Tag Archives: mukti

Ultimate Mukti Comes from Kṛṣṇa

Question: What is the concept of jīvanmuktas in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism? And how similar or different is it from the concept of Advaitic jīvanmukta?

Answer: Jīvanmukta in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism means one who has attained bhāva-bhakti. In Advaita Vedānta, it means one who has given up the sense of doership and identifies with Brahmaṇ.

Question: How do you interpret the word “jivanmukta” as the attainment of bhāva-bhakti? Please explain the derivation of the meaning as per Gaudīya ācaryas as we know the meaning of the word according to Śankarādvaita.

Answer: The term “jīvanmukti” means liberated while living in the sādhaka body. This meaning of jīvanmukti is the same for Gaudīyas as well as Advaitavādīs.

Mukti means to give up bodily identification and to be situated in our own svarūpamuktir hitvānyathā rūpam sva-rūpea vyavasthiti, SB 2.10.6. Our svarūpa is kṛṣṇa-dāsatvajīvera svarūpa haya kṛṣnera nitya dāsa, CC, Madhya 20.108. The jīva is a servant of Hari and never of anyone else—dāsa-bhūto harer eva na anyasya kadācan, PP 226.37.

We become situated in our svarūpa when we have attained bhāva-bhakti or have gotten our sthāyi-bhāva.

Question: Can a devotee fall from bhāva-bhakti, sthāyi-bhāva, or jīvanmukti due to aparādha, as Śrī Jīva seems to say in the a Sandarbhas?

Answer: Yes, it is theoretically possible. It is also stated by Rūpa Gosvāmī in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu that one can lose bhāva as a result of one’s offense to a dear devotee of Kṛṣṇa (bhāvo’pi abhāvam ayati kṛṣṇa preṣṭha aparādhataḥ, BRS 1.3.54, Eastern Division).

*

Question: Once one gets any of the five types of mukti in one of the Vaikuṇṭha planets, is there is a chance to attain vraja-bhakti? Perhaps this never happens? To ask the question differently, having received one of these muktis, does one remain permanently there, or can one advance according to Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism?

If so, then how does a soul who attained sayujya-mukti get the chance to associate with vrajarasikas to develop a taste for vraja-bhakti?

Similarly, in Vaikuṇṭha I imagine that everybody is in sānta-rasa and a few are in dāsya-rasa. So how does one get the chance to develop sākhya, vātsalya or the rarest and most precious mādhurya-rasa?

Answer: All types of mukti are eternal destinations. Once someone gets it, then there is no change after that. The person who attains a particular type of mukti is not interested in any other type of mukti. He worked for that mukti and desired it.  Such a person will go to a destination where there will be other people of the same mood. They will enhance each other’s mood by their association. They would not be interested in any other mukti, even if they come to know about it or already know it.

*

Question: Can Lord Śiva, goddess Tulasī, and goddess Gaṅgā grant liberation as stated in Brahma Vaivarta Purāṇa? The following are some instances in scriptures regarding Lord Śiva: Once upon a time, Lord Śiva did severe penance for the period of one year, to worship Lord Viṣṇu. Lord Śiva then obtained the vision of Lord Viṣṇu and asked for the boon to obtain the power to give mukti (liberation) to others. Thus Lord Śiva became Muktidātā (giver of liberation or mokṣa). This incident is mentioned in Padma Purāṇa, Uttara-khaṇḍa, chapter 2.16 as follows:

Lord Śiva says to Nārada Muni: tava prasadād deveśa muktidātā bhavamy aham, “By the mercy of Lord Viṣṇu, I became capable of giving mukti to others.”

This incident is also mentioned in Skanda Purāṇa, Bhāgavata Māhātmya, chapter 3.39–42. Stated as follows:

Lord Rudra said: “O lord of Devas, O my Lord, I have ample power in the case of the annihilation of nitya (daily), naimmitika (occasional) and prākṛta (pertaining to prakṛti) types. But I do not have any power in regard to ātyantika(ultimate) annihilation (liberation or mokṣa). On account of this, I am very unhappy, therefore, I request you.”

