Tattva-viveka
Why does Mundaka Upanishad settle Brahman as the final goal for the soul?
Yamuna Dasi - March 3, 2009 12:39 am
In Mundaka Upanishad it is said:
"Om is the bow; the individual self is the arrow; Brahman is the target to be hit. It
should be hit with great vigilance. Then, one shall merge in Brahman, even as the arrow enters
into the target."
Why does Mundaka Upanishad point out Brahman as the final goal for the soul and not Bhagavan which is the conclusion of Gita and Bhagavatam? If one is once fixed by such an authoritative scripture as Mundaka Upanishad at Brahaman being the final goal for the soul what is his chance to change his goal to Bhagavan?
Madhavendra Puri Dasa - March 3, 2009 7:01 am
The different part of the Vedas are written for all different sorts of people. If you studied all Vedas you would find excerptes recommending heavenly plantes, or material well being on this planet as the ultimate goal of life. However if you studied all of them (or if you got in touch with Vaisnava sadhu) you would realize that pure bhakti is the highest, recommended goal. Other pursuits are there only to elevate jivas to the level of bhakti.
Yamuna Dasi - March 3, 2009 9:17 am
Other pursuits are there only to elevate jivas to the level of bhakti.
This sounds great and reasonable and I can somehow imagine how could be done the "switch" of taste from material enjoyment towards spiritual enjoyment, but I cannot imagine how could possibly be done such a "switch" from desiring merging with Bhagavan towards losing any taste for merging and developing taste for union in love? They seem really incompatible for me and not at all like rungs of the same ladder, because a person desiring to merge with Brahman apart from this very powerful encouragement from Mundaka Upanishad has also a very strong logic to support his pursuit of merging and it is that Brahman is God so his pleasure is the highest possible pleasure to be perceived and in this way by merging with Him he/she would experience also this very same highest pleasure and it will be forever.
To those who desire heaven ot material pleasure on earth I can object that unfortunately these two are temporary and prove it with quotes from Gita, but I cannot prove that merging with Brahman is not pleasant or that it's temporary. Is it temporary actually? Or are there some scriptural evidencies stating that serving Bhagavan gives more pleasure than merging with Brahman? Don't be surprised that I am following the hedonistic line of proofs, it's very powerful because the search for happiness and pleasure is common for both materialists and spiritualists. 
Prahlad Das - March 3, 2009 6:36 pm
This sounds great and reasonable and I can somehow imagine how could be done the "switch" of taste from material enjoyment towards spiritual enjoyment, but I cannot imagine how could possibly be done such a "switch" from desiring merging with Bhagavan towards losing any taste for merging and developing taste for union in love? They seem really incompatible for me and not at all like rungs of the same ladder, because a person desiring to merge with Brahman apart from this very powerful encouragement from Mundaka Upanishad has also a very strong logic to support his pursuit of merging and it is that Brahman is God so his pleasure is the highest possible pleasure to be perceived and in this way by merging with Him he/she would experience also this very same highest pleasure and it will be forever.
To those who desire heaven ot material pleasure on earth I can object that unfortunately these two are temporary and prove it with quotes from Gita, but I cannot prove that merging with Brahman is not pleasant or that it's temporary. Is it temporary actually? Or are there some scriptural evidencies stating that serving Bhagavan gives more pleasure than merging with Brahman? Don't be surprised that I am following the hedonistic line of proofs, it's very powerful because the search for happiness and pleasure is common for both materialists and spiritualists.
Perhaps there is a confusion between Brahmavadi and Mayavadi here? After all, S.B. does give acknowledgment to Brahman in S.B. 1.2.11. Brahmavadi may be likened to (existentialism? help me out philosophers) being content with simple existence (neutrality). Mayavada is the basic idea that we are actually qualitatively and quantitatively that Supreme Soul (merge and become).
