sAyujya in madhva's system -

Pulled out from here



I really don't know what you meant by that.

From: The Philosophy of madhvAcArya by Dr. B.N.K.Sharma

Page 460 in chapter "Rationale of Ananda tAratamya in mokSa"

The Hindu scriptures refer to an ascending order of mukti: sAlokya, sAmIpya, sArUpya, sAyujya, in which each succeeding stage includes the joy of the preceding one. This would certainly imply an intrinsic gradation of bliss in mokSa. As sAyujya carries within it an element of sArUpya also, it cannot be equated with aikyam or identity of being. This is evident from the upaniSadic text: candrasamaH sAyujyaM salokatAmApnoti, where the knower who has attained sAyujya with the moon is again referred to as enjoying the benefits of sAlokatA. The etymology of the word sAyujya sayujoH bhAvaH also disapproves the sense of "identity". The gradations of the four kinds of mukti accepted by the rAmAnuja school also make it incumbent upon it to accept the principle of tAratamya in mokSa."

Page 450-451, in Chapter "madhva's View of mukti"

(italics not mine)

A Theistic account of mokSa, cannot anyday make conditions there more stagnant than an advaitic view of it! madhva is satisfied that there is scope for activity and full play of capacities for everyone of us there according to his or her abilities. The released may rest in the contemplation of their own blessedness, like the advaitic brahma. They may contrast their present with their past and feel thankful for their deliverence. They may adore the majesty of God and sing His praises or worship Him in a thousand ways:

jJAtvApi mama mAhAtmyaM tatrotsukatayA punaH |
vizeSAcca vizeSeNa jJAtvA mAmaznute'dhikaM ||

(vijJAna, quoted in bhAgavata tAtparya 10.11.33)

They may offer sacrifices, if they wish to - the only difference being that nothing is obligatory there.

There is no prescribed round of activities or code of conduct in mokSa, which means there is unlimited scope for spontaneous creative work of every kind - karma (kRSNo muktairijyate vItamohai - mahAbhArata 13.18.64), jJAna and bhakti (AtmArAmAzca munayo nirgranthA apyurukrame | kurvantyahaitukIM bhAktimitthAMbhUtaguNo hariH || - bhAgavatam 1.7.10). There is no call for activity in that there is no one to call upon you to do this or that. The urge is from within entirely:

kadAcit karma kurvanti kadAcinaiva kurvate |
nityajJAnasvarUpatvAt nityaM dhyAyanti kezavaM ||

(bhramasUtra bhASya 3.3.30)

The worship and activity in mokSa, such as they are, are an end in themselves. They are not means to an end:

sAdhyAnandasvarUpaiva bhaktinaivAtra sAdhanaM | (gItA tAtparya 2)

harerupAsanA cAtra sadaiva sukharUpiNI |
na tu sAdhanabhUtA sA siddhirevAtra sA yataH: ||

(bhramasUtra bhASya 4.4.21)

The assumption of activities cannot reduce the released state to the level of this world as these are no longer determined by injunctions and prohibitions or attended by unpleasant consequemces in the event of non-performance. It is this freedom from all conditions that distinguishes the life in mokSa from ordinary life. madhva's point: bandhapratyavAyAbhAve hi mokSasya arthavattvaM, anyathA mokSatvameva na syAt (brahmasUtra bhASya 3.3.3) is really unexceptionable. Unless some kind of activity is recognized, it will be difficult to differentiate the liberated souls from stones and sticks, despite the reputed possession by them of "consciousness". Such service as the freed render to God is purely voluntary and an end in itself:

bhaktirjJAnaM tathA dhyAnaM muktAnAmapi sarvazaH |
sAdhanAni tu sarvANi bhaktijJAnapravRddhaye |
naivAnyasAdhanaM bhaktiH phalarUpA hi sA yataH ||

(bhASya on bRhadAraNyaka upniSad 1.4)

From: the vedAnta-sUtras of bAdarAyaNa with commentary of baladeva - translated by Rai Bahadur Srisa Chandra Vasu (it is wise to keep in mind here that baladeva has tattvavAdI sympathies)

Page 749-750:

sUtra 4.4.4
avibhAgena dRSTatvAt

"The freed soul exists in a state of non-separation from the Lord, because of scriptural text."

