tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post1275586950866659992..comments2024-03-18T22:56:06.696+05:30Comments on Jayasree Saranathan: Astika Darshanas –Part 2 - Vedanta & Sankhya Darshanas (Guest post by R.Ramanathan) Jayasree Saranathan http://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-85511026009601694222016-07-11T19:20:18.092+05:302016-07-11T19:20:18.092+05:30Dear Mr. RK,
Please note that I am not personally...Dear Mr. RK,<br /><br />Please note that I am not personally attacking you. It is only a strong criticism and if anything else is implied I am sorry for that. I am only questioning your utter disregard for facts and other scriptural proofs/authority and your blind belief. But the latter is your choice(at your risk, of course). What I also mean here is the followers are also equally (if not more) responsible for the omissions/commissions of the leaders and they have to take a bit of criticism. Is it not? As for me, I am not a bit influenced/conditioned by advaita tradition at all even though I belong to that tradition by birth. And I criticise the whole advaita tradition and its gurus who propagate pseudo vedanta( and other false worship/practices) without any strings attached as I see it clearly. Hope it is all clarified now.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15362570764192323578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-5069784467909277272016-07-06T11:17:26.397+05:302016-07-06T11:17:26.397+05:30Please don't get personal. Let the discussion ...Please don't get personal. Let the discussion be on issues. Let's focus on the ideas written here.Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-91768592169520280402016-07-06T10:28:00.835+05:302016-07-06T10:28:00.835+05:30This will definitely, definitely be my last respon...This will definitely, definitely be my last response, personal abuse or not. In my earlier response , I emphasized that my views were for my own self only and meant for NOT anyone else. Hardly "Taliban" here !! Why the personal attack Mr Hariharan sir? If it makes you happy Sir, then I am glad that I am instrumental in your tiny happiness. God bless you sir and my best wishes.Dr Rama Krishnan https://www.blogger.com/profile/04495199378441276851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-50027511243153600192016-07-06T10:07:28.617+05:302016-07-06T10:07:28.617+05:30Dear Madam,
You can clearly see from Mr. RK's...Dear Madam,<br /><br />You can clearly see from Mr. RK's comments that he has nothing to show except scorn and hate for others who don't toe their line. No study or any analysis. This itself is a sufficient proof that advaita is dubious. And why blame the poor vaishnavas for preaching a 'strange gospel'(and not vedanta)? Why don't he ask the same question to Adi shankara(or his gurus) who also preached the 'same thing' in his bhasyas as indicated by me elsewhere. That he will not do because he has neither the guts nor the honesty. This only shows their taliban mentality. Any proof needed?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15362570764192323578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-8895339165820813342016-07-04T10:33:37.793+05:302016-07-04T10:33:37.793+05:30This will be my last response and I thank Madam ji...This will be my last response and I thank Madam ji and others for their scholarly inputs.<br />I can look at this only from Advaidic point of view and NOT on Duality point of view of Madhvachariyar and Sri Vaishnava. TO ME only the following applies and not meant for anyone else. Adavita makes logical sense and that is MY personal point of view.<br />The following is from what I have taken out from fellow Advaitis .As I said earlier, I am on a learning curve. I presume this applies to all except to the self realized.<br />I as a subject do not need proof of my existence. Everything else is only objects of my perception only. This cannot be disputed at all.Then, when I look at the cause my existence and the Jagat, I find the cause and effect is one and same in Brahman. There is nothing but Brahman. Sadhasiva Brahmendra's beautiful song "Sarvam Brahamamayam"comes to my mind here.<br /><br />When man tries to think of the Infinite Brahman with his finite mind,he unknowingly projects the limitations of his finite mind on Nirguna Brahman.As a result, Nirguna Brahman appears to become finite to him.Important point to note. The human mind can never think other than in human terms. <br />But no matter what epithets are used,Nirguna Brahman can never be adequately described<br />by the finite words and expressions of our world of limitations. This applies to Srutis also.From Nirguna Brahman point view nothing CAN exist outside Him/Her as "That" is infinite. You cannot have finite in infinite or different kind of Infinities! ( Duality).Now, we come to Tat Vam Asi. The fourth state of consciousness, Turiya ( in my opinion synonymous with Jiva Mukti). This cannot be negated by any another Dharsana from any point of view. Atman and Brahman is one and same and finally the fifth state of "I am only". Aham Brahamasi ( Vidahamukti).<br />Nirguna Brahaman is attribute less does not lack anything. He is causeless, hence cannot attribute His effects to any cause. Saguna Brahman is only from Human point of view of , the lower state( for want of better expression) of Brahman. Yes, it is correct to say that that dividing Brahman into Nirguna and Saguna is artificial but the inference is wrong. It should ONLY be Nirguna. But after all we are Humans and we do need Saguna Brahman (for our sake only.) The Human mind cannot fathom a formless Brahman. What is in Sruti about Purusha having face and legs need to be taken in poetic sense. Otherwise it will all become ridiculous.<br />Attributing some sort motive(!!!) behind Kevala Adavita dharsana of Adi Shankara, in my opinion,is mere allegations only without substance. I feel one lacks sane valid point to counter. <br /> <br />Dr Rama Krishnan https://www.blogger.com/profile/04495199378441276851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-52976276488074925352016-07-04T00:04:44.299+05:302016-07-04T00:04:44.299+05:30Excellent articulation Mr Hariharan. My paranams t...Excellent articulation Mr Hariharan. My paranams to you. Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-15397388724513518342016-07-03T23:24:52.718+05:302016-07-03T23:24:52.718+05:30Saguna and nirguna debate
