Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: QUIZ # 2

From the Bhakti List Archives

Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian • August 9, 1999 


Krishna Kalale  wrote:

> Assume that a person X is chosen to get moksha.  In the state of
moksha,
> that person will be absorbed in the knowledge of the divine blissful
> Brahman who is Ananda maya! and will not think of his past bondage
at all.
> Even according to Visistadvaita, he will be spared from even the
memories
> of such sorrowful / sapless experiences of bondage.  His experience
will be
> filled with "Brahman" knowledge and he eternally revels in the
ultimate
> bliss of that communion henceforth.  He will not think or even for a
moment
> ponder about his past.  He will not remember his brothers, sisters,
home,
> parents and all those experiences he experienced when he was in
bondage. As
> far as this mukta soul is concerned, the past experiences ceased to
exist
> from the moment, he got moksha.
>
> What is wrong if one states that, since this experience of universe
comes
> to an end at the time of moksha, it is ok to state that this
universe
> experience was just like a dream, it is there during bondage and it
> vanishes when one attains moksha.  Since the universe experience
vanishes
> at the time of moksha, one can state that, "this universe experience
is
> unreal or illusory, due to the the rule that -" A thing can be
technically
> termed as illusion, if it appears to exist currently and later on
vanishes
> completely ( or sublates itself), never to be found again".

I don't think this is an acceptable argument. As per vishishhTAdvaita,
difference between the individual soul and paramAtman continues even
after moxa. The individual soul is also very much aware of it. As per
advaita this is not true. Also it is clear ffrom sha.nkaras bhAshhyas
that his use (sparing) of the word Ananda is quite different from
vishishhTAdvaita. The souls bliss of doing nityakai.nkaryam is not the
"bliss" of advaitasiddhi or kaivalyam. Just because both use the word
Ananda does not mean they are imlpying the same thing.

Not only that, as per sha.nkara the world is a superimposition to
begin with. It was, is not and will not be real. That is why "after
moxa" these do not "exist" in advaita. Sha.nkara points out in many
places there is nothing like "attaining the self", it is only a manner
of speech to instruct. The self is "attained" to begin with. Quite
obviously this is not vishishhTAdvaita. As per vishishhTAdvaita the
world is very much around, although it will not matter. It is like one
person saying "There is no Bombay" and the other person saying "It
does not matter whether there is a Bombay, I am going to stay in the
US and not go to India anyway". A slightly imperfect analogy, please
pardon.

> If this is so, there should not be much controversy or arguments
between
> ADVAITA and VISISTADVAITA.  Finally these two schools are saying the
same
> thing.  They may differ in the fashion in which the textbooks are
written.

I don't think so.

>  Any two authors with distinct genuine originalities, separated by a
couple
> of hundreds of years of time,  who write about the same subject, say
> "Ramayana" differ from one another slightly; But they are
essentially
> saying the same thing (Ramayana) in different styles or approaches.
>
> QUIZ :  So,  is there a fallacy in the above logic?  or is it fine
to state
> so?

No it is not. I am saying this just to point out differences, I hope I
don't get taken to task for this. There is nothing like supremacy of
vishhNu over other devatas for advaita. As per sureshvara
(purushhvidhabrAhmaNa 377)

yaH prR^ithivAmitIsho.asAvantaryAmI jagadguruH |
harirbrahmA pinAkIti bahudhaiko.api gIyate |

The Lord of this earth, the one existing inside all that and the world
teacher, *is though one*,  sung variously as Hari , Brahma, Pinaki,
etc (a name for shiva commonly found in the mahAbhArata).

Now, sureshvara identifies hari with the witness in Naishhkarmyasiddhi
1.1. It is just that hari, vishhNu etc mean different things in
different places. In one place it will mean a deva with form, in the
other the formless brahman. Just like sha.nkara uses Ishvara in most
places to mean brahman, but also uses it as an epithet of shiva (3
times in the kena bhAshhya).  Just because sureshvara or sha.nkara use
some name like Narayana or hari in some places to denote brahman, it
does *not* mean they are using it the same way as Srivaishnavas!

The fallacy in the arguments given to "prove" advaita =
vishishhTAdvaita are all because of the non-recognition of the fact
that the same words are used to imply completely different things.

> *****Note it is adiyen's sincere feeling that this is not to offend
anyone.
> So bhagavatas, ignore and forgive me if this not to your taste******

With a similar feeling,

Rama