[Advaita-l] Re: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 9, Issue 8

[Raghavendra N Kalyan]

>>> We see the servant-master relationship ina mundane way and so it appears as slavery and so despicable/not glorious. But, service done out of pure love cannot be considered slavery. For example, a mother's love for her child and service out of this love can never be called slavery. No sensible will say that the child is maintaining the mother as a slave.
 
Slavery no, bondage yes. Even a mother's love towards a child is bondage. 
 
>>>Similarly, the living entities in their pure state engage in loving service to Krishna out of pure love and this gives pleasure to Krishna and in turn gives them greatest pleasure and that pleasure is ever-increasing unlike the mundane act of service, which after sometime can lose steam. Ofcourse, this is according to vaishnavas. 
 
And it is flawed because it neither eliminates bondage nor the desire for pleasure which are not supposed to exist in the liberated state.

 >>>The living entities possess complete free will in their liberated state and they use this free will not out of compulsion but out of pure love in Krishna's service, because of His all-attractive nature. And, this is considered the perfect use of their free will. For example, in the material world, we misuse our free will and engage in animalistic activities, and suffer reactions. 

If "service done out of free will" is your point, then you cannot assert that in the liberated state one serves Krsihna "naturally". 

>>>Krishna is called Hrsikesa (Arjuna addresses Him as such many times in the Gita), because of He is the master of senses. Whenever our senses are engaged in serving ourselves, that conditions us to this world, but when we engage in the service of Hrsikesa, our senses are purified and we revive our original consciousness (hrsikesa hrsikena sevanam..).

Which is why advaita too emphasizes the importance of bhakti. However there is no question of serving anyone in the liberated state as it is free from "impurities".
 
 
>>>After getting freed from the British, they are now serving themselves. So, that tendency to serve is always there.This is pure common sense and should make perfect sense for 'rational and sane people'.
 
In which case your entire argument becomes irrelevant because you dont want to consider yourself as Krishna. Moreover, you have conveniently indulged in a good amount of word jugglery and converted the "survival instinct of living entities" into "service to itself/themselves" to prove your imaginary point of inherency of the tendency to serve when all the while you had "service to another entity" in your mind. So much for sanity and rationality.
 
 
>>>If we don't serve God, we will end up serving maya or the material energy and suffer results accordingly. This is probably one of the reasons why even advaitins recommend bhakti, to engage the mind on something higher. 
 
 
What is that "even" advaitins? As if bhakti and advaita are inconsistent. 
 
 
>>>If we don't serve God, we will end up serving maya or the material energy and suffer results accordingly. This is probably one of the reasons why even advaitins recommend bhakti, to engage the mind on something higher. Also, one cannot serve and understand God with pure devotion, as long as one is not humble. As long as one is proud of his accomplishments/material possessions, he'll be frustrated. This humility and compassion for fallen souls is the hall mark of great devotees (I should say transcendentalists). For example, Prahlad maharaj was so humble and selfless, even when offered liberation by Lord Nrsingha, he declined it and prayed to be 
engaged
in His service so that He can try to deliver more souls from the cycle of birth and death. This humility and compassion is also displayed by great transcendentalists in the modern age (atleast, whom I have personally seen/heard/read about) including Sri Kanchi Paramacharya, Srila Prabhupada, and even personalities such as Gandhi. And, by their actions, simplicity and humility they teach the world and that's why they are renowned as acharyas ( except Gandhi who, although he had sattvic qualities, he was still serving people on the bodily platform). 

 
Stick to the point. We are talking about the situation in the liberated state. Considering oneself as the servant of another cannot be called liberation. If it is done out of free will then neither does it eliminate desire and consequently bondage, nor can such a service be called as natural in that state. You need not write tons and tons of stuff which has absolutely no relation to the topic.


---------------------------------
  Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now