7

Members of the Sri Vaishnava sect of Hinduism, especially the Iyengars (Sri Vaishnavas who are Brahmanas), are divided into two sub-sects, Thenkalais and Vadakalais. These two sub-sects both agree on the Visishtadvaita philosophy of Ramanujacharya that characterizes the Sri Vaishnava belief system, but they have several fine-grained but important doctrinal differences; my answer here lays out the main points of dispute. In this question, I asked about one such difference. Now I'd like to ask about another difference, described in this webpage:

  1. Regarding Kaivalya

    Vadakalai View

    • (i) Kaivalya is inferior to Paramapada

    • (ii) Kaivalya is not eternal

    • (iii) Kaivalya is situated Outside Paramapada

    Tenkalai View

    • (i) Accepted

    • (ii) Kaivalya is eternal

    • (iii) Kaivalya is within Paramapada but in its outermost parts.

This is also mentioned in this webpage quoting from a journal paper:

  1. Kaivalya (Isolation)-Moksa (or Soul-sight or Soul actualization; or the State of Atomic-aloofness).

    [Vadakalais] say that this state is temporary.

    [Thenkalais] say it is perennial. The soul wished for it, strove for it, and got it. What it got is eternal, by its own making. Where, then, is extrication from this state? Being a spiritual state, return to material planes is cut off. Being a soul-state, rising to Divine-planes or God-state is shut off.

For those who don't know, Kaivalya, AKA Ekatva, is a conception of Moksha where an individual completely realizes the nature of his Atma and achieves a state of abstract and impersonal self-actualization. It is the highest goal for followers of Adi Shankaracharya's Advaita Vedanta. Vaishnavas, in contrast, think that even higher than Kaivalya is the attainment of Vishnu in his abode of Paramapada. (According to Advaita, the individual's Atma is the same as Paramatma, but in Visistadvaita they're not the same, which means that an individual who tried to realize his Atma would fall short of attaining Vishnu.)

So the issue under consideration is, do souls who follow Advaita and attain Kaivalya ultimately return to the cycle of birth and death, or do they remain in Kaivalya eternally? Vadakalais say that Kaivalya is temporary and that souls ultimately return to Samsara where they'll have further opportunity to attain Paramapada. Thenkalais, on the other hand, say that souls who attain Kaivalya never leave it, and are thus unable to progress to the inner parts of Paramapada where Vishnu is.