------------------------...Saguna and nirguna debate<br />--------------------------<br />The concept of nirguna (attributeless) brahman cannot be sustained for it is opposed to sruti and reason. There are no objects in the world which are utterly attributeless is the statement of the wise. <br /><br />There are lot of clearly worded statements in the scriptures which affirm various attributes for Brahman and it is not proper to only project a few nirguna srutis as the purport of sastras.The following sruti vakyas will prove that Brahman is endowed with auspicious attributes and hence it is all saguna only. Moreover <br />Brahman should be concieved as SAguna only because it possesses creatorship, omniscience, etc. which means it has full knowledge of the effects to be, its accessories, the expected result, etc., to accomplish the work.<br /><br />1. Brahman's nature is of bliss<br />2. From Him this four-faced Brahma, name, form and anna proceed.<br />3. He is our FAther, protector, nourisher, etc.<br />4. He is infinite and full, He is the lord of all, free from untruth<br /> and false attachement.<br />5. Who can declare the herioc deeds of the all pervading Lord? Thou <br />hast transcended all, they greatness is incomprhensible.<br />6. None among the living or those to be born has attained the truth about your majesty.<br /><br />One Nirguna-sruti states: He is one Lord present in all creatures tho invisible, all pervading, controlling all,presiding over all our karma, the knower, without physical body and without qualities. This means Brahman is without material attributes and not anything contrary to the above auspicious attributes.<br /><br />Brahma sutra also talks about the trans-empiral/ transcendental form of Brahman in various places. <br /><br />1. "Brahman is 'Formless' because it transcends Prakriti and other and controls them all"---3-2-14<br /><br />2. " The srutis do speak of the trans-empircal form of Brahman of its hands, feet, face, etc., constituted of the essence of bliss and reality knowledge, etc."--3-2-16<br /><br />3.Even though the ananda, jnana,etc., that constitute the nature of Brahman are trans-empirical they are designated by words in ordinary empirical usage just to give us an idea of their nature since there is no other way to know the Infinite from our limited understanding.(Explanation to BS-3-2-34).<br /><br />So the division of Brahman as nirguna and saguna is so artifical and contrived that it should be dumped forthwith. Advaita school only talks about this because (it is obvious) they only have the motive in interpreting the scriptures according to their (pre-determined) line of thought.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15362570764192323578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-27178467667420235982016-07-03T23:23:56.140+05:302016-07-03T23:23:56.140+05:30Madam, It is very enlightening to see your excelle...Madam, It is very enlightening to see your excellent explanation on various vedanta topics. I would like to add some more thoughts on few topics discussed above.<br /><br />Brahman realisation or Aporaksha Jnana<br />---------------------------------------<br />According to Madhvacharya, dhyana or meditation, otherwise known as Upasana merely leads to direct realisation. This is a mental configuration of Brahman that Upasaka has before his mind even in the most absorbed state of meditation and SAmadhi. In dhyana one sees only the reflection of Brahman in the citta. It gradually leads <br />to actual vision of Lord by the His own grace. So the revealing of Brahman to the sadhaka is different from the mental construct in dhyana/upanasa.So Aparoksa jnana is a flash like revelation of the supreme as our Bimba. Tehnically put, as souls are pratibimbas of Lord it must see his BImba(LOrd) in himself.That is Aparoksa.<br />But ultimately it is He that much choose to reveal HImself. This is said beautifully in the Brahma sutra bhasya -3-2-27.<br /><br />"Tho' He remained unmanifest always, by His own grace He reveals Himself to the Upasaka, by His own inscrutable power. Without His choosing to reveal Himself in this way,who can ever see Him, the limiltless one?"-Brahma sutra iii, 2, 27<br /><br />The above is also very logical as the individual soul is the reflection of the Lord. This is agreed to by all schools of thought more or less.So if it has to realise God it has to reach ( go back) in the same way by attaining the vision of its image( Bimba rupa of the Lord) according to its intrinsic capacity.<br /><br />Brahmna Jnanais and prarabda karma.<br />-----------------------------------<br /><br />By the critical study of all scriptures and with sound logic one should understand that “moxa is achievable only by performing nishkAmakarma as prescribed in the Vedas with the sole objective of pleasing shrI hari. <br /><br />By performing such nishkAmakarma ones anthaHkaraNa becomes pure and becomes free from all the doShAs such as rAga, dveSha etc. A pure anthaHkaraNa gives rise to pure devotion towards the lord. Undertaking continuous shravaNa, manana and nidhidhyAsana with full devotion towards the lord will result in the sAxAtkAra of Brahman.<br /> <br />Pleased by the devotion, the lord destroys all aprArabdha karmas. But some prArabdha karmas still remain. For the sake of the continuation of bhAgavata dharma in this world, the lord does not destroy all the prArabdha karmas of a brahma j~nAni. Otherwise there will be no brahma j~nAni in this world to preach the bhAgavata dharma as he immediately gets liberated once all his prArabdha karmas are cleared. Hence shrI hari sets aside some prArabdha karmas for this purpose. These prArabdha karmas are to be destroyed only by enjoying their fruits. Thus a brahma j~nAni continues to dwell in this world until the destruction of all his prArabdha karmas. This gives him a chance to preach the bhAgavata dharma to the eligible <br />souls. <br /><br />Once all of his prArabdha karmas are destroyed, the lord frees the brahma j~nAni from the clutches of prakriti. Thus he becomes liberated”. With this knowledge one should do constant upAsana of the auspicious qualities of shrI hari according to ones eligibility. <br /><br />It is already discussed in detail that the muktha jivas, once freed from the clutches of prakriti, enjoy its liberated status for eternity in its swarupa deha. <br /><br />(contd..)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15362570764192323578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-27341565774815216032016-07-02T17:27:25.837+05:302016-07-02T17:27:25.837+05:30On Jivan mukthi, you yourself have written about t...On Jivan mukthi, you yourself have written about the Prarabdha to be fully exhausted. Until it is there clinging to the Jiva, whatever terms you are using are jargons and they do not convey the real status. The Brahma sutra I quoted says precisely that. If that Prarabdha karma is still there capable of obstruction, the Realised Jiva has to take another birth to work out that karma. Once for all shedding of the physical body comes only after obstructive karma is worked out. Therefore Jivan mukthi does not mean Final Mukthi and it is contradictory in its meaning. <br /><br />It is contradictory in its own meaning because a 'Jivan Mukta' will take birth again to work out the obstructive karma and and be a Jivan Mukta again. We have heard of people who are Realised ones right from birth / from young age and have spent the rest of their lives so. Why should they get a birth at all if they are enlightened ones right from birth / young age? One popular example I can think of is Nammalwar. His birth as a Realised soul and his breaking his silence by answering a riddle are all ominous of a birth of what you call Jivan Mukta. (Google search Nammalwar to know his history)Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-26492299952370998782016-07-02T17:27:11.282+05:302016-07-02T17:27:11.282+05:30Dear Mr rk,