Commentary:
When the soul has reached the Highest Light, it remains in a state of non-division from that Light, in a state of absorption in that Light. Why? Because it is so seen in the scripture. In the muNDaka upaniSad (3.2.8) we have the following statement:-

"As the flowing rivers disappear in the sea, losing their name and their form, thus a wise man, freed from name and form, goes to the Divine Person, who is greater than the great."

The word sAyujya means intimate union, as we find it in the following passage of the mahAnArAyaNa upaniSad (25.1):-

"The wise one, who knowing it thus, dies during the northern progress of the sun, attaining to the glory of the gods (i.e. going by the archirAdi devAyana path) gets sAyujya with the sun. But he who dies in the southern progress of the sun, attaining indeed the glory of the pitRis (going by the pitriyAna path), obtains the sAyujya with the moon, in the owrld of the moon. The wise knower of brahma conquers these two paths, that of the Sun and the Moon, and because of this (conquest), he obtains the glory of brahma, yea the glory of brahma."

But if sAyujya be the only form of mukti, what becomes then of the other three forms, for the scriptures describe four kinds of mukti, i.e. sAlokya (residence in the same sphere with the Deity), sArSTi (possessing the same power, station or rank as the Deity), sAmIpya (proximity to the Deity), and sAyujya? To this we reply, that the other three kinds of mukti are but modes of sAyujya. The sAyujya mukti includes all those.

If sAyujya be the constant state of union with the Lord, then, how is it that the soul feels the sentiment of separation from the Lord, in the state called viraha. The sould which is in constant union with the Lord, is incapable of feeling this sentiment of viraha. But the books describe, that in the highest heaven even, this sentiment is felt; and the mukta sould appear, now and then, as if lamenting their separation from the Lord. To this we reply, that even while feeling this sentiment, which though painful is yet pleasant, the freed soul feels their union with the Lord internally, for the Lord is never absent from their hearts; and because they are in the owrld of the Lord called mahImA, and the world of the Lord has been shown to be identical with the Lord. Therefore the mukta jIvas, dwelling in vaikuNThA, are in three-fold union with the Lord, namely, they are in the world, which is the Lord Himself; secondly, the Lord is in them, so they can never be unconscious of the presence of the Lord; and thirdly, they are in union with an external form of the Lord. It is this separation from the external form of the Lord, that gives rise to the sentiment of viraha, in the heaven world.

The illustration of the rivers entering the sea, cannot be utilized in maintaining the doctrine of absolute identity with the Lord. The mukta jIvas, though in intimate union with the Lord, are not identical with the Lord. Though we say, in ordinary parlance, when one water enters another water, that it has become one, yet we know all the while, that the two waters are different internally. If they were not so, then there would be no increase in the bulk of water.

Maybe I found it here Kishalayaji.

Actually I went to the Dvaita site after I read what you posted on 1-28 and found it not to be true. I thought about posting the facts, but I didn't want to make a needless controvercy and, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, thinking I may have misunderstood, since you seem to know something of Dvaita.

My mistake was writing something I heard from you and not going with my gut .
I won't do that again.

What do you mean by that? If you have carefully read my post, the highest mukti in dvaita is still sAyujya. But sAyujya is not what it is as is usually understood in gauDIya circles.

The word sAyujya means intimate union

dvA suparNA sayujA sakhAyA samAnam vRksham parishvajAte
tayoranyah pippalam svAdvanti, anaSnan anyo abhicAkaSIti

(muNDakopaniShad - 3.1)

"A pair of white-winged birds extremely friendly to each other sit on one and the same tree; one eats the fruits, the other eats not and gazes on"

Kishalaya, I somehow can't find that passage. Where exactly did Madhva say that?

-ek

That should be bhAgavata tAtparya 11.11.33

-ek

I don't know where madhva has written that but I trust Dr. B.N.K. Sharma, a scholar of madhva school, has enough information when he writes "The Hindu scriptures refer to an ascending order of mukti: sAlokya, sAmIpya, sArUpya, sAyujya, in which each succeeding stage includes the joy of the preceding one."

That is correct, it is indeed referred to as 11.11.33 in Dr. B.N.K. Sharma's book.

