[Advaita-l] Re: clarification on vedanta sutra

[Ramesh Badisa]

1. There is another difficulty, which suddenly erupts in the Sutra
>when it speaks of the liberation of the soul. The Sutra makes out that
the liberated soul is free only in so far as it can enjoy the bliss of
>perfection equally as Brahman, but it cannot have the power of creation,
>preservation, destruction etc. of the universe. This categorical
statement would mean that even in the state of liberation the soul is not 
fully
liberated.

Badisa: No. The soul in the current discussion is liberated fully from birth 
and death loop. But it hasn’t yet got the absolute salvation. Therefore, the 
liberated soul at Brahma Lok cannot have the powers of creation etc as it 
hasn’t yet become divine by merging in divine. Here, one has worry if some 
type of limitation still exists in the state of absolute salvation, but not 
before attaining the salvation. I do not believe that in the state of 
absolute salvation there will be any limitation.

Ø	Here the Sutra seems to be landing itself on the qualified monism of 
Acharya Ramanuja, according to whom the soul is an organic part of Brahman 
but not identical with Brahman.

Badisa: No. The sutra is not supporting Acharya Ramanuja in real and 
absolute sense. But it appears I repeat again, it appears to be supporting 
Acharya Ramanuja philosophy. But it is not correct. How do we know it? Let 
us see how with some background information.

The soul is nothing but divine when the layers of ignorance and avidya are 
removed. Then both divine and this soul are like two drops of water. One 
drop can mix easily with another. Once mixing is done, nobody can separate 
these drops from each other. In order words, when the qualified soul merges 
in divine, then there is only thing left that is called divine. Thus, Prasna 
Upanishad, 6.5 says that all individual identities of souls are lost when 
merged in divine, like a river looses its name and form when merged in a 
sea. Same thing is also described in Mundaka Upanishad, 3.2.8. On the other 
hand, sri Ramanuja will have difficulty to explain the existence of 
individuality of souls in the state of absolute of salvation with the 
support of these references. Therefore, when the above sutra says limited 
powers on the part of soul, it should be understood that the sutra is 
concerned only with the liberated soul at Brahma Lok. In the state of 
absolute salvation, there won’t be any limitations.

Similarly, please look Chandogyo Upanishad, 6.9.1&2. Here Uddalaka is 
explaining the fate of individual souls when they reach divine. In this 
reference, in order to make his son understand, the father gives an analogy. 
The analogy is related with the collection of essence of flowers by 
honey-bees from various flowers. The bees finally prepare honey. Now, this 
honey is produced due to collection of different essences collected from 
various flowers. This honey, once made, cannot distinguish the essence of 
one flower from another flower. It means that no particular essence of a 
flower can be recognized by the mass of honey. But nevertheless, this honey 
is produced by the collection of all essences from various flowers by the 
bees. But after the honey is made, there is no individual consciousness for 
the essences obtained from different flowers to think that I am obtained 
from so and so flower like that. In other words, they have no individual 
thinking of their essences. Because no individual thinking is present, can 
we here say that honey is not made of these essences? No. Individual 
essences from different flowers are present in the honey, but once they are 
merged together and formed into honey, that individuality is vanished. In 
other words, each essence will not think that “I am collected from so and so 
flower” etc.  Instead, they acquire the consciousness of honey. Now, why 
this analogy is said by father to his son? The reason is that by this type 
of analogy, the father is implying that that is what would happen to the 
individual soul upon entry of pure divine. This may also happen sometimes 
temporarily in case of dream state. But this entry is an unconscious type, 
and it is temporary till the dream lasts. Upon waking up from sleep, this is 
gone. It means that the soul of a divine experienced person will enter 
consciously into divine and merges, while in case of ignorant persons, this 
is temporary, and upon waking up, he is still the same ignorant person, 
caught in life after life in the world. The conclusion is that in the state 
of absolute salvation, there is no distinction between soul and divine, as 
also confirmed in Prasna Upanishad, 6.5.