Birth as Devas does not mean birth l...Dear Mr rk, <br /><br />Birth as Devas does not mean birth like human beings. In human life there is growth and decay. For Devas it is always amruth - deathlessnes meaning no decay. No decay means its counterpart, namely 'no- growth' is also present. Therefore it is wrong to consider that Devas have sariram like us which has a limitation by decay. The Devas are described to have a glow. <br /><br />Devas are not born to someone like us, human beings. Please re-read the 4 gathis I have written in one of the comments above. As per scriptures only these 4 gathis exist which jivas meander through. Garbha gathi refers to birth on earth where we enjoy the results of mixed paapa and punya. In other words, for the kind of results which can not be strictly termed as arising from paapa alone or punya alone, we born in garbha gathi to get the results and experiences. It is difficult to see around us any one act as paapa alone without seeing some element of positive justification for it. We human beings undergo results for this kind of mixed karma.<br /><br />For Devas it is all positive only. They enjoy only the merits of pure punya in Deva loka (some realm which can also called as Swarga). Once those merits are exhausted they are born in the world to work out the mixed karma. <br /><br />As you said, suppose there are no Paapa karma for them and if there are no mixed karma either, they go to Archirathi gathi by which they never return to any created worlds, They attain oneness with Brahman. Many Puranic stories of exalted people do talk about them going to exalted realms and finally reaching the realm of no-return. The above offers an explanation for such descriptions. <br /><br />The existence of only punya- enjoying Deva loka or Swarga loka justifies the existence of Naraka. The Yamya gathi (among the 4 gathis I have written in earlier comment) fits with that description. It is a realm where the JIva undergoes the experience for only paapa. Once that is exhausted, it is born to earth to experience mixture of paapa and punya or is born in Deva loka (Dhoomathi gathi) to experience results of only punya. If nothing of those kinds exist, permanent Release (Archirathi gathi) is the result. <br /><br />In stories of Mahabharata we have heard of Arjuna seeing Duryodhana in swarga loka and himself in naraka loka. The rationale given is that those who have done more paapa (alone) would go to swarga loka first to enjoy the little punya they have done before going to naraka loka where they have to spend more time. <br /><br />In my opinion these lokas are realms where experience happens not with physical body. Once the Jiva exits the body after death, there is no physical body for it. Yet it is still covered with other sheaths of Prakriti where experiences are felt. For example the Jiva can feel thirsty without having a mouth. We have heard of this for the departed souls which are supposed to feel thirsty. The 10 day rituals include offering water to them. The Jiva does not drink that water in physical body but it can get the satiated. <br /><br />Likewise the sensory perceptions are there without sense organs. The sense organs come into existence only in the earth in physical birth. As such the Jiva need not take a 'birth' as a baby in Deva loka or naraka loka to experience the allotted feelings of the respective lokas. <br /><br />What we must understand here is that these experiences are the results of what the Jiva has done in its earthly existence. God is not responsible for whatever pure paapa or pure punya or mixture of them that the Jiva has done. But God is INDEED merciful in having given the Jiva a platform to be born again and again, to inquire why it is born again and again and show a way to come out of it. He sets Himself as the goal to aim at, to come out of the mess the Jiva has created for itself. He is also offering the platform and venues to try and come out of the mess. That is why texts say that He is the Means and also the End. This is the status quo of God / Brahman vis-a-vis the experiences / sufferings that we undergo. <br /><br />(continued)<br />Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-90483138844987587972016-07-02T06:37:51.215+05:302016-07-02T06:37:51.215+05:30Thank you Madam Ji for the link. I read your schol...Thank you Madam Ji for the link. I read your scholarly article and the comments.I am unable to find the answers for the following. If Devas are born with Sariram, then they are progeny of some parents.In the same logic you would expecta line of ancestors present in Deva Loka. Is it so? BTW, if you do exhaust your punya palan in Devaloka, you will be back on earth.Presuming you have no pabha palans, your karma account will be neutral,hence you should not have another birth (having exhausted all karmic palans.)<br />Here is Swamy Sivanda's take on Jiva Mukti and Videhamukti. I will close my comments on Jiva Mukti on this note. Thank you Ji. Please forgive my impertinence .<br />"The destruction of Chitta is of two kinds, that with form and without form. The destruction of that with form is of the Jivanmukta; the destruction of that without form is of the Videhamukta.<br /><br />As soon as the Prarabdha is fully exhausted, the Jivanmukta attains the state of Videhamukti, just as the pot - ether becomes one with the universal ether when the pot is broken.Dr Rama Krishnan https://www.blogger.com/profile/04495199378441276851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-19133252144324074332016-07-01T16:22:12.273+05:302016-07-01T16:22:12.273+05:30Dear Mr rk,
