Jiva QA

Answers by Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri (denoted by KT) Smt.Meera Tadipatri (MT), Shri Prasanna Tadipatri (PT)

Linga Deha bhanga QA

1. Are you saying that the rAjasik souls have no linga deha bhaN^ga, and thus no liberation at all from the cycle of birth and death?

KT: At this point it may be worthwhile to summarize some of the quotes from earlier postings and more:

AnuvyAkhyAna 3-4-128:

anAdivaishhNavA eva devatAstu svabhAvataH |

viparItAstato daityAH sadaivAnAdikAlataH || 127||

mAnushhA mishramatayo vimishragatayo.api cha |

ityAdivAkyasandarbhe j~nAyate.anAdiyogyatA || 128||

(By nature, devatas are vaishhnavas from eternity; daityas are always the opposite from eternity; Men are mixed minded and also have varied paths. In the context of these statements, the eternal yogyata is to be understood.)

BrahmasUtrabhAshhya 3-4-37:

mAnushhA mishramatayo vimishragatayo.api cha |..iti skAnde

(Men are mixed minded and also have varied paths - quoted from SkandapurANa)

BrahmasUtrabhAshhya 3-4-38:

asurAndamayanvishhNuH svapadaM cha surAnnayan.h |

punaH punarmAnushhAMstu sR^itAvAvartayatyasau | iti

bhavishhyatparvaNi

(By condemning the demons to eternal hellish worlds and taking the gods to His own abode, this Lord rotates the men in the samsAra again and again - quoted from bhavishhyatparva)

BrahmasUtrabhAshhya 3-4-40:

nAsurA daivIM na devA AsurIM na manushhyA daivImAsurIM cha

gatimIyurAtmIyAmeva jAtimanubhavanti | iti niyamashruteH

(Asuric natured do not obtain daivI terminal state; devas do not obtain AsurI terminal state; Men obtain neither. They reach the end appropriate to them and experience their own intirnsic nature - quoted from niyamashruti)

tamogAH sR^itisaMsthitAH iti dvidhA muktyayogyAH .. tatvasaMkhyAna

(The ineligible for mukti are of two kinds - those going to tamas and those staying in samsAra.)

nityAvartAstu madhyamAH .. tatvaviveka

(The middle kind are eternally cycling ones.)

madhyamA mAnushhA ye tu sR^itiyogyAH sadaiva hi |

adhamA nirayAyaiva dAnavAstu tamolayAH || 1\.87|| MBTN

(Meaning suplied by Shri Shrisha Rao in the earlier posting)

From the last quote, it is obvious that in the prior quotes, "men" refers to "middle among the men".

KT: All the above are from our AchArya.

This means that we do not take literal translation as is, but do samanvaya with the rest.

Does this mean that we can say that there is Lingabhanga for nityasamsAris? We can't unless there is a good pramANa to support Lingabhanga and also they do not go against the above pramANas.

Infact to add to the above, from SriharivAyustuti:

Adhatse mishrabuddhIMstridivanirayabhUgocharAnnityabaddhAn.h

(Makes the mixed minded ones rotate in heaven, hell, and earth, by putting in eternal bondage.)

2. Don't they experience their svArUpananda which, btw, is intrinsic in nature?

KT: The cycling is not really the nature but the process. The intrinsic nature is really the mixed-j~nAna.

and no permamnent destination and no Moksha or no Eternal Hell.

KT: True.

3. What is the very purpose of 'creating'[giving deha to] such category of jIva-s? To expereience (enjoy and suffer) like other category souls. Only difference is Satvik and Tamasik lose this deha at some point and rajasik won't.

KT: Why and How? The above pramANas do not say explicitly the same. (i.e they do not have lingabhanga). It may be argued that if there is lingabhanga, then they can not be in the cycle of birth

and death. The above pramANa-s do not speak of birth and death, but merely cycling in the three worlds.

4. How different are they from the humans in saMsAra[till praLaya?] If they are born as humans during any part of their samsaric cycle there is no difference. At times if and when they are in heavens they are happier than humans and if they are in hells they suffer more than humans.

KT: Why and how is this comparison. I guess "they" refers to "nityasamsAris". If so, is it assumed that there are no "nityasamsAris" in humans? I guess not. Then how can this comparison hold?

5. What about those Vayu purANa and Garuda purANa quotes supporting liN^gadeha bhaN^ga for rAjasika souls -- see: These are spurious texts. Shruti never supports this. Has Srimad Acharya supported mentioned liN^gadeha bhaN^ga for rAjasika any where?

KT: How can it be said that they are spurious? Shruti does not oppose it either. Acharya did not say that there is no lingabhanga for rAjasika. "MuktirnaijasukhAnubhUti".

In the above quotes, BrahmasUtrabhAshhya 3-4-40 clearly says "gatimIyurAtmIyAmeva jAtimanubhavanti".

If there is no lingabhanga, how can it experience its own intrinsic nature?

Further, if we take {M, N, T} as the universal set of jIvas where M is Muktiyogyas, N is NityasamsAris and T is tamoyogyas, and if we hold that here is no lingabhanga and like the current sR^ijya jIvas, from eternity the N keeps accumulating, there are two problems. 1. M and T get refreshed periodically, but N never and so N will tend to become infinity. Even if we talk about the achintyAdbhutashakti of the Lord, the jivAs who have to coexist with them have no great powers.

2. The imbalance will be striking after trillions of Brahmakalpas. Why indeed, it could have been a strange balance now itself, unless only the ver1st time (or 1st few times only) the Lord brought NityasamsArins into sR^ijya state. No such thing is mentioned anywhere and also it sounds weird as well (though sounding weird is not a proof for any thing, but lack of pramANa is important).

Infact, I don't see any conflict between all the above quotes and the nityasamsAris having lingabhanga. VayupurANa and GarudapuRAna quotes elaborate the thoughts in the above quotes. How?

1. When their sAdhana becomes complete, the nityasaMsArins get lingabhanga (from the HumkAra of Vayudevaru).

2. Unlike muktas and tamoyogyas, they do not have any niyata sthAna and so still cycle among these three worlds (but with no sthUladeha) experiencing their intrinsic nature after lingabhanga.

3. They are called nityasamsAris as they still have nityasamsAritvalaxana, which is duHkhamishra sukAnubhava.

4. The speciality (visheshha) exists in case of nityasamsAris who had lingabhanga. Those who did not have lingabhanga and who are in samsAra get joy after woe and woe after joy, where as those who had lingabhanga experince the mixture of joy and woe at the same time.

Well, why all these things. Why can't we just simply take that there is no lingabhanga at all and ignore the "mere tarka" about nature's imbalance?

It is mentioned in padArthasangraha and shrI MadhvasidhhAnta sArasangraha by by shrI Vedagarbha PadmanAbhAchArya:

"nityasamsAriNAmapi lingabhangaH | anyathA tatsvarUpamAtrasya

kadApyanubhavAbhAvaprasangAt.h | sAdhanAnuShThAnavaiyarthya\-

prasangAchcha |"

(NityasamsAris als have lingabhanga. Otherwise, the case of a jIva never experiencing its own intrinsic nature arises. Further the cae of futility of sAdhanAnushhThAna also arises.)

This lingabhamga is supported in the commentary by shrI Shankarshana Odeyaru for Shri HarikathAmritasAra.

Apart from these VayupurANa and GaruDapurANa have explicitly mentioned Lingabhanga. It is also mentioned in shrI MadhvasidhhAnta sArasangraha that in MaghamAhAtmya, shANdilya

tatva and GarudapurAna, there is an explicit mention of Lingabhanga for NityasamsAris.

6. Is there any _explicit_ quote to support that there is no liN^ga deha bhaN^ga for Rajasika souls? Those are the ones you have mentioned below and believe it as Superficial translations :-).

KT: I don't believe that Shri MadhvasidhhAnta sArasangraha and Shri Shankarshana Odeyaru's commentary caved in for spurious texts and Superficial translations.

Note that the 'creation' has been going on from eternity, and these jIva-s according to your statement should be wandering in their stUla/aniruddha deha in one of these loka-s eternally. That is correct.

KT: That goes against Shri MadhvasidhhAnta sArasangraha, which again higes its support from Acharya (indirectly) that every jIva has to eventually experience its own intrinsic nature and there has to be that kind of phala for the sAdhana done.

I have my own questions on this as well: If they have a final destination, why are they called nithya Samasarin?

They do not have final destination. They are still wandering among these three worlds and they do not have linga deha and by kaimutyanyAya (what else to say), they don't have aniruddha deha or sthUladeha. They are called nityasamsArins because they have nityasamsAritvalaxana, which is duHkhamishrasukAnubhava (joy mixed with woe) and also they still keep cycling. As they are aprAkR^ita only, there is no interference with others who are still in samsAra.

For a soul in sAntAnikaloka, how different is it from humans?

KT: Actually the word "sAntAnikaloka" is defined by Acharya as "Vaishnavalokas which are eternal"

itIrito harerbhAvavij~nAnI kaJNjasambhavaH |

pipIlikAtR^iNAntAnAM dadau lokAnanuttamAn.h |

vaishhNavAn.h santatatvAchcha nAmnA sAntAnikAn.h vibhuH || 9\.104||

At the command of Lord Shri Rama, the lotus born Lord Brahma, knowing the intent of Shri Hari, gave [access] to the great Vaishnava SAntAnikalokas, called so for being eternal, to all the jIvas upto the ant and grass (who have surrendered to Sri Rama).

What kind of body will these sAntAnikaloka residents would get?

KT: All the ones who had lingabhanga do not get any other body. They just experience their own intrinsic nature.

The Kannada text in the same book says that there is a difference of opinion in this matter; with scholars like Sri Srinivasatirtha favoring the express meaning of the word 'nityasamsAri',

KT: What is that express meaning ?

instead of the secondary meaning that nityasamsAri means those who have nityasamsArilaxaNa i.e. experience a mixture of happiness and sorrow.

KT: Why is it secondary meaning? It is rather explaining the meaning of the term nitya samsAri.

Before we go to the term NityasamsAri, let us try to see what "samsAri" means. If we say "one having a family", we can see straight away that it is one of the least important meanings in philosophy as even the "sanyasis" and trees are said to be in samsAra. If we say "ones with gross body (or sthUladeha) are samsAris", then also we can deduct it to be insufficient as those

in svarga and naraka also are said to be in samsAra. If we define as "those bound to only the three worlds viz. earth, heaven and hell", that is also insufficient as "Brahma" and "vayU are also said to be in samsAra. If we define as those who have "duHkhasparsha" and not yet reached "moxa" or "andhatamas", then this satisfies (I guess, correct me if not) the definition.

Just because lingabhanga is a precursor and also a prerequisite for going to moxa or andhatamas, inclusion of "having lingadeha" in the definition of "samsAritva" is not justified at all.

Thus for rAjasika manushyamadhyamas -

1. During their sAdhanAkAla (before lingabhanga), they

- have birth and death on earth (with sthUladeha)

- stay in heaven and hell (with aniruddhadeha)

- cycle among these 3 worlds (never going to maharloka or the ones above)

- experience sorrow and joy one after the other as per yogyata

2. After their sAdhAna (having gone thru lingabhanga), they

- cycle among these 3 worlds (never going to maharloka or the ones above)

- No sthUladeha or aniruddhadeha

- experience a mixture of sorrow and joy at the same time as per yogyata

This "tridivanirayabhUgocharatva" (cycling among the 3 worlds) is their bandhana and this continues even after lingabhanga. This cycling can be compared to the state of the spindle in the loom. They have no final destination.

The sat-tattva-ratnamAlA mentions that amongst the rAjasikas, the sattva-rAjasikAs are *mostly* in svargas due to performance of yajnAs (though not done properly), the rAjasa-rAjasikas are mostly in bhU and the tAmasa-rAjasikas are mostly in hell. If there is liN^ga-deha-bhanga and consequently no accrual of karmaphala how can there be the effect of any act such as the performance of yajnas?

KT: The above applies, obviously, prior to lingabhanga. After lingabhanga, there is no karmaphala and muktas experience Ananda, tAmasikas duHkha and rAjasikAs the mixture.

The gItA-vivR^itti says that 'gachChanti' here refers to sAttvikAs going to worlds above the svarga loka (like jana-loka)

KT: One ineteresting point to note about this "Urdhvalokagamana".

There are seven upper worlds (starting with bhUloka). bhU, bhuvar, suvar, mahA, jana, tapa and satya.

"janalokamArabhyordhvalokam gatAnAM na punarAvR^ittiH".

"The ones who go to Janaloka and above do not come back to earth".

(This has to be qualified as those who get utkramaNa thru BrahmanADi and travel to Janaloka and above from their charamadeha (or final body) thru archirAdimArga do not come back to earth).

RaivatarAja, who went to Satyaloka thru archirAdimArga came back to earth. Brahma and Vayu (in their mUlarUpa) come and serve Sri Krishna in Dvaraka during the yAga that Sri Krishna performed. VedavyAsa brings and shows Parixit to Janamejaya at his request. With the above qualified statement, there is no logical difficulty to these situations. Also note that this is not to be mixed with avatAras and amshas. This is wrt coming in mUlarUpa itself.

and 'tiShThanti' refers to the rAjasikas not going beyond the svarga. This verse is thus not talking about mokSha-sthiti of different types of jIvAs. I am wondering why you mentioned this verse in this context.

I realize that is what the verse says, and that is what it has to mean. My reasoning simply was that if a jIva, to wit, a rAjasa, does not get outside a region (bounded both above and below) during Creation, it is not obvious how it gets outside at all, considering that it is stated to be "always fit for Creation only."

KT: All that it says is that they always stay in the middle. It does not say anything about "creation". Also "sR^itiyogyA" means "fit for samsAra".

The only jIva-s that travel outside these bounds are the ones whose ultimate destinies lie outside, and who are not stated to be forever fit for Creation. To posit that a rAjasa, who never journeys far during Creation, somehow manages to do so having escaped the Creation it is said to always be qualified for, is not well founded.

KT: The rAjasa never escapes the cycle of journey thru the three worlds. I don't know what is meant by "fit for creation". If creation of the Lord is what is meant, then even Mukta loka and Andhatamas are Lord's creation. If creation of sthUladeha is meant, then the rAjasa do not have sthUladeha in svarga and naraka.

The rAjasa never escapes the cycle of journey thru the three worlds. I don't know what is meant by "fit for creation". If creation of the Lord is what is meant, then even Mukta loka and Andhatamas are Lord's creation. No, they're not, for being anAdi, just as the jIva itself (or even the liN^ga-sharIra), also being anAdi, are not created.

KT: Sorry for being sloppy. Of course all the jIvas are anAdi and there are muktAs from anAdikAla. Infact Sri Jayatirtha comments on "nArAyaNa" as nArANAM (muktAnAM) ayanaH (the repository for mukta jIvAs). Muktas are AptakAmas and at will they get what they wish for. Lord's will is behind such creation.

Even for anAdi things, as mentioned in Bhagavata

"dravyaM karma cha kAlashcha svabhAvo jIva eva cha

yadanugrahataH santi na santi yadupexayA"

"Matter, karma, Time, svabhAva and jIva - all these exist because of Lord's grace and would not exist if He is indifferent to it".

(also accepted by other schools, even the Buddhists, naiyAyika-s, etc.).

KT: I am not sure what Buddhists' concept of moxa (NirvANa and pari nirvANa) is and also what their concept of God is. I guess to start with they are atheistic.

If creation of sthUladeha is meant, then the rAjasa do not have sthUladeha in svarga and naraka.

