badisa66 at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 19 05:58:55 CDT 2006
When the shastras speak of the mechanics of the world-system, i.e. its
creation, maintainence, and dissolution and regeneration, it is only
Ishvara who is spoken about as being responsible. The realized souls
are not mentioned in this context so these things are not powers which
belong to them
Badisa: Your above answer indicates the existence of two, Ishwara, and liberated soul(s) at BL. When you contend that realization itself is nothing but salvation, then, how can you justify as per sri Shankaras advaita teachings about the existence of two, that is, Ishwara, and self-realized soul in the state of salvation? It seems to me that you also agreed that self realization is not salvation.
Moreover, as per Bhagawad Gita (BG) 5/5, the final result for either ways is the same. For example, after the death, the soul of Jeevan mukta merges in nirgun Brahman (NB) and becomes one with it without any distinction. However, in case of liberated soul at BL before pralaya, no such merging has taken place. In that case, how come the assurance of Lord Krishna in 5/5 be valid. He said to have the same final result. The soul of JM merged in NB, but the liberated soul is still at BL. Due to this difference (which lasts only up to the point of pralaya), the final result cannot be the same. Thus, the self-realization cannot be equal to salvation. In order to have the same final result, the liberated soul at BL should also merge in NB (which happens at pralaya), like in the case of JM, and then only the assurance of the same final result of Lord Krishna is valid. Since this is not the case with liberated soul at BL, his self-realization is not termed as salvation.
Please do not say that merging, attaining etc are said technically and figuratively only. In BG 9/28, Lord Krishna says that
liberated and then come to me Giving commentary on this sloka, sri Shankara concludes the following:
Thus, with mind equipped with yoga and renunciation, thou shalt be liberated from bonds while yet living; and when this body is dead, thou shalt come to me (Translation from the original Sanskrit into English by sri Alladi Mahadeva sastry).
If there is no such thing, called merging or attaining, then why sri Shankara would say liberation while living (that is, jeevan mukta) and attaining after death. Similarly, if there is no such thing called merging, then why Lord Krishna would say it. Why would sri Suta maharshi would say it in Gita mahatyam? For example, in Gita Mahatyam, sloka 10 says the attainment of gyan followed by mukti after death. Similarly, sloka 19 says that jeevan mukta would attain moksha after death, and in sloka 20, sri Janakas name was refered as an example of people who got liberated while living and attainment of salvation upon death. All these references clearly show that self realization itself is not salvation, and that salvation is achieved only after death by merging in NB.
Why can there only be one Ishvara. Because if you are going to talk about ideas such as creation at all, then it must strike you that the created is strikingly similiar to all observers. I see the sky as blue, you see the sky as blue and everyone else does. If creation was performed by multiple entities, some people should see the sky as purple, some as green, some as pink etc. In fact all the laws of nature should be as varied as individual dreams. The ubiquity of blueness in regards to the sky speaks to a common origin and mechanism
Badisa: It was known for a while that existence of multiple Ishwaras would lead clash in the process of creation etc activities. It means that if the liberated soul at BL is given the powers of creation etc., then it would to clash with Ishwara. If this explanation is true, then doesnt it show the existence of gunas on the part of self-realized liberated soul at BL? Here, can you say that, well! Ishwara himself has gunas, and in that case what would be wrong to say that the liberated soul at BL would also have gunas. In the first place I do not believe that liberated soul will have any gunas. Then in that case, I do not see any reason why there would be any clash between Ishwara and liberated soul at BL for creation etc activities. Being without gunas, this soul, if it has the capacity, still choose not to participate in the process of creation etc. Then there would be no clash at all. But sutra 4.4.17 clearly says that it does not have the powers of creation etc. Your
understanding that clash would occur is not correct. Because, it is not fitting with gunas of Ishwara and no gunas of liberated soul. The right way of applying this sutra is that lack of powers of creation etc means that the liberated soul hasnt yet achieved salvation while at BL in spite of its self-realization. It means that self-realization is not equal to salvation. Merging at the time of pralaya is salvation, where Gita 5/5 holds true.
It could be argued that Shruti says the realized souls have unlimited powers. For instance Taittareya upanishad 1.6 would seem to imply this
Badisa: This reference does not talk or imply about unlimited powers for realized soul. Can you please explain how did you come to this conclusion?
Ishvara is the cause of all that there is and pervades it all but even
that is not the highest state
So being equal with Ishvara still doesn't mean you have unlimited power
Badisa: It is well known to all of us that Ishwara is the cause of creation, sustenance and dissolving of the universe. When the self realized soul at BL have limited powers, then it is clear that it is not even equal to Ishwara. In that case, how come self-realization be termed as salvation? Also how come attainment of Ishwara, who is not in the highest state, be called salvation? In the state of salvation no limitations are applicable. If this is understood, then the lack of powers on the part of realized soul implies that it hasnt yet achieved the salvation.
An objection could be made that if a realized soul is only at the level of creation and not in control of it, there is a chance he could get wrapped up in samsara again
Badisa: Why only at the level of creation? He can as well have the power of controlling also. In that case, where is the objection? And how can you say that he could get wrapped in samsara? Can you say Ishwara, who creates, maintains and dissolves the universe is wrapped in samsara? Please think over it.
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list