So my questions are,

  • Why do Vadakalai Sri Vaishnavas believe that Kaivalya liberation is not eternal?
  • What arguments have Vadakalai Acharyas like Vedanta Desikan made on this subject?
  • Are there any scriptures that Vadakalais believe demonstrate the temporary nature of Kaivalya?
Community
  • 1
Keshav Srinivasan
  • 98,014
  • 18
  • 293
  • 853
  • 1
    Hi Keshav, could you clarify what does Advaita have to do with this? Advaita realization is realizing yourself as Brahman. Not just realizing that you are the Jivatma, but that the Jivatma does not exist and that the core identity is One with Paramatma or Vishnu or Brahman – Sai Mar 13 '15 at 21:45
  • 3
    @Sai Well, it's different ways of saying the same thing. You could say that the Atma of the individual is the same as Paramatma, or you could say that there is no individual Atma apart from Paramatma. But either the core belief of Advaita is the notion of "Aham Brahmasmi" - if you look within yourself for the real Atma (as opposed to illusory selves), whatever that real Atma is, is Brahman. So Advaitins' goal is to realize the real Atma within them, since they believe that that Atma is Brahman. – Keshav Srinivasan Mar 13 '15 at 23:45
  • 3
    @Sai By the way, Advaitins don't dispute that Kaivalya is their notion of Moksha. They just don't believe that there is a greater state than Kaivalya. Visistadvaitins, on the other hand, believe that Advaita is wrong, and thus those that try to pursue the Advaitins' procedures of Jnana Yoga will succeed in attaining the real Atma within them, but it will turn out that that real Atma is not Paramatma. – Keshav Srinivasan Mar 13 '15 at 23:52
  • Yeah understood the confusion was with the way you worded your question. You said advaita and then that even higher is attaining Vishnu. But obviously Advaitins would not call the state of self realization complete if they dont realize that they are Vishnu. The moment the state of Kaivalya is differentiated from attaining Vishnu it is no longer Advaita. Anyways Its clear now. Thanks for clarifying. – Sai Mar 14 '15 at 00:05
  • 3
    @Sai Well, according to Visistadvaitam, Advaitins will attain something they think is Paramatma, but it will turn out that it is not really Paramatma. So both Advaitins and Visistadvaitins agree that if you attain Kaivalya, then you will believe "I am Vishnu." The difference is that Advaitins think that that belief will be correct, and Visistadvaitins think that belief will be incorrect. – Keshav Srinivasan Mar 14 '15 at 00:09
  • Ok in that case I think u should put that disclaimer there because there is a scope for hurting Advaitin sentiments. But you know better so I'll leave it to u – Sai Mar 14 '15 at 00:11
  • 3
    @Sai OK, I added a parenthetical explanation as to how the difference between Advaita and Visistadvaita beliefs leads to differences about the nature of Kaivalya. You're right, considering that I'm asking a question about two Vaishnava sects and their disagreement about how bad the consequences are of following Advaita, it's important to ensure that I'm not offending followers of Advaita in the process. – Keshav Srinivasan Mar 14 '15 at 00:29
  • 1
    @Sai You may be interested in a question I just posted about the different types of liberation: http://hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/6943/36 – Keshav Srinivasan Apr 04 '15 at 07:40
  • @Sai I am neither firm believer of Advaita(though my tendency is) nor Vaishnava(family heritage). However just based on what I read in Gita & how the Moksha is defined for Advaita, my understanding says that perception is not ultimate. I might be wrong. Visiting this question seeing my old upvote. I am not posting answer because of Q-2, which asks for opinions of Acharyas. What if their commentaries don't make sense? Instead the Advaitas like Jaggi or Osho are better, who come with reasoning be it accurate or not. – iammilind Oct 27 '15 at 02:52
  • 3
    @iammilind I don't know what you mean by "perception is not ultimate". Are you making an epistemological claim about Pratyaksha Pramana? Or are you using the term "perception" to refer to some state an atma can attain to, or what? In any case, I'm not looking for the opinion of Advaitins like Jaggi Vasudev or Osho here. My question is about the Vadakalai sub-sect of Sri Vaishnavism. This is one of the subjects where Thenkalais and Vadakalis disagree, so in order to evaluate which side is right on this issue, I'm trying to find out what the arguments are for Kaivalya not being eternal. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 27 '15 at 03:37
  • @KeshavSrinivasan I am not referring to opinions of Jaggi or Osho. I am saying that they appear as Advaitans and usually their analysis are more rational compared to various Acharya of any sect. From what I read about Advaita perception of Moksha in this site as realizing oneself as Brahman is not ultimate. There should be a stage next to it, call it Vaikuntha or merge to supreme Nirakara. This is what I could make out from Gita. If you are looking for what those Acharyas believe, I don't know. They might say truth but often their level of assumptions are too high for an Advaitan to accept. – iammilind Oct 27 '15 at 03:51