In any case, note that I said "fit for Creation," not "fit for creation." The uppercase was meant to signify the noun, in the well-known sense.

KT: Even if the noun "Creation" is what is meant, where is it mentioned "fit for Creation" and what is the noun "Creation" meant to signify?

5. What about those Vayu purANa and Garuda purANa quotes supporting liN^gadeha bhaN^ga for rAjasika souls... These are spurious texts.

KT: Thank you!

btw, the Vayu Purana quote is taken from Shri Odeyaru's comm. on HKS.

Shruti never supports this.

KT: Do you have any valid shruti/smruti to support that the nitya saMsAri jIva doesn't lose its lingadeha?

Has Srimad Acharya supported mentioned liN^gadeha bhaN^ga for rAjasika any where?

KT: How do I know?

Please let me know where he has explicitly mentioned that there is no liN^gadeha bhaN^ga for rAjasika so that I can use great caution when I refer to Shri Odayaru's comm. on HKS.

>From what I understand, svarUpa anubhava can be had only when it loses its liN^gadeha. The sAdhana one does in saMsAra becomes useless if they don't lose liN^ga deha.

My source is HKS comm. by Odayaru and "shriman madhvasiddhantasAra saN^graha" by Shri Krishnacharya [Gopala vilas publication, 1922 edition] based on Padarthasangraha by Shri Vedagarbha Padmanabhacharya.

If they have a final destination, why are they called nithya Samasarin?

KT: Like samsAri jIva they have both sorrow and joy but experience it at the same time and not one after the other -- so at any given time they have both.

For a soul in sAntAnikaloka, how different is it from humans?

KT: see above.

Also, considering such sources as the MBTN: madhyamA mAnushhA ye tu sR^itiyogyAH sadaiva hi | adhamA nirayAyaiva dAnavAstu tamolayAH || 1\.87||

KT: The word "sR^itiyogyAH" has been explained differently in the books that I referred.

There is one more quote that _probably_ suggests cycle of birth and death for nityasaMsArin. Acharya, in his BSB, ubhayaliN^ga adhikaraNAm.h, # 3.4.5 has quoted [BSB 3.4.39] from bhavishhyatparvaNi:

"asurAndamayanvishhNuH svapadaM cha surAnnayan.h |

punaH punarmAnushhAnstu sR^itAvAvartayatyasau"

-- iti bhavishhyatparvaNi

but this doesn't explicitly say about *permanent* "cycle of deaths and births"

Even if the noun "Creation" is what is meant, where is it mentioned "fit for Creation" and what is the noun "Creation" meant to signify?

"Creation" (with uppercase C) is a synonym of "universe," "world," "macrocosm," etc. (WordNet). Thus "fit for Creation" is a literal translation of `sR^iti-yogya'.

KT: In that case, how can it be construed that the sR^itiyogya-s, who have lingabhanga, have escaped the Creation (macrocosm or universe), given that they cycle in the svarga, bhU and naraka (even after lingabhanga), which constitutes only a subset of macrocosm ?

In that case, how can it be construed that the sR^itiyogya-s, who have lingabhanga, have escaped the Creation (macrocosm or universe), I did not so construe at any time, so the question is not well founded.

KT: The reason, I wrote so, is:

Quote - To posit that a rAjasa, who never journeys far during Creation, somehow manages to do so having escaped the Creation it is said to always be qualified for, is not well founded.

- Unquote.

given that they cycle in the svarga, bhU and naraka (even after lingabhanga), which constitutes only a subset of macrocosm ? Does it? I suppose that would depend on your definition.

KT: No. Not mine. A partial list of quotes, Acharya gave are, in

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2004-November/000223.html

along with a quote from Sri Hari Vayu stuti:

"Adhatse mishrabuddhIMstridivanirayabhUgocharAnnityabaddhAn.h"

which indicate that "the mixed minded souls"(mishrabuddhayaH) cycle in svarga, bhU and naraka. Since "the mixed minded souls" (mAnushhA mishramatayaH) are always fit for Creation (madhyamA mAnushhA ye tu sR^itiyogyAH sadaiva hi), they (svarga, bhU and naraka) have to be part of Creation.

This will be my last posting on this issue.

KT: So will be mine.

I have seen some people who are greedy, power hungry and hyper-active people craving for material pursuits who in their later life calmed down and immerse themselves in spiritual knowledge and satsangs.

KT: Note that these are happenings in one janma which is miniscule compared to the countless birth/karma a jIva undergoes.

Seeing this, I used to think that all souls after gaining various dehas in ascending order,

KT: You mean passing thru various dehas?

A jIva, in samsara, is encapsuled in [shhoDasha kaLa] liN^ga deha just like the grain covered by the husk [HKS 9.13]. This is covered by another layer called aniruddha deha. The outer most layer is the visible sthUla deha. sthUla deha is needed to do sAdhana and is thus called sAdhana sharIra.

by Lord's/Guru's krupa, will get moksha at some point of time albeit late.

KT: Shastra-s speak about the three types of jIva-s. jIva's svarUpa, which is non-different from the jIva,

is anAdi. The Lord protects the anAditva and nityatva of the jIvasvarUpa/jIva and thus will not change the nature of the jIva.

I was told in one of the upanyasa( Garuda purana) that a soul will cross the viraja river before entering the abodes of Yama. Does this mean that a soul looses his Linga deha each time he dies(reaches Yama loka

KT: No, it doesn't lose the liN^gadeha for reaching yamaloka. It is cast off (in case of muktiyogya-s) by 'crossing the virajanadi' during mahapraLaya and not in other times. A jIva that crosses viraja (and loses lingadeha) never goes to the abode of yama and never returns to the cycle of birth and death.

At the time of 'death', jIva loses only the sthUla deha and there is no complete disconnect with the paJNcha bhUta-s which travel with the jIva in one part [Acharya quotes bhallaveya shruti in his BSB 3.1.3, kaunTaravya and also cf brahmANDapurANa 3.1.4 , aitareya bhAshya 2.2.2.].

With 'yAtana' sharira it travels to naraka passing thr'the different hells[mahabharata] and to svarga

depending on the karma/yogyata. The phala of all karma-s cannot be exhausted in Heaven or Hell, and to continue its sAdhana it comes back to Earth. **Naradiya Purana, [quoted in BSB 3.1.25] says that the good ones soon get good birth -- it takes them a year to reach earth from svarga but they enter the grain etc., before entering the mother's womb.

Acharya says[cf *mahabhAratha adi parva #102.26] that from the age of 14, there is enough karma

for everyone to take atleast 10 janma-s, so where is the question of exhausting all karma-s in Hell

or in the Heaven.

*AchaturdashakAdvarShAnna bhaviShyati pAtakam.h |

pareNa kurvatAmeva.n doSha eva bhaviShyati ||Adi.102.26.

**"svargAllokAdavAk.h prApto vatsarAtpUrvameva tu |

mAtuH sharIramApnoti paryaTanyatra tatra cha ||"

-- iti cha nAradIye

I will like to ask about Jaya, Vijaya and other bhagavt-parshadas. In His MBhTN Acharya says that they are below in taratamya than abhimani-devatas. And Vishvaksena is equal to Ganesha. How is

that bhagavat-parshadas below than abhimani-devatas

KT: The svarUpa yogyata -- the sannidhAna vishesha of the Lord is what decides the tAratamya. [cf.

Bhagavata tAtparya 11.21.6*]

kAlA jayAdyA api vishhNupArshhadA

yasmAdaNDAt.h parataH samprasUtAH |

nIchAH surebhyastata eva te.akhilA

vishhvakseno vAyujaH khena tulyaH || 3\.14||

[Kalanamaka-s are children of Garuda and Jaya Vijaya-s are

children of Sheshha 'born' outside BrahmANDa, MBTN 3.13]

Gist: Kalanamaka-s and Jaya Vijaya-s are vishhNupArshhadA-s. Even though they are born outside BrahmANDa, they are inferior to Rudra Indra etc., born inside BrahmANDa. Vayu putra vishhvaksena is equal to Vinayaka[# 19 in tAratamya]

The niyama that those born first being higher doesn't apply outside BrahmANda.

The purpose of their creation is to guard the doors of the Lord as attendants etc. They are not tattvAbhimAni devata-s and thus don't play any part in 'governing' the 'created' tattva-s. They are # 20 in the tAratamya.

and why they are called there as karma-siddhas?

KT: Through karma-s they have attained the status of devata-s.

iN which Vaikuntha-loka are they stay?

KT: In the amukta Vaikunta -- Vaikunta has 3 parts, Shri,Bhu and Durga sthana. ShrI part is the muktaloka and other two are amukta sthana-s.

Do Vaikuntha in milk ocean inside of Brahmanda is not the subject of destraction at the time of Pralaya and how it is technically accomplished

KT: All amukta sthAna-s including Mahat tattva takes 'laya' into the mUla prakR^iti during praLaya. Mukta vaikuNTha is not subject of destruction.

* "yadyaddhareH sannihitaM tattatchchhuddhataraM matam.h

svataH shuchitamo vishhNuH sannidhyam cha svabhAvataH"

Gist: Depending on the sannidhana of the Lord a vastu is considered 'pure'. Lord is always pure but his sannidhana depends upon the svabhAva [of the jIva].

when do we become mukthiyogya.

KT: There is no such thing as *becoming* muktiyogya. If the very nature of the jIva is muktiyogya,

surely it will get 'deha-s' to do sAdhana needed to reach moxa. There may be ups and downs in the

sAdhana period based on the past karma-s.

Do we not get elevated from tamasic - rajasic and then sathvik state (after so many births) and then become mukthiyogyas

KT: No, never. Tamasika souls remain evil and go to eternal Hell. The andhantamas is such that there is not even an iota of joy and absolutely no return once they reach there.

To give a very crude mundane example, a neem seed no matter how well it is nurished will only become a neem tree and will never become a mango tree. The Lord will not change a neem fruit into mango fruit -- if He does, then neem ceases to exist.

There is no such thing as *becoming* muktiyogya. If the very nature of the jIva is muktiyogya,

surely it will get 'deha-s' to do sAdhana needed to reach moxa. There may be ups and downs in the

sAdhana period based on the past karma-s. In this circumstances what do we call Ajamila, based on his guna

1. Before he uttered Narayana and saw vishnu dutas during his last days

2. After that, when he did sadhana and attained mukthi

KT: This again pertains to just one janma.

My query is to what is 'sadhana' - is it to come out of loukika vyapara to attain moksha,

Not quite -- A sAdhaka doesn't abandon karma but he does it as Haripuja. The bhAva behind any action is what decides whether a karma binds or releases the soul. King Priyavrata, Janaka all followed their loukika vyapara-s.

in which case he has to be sathvika from his earlier rajasic/tamasic days.

KT: He is always a sAttvika jIva.

Because he is a moxa siddha jIva, he could get Bhagavat smaraNa at the time of death as per the Lord's preraNa. Hari nAmasmaraNa especially at the time of death is not something easy to come by. The Lord has to give such instigation and this doesn't happen to ordinary beings. For those j~nAni-s who have destroyed prArabdha karma, Lord gives the preraNa to concentrate on Him at the time of 'final' death to release them from the bondage of saMsAra.

AjamiLa was good in his many many previous births and due to prArabdha, takes to bad ways in just one birth -- to get rid of his pApa prArabdha. At the time of death God shows him his true nature and he does tapas for some more years and eventually reaches Vaikunta.

Is muktiyogya devoid of other two gunas (taking sathvika as a prerequisite for mukthi) even though he suffers from karma phalas and attain various deha-s or he is under the influence of gunas while doing sadhana acquiring various dehas.

KT: There are two things:

1. Intrinsic svarUpaguNa of the soul -- this is aprAkR^ita chetana guNa which doesn't change at all.

2. The prakR^iti guNa-s that _influence_ the jIva.

See what I understand is we normally are the admixture of three gunas - sometimes when we are in front of God in temple we may get devoted to God and at that moment we are sathvik in heart.. and the next moment we may be rajasic indulging in our daily chorus and forgetting Vishnu. This act of ours never mean that we are not devoted to Vishnu but loukika vyapara does influence us at times to get rajasic even though knowing that the moment we forget Vishnu we acquire sins.

KT: They are not svarUpa [aprAkR^ita] guNa-s. These are due to the influence of jaDa praR^iti-s rAjasika guNa-s.[Gita 3.37].

Gita says that Indriya-s and their vishhaya are very very powerful and they even pull a j~nAni towards them.

According to Srimad Anandatirtha's Bramasutra Bhashya, only 101 (around) devatas get moksha.

KT: Are you referring to the garuDa vachana quoted in BSB 4.3.15?

[..]apratIkA devatAstu R^ishhINAM shatameva cha..."

I am afraid you have totally misread it.

I guess the kAryAdhikaraNa deals with the route taken by pratIkAlambana and apratIkAlambana-s

during praLaya. apratIkAlambana-s are led by Chaturmukha Brahma directly to the Lord [AnantAsana etc.] whereas the pratIkAlambana-s go to Satyaloka and then led by Brahma to the Lord[?]

The upAsana-s vary depending on the yogyata of the jIva. Not all devata-s get eligibility to do certain

kind of upAsana.

Manushhya-s do upAsana in Agni -- meditating the Lord named Agni present in Vayu who is

present in the god Agni. They also meditate the Lord in the vigraha-s of Krishna Rama etc.

Devata-s meditate the many forms of the Lord pervading the hR^idaya AkAsha[?]-- vyAptopAsana.

Apart from the bimbopAsana, some gods, i.e., 100 devata-s, 100 R^isshi-s, etc., meditate the Lord's

bahurUpa-s present everywhere. They are called apratIkAlambana-s.

Sorry everyone I made a mistake on my original question, but I am going to change the question.

3-4-2-444 (Sutra 444)

KT: Just one other clarification -- some members seem to have gotten confused by the "subject".

What is discussed here is about those who are still in saMsAra[amukta-s] and not the liberated [muktA-s].

The following are the eligible devathas

KT: The total number given by you is correct but...

50 MarudgaNaaH

KT: I think it should be 49

(Maruts?)

KT: Yes, marut-s. They are the abhimAnidevata-s of all kinds of 'vayu-s'-- what we call 'wind god'[pravaha, avaha, samvaha paravaha, prAna, apAna etc.]

Bhagavata 6th skanda, 17th chapter describes their 'birth'. Diti having lost her wicked sons wants to take revenge on Indra and by pleasing her husband Kashyapa gets a boon to have a child capable of destroying Indra. Kashyapa says that if she a vratawith heavy heart gives her a long list of do's and don't's. To cut the story short, Indra gains entry into the womb of his step mother Diti and with his vajrayudha cuts the womb into 7 pieces and again makes each piece into seven. [6.17.67]. Since they are protected by the Lord, they are born well and good. Along with Indra, come out of the womb of Diti. [sajUrindreNa paJNchAshad.h devAste maruto.abhavan.h]. Diti realizes her mistake and at her request the maruts get a share of 'somapAna' and thus gain 'amrutattvA'

1 DyaavaaprthvI

KT: Should be 2 -- dyAva is the abhimAnini of dyu loka[upper world], and pR^itvi is the abhimAnini of pR^itvi[earth].

1 Chaturmukha brahma

KT: It is MukhyaprAna.

My Question:

What is the significicance of the Soma offering? Mukhyaprana is the first to recieve Soma offering but after him who will recieve it?

KT: I don't think it is like what you think. All offerings go to Hari. MukhyaprANA, the abhimAni of *all* the amukta jIva-s, offers *all* our karma-s to Hari, and thus he gets the max. phala of every karma. The others get phala of the karma-s pertaining to their adhikAra and role [abhimAnitva] according to their gradation.

