Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 20 22:43:57 CDT 2012

```Namaste,

Probably your teacher wanted to say that considering several empty pots,  when  the pots are broken the space inside the pots loses the barriers and the seeming separation of the individual spaces disappear. When one considers the pots as permanent then there is likeness to the Visistdvaita. However if one considers the pots as not permanent then the situation is like Avaita. BTW, who was the teacher, in case you have the permission to divulge?

Regards,

Sunil KB

________________________________
From: Sudhakar Kabra <sudhakarkabra at yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:05 PM

Namaste
In our study classes we were given an example on this context.
Consider a heap of beads, Advaita considers the heap as one entity but vishiShTaadvaita consider the bead as individual forming the heap. Essentially it is a viewpoint how you look at it. Basically both are same.
Regards

Sudhakar kabra

Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2012, 9:28 PM

Subbuji - PraNAms.

In the vishiShTaadvaita, the saayujya mukti involves everything what Sri Velukudi Krishnan swami said - except for two factors.
Jiiva is still anupramaanaat - only a part of the total body of Iswara.
While he enjoys all the things mentioned except the creative power of the Iswara. Even though he is tiny he enjoys he infinite happiness that Iswara enjoyes.

In advaita Sujujyam means recognition of oneness - when we say pot space merges with the total space - or ring merges with gold - That is advaitic sayujya. It is an clear understanding that apparent duality is not reality but is mityaa only. That is suyujya in the sense the jiiva had the notion of separateness from jagat and Iswara. That dissolution of the notional division with the recognition of oneness is advaitic saayujya - in the same context that he becomes Brahman - not that he was separate from Brahman before.

As long as one understands this, there should not be a problem since the very name a-dvaita indicates the negation of notional duality that is experienced.

Hari Om!

--- On Tue, 3/20/12, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I just heard Sri Velukudi Krishnan Swami, a noted scholar
> of
> Vishishtadvaita say: 'parama sAmyApatti' is the sAyujya
> mukti according to
> this school.  This involves the jiva going to Vaikuntha
> and attaining all
> the 'attributes' of Vishnu like satyakAmatva,
> satyasamkalpatva, and
> enjoying the bhoga that Vishnu enjoys, along with Him,
> They say: Vishnu 'gives' these jiva-s His own self.'
>

> have any such concept.  We have the total giving up as
> mithyA the jivatvam
> and realizing one's Brahmatvam.  There is no 'sAyujyam'
> in this.  The very
> word 'sAyujya' involves a two-entity pre-requisite where one
> 'joins' the
> other, yet the two entities  remaining in tact.
> In Advaita there is only
> one Reality which is to be realized.  There is no
> joining something/someone
> else.  That forms the core of the sAyujya mukti concept
> and hence is not in
> any way the Advaitic mukti.
>
> subrahmanian.v
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Shyam Subramanian <shyamsub at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Dear Sunilji,
> >
> > I am sure the scholars in the list will be able to
> explain the difference
> > better. Whatever I understood from the bhAshyA and the
> > translations was that the sAlokya,sAmIpya,sArUpya and
> sAyujya all pertain
> > to saguNa brahman - hence sAyujya ("unifying with
> saguNa brahman" ?) cannot
> > be considered to be "brahmAtmanA saMsthitiH".
> >
> > As regards Sayujya mukti let us consider the statement
> in the Ramayana,
> > > which you must  be aware is considered equal
> to Veda (as Ramayana itself
> > > declares). Lord Ram offered Sayujya Mukti to
> Hanuman and on Sayujya mukti
> > > one does not have any individual body left. How
> can then sayujya mukti be
> > > anything other than complete dissolution of
> individuality. Othyer types
> > of
> > > Mukti are not real mukti as it is known that even
> after attaining sarupya
> > > Mukti ravana had to take birth albeit it happened
> due to acurse. That
> > shows
> > > that in all  forms of Mukti other than the
> SayujyaMukti one is vulnerable
> > > to taking birth. With all respects to Sri
> CandraSekhara BhAratI SvAminaH
> > > has anybody ever asked him for such
> clarification?
> > >
> > >
> > Just curious, can you give me the source (kANDa,
> > above statements/incidents in the vAlmIki rAmAyaNa ? I
> couldn't find the
> > word sAyujya mentioned in the rAmAyaNa at all.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Shyam
> >
> _______________________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>
> For assistance, contact:
>
_______________________________________________

To unsubscribe or change your options:

For assistance, contact: