitins use both and that is why i wanted to know the difference.
From your earlier link, here is something
Ramanuja's Refutation of Advaita
Sarvam Krishnarpanam
<!--QuoteBegin-sridhar k+Jan 20 2005, 09:18 AM-->QUOTE(sridhar k @ Jan 20 2005, 09:18 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> I remember you posting that you had bought a copy of the bashya from India. On this forum, we don't see a Vishitadvaitin viewpoint. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sridhar ji, I indeed have the Shankara Bhashyam that I purchased from Ramakrishna ashram in Mylapore. It took me 2 years before I finally read the book.
I think that even if I get a hold of the Sri Bhashyam, I might look at it as an Advaitin does and will not be able to do justice in conveying it as a Vishishtadvaitin would. Still, it would be a learning experience to see the other side of the discussion and comment on it.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I may be completely off the mark, but what i have noticed is that Vishitadvaitins mostly use the term Moksha while advaitins use both and that is why i wanted to know the difference. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is an interesting observation. I never even observed this difference. Sri Vishnu Sahasranama says "Mukthaanam Parama Gathi:" (Twelfth name), Vimuktaatmaa (452nd name.) I had always thought the basic meaning was the same, even though Dwaitin's moksha would be to eternally serve the Lord with no union.
At this point, I am not the one to spell out the differences, if someone else knows the difference - or Shridhar ji, if you can elaborate on this at some point in time, it would be great.
|