Will it be Chaturmukha Bramha, since they are equals what about following taratamya?

KT: My understanding:

That applies to their j~nAna etc., and this is different. Chaturmukha Brahma doesn't have any part in the execution of karma-s -- such a sAdhana of his is over in the last kalpa itself.

Thanks all, Kashyapa says that if she a vrata with heavy heart gives her a long list of do's and don't's.

KT: Sorry it should be Kashyapa says with a heavy heart that if she performs a vrata [having a long list of do's and don't's], then she can have her wish of begetting such a son.

Manushhya-s do upAsana in Agni -- meditating the Lord named Agni present in Vayu who is present in the god Agni. They also meditate the Lord in the vigraha-s of Krishna Rama etc. Vedas glorify several gods

KT: Each and every letter/shabda including the stobhAxara-s [sounds predominantly used in music -- cf Chandogya last khANDa of the first adhyAya] in Veda glorify only Vishnu. ParamamukhyArtha is Vishnu only. In a secondary sense they also denote the next level of devata-s etc. I heard that the entire samanvayAdhyaya in BSB deals with this topic.

To correctly translate Veda in accordance with BrahmasUtra-s, one needs proficiency in six vedanga-s, three languages[guhya, samAdhi, darshana], the hundred rItIs, and the seven bhedAs [vyatyAsa, prAti lomya, etc., MBTN 9.135].

I fail to understand there are more temples of Shiva/Durga than Vishnu and specifically Lakshmi temples.

KT: Such worship varies from yuga to yuga, reflecting the nature/yogyata of the majority of the people who live in that yuga.

BhAgavata, 11th skanda, 4th chapter gives an account of the deterioration of the understanding of Vedas. Acharya has explained the same thing[?] in the very beginning of his AtharvaNa bhAshhya by quoting Narayana saMhita. In kR^ita yuga people had one 'mUla veda' [this included paJNcharAtra?**], which they understood correctly.

" brahmarudrendrapUrvaistu nAmabhiH prochyate hariH"

In kR^itayuga, people understood that all names refer to Shri Hari only, and they reached Hari by that knowledge.

By the time dvApara came, even gods were temporarily deluded due to the curse of Gautama, and people became dim-witted. Shri Veda Vyasa composed Brahma sUtra-s and purANA-s to help sAttvika-s understand the real purport of the veda-s.

and of them we only do puja to Siva, Vishnu, Durga, Lakshmi etc., but not to those who have

been glorified by veda, viz., Chaturmukha,Indra, Varuna, Vayu, Agni, Bhoomi etc.,

KT: In our nityapuja, we do worship parivAra devata-s, without which the puje is incomplete.

Agnihotris do agni upasana

KT: Agnihotri/Agni karya is a nitya karma for all Vedantins.

and for others too like Anjaneya (Vayu incarnated) we offer prayers but we don't have temples

KT: Shri Vyasaraya installed 700+ temples of Anjaneya.

and archa murthys built for these tattvabhimani devathas in their original swaroopa (while those who don't know taratamya completely forget Vishnu while offering pujas to other devathas). Why is this, are we don't know their swaroopa like Siva, Durga etc., Is it not mentioned in Karma Kanda.

KT: Though the shastra-s are out there for anyone to read, the purport is guhya/secret.

iti guhyatamaM shAstramidamuktaM mayA.anagha -- Gita 15.20

and a similar one in bhA.pu 11th skanda, 21.35:

paroxavAdo vedo.ayaM paroxaM mama cha priyam.h

Or we, in this kaliyuga, only go by Adi Shankara who installed temples and do puja to only main dieties whom he advocated, after influence of budhism is removed in his times.

KT: I don't think mAdhva-s do puje to those icons _installed_ by Adi Shankara. For us, the sannidhAna

vishhesha of the installer is very important. For example, Udupi Krishna always has nitya sannidhAna because of the soul who installed it.

** AthatvaNopanishhat.h bhAshhya:

"paJNcharAtramR^igAdyAshcha sarvamekaM purA.abhavat.h

mUlaveda iti hyAkhyA kAle kR^itayuge tadA..... iti nArAyaNa saMhita.

HSVJ Q:The happiness or sadness that we see in our day to day life who will experience this...jeeva or Namma Sthoola deha (I mean namma manassu)?? The reason why I am asking this question is

1. For eg...If the jeeva has satvik swabhava...Then how can we say that this satvika jeeva will experience dukha....

2. On the contrary can we say that this sthoola deha (manassu) will experience sukha or dukha....

In that case this manassu is Jada and how can jada experience sukha or dukha....

Can someone clarify this concept or topic?

KT: The query starts exactly, the way you put it. Who experiences it Jeeva or Deha?

The next step is if it is Jeeva, how can it be since the injury is only to the body or to the mind. The Jeeva is untouched. Further, both shaastra and our experience coincide that the injury did not happen to Jeeva.

The shaastra goes even one more step

“achChedyo.ayamadAhyo.ayamakledyo.shoShya eva cha | “

(The Jeeva is indivisible; it can not even be drenced or dried up.)

and

“nainam Chindanti shastrANi, nainam dahati pAvakaH

na chainaM kledayantyApo na shoShayati mArutaH || 2-23||”

(The weapons can not injure the Jeeva, nor fire can born it, nor water can drench it, nor wind can dry it or make it shriveled or wilted or wizened.)

That being the case, Jeeva can not be hurt physically.

Surely, the body is injured, but the body is jaDa only. Even the mind is jaDa and jaDa cannot experience sukha or duHkha. So, what is happening?

The answer first can be seen in shaastra and then we can also relate that to our real life as follows.

“mAtrAsparshAstu kaunteya shItoShNasukhaduHkhadAH |

AgamApAyino.anityAstAMstitixasva bhArata || 2-14||”

(Mere contact between the sense organs and sense objects is not the cause of joys and sorrows in the form of coldness, heat, etc. The attachment is the root cause of such joys and woes. Those joys and woes or ephemeral and by conquering those attachments, overcome the feelings of joys and woes.)

It is the false attachments of the Jeeva to its bodyand all its associations is the root cause of sukha duHkha. The damage is to the jada entities and the experience is by the Jeeva purely due to attachments.

The cause for sukha and duHkha is that abhimAna. So, even a sAtvika jIva experiences sukha and duHkha. By sAtvika, if you mean shuddha sattva Brahma or Vayu, they have only sukha prArabdha and for them deha is like dagdhapaTa or burnt cloth, meaning they do not have abhimAna for their deha. For other Jivas, it is yathAyogya sukha and duHkha anubhava.

Still one has some reservations or difficulty in understanding this. A simple example will help one to understand. Suppose you own a house. Suppose one day your house gets burnt, you feel tremendous pain. Suppose, you sold the house and after a week or month, that house gets burnt, you will be overjoyed and tell yourself “Thank God, I sold the house a week ago or a month ago”. It is the same house and it is the same event of burning. In one case you are very sad and in another case, you are very happy.

How come? The root cause is attachment. When you owned it, you had attachment and any hurt to it, you feel that it hurts you. When you dint own, the attachment is gone and its hurt does not bother you. If for a house, which does not go with you and is not physically close to you, that is the case, what to speak of our body, which goes with you everywhere, which is so dear to you, where you live all your life? Same with wife, husband, children. Nothing should happen to any of my things or my people or my circle - different people have different size circles. I am not saying it is wrong or right. I am saying that is the cause.

In my agnana opinion except paRamatma no one has satwika but in otehrs lahsmi etc percentage is less. I read this in welknown books n pravachana. If differs excuse. In history of vijayeendraswamy i presume to hv read. U can assess where u are

Kesava Rao: No, that is not true. The famous book Ajayya Vijayeendraru does not say that as that is pramaaNa viruddha. If you specify the wellknown books we can verify. Paramaatma is triguNaatIta. Sattva rajastamogunas are controlled by Lakshmi. If Paramatma has sattvaguna then that would imply that Lakahmi would be controlling Paramatma. As Shvetaashvataropanishad says He is "kevalo nirguNashcha". Nirguna means not having Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. If you specify or point to which pravachanakaara said this and which pravachana it is we can verify what has been said. Also the two statements "no one has satwika" and "percentage is less" are contradicting each other. If no one has, where is the question of having in varying degrees? If you want to get more details refer to GItavivruti of Rayaru for 18-40. It goes on listing for various gods. Brahmavaayuu tu saattvikasaattvikasaattvikasaattvikaaveveti. Brahma and Vayu are saattvika-saattvika-saattvika-saattvika only.

At least I don't have any doubt about it.. there is a book authored by David A Shiang " God does not play dice" infact it is good read.

Sure, I will look for the book. But I wonder how David Shiang might know anything at all about Tattvavaada 😃 ...unless he stumbled onto the truth by using his own instruments of knowledge

Kesava Rao: Please dont think that Acharya started a new thought process. Tattvavaada is eternal. People lost its knowledge and Acharya brought it back in a clear fashion. The logical minds think alike. Sam Harris does not even use any hindu scriptures and forcefully argues that Free Will is an illusion. There are many people in tgis world who believe that Free Will is an illusion. They are not even aware of Tattvavada.

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

Yogyata, svabhava, jeeva, svarupa and saakShi are all synonymous. They have savisheSha abheda. What does it mean? yatra bhedo naasti, tathaa api bhedavyavahaaraH asti, sa visheShaH. Even though, there is no difference, we speak as if there is difference for the sake of convenience and conducting our thoughts. One example is we all know that there is no difference between Lord Sri Raama and Lord Sri Krishna and also there is no difference between Sita devi and Rukmini devi. Still we dont say Sita is wife of Sri Jrishna or Rukmini is wife of Sri Raama. Why? Because there is kaaryavishesha, in that form the Lord is manifesting his actions and conducting in particular way and we also meditate that way only. Otherwise we get all confused all over. Similarly we say svabhava of jiva. If they are same it is like saying jiva of jiva. We know what we mean when we say svabhava of jiva. We are referring to that aspect of jiva. Having said this, it becomes obvious that yogyata or svabhava is never created. It is annadi. So what is created. The physical body is created and this and jiva are linked, which is a very wonderful act of God.

Q: God is Ashraya for 16 kalAs. What are these 16 kalAs?

MT: In case of linga deha's 16 kalas, then it refers to 5 bhutas, 5 jnanaendriya, 5 karmendriya plus manas. Apart from this Chandra also has 16 kalas like amruta, manada, pushha, tushti, pushti, rati, dhruti, shashini, chandrika, jyotsna, shri, kanti, preti, angadaa, purna, purnaamruta

Q: Do plants have souls in them, what happens when we take the plant out with the roots and re-plant in another place? Does that jIva go out and come in again or another jIva enters when we replant..?

KT: Yes, plants have souls in them. They are lesser form of Jivas in general. We go by plane and the plane uproots us from one country and puts us in another country. What happens to us? We continue, where we are placed. The only difference is after we are placed in another country, we are not rooted into Earth. As long as there is life in plant, it indicates that the Jiva has not gone out. So, another Jiva entering does not happen. The same Jiva continues. If the plant has completely dried, then nothing happens, when we plant the dried plant as the Jiva has already left. We can not make a Jiva enter a plant like that. Only God can do that (of course thru the instruments like people in terms of planting seeds, etc). What about grafting etc, where a completely different plant comes. Either of the two can happen. The same Jiva may continue in another plant or a charge may be given to another Jiva like a transfer. There is no specific rule or evidence for that. It depends on the karma of the Jiva as to how long it has to have such life.

Also analyzing a bit further, when grafting is made, all the subsequent plants must be different Jivas, different from the Jiva in the original plant.

I don't think grafting is really a Jiva dvaya. Only thing is we do not know when actually Jiva enters or gets abhimAna.

When a zygote results from the union of a female gamete and a male gamete, we do not really imagine that as Jiva dvaya. In the embryonic development of humans and other animals, the zygote stage is brief and is followed by cleavage, when the single cell becomes subdivided into smaller cells.

As per our shaastras, the Jiva is stated to be present in mala gamete and travel and end up in zygote and continue its existence and aabhimAna until that Jiva leaves that body.

While that is sexual reproduction, grafting is asexual reproduction and may have similar pattern. It is a very tricky situation that we are trying to combine pratyakSha and Agama pramANas. However there need not be any conflict as Jiva is beyond pratyakSha and indriyas, though pratyakSha anubhava does go to an extent in explaining. They(PratyakSha and Agama) have their own realms of prAbalya and dont conflict.

Even after begetting the child, the mother still thrives and continues all activities. Mother can be compared to a root stock. Thus the root stock continuing to thrive need not make us think that as a situation of Jiva dvaya.

When a plant stem is cut and planted and it gets roots and becomes a new plant all together, obviously, it has to be another Jiva - right? Note that the original plant and the new plant are both thriving. If the new plant is not having another Jiva meaning if it is the same Jiva, we will be forced to say that that Jiva is 'sAmsha' (meaning the same Jiva has multiple bodies). A samsha Jiva is of much higher form of life and not a plant life. Even if we imagine that a sAmsha Jiva may have gotten a plant body due to curse, etc., we will not be part of the 'maintainers of that curse' as such. Further a simple process of another Jiva having abhimana for the new plant is much simpler and will not end up in any conflicts. Thus the plants of secondary growth from stem, etc can be thought of as the bodies of different Jivas.

Head transplant:

There is some precedence for this. Both Ganesha and Daksha Prajapati had the heads replaced and what is in the body continued. All 5 antaHkaranas(buddhi, manas, chitta, ahankara and chetana) belonged to the soul in the body. But one thing to notice is that the head did not have the Jiv and so it was the soul in the body that was given preference in by the grantor of life (in both cases the Rudra himself).

In cases like this one, there is no telling what soul was residing in what body at the time of transplant. Assuming that both the part still had the souls still present in them, the following are some of the possibilities.

1. One of the souls may just give up without even trying to continue and leave the combined body.

2. Both the souls may strive to be in the body and one may succed and the other may just leave.

3. Both may succeed to be in the body and then it will be like two Jivas in a body.

All of that depends on the prArabdha karma of each soul.

If one of the souls already departed, then the case may be obviously the other one. If both fail to continue, it is a pathetic truggle of each soul to strive. It is quite possible that both the souls may fail after a struggle and just quit.

MT: jiva is in the hrudaya ONLY along with all indriyaas, manas. The head etc., are only golakas where the prakasha of the jiva pervades similar to "rays". The "rays" are not jiva but dependent on the karmas of the jiva occupying the hrudaya. They do not have independent existence.

Thus when the head is transplanted, the rays may linger for a while

but soon behave in accordance with the hrudaya/jiva of the body to which it is attached to.

Q: After death, the mortal body is destroyed (said to merge into the panchabhootas) and the Atman is not, and it transcends from one body to another. The Atman is known to be neither destructible nor offended by the elements or any other forces.

Then who exactly bears the harsh suffering of Naraka by Yamakinkaras as described in the Garuda Purana and at other places?

[I am taking rajasa/tamasa jeevis who are destined to have Narakavasa as an example, but the question could also be applied towards SAtvika jeevas who enjoy Swargaphala].

KT: It is always the Jeeva, who bears the harsh sufferings as well as the enjoyments of svarga phala. As mentioned in Bhagavadgita and also as can be understood from our own experiences, all the Jeevas experience the joys or woes because of abhimana to the bodies they are bearing.

To understand this better, look at the following example.

