Ram Suri: Namaskar. I have given answers for your email reply. Ihave no angry or anything. If my answers hurt you,please forgive me.
Swami Ramswarup: Namaskar. I am pleased to listen your views and it is okay. Because this is a matter of faith i.e., spiritualism and nobody must try to shoulder his views to anybody else. But happily, pleasantly and faithfully everybody must free to speak his views. Ours is a secular country and we respect all religions heartily. In the beginning when you sent your questions, first I thought not to give answer. But the way of your questioning was soft like a learned saint, then only I managed myself to brief my views based on four Vedas, but not with the sense that you must accept. However I sure wanted to give the preach of four Vedas only, but in between you started rude and discourteous language, so I requested you to please stop the same because it is a religious matter whose base is love only. Now it's okay.
Swamiji's previous reply: "Yog shastra says that Raj, tam and satv gunas of Prakriti do not make effect on Jeevan mukta, but he uses mouth, ear etc., and food etc., made of Prakriti as used by all ancient Rishis and prakriti remains always and can't be told nothing as mentioned in Rigveda mandal 10 sukta 129 and Samkhya shastra sutra 1/26".
Ram Suri present reply: Sir! I agree that trigunas cannot tempt a jeevan mukta. He also eats food and does other work. But all his senses are under his control, and thus I have said that trigunas, which are prakrutic, cannot do anything to him, and thus for him they are not existing. Therefore, for him there is no tretvad (divine, soul and prakruti= tretvad. But for him prakruti=zero, and hence no three but only two, and thus no tretvad for jeevan mukta).
Swami Ramswarup: For the jeevan mukta still prakriti is there in sankalp and cannot be zero please. But prakriti's gunas i.e., materialistic articles and raj, tam, and satv gunas will never make any effect on jeevan mukta. Zero means there is no prakriti. But prakriti made whole world is still but will not effect on jeevan mukta. But will effect others. A jeevan mukta even after leaving this body will use mouth, ears etc., as I already told giving reference of Shatpath Brahmin Granth kand 14 wherein it is mentioned by Yask Muni that a jeevan mukta after leaving the body will not have panch bhautik sharir And indriyan but has his satya (true )sankalp (desire etc) and natural qualities by which when the soul wants to listen then by his natural quality and desire soul gets ears and so on. So these organs are considered suksham sharir which can be defined that the jeevan mukta at that time has body based on sankalp and desire i.e., when jeevan mukta and any body else is alive having panch bhautik body and jeevatma lives in the body, at that time jeevatama (whether jeevan mukta or others i.e., both) uses the organs, perceptions and body for carrying out deeds. Similarly jeevan mukta only based on his sankalp and own power uses the body after leaving the panch bhautik body too. So it is not possible based on the principles of Vedas that during salvation the soul will be merged in to God. Maindiscussion is on this issue only and we must carefully discuss on this matter. When I say,"already explained above" it means I have already told with reference to Vedanta sutras also that merger is not possible. So if you will please again tell me that the soul will be merged giving any references then my reply will be ,"I have already explained above." Because with giving the references of Vedas, shashtras I have already explained that merger is not possible. But if it suits you, you may please worship accordingly and I will be loving you also. Because you have adopted a Vedanta mat which I cannot object and I have adopted a Vedic mat which you must not please object. But still our discussion must be on to know about each mat.
Ram Suri's previous reply: "In other words, a jeevan mukta sees divine everywhere with his gyan eye, where as ignorant people tries to see divine through theirmortal eyes".
Swamiji's previous reply: "How ignorant will try to see God by mortal eyes when it is not possible except to see statue etc. Based on Atharvaveda mantra 10/8/14, it is too said that God is realised by divine eyes and not by any indri like eyes made of prakriti. So based on this mantra, Shri Krishna too says that O Arjun you cannot see me with your mortal eyes. Vedas are eternal and Geeta has been written about 5,300 years back. So the knowledge in Geeta is based on four Vedas.
Ram Suri present reply: Sir! When I said that an ignorant person tries to see divine by mortal eyes, it should be understood that he is only worshipping with some expectation from divine. On the other hand, a jeevan mukta does not expect anything from divine.
