Re: Nitya Suris
From the Bhakti List Archives
• December 5, 1995
Mani writes: * The question is a good one and can be stated in even * broader terms. Since Vishvaksena (Senesha) is a * nitya-suri according to our sampradaaya, his jnaana * has been infinite for all time. Therefore, even * Vishvaksena does not need a specific upadesha. Teaching * of this form is only necessary for errant jivas such * as ourselves. It is not clear to me how from the viewpoint of a mukta, one can distinguish itself between a jivan mukta (one who has received moksa) from a Nitya Suri (one who has been in moksa eternally). At the time of moksa, time ceases all meaning. It is no longer relevant or sensible to speak of a before or an after, only that which exists at the moment. >From the viewpoint of muktas, God doesn't differentiate between the jivatmas (atleast not that I know of). Similarly, once a mukta, there is no chance for the jiva to be caught up in samsara once again. If this were possible, the whole purpose of prapatti and moksa is negated. Therefore, there appears to me no way for a jiva to ever differentiate itself from a Nitya Suri and a jivan mukta. Even from the viewpoint of errant jivas, it doesn't seem possible to make a differentiation between a Nitya Suri and jivan mukta. We have no knowledge of previous lives to make a relative comparison of the state of a mukta at the present time with the time past. Thus, from our viewpoint of jivas, all muktas appear as Nitya Suris. It seems to me that if one allows for Nitya Suris to be those muktas who has been "sent" by Narayana to help those errant jivas, WITHOUT worrying about their "eternality" (which does not seem sensible to me), then the such problems of Narayana giving upadesa to Senesha disappears. Why can't one merely view Nitya Suris as those mukta's who continue to interact with errant jivas, without they themselves being caught up in samsara? Is this a "way" to differentiate a Nitya Suri from a jivan mukta? >From this viewpoint, one can suggest that any mukta can become a Nitya Suri provided that Sri Narayana himself wishes so. Therefore, it would imply that it would be ppossible for us to not only recieve upadesa from Sriman Narayana (which Visistadvaita would admit), but also become Nitya Suris (if we were to receive moksa and were so instructed by Sriman Narayana). I am sure that this viewpoint is inconsistent with other aspects of Visistadvaita. However, I am curious to know a bit more on the nature of Nitya Suris. The notion of "eternal" gets used quite loosely in philosophy, so it would be nice to hear a discussion on the visistadvoitic notion of time. Sumanth
- Next message: Lakshmi: "A new member.."
- Previous message: Mohana Ramanujam: "Since Vishvaksena was a nitya suri, why the need for Nara-narayana"
- In reply to: Mani Varadarajan: "Re: Upadesa to Lakshmi Thaayaar"
- Next in thread: Lakshmi: "Re: Nitya Suris"
- Reply: Lakshmi: "Re: Nitya Suris"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]