Suppose a person owns a house. If that house gets burnt, the person feels terribly sorry. Suppose that person sells the house and one week after that the house gets burnt, the person feels so happy and relieved and says to himself "Thank god, I sold the house at right time. If I did not seel in time, I would have been in deep trouble.". Same with our bodies also. Right now, do we have attachment to the body of our prior janma?

Look how the same event - 'the house getting burnt' - can be a source of joy or source of sorrow to the same person!!

If something happens to our child, we feel terrible. If something happens to another child, totally unknown to us, we don't bother much. Why?

It is the outcome of abhimAna.

When one goes to svarga or naraka, a special body, known as "yAtanA sharIra" is given to the Jeeva and it undergoes all the experiences, happy or sad with that body. The Lord gives the abhimAna to the Jeeva towards that body. It is all as per what the Lord gives.

In mokSha, no such external body is given. The Jeeva experiences what ever is inherent in it.

Q: Yatana shareera anubhavisuva sukha-dukhagaLu jeevakke taguluttave. Okay... this comes to experience also in our current shareera. Nimma parihara samadhana tandide.

But this triggers a more fundamental question I have - and I will be happy to get this clarified - we Vaishnavas use the term 'Jeevatma and Paramatma' freely enough to become complacent about what the word implies. Your explanation forms the basis of my next question:

What is Jeeva?

What is Aatman?

What is a Jeevatma?

As we know, the aatman is nitya and has no bondage of sukha-dukha of any form, whereas the jeeva undergoes all the pleasures and pain of the world. So they appear to be two different entities, but then where does the word 'jeevatma' derive its meaning?

In the same flow, it is said that we all possess a 'swaroopa deha' beyond the Linga deha which truly goes along with us even after the linga deha is destroyed. So what is the scope of this deha in comparison with the aatman? Is it nitya as the aatman? Is it different from a jeeva?

KT: Jeeva and Jeevatma are synonymous. It is the sentient being which is travelling thru all these bodies. Atman is a common word used for both Jeevatma and Paramatma and has to be taken as per the context. It is like saying "John is chairman of company-A". There may be another John, who is my neighbor and a very poor man and not that chairman. So, when one says John is struggling to make both ends meet or John inaugurated a grand function in that company-A, we conclude which John is meant, based on the context.

Wen we say "Atman is nitya", it applies to both Jeevatma and Paramatma. When we say Atman has no bondage of sukha-duHkha, we mean the following -

1. Paramatma Sri Hari and nitya mukta Lakshmi have no bondage at any time.

2. The liberated ones don't have the bondage now, but had at some point of time.

All the other Jeevas or jeevatmas or Atmans, in this samsAra, have the bondage.

The other synonyms for Jeeva or Jeevatma or Atman are "svarUpa, svabhAva, svarUpendriya, svarUpa deha". When we use these as "svabhAva of Jeeva", etc., it is from "vishesha" point of view. That means, when there is no difference, it is used as if there is difference. This is for convenience of usage. Svabhava is same as Jeeva, but to refer to Jeevasvabhava, we use "svabhAva of Jeeva" and we know what that means.

The Jeeva or svarUpa deha are aprAkritika or non-materialistic. But the Linga deha, aniruddha deha and this sthUla deha are all prAkritika or materialistic and so naturally they are very much different from a Jeeva. When Jeeva goes to moksha, all these material bodies are cast off.

Q: Glad and thrilled to read excellent expositions on dvaita philosophy.my doubt is, at the time of first creation paramatma created all kind of jivas or only sattvika, jnanis.please kindly clarify..

PT: The “creation” of jIva-s is an interesting topic. In the Gita Krishna states quite clearly in the 2^nd chapter that there is no beginning or end for the indwelling Atman (we have to take it as referring to both jIvaatman & paramatman). Also, if you think of the concept of karma, what we experience is a result of our past actions, our previous births were a result of actions before then, there's no beginning to this--the jIvatman that experiences samsaara has existed since time immemorial.

If Paramatma creates some souls saatvik, and others tamasic & rajasic, then in fact, he could be accused of being partial. Why is this soul tamasic, but another one saatvik?

If that were true, then ultimately paramAtmaa would be responsible for each soul's ultimate fate (whether it achieves moksha or remains in samsara).

Such problems do not arise if we accept that the jIva is anaadi (paramAtma would make each soul act in accordance with its nature).

But then how can we say that Narayana created us? Here, we need to analyze the concept of creation a little more carefully. Take for example the creation of a pot. Now it is not created from nothing--when we say that a pot maker creates a pot, he is simply taking mud and transforming it into a pot. More technically, creation But then how can we say that Narayana created us? Here, we need to analyze the concept of creation a little more carefully. Take for example the creation of a pot. Now it is not created from nothing--when we say that a pot maker creates a pot, he is simply taking mud and transforming it into a pot. More technically, creation refers to an acquisition of attributes, NOT the substance itself (the mud is transformed into the pot, the substance remains the same, it's only the attributes that are changing). Likewise when we talk of “creation” of the jIva, what is meant is not making a jIva from nothing (there is no equivalent in Indian philosophy of the Biblical concept of creation ex nihilo), but rather a jIva that previously had no body, now acquired a body. It's an acquisition of new attributes, similar to the way a pot is “created”. The Sanskrit term for this is “paraadhinavisheshaapti”:

long word, but it brings out the essence of this concept “[a substance]acquiring attributes due to someone else/someone greater”.However, a very important disclaimer needs to be made about the analogy above--in Dvaita siddhanta, everything exists because of paramAtma. Even though jIva-s, kaala, Veda-s, etc. are anaadi/nitya (eternal), they still would not exist without paramAtman (so think of a time line stretching infinitely in both directions.

At each point in time, Narayana is making the jIva exist. Without Narayana, the jIva would not be there.). Such is not the case with the pot maker & the mud that he creates from. Thus even eternal entities, though not created, exist because of Narayana.

Do Jivas have a gender ?

According to Gita tatparya which I have read in this list, Jivas have gender.

KT: Gender is of two kinds (svAbhAvika and aupAdhika). AupAdhika is what we see in this world - meaning that which pertains to physical body and physical birth.

This is verifiable by pratyaxa.SvAbhAvika is what is in the intrinsic nature itself and hence continues even in Mukti. Since this is beyond pratyaxa, only the scriptural statements can be pramANa for both the aspects -

1. The presence of svAbhAvika gender

2. The link between svAbhAvika gender and AupAdhika gender.

From earlier postings, to summarize AchArya's statements -

KT: One who is Purusha by svabhAva can either be aupAdhika purusha or aupAdhika strI. One who is StrI by svabhAva can only be aupAdhika strI.

How can we say that gender is svAbhAvika from Agama statements?Chandogya Upanishad says :

"sa tatra paryeti jaxan krIDan ramamANaH strIbhirvAyAnairvA j~nAtbhirvA.aj~nAtibhirvA...

"which indicates that even in moxa, there are stri-s andpurusha-s.

Now coming to the following :

However, according to Svetasvatara Upanishad Jiva does not have a gender.Can somebody clarify this ?

http://www.shaivam.org/ssushvetashvatara.htm

baalaagrashatabhaagasya shatadhaa kalpitasya cha . bhaago jiivaH sa viGYeyaH sa chaanantyaaya kalpate .. 5.9..

naiva strii na pumaaneshha na chaivaaya.n napu.nsakaH .

yadyachchhariiramaadatte tene tene sa yujyate .. 5.10..

http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/svetasvatara.htm

That individual soul is as subtle as a hair point divided and sub-divided hundreds of times. Yet he is potentially infinite. He has to be known. .. 5.9..

He is neither female, nor male, nor neuter. Whatever body he assumes, he becomes identified with that. .. 5.10..

KT: Before jumping to the conclusion that the translation is correct and it describes jIva, let me quote another sentence from the shruti -

"jivAdbhavanti bhUtAnijive tishhThantyachanchalaH | jive ca layam ichchhantina jivAtkAraNaM param.h ||""

All the living beings originate from Jiva. They subsist/exist in JIva. They finally get laya into the JIva. There is no primordial cause other than JIva.

"It is quite evident that any ordinary being (jIva) cannot have such power. Then how do we resolve this? The shruti itself gives us the solution.

"Adau ante cha madhye cha hariH sarvatra gIyate"."In the beginning, at the end and in the middle, Lord Hari is extolled everywhere.

""nAmAni sarvAni yamAvishantitaM vai vishhNuM paramamudAharanti |""

All the names describe and extoll Lord Vishnu only in the primary sense."

The Anutva applies to the Lord and also Jiva. The non-presence or absence of gender applies to the Lord only.Thus the translation of the Shvetashvataropanishad as given in the above sites has to be corrected. It is a sad state of affairs that so many translations are floating around, where no thought is given for the appropriateness of the meaning and statements are left in limbo or in ambiguous state.

The same Shvetashvataropanishad says :"ANoraNIyAn.h mahato mahIyAnAtmA guhAyAM nihito.asya jantoH".

"He is smaller than the smallest and bigger than the biggest and resides in the cave of heart of each jIva."

In HarikathAmritasAra (vyAptisandhi, 2nd verse), the same thought about the absence of gender to the Lord goes as:

"strI napumsaka purushha bhU salilAnalAnila gagana mana shashi |bhAnu kAla guNa prakR^itiyoLagondu tAnalla |"

"He is none of these - Female, neuter, male, earth, water,fire, wind, sky, mind, moon, sun, time, quality, nature, etc."

He is beyond everything and controls everything.

Q. It is said that each Jeeva has an Antaryami Paramatma Roopa which is unique to each.But when it comes to the Devas,people speak of Sri Ramachandra as the Antaryami SvaRoopa in Vayu (Hanuman) and the like. How can this be said when in the next Yuga,a different soul (Vadiraja swami,here) is going to be Vayu? (Vadiraja Swami's antaryamin is Sri Hayagriva).

KT: When you say "Antaryami Paramatma Roopa which is unique to each *soul*", do you imply that "AntaryAmi" for soul S1 is different from "AntaryAmi" for soul S2? If you imply it is different, you are wrong. If you imply it is not different, then there is no problem.

When we say "Paramatma Roopa is unique", we must realize that no one else is like Him and it does not mean that "He is not like Himself". Any statement which says or means that there is difference between His various forms is against shastras. In this regard (avatArabheda is very wrong). It is even inconceivable to think that R^iju yogis (who are the foremost among aparoxa j~nAnis) see difference in God's forms, while all the aparoxa j~nAnis see all the God's forms to be the same. It is said in Sumadhvavijaya that when Sri Madhvacharya sees "Sri Narayana maharshi", he thinks of various incarnations of God and says (4th sarga, verse 41)

paramAtmane satatameka rUpiNe dasharUpiNne shatasahasrarUpiNe

avikAriNe sphuTamanantarUpiNe sukhachit.h samastatanave namaH

The Lord takes ten incarnations like "Matsya" etc., or 100 forms like Narayana etc., or 1000 forms like "vishva" etc. (Sri Vishnu sahasranama) and infinite forms in infinite ways. Yet He is only one in His "mUlarUpa". In all His forms, He is personification of bliss and knowledge. Though He takes many forms, He is pure and immutable. I bow to such Lord again and again.

When great yogis see any form of Lord, they also perceive many forms of the Lord. One may utter or write only one word at a time, but the accomplished yogis conceive a lot many forms of Lord at a time. Thus the upAsanA murthy of such saints being one of the forms of God should never confuse us. We must at least realize that there is no difference between various forms of Lord.

That knowledge can be classified into two,

1. paravidya (spiritual knowledge ?)

2. aparavidya (material knowledge ?).

The one that Shouldn't 'para-vidya' refer to knowledge that is grasped through the senses and 'apara-vidya' to that which is beyong the senses. For eg., aparoxaGYAna' refers to something which is beyond ordinary senses.

KT: One has to be very careful in Sanskrit language. Not only that many words can have one meaning and one word can have many meanings, but in addition the sensitivity of the language stems from atleast two more things namely the way the split is made and the depth of meaning for each word. This in fact makes the language rich and versatile.

The word 'para' means many things.

1. other as in "para purusha", "paralOka" or "paradEsha"

2. enemy as in "paran.tapa"

3. supreme as in "paradaivata" .

To say the most supreme with respect to vishNu, we say "paratpara". In the essay the third sense is what is used meaning supreme. "aparOxa" means "na parOxa". "axa" means eyes. "parOxa" means "not seeing". "aparOxa" means "see directly" which is similar to "pratyaxa". If you know "shrI rAghavEndra stOtra", you must have heard, "aparOxIkr^ita shrIshaH samupExita bhAvajaH". The first part means "one who has seen Lord VishNu directly". So there must be no confusion between "aparOxaGYAna" and "apara-vidya".

Q.1. What is "havan?" What is homa? What is the origin? Where do Madhwas stand on this practice? Or rather, who are eligible to practice and what are the requirements? What are the benefits derived? Can one participate in a havan or homa?

KT: "havan" "homa", "havya" "havishyam" "havis" etc all originate from a dhatu called "hu" (short sound, not long) which means to offer to gods. According to Maadhwaas, this is important. Homa is one of the five great sacrifices (Pancha maha yajnas). Every house holder, especially a brahmin has to perform daily these five great sacrifices according to Maadhwa sastra.

"AdhyApanam brahmayajnah pitryajnasTu Tarpanam hOmO daivO (dEvayajnah)

balirbhouTo (bhUtayajnah) nryajnOTiThipUjanam"

1. Teaching and reciting VedAs is brahma yajna

2. Offering oblations with water to the ancestors is pitryajna

3. Offering oblations to gods by throwing ghee (and others that are fit for oblation) into consecrated fire is dEvayajna

4. The offering of a portion of a portion of daily meal (rice, grain, ghee etc.) to all creatures is bhUTayajna

5. Pleasing, appeasing and satisfying the guests with reverence is nryajna or manushya yajna

The third one above is your answer.

The first three are to discharge the three debts (brahma rna, pitrrna, dEvarna).

The rest two are our duty and expression of our gratitude for being born as human being.

Also note that these five great sacrifices enhance the power of five great elements (Pancha mahabhUtas). Brhamayajna enhances "AkAsha" or cosmos, Pitryajna enhances "Apah" or water, dEva yajna enhances "Tejas" or fire, bhUta yajna enhances "prThivi" or earth(by helping creatures on earth), manushya yajna enhances VAyu (by sustaining the life force (prAna vAyu) of fellow beings).

"Havan" or "Homa" is offering oblation with fire as a means of summoning gods and invoking their help for the upliftment of the entire creation. "Havya" or "havis" or "havishyam" is anything fit for an oblation like ghee or rice mixed with ghee. It is believed that through fire god it reaches other gods. That is fire god is also called "havya vahana" (carrier of havya). Finally all this reaches Sri hari only.

From Bhagavad geeTa

"Brahmaarpanam Brahma havirbrahmagnau brahmanaahuTam

Brahmaiva TEna ganTavyam Brahmakarma samaadhina"

and also some quotes from "purusha sUkTa"

"YajnEna yajnamayajanTu dEvah" "TasmAtyajnAtsarva hutah" "RchasAmAni jajnirE chandAmsi jajnirE"

Maadhvas when doing any "abhishEka" recite "purushasUkTa" and "SrisUkTa".

Various verbal forms for homa are "jajnirE' "juhOTi" etc.

HOTa is one who performs homa or havana.

Q. The word "AshirwAda" is defined as "Benediction-- To give benediction, to bless". (1) The word "anugraha" is defined as "promoting or furthering a good object, aid, or assistance".