  • 2
    @iammilind First of all, I assure you that Adi Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, etc. make very reasoned arguments in their commentaries on the Brahma Sutras, so I think you should study them in more depth. Second of all, from an Advaita perspective there's no difference between realization of Brahman and Moksha; Advaitins believe that as soon as you become realized you attain Jivanmukti, beyond which there is no higher state. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 27 '15 at 03:58
  • 2
    @iammilind Well each person has his own understanding and perspective of this world. Each one takes whatever seems most appropriate with His reasoning. Some people say there is no God. Some people say Scriptures are true, some people say that they are not. Some people say Advaita is True, some people say Vaishnavism is true. To me, all these claims are equally right and equally wrong. God is One, not Two. When one merges Himself with God, He alone knows what it is like. Sri Ramakrishna often said to Realize God first and then worry about which philosophy is right. I accept all philosophies. :) – Sai Oct 27 '15 at 04:03
  • @Sai agreed. Sometimes we indulge too much into technicalities to experience the real matter. Keshav, I have read some of Adi's commentaries for Gita and what you sent yday. May be in am too limited to understand him. As soon as one refers scriptures or Veda, I am stuck there. How much I keep open mind, at certain level the amount of assumptions are too piled up to go further. May be there should be some even deeper meaning which is missed by me. – iammilind Oct 27 '15 at 04:45
  • 2
    @iammilind Well, reading commentaries on the Brahma Sutras is meant for someone who accepts that the Upanishads are true and is trying to understand what they're saying. For someone who doesn't accept the authority of Hindu scripture, my only recommendation would be to read the various defenses of Sabda Pramana in order to understand why the authority of the Vedas should be accepted (and from there you can infer step-by-step the authority of other Hindu scriptures). – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 27 '15 at 04:51
  • You are saying that Advaitins think nothing is higher than Kaivalya. The same can be said of Sri Vaishnavas - they also think nothing is higher than Saguna Brahman. – Pinakin Oct 27 '15 at 09:36
  • @ChinmaySarupria I'm not sure what you mean by "the same can be said of Sri Vaishnavas". Do you mean that both Advaitins and Sri Vaishnavas believe that nothing is higher than Kaivalya? That's definitely not true. Do you mean that both Advaitins and Sri Vaishnavas believe that there is such a thing as a highest state, even if they disagree about what state is the highest? That's obviously a true statement, but I'm not sure what your point is. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 27 '15 at 11:33
  • @KeshavSrinivasan If you are saying that for Advaitins, after becoming realized there is nothing else to do, that is certainly wrong. If nothing is there afterwards, then there is no need for such souls to leave the body. Merging with the Nirguna Brahman is the highest goal. – Pinakin Nov 06 '15 at 10:26
  • 2
    @ChinmaySarupria Well, according to Advaita, once you attain Jnana oh realize that the world is Maya and that you are Nirguna Brahman, so there is nothing left to do. It's only from the perspective of other Jivas who still have Avidya that you appear to still be living in the world, and your soul merges with Nirguna Brahman. From an Advaita perspective, your Atma is already Nirguna Brahman. – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 06 '15 at 12:57
  • @KeshavSrinivasan But to experience the bliss of that state all the time, souls have to leave their body. If they experience it while present in the body, we call it samadhi but that state doesn't last forever. – Pinakin Nov 06 '15 at 13:02
  • 2
    @ChinmaySarupria Well, from the perspective of someone who still has Avidya, there would two periods, the period between realization and death and the period after death. But from the perspective of a realized soul, the world is Maya, the body is Maya, and you are Nirguna Brahman, so life and death are irrelevant. In any case, what does any of this have to do with my question? My question is about what happens to people after they die. – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 06 '15 at 13:13
  • @KeshavSrinivasan For advaits also, life and death is relevant, otherwise why do they give so much importance to death? Ramakrishna Paramahansa, Swami Vivekananda, Swami Sivananda all chose a specific time to leave the body. Moreover, if everything is experienced in body, then one should not leave the body at all. They should be here just to guide souls to the kingdom of God. – Pinakin Nov 06 '15 at 13:18