(We had an earlier thread where the discussion of Madhva's sajuyja came up. Not sure if there is anything of interest there but thought I'd post the link anyways )

Philosophy of zrI madhvAcArya, Page 441

The system of madhva accepts also the fourfold distinction of mokSa into sAlokya, sAmIpya, sArUpya, and sAyujya, (see madhva, brahma sUtra bhASya 4.4.19) taught in the bhAgavata purANa. vyAsatIrtha in his nyAyAmRta, mentions that these represent an ascending order of blessedness.

(italics not mine)

Indeed. Please forgive me for not reading your post before you posted it !

?

You posted something about sAyujya and also about becoming God, to which I replied that sAyujya is the highest mukti in madhva system and by implication to be understood that a school which accepts that the soul can never become God and which also accepts sAyujya, then sAyujya can not, in all usage, imply "becoming God". Then you posted that madhva system is dualist but accepts sAyujya to which I replied that it was not clear what you intended to say, so I produced some quotes. Then you replied that you thought that what I said "sAyujya mukti being highest in dvaita" is not true, which I really could not understand what you meant by then.

O.K. You win . I have neither time nor sufficient intrest in the subject matter to try to sort through this mire. Maybe someone else would volunteer to be your sparring partner for a while ...
Take care... crazy angrezi

you are a puzzle angrezi ji!

anyway you also take care!

Thank you for posting the referrence to Madhva's Brahmasutrabhashyam. I found it very interesting. Madhva is quoting an untraceable passage of 20 anuSTubh lines from the Garudapurana. Only the last three lines deal with sAyujya. Madhva writes:

Madhva's quote does not clearly mention that sAyujya is the highest form of mukti, but he does not explicitly deny it either. Perhaps he just wanted to admit that sAyujya is technically the highest. From what Madhva says elsewhere, it does not seem that sAyujya is regarded as most desirable for bhaktas. Madhva writes:

Bhaktas who turn down sAyujya, will not be deprived of bliss, but will get it when they eventually achieve mukti. If sAyujya is indeed the highest type of mokSa for Dvaitins, one might expect to find some more explicit references to its exalted status than the above quoted stanzas.

-ek
ps The BhP ref is for the Madhvaite editions. The above commentary pertains to BhP 3.25.34: naikAtmyatAM me.... It is also interesting that Madhva does not hesitate to paraphrase ekAtmyatA by sAyujya.

And this is what I find puzzling:




An earlier verse follows the same theme but is slightly different in the Sanskrit terminology:

For dvaitins mokSa is the highest puruSArtha. There is no mention of a fifth one.

From:
http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/prameya.html#section_10



BNKS explicitly argues against a "fifth puruSArtha" of the caitanya school in the History of Dvaita School of Vedanta. (I don't have the reference ready here, but I distinctly remember it). In any case, bhakti is an integral part of madhva's philosophy so sentiments where a devotee seems to forego even the desire for mukti is appreciated and is well documented in "The Philosophy of zrI madhvAcArya". However, in view of dvaita accepting:
1. mukti as the highest puruSArtha
2. madhva accepting sAyujya as mukti
3. madhva not denying sAyujya as the highest as described in the "hindu" scriptures
4. vyAsatIrtha accepting the increasing blessedness ending with sAyujya at the top in his nyAyAmRta (as per BNKS)

It would be hard to support the conjecture that madhva did not consider sAyujya as the highest mukti unless we have some explicit repeated reference from madhva that the goal of sAdhanA is something higher than mukti.


This is a good enough admission:

QUOTE

necchanti sAyujyam api phalatevna

Here is one:
Since Madhva equates aikAtmyatA with sAyujya (BhagTN 3.26.34), this passage would deny sAyujya the highest rank.

-ek

I hope you do understand that a theory cannot be so brazenly incoherent. Why should madhva even accept sAyujya as something of a goal (more so as a mukti ) if he thinks it leads to darkness. That would lead to his system being inherently inconsistent. Your reference could be accepted if ekAtmyatA, now equated with sAyujya, were treated by madhva in some sympathetic term, but not necessarily something as an untimate desirable - consistently. Naturally it leads to an interpretation that in BhP 3.25.34, madhva is speaking about sAyujya and in BhagTN 10.4.18, he is talking about the non perception of bheda as tattva.

Ekji, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that Madhva's point of view is that sayujya and ekatva are two different things?

If so, how does that fit in with the BhAgavatam verses that I posted earlier? Is there a possibility of sayujya existing there after all?