The following references are given to look seriously how advaita philosophy 
is correct in absolute sense and to show how both divine and soul are 
identical:

For example, Maitreya Upanishad, 2.2, says that physical body is a temple 
and the jeevatma is nothing but the divine. In the same Upanishad, 2.11 
mantra says that both satguru and shastras are required to understand the 
advaita philosophy. Mantra 2.30 says that one should experience that he is 
the soul. In 2.31, the mantra says that, “I am (soul) that paramatma”. 
Mantra 3.4 says that a person (soul) who goes above trigunas is nothing but 
paramatma. Mantra 3.11 says that in the absence of duality, the mind does 
not exist (means that it won’t control the soul), and in that situation, the 
soul is equal to paramatma. Mantra 3.24 says that by experiencing that “I 
(soul) am divine”, the soul actually becomes divine. In Mantriko Upanishad, 
mantra 20 says that a person who experiences that his soul is nothing but 
divine, attains divine. Please remember that this attainment is possible 
when both are at the same level. For example, a spoon of water (pure soul 
without any bondage) can be mixed in a glass of water (divine). On the other 
hand, a spoon of oil (soul in karmic bondage) won’t mix in water (divine). 
Therefore, the term ‘attainment’ used above should be understood as same as 
one nature, like water and water. In Sarvasaro Upanishad, mantra 20 
reconfirms that soul is divine. In Niralambo Upanishad, mantra 11 clearly 
says that, “I am him (divine)”. In Shukahaso Upanishad, mantra 24 clearly 
says that jeevatma (pure) is divine. Tejo Bindu Upanishad is a good source 
to confirm that soul is divine. For example, the mantras from 3.1 to 74; 4.1 
to 2; 4.60 to 63; 4.80 to 81 and 6.99 to 106 indicate very, very clearly 
that soul is nothing but divine. One can quote many references from 
Upanishads to authenticate that advaita philosophy is ultimate and absolute 
truth.

Ø	If we persuade ourselves to believe that the Sutra is sympathetic with the 
Vaishnava theology of Ramanuja, we can easily understand why the soul in 
liberation cannot have the power of God Himself.

Badisa: As said above that the sutra appears to be sympathetic with Ramanuja 
philosophy, but when we analyze thoroughly in light of various spiritual 
texts, this apparent sympathy for Vaishnava theology vanishes in thin air 
and a true picture will emerge out, which is in favor of advaita philosophy.

>Acharya Sankara here has practically nothing to tell us except to interate 
>that if the soul is given the power of creation, etc., there would be a 
>clash of purposes among the liberated souls. Here again arises the 
>question: are there many liberated souls in the state of Brahman?


Badisa: If sri Shankara were asked about the above question, he would have 
practically explained everything clearly. Therefore, the above statement 
that “ Acharya Sankara here has practically nothing to tell us except to 
interate …” is the opinion of the author, swami Krishnananda ji, which is 
respectable. The liberated souls at Brahma Lok are not called as in the 
state of Brahman. Because, a soul becomes Brahman (absolute supreme divine) 
only when it merges in divine. Although the soul is divine in nature, but 
because it is associated in ignorance, it is not called equal to divine 
practically. Otherwise it will lead to many divines. But we all know, based 
on sruti, that there is only one divine who is second less. Although 
achieving salvation is a tough job, there can be more than one liberated 
souls at Brahma Lok, waiting for absolute salvation at the time of pralaya.  
There is no hard and fast rule to tell how many souls should present at 
Brahma Lok, waiting for absolute salvation.

Ø	Acharya Ramanuja would not disagree with this proposition, but Acharya 
Sankara would find here a hard nut to crack.

>question to My masters : could  u kindly clarify , why author claiming here 
>it is hard nut for shankara to crack.

Badisa: Firstly, sri Shankara and sri Ramanuajam and sri Madhava were not 
contemporaries. So, how anybody could say that it was hard nut to crack even 
for sri Shankara before that was asked? As far as I know, sri Shankara had a 
clear understanding about the issues raised in this discussion. He would 
have explained his position about the current issues in the discussion in 
light of sruti texts very easily if some one had asked him during his 
lifetime. Perhaps no body had got such doubts during his lifetime or may be 
most scholars were aware of the correct answers. Much later, came sri 
Ramanuja, sri Madhava etc acharyas into the picture and gave their own 
commentaries. Now the author, Swami Krishnananda ji, is analyzing and 
comparing all those commentaries and giving his personal opinion that it 
would be a hard nut for sri Shankara to crack. We all respect his opinion. 
For sri Shankara, I do not think, that it would be a difficult task to crack 
the nut. Perhaps any one of the members in this list can crack this problem 
easily if one spends some time on this problem.


Namaste

Badisa

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963