Śrī Bṛhaspati said: “Lord Narayana then imparted Śrīmad Bhāgavatam to Lord Rudra. By resorting to it, he conquered the tamo guṇa. The story of the Bhāgavatam was then read by Lord Śiva for a period of one year. Thereafter Lord Sadāśiva obtained the power to manage the ultimate annihilation (ātyantika) (mokṣa) as well.”

However, according to Gītā, the giver of mokṣa is only lord Krṣṇa or Viṣṇu.  What then do these stories indicate?

Answer: You yourself have cited the statement of Lord Śiva to Narada, in which he says that he is capable of giving mukti to others by the grace of Lord Viṣṇu. So it is clear from this statement that it is Viṣṇu who is the giver of mukti and by His grace, Śiva can also give. So he is not independent in giving mukti. Nobody is independent of Viṣṇu or Kṛṣṇa. If anyone has any power, it ultimately comes from Krṣṇa.

Sayujya-mukti and Bliss in Brahman

Question: This question is regarding sayujya-mukti, where there is no personal relationship with the Lord. If a living entity attains this mukti (after practice), then does he eternally remain in that liberated state or does he fall back to the material sphere due to lack of love for the Personality of Godhead? According to my understanding, if he has attained mukti (any of the five types), then it means that he is liberated for good; there is no chance of again coming into the material realm.

Answer: Yes, your understanding is correct. Mukti means permanent freedom from bondage. Such a person has no karma, so what kind of body would he get if he were to come back? The material body is a product of past karma. If he came back, when would this happen? How much time would have to pass? How then is mukti different from going to heaven? All these questions arise. So he does not come back.

Question: But one objection is that since the natural state of every jiva is to serve Krishna (jivera svarupa haya krsnera nitya-dasa), how is it that the jiva can stay contented in the state of sayujya-mukti since there is no conception of serving the Lord in that state of existence.

Answer: Just being within His effulgence is service. Just as if you decorate the temple with a flower, then the flower is doing service. So being within brahmajyoti is service, and there is no difference between Krsna and Brahman – vadanti tat tattva-vidah.

Or you can understand that his svarupa has the potential to do seva, but he is not doing seva. Just as if you have a servant and he is sleeping, so you do not say that he is not a servant because he is not doing seva. Although he is sleeping, his identity is still that of a servant. So svarupa is the potential, and that potential may be active or inactive. In our conditioned state also, we do not serve, yet our svarupa is dasa.

Question: You said, “The servant is sleeping”. He is allowed to sleep eternally?

Answer: Please understand that an example is given to make something understandable. It should not be taken literally. Sayujya mukti is eternal but it is not sleeping. It is like sleeping. Just as in deep sleep one feels nothing external and remains absorbed in one’s own self and feels happy, in sayujya mukti one feels inner bliss.

Mukti means freedom from both the subtle and the gross body. It is of two types, personal and impersonal. In personal mukti, a mukta gets a spiritual body in Vaikuntha. In impersonal mukti, a mukta has no body – material or spiritual. In sleep one is still bound with material bodies – subtle and gross.

Question: CC Madya 8.257 seems to say that after merging in Brahman one gets a sthāvara-deha.

Answer: That is not true. Read the payar carefully. It says yaiche (= just as). It is like getting sthavara deha, not actually getting it. So the correct meaning is that one will be situated (avasthiti) just like (yaiche) in a sthavara deha. It means one is without any external consciousness, which is the same example I gave – like sleeping.

Question: Then what is the meaning of the second part of that line; someone desiring bhukti gets the body ‘just as/ like’ a demigod. Dimmock actually has instead of bhukti –->  bhakti: ‘Those who desire bhakti are ultimately perfected’, the body of a deva then means Vaikuntha, not going to the heavenly planets. Both bhukti and bhakti are possible. But this ‘just like/as’ is puzzling in regards to this deva-deha.