I am saying that Madhva nowhere clearly or explicitly teaches that sAyujya is the highest type of mokSa. When commenting on BhP 3.25.34 Madhva picks up the word aikAtmyatA, which occurs in the text of the BhP, and basically restates the BhP stanza, while substituting aikAtmyatA by sAyujya. In his BSuBh 4.4.19 Madhva lists the first three types of mokSa, while arguing that mokSa does not entail cessation of activities and perceptions. He also lists sAyujya, but not by its common name. He does describe it as "paramAtmAnaM pravizya", "having entered into the highest self," but confirms that even in that condition the jiva has sensations and enjoys pleasures.

In a passage that Madhva quotes from the Brahmavaivarta Purana, he asserts that cognition of bheda leads to the highest place, while cognition of aikAtmya leads to darkness. As Kishalaya pointed out, this would constitute a contradiction. He proposes that Madhva here uses aikAtmya in the sense of "non-cognition of bheda." While it is possible that this is the case, it is not at all uncommon for Madhva to contradict himself. But I agree with Kishalaya, that one would have to find repeated, explicit statements to settle the matter.


The BhP only once uses the word sAyujya, and that is at 7.1.14. Madhva does not comment there. Sridhara does not comment on the word there. In the two places you have quoted, the BhP uses ekatvam and aikAtmyatA. It is clear that the BhP employs these two as synonyms for sAyujya. What remains unclear, is how this sAyujya is understood. The BhP does not define it. Sridhara defines all the forms of mokSa when commenting on BhP 3.29.13. His definition of ekatva is the shortest: ekatvaM sAyujyam.

-ek

1. madhva's whole system is based on differences "tattavtaH bhedaH". In view of bhAgavata purANa using the word "aikAtmyatA", he cannot in any sense use (or allow bhAgavatam) the literal meaning of the word or his philosophy would be in shambles. Thus his interpretation would naturally fall to sAyujya. More so if he were to use "aikAtmyatA" in a disparaging manner elsewhere.

2. As has already been pointed out by BNKS and baladeva (as per the English translation I have), the "higher" muktis entail the qualities of all the previous (lower) muktis. Thus as a sAlokya or a sAmIpya mukti, in general perception, would not "entail cessation of activities and perceptions", naturally sAyujya cannot be said to have a quality which is in any sense lesser. BNKS quoting madhva repeatedly mentions that mukti is a state of vivid activity with muktas having distinct names and spiritual forms "with appropriate organs", knowledge of which is beyond those who are still in bondage. Needless to say if sAyujya is higher than sAlokya, sArUpya and sAmIpya, then the blessedness of the latter three cannot be divorced from sAyujya. baladeva uses a novel interpretation of sAyujya to imply three fold union with bhagavAn and still have ample room for activity i.e. things such as viraha manifests when one of the union breaks namely with the external form of the Lord. Then again we have the brahmasUtra 4.4.12 - dvAdazAhavadubhayavidhaM bAdarAyaNo'taH - bAdarAyaNa holds that muktas are of two kinds (with and without bodies - refer previous two sUtras) just as the twelve days sacrifice. baladeva comments that mukta souls may or may not have a body on mere will. Thus to say that sAyujya means "permanent" divorce from activity is not warranted. It could very well mean periods of "deep intimate communion" who are afforded this kind of mukti along with periods of whatever the other muktis entail.

Madhva's school of vedaanta is known as dvaita, dual. Why? Because it has a dual comprehension of Reality, namely the DEPENDENT and the INDEPENDENT. When the dependent is not cognizant of the independent that is maya. When the former is cognizant of the latter and its relationship with same (not just intellectually or cerebrally but wholly), that is mukti. As covered earlier, the highest (and inclusive) state of mukti is called saayujya. Here the dependent has surrendered all illusions of its own independence. That which is totally dependent cannot be separate. Ergo, absolute dependence = absolute oneness. There is no contradiction in saayujya as part and parcel of bhakti.

Do you think you could kindly give some examples of Madhva contradicting himself?

Just at a tangent here but relevant to the thinking patterns that underpin these discussions:-

The raison d'etre for the various vaada-s is to attempt exegesis for the contradictions (seeming or otherwise) in the Vedaanta. Many of these contradictions turn out to mere paradoxes. However some are so deep that the vaada-s are still struggling with their exegesis. Its just how it is.