(1) The word is also defined as being " A favour, obligation, kindness-- showing favor, obliging, rewarding".

(2) The difference could be that the former seems more, in the definition sense, more spiritual, more UNCOMMON for one to receive from just anyone, anyone like oneself, who are all "normal" people.

KT: My own two cents on this. First of all trying to answer it by analysing the English definitions is a great injustice to Samskr^ita language. Secondly

it is just opposite of what has been said.

"AshIrvAda" is very common. "vAda" in it means words or speech. "AshIH" means blessing in a loose sense. Most of the time it is a reciprocation to "namaskAra". The only qualification for the giver is that he should be either elder by age or elder by spiritual strength. For ex. if a father gives " AshIrvAda" to his son in the form of words, it is only a wish/prayer which may or may not come true. Some ex. are "VijayI bhava", "shubhamastu", "abhIshhtaphala siddhirastu", putrapautrAbhivR^iddhirastu" etc.

People can use simpler words like "oLLedu Agali (may every thing be good)" or like.While in English it is not incorrect to say "we seek god's blessings", (for ex.) in kannada it is rarely said "devara AshIrvada bEku". Instead we say "devara anugraha bEku". So blessing is not a perfect translation for "AshIrvada".

Q. It is given by the great saints, their "benediction" itself is very upheld in the minds of most people. The latter is very much common, "showing favor" is not rare. There may be more reasons for the difference, but I am not all that sure or aware of much else. But I have read in many books that the word "anugraha" can also be considered in the same sense as "AshirwAda".

KT: "anugraha" has lot of flavors. But the original question implies only the spiritual context. "anugraha" is in the form of an action. "AshIrvAda" can lead to or result as "anugraha". Only supreme Lord or other gods or spiritual giants can do "anugraha" in that sense. "anu" means some thing that follows. "graha" is an occurrence. So together it means some thing that happens as a result of kindness. But in spiritual context, one must have powers to do "anugraha". Also we never pray for Lord Hari's "AshIrvAda" because his very wish automatically becomes true. So we always pray for his "anugraha". Some other flavors are "doing favor". A poor man can ask a king to do "anugraha" by helping with money or living. It is used as an expression of obedience like "We are doing fine because of your anugraha" - an expression from a servant to his master. Some times it expresses gratitude like "anugR^ihIto~smi" meaning "I am indebted to you". If it is only in spiritual sense, it is not common. But if all kinds of meanings are taken, it is common.

Such is why Bhrigu has worshipped for DISCIPLES, NOT believers in his greatness.

KT: I don't understand why there is that confusion. A guru will always pray for a true disciple only. Guru/teacher and shishhya/disciple relationship is different. Why will any guru be on the look-out for a devotee? Devotee is always associated with god.Though a shishhya may be devoted to guru, still he is shishhya only to his guru. The qualifications needed for a shishhya are different from those for a devotee. A devotee's reaction is spontaneous and originates from him for the great love and respect towards "his god". A guru-shishhya relationship on the other hand (though can be spontaneous) is for altogether a different purpose.

Q. Satyajit gave the'Mani' to his brother Prasenajit who was killed by a tiger which took the jewel away. The tiger was killed by Jambavan and the 'mani' was taken by him.

KT: In the episode, satrAjit (not satyajit) gave the syamantaka maNi to his brother, Prasena (not Prasenajit), who was killed by a lion (not a tiger) which took the jewel. The lion was killed by Jambavan, who procured the maNi.

"sya" means poverty. As the jewel ends poverty, it is called "syamantaka". the "ka" pratyaya has two definitions.

1. "alparthe ka pratyayaH" = "ka" is used to indicate smaller or inferior.

2. "sukhavAchI ka pratyayaH" = "ka" indicates sukha or happiness.

Here the second definition applies. syamantaka maNi ends poverty and gives happiness. "syam dAridryam antaM karoti kam sukham dadAti iti syamantakaH".

Krishna did not steal the' mani' but Satyajit doubted Him, and blamed Him. He went in search of the 'mani' with others and after fighting with Jambavan and showing him His grace, married Jambavati. On returning from there ,Satyajit apologised to Krishna and gave Satyabhama in marrige to Krishna.

Satyabhama is also called sAtrAjiti as she is daughter of satrAjit.

This story is to be remembered on every Ganesha chaturthi. Here we should take that it is a praise to

Krishna in the same way you take 'navaneeta chora'.

KT: The word "hartA" comes from the root "hR^i" which not only means steal, but has some more meanings including "retrieve" and "win".

Lord Krishna retrieved the jewel from Jambavan. "He won the jewel and the hands of Jambavati in marriage". When he returned the jewel to satrAjit, the latter felt sorry for his act of accusing Krishna and offered the jewel and his daughter to Krishna. "Krishna won again that jewel and the hands of Satyabhama in marriage".

"navaneeta" means fresh butter. Symbolically it represents essence of knowledge. Churning represents sAdhana. Lord Krishna by "stealing" butter (How can God who is beyond any desire or hunger find a need for butter or any thing else. Also He is the owner of every thing and so none of His acts can be called stealing), is only indicating that all the essence of knowledge must be directed to him.

So the purport of the two words "chora" and "harta" are different.

On a higher plane, we may state that all names ,why , all words apply to Narayana (krishna) by different ways of interpretation,in accordance with what is stated in the Brahma sutras.

KT: Yes. Narayana is sarvashabdavAchya and the primary meaning of every word describes Him although we do not know the correct interpretation for all the words.

Sakshi of Rajasik and Tamasik Souls

What about Rajasik and Tamasik souls ? Do they also have a Sakshi ? If so why do they make mistakes ?

KT: This is a loaded question. Will attempt to break apart the question.

The svarupa Indriya is what is known as the Sakshi, and is the jIva(soul) itself.

The Sakshi (saakShAt IkShate--it directly perceives) determines things in a yathartha fashion (the way they actually are), so its judgment is never open to doubt. However, the perceptions of the bahya indriyas may be open to doubt (The eyes may perceive something that is not really there, etc.).

There are some things, such as space, time, dharma which are only known through Sakshi, not through the bahya indriya. The validity of perceptions made through the bahya Indriya is also known through the sakshi.

KT: At the very outset, we have to note that sAkshi is also svabhAva.

We have to break this question into two parts because perceiving something as right and wrong does not necessarily mean acting right or wrong. The questions that pops up are :

Whatever is perceived by the sAkshi of Rajasik and tAmasik souls (for ex. Kalipurusha) – is that correct?

In other words, granting that these do mistakes,which of the following is true?

1. They don't know what is right and wrong and they do mistakes.

2. They know what is right and wrong and yet do mistakes.

If 1 is true, what happened to their sAkshi?

If 2 is true, then what about their svAbhAvika aj~nAna ?

For answering these, we must realize that what generally people refer as manas sAkshi (or conscience) is pertinent to sthUla deha (or gross body). The sAkshi that is referred as svarUpa itself is subtle and aprAkrita (non-gross).

vR^itti j~nAna (the knowledge that is exhibited in samsArain each life) is different from svarUpaj~nAna (the inherent knowledge).

If we take the example of Kali, svarUpataH (inherently), he is only duHkhajIva, meaning he does not have any svarUpasukha.

Yet, he can have indriya sukha(happiness thru sense organs).

Same way, he is aj~nAni by svarUpa, but he may exhibit some vR^itti j~nAna, during samsAra.

Just as sAttvika jIvas may blunder into doing something wrong, but eventually progress towards j~nAna and eventual moxa, a tAmasika jIva may blunder into doing something right according to his inherent nature that is blunder only), but eventually progress towards his own proper destination, which is aj~nAna and eventual destiny of ultimate duHkha.

Also, when we talk of right or wrong, what exactly are we talking about. If it is ultimate intention, then

for tAmasik souls, it is always wrong as it is directed as “Haridvesha”, just as in the opposite side of the spectrum, the sAttvika soul's ultimate goal is directed towards “HariprIti”.

For ex, Duryodhana may show some respect, love and affection to DroNa or Bhishma, but that is in the backdrop of Hari dvesha and Pandava dvesha only.

In essence, the tAmasik souls have inherent aj~nAna,but during samsAra, may exhibit rarely some

vR^itti j~nAna, but due to the compelling force of their svabhAva will do mostly wrong things only (the occasional good deeds are again due to vR^ittij~nAna) and ultimately progress towards andhatamas.

The rAjasik souls have inherent samshaya j~nAna,but during samsAra, may exhibit vR^itti j~nAna, but due to the compelling force of their svabhAva willdo mixed deeds only due to vR^itti j~nAna and ultimately progress towards their state of mixture of joy and sorrow at the same time.

In their svabhAva (not to be confused with vRitt ij~nAna)itself they have a doubtful state. What is in svabhAva is eternal.What is in vR^itti j~nAna may cease or change based on svabhAva and prabhAva.

The sAttvik souls have inherent j~nAna, but during samsAra, may exhibit some vR^itti-aj~nAna, but due to the compelling force of their svabhAva will do mostly right things only (the occasional bad deeds are again due to vR^itti-aj~nAna) and ultimately progress towards moxa.

In all these cases, when aberrations happen, they are brought back to what is natural to them. When they do the acts, what is natural to them, they are reinforced (for ex, when Duryodhana is lying with wounded thighs, he utters words condemning the Lord and Pandavas and the gods shower flowers making him feel that he is on right track – well he feels that he is right and hence continues his tamassAdhane).

Can you tell what is “Sakshi” and how is it related to the Soul ?

PT: There are 2 types of Indriyas-- baahya (outer) Indriya and svarupa Indriya. The baahya indriyas consist of the 5 senses. The svarupa Indriya is what is known as the Sakshi, and is the jIva(soul) itself.

The Sakshi (saakShAt IkShate--it directly perceives) determines things in a yathartha fashion (the way they actually are), so its judgment is never open to doubt. However, the perceptions of the bahya indriyas may be open to doubt (The eyes may perceive something that is not really there, etc.).

There are some things, such as space, time,dharma which are only known through Sakshi, not through the bahya indriya. The validity of perceptions made through the bahya Indriyais also known through the sakshi.

I am curious to know what happens to a jiva who has a combination of predominantly sattvic gunas and a little of Rajas and Tamas once he gets “Moksha”.

MT: Before getting into the moxa stage, a little background on what we think as “Gunas”.

According to Padartha Sangraha, guna denotes “doshha bhinnatvam” -- that which is devoid of doshha. Dosha is something that is not natural quality to that vastu.

This guna is broadly of two kinds:

1. Nitya

2. Anitya.

The nitya gunas are intrinsic and inseparable from a vastu. Thus there is no bheda between the intrinsic gunas and the jiva. The anitya-gunas are temporary though the duration may vary. The former being inseparable, stays with the jIva even in moxa while the latter being impermanent, is left behind. Thus there is no trace of even the contact of prakruta rajas-tamo gunas in moxa.

Do the other gunas like Rajas and tamas get destroyed or do these gunas remain with him forever .

MT: The point to note is that the anitya prakruta gunas are different from nitya aprakruta gunas.

All jivas have intrinsic, aprakruta, nitya gunas. The variation in the composition of these gunas determine the tAratamya.

For example, Brahma/Vayu have Sattva-Sattva-Sattva-Sattva, while others have some trace of other two gunas. Just like how one calls milk as milk irrespective of the intrinsic water content in them same way, we call all the moxa yogya jivas as Sattvikas based on the prAchurya I.e., higher composition of svarUpa-Sattvika guna.

If they remain with him forever, that means the asuras will still torment him even after Moksha. Will Lord Vishnu allow this to happen?

MT: The moxa by definition is a place free from the effects of prakruti and its prAkruta gunas.

In samsaara[amukta state], there is always scope for the interaction of svarUpabhUta guNas and the corresponding prAkritika gunas and hence there is also scope for Asuric forces showing up their effect.

In mukta state, there are no prAkritika rajas-tamo gunas and so Laxmi NarayaNa made sure that there is no scope for interaction with any such prAkritika gunas and also there are no room for Asurik forces in moxa.

Acharya quotes Bhagavata # 2.9.10-12 which describes the moxa as a place where there is no impact of prakruti and its rajas-tamas gunas.

“na vartate yatra rajastamastayoH satvaM

cha mishraM na cha kAlavikramaH |

na yatra mAyA kimutApare hareranuvratA

yatra surAsurArchitAH ||

But lets assume that there are good people . Example “A” is a Karma Yogi and a loving and honest man. He out of ignorance follows Advaita and steadfastly believes till his dying day that Advaita is the true philosophy. Now, what happens to such a person? Will he get better births?

KT: In the ananta sAdhana, one life-time is not too long. It is the belief of Christians and muslims that one life-time determines the fate of a soul. You heard the story of Jada Bharata, when he is born as a deer in one of his janma-s.

You heard of the great souls like Sri Trivikrama Pandita and Sri Achyuta prajna(the guru of Sri Madhva), who were Advaitins for a good part their lives. Even prior to them, there were many good souls that were born as Advaitins.

God has His own way of imparting the right knowledge to the deserving ones at an appropriate time, known to Him. The satvik souls do get better births. Their sAdhana will culminate to their own perfection.

Why should the merciful Lord delude Sattvic souls in the first place?.

Because, they are not 'perfectly sAtvik'. Even the great gods like Indra(who comes so high that he is in 8^th kaksha, even above Vinayaka,

Agni, Narada, VaruNa, Yama, Surya, et al),go thru tough times, as pArabdha is powerful.

The Lord has nothing to gain by deluding the sAttvik souls. When that happens, it is purely because of their prArabdha karma, which in turn, is as per their svabhAva.

What impact will it have on his Sadhana? Why should such a convoluted exercise be undertaken by the Lord?

From whose point of view, is it convoluted? If one believes that the Lord is perfect, every act of the Lord has to be perfect. Every incident/accident is as per the plan and will of the Lord. We tend to judge things from our perspective.

KT: So, we may see upside down.

Secondly, Lets assume the following

1)'B' practices Tattvavada and is a devoted and spiritual person.

2) 'B' is a recluse and has minimal contact with the outside world 3) 'B' does not bother to condemn or is too mild mannered to condemn wrong knowledge . Now, we are assuming that because 'B' has a propensity towards Tattvavada that he is a Sattvic Person. Why are you assuming?

KT: That kind of assumption is quite similar to assuming “Taking bath in Ganga removes all sins. The crocodiles in Ganga are constantly inside Ganga waters and so they are getting rid of the sins at a fast rate.” You will find a few Dasara padas, opposing such a view.

Following Tatvavada with conviction is what matters. What good is it if one does not know what one is following blindly.

Now on account of B keeping the knowledge to himself, the Shastras state that just because he did not condemn wrong knowledge he has to go to Andha Tamas.

Is 'B' being punished just because of his laziness or shyness or ignorance? .

KT: Is “having the right and wrong knowledge together in one's mind” a sign of laziness? Is one shy towards one's own mind?

What happens if ignorance and knowledge of the same concept coexist?

For ex, let us take three persons X, Y and Z. X believes that 2 + 2 = 4is right and 2 + 2 = 7 is wrong.

Y believes that 2 + 2 = 7 is right and 2 + 2 = 4 is wrong.

Z believes that 2 + 2 = 4 is right and 2 + 2 = 7 is also right. Surely Y is ignorant.

But I think the fate of Z is even more pathetic. People will think that Z is weird.

You must first condemn wrong knowledge in your own mind.

As a Sattvic person why should he go to Andha Tamas? What logic is that?

KT: Precisely, what logic is that? In which shAstra, did you see that a sAttvik person should go to Andha Tamas? If a Tamasik person as well as a sAttvik person, both go to Andha Tamas, then who is spared?

