Who Is A Hindu

[Sunder]

The one that comes to mind immediately is "yad-gatvA na nivartante, tad dhAma paramam mama" (15:6 I think). In various parts of the BG, this transcendentally variegated "dhAma" is spoken of distinct from immediately preceding descriptions of preliminary brahman-realization.

Ahh.. This is what I too thought of. There is no specific reference to Vaikuntam as mentioned above. Dhaama is interpreted as Vaikuntam because Bhagavaan here is seen as Krishna (or Vishnu.) Thus Dhaama could be Vaikunta, Goloka, Kailasa etc. In the Brahmasutra bhashya of Shankara (as I have not read the other bhashyas), the point of no return is called 'Brahmaloka'. The Brahmagnani who travels via Fire->Light->Day->Shukla Paksha->Six months of Uttharayana etc reaches this Brahmaloka never to return again (BG 8:24 also speaks of this path). While the Yogi who travels via smoke->night->Krishna Paksha->Dhakshinayana->Chandramasa Jyothi go there and return back. An explicit reference to Vaikunta is not found in the Gita. (To me, the word Vaikunta brings an image of an Ocean of milk, where Sriman Narayana in all His resplendence is reclining on Adi Shesha.) Thus Vaikunta (taken to be the abode of the Self) is interpretive rather than explicit. But again, thanks for the clarification.

So we must try to find out what exactly this so-called Vaikuntha sky is, and how can such variegatedness exist outside this material universe (as we know it).

I agree that this Vaikunta or Dhaama should be sought. But where does one begin, and how is it defined by those who know it? As those who have seen it or attained would not have "returned" to speak about it.

This last point is of note, because sAyujya-mukti is not considered final in many interpretations. SAyujya-mukti, as you know, is liberation from material mahat-tattva into a state of (being under the impression of) annihilation of one's sense of identity (pure ego).

<i>Like avidya-maya, any form of “liberation”, ANY state of the infinitesimal living entity, is also always under some or the other potency of the Supreme. Therefore, if you noticed, when speaking about sAyujya-mukti, I inserted the text “being under the impression of” in braces. This is because that condition of “annihilation of identity” is ALSO an “illusion”, since the Self is never annihilated, and this is made very clear in all Vedic scriptures. </i>

Perhaps so. But again, they are only certain *interpretations*. Other interpretations may consider them final, and these too can be found from great authorities like Raja Janaka - a videha muktha, or Astavakra, Rubhu, Yagnavalkya etc.

Here, you had mentioned taht there is an impression of the annihilation of the identity. The observer (Self) who has this impression (i.e. Kootastha) is immutable. This Kootastha, devoid of these impressions of annihilation or lack there of said to be the Liberated Being. You also seem to agree that the Self is not annihilated and the 'impression' is an illusion. The question is, to WHOM is this illusion occuring, and why?

To give a comparison with mystic literatures from other traditions-- sAyujya-mukti is somewhat analogous to a state of Limbo. Therefore, the "bhagavan-realized" (if I may use that phrase) sages have said that sAyujya is "as palatable as Hell" to them!

The mind makes a hell or heaven of anything. To a Atma Gnaani, when a saadhu or a paapi are one and the same, hell or heaven makes no difference. The thought that Sayujya is the same as hell is spoken by someone who has not known Saayujya, or not known hell, or both. When in deep sleep, is there thought of 'this is worse than hell' ? In Thureeyam, like in deep sleep, the mind being quiescent, there is nothing other than the Self that exists.

Now here's an important point: Krishna, for the umpteenth time, repeats after the above quoted verse that the jivas are "My infinitesimal, eternal parts and parcels" (mamaiva-amsho jiva-loke jiva-bhUtaH sanatanaH). Quite early -- and repeatedly -- in the BG (from ch. 2 onwards), the Soul (atman) is declared to be atomic, i.e. indivisible, and the unit of conscious experience. Therefore it would make no sense to say that we are all the Supreme Soul, because clearly we are different points of consciousness. If we were not, then one person gaining moksha should mean that all jivas would become liberated simultaneously, since they are all supposedly One Soul according to mayavada. No amount of "maya" philosophizing can reconcile the atomic definition of atman with the FACT of different points of experience. Therefore the term amshaH is significant, and that amshaH-nature is sanatana -- eternal.

When Bhagavaan was speaking to Arjuna, the state of mind of Arjuna is to be taken into account. When in the second chapter the Lord says, "Sarve Vayam athah param", the vayam (we all) is not the Absolute sense, but in relative sense of the bodies. Even if the jeevabhoothas are infinitesimal part of the whole, still they are different only in size, and not in kind. Space in a pot is exactly the same as outside. The space is never confined, even though it gives an illusion of being 'inside' and 'outside' a pot. When one pot is broken, it does not 'liberate' or 'affect' the space in any other pot.

The Brahmasutras or the Panchadasi (I forget which) contains this same argument (as to why liberation of one soul does not liberate others.) To the LIBERATED Soul, there is no difference. He sees "all" the souls as the Atma. To the "non-liberated Soul" that is steeped in avidya, this questions will exist...

If the Amsha bit has to be taken as infinitesimal portions of a full whole, then in the 10th chapter Sri Bhagavaan mentiones "Vrishneenaam Vaasudevosmi", and ends the chapter with "Athava bahunaitena kim gnaatena tavarjuna? vistabyaham idam krtsnam <b>ekamsena</b> sthito jagat." -- this could then be interpreted as even Vaasudeva who is part of the Vibhoothi list, is an Amsha of Bhagavaan -- this makes no sense unless the identity of the ghatakasha and the Mahaakaasha are seen to be essentially one and the same.