Well, could you give some examples of that please?

Talasiga, why do you say mere paradoxes, as though there are deeper contradictions than paradoxes, and what would a contradiction deeper than a paradox be.

I use the word paradox to convey a deep 'contradiction' whose solution is not a matter of finding a clever way to logically iron out the incongruity

Do you think the logical resolving of the contradictions in Sastra in order to make it all fit together into an internally consistent narrative, is a worthwhile pursuit?

Or do you think that this is an unwelcome reductionism that glosses over the
hyperlanguage Realizations that the existence of these very 'contradictions' is there to convey.
----------
Definitions
Hyperlanguage: Beyond the confines of discursive aristotelian-style language.

Aristotelian logic: A single assertion must always either affirm or deny a single predicate of a single subject. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)

In other words
A = the dress is red
Hence, A is not non-A .
A is A.
If A is true, non-A cannot be true.
Either A or non-A has to be true.
-------

Perhaps Talasiga has in mind definition 2. a. of the word paradox in the online OED:


You seem to have one of the other definitions in mind.

(Talasiga)

Sadhu, sadhu! I think this is a very important insight.

Firstly, my thanks to Elpis for his comments. A paradox is a seeming (apparent as opposed to actual)contradiction. A deep paradox would be one whose apparency is not easily exposed and remains a contradiction until, perhaps, the seeker consumates duality.



Vedaantic philosophy, originally, was not a head trip. Not a scholastic pastime, pleasurable and commendable that such may be. Vedaantic philosophy is, at best, experiential. That is, it is driven by ebullient experience, divine experience. It is discursive expression of spiritual experience as tested against the yardstick of accepted authority of the ancient shrootis (revelations).

Saints and sakhis in the throes of divine engagement find mundane and scriptural contradictions transcended. The various vaada-s are their attempts to explain this transcendence in terms of mundane knowledge and logic (the common ground of the shared known). That their expressions may be wanting does not mean that their experience was wanting.

Well said Talasiga, and I think this observation would apply equally to a couple of other heady threads that seem to be spinning into irrelevance at present.

The words of the genuine mystic point toward the direct experience of truth for the individual, not merely the semantic debate over doctrine (although that is included but is certainly subordinate). One may argue that the debate is the precursor for revelation. One can of course, debate even that, but to what end?

To grow weary of both marginal understanding and misunderstanding, and to directly percieve what lies beyond, seems the worthy yet rarely attained fruit of such debate and study; and that indeed is Veda-anta.

I have been saying that it's about experiential meaning of the teachings from the sadhaka's point of view, not the encyclopedia's, since the very beginning of the bheda abheda thread. I pointed out though, that dictionary definitions can be useful, but they are not complete. In fact that is the very addendum that i added to your post, as a response to you bringing up encyclopedia meanings. I am glad we agree on this point despite the misunderstanding that accured at the beginning of that thread.

The relevant point of the thread that i am trying to convey, as flawed as i am, is the meaning of Sunyata beyond the dictionary, from a practitioner's perspective.
By this i mean: the Practitioner Perspective as opposed to the Dictionary Perspective that some Gaudiyas misguidedly harp on in order to 'defeat' it. Conversely, it is also the meaning that you would be taught at a secular university by in-depth professors. This is why it is wrong to call that thread irrelevant.

--------------------
sri krishna caitanya

Sure. Madhva's contradictory statements sometimes even occur in one and the same work, not very far apart. In the example I give below, Madhva even attributes the statements to the same source (vAyupurANa). Sorry, I have no time to give you a full translation, but I trust you will have no problem seeing exactly what the nature of the contradiction is. The example is about the qualities of the released souls. In the first passage they are said to have bliss in the same amount as Brahman, but no 'world-superintendence.' In the second it is said that they have no bliss, but 'world-superintendence.'

1. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashyam 1.4.10:


2. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashyam 2.4.1-14


-ek

I do not denounce discussion and debate. These are worthy, pleasurable devotional engagements (or can be). What I object to is vilification of finders of a path simply because their doctrine may be perceived to be inadequate.

It is an honour to debate with other seekers. It is an honour to accept defeat or to revel in victory. It is an honour to recognise that, ultimately, one's sense of victory or defeat may itself have been based on a misunderstanding.