Swami Ramswarup: My Vedic views are these that jeevan mukta or not jeevan mukta both have always expectations from God. That is why the method of prayers to get knowledge, assets, pleasure etc., is there in the Vedas and in every religion. As I have explained above now also the jeevan mukta enjoys the merriment by the blessing of God. As regards materialistic eyes, we can't forget the principles of Vedas, shastras, etc., that from these materialistic eyes if someone has some expectation from God i.e., all in vain. So if we stop from beginning as told in Yajurveda mantra 40/4 , these materialistic eyes then I think it will be a good path. Because this mantra says," ENAT DEVAH NA APNUVAN" i.e., eye, ear etc., indriyan are not capable to reach or achieve the God. But if somebody tries from indriyan so he can try.
Ram Suri: Instead of understanding this, you started looking at the literal meaning in my sentences. This is called understanding of literal meaning of sentences. Apart from this, a very subtle truth is associated scriptural statements. When you confine to literal meaning of the sentences or words in the answers, then you will miss the hidden spiritual meaning. This is what is happening in your case all the time sir.
Swami Ramswarup: So please you can carry on from eyes etc., also. But whatever I know even literal meaning as tell about me, I am satisfied with my literal meaning, even if I hide spiritual meaning. I do not negate your views passed on me please.
Swamiji's previous answer: "No please being against the Vedas. What is gyan eye when jeevan mukt has left his body here and fails to see divine every where"
Ram Suri previous answer: "Sir, the problem with you is that you do not understand the meaning and the context. Here, a jeevan mukta is also a human being. But because, he has done intense spiritual sadhana, he has experienced the divine within himself. With the divine experience, his perception of looking at things changes, and he experiences divine presence everywhere. On the contrary, even though he is a jeevan mukta, but because, he has a physical body, he will also feel hunger etc. But, unlike people like us, his urges are not instinct. So, what happens to his soul after the death of his physical body? It willmerge in divine immediately. This is called Sadyomukti (Immediately salvation). This is where the Brahma Sutra IV.2.15 (Tani pare tatha hyaha) is applied. Please also see, Prasna Upanishad 6.5. The meaning of this is that all 16 parts of witness, having their aim in Him (divine) are solubilised on attaining Him (divine). River and sea analogy is given in this connection in this reference. Now, what is there sir, here, to say that it is against Vedas?"
Swamiji's previous answer: "Already explained above please"
Ram Suri present reply: Sir! You are simply escaping from answering now. You said, "Already explained above please" Let us see what you had explained above. The following is your answer, which was referred to see:
Swami Ramswarup: "Yog shastra says that Raj, tam and satv gunas of Prakriti do not make effect on Jeevan mukta, but he uses mouth, ear etc., and food etc., made of Prakriti as used by all ancient Rishis and prakriti remains always and can't be told nothing as mentioned in Rigveda mandal 10 sukta 129 and Samkhya shastra sutra 1/26".
Ram Suri: In my previous answer, when I said 'gyan eye' you have said that 'What is gyan eye when jeevan mukt has left his body here and fails to see divine every where'. Perhaps you are under impression that a gyan eye is a material object. But it is not a material thing to leave it behind on earth upon death of physical body. On the other hand, this is that gyan eye, which is also referred by Lord Krishna in Gita 13/35, where he says that those who sees the difference between physical body and the knower of this body with gyan chaksusa (eye of knowledge) will attain salvation. Now, please do not say that the exact word 'salvation' is not found in this sloka. Please understand the context. Instead of understanding my answer in this way, you simply said, 'Already explained above please'. This is no good sir.
Swami Ramswarup: I have several times explained that merger is not possible of a jeevan mukta because he has also to come again in birth vide Rigveda mantra 1/24/1,2 and these mantras I have explained before. So your repetition is not understood to me please. Please study these mantras carefully if possible. Moksh and again birth is eternal as said in these Rigveda mantras. So merger is not possible. Gyan eye means to know about truth, untruth, jad-chetan, good-bad, so for this purpose eyes are not required, so the gyan eye means the soul who has attained whole knowledge by studying or tapsya through mann and pure budhhi. And in salvation i.e., after leaving the body the jeevan mukta again uses mind, etc., to get merriment of salvation through eye, nose etc. So this the gyan eye. You can say the sankalp power of jeevan mukta makes enable the jeevanmukta to enjoy the time of merriment of salvation. If still not understood then you may again pass any comments on me and I will try again please. I do not consider gyan eye a materialistic instrument because it is not used by jeevan mukta during salvation. Gyanitself is chakshu please.
Swamiji;s previous reply: "Physical body is not prakriti but made of prakriti's three gunas (please see Samkhya shastra sutra 1/26)"
Ram Suri present reply: There are three things. One is divine, second is soul and the third one is prakruti. Right? Divine is not prakruti. Sir! Do you agree on this?