I wish you read primary texts especi...Dear Mr rk, <br /><br />I wish you read primary texts especially in this context Sve Upa to know where your currently held opinions are challenged and how they are held by sruti texts. <br /><br />On the question of compassion of God whose purpose of creation is leela, I repeat you read the primary texts as I dont want to repeat them. The very next sutra after leela sutra (In Brahma sutras)raises this question whether this means that God is impartial and cruel. The deduced answer is no. I think you have reached a stage where there are no answers in the secondary texts for the questions you raise. The absence of convincing answers in them do not mean that basic pramana of our scriptures is wrong. Its time you read the sruti texts also to know what they say and how they justify. <br /><br />On Indra having body, I have written in the comment section of 2 or more places on how Indra is perceived at 3 levels of which one is reality-living on the earth. My Tamil articles on that topic can be read in my Tamil blog in 19th, 20th and 21st articles in sequence. The link to the 19th article is here: http://thamizhan-thiravidana.blogspot.in/2010/12/19.htmlJayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-1025471899872118892016-07-01T10:31:55.328+05:302016-07-01T10:31:55.328+05:30This is an article from Divine life society where ...This is an article from Divine life society where Swamy Sivanada talks about Jiova Mukti and Videhamukti<br /><br />http://sivanandaonline.org/public_html/?cmd=displaysection&section_id=821Dr Rama Krishnan https://www.blogger.com/profile/04495199378441276851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-18196868998173650382016-07-01T10:23:32.276+05:302016-07-01T10:23:32.276+05:30I cannot thank you enough Madam Ji for your kind r...I cannot thank you enough Madam Ji for your kind response. I am still in the learning curve and please excuse my impertinence. All I am trying to do is to learn from scholars like yourself.<br />Let me recall what Ramesan says" As the word connotes, Jivanmukti is release or freedom (in Sanskrit ‘mukti’) when one is still living (in Sanskrit ‘jivan’) with a body. The immediate question that comes up will then be: is there release after death also? The answer is yes. It is called Videhamukti or Liberation without the body.<br />Apparently there is another term for Mukti without the body called " Videhamukti" Did Ramana Maharishi attain Jiva Mukti while alive? Didd Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa attain Jiv Mukti while alive? You do not seem to think so but there are many who think so.<br />Reading Ramesan's article gives one clearer understanding of Jiva Mukti functioning in a body. If Madam Ji cares to look at it again, I would appreciate it.<br />In spite of your lengthy explanation reg Leela of Brahman, I still cannot fathom the reason for manifestation of Jagat. Nirguna Brahman in his primary state does not lack anything including His /Her ability to manifest, hence it cannot be the reason. If it is Leela, then He lacks compassion. As He is omnipotent and omniscience, He must be aware of the suffering of humans and animals will undergo because of His Leela ( which apparently lacks a cause) This is what I meant when I brought Abrahamic default excuse of God working in mysterious ways and we Humans with our little knowledge should not question.<br />Reg my previous queries on other Lokas, Jagad Guru of Sringeri does mention about Devas having a physical body ( Sthula sariram) in Devaloka.He mentions about Indira wielding a weapon in his hands and the constant fighting between Devas and Asuras and says all the above are not possible without bodies of some form.I presume the same will apply in Naraga loka too. Hence my doubts about Swarga and Naraga. If bodies exist in other Lokas, then naturally they are the effect of a cause like parents. Do parents exist also in other Lokas? As I said earlier, I am still in the very early stage of the learning curve and constant scholarly inputs from yourself and Shri Ramanathan make it a lot easier for me to negotiate this curve. Thank you once again Madam Ji.Dr Rama Krishnan https://www.blogger.com/profile/04495199378441276851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-43943047174000616792016-06-30T18:03:07.346+05:302016-06-30T18:03:07.346+05:30You wrote
// BTW, I have given a link on Jivamukt...You wrote <br />// BTW, I have given a link on Jivamukti, a discussion between Ramesan Vemuri and NDM. Thought provoking. I would appreciate if Shri Ramanathan has a look at this article as it answers some of his questions that he posted earlier. Thank you ( Please ignore some of the scientific terms if need be)<br /><br />If Madam Ji has time, I would appreciate her thoughts on this article <br />http://www.nondualitymagazine.org/nondualitymagazine.2/nonduality_magazine.2,ramesamvemuri.htm//<br /><br />The very first description in that article you have quoted negates whatever else is written for pages after that! The very first description is that Jivan mukthi means liberation - Mukti meaning liberation. How can liberation happen when the Jiva is still confined within the body?<br /><br />Call it by any other name, but not as Mukthi if the freedom from prakriti (body) has not yet happened. <br /><br />I will just talk about simple logic. The Sruti texts talk about the JIva attaining 'deathless ness' (amrutha bhavanthi) upon mukthi. The Jiva is that which never dies nor is born etc - something we know very clearly from Gita vachan. The Jiva is eternal. So there can't be any deathlessness for the Jiva. But it undergoes 'death' only when confined to prakriti and takes up body and sheds it alternatively like changing a dress. <br /><br />Then comes a stage when the JIva 'realises' itself and 'attains' deathlessness - meaning no need to take a birth within a body. Such being the reality situation of Mukthi, if we say that the Jiva attains Jivan Mukthi within the body, a time is going to come when it's physical sheath - the body has to die - which it will have to do eventually. When the death of the body within which it is still enshrined is still pending, how can the Jiva be said to be enjoying dealthlessness or Mukthi while living? <br /><br />Just go through Svetasvatara Upanishad. It talks about Jiva coming out of Mrithyu paasha and all Sarva paasha. The Jiva has to come out of all bondages, including the physical body. In verse 5-14 Sve-upa tells about shedding body too for Mukthi. <br /><br />The JIva however can realise the Atman while living. That is the state of "Vasudevam sarvam iti" that Gitacharyan tells in BG. Of the 4 types of worshippers that Gitacharyan speaks about, the 4th type is of jyani who realises that everything Him. <br /><br />This realisation of Vasudeva level is not happening in avyakta level but at the level of manifest Brahman. <br /><br />Example:- <br />(a)In Taittriya Upanishad, sage Bhrigu attains Brahman as ‘aham viswam’, ‘aham bhuvanam’ and so on which are all about manifested Brahman.<br /><br />(b) In Brihadharanyaka Upanishad, the sage Vama deva and other sages attain Brahman, “Seeing this rishi Vama deva understood, I have become Manu, the sun.” This is at manifest level of Brahman where Creation is still going.<br /><br />In Brahma sutras (3-2-24) it is said that those who experience Brahman find the gross and subtle universes as Its modes and attributes. The above two instances testify this.<br /><br />In KaushItaki Upanishad, the individual self’s journey to Vaikuntam and the vaikuntham itself is described in manifest forms of gross and subtle nature.