  • 2
    @ChinmaySarupria From a realized soul's perspective, the body doesn't even exist. It just appears to exist for those who are still in Avidya, and it perishes once the Prarabdha Karma is completed. As for why they don't stay indefinitely to help other Jivas, from their perspective there are no other Jivas; there is only Nirguna Brahman and it is only due to Avidya that there appear to be seperate Jivas. But from the perspective of someone who has Avidya, the reason they leave is that the Prarabdha Karma is over. In any case, what does this have to do with the subject of my question? – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 06 '15 at 13:25
  • @KeshavSrinivasan I think you have got a very wrong understanding of Advaita. For realized souls, it is right that everything is Nirguna Brahman at the highest level but they still know that there are souls on earth which have to be raised above Maya so that they can also experience the highest state. And also, there are some who have not yet left their body because they want others to also get the highest state like Mahavatar Babaji. He initiated Adi Shankaracharya, he was the guru of Kabir, he sent Mukund Lal Ghosh to Sri Yukteswar who later was known to the world as Paramahansa Yogananda. – Pinakin Nov 06 '15 at 14:12
  • 1
    @ChinmaySarupria Yeah, I was just speaking about "the highest level" as you call it. From the perspective of lower levels yes certainly realized souls would help other Jivas become realized. In any case, I don't believe in Mahavtar Babaji, but yeah, I agree that in the case of incarnations at least, Brahman descends to the Earth out of compassion and stays as long as he likes for the enlightenment of Jivas. In any case, do you have any thoughts on my actual question? – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 06 '15 at 14:42
  • @KeshavSrinivasan I don't why you don't believe in Mahavatar Babaji, he was the guru of Gorakshnath, Adi Shankaracharya, Lahiri Mahasaya etc.. Almost every soul on earth that realized God after Babaji's birth know him as Sri Guru Babaji. There is no yogi on this planet who doesn't know about him. He is the great guru of all. Regarding your question, I am not a Sri Vaishnava so I don't know. – Pinakin Nov 06 '15 at 14:59
  • 1
    @ChinmaySarupria Well, I'm not a follower of Gorakshanath, Adi Shankaracharya, or Lahiri Mahasaya, and in any case I don't think Gorakshanath or Adi Shankaracharya ever mention Babaji in their works. I'm a Sri Vaishnava, so I follow Ramanujacharya and his gurus and disciples, none of whom recognize Babaji. – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 06 '15 at 15:02
  • @KeshavSrinivasan They all do, if you ever meet a realized yogi then ask about Sri Guru Babaji and you will get the answer. – Pinakin Nov 06 '15 at 15:22
  • 2
    @ChinmaySarupria Well, I don't believe in the Advaitic notion of "self-realization", but I believe that the Sri Vaishnava Acharyas are realized, and they most certainly do not believe in Babaji. – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 06 '15 at 15:28
  • @KeshavSrinivasan Realized beings are in direct contact with each other using means only known to yogis. If they are really realized or a real yogi then as I said before, no one on this planet will every say that they don't know about Sri Guru Babaji. – Pinakin Nov 06 '15 at 15:34
  • 2
    @ChinmaySarupria Well, in general Advaita Acharyas don't believe Sri Vaishnava Acharyas have achieved the highest realization, and Sri Vaishnava Acharyas don't believe that Advaita Acharyas have achieved the highest realization. So it's just a matter of who you think is right. – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 06 '15 at 15:40
  • @KeshavSrinivasan That is not true. I don't know any realized Advaitin who thinks others are wrong. I don't know about others but I know that Advaitins believe that everyone is right. – Pinakin Nov 06 '15 at 15:45
  • 1
    @ChinmaySarupria Well, regardless at least Sri Vaishnavas believe that Advaitins do not have the highest realization, so it's just a matter whether you believe that Sri Vaishnavas are right about that. – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 06 '15 at 15:50
  • @KeshavSrinivasan Everyone is right. We all are the children of God, he alone will guide each and everyone of us to his kingdom of eternal bliss. – Pinakin Nov 06 '15 at 15:53
  • 2
    @ChinmaySarupria Well, apart from the "everyone is right" part I agree with you. Sriman Narayana has boundless compassion and will offer us escape from Samsara. – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 06 '15 at 16:06
  • Don't you think Tenkalai's understanding of Paramapadam is very wrong? They say "Kaivalya is within Paramapada but in its outermost parts." If Paramapadam is infinite then there cannot be any "outermost" part. 2 conclusions can be drawn - Paramapadam is finite and Tenkalai view is correct or Paramapadam is infinite and Tenkalai understanding is flawed. – Pinakin Feb 01 '16 at 14:30
