[Advaita-l] The liberated souls and Brahmaloka

[S Jayanarayanan]

--- rohit ubhayaker <rohit8ganesh at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> 
> 
> S Jayanarayanan <sjayana at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- rohit ubhayaker wrote:
> 
> [..]
> 
> > Of the four muktis mentioned Saalokya , Saaroopya , Saamipya 
> > and Saayujya , only the fourth indicates Nirguna mukti . The 
> > Puraanas testify to this .
> > 
> 
> I've not been following the discussions on this thread, but the above
> statements are incorrect. In his VivekachUDAmaNi bhAshhya,
> H.H.Chandrashekhara BhAratI says that NONE OF THE FOUR - sAlokya,
> sArUpya, sAmIpya and sAyujya - refer to "mukti in the true sense of
> the
> word". 
> 

[..]

> Applying  this  logic  to  the  four  muktis , having  reached 
> Saayujya , the  previous  three  are no  longer  valid . Not  only 
> this , even  Saayujya can  no  longer  be  classified as  such
> 

There is no logic in what you're saying.

I think you've failed to grasp what HH is trying to say. sAyujya is
simply NOT mukti, as mukti is BEYOND sAyujya also. In other words, in
the advaitic sense, there is sAlokya, sAmIpya, sArUpya, sAyujya, and
"mukti in the true sense of the word".

You've taken a stray verse out of the purANas, where the word "mukti"
is used differently than in philosophical advaitic texts. There is
absolutely no basis for your claim whatsoever. 

> Remember , in  the  Avadhootageetaa , Shri Datta  says "..in  that 
> state  neither  Advaita  nor  dvaita  remains ." This  does  not  in 
> any  way  deny  Advaita .
> 

You've gone to a totally unrelated verse now. The above verse from the
avadhUta gItA is not to be interpreted as denial of the ontological
status of the philosophies at the vyAvahArika level. The denial is only
at the pAramArthika level. 

-Kartik

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com