<br /><br />This experience qualifies one to Mukthi - Release that ensures no re-birth. But there is a verse in Brahma sutra "there is no rule as to fruit of Final Release, because the meditation has that condition (of granting fruit in the ABSENCE OF OBSTRUCTION); has that condition" (3-4-51). The obstruction can be some offence / karma which have to be definitely worked out. If such obstruction exists, the Jiva however Realised, must take another birth to work out that obstructive karma. This verse of Brahma Sutra therefore challenges the idea of Jivan mukthi. Mukthi which means liberation must happen from physical existence too. <br />Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-24489623136596275432016-06-30T16:40:17.794+05:302016-06-30T16:40:17.794+05:30Now your 2nd point on Leela // If leela is needed ...Now your 2nd point on Leela // If leela is needed for Brahman, does it not show that He lacks "something" and needs leela for whatever purpose?//<br /><br />I have already written about this in some of my blogs. Let me quote here from “Some thoughts on “Neene Doddavano” – the song Dr Kalam liked.” <br /><br />(Link- http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2015/08/some-thoughts-on-neene-doddavano-song.html )<br /><br />“The core question of why the Paramathman created the universe at all.<br />It was because It wanted to play! This may sound alarming, but scriptures say that Creation is a play for Him. Brahma Sutra says, “ Lokavanthu, leelaa kaivalyam”. (Brahma Sutra – 2-1-33) It means “Its (Brahman’s creative activity) is mere pastime as is seen in the world”. The clue is ‘as is seen in the world”. So what is seen in the world? To know that let's start from the beginning!<br /><br />In the beginning there was Brahman.<br />Brahman is Brihat – huge and keeps growing.<br />Why did it grow in the first place?<br /><br />Because without growth or before it started growing, It existed as an embodiment of all faculties and everything. It could see but it did not have an agent or an organ to see. It could hear but It did not have an organ to hear. Like this, It was capable of everything but could not actually exhibit anything. (It is like how we have the urge to express ourselves. That is a quality we have bequeathed from Brahman!). So It thought, “May I become many” and It became many. That is how creation began. In such scenario, Brahman (God) is not deviated from the created worlds or the “many” It became. In other words, It is in us as we are also part of the Many!<br /><br />But we lost memory of It. That is where It has to somehow ‘bring us around’ towards It and make us eligible to be like That sometime or the other. That is why Nammazhwar said, “Vaikuntham puguvathu mannavar vidhiye” (All people are destined to enter Vaikuntham) (Thiruvaimozhi – 10-9-9).<br /><br />This is like a play that we ourselves have played as kids. Imagine a kid – alone and having no one for company to play. What the kid will do? It will have the toys of a boy or a girl or an animal or anything that it has and make scenes of play by making someone hit or cry or laugh or succeed.<br /><br />All these we are witnessing in the world. In all these we gain something in our 6th sense, and develop better understanding of how to play our parts.<br /><br />So who is great in this equation, is it we?<br /><br />We are like the toys that the kid is playing and we start enacting our role on our own (or we think so?).<br /><br />Will the kid become more excited about it? Or the toy becomes more excited?<br />Will the kid try to outsmart the toy or the toy try to grab whatever it can to outsmart the moves of the kid? <br /><br />This is the essence of "neene doddavano" (Is God great?) or "ninna dasaru doddavaro?" (Are devotees great?). The calls and wails for God from the devotees and the replies from God which these devotees can hear is what is meant by "as is seen in the world" that Brahma Sutra says. This interaction having dramatic elements of suffering and happiness, competition and excellence of one over the other makes it look like a play from a bird's eye view. <br /><br />In essence, everything seems to be a play – but that was originally started by the Kid, here the Paramathman. The kid enjoys the play as it has no one else but only its toys to play with.”<br /><br />So the basic purpose of Creation is (1) The Brahman 'willed' Itself to be manifest (2) and such manifestation is its pastime - a sport by which IT and its creations enjoy each other (ultimately). This is the reason the scriptures also call Him as a puppeteer and we as the puppets. <br /><br />The two places signifying this coming from an undated past are Amabalam - the ChiRRalmabalam (Chidambaram) where the Lord does the Creation - Destruction dance and Arangam - Sreerangam where the lord is watching the drama in leisure! <br /><br />(continued) <br />Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-13186032848507967872016-06-30T16:31:27.894+05:302016-06-30T16:31:27.894+05:30It (Nasadiya sukta) says that before creation beg...It (Nasadiya sukta) says that before creation began, qualities did not arise. That stage cannot even be called as nothingness (nor zero). Nor even as darkness. Because it is said later only, that from where conception seems to arise, a blinding darkness first appeared. So prior to this, the “It’ which constituted (if this term is correct) this stage was just not this , not this and even this ‘not this’ attribute does not seem to describe the situation. This is a perfect state of Nirguna. At this stage no presence is there, no absence is there. Nor even nothingness is there. The upanishadic vachan that He is not a male, nor a female and nor even an eunuch cannot be applied to this state. For by purport this vachan indicates Him as male by calling Him as HE. Even that He –ness is an attribute. This is one proof that the ‘Him’ of Upanishads is saguna.<br /><br />Then by the time (?) the It reached a stage that “It willed, may I become many”, the first sign of I-ness appears. What was the status of this I-ness until then is what no one can know, because nothing was conceived until then. But the moment It willed, the It loses its nirguna status, because the will or the thought is an attribute making Its status saguna.<br /><br />The saguna status further springs out when It comes to be known as Brahman. It is Brahmaandam, therefore It is Brahman. And Brahmaandam is an attribute. It grows, therefore It is Barhman and growing is an attribute.<br /><br />So in the created world or once creation has begun, it is Saguna Brahman. Only in unmanifested state, it is Nirguna Brahman. <br /><br />In the same breadth we can say that non-duality of advita is applicable in unmenifest or prior to creation or in uncreated worlds. Once creation has begun there is duality.<br /><br />Both kind of verses on duality and non-duality as found in Sruti texts must be reconciled without one contradicting the other. The issue of Nirguna vs saguna Brahman also must be dealt in these lines. <br /><br />(continued)Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-47638659783666166992016-06-30T16:30:54.833+05:302016-06-30T16:30:54.833+05:30Dear Mr rk.
You wrote
//According to srutis, God ...Dear Mr rk.<br /><br />You wrote<br />//According to srutis, God has no purpose other than mercy and leela in having created the worlds. My belief is that Brahman has no attributes. He is Nirguna. What is the need for Leela? If leela is needed for Brahman, does it not show that He lacks "something" and needs leela for whatever purpose? Is it not similar to standard Abrhamic default excuse that"God works in mysterious ways" when cornered about their dogmas?//<br /><br />I wrote “scriptures say so” as the pramana for ‘leela’ as the purpose of creation. But you talk about your belief. I don’t read Abrahamic texts and so I cannot say what they say. But I do read primary texts (prasthana trayam – Upanishads, Brahma sutras and Bhagawad Gita) and if you also read the primary texts you will accept what I write here. A single text that answers all your queries and beliefs that you have written in the thread is Svetasvatara Upanishad. I request you to read that Upanishad to know replies for your thoughts. And you will know how it is not the same as what you have been reading from secondary texts.<br /><br />Now coming to the each point you have written.<br /><br />// Brahman has no attributes. He is Nirguna//<br /><br />(1) When you say that there are no attributes, attribute-less-ness itself becomes an attribute thereby contradicting the Nirguna state. <br /><br />(2) That Brahman is ‘satyam, gyanam and anatham’ is repeated in many Upanishads. In this ‘anantham’ attribute, comes a whole lot of contradictory attributes. Then how could Brahman be Nirgunan?<br /><br />(3) Using the syllogism of logic, <br />If Everything is Brahaman (and)<br /><br />If Brahamam is Nirguna<br /><br />Then Everything is Nirguna.<br />Is it so? Are we Nirguna entities?<br /><br />(4) Sruti texts do speak about Brahman as two-natured characteristic. Verses from 3-2-11 to 3-2-25 of Brahma sutras speak of this two-naturedness. One is being free from imperfectness and the second one is possessing endless auspicious qualities. Verse 25 of chapter 3-2 of Brahma sutra says “Hence, Brahman is qualified by endless qualities; this his (two-fold) characteristics (hold good)” <br /><br />(5) In Chapter 12, verses 3 and 4, Bhagavan talks about two types of worshippers, those who worship Him directly and those who worship Brahman. In so saying He identifies Brahman as having 8 attributes (anirdHeshyam, avyakhtham, sarvthram, achinthyam, kUtastham, achalam dhruvam and aksharam). What does this indicate, Nirguna Brahman? <br /><br />Does this all mean that Brahman is never Nirguna? Nasadiya sukta of Rig Veda provides an excellent answer for this. <br /><br />(continued)<br /><br />Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-1921469150099865722016-06-30T09:06:26.238+05:302016-06-30T09:06:26.238+05:30Thank you Madam ji. If you will excuse my impertin...Thank you Madam ji. If you will excuse my impertinence, can I add some comments?<br />Your statement: According to srutis, God has no purpose other than mercy and leela in having created the worlds. <br />My belief is that Brahman has no attributes.He is Nirguna. What is the need for Leela? If leela is needed for Brahman, does it not show that He lacks "something" and needs leela for whatever purpose? Is it not similar to standard Abrhamic default excuse that"God works in mysterious ways" when cornered about their dogmas?<br />BTW, I have given a link on Jivamukti, a discussion between Ramesan Vemuri and NDM. Thought provoking. I would appreciate if Shri Ramanathan has a look at this article as it answers some of his questions that he posted earlier. Thank you ( Please ignore some of the scientific terms if need be)<br /><br />If Madam Ji has time, I would appreciate her thoughts on this article <br />http://www.nondualitymagazine.org/nondualitymagazine.2/nonduality_magazine.2,ramesamvemuri.htmDr Rama Krishnan https://www.blogger.com/profile/04495199378441276851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-87235726187909850972016-06-28T21:22:19.001+05:302016-06-28T21:22:19.001+05:30In this context mistaking the worldly ordeals as r...In this context mistaking the worldly ordeals as real and eternal and suspecting the nature of God as not being merciful is MAYA, the illusion. <br /><br />But to think the world itself is Maya, such a notion would contradict many a statement of sruti texts. <br /><br />For example, Shvetasvatara Upanishad is one important text that speaks about Maya. In verse 4-10 it says, “ Mayaam tu prakritim vidhyaan – maayinam tu Maheswaram”. Prakriti is Maya and Maheswara is the one who controls the maya of Prakriti. If the sage has meant this Maya to be illusion, how would one understand the very next verse which talks about the One who has permeated the Prakriti and in whom the worlds get converged and diverged as well and who rules and grants and is praiseworthy? If Prakriti is understood as Maya, the illusion, what would be the One who has permeated the Prakriti? <br /><br />In several passages in sruti texts, the name- form – works concept is given. Particularly in the passages on Creation / Shrishti, whatever was thought by Brahman or the Creator by name immediately got a form and came to possess the action in consonance with that. If Prakriti is spelt as illusion, the Maya, its form and works would be a negation of what it is as we perceive today – the ingredient of creation. <br /><br />It is not my intention to question a great philosophy nor I am capable of doing that, but logically, there are issues in equating Maya with illusion for created worlds. Let me limit my talks on this by borrowing an analogy from the ancient commentators. It is “mother is barren” talk. To say that world that we live in to experience various karma is illusion is like a person saying that his mother is barren! <br />Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-36244285262706278912016-06-28T21:20:21.368+05:302016-06-28T21:20:21.368+05:30God makes amends and changes as and when required,...God makes amends and changes as and when required, by His mercy. But when we suffer without respite or escape, we must know that our karma is overpowering so much as not to give a scope for God to re-write our destiny. Popular example is Kannagi of Silappadhikaram.