[Advaita-l] Comments of an ISCKON follower

[Shyam Subramanian]

Dear Sunilji,

I am sure the scholars in the list will be able to explain the difference
better. Whatever I understood from the bhAshyA and the
translations was that the sAlokya,sAmIpya,sArUpya and sAyujya all pertain
to saguNa brahman - hence sAyujya ("unifying with saguNa brahman" ?) cannot
be considered to be "brahmAtmanA saMsthitiH".

As regards Sayujya mukti let us consider the statement in the Ramayana,
> which you must  be aware is considered equal to Veda (as Ramayana itself
> declares). Lord Ram offered Sayujya Mukti to Hanuman and on Sayujya mukti
> one does not have any individual body left. How can then sayujya mukti be
> anything other than complete dissolution of individuality. Othyer types of
> Mukti are not real mukti as it is known that even after attaining sarupya
> Mukti ravana had to take birth albeit it happened due to acurse. That shows
> that in all  forms of Mukti other than the SayujyaMukti one is vulnerable
> to taking birth. With all respects to Sri CandraSekhara BhAratI SvAminaH
> has anybody ever asked him for such clarification?
>
>
Just curious, can you give me the source (kANDa, adhyAya, verse) for the
above statements/incidents in the vAlmIki rAmAyaNa ? I couldn't find the
word sAyujya mentioned in the rAmAyaNa at all.

Regards,
Shyam