The word “amshaH” is also significant for its assertion of infinitesimality contrasted with the infinite-ness of the Supreme, because then there is no conflict with the idea of “pUrNam adaH purnam idam…”, etc. Infinitesimal particles cannot affect the infinity of the Supreme Infinite.

If Poornaad poornam udachyathe is said to be true, what is causing the difference between the Sarvagna (Omniscient), and the Kinchidgna (Limited knower)? How does the Kinchidgna get to know the Omniscient? Is it with "consciousness" that's different in nature from the "Omniscient"'s or is the nature of Consciousness the same in "both" the Infinite and the finite? If they are different, then "Buddhim Buddhimathaam asmi" would need clarification.

Or another example is of the sunlight and the sun. The sunlight is inseparable from the sun. But when the sunlight is streaming into your room, we would not say that the sun itself is in your room.

This seems like the difference between Maya and Brahman. As the Brahmasutra says "Ahi Kundalavat". Like a snake and it's coils. Jeeva and Brahman relationship cannot be that of Sun and light, as Jeeva is like the reflection of Brahman and not a quality of the same.

Although the 13th chapter of the BG makes clear that there are 2 kshetrajnas in every material body-field, mayavadis want to argue that actually its one and the same kshetrajna. But then there are many contradictions, one of which has been presented above.

How can there be TWO Kshetragnas? I always was focussing on "Kshetragnam cha api maam viddhi, sarva kshetreshu bharatha." Know me as the knower of ALL the Kshetras. Do you mean, by asking Arjuna to know Him, there is another "knowership" implicit? Or are there two separate knowers of all the fields themselves?

Any suggestion that Supreme Brahman itself becomes subjected to, or transformed into a self-hypnotic illusory state is really quite ridiculous.

There is no such claim that the Immutable is self-hypnotic in it's Original sense. Au contraire, there is reference that this self-hypnotism, forgetfulness, memory, sleep, dream, waking, etc are witnessed by the Self - i.e. is made possible by the Self which is untainted by all these.

The Bhakti-shastras describe the ultimate constitutional position as being one of a river constantly running to the ocean -- the river always remaining a river, a conduit for the water that originally comes from the ocean through the water-cycle, and goes back to the ocean.

Is the merging of the waterdrops in the river with the ocean real merging, or is it being close to the Ocean? It is uniform merging, correct? Likewise, the jeevas which are propogated at the beginning of a cycle, go back into their causal state at the end of the cycle. The Jeevan-Mukthas, or Videha-Mukthas are firmly established in the Self never to return. The Jagat is like the river (a conduit) which gives an appearance of Jeevas moving 'towards' Supreme. The same example is used by both of us to speak of diametrically opposing world-views.

There is no question of complete “merging” of jiva with the Supreme, because the scriptures, immediately after pointing out the atomic individuality of all Souls, say that this is the eternal state of things. There is no question of a jiva really “losing” its identity in the Supreme eternally. This state of sAyujya limbo is also under an illusory potency. And so is BhagavAn-realization. That ultimate, eternal realization, never to return, is also under the potency of yogamaya, the “antaranga-sakti” (Internal Energy) of the Supreme Godhead.

Well said. All of the above statements fall into place if the statement Brahman ALONE is True is accepted. (Brahma eva Satyam.) In that case, there is no question of jeeva/Brahman merging at all (complete or partial.) There is no losing identity, and there is no Sayujya limbo too. There is no Bhagavan 'realization' as only Brahman Exists. Thre is no 'never-land' where one goes or comes from. All this falls into place if and only if Brahma EVA Satyam, and "Jeevo Brahmaiva na parah" is taken into consideration.

I tell you, the depth and brilliance of Bhagavata lila far excels any other such literature, leave alone the DRY, directionless, dislocated koans of Zen without any larger philosophical context or understanding, that certain “hip and fashionable” gasbags like to indulge in.

I agree with you unconditionally that the Bhagavata lila is quite a nectar to read and listen to. I feel the same about Ramayana, Devi Bhagavata, and Shivapurana too. The 'DRY' self-enquiry only reinforces and hightens the experience when listening to the Bhaagavatham instead of counteracting it. Watching little kids play brings about more joy than listening to a dry lecture on Relativity or Superstrings. But, for that reason, one cannot say the Lecture on Superstrings is inferior to Walt Disney cartoons. Each one has it's time, place, audience, and purpose.

To give you just one example of the sense of loyalty that Sri Ramanuja had for Sankaracharya: When he and his disciples were fleeing persecution and murder from the pseudo-Advaitins, he entered a region of Karnataka that was dominated by Jains. Ramanuja writes that he feels he has fallen from the frying pan into the fire, and he quotes Sankara.

I would have loved to have seen some idealogical praising instead of quoting a sentence at the time of grave danger. Did Ramanuja accept Shankaracharya as a true interpreter and upholder of Vedic Dharma? Was he indebted (as you mention loyalty) to Shankaracharya's teachings? I would be thrilled if he did.

The main point I want to make is that there is so much to Vaishnavism. It is so rich, philosophically, and more importantly, in the effectiveness and power of its process of yoga.

I have no doubt you are right when stating so. There is so much to "Vaishnavism" that are spiritually beneficial. Vaishnavism (by that I hope you mean Pancharatra/Bhagavata school.) is quite rich in emotion based worship & is popular amongst people who wish to enquire the Self via the Bhakthi way.

Ekam Sankhyam cha Yogam cha, yah pashyathi sa pashyathi.