  • @ChinmaySarupria It's infinite in some dimensions and not others, just like a line in a two-dimensional plane. So there's nothing in the Thenkalai view that contradicts the infinite size of Paramapadam. – Keshav Srinivasan Feb 01 '16 at 14:36
  • 1
    @ChinmaySarupria Paramapadam extends infinitely in many dimensions, but it doesn't extend downwards into the material Lokas. So Thenkalais believe that those who have attained Kaivalya dwell in the part of Paramapadam that is closest to the material Lokas. – Keshav Srinivasan Feb 01 '16 at 14:50
  • A line can be infinite but that line cannot be seen as infinite because for it to be infinite it must extend infinitely in both x, y and z directions. – Pinakin Feb 01 '16 at 15:20
  • How can you say Paramapadam is located above material lokas when there can be many other Hiranyagarbhas above and beneath this Hiranyagarbha? So if Paramapadam is above this Hiranyagarbha, then it could be below to the Hiranyagarbha which is located above this Hiranyagarbha. – Pinakin Feb 01 '16 at 15:21
  • If Paramapadam transcends everything then a relation cannot be drawn between it and material lokas. – Pinakin Feb 01 '16 at 15:24
  • @ChinmaySarupria Like I said, Paramapadam is infinite along some dimensions but not others, just like a line is infinite in some dimensions in but not others. In any case, Sri Vaishnavas believe that Paramapadam is above all other Lokas that exist, so if there are multiple Hiranyagarbha Lokas then it's above all of them. – Keshav Srinivasan Feb 01 '16 at 16:16
  • 1
    @ChinmaySarupria And you can draw a relation between Paramapadam and the material Lokas. Paramapadam does not extend infinitely downwards; if you kept going downward in Paramapadam you would leave Paramapadam and enter the space where the Material Lokas are found. So Thenkalais believe that those who have attained Kaivalya dwell in the part of Paramapadam that is closest to the lower limit. – Keshav Srinivasan Feb 01 '16 at 16:20
  • I think you posted a Q in a bit misleading fashion. That's perhaps because at the time you posted it, it was more than 3 years ago, you still were not discriminate enough about some basic concepts in the teaching of Vedanta per the Vaishnavas in general and your Sri Vaisnava sect in particular. As far as I understand all the Vaishnava systems of Vedanta, they all teach that the persons who have some misconceptions of what is the relationship between jivatma and paramatma/Brahman, and also misconceptions about nature and status of the Supreme, ie Brahman, ... – brahma jijnasa Jun 02 '18 at 01:58
  • ... who manifests himself in the form of Supreme Person, God, namely Lord Vishnu, will not be able to achieve any kind of moksha whatsoever! So as a prerequisite for one to be able to get any kind of moksha at all would be first to properly understand those basic things, and only then with bhakti he can hope for moksha. Now, I think that anyone who knows even an iota of your Ramanuja's system of Vedanta knows that your Ramanuja hardly believed for any follower of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta to fulfilled those prerequisites, ... – brahma jijnasa Jun 02 '18 at 01:59
  • ... so unlikely he believed Advaitins will get moksha, not even that one called kaivalya or impersonal moksha. A kaivalya type of moksha is perhaps possible to be achieved by yogis followers of some impersonal system of Vedanta, but unlikely by those who are exactly Shankara's Advaitins. – brahma jijnasa Jun 02 '18 at 02:02
  • Look what you said in your question, you wrote: "For those who don't know, Kaivalya, AKA Ekatva, is a conception of Moksha where an individual completely realizes the nature of his Atma and achieves a state of abstract and impersonal self-actualization. It is the highest goal for followers of Adi Shankaracharya's Advaita Vedanta." haha, I hope you are able to understand now when you're more mature in your Vedanta study that that thing you wrote is complete nonsense. ;) -- See also you wrote "So the issue under consideration is, do souls who follow Advaita and attain Kaivalya ..." :) – brahma jijnasa Jun 02 '18 at 02:57
  • And regarding this thing "Are there any scriptures that Vadakalais believe demonstrate the temporary nature of Kaivalya?" I don't know what Vadakalais said about it, but I know that Gaudiyas often quote some verses such as this one to demonstrate kaivalya to be just a temporary moksha, and thus not eternal liberation, and by the way it's not real moksha at all strictly speaking because real moksha is only that one which is an eternal one. The verse is Bhagavatam 10.2.32 https://www.vedabase.com/en/sb/10/2/32 " ... They fall down ... because they have no regard for Your lotus feet" – brahma jijnasa Jun 02 '18 at 03:39
  • @brahmajijnasa We can discuss this in our chat room. – Keshav Srinivasan Jun 02 '18 at 06:34
  • http://talkandcomment.com/p/71d7adce270ebf5c7feb2c9a (voice note) i have used voice note to avoid typing due to pain. – Subrahmanian Vaidyanathan Jan 19 '19 at 17:44

0 Answers0