Answer: What is puzzling in this? Such people go to heaven and get suitable bodies similar to devas, the residents of heaven.

Question: Why similar to a deva? One gets a body *as* a demigod. To put your words as you phrased them for the sayujya mukta, but then for the bhogi it says yaiche = just as. It is like getting a deva deha , not actually getting it. So the correct meaning is that one will be situated (avasthiti) just like (yaiche) in a deva deha?

Answer:  Going to heaven does not mean one becomes a deva. Not everybody is a deva in heaven. So one gets a body similar to devas. What is the difficulty in understanding that?

Question: Caitanya-candrāmṛta (5) describes this merging into Brahman as hell (kaivalyaṁ narakāyate).  One is in some type of hell for eternity.

Answer: That is also not true. Please read carefully. It is hell for a devotee, not for the one who is in it. He wanted it. He got it. He is happy with it. But devotees consider it worse than hell, not even hell. Why? Because there is no bliss of doing seva in such a mukti. There is only brahmananada but no bhaktyananada or premananda. A devotee is not interested in brahmananda, so he considers it as hell or even worse than hell. There is a chance to come out of hell and be a devotee. But from brahma-sayujya there is no such possibility to come out. Thus a devotee considers it as worse than hell.

Question: You write, ‘no possibility to come out of brahma-sayujya’. There one is forever in some state of bliss– how is that possible, the soul wants ananda : ‘Variety is the mother of enjoyment/ the spice of life’. How can the soul be happy in homogeneousness?

Sanatana Gosvami in Brhad Bhagavatamrta 2.2.215 and commentary, describes the happiness in the brahmajyoti as plain, monotonous, undeveloped and so vague as to be virtually nonexistent. Here is the verse:

paraṁ samādhau sukham ekam asphuṭaṁ
vṛtter abhāvān manaso na cātatam
vṛttau sphurad vastu tad eva bhāsate
’dhikaṁ yathaiva sphaṭikācale mahaḥ

“The happiness felt in impersonal samādhi is plain, isolated, vague, and limited because in that samādhi the functions of the mind have ceased. But when the object of meditation appears in the active mind, that object is more vividly manifest, like sunlight reflected on a crystal mountain.”

COMMENTARY:

Thus if in impersonal samādhi any happiness is tasted, that happiness must be monotonous and undeveloped, so vague as to be virtually nonexistent.

Answer: Vague means indescribable. The word used is aspastam. It is so because in this state of samadhi there is no variety, no distinction of subject and object. It is monotonous but not non-existent. There are no manasic vrittis and thus no variety.

I gave the example of deep sleep. When you wake up from deep sleep, you can only say, “I slept happily”. If someone asks, “Can you describe your happiness?” there is nothing you can say. But happiness in Vaikuntha has variety and something can be said about it. So vague means no words to describe it.

As for “virtually non-existent” – I doubt that Sanatana Gosvami says it in the commentary. Please check the Sanskrit.

Question:  This ‘virtually nonexistent’ is a translation of ISKCON BBT. But then Bhakti rasamrta sindhu 1.1.38 says bliss of brahmananda accumulated by samadhi lasting for half of Brahma’s life cannot compare to a drop of the ocean of bhakti. How can one be eternally happy with that if there is something superior?

Answer: First try to understand what it means to have brahma-sayujya mukti. There is no mind, no intelligence, no body – physical or material. Thus there is no way to think or discriminate in this state. This is what Sanatana Gosvami is saying in the verse cited above. It is just like the state of deep sleep or going into coma. One can remain in coma for years. Like that one can be in brahma-sayujya forever. You can come out of deep sleep because you have a material body. But in brahma-sayujya there is no body – material or spiritual, so there is no possibility of coming out of it. Again, the only example I can give is that of deep sleep.