Swami Ramswarup: I have several times told this fact giving reference even of Rigveda mandal 10 that this is the tretvad which you are telling here that God, souls, and prakriti are eternal. And from prakriti's three gunas God creates universe etc., etc. So this is all repetition please. That is why I have to tell," I have already explained above."
Ram Suri: Then, souls are also not prakruti. Right? Live physical body has two things. One is soul and the other is a physical body associated with senses.
Swami Ramswarup: In other words the body is made of prakriti's three gunas. The body is non-alive because prakriti's three gunas are non-alive. The body has fiveperceptions, five senses, mann, budhhi, ahankar etc., as per Rigveda mandal 10 and Geeta 13/5 also. Soul is however, alive and live in the body.
Ram Suri: When the soul is not prakruti, then it means that the physical body is called prakruti, (associated with senses).
Swami Ramswarup: Prakriti's definition is mentioned in Rigveda mandal 10 and Samkhya sutra 1/26 that when three gunas are "SAMYA" that is not working then this stage is called prakriti. When three gunas are in action and have created universe then this stage is not called prakriti but is called prakriti's gunas made universe. This I had already explained before and this is only repetition please. So sun is the result of prakriti and Prakriti is its cause. The parents are cause of a daughter or a son and daughter or son are result. So the daughter or son are not parents.
Ram Suri: On the other hand, you say that physical bodies are made from prakruti, and that they are not called prakruti anymore. It means, as per your understanding, once the physical bodies are created or made, then they are no more called prakruti. Right? You know that the live physical body is not soul, and similarly, a live physical body is also not called divine. Right? If the physical body is neither a soul nor a divine, then what is it remaining now? Only prakruti is remaining.
Swami Ramswarup: I have explained above please that body is prakriti made. There are two things in Vedas and shastras—Karann (cause) and Karya (result). Prakriti is the cause of universe, i.e., from prakriti's three gunas the universe is created and during destruction this creation is merged in prakriti. Then prakriti remains prakriti(cause) and karya (result) is destroyed during final destruction (Pralaya). This is repetition please. Please don't mind if it will be repeated then I will have to write, "already explained above."
Ram Suri: It means that physical bodies are called prakruti, nevertheless, prakruti is in a modified form now. Can we say that a pot, once made from mud, is no more called a mud? The mud in the pot has taken a different form or shape, but mud is present in the pot also. Therefore, the conclusion is that different forms of bodies are representation of prakruti in different shapes, meaning that prakruti is changeable. Let ussee one more example. Suppose we have an ice cube and water. Ice is made from water. But because, ice has a particular shape, can we say that it is not made from water. No. Ice is made of water. Once ice melts, then it becomes water and mixes in water. Here we take ice as different types of physical bodies, and water as prakruti. Ice is made of water only. Similarly, all physical bodies are made from prakruti.
Swami Ramswarup: Pot is made of mud but will not function as mud. We put foods in a pot made of mud but will not put food in mud. So prakriti 's definition is another as told above. And prakriti's gunas made universe, definition is another one. Similarly the ice is used for another purpose and water is used for another purpose. But see pot, mud ,water and ice are made of prakriti's gunas.
Ram Suri: Once ice is made from water, can anyone say that there is no water in ice? No. Ice is made from water, and it is in a different form now. When ice melts, then the water can be seen with naked eyes and this water merges in another drop of water. Similarly, when the physical are created from prakruti, it means that prakruti is in a different form now. Hence, when the physical bodies die, they all merge in prakruti, likeice after melting merges in water. If physical bodies are not prakruti, it means that ice is not water. If is so, then how come, ice after melting merges in water and how come physical bodies merge in prakruti after death? If physical bodies and prakruti aredifferent, then how can the physical bodies merge in prakruti?
Swami Ramswarup: As already explained above the definition of prakriti is separate and definition of universe is separate, so universe can't be claimed prakriti, butprakriti made. Ice is made of water but nobody says it water please. Everybody will say it is made of water.
Ram Suri: How can water mix with oil? Water can mix in water, but not in oil. Right? Similarly, physical bodies merge in prakruti due to their very prakrutic nature. Therefore, prakruti is changeable. Similarly, once creation is done, prakruti cannot say, "hey! Job of creation is done, and so I am separate from the creation, and let me take rest" like that. When the creation is done, prakruti is also spread in the universe in different forms. Since prakruti is non-alive, it starts functioning under the guidance of divine, like iron pieces move in the presence of a magnet. Therefore, the conclusion is that physicalbodies are also prakrutic in nature, Please see Gita 13/7, where Lord Krishna says that avyaktam etc have vikaras as it is considered to be the field of activities (ksetram).