The only way out is to assume that “B”is a Tamasic person but out of some good deeds performed in previous births he had an opportunity to study the shastras?? The topic becomes more and more confusing and I see no easy way out of this....

KT: The reason is that you are making assumptions in every direction and consequently in opposing directions and finding conflicts and trying to resolve them with even more assumptions and in the bargain, not able to decide, where the assumptions have to stop.

Then, which assumptions are right and which are wrong?

The following thumb rule should help you -

“The Lord is sarva guNa sampUrNa and sarva doSha vivarjita”.

Every assumption that supports the above is the right assumption and every assumption that goes against it is wrong.

Qualities of the soul

Now coming to the question of “free will” of Jivas, Bhagavan has given limited independence to Jivas based on their efforts(karma) and intrinsic capacity, like a leashed dog.

KT: “limited independence” is an oxymoron expression. We have to ask “Is there any independence at all?”. The possible options are 1. Some independence or 2. Not at all.

If it is 1, no matter how small it is, that implies that to that extent God has lost control. That is impossible and so it has to be 2 only. Then jIva is reduced to the status of a robot. This may sound strange and undesirable, but from the view point of God (and in reality) that is true. There is no independence to anyone, except Lord.

It is Karunya of the Lord, that He alone has independence.

If everyone has a little bit of independence, it would be chaotic only.

On one hand, He is the absolute Controller and Doer. On the other, He gives some independence to the jIva and it is within this radius of independence the jIva reaps per its actions.

KT: The terms “independence” and “radius of independence”are mutually exclusive. The moment one assigns “radius”, the aspect of independence is lost.

Some concerns arise on reconciliation of the 2 sentences above.

KT: No reconciliation can be made from two contradicting statements.

First, if Bhagavan is the “Doer” of actions, cognition, perception, etc., it implies any bad actions, thoughts, vasanas are also done by Bhagavan, thus attributing a Dosha to Him.

KT: The simple secret is this. Though, He is independent and can break all the rules, yet He does not break any rules. He does everything “as per the svabhAva” of the jIva (which is beginningless). Thus, there is no Dosha to Him. That is again kAruNya of the Lord, as He shows no partiality and rest assured, one gets what one deserves.

Second, the perplexing situation above is resolved by the Lord giving us a little amount of “free will”...

KT: The above has been dismissed.

... This again is bewildering as to who the doer is – The jIva or the Lord or both?

KT: Always, the jIva is dependent doer and the Lord is the independent doer. The golden question is if jIva is the dependent doer, why should it get the fruits of action,and if the Lord is independent doer, why doesn't He get the phala?. The golden answer is in the question itself.

By virtue of His independence, the Lord is also free of any bandha. By virtue of dependence, the jIva is also dependent for everything including phala. Ifthe Lord decides that the jIva has to get phala, the jIva does get. It is again Karunya of the Lord.

Though there is nothing for Him to gain, He does all this for the sake of others.

1. Is a finite conscious entity similar to the Infinite Being in any composition, shape or form?

KT: Both are j~nAnAnanda svarUpa – one is finite and dependent and the other infinite and independent.

If we are His reflections, isn't it appropriate that we are made of a similar nature

KT: Even in crude examples, that is not the case. If you seethe reflection of a flower, definitely the reflection is not made of the same ingredients as the flower.

(this nature being encapsulated by ajnAna)?

KT: Only a dependent one can be encapsulated by aj~nAna if He wills. He as an independent one, will naturally be beyond any aj~nAna, as He controls aj~nAna.

2. Does the Infinite reside within the finite? In other words, is the ParamAtma the indweller of the soul, say, when the soul is without a body?

KT: At all times. The Lord is not only the indweller, but He is the protector of the eternity of the jIva itself.

3. Why a sAtvika soul, made up of pure goodness, gets influenced by the tAmasic nature in the first place? It should get influenced by only sattva since its nature is so, isn't it?

KT: You are getting confused between influence and inherent.

The nature of diamond is to shine. Why should it be covered by mud? That is not right question. If one washes the mud, it shines again.

4. Sri Prasanna indicated that the properties inherent in a jIva do not change with time and circumstances, the intrinsic nature is non-different to the jIva.

KT: That is true.

The tAmasic entities are guaranteed to be eternally damned anyway even if they temporarily commit good deeds. So why are they not condemned straight to andha-tamas ASAP?

KT: Always, the results are based on actions and not capabilities, especially in the eyes of the Lord.

Infact, it is based a lot more on the will of the Lord (One may even say just will of the Lord as the basis on actions is also part of the will of the Lord). Even so, the Lord instructs to act as told in Gita “nimittamAtraM bhava savyasAchin”. The Kauravas are bad and the pANdavas are good and Lord Krishna is right there and even He shows the future in His VishvarUpa that Kauravas will eventually be destroyed. Yet He did not do this “send Kauravas straight to death and Pandavas to victory, without any need of war”.

Even in Laukik sense, a person is punished for committing a crime and not just because, one is criminal minded.

He instructs Arjuna to go with the war.

Why are they given a chance to co-exist and harass the other two categories?

KT: For many reasons.

1. Hypothetically, let us say all good ones are put in one world, all middle ones in one world and all bad ones in one world. Then the accusation will still continue “Look, the Lord is so partial; He never even gave chance to the bad ones; if He had let them be with good ones, they might have changed”.

The point proven is that even if a chance is given,things will be as they are bound to be.

2. The worthy ones will shine even brighter.

Prahlada's coexistence with Hiranyakashipu, exposed the true nature of both. All the three worlds could extol the greatness of Prahlada and condemn the acts of Hiranyakashipu.

3. What is real sAdhana? If all is good, all can also pretend to be good. The real test is to stand the test of time and people. So, the real sAdhana is to prove what one's true nature is. The good can withstand the evil influence and the evil gets no effect from the good around.

Is it because they are also covered in ignorance of their true nature and therefore given a chance to realize their full potential?

KT: Different kinds are covered in different levels of ignorance as per the tAratamya. All are given chance to realize their full potential. God does not allow short-cuts. Neither to the good, nor to the evil, the results are given “bypassing the need to act and based on just yogyata”.

In other words, there is no quantum leap from “asR^ijya” to moxa or Andhatamas (be it Brahma/Vayu on one end and Kali on the other).

PT: God's essential nature is Sat, Chit and Ananda. If we (souls) are His reflections, isn't it appropriate to say we are made of a similar nature (of course, covered in ignorance)?

Yes, this is the underlying idea behind “Bimba-pratibimba” bhava.

There is similarity (but of course the major difference being that we are finite, he is infinite, we have imperfections, he does not), as well as dependence of the finite jiva (pratibimba) on the infinite paramatma (bimba).

This concept of “bimba-pratibimba” is not something entirely new that Sri Madhvacharya came up with. While doing karanyasa-anganyasa before reciting NarayanaShtakashara mantra, we say:

“bimbo.asi pratimbo.smi tava yadyapi caantaraM. Swami nirdoSha!maddoShaan virecaya namo.stu te”

A crude translation: O perfect Lord, you are the bimba (the original), I am the pratibimba. However there is a distinction between you and me. Free from my sins. My prostrations to you.

This is a Vedic mantra, and we can see the bimba-pratibimba bhava is something already has a basis in pramaNa, and Sri Madhvacharya has simply pointed out what was already there (everything in our Siddhanta must have a pramANa, whether pratyaksha, anumana or agama).

So the 3 qualities are acquired during the soul's progression from a body to another. A sAtvika soul can acquire tAmasic quality just because of the influence

PT: But see, a satvic soul does not itself become tamasic. Think of a beautiful diamond that has become dirty upon contact with mud. The diamond itself has not changed, the mud & dirt is merely something external. Likewise, when a satvic soul, becomes of influence from tamo guNa, commits bad deeds, it itself does not change in svarupa. If that were true, then on occasion Rudra devaru commits papa, but does his svarupa change from being satvik to tamasik? No, certainly not!

of its surroundings and vice versa. The question then becomes as to why a soul, made up of goodness, acquires such tAmasic qualities? In reverse, a soul with

PT: This is due to prarabdha karma. The satvic soul because of some past papa karma is influenced by tamasic qualities. Of course, the situation is essentially beginningless --being put in the company of bad people because of an earlier bad deed!

its intrinsic nature of evil can acquire sAtvic qualities and progress towards liberation.

PT: No, the intrinsic nature is what essentially determines if it goes toMoksha/Andhatams/nityasamsari. Even if a tamasic soul does some good deeds by being around good people, eventually it will keep away from such company, and progress towards its destiny--andhatamas.

So the environment has an influence from time to time, but ultimately the jiva svabhava is fixed and cannot be changed. A satvik soul is guaranteed to achieve moksha, and a tamasik soul is guaranteed to achieve andha tamas, though along the way, both may waiver a bit because of their past karma.

Tamas; these qualities do not affect Him. They only affect the jIva and become its intrinsic nature. Is there a layer that accumulates (qualities get added or

PT: No, they don't become the intrinsic nature. The intrinsic nature is identical to jiva (jiva svabhava is the jiva). Just the way some external property cannot become the nature of sugar--its sweetness is intrinsic to it and cannot be separated, likewise the svabhava of the jiva is not something separate. (Perhaps this isn't the best analogy,since with chemical advances, one can enhance/detract from the sweetness of sugar! Still, it serves as a good analogy of how the svabhava is the nature of the jiva--something cannot be added to it, nor can it be changed)

subtracted to this layer) these attributes, that upon getting rid of this layer, the jIva attains realization? Is this the layer that covers the true nature of a soul?

PT: I think you're referring to the “jivaachhadika ajnana”--The jiva has ajnana which prevents it from realizing its true nature. Because of its contact with prakriti & its gunas, the jiva does not realize itstrue nature.

If all the souls are entirely dependent on the Lord, and He is in absolute control, it implies that any progress (spiritual or evil) is also His doing. He is also responsible for binding the souls to the samsAra or liberating them. He is even responsible for a mere thought to occur in our minds, or for that matter our very next breadth.

PT: Yes, it is his doing, but the reason why each soul is driven along its path is because of that jiva's svabhava. Thus, it is not arbitrary, nor is it God's fault that some jiva does papa, but the fault lies with the jiva itself.

What I do not understand is – if He does not determine a jIva's qualities and actions, He becomes no longer the complete Doer, but just a Controller. Although

PT: He doesn't determine the jiva's qualities, since it is existing since anadi. Also, then he would be partial--making some jivas good, others bad, without any reason. He does however determine the mental & physical actions performed by each soul. Not only that, but the jiva itself does not know how to move the various parts of its body to perform any action. The body, being jada, also does not know either.

It must be something higher that bridges this mind-body gap.

What is the difference between Doer & Controller? They're the same right?

He is in control, He is also not in complete 100% control over the souls, because the souls can perform actions per their intrinsic nature?

PT: Ah, but the souls cannot simply perform actions on their own. They have no independence (they're not svatantra). A jiva (you or me) cannot tell the brain how to send signals to which part of the body to control. The brain of course does not know what my intentions & desires are. So who is to bridge the gap between consciousness(jiva),and the physical body? It is not just physical actions that are controlled by the Lord, but even mental actions, even for the mind to function correctly to think, this too is dependent on the Lord.

If for some reason the Lord were to stop controlling the jivas,they wouldn't be able to perform any action. Without the Lord they wouldn't even exist! Just the way a body without a soul is lifeless and cannot do anything, likewise, without the indwelling paramatma, the jivatma too would cease to function or even exist. Viewed from this angle we can see that Paramatma is in full control.

You are saying the true nature of the jIva is made up of saTva or rajas or tamas and/or a permutation of the three. And only God is of sat-chit-Ananda. If so, where is the similarity between the Supreme Being and the souls, even with or without imperfections in the jIva?

PT: They are similar in certain aspects--both are non-material (not made of prakRti). Both are 'cetana' entities. Unlike jaDa which cannot experience, cetana entities, both Paramatma and Jivatma, are capable of experiencing. The difference is that Paramatma only experiences ananda (bliss), whereas jIvas experience both sukha and dukha while in samsara. Both paramAtma and jIvatma have kartrtva, doership. That is, they are both capable of making choices. Something that is jaDa, the matter we see around us cannot 'choose', but both the jIva and paramAtma can. This is a very subtle point, though the jIva does havekartrtva, it is 'parAdhina'--it can only act as per Hari's will. JaDa and jIva both are asvatantra, but jIva has kartrtva and jaDa does not.

Finally, as described in Gita, both paramAtma and jIvatma areanadi-nitya, existing forever without beginning or end, and the gIta verses “nainam chindanti shastrANi...”, etc. apply to both jIva and paramAtma.

Perhaps some more learned people on the list can elaborate on what exactly it means for the jIva to have 'parAdhina kartrtva'--that is, it has doership, yet it is dependent on paramAtma. There was also an article on the Kannada tattvavada.org site (if it is still there) on jIvakartrtva.

From your posting, I gather that all souls are either good, bad or mixed and these properties do not change with time, since the intrinsic nature is identical to the jIva. And also that they may be influenced by the other property by virtue of being in that environment.

PT: Yes, that is my understanding.

Let's say, the tAmasic property is intrinsic to a soul and this guNa is not subject to change under any circumstances. These entities are guaranteed to be eternally damned anyway even if they temporarily commit good deeds. Why are they not condemned straight to andha-tamas ASAP? Why are they given a chance to co-exist and harass the other two categories?

PT: I've heard of an analogy that's often given to illustrate the point.

There's a teacher who knows her students very well (which students will pass and which will fail the test). Without even having them take the test, can she give out pass & fail grades? Yes, of course she can,but that would not be fair. Instead, though she knows the students well, she makes them all take the test, then based on how they do,eventually passes them or fails them.

Likewise, though ParamAtma knows which souls are tamasic & sattvic,which are going to eventually achieve andhatamas or moksha, he doesn't directly put them there. Like the teacher administering a test, He makes everyone do their sadhana here in this world. For sattvic souls, it is making them work towards aparoksha jnaana, performing deeds for the benefit of humanity. For tamasic souls, it is by harassing others, causing so much harm “prabhavntyugra karmANaH”, that they eventually don't even deserve another birth in this world. It is then that they go to andhatamas. I'm not quite sure when or how rajasic souls achieve their moksha.

So you see, it is each soul doing its sadhana, instead of simply putting satvik souls in Moksha and tamasik souls in andhatamas.

'Doer' and 'Controller', are subject to definition. Let's assume God is the Doer of an action and the jIva is merely an instrument. This would mean any consequence of His action in future will also be “done” by the Lord. Does this not become a Dosha to the Lord that He performs bad actions too?

PT: But the key point to notice is that the Lord acts *based on jIva svabhava & karma*. That is, if he makes a tamasic soul perform bad actions, God is not to blame at all. He did not make the soul tamasic.

He simply allows its innate nature to be expressed. But to complicate things, there is also karma as well. A sattvic soul is sometimes made to do bad deeds, but that is because of being influenced by tamasic forces in his environment. Why was he placed in such an environment? Because of his past sins.

If on the other hand, both tamasic souls were made to only perform good deeds, then that would hardly be fair. Why should a jIva that is tamasic be put on the right path in life? From God's perspective, it is only fair that each jIva be made to work out its own destiny, good or bad, whatever it deserves. This is not a dosha on the part of the Lord.

I am looking for a proper definition of His role in all this, particularly, Doer and Controller.