It is not the debate but our attitude to it that nurtures our capacity to grow in philosophical sanga.

Why to despise the mystic, why to shun their association because they spoke "wrongly"?

Consider a hungry man who has a speech defect. He is hungry but cannot say so properly. Is he, therefore, not entitled to be fed? Is his hunger less real?

Consider now, the Advaitin saint, the Dvaitin saint, the Buddhist mahant, the Gaudeeya saint - is their spiritual experience invalid because of some defect in their expressions? Certainly there is always room for improvement. It is the path of adoration to celebrate the spiritual with every God given faculty. But should those we perceive as failures be shunned?

Is this why Father Mackenzie was so alone?

Yes, I agree, and I didn't think that was your point. Nor was it mine, I should have explained myself more clearly. I also find value in theological debate, as I often learn about myself in addition to finding gems in the understanding of others that I would otherwise never have come into contact with.

What I was speaking more of is debate for the sake of debate, that sputters off into realm of ego-bolstering, or party-line toting for those involved, and thus tends to lack any discernable redeeming spiritual insight. I don't mind having my misunderstandings destroyed (although I am too proud to say I feel honored by it!), but the defeat should ideally come from a place of compassion within the victor, rather than simply the victor being the only one left standing after a knock-out fight. (Although there are certain insights to be gleaned from this as well!)

It would seem also that to accept the idea of defeat and victory as such, would mean that one is right and the other is wrong. In the transcendental sense, it seems there is the possibilty of both being right, only differing in their respective vantage points, which are unlimited in the face the absolute (however we define it). Both seem to be reletive.

Perhaps this is just my own predjudice. I have always been more fascinated by the mystic and the avadhuta, over the scholar and pandit, though I do try to take gold wherever I find it. I appreciate your insights to this matter, they are certainly in the gold category.

The light of the sun
Makes the moon that we know.
Whose saayujya is this then?

I posted this to the dvaita list in an attempt to get some clarification. I got two responses, the relevant portions of which I am posting here. The links to the original replies are also there. (Kindly be forewarned that some parts of the post may not be upto your taste.)

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_d...ary/000369.html

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_d...ary/000370.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Sure. Madhva's contradictory statements sometimes even
> occur in one and the same work, not very far apart.

There is not a single self-contradiction anywhere.

> In the example I give below, Madhva even attributes the
> statements to the same source (vAyupurANa). Sorry, I
> have no time to give you a full translation, but I
> trust you will have no problem seeing exactly what the
> nature of the contradiction is. The example is about
> the qualities of the released souls. In the first
> passage they are said to have bliss in the same amount
> as Brahman,

Does this person know the meaning of the words "Rte",
"api" and "cha" and how to use them?

> but no 'world-superintendence.' In the
> second it is said that they have no bliss,

Does this person know the meaning of the word "bhogena"?

> but 'world-superintendence.'

Does this person know how to use "vina" and "cha" ?

This wrong perception came from the grave mistake of
misinterpretaion and total disregard to the context.

Some pAThAntaras/typos also have been given.

> 1. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashyam 1.4.10:
>
> Adhipatyam Rte caiva AnandenApi karmaNa /

Adhipatyam Rte caiva Anandena cha karmaNA /

> sarve te brahmaNas tulyA bhogena viSayeNa ca /
> nAnAtvenApi saMbaddhAs tadA tatkAlabhAvinA /

nAnAtvenAbhisaMbuddhAstadA tatkAlabhAvinA /

> prakRtau kAraNAtItAH svAtmanneva vyavasthitAH /

prakRtau kAraNAtItAH svAtmanyeva vyavasthitAH /

> pradarzayitvA hy AtmAnaM prakRtis teSu sarvazaH /
> puruSANy abahutvena pratItA na pravartate /
> pravartati punaH sarge teSAM sA na pravartate /
> saMyogaH prakRter naiva muktAnAM tattvadarzanAt /
> samA duHkhanivRttis tu muktAnAm api sarvazaH /
> mAnuSAdiviriJcAntaM sukhaM muktau zatottaram //
> || ity Adi vAyuprokte ||
>
>
> 2. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashyam 2.4.1-14
>
> nAnAtvenAbhisambandhAs tadA tatkAlabhAvinA /
> saMyogaH prakRter naiSAM muktAnAM tattvadarzanAt /
> pravartati punaH sarge teSAM sA na pravartate /
> Anandena vinA caiva bhogena viSayeNa ca /
> sarve te brahmaNas tulyA Adhipatyena caiva hi //

(the above line is translated below as 2a)

sarve te brahmaNastulyA AdhipatyaM na caiva hi //

(the above line is translated below as 2b)

> || iti vAyuprokte ||

and right after this AchArya says:

ivashabdstvasvAtantryArthe |

"'iva' word is used to denote absence of total independence".