Nitaisundara Das - March 4, 2009 4:35 am
This sounds great and reasonable and I can somehow imagine how could be done the "switch" of taste from material enjoyment towards spiritual enjoyment, but I cannot imagine how could possibly be done such a "switch" from desiring merging with Bhagavan towards losing any taste for merging and developing taste for union in love? They seem really incompatible for me and not at all like rungs of the same ladder, because a person desiring to merge with Brahman apart from this very powerful encouragement from Mundaka Upanishad has also a very strong logic to support his pursuit of merging and it is that Brahman is God so his pleasure is the highest possible pleasure to be perceived and in this way by merging with Him he/she would experience also this very same highest pleasure and it will be forever.
To those who desire heaven ot material pleasure on earth I can object that unfortunately these two are temporary and prove it with quotes from Gita, but I cannot prove that merging with Brahman is not pleasant or that it's temporary. Is it temporary actually? Or are there some scriptural evidencies stating that serving Bhagavan gives more pleasure than merging with Brahman? Don't be surprised that I am following the hedonistic line of proofs, it's very powerful because the search for happiness and pleasure is common for both materialists and spiritualists.
Sukadeva made the switch. But generally that is why we regard jnana samskara as worse than karma samskara, because at least we can contact a sadhu in the karmic realm. There are statements about jnanis falling (SB10.2.32) but that only pertains to jnanis who are still within their bodies. SSM has said I think it may be possible for someone to be pulled out of Brahman, but that is not the standard, jnanis do not want to serve, and the Lord is atmaram so he grants them that desire, spiritual suicide.
In SB 1.5.12 Narada is explaining why Vyasa is dissatisfied with his own work (the whole of vedic texts) and says jnana is useless without bhakti, so he should write SB to make clear what is the highest.
GM explains nicely the pleasure of Brahman: it is like the pleasure one gets if they are being chased by a tiger and get into a safe room..the pleasure of relief. But eventually, in the empty dark room, we want to crack the door and see if the tiger is gone and we can do something again. The pleasure of Brahman is like going to neutrality from debt.
SB 10.14.4 is a good verse about all this.
Yamuna Dasi - March 4, 2009 7:45 am
Wow! What a nice comparison is that of the chasing tiger and the safe dark refugee room!
Will be used!
Thank you also for the other scriptural references.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 4, 2009 5:10 pm
Wow! What a nice comparison is that of the chasing tiger and the safe dark refugee room!Will be used!
Thank you also for the other scriptural references.
Another thing to consider is that brahman can refer to krsna as well and this is the line toed by many vaishnava acaryas like ramanuja while interpreting upanishad verses from V.S. Brahman can mean brahman with attributes.
Sanskrit is so contextual with infinite flexibility that it is very difficult to master the nuances.
Yamuna Dasi - March 4, 2009 5:46 pm
Another thing to consider is that brahman can refer to krsna as well and this is the line toed by many vaishnava acaryas like ramanuja while interpreting upanishad verses from V.S. Brahman can mean brahman with attributes.Sanskrit is so contextual with infinite flexibility that it is very difficult to master the nuances.
But I've read in Gita's commentary of Tripurari Maharaj the following:
"The foremost example of this is Sankara's notion of saguna Brahman as a provisional manifestation of the Absolute that he inserts in his commentary on Vedanta Sutra an unceremoniously identifies Krishna with in his Gita Bhasya. Vedas consistently describe only nirguna Brahman."
How come that you speak about Brahman with attributes? As I understand the above quote, Maharaj is not accepting Sankara's notion of "saguna Brahman" and stands that Brahman is only nirguna. Am I missing or misunderstanding something?
Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 4, 2009 6:51 pm
But I've read in Gita's commentary of Tripurari Maharaj the following:"The foremost example of this is Sankara's notion of saguna Brahman as a provisional manifestation of the Absolute that he inserts in his commentary on Vedanta Sutra an unceremoniously identifies Krishna with in his Gita Bhasya. Vedas consistently describe only nirguna Brahman."
How come that you speak about Brahman with attributes? As I understand the above quote, Maharaj is not accepting Sankara's notion of "saguna Brahman" and stands that Brahman is only nirguna. Am I missing or misunderstanding something?
I am talking about ramanuja's interpretation of brahman as brahman with attributes of jiva and prakriti
Yamuna Dasi - March 4, 2009 8:40 pm
What is the vaishnava opinion about Ramanuja's interpretation?