PT: His role in all this is 'sarvakarta'...he makes everything happen. The only thing He does not do is bring about the innate nature of the jIva, which is there since time immemorial. Every action the jIva takes, working out its sadhana, both putting it in bandha (samsara), and freeing it (moksha), then even in Moksha enabling it to enjoy its svarupaananda (for satvic souls. For tamasic souls, I don't know if there is a counterpart, svarupadukha. Or what it would be for rajasic souls)...all this is only possible because of Sri Hari.

Are you saying a finite conscious entity is not capable of cognition? Or is it that it cognizes on its own, but not capable of communicating with jaDa?

PT: The jIva is capable of cognition, but it is not capable of communicating with jaDa. This is immediately obvious to all of us.

Though we see, hear, feel, taste, smell, we know nothing about the inner workings of the brain. At the same time, the brain cannot interact with a jIva (the brain is physical so it can only directly interact with physical entities). So something has to bridge the “gap” between the two. Also, the “gap” exists in the other direction as well. When I want to do some action, my brain needs to send the right signals to make the right muscles move. Yet my brain does not know anything about my intentions or desires. What we need is something which knows what each jIva's intentions are, and then also knows howto control the inner workings of the body to make that action possible. Then, in reverse, whenever something happens to the body,make the jIva inside it experience.

If it is not capable of cognition, and it is the Higher power that is the cause, that suggests it is not capable of experiencing suffering either, in which case, is it the Higher power who is suffering?

PT: Except the jIva IS capable of cognition, since it is not jaDa but cetana. The Higher Power is the cause in the sense that it is because of Him that the jIva experiences suffering, joy, etc.

If the jIva is capable of cognition (either on its own or bestowed by God), then it is the doer and the experiencer. In this instance, we definitely cannot blame God, for He has given us an environment to work and play, and we continue to sow and reap per our actions (not His). His job becomes more of a Controller in this case.

PT: I agree with most of what you say..except just because the jIva is the experiencer does not mean he is the doer. The jIva certainly experiences emotions like kama, krodha, sukha, dukha. But by doer, if you mean actually controlling what the body does, how to make the brain send the right signals to the right parts of the body so that it does what the jIva wants--the jIva certainly knows nothing about what goes on in the body, so in that sense it is not the doer.

With or without a body, we know the jIva always exists. Is the paramAtma the indweller of the soul, when the soul is without a body? I would assume the answer is 'Yes'. If so, where does He reside inside a soul?

PT: Paramatma is the indweller of the soul without a body, but also while the soul has a body. If for some reason, paramAtma were to not be inside the soul, then like a lifeless body (a body with a soul), thejIva too would become non-functional. We shouldn't take the body-soul analogy too far. We criticize the Visishtadvaita sharIra-sharIrin (body-soul) model, because in the case of the body & soul, not only is the body dependent on the soul, but the soul cannot do anything without the body. There is reciprocal dependence! Half of this is true in the case of paramAtma residing within the jIva--without paramAtma, the jIva would cease to function. However paramAtma is not dependent on the jIva the way a soul is dependent on the body.

Recently, my father gave a lecture on the Hari Kathamruta saara where this topic of how it is possible for a soul to reside within a soul came up. In fact, the situation gets trickier, because though jIva-s are all roughly the same size, Vayu & Brahma reside **within** other jIvas. How is this possible if they are the same size? The best answer I can give is that these are not physical entities, so they are not bound by spatial limitations. Perhaps others who attended the lecture can offer more insight on this.

VAYU IN SWARUPA DEHA

Q: As per the commentary of Sri Sankarshana Odeyaru[SSO] on HKAS, Lord indwells in our svarUpa dEha containing chinmana and chitEndriyas. None can enter the soul/svarUpa dEha of a jeevi. He alone can and he alone is anumAtra svarUpi.No place for any tattvAbhimAnis here inside the soul.

Further exterior, the liNga dEha is divided into two – anAdi liNga dEha where Lakshmi alone rules being the abhimani for this space [Ref: slOka 13 of HKAS, udAttAnudAtta saNdhi of SSO] along with Lord and vaisheyika liNga dEha where alongwith the divine couples, vAyu, Brahma and their consorts have their sannidhAna. No place for any tattvAbhimAnis except parAshukla trayAs in this space.

Further exterior, in the Aniruddha dEha the rest of divinities have their sannidhAna.

This narration of Sri Sankarshana Odeyaru appreciates the fact that Vishnu is the all-pervasive unlike Lakshmi whose pravesha is limited to liNga dEha and she is barred inside the svarUpa dEha of a jeeva. When it comes to vAyu, he is incapable to penetrate the anAdi liNga dEha and the svarUpa dEha of a jeevi but exist in vaisheshika liNga dEha, the area impenetrable for divinities such as garuda, sEsha and rudra.

However, Sri vyAsanakere writes in his work on HKAS that vAyu has pravEsha/sannidhAna alongwith Lord in the sphere of a soul / svarUpa dEha. I am not aware of any other works which oppose Sri Sankarshana Odeyaru’s view point, who says that the names – mAtArishwa, vAyu, Brahma etc., in the HKAS slOkas and the pramanas, are not the vAyu padasta jeevas but paramAthma himself bearing these names controls from within the svarUpa dEha, while vyAsanakere takes the names literally and ascribe capability of penetration in svarUpa dEha to vAyu, the jeevi.

Don’t know what Acharya says on this.Could anyone point me to source to refer to know the exact truth? My hunch is that if vAyu has a pravEsha in our svarUpa dEha then that sannidhAna, if continued unaltered, even after liberation of a jeeva, will put a burden on the very name – vishnu, the all pervasive. Definitely, vAyu is not in the same league of vishnu.

Sri Sankarshana Odeyaru has written exhaustively on this topic which I somehow referred hastily, due to confusion arising out of referring Sri vyAsanakere’s work.There are pramAnAs that he quoted as gleaned from Acharya’s works [viz., bhAshya on BrUp etc.,], to prove that Vishnu alone indwells in the svarUpa dEha of a jIvi in which there is no pravEsha for others. I shall refer the avlbl source and collect my thoughts and come back if necessary.

KT: At the very outset, would like to point out this. The printed version of Sri Odeyaru's commentary is apparently from the notes of some disciples of Sri Odeyaru and so not very authentic. Thus it has some errors. One such is about Vayu Pravesha in Svarupa deha. Thus the commentaries have to be verified against Acharya's works and the the Tikas and classical Tippanis on them.

In fact, The Mula of Sri HKAS itself tells that Vayu Pravesha is there. The printed version of Odeyaru's commentary does a lot of gymnastics to explain that to say that there is no Vayu Pravesha.

The logic that was employed by printed version of Sri Odeyaru's commentary to say that there is no pravesha for Vayu, has many flaws.

For ex, "muktAnAmapi sarveShAm viShnureva niyAmakaH" (Only Vishnu is niyAmaka for liberated souls).

The logic goes on to say that here others like Brahma and Vayu are excluded and so there is no pravesha for Brahma and Vayu in SvarUpadeha. The thing to note is that here the niyAmakatva (which comes from svAtantrya guNa) is there only with Sri Hari. This is not about Pravesha into SvarUpadeha - but niyamana of svarUpadeha.

Further the commentary starts with the explanation that there is scope for confusion -

"OMdu rItyA nODidare brahma vAyu devaru ubhayarU svarUpadalli iddaMte Agatade.

OMdu rItyA nODidare brahma vAyugaLu svarUpadalli illa eMta Agatade.

"(If we see in one way, both Brahma and Vayu are in svarUpa deha. If we see in one way, both Brahma and Vayu are not in svarUpa deha.). Then it is mentioned that the confusion will be removed, but in the process, only more confusion is added.

In that commentary itself some pramanas are given from Nyaya vivaraNa, Pavamana samhita and Prakasha samhita. Yet a lot of effort is made to alternately interpret those pramanas.

Sri Prabhanjanacharya gave those pramanas and a couple more as well in his HKAS, as mentioned by Sri Sukumar.

Since Sri Sukumar already noted those, I won't reproduce the Pramana verse/texts/hymns, etc, but just mention them.

Gharmasukta from Rugveda, Sri Narahari tirtha virachita Bhagavata tAtaparya dIpika, NyayavivaraNa, tAmraparniya NyayavivaraNa TipaaNi, Pavamana samhita and two different locations of Prakasha samhita.

Now quote from Sukumar: "I am not aware of any other works which oppose Sri Sankarshana Odeyaru’s view point, who says that the names – mAtArishwa, vAyu, Brahma etc., in the HKAS slOkas and the pramanas, are not the vAyu padasta jeevas but paramAthma himself bearing these names controls from within the svarUpa dEha, while vyAsanakere takes the names literally and ascribe capability of penetration in svarUpa dEha to vAyu, the jeevi."

Now the question is - Should these shabdas in these pramanas be taken as Vayu para or Vishnupara?

If taken as Vayu para, are these going to conflict with any other niravakasha pramanas? No. So, there is no need to make these as Vishnupara. Further Shri tAmraparNiya NyayavivaraNa says -

"bhagavasannidhigatena mukhyaprANena jIvasthitena...". This is explicitly attributing to MukhyapraNa and by saying bhagavatsannidhigatenaa, it is explicitly saying that these shabdas are Vayu para only.

Now if we take HKAS verse -

"garuDa sheSha bhavAdi nAmava

dharisi pavana svarUpa dehadi

karaNa niyAmakanu tAnAgippa hari yaMte

sarasijAsana vANi bhArati

bharatariMdoDagUDi liMgadi

irutiharu mikkAditEyarigillavA sthAna |"

This gives clinching argument. "In svarUpadeha, Pavana stays as karaNa niyAmaka like Sri Hari". By saying "like Sri Hari", it is conclusive that these term Pavana is not for Sri Hari.

The printed Odeyaru's commentary takes "Pavana svarUpa dehadi" to mean SvarUpa deha of Pavana. It does not make sense to talk about Svarupadeha of Pavana, when the context is for any svarUpa deha. Further "hari yaMte" becomes futile.

Further the term "mikkAditEyarigillavA sthAna" (The other gods do not have that status). This expression is meaningful only for Brahma, Vayu, Vani and Bharati from the context also, but not for Sri Hari.

Also, one must note that the terms "Brahma" and "Vayu" refer to padavis. Thus when abhimAnitva is given, the jivas in these padavis do svarUpa pravesha. When it comes to Brahma, if Jivas go to mokSha along with Brahma, then Brahma continues in svarupa dehas of all those jivas that are associated with that Brahma. If Brahma goes to mokSha and the jivas are still in samsAra, then Brahma will come out of svarupa deha of thoe jivas and next Brahma and Vayu have pravesha in svarUpa deha.

In case of anAdi liMga deha, befor coming into sRijya state, only Sri Hari and Lakshmi are there.

As far as Lakshmi is concerned, one must be aware that Lakshmi has "deshataH and kAlataH" same pervasion as Sri Hari (hence she is called samana). So, she is there wherever Sri Hari is. She is nitya aviyogini.

Now quote from Sukumar: My hunch is that if vAyu has a pravEsha in our svarUpa dEha then that sannidhAna, if continued unaltered, even after liberation of a jeeva, will put a burden on the very name – vishnu, the all pervasive. Definitely, vAyu is not in the same league of vishnu.

KT: I don't understand what really the objection is. Just because Lakshmi and Vayu are there in SvarUpa deha, and Brahma continuing even in Moksha, why will that make Vayu in the same league as Vishnu? Even in Svarupadeha, Vayu is worshipping Sri Hari. This in fact stresses all supremacy of Vishnu further. As a svatantra being, He gives this special privilege of worshipping Him to LakShmi and Vayu that too as per their yogyata - LakShmi having crores of times higher privilege than Vayu and also anAdi and anaMta for Lakshmi (kOTi gunadim adhikalu Ramaa. anaMtagunadiM adhika Sri Hari). For Vayu and Brahma, this svarUpa deha pravesha has a beginning (sAdi). It is 'sAmta" or not as appropriate.

APAROXA

ಕೆಲವರಿಗೆ ಕೆಲವೊಂದು ಸ್ಥಳಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ದೇವರು ಓಡಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ದೃಶ್ಯಗಳು ಕಾಣುತ್ತವೆ. ಅದು ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಅಥವಾ ಬಾಹ್ಯ ಅಪರೋಕ್ಷ (?) ಆ ದೃಶ್ಯಗಳು ಪ್ರಾಕೃತ ಇಂದ್ರೀಯಗಳಿಂದ ಮೂಡಿಬಂದಿರುತ್ತವೆ. ಹಾಗಾದರೆ ಅದನ್ನು ಅಪರೋಕ್ಷ ಎಂದು ಏಕೆ ಕರೆಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಅಪರೋಕ್ಷಿಯು ಮುಕ್ತಿ ಯೋಗ್ಯ ಜೀವ ಎಂದು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಬಹುದೇ?

kelavarige kelavoMdu sthaLagaLalli dEvaru ODADuttiruva dRuSyagaLu kANuttave. adu sAmAnya athavA bAhya aparOkSha (?) A dRuSyagaLu prAkRuta iMdrIyagaLiMda mUDibaMdiruttave. hAgAdare adannu aparOkSha eMdu Eke kareyuttAre. sAmAnya aparOkShiyu mukti yOgya jIva eMdu parigaNisabahudE?

KT: There is hrudaya for sthUla deha. Sushumna nAdi goes thru that and in the middle of that nAdi and in that hrudaya, prakAshAtmaka ashTa daLa kamala (not visible to naked eye) is there. At the base of that, Mulesha (who is of the size of thumb's upper part) is there, At the lotus feet of Mulesha, Mukhya prANa vAyu is there. At the lotus feet of this Vayu devaru, Jiva is present along with Linga and Aniruddha sharIra. In this Ashta daLa kamala,two more Lord's forms are there - one is called Agresha (the size of full thumb and is known as Bimba or mukhya bimba) and the other called prAdeSha (the size of stretched thumb to little finger size). In side the Jiva again, Mulesha, Agresha and prAdesha forms of the Lord are there, which are Jiva's upper part of thumb size, Jiva's thumb size and Jiva's thumb to little finger stretched size. In the petals of the kamala, the other taatvika devatas are present (as mentioned earlier, all this is chidvyaapti or prakaasha vyaapti of those devatas.)

Broadly all these are referred as Bimbas. However the mukhya bimba is the Agresha inside the Jiva, which is Jivaakaara. This saakShaatkaara is called aparokSha.

For ordinary Jivas, when aparokSha happens, they see the images of these Murthys both in sthUla deha and in svarUpa deha. That will be like a flash and as per the yogyata of the Jiva.

For saamaanya aparokshins, they have the vision of praadesha and Mulesha, but not Agresha. As they start doing sAdhana, even before attaining vishesha aparokSha, they start having darshana of Agresha hazily like thru cloud. It starts getting clearer and when Vishesha aparokSha happens, they see it clearly as if without clouds.

Yes, even with jnaana chakShu, the image is prakruta only, even though the lord is aprAkruta. So, all sAdhakas worship this prAkruta image itself, but with the awareness that the Lord is aprAkruta only. It is similar to avataaras of the Lord. Even when the Lord takes avataaras, He is aprAkruta only, but all people see Him, because He willed so. That is because of the "achinya adbhuta shakti" of the Lord.

Though sAdhakaas do upAsana of this prAkuta image only, the Lord is so karuNaamaya that He yields the results as if the saadhakas are doing upaasana of the apraakruta image of the Lord. With jaDa indriyas or even with jnaana chakShu, when an image is formed, that image is prAkruta only - just reiterating. The saadhakas can't help that. Once again such is the grace of the lord that He yields the due result even though the Jivas have that shortcoming.