Both the passages say the same thing.

The mukta jivas have similarity in enjoyment. What is the
similarity? Just as God enjoys His full bliss (which is
infinite) every mukta jIva enjoys its full (which are finite,
but have gradation as mentioned by shatottaram).
Also they do not perform the kind of Actions the Lord does.

Note the context. "iva" is used to signify asvAtatntrya
(Non-independence). How can "Adhipatya" be there?

How do we parse these passages? (I am giving only the
relevant portion).

1. Adhipatyam Rte ca eva Anandena cha karmaNA
sarve te brahmaNas tulyA bhogena viSayeNa ca

Excepting
1. the 'world-superintendence',
2. the Total bliss and
3. type of Actions that Lord does
(meaning muktas do not have these),
all those muktas have similar way of enjoyment of the
objects of their desire. (Note that tulya and sAmya
indicate only similarity and not equality, otherwise
the exception ("Rte") does not make sense).

2a (with the poster's version of pATha).

Anandena vinA caiva bhogena viSayeNa ca
sarve te brahmaNas tulyA Adhipatyena caiva hi

(Adhipatyeneti pAThe tu Adhipatyena cha vineti pUrvatra
sambandhaH)

In this pATha, Adhiptyena has to be associated with earlier
"vinA". Why? The context is explanation of lack of independence
of jIva. If someone says "A does not want to give even one
dollar to B", it is ridiculous to say that "A wants to give a
million dollars to B". Use kaimutyanyAya here. The jIva does
not even have a bit of Total independence, so where is the question
of 'world-superintendence'?

Anandena Adhipatyena ca vinA eva sarve te bhogena viSayeNa
brahmaNaH tulyA |

Excepting for the Total bliss and 'world-superintendence',
all the muktas have similar way of enjoyment of the objects
of their desire.

2b. (With the other pATha)

Anandena vinA caiva bhogena viSayeNa ca

sarve te brahmaNas tulyA AdhipatyaM na caiva hi

Anandena vinA eva sarve te bhogena viSayeNa
brahmaNaH tulyA, AdhpatyaM cha na eva

Excepting for the Total bliss (like that of the Lord), all the
muktas have similar way of enjoyment of the objects of their
desire; so also they don't have 'world-superintendence' (just
like not having the same bliss as the Lord).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> The example is about
> the qualities of the released souls. In the first
> passage they are said to have bliss in the same amount
> as Brahman, but no 'world-superintendence.' In the
> second it is said that they have no bliss, but
> 'world-superintendence.'

No Vedantin of any stripe *ever* claims that the mukta has a role in, much
less a lordship over, Creation, because the sUtrakAra has firmly ruled
this out vide the sUtra `jagadvyApAravarjam.h' (IV-4-17). In fact, this
becomes a problem for certain schools of Vedanta, because they posit that
the mukta's bliss is equal to that of Brahman, or that he becomes the
Brahman. If the mukta's bliss is equal to Brahman's, or if he himself is
the same as Him, how is there a difference between their capacities?

Stray observation: the vAyuprokta is not the Vayu Purana (it is part of
the Brahmanda).

I guess that's axiomatic, and that is why there are none.

Thanks for enlivening the Madhvaites. But for the future, Kishalaya, please do not forward my posts on this forum to others without my permission. If you felt it was too difficult for you to understand whether or not Madhva contradicted himself in the passages I posted, you could have asked for clarification. The answers are, btw, exactly what I would expect from staunch believers. These persons are known for their inability to relate to matters that are of interest to philologists and Indologists. Their views are based on religious belief, and I would not have presented my observations to them to begin with.

-ek

These days
I only run to Mummy and Daddy
when they need my help .................