Swami Ramswarup: In Geeta shlok 13/5 and not 13/7, AVYAKTAM word is meant for prakriti and mahabhoot ahankar, budhhi, indriyanni etc., are prakriti made. AVYAKTAM means which is unseen and cannot be described and eternal too. So this prakriti. And which are seen and can be described are not prakriti. So body is seen and can be described and is thus not prakriti but prakriti made.
Ram Suri: This avyaktam is nothing but the prakruti. Anything, which has vikaras, is changeable. When prakruti has vikaras, it means that it is also changeable. In alive physical body, senses etc are called prakruti. A person does sadhana because he wants to bring some change in his attitudes etc. This change is not brought in the soul or in the physical body, but brought in senses etc by controlling mind etc due to practice of astanga yoga etc. See, before sadhana, the temperaments are bad, and by sadhana, these temperaments are eliminated and the senses are well under control. Now please tell me if there is any change in the sadhaka before and after lot of sadhana. Yes there is change. The person remains the same, and the soul also remains the same. Then where did these changes take place? The changes took place in senses etc. You agree that senses etc are not divine, but they are prakrutic. It means that here this change occurred in prakruti. Right? This means that prakruti is changeable. Right?
Swami Ramswarup: Prakriti made whole universe is changeable. If senses are changeable it is not understood. Senses, organs, mind and budhhi are prakriti made, I have already told so many times. These are non-alive, its changes carry the body to death and it makes no difference to alive soul. As I already explained before by Rigveda mantra that this body has been blessed by God to soul to do pious deeds to get salvation otherwise to take several births in several yonis, according to karmas. So this body is used by alive soul to do pious deeds and otherwise. As mentioned in Vedas that the soul has a quality of attachment/ desire. This is also mentioned in Bhagwat Geeta 13/6 (ICHHA). So mostly soul is attached with materialistic articles made of prakriti and meets with sorrows etc. when anyone does tapsya etc., this attachment is finished then the jeevan mukta soul does not attach with materialistic articles or illusion. So change has come in alive soul by virtue of attachment, desire etc., but materialistic change has no meaning please.
Ram Suri previous reply: because, in the absence of jeevatma, this will disintegrate and merges into prakruti. We all know, soul is everlasting, and no changes occur to it. Now come back to your statement that prakruti is unchangeable. The physical body of a new-born baby is different from this body at adulthood. In other words, every thing in time space domain will change with time. How this happens withoutchanges in prakruti?
Ram Suri previous answer: The changes in prakruti take place under the influence of divine. Therefore, your understanding that prakruti is unchangeable is nottrue. Yes prakruti is everlasting as said by Lord Krishna in Gita.
Swamiji's previous answer: Divine (God) is alive and prakriti is non-alive and can't be compared being separate from each other.
Ram Suri present reply: You say that prakruti is non-alive. How come a non-alive thing be changeless forever? Divine is only changeless forever. Right? Divine uses non-alive prakruti for creation. Since creation is ever lasting process, the non-alive prakruti is also present forever, but nevertheless it is inferior to divine, and hence exists in different forms in the universe. No where it is mentioned to worship prakruti to obtain salvation. But everywhere it is mentioned to utilize the prakruti (physical body and senses etc) for divine realization.Right?
Swami Ramswarup: This I have already explained before. The definition of prakriti is that when raj, tam and satv gunas are not functioning (Pralaya) so this stage is called prakriti. Please see Samkhya sutra 1/26 and Rigveda mandal 10. When this stage is prakriti then prakriti is not a man, woman or any statue etc., the said stage is called prakriti. so prakriti is not a substance except a stage when three gunas are not functioning i.e., are not creating universe. I.e. the stage of pralaya, etc. If it is not yet understood then you please name again with so many tittles that I am ignorant am having literal knowledge, I have got problem , I am doing partiality etc., etc., etc., and then I shall again try to shower Vedas' views please. But I am not suppressing you to accept my views.
Swamiji's previous reply: The authentic 10,000 shlokas are in Mahabharta. If Uddhav Geeta is based on these shlokas, please state. Secondly when there was no any Geeta before five thousand years back, then was it not possible to worship God or determine God based on four Vedas only.