<br /><br />Hers is a true story. She suffered on two counts, one, her husband developed relationship with another woman and two, even after she put up with that behaviour and accepted him when he returned a pauper and gave him her jewel to start a business, he was killed in the name of the jewel that she had given him. She was not responsible for this twin suffering in her life. It was as though God had cheated her. This infuriated her and she burnt down the city that did her injustice by killing her husband. At that moment, the guardian deity of the City, Madhurapathi appeared before her and explained her why she was made to suffer. It was the story of her past karma when she did a similar wrong to someone else. That karma stood between her and God from safeguarding her interests. In that context it is not right to accuse God as being merciless. <br /><br />But her endurance of the suffering and her adherence to Dharmic way in her situation earned her Deva-hood after that birth. That is how the world goes. In such scenario, there is no personal reason of mercy or cruelty to be attributed to God. <br /><br />But all these are part and parcel of the leela nature of His creation running to timelessness. In Kannagi’s story the one who started life as an ordinary girl of a business community, became a Goddess after her death. Her deification continues to exist even today. If this is not leela of God, what else is? <br /><br />(continued)<br />Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-59916348091433504142016-06-28T21:19:40.359+05:302016-06-28T21:19:40.359+05:30God as the prime creator of the Universe and as on...God as the prime creator of the Universe and as one having put /pushed us into this cycle has to bear the responsibility. It is herein He has kept up a clue. As long as we think we are the doer and do actions with expectations for ourselves, we have to bear the responsibility. But if we realise that He is responsible for our actions and do things for His cause, we forfeit the doer-ship and He takes over the doer-ship.<br /><br />For this to happen we must first accept that He is within us directing us to do things. We have to be like Dhanur-dhaari Arjuna listening to the guidance of Yogeshwara Krishna. In the process, Arjuna lost his sons in the battle and in gruesome ways. His wife was molested. He lost lands. But he had his tale of goodies too. He took all that with a mind on Krishna as a God who can save him ultimately. Saving here only means to come out of the maze of paapa and punya and the confusion in understanding what to do and what not to do. Krishna did not interfere at each step to save him, we must understand that. Where the interference is warranted, or where one is qualified to enjoy the positive interference by God, one gets it. When one does not get that, one must know that one has to go some more distance to qualify oneself for God’s grace in the form of positive interference. <br /><br />We can see around us that those who are highly aware of God and His ways are repeatedly pounded by God (or Destiny, their karma?). I have pondered over this many times as I myself have come across such great people whose woes are endless. But one clue I noticed from their palm lines is that the more they are becoming Realised ones, God is making them exhaust the inevitable karmas reserved for future births to be experienced in the present birth itself. <br /><br />It is in the lines of Immortality vs Liberation I wrote above. Even though they are very high in terms of realisation of Atman, they have to take future births to work out the karma that cannot be dispensed with (Brahma sutras). Such karma are experienced by them in the present birth itself in a modified event- experience set up so that Moksha becomes a reality at the end of this birth itself. Is this not a show of mercy by God? <br /><br />(continued)Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-81969524277812657572016-06-28T21:19:25.242+05:302016-06-28T21:19:25.242+05:304. // If he created the world as sport as most pur...4. // If he created the world as sport as most puranas claim, then he is a cruel being and not merciful as is claimed. Even if an earthly mother(Human or animal) can show so much mercy on her children and god is considered to be a parent(Jagan mata or pita, he leave's much to be desired, as the world he created is full of death, disease and poverty"//<br /><br />It is “leela” or “sport” for which Ishvara is engaged in creation activity. <br />The first proof is that scriptures say so.<br /><br />Secondly, it must have been so ordained that each must, at some point of time, come to realise / enjoy the game with the Lord.<br /><br />That is, it is entirely upto each Jiva to understand, to know and to experience the Lord within himself.<br /><br />The relationship between the Lord and the Jiva can be<br />any of the following <br /><br />Between<br /># The master and the servant<br /># The owner and the owned<br /># the mother and the child<br /># The father and the son<br /># The nayaka and the nayaki<br /><br />But what happens if the roles are inter- changed?<br /><br />„³The master serving the Pandavas,<br /><br />„³The owner asking for three foot-feet of land<br /><br />„³The mother getting into the arms of Yashoda and asking for Moon – the moon which<br />revolves obeying HIS command<br /><br />„³The son who till today stands out as the only glorious example for pithru vaakhya paripalanam<br /><br />„³ and the nayaka (whom the Jiva must cling to as a climber embracing the tree) who desires to take a place in the hearts of the devotees like Meera Bhai.<br /> <br />( panikkadalil palli kollai pazhaga vittu, vodi vanden manakkadalil<br />vaazha valla maaya manaala nambi)<br /><br />Are theses not reversal of roles?<br />If creation has not proceeded, how can HE enjoy these<br />roles?<br /><br />Initially He or It remained too bored to remain with Itself.<br />It can do anything but didn’t do as It was Un-manifest.<br />So It Thought, May I become Many and It became many. That is how creation started according scriptures. <br /><br />It followed a permutation combination for variety in creation. The basic ingredients are available from Moola Prakriti. <br /><br />In the first ever formation after permutation, the trigger for first ever karma comes from Guna- mix. Gita vachan “KaryathE hyavasa: karma sarva: prakritijair Gunai:” (BG -3 -5). The three gunas with which the Jiva is entangled make the Jiva do things as per the mix of these three gunas. And it continues as a cycle of karma. Complications arise to such an extent that we start wondering whether there is anything of God remaining in this world or whether God is cruel in having left us to endure these complications. <br />It is here we all start wondering whether God is merciful at all, least remembering that it is the karmic burden that we are carrying that is doing us all that is bad and even those that are good. The list of woes expressed by Mr Ramanathan is common to most of us. What is God’s role in this?