Question: Also 1.1.39 and 40 say brahmananda is as insignificant as water in the hoof print of a cow / as insignificant as grass, and Sri Jiva Gosvami comments that there are plenty of such statements. How did these souls get in that position of Brahman? It is an unlimited area of effulgence.

Answer: That is anadi, without a beginning. Just as there are unlimited jivas in the material world. How did they get here? It is all anadi.

Question: Did they get elevated / promoted from the earth planet or are they are eternally in it? Why put on such low happiness for eternity?

Answer: One can also go from here to brahma-jyoti. That is matter of personal choice. Why do some people commit suicide? It does not make sense to a normal person, but when one is frustrated, one choses to kill oneself. Similarly, some people decide to have brahmananada, being frustrated with material suffering and ignorant of the bliss of bhakti.

Question: Some souls are eternally designated for Vaikuntha, some for brahma-yjoti (from which they can never ever get out?), some are in the dungeon of Durga. And there is nothing these jivas did to deserve these states, while all the positions in the material world—naraka, bhauma, svarga– are due to papa, punya- something one did to get that.

Answer: Those who are in Vaikuntha are happy. Those in brahma-jyoti are also happy, brahmananada. Those in the material world are given the chance to be happy. Bhagavan comes here to teach us. You may object that those in brahma-jyoti are not enjoying. But they are also not suffering. Moreover, they do not make this comparison between them and bhaktas that you make.

Neither any jiva nor Bhagavan have done anything for a jiva to be in Vaikuntha, in brahma-jyoti or in the material world. So neither any jiva nor Bhagavan is to be blamed or praised for it. Some things are just the way they are. They are beyond logic (acintya). Only shastra is pramana, and nothing else.

 

The Essence of Philosophy

Question:  I heard that Sukadeva Gosvami was in his last life the parrot of Krishna, and in this life first he was a Brahman-realized person. How to understand this, if he’s an eternal associate of the Lord? Is this lila?

Answer: Try to understand the essence of the philosophy. These stories are there to explain the philosophy, but by themselves they have no meaning. Whether Sukadeva Gosvami  really existed or not, that itself has no meaning. The point is what is being explained, e.g. dharmah projjhita-kaitavah (to reject all materially motivated or cheating religion).

Bhakti can’t be performed unless one becomes free from the cheating propensity. And one of the greatest cheating propensities is the desire for liberation. Unless one becomes free from the desire for liberation completely, one will not perform bhakti. Because mukti and bhakti are completely antagonistic to each other.  One who wants to attain mukti, has no interest in bhakti, because mukti means, „anything else is useless, renounce everything, let the whole world burn to ashes, I don’t care“. One is interested only in one’s own selfishness. So that has to be absolutely removed.

The story of Sukadeva Gosvami is explained for this purpose only. Sukadeva was self-realized from his very birth, nobody can be more realized than him. He was so realized that he didn’t know the difference between male and female. He was completely absorbed in Brahman. But after the same person heard one sloka of Srimad Bhagavatam, he returned to study from his father. He studied the whole Bhagavatam and Vyasadeva taught him.

That means, bhakti is superior to mukti. Sukadeva Gosvami  Mukti  was such a great, highly renounced person, but he renounced even that mukti and became a follower of bhakti-marga, the devotional path. What can be a higher renunciation than that?

Unless it is established that bhakti is superior to mukti, people will not take interest in it. The Bhagavatam main purpose is to establish this fact.

That is the whole story between Narada and Vyasa, because Vyasa has not explained uttama bhakti clearly. This is how Vyasadeva begins to tells the story and explains how his son was born.  Otherwise, there is no historical evidence that Sukadeva Gosvami  stayed in his mother’s womb for 16 years. And as soon as he took birth, he grew up. What is the need of showing all this?

Stories have to be made to create some interest, but the point is not in the story at all. If you try to investigate the story, you’ll end up nowhere. There are so many types of Sukadeva Gosvamis. Just when you read Mahabharata, Sukadeva Gosvami is married and has children there. And there is also Jayasukadeva, another Sukadeva. But that is not the point. The point is the purport behind the story. Bhagavatam wants to establish dharmah projjhita-kaitavah, and it uses different stories for that.