Ram Suri present reply: "There was no any Geeta before five thousand years"? It clearly shows how much you are familiar with scriptures. Bhagawat Gita was not there before five thousand years back. But why do say that there are no any other Gitas available by that time? Astavakra Gita etc are available during at time. Sir! It is possible that you do not know about it, and you may also want to say that it is not found in Vedas and hence discard it.
Swami Ramswarup: In Vedas there is no any history please. I have described already about Vedas. I have said the word ,"any other Geeta" with the intention that Geeta like Bhagwat Geeta was not there. So when Bhagwat Geeta was not here in existence and the birth of Yogeshwar Shri Krishna Maharaj was not there, yet there was worship and that was based on Vedas. So why not now? I have read Ashtravakra Geeta but have not been considering the same in my article or writing etc., deeply. Actually you put the question about merger so it is astonished why you carry it towards Ashtravakra Geeta or Adi Shankracharya jee or literal meaning etc., etc. I do not want to stop you from these writings but it will save the time if you can please.
Ram Suri: Any how, what are you trying to say from your above answer? Are you saying that Bhagawat Geeta is inferior to Vedas? Or Are you saying that one should not worship Lord Krishna as the divine, as he is not available before 5,300 years?
Swami Ramswarup: These are your own made views please, deviating from the topic. And so many times you have diverted the attention from the topic please. Okay I accept calmly.
Ram Suri: You said that you believe Bhagawat Gita and have agreed that Gita is based on the knowledge of four Vedas. Right? Then please read 4/6 to 8 slokas andreply me sir.
Swami Ramswarup: According to Vedas this shlok 4/6 states that AJ means who is lack of birth and oldness etc., so AJ=God. Soul is also AJ because soul takes body only and not birth. Prakriti is also AJ because prakriti also does not take birth and never becomes old etc. The same meaning is of AVYAY. BHOOT word here is meant for (ashvarya) glory. So Krishna here says to Arjuna that he is AJAH AVYAYAH and master of all glories etc.
Swamiji's previous reply: Please note that now present Mahabharta Granth has more than one lakh shlokas. In this connection it is said that in the time of king Vikramaditya the shlokas became 20,000, Maharaja Bhoj says 25,000 and more., and Shri Kashinath Rajvade writes," the present Mahbharta is corrupt and enlarged edition of the ancient Mahabharta, this ancient work has been diluted from time to time with all sorts of additions and has grown in proportion on that account".
Ram Suri present reply: Sir! I agree with you on this but who will determine that which slokas are original and which slokas are corrupt? Who will determine which scripture is authentic? Is this corruption done only in Maha Bharat? Or is it also applicable to others like Ramayana, Samkhya shastras, Yoga sutras, and Vedas too? Who has to say yes or no for this corruption? What is their authority? And again, by whom the above corruption started in those scriptures? People who have knowledge in Sanskrit can only corrupt such scriptures. Right? Other ordinary people, who do not know Sanskrit, cannot do this work. Right? People, who think that they know every thing, and who have the knowledge of Sanskrit will only do this corruption, and people who only reads Vedas but unable to grasp the subtle truths of spirituality can only do this corruption and thus bad customs in the society is introduced by them. Right?
Swami Ramswarup: In this connection I have already given the proof of Ved mantras and yoga shastra sutra 1/7 that Vedas are self proof and the philosopher of Vedas and yoga who are alive are the proof. Those who would know the traditional knowledge of Vedas, how can they change the scriptures, so these views of yours are not understood. But the people are being mostly made afraid by some arrogants not to read Sanskrit andVedas to enable arrogants to spread their own views which are oftenly against the traditional knowledge of the Vedas. So please read my answers given before with regards to eight proofs and about Vedas. Here is only repetition. Again I tell you that I am telling the views based on Vedas, shastras if not accepted by you then it is not a matter that I will start objection or I will hate you. No please. My love is for all mankind.
Swamiji's previous answer: With limited understanding I think I understand from Vedas that prakriti, soul and God are ever unchangeable and eternal. And your unlimited understanding do not tally Vedas please. Please carry on till its finalization.
Ram Suri present reply: Sir! When you agree sincerely that you had limited understanding of Vedas, then how can you determine that my unlimited understanding does not tally with Vedas? It is not possible. Right?
Swami Ramswarup: Because you have not read Vedas, I think so. Otherwise you could quote even a single Ved mantra. So I have told you a wiser of unlimited knowledge without Vedas. I have been told by you several times that I have a limited knowledge and literal knowledge which I accepted. That is why I have told you that you have unlimited knowledge to declare a person having literal knowledge only.