<br /><br />(continued)<br /><br />Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-32996120815814377032016-06-28T21:16:35.414+05:302016-06-28T21:16:35.414+05:30Four arguments have been given by Mr Ramanathan fr...Four arguments have been given by Mr Ramanathan from the Sankhya philosophy’s refusal to accept a Creator God. <br /><br />1. //If god is eternal and unchanging and is the cause of the world, then the world too should be eternal and unchanging because as per sankhya the cause and the effects are not different. Since we find that the world is eternally changing as per the theory of Satkarya vada there can be no god and he never created the universe.//<br /><br />We can approach this idea with the example of a potter (creator) and pot (created world). None of the qualities of the potter comes to stick to the pot. The pot was created through a process of change underwent by the mud. And the pot is not eternal too as it can break anytime. But it is not necessary for the potter to change and / or break along with the pot.<br /><br />2. //Why did god create the world?"<br />"Is he a baddha (Bonded person within prakriti) or mukta? If he is a baddha but created the world he is no good from any other baddha, except for his supernatural powers. If he is a mukta he has no use for creating the world. If he is beyond both he again does not need to create the world.//<br /><br />Using the potter analogy, even a bonded labourer – potter can create a pot and his bonded nature does in no way affect or influence the nature of the pot. But Ishvara is not baddha nor a Muktha. He is beyond all that. Whatever be the stature of a potter, it will have no influence on the pot he makes. According to srutis, God has no purpose other than mercy and leela in having created the worlds. (we will see the explanations in the course of these comments).<br /><br />3.// If it is stated that god created the world for jivas to experience their karma, then he is not omniscient or omnipotent as he is acting on behalf of some other superior power compelling him to create. Thus again this kind of god has no use.//<br /><br />It is out of mercy / kaarunyam / compassion for the Jivas to shed their karma, God has created the worlds. Imagine the long night time kalpas and the after-time of pralayas. The Jivas have no way to take a body to shed their karma and realize the Atman. Only when God is back to creation act, the Jivas get a chance to shed their karma. That is why scriptures ask us not to waste our births but quickly get engaged into knowing the nature of Atman and births in order to shed the karmic bondage. <br /><br />Using the potter analogy, Ishvara has a purpose to do creation just like how a potter makes the pot for specific purposes (for cooking / storage / in homas etc). The potter gets remuneration in return. What Ishvara gets in return? (next question answers that).<br /><br />(continued)<br />Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3442555339667770589.post-82490300022285143592016-06-28T21:15:29.177+05:302016-06-28T21:15:29.177+05:30“yatho vaacho nivarthanthe”. ( “Without being able...“yatho vaacho nivarthanthe”. ( “Without being able to attain Him, speech returns with the mind”.)<br /><br />The following inference can be made from this vachan:-<br /><br />When does a thing, sent to reach another thing, return?<br /><br />When it strikes it but unable to go further, it is returned back to its source.<br />This is the principle of echo.<br /><br />If it be said that speech and mind are returned without attaining Him, it implies that the jiva, though capable of knowing him till his boundary level (if something like that exists) cannot go further because if it goes further that amounts to Liberation from where it would not return to tell us what had happened.<br /><br />But until that threshold level, the jiva’s speech and mind keep doing the shuttle and re-shuttle trips. The seeker with gyana / knowledge, tries to describe Him with the faculties he possesses. But what exactly is that Brahman is something no one in finite body can tell.<br /><br />The words of realisation spoken by Bhrigu or Vamadeva are of this category. We consider them as realised souls – which Mr Ramanathan calls as embodied gyana. But can such gyana be expressed in words, IF “yatho vaacho...” is true? IF the Sruti vachan “Yatho Vaacho” is true, it means that there is still a thread separating the speaker from the state from where speech does not return. That implies that once for all state of Liberation did not happen to those gyanis such as Bhrigu and Vamadeva. What they realised is complete knowledge of Immortality of their own Atman – residing inside them. That Atman is still confined within prakriti based body. There is no Mukthi yet. <br /><br />Mukthi or Liberation can mean coming out of ALL coils. The mortal coil is such that if there is an obstructing karma, the realised has to take another birth too (according to Brahma sutras). Therefore Jivan mukthi is not actual or final mukthi state. Only when the Atman leaves the body actual Mukthi comes. <br /><br />What we can say is that those jivas have attained knowledge of Immortality. But body is still the limiting factor. Immortality of the body cannot happen. One instance is that Vishwamithra was discouraged from sending Trishanku to heavens in his mortal frame. In BG (Bhagawad Gita) too, we come across verses which clearly say that after death only, do the jivas reach Him. Bhagavan clearly rejects the idea of jivan mukthi in Gita.<br /><br />Thus there is a case of Immortality versus Liberation. A realised soul experiences itself as immortal and is therefore free to do anything at will. The Siddha purushas leaving the body and coming back to it or becoming invisible at will or walking in fire and water are all instances of the power of the immortal soul. But Liberation or Mukthi can be actually mean shedding mortal coils and ceasing to take up a body again. Only in that state, the realised jiva becomes one with the Paramatman or subservient to It – in whichever way it had identified itself with It while living in the created world. <br /><br />(continued)<br />Jayasree Saranathan https://www.blogger.com/profile/01048252011566427834noreply@blogger.com