Another example is the story of the four Kumaras. They were also absorbed in Brahman and completely naked because they were so renounced. They were so great that they went even to Vaikuntha.  And then they became angry. That is to show that even such renounced people can’t become free from their material vasanas (subtle impressions and inclinations). Only bhakti makes you completely pure and cleans the heart.  So this story basically defeats all these ideas of mayavada and similarly the path of yoga.

The whole purpose of all these stories is to show how devotion is free from all other motives and selfishness, which is all cheating. Unless one comes to this platform, one remains impure, because he still has some cheating propensity.

(transcription from a conversation)

Souls, Guru, Karma and Liberation

Souls

Question: I remember you explaining how two cells fuse to form an embryo regarding the soul and the karma.  Cells are produced in our body all the time. When a cell divides to undergo mitosis, where does the extra soul(s) come from? How does it happen?

Answer: Souls are everywhere. They are not only inside a cell but also outside. In Gita (2.24) Krsna says that souls are sarva-gatah, they exist everywhere. This is mind boggling but true. So when a cell divides another soul enters it.

*

Guru

Question: Does every disciple of a good teacher become a guru?

Answer: No, not every good disciple has to become a guru. But if one wants to take that role in the future he or she has to be with the guru and study and become equipped with proper knowledge and realization. It doesn’t mean that every disciple has to become a guru, but one who does must undergo proper training. Even if someone is realized and a pure devotee it doesn’t mean the person is qualified to be a guru. For that shastra needs to be studied properly. A person who is not expert in shastra cannot guide the student.

Question: Who is the Guru today for mankind to take a man to a right path?

Answer: Who is a guru? This is a million dollar question. It is very difficult, almost impossible for a normal person to recognize a guru. It is said that it takes one to know one. A common person has no ability to discriminate between bonafide and non-bonafide guru. Still there is some guideline. First of all guru must have guru i.e. he/she must come in a bonfide parampara or disciplic succession. Secondly he/she must have knowledge of shastra. Thirdly he/she must be of good character. Fourthly he/she must be realized (which is difficult to judge).

*

Karma and Desires

Question: Since all activity in the mind comes from the senses and samskaras, and the living entities’ various situations in life are governed by karma, then is it true that what the senses come in contact with, is also governed by karma based on the situation the senses are placed in?

Answer: Yes it is a big game of karma going on. Unless one gets some spiritual insight, sadhu association,  one floats or drowns in the waves of karma.

Question: Those sense inputs are stored in the chitta as samskaras which determine reactions to the inputs. Is imagination and inspiration simply another reaction? And if so, does this simply make inspiration a product of karma?

Answer: Yes this is all products of karma. There is a lot stored within the chitta. Chitta is part of Mahat and sometimes some people may get a little extra light from Mahat. But it happens because of karma and desires.

*

Liberation without Service?

Question: Regarding SB 3.29.13 salokya sarsti sampiya – the verse ends with vina mat sevanam janah. Does that mean that there is a possibility of getting the five types of mukti also without seva? If so, what is one doing the whole day in Vaikuntha, without seva? I thought seva was the only way to attain Vaikuntha.

Answer: The meaning is that a pure devotee does not want to have mukti but only seva. But for seva one or more of the four types of muktis may be necessary, and so a pure devotee accepts it. But there may be other types of devotees e.g. those who want salokya mukti [liberation by attaining the same planet as the Lord] and do bhakti for that purpose. The Sri Sampradaya is an example of this. Their goal is mukti through bhakti. Lord Chaitanya said bhakti is above mukti. Before him most bhaktas had mukti as their goal. What do they do in Vaikuntha? Of course bhakti. They are not averse to bhakti, they practiced bhakti on earth to achieve mukti. But their predominant desire was to have salokya, etc.