DEHA

24 tattvas like manas, dashendriya, pancha tanmatra, panchabhuta all contribute to formation of the gross body. Why do we then call the gross body as paanchabhautika deha instead of chaturvimshati taatvika deha..

MT: First of all it is NOT tAttvika deha -- inside the brahmanda every single deha is made of panchabhuta ONLY with varying ratio through panchikarana To give a crude example, though all of us are "born" from Chaturmukha Brahma, we don't call ourselves as "brahma putras" simply because it is NOT a direct cause. Same way, though the 24 tattvas are mula kArana for this deha, we don't call it that way.

KT: This is about the original question of the thread. Firstly we have to first analyze the topic finalize the answer then come up with examples. This is a safe approach as then only the examples will also be appropriate as what was shown by Sri Jagannatha dAsaru in Sri HarikathamritasAra. Please note that we are not comparing ourselves to those great ones. I am only stressing on the approach. Here I see a reverse approach that - first resorting to the examples and then trying to arrive at the conclusion. There are two issues with this. Firstly this is not a right approach. Secondly, if the examples are wrong, we may end up with wrong conclusions also. For example,here the question was why the body is not called chaturvimshAti tAtvika deha, but rather called pAnchabhautika deha? So, the question pertains to upAdAna kAraNa, but not nimitta kAraNa. Both the examples of Brahma putra and pot maker pertain to nimitta kAraNa. Also, there is no mention of direct and indirect kAraNas here.

If you see the 24 tatvas, you can notice three things -

1. The 5 jnAnendriyas will function (as appropriate) only when the Jiva is there insdie (of course, its mUla is MukhyaprANa and its mUla is ParamAtma).

2. Same with the 5 karmendiyas

3. PanchatanmAtras as viShayas for the 5 jnAnendriyas also become relevant only when the jIva is inside,

4. The manastatva, AhankAra tatva and Mahatva and Avyaktatatva work thru the jIva (of course the tatvas do many roles, but we are seeing what is relevant here).

So, the panchabhUtas are there even after the jIva leaves the body.

Then the second thing you can notice is that among these tatvas, you can notice the categories like sthUla, sthUlatara and sthUlatama and sUkShma, sUkShmatara and sUkShmatama. So, all types of sthUla will be considered in upAdAnatva. Then it may be fine to consider sUkShma. Why take into account sUkShmatara or sUkShmatama?

Then we are talking about the upAdAnatva. So, tatvas are a more broad term. Though the panchabhUtas are part of the 24 tatvas, we don't call the body as pAnchatAtvika deha either. the bhUtas are the elements or constituting ingredients. So pAnchabhautika deha is the right term.

So, even if others are present, we are calling the body pAnchabhautika and we have to think of only upAdAna kAraNas while giving examples. Suppose we build walls. Then inside the walls, we also keep electric wiring. But when one asks what the walls are made with, we list like bricks, concrete, etc. We don't say electric wires even if they are present there.

The 24 tatvas are listed as a global list. One may see different ways of listing in different places. Note that Mahattatva is made up of Prakrutika satva, rajas, and tamo guNas. That means in SukShma form, the pancha bhUtas are there in Mahttatva also. However for these sukShma form, the sthUla Pancha Bhuta tatva abhimAni devatas are not abhimAnis.

Brahma has Mahattatva as sharIra and also PAnchabhautika sharIra.

With Mahattatva as the sharIra, for Chaturmukha Brahma, Pancha Bhutas are there in sUkshma form without sthUla pancha bhUta tatvAbhimAni devatas.

Within BrhmANda, with PAnchbhautika sharIra, the sthUla Pancha bhUta tatvAbhimAni devatas are there, obeying the commands of Brahma.

Aniruddha sharIra also has Pancha bhutas and panch tanmAtras. If anAdi linga deha itself is PAncha Bhautika, why not Aniruddha sharIra also PAncha Bhautika? Note that when AbhimAnitva to Pancha Bhutas is given to certain devatas in Padma SrushTi, that is for SthUla Pancha Bhutas only. What does that mean? If one posits "since Panch Bhutas are present in AnAdi Linga sharIra and also Aniruddha sharIra (and also Mahattatva), these sthUla Pancha bhUta tatva AbhimAni devatas will also have abhimAnitva for the Pancha Bhutas in Linga sharIra, Aniruddha sharIra and Mahattatva", That is not true. They have abhimAnitva for the Pancha Bhutas in sthUla sharIras and also in PrakRuti, but not in Linga sharIra, etc.

'For Brahma devaru even the buddi ahankara manas, dasha indriyas tanmatras etc etc are all made up of maha tatwa only' for Mahattatva sharIra. For the PAncha Bhautika sharIra, all these will be there along with sthUla element tatva abhimAni devatas, but they will be conducting the abhimAnitva by obeying the commands of Brahma. Why indeed, even in all our sharIras, all these tatva abhimAni devatas, will obey the commands as per the hierarchy.

Pancha Bhutas are grosser. That is why, I used the word "SthUla Pancha Bhutas". SthUla means gross. Even among Pancha Bhutas, Vayu is grosser than AkAsha, Tejas is grosser than Vayu (and AkAsha), etc and Prithvi is grosser than the rest of Bhutas.

Mahattatva is the first element created, from which AhankAra tatva is created and so on. From AhankAra tatva, VaikArika, Taijasa and tAmasa ahankAras are created. From the Pancha Bhutas that are there in SukShma for in Mahattatva and so in AhankAra tatva gives scope for creating the grosser Panch Bhutas from tAmasa AhankAra.

Panch Bhutas are created 'paramparayA' from Mula Prakruti (From Mula Parkruti, the piles of Satva, Rajas and Tamasr are taken by the Lord), and first Mahattatva is created from these piles. From Mahattatva, ahankAra tatva is created. From there thru TAmasa ahankAra, Panch Bhutas are created and so on.

Yes, I agree to u sir, but how come pancha bhotas present in anirudda and linga shareera, when they themselves are grosser ?

I Have read some where that Anirudda has upto elements upto ahankaara tatwa and only from lord upto Rudra can have vyaapti upto anirudda deha....

KT: Can you tell where you read that Aniruddha has 'elements upto ahankAra tatva' and what does it mean by upto ahankAratatva.

Upto Rudra having vyApti is a different thing. You are getting confused between vyApti, abhimAnitva and sUkShma(subtle) form and sthUla(gross) form.

Sir, what ever may be....but how can grosser term present in linga deha and anirudda deha, more ever linga deha is not the part of moola prakruti, eventhough it is jada...Some where in the HKMS, it is mentioned that Rudraadi abode is anirudda deha....does the pancha bhootas exist in subtle form also ? Okay, finally panchabhootas are there in oher forms such as mahatatwa..if that was so, than why they have (24 elements) to be mentioned in increasing order of visibility ?

KT: Have you heard about sixteen Kalas of Linga deha? Do you know what those 16 kalas are? "kalaashcha panch bhUtAni jnAnakarmendriyAni cha | pancha pancha manashcheti shODashiktA maharShibhiH".

Pot is made from mud. Then why do you mention pot? Just call the pot also as mud. One must be aware of kArya kAraNa bheda. Mahattatva is made from 3 guNas. AhankAra tatva is made from Mahattatva and so on.

The paper is made from pulp. The note book is made from paper. Why do you call notebook? Just call every thing as pulp. Or you can go to the forms earlier than pulp.

Sir, I understood sir, mahatatwa is of cource made from trigunas and ahankaara tatwa from mahatatwa and finally we see pancha bhootani....Okay, that means Mahatatwa being the first elements of creation, can it be right in saying panchabhootani in maha tatwa or the other way round as Mahatatwa is also present in pancha bhootani ? Sir, kindly explain whether the linga deha is other than moola prakruti ( avyavruta aakasha, kaala etc etc ) or is it also derived from moola prakruti...Are these 16 kalas including these items like indriyas panchabhotaani etc etc are derived from moola prakruthi only for linga deha....is it so ? Why not pancha tanmaatras not present in linga deha eventhough pancha bhootaani dervied after pancha tanmaatras ?

KT: Is pot in the mud or mud in the pot? One can easily see that mud is in the pot. But one has to imagine that

the potential of making pot is there in the mud. That is the qualities for making pot are there in the mud. When a pot maker sees the mud, he imagines how a pot can come out of it.

Yes sir, so mahatatwa ( example as mud) must be there in pancha bhootaani ( Example as pot )

KT:: yes, mahattatva is there in pancha bhUtas.

But it had been mentioned that pancha bhootaas are there in mahatatwa too....

Also, if pancha bhootas are there in anirudda and linga deha, than how can they be indriya drigochara ?

KT: ShravaNa has to be followed by manana. If shravaNa alone is done without manana, then there will never be end to questions. Every answer will lead to ever expanding set of questions.

Sir, you had solved my previous doubts regarding amsha avathaara vyppati etc etc...so I hope that you will clear these too

KT: The simple answer lies in the varying degrees of subtlety and grossness and varying capabilities of indriyas and drik of various devatas.

Let me list the doubts....1. Mahatatwa shareera of Brahma contains indriyas jnaanendriyas manas etc etc. Isnt it ? If that is so, than why the order are mentioned as increasing order of visibility ? If the pancha bhootas are there in mahatatwa, than how can we coin them ? Because pancha bhootas are themselves very grosser form when compared to mahatatwa

2. If panchabhootaani are present in linga and Anirudda dehas than why they cant be seen through naked eyes ?

3. linga deha is it a seperate jada apart from moola prakruti ?

4. Why not pancha tanmaatras not there in 16 kalas, when they come before pancha bhootaani ?

KT: There is difference between reading and applying - for ex my earlier post, which you already read also has -

Quote:

atIndriya is beyond the reach of prAkruta indriyas. Immediately a consequenct question arises. PrAkruta indriyas of whom? Similarly another approach is atIndriya is beyond pratyaksha. Immediately a consequenct question arises. PratyakSha of whom?

Thus atIndriya becomes a subjective term. Also it is contextual.

For ex, when we hear svarga is atIndriya, the assumption is that the ordinary humans are meant here.If we make a global definition - "if an entity is not indiyagochara for even MukhyaprANa and Brahma, then it is atIndriya" - then that is global definition. This is prakruta indriyas of all the observers. That means in global case, when a particular entity is beyond the prAkRuta indriyas of humans, one should not jump into the conclusion that it is atIndriya(in gobal sense). It can be gochara to prAkruta indriyas of gods.

unquote.

The grosser pancha bhUtas are not there in Mahattatva. Only the subtle form of Pancha bhUtas are in Mahattatva. I have been telling this in this thread itself.

Yes, sir....I was telling with respect to our vision ( indriya driggochara with respect to us and I have not mentioned atindriya in general ) ....The term pancha bhootaani is itself mentioned for grosser form only, when it becomes subtle can we call them as pancha bhootaani ? Will not it be in other form ?

KT: No, not some other name - it should be Pancha bhUtAni with the understanding that they are 'sUkShma pancha bhUtAni'. If it is wrt us, we can not see "sUkShma pancha bhUtAni".

Understood, that means even though the panchabhootani is not there actually in mahatatwa, that potence to form pancha bhootaani will be there in mahatatwa....which means it has refereed to potential only..right ?

By the way, there will be jiva in the seed and not the jiva with subtle body of tree.....the body is obtained only when it shoots out....so one can say that there is potential to form tree ( power/ability)

KT: I would suggest Bhagavata 3rd skandha 11th adhyAya. There creation of Mahattatva and consequent entities like ahankAra tatva and pancha bhUtas are explained.

just because the bhuuta-suxmas are included in the process of creation of mahat-tattva, does it make Sri Chaturmukha's shariira 'panchabhautika'? I mean, if there is some reference, some vachana somewhere wherein Sri C.Brahma's deha is said to be paancha-bhautika, then we can resort to this idea of bhUta-sUxmas existing in his body. anyathA, why resort to that in the first place?

We accept that 'asAdhAraNyena vyapadeshA bhavanti' .. Things are named based on their non-common qualities. The example generally given is where a yogi living on water /air is called 'abbhaksha' or 'vaayu-bhaksha'. While we normal people also live on water and air, we are not referred as 'ab-bhaksha' or 'vAyu-bhaksha', and only a yogi is so referred (vyapadesha) because he lives ONLY on that.

Similarly, when our deha is said to be paancha-bhautika and brahmadeva's deha is said to be made of mahat-tattva, it is because of same asAdhAraNa dharma of the respective dehas. So unless there is some reference in some sadAgama, there is no need to bring the idea of bhUta-sUxmas existing in mahattattva.

In simple words, is there any reference in sadaagama where Brahmadevara deha (other than virAD rUpa) is said to be paancha-bhautika?

KT: Certainly there are references that C Brahma has Panchabhautika deha. Before coming to that, let us take your examples. Just as you mentioned, "abbhakSha" means one who lives only on water. If some one takes only water on one day and food and water on another, then also we dont call that one as "abbhakSha". Similarly "aparNa" is one who did not eat "even" leaf. If someone eats other things, but not leaf, we still do not call that person as "aparNa". So, all these examples have specific purpose and application.

Now coming to C Brahma, we have known that "ajnAnam cha chaturvAram dvivAram bhayameva cha". Atleast this suggests that he had taken PAnchabhautika deha. Also, when he was born in Nabhikamala, which body did he have? It must be PAnchabhautika deha.

Now coming to specific vachana pramANas, the references are given in MadhvasiddhAntasAra.

"samsAritva lakShaNamapi 'bhUtabandhastu samsAro muktiH tebhyo vimochanam' iti brahmAdi jIvasAdhAraNam | sarvam panchabhirArabdham bhUtairIshvara buddhijairiti bhAShyokteH | nanu sattva-sattva-mahAsattva-sUkShmasattvaschaturmukhaH iti gItAtAtparye chaturmukha-sharIrasya, shuddha sAttvikatvokteH pAnchabhautikatva abhAvAt brahmavAyvoravyAptamiti chenna |

panchbhUta samUhena jAtaH pUruSha uchyate | bahutvAttatra bhUtAnAm tAvatvAt tatvamekajamiti dvitIyatAtparye puruShAkhya brahmasharIrasya pAnchabhautikatvokteH | ...

nanu evam brahmANDAdbahiH vidyamanayoH mahattatvAbhimAninoH avyAptiH | taddehasya panchbhUtotpatteH prAgeva mahattatvAjjAtatvAditi chenna |"

"samsAritva lakShaNa itself is like this - 'bhUtabandha itself is samsAra. Mukti is liberation from those chains'. This is common to all Jivas upto C. Brahma. All spring from these five Bhutas, born from Ishvarabuddhi - so says Acharya Bhashya. Using GitA tAtaparya 'Chaturmukha is of sattva-sattva-mahAsattva-sUkShmasattva.' Thus from the words of gItA tAtparya, 'chaturmukha-sharIra is of shuddha sAttvika. PAnchabhautikatva not yet created. So, if one posits that this(PAnchabhautikatva) is not applicable to Brahma and Vayu, then that is not the case.

One, who is born out of Pancha Bhutas, is called PuruSha. Many tatvas are there and even if born of one tatva, based on tAtparya of 2nd skandha, pAnchbhautikatva is stated for PurushAkhya Brahma...

If one posits 'For the ones present outside BrahmANda and abhimAnis of Mahattatva, avyApti/exception need be taken, for those bodies are prior to creation of Panchbhutas and created from mahattatva', then such is not the case. "

All these explicitly prescribe Panchbhautika deha for Chaturmukha Brahma.