Ek ji, I could exactly see what the problem was and asking you would not have enlightened me any further. I was more interested in what the reply from the mAdhvas would be. In any case, you have posted it on a public forum for everybody to see, it was not a private email, so I guess there should not be much of a problem here. Would you not want to give the other party even a chance to clarify their position when you have declared publicly that their very founder has comitted such an idiotic mistake? What I see, (apart from the personal remarks) is that they have given an answer as to why madhva's words are not to be taken as self-contradictory. We can go on and have a insult war raging but wouldn't it cloud the real issue whether madhva actually wrote self-contradictory statements. That is what we are trying to find out. However in my personal opinion, it is somewhat strange that even a person of average intelligence can commit blunders of such proportion. However you seemed to have evidence, therefore a clarification was necessary.

If one drop of seawater has x% salt and the rest of the ocean has x% salt, then the % of salt in the one drop and the ocean is the same. There is a difference between qualitative and quantative sameness. The satiation of a child's hunger is not lesser than that of an adult.

Next question.

Talasiga,

please read the entire post first before you jump to reply. I guess the second fellow was not entirely ignorant of the purport.

I did read the whole post. That writer asked a question and I replied. I am also curious about which vedantic tradition posits that a mukta is quantatively the same as Brahman. All claims of sameness turn on qualitative considerations. Hence my salt % analogy.

In my humble opinion advaita does not allow for a quantitative difference between jIva and brahma. But given the discussion on buddhism where zUNyatA could mean fullness, I am willing to accept that by some interpretation "jIva brahmaNaiva nAparaH" could mean what you say even though some advaitins I have interacted with would deny such interpretation outright.

Kishalaya, the advaita specialty on Brahman is not about a "thing" but a state or quality of being - a quality of being where the seer is party to perpetual universal gestaltens.

The dvaita specialty on Brahman is about the differences within the Being which allows distinct identity in the Godhead - explaining the reality of difference which a strictly advaitic view avoids.

Both traditions address particular areas where the other is weak. Ultimately, they complement rather than oppose.

Just a digression here, but according to my readings in ZrI VaiSNavism, they speak of a thing known as BhAgavad-kaiGkarya (serving God), and although they do not explicitly mention it as a fifth (according to my knowledge), it is referred to as parama-purusArtha - highest purusArtha.

Yeah, nitya kaimkaryam is the goal. I mean, when the soul achieves moksha, then it goes to Sri Vaikuntha to serve and to enjoy Narayana. So kaimkaryam is of course serving Sriman Narayana from wherever you are, but the understanding is that after saranagati the soul will achieve moksha after the very life in which the saranagati is performed, and then go to sri vaikuntha to eternally serve, enjoy and be enjoyed by the Lord.

In short the moksha is going to include the perfection of bhagavad kaimkaryam and bhagavad anubhavam!

Well, according to gauDIya vaiSNavism, prema = mokSa. Many a times I have seen direct references to such a synonymity. Somehere in bRhat bhAgavatam, sanAtana gosvAmI states that residents of goloka will not leave goloka even if kRSNa leaves.

But can't one love Krishna from wherever one is located? Sanatana goswami loved him all through the book, as he is going from place to place to place. I thought they will not leave goloka because they are under the impression that they can only love him in the way in which they are comfortable if they are located in that place.

Anyway, Sri Vaisnavas love sri hari too. Well I don't think there is any chance of getting moksha and being in sri vaikuntha and *not* loving Him. It all seems to be one "package deal." Loving the Lord, Serving the Lord, Enjoying the Lord, Being enjoyed by the Lord: all of this is contained in the moksha in this case.

That's very interesting. Sorry to be so pedantic (geeky!) but I don't suppose you could provide references for all of that, could you?

I can, but it will have to be tomorrow perhaps.

Do you want the references to an explanation of prapatti or explanation of bhagavad kaimkaryam/anubhavam in Vaikuntha or both?

Both would be good. I see that you've already sent info about prappati. What I would like to know is if there is an existence of a purusArtha *apart* from the usual four in Zri VaiSNavism. What you say above looks like the ZrI definition of mukti perhaps, yet there is a reference in the TiruvAymoLi (I think!) explicitly mentioning "parama-purusArtha", so I am just wondering if this is 'officially' seen as a separate purusArtha from the other four. More or less it would be a fifth.

You might want to ask an expert on matters like this. Keshava-ji perhaps?