Swamiji's previous answer: Gold is being gold being same but impure golden ring is mixed with some other metal, but in case of soul nothing can be mixed in the soul. The soul is covered with the illusion but illusion cannot enter in the soul.
Ram Suri present reply: You always miss the central point, but hang on to the unnecessary details in materialistic examples. I never said that soul is impure, but said that it is covered by different layers of kleshas, like kam, krodh, moh, etc. When the soul is covered by these layers, I am calling this soul as a conditioned soul technically for easyunderstanding. I explained my position or stand many times in my previous postings. But never read them by your heart or tried to grasp the meaning. Instead, you are looking for the terms like 'conditioned soul or unconditioned soul' in scriptures.
Swami Ramswarup: When you give the example of impure gold with soul then what have to be told. It will be told that soul can not be mixed with any impurity. Yet if I miss then its okay please. There are so many souls one is a jeevan mukta and other who is covered with illusion, that is all please. So I am not in a position to understand your sense about conditioned and unconditioned souls. Because I have not read in Vedas please and you also agree in your above statement that it is not mentioned in scriptures. Please clarify about conditioned and unconditioned souls.
Swamiji's previous reply: Already explained above please. In Geeta shlok 6/5 there is no mention of controlled/uncontrolled mind.
Ram Suri present reply: You will not find the terms 'controlled or uncontrolled' in this sloka sir. I am giving the essence of the sloka. As usual sir, you missed the central point again.
Swamiji's previous reply: Here Shri krishna clearly uses the word," ATMA ATMANAM UDHRET" i.e., soul (Atma) must elevate himself through self and not degrade himself. The soul himself is his friend as well as his enemy.
Ram Suri present reply: A soul does not have any impurities. Right? You said, " After sadhna, illusion will be over, so the soul with cover or without cover is same and unchangeable" in you above answers. Right? When soul is as luminous as before, then why it should treat itself as a friend or enemy?
Swami Ramswarup: This has been told by Shri Krishna in shlok 6/5 told by you. This is regarding illusion if soul uses mann, budhhi, senses to uncover then friend otherwise enemy.
Ram Suri: After sadhana, all senses are under well control. Before sadhana also, the soul is also luminous, but it is covered by different layers, like kama, krodh etc.,Then by controlling the senses, these layers are removed. Right? Then, when I said that controlled/uncontrolled mind, it should be understood as controlling of senses. I also know that the terms 'controlled or uncontrolled' are not found in the sloka. But the sloka is conveying the meaning that the senses are like friend when they are controlled, whilethey are enemies under uncontrolled situation. Your understanding that 'soul himself is his friend as well as his enemy' is totally wrong. Please think again sir.
Swami Ramswarup: Non-alive matters are always controlled by alive. One (soul) will control his eye not to see bad scene but eye will not control itself being non-alive, etc., etc. Explained above please. Please throw your views now.
Swamiji's previous reply: Soul is separate and mind is separate. The soul has not been made by any body and is alive matter whereas mind has been made of prakriti--- a non-alive matter.
Ram Suri present reply: The soul is not made of any body (matter). I agree on this. But you say alive matter again. One side you are saying that soul is not made of any matter, but on the other hand you are saying that soul is a live matter When soul is notmade by anybody else and can not be made even like God and like prakriti that is why soul is called in Vedas ,"SWAYAM BHU". So your views are not understood to me.Please clarify again. When soul is not made of any type of matter, then where is the question of soul being made of live matter or non-alive matter? Sir! You are contradictingyour own statements. You are not clear what you are saying here.
Swami Ramswarup: Soul is SWAYAM BHU and eternal like God, but soul is not God and cannot be even. Please study the meaning of "ANADI". Soul is ANADI which I have told several times above and before.
Swamiji's previous answer: So in Rigveda mantra 1/164/20," DWA SUPARNNA SAKHYA" does not suit in your quotation.
Ram Suri present reply: Sir! You quoted the above mantra first, but you are saying now that I had quoted it and does not suit. You quoted it first, and thus I am answering to it. Please vide my previous posting carefully.
Swami Ramswarup: The meaning of this mantra explained by you do not suit the Vedas fundamental law please. The meaning I quoted say that prakriti made body is there in which soul and God live. But you have told another meaning. Doesn't matter you accept your meaning and I accept my meaning. But love must be there.
Swamiji's previous reply: A jeevan mukta has no soul, as you say,
Ram Suri present reply: Sir! I never said that a jeevan mukta does not have a soul. Tthere is some misunderstanding in understanding of my postings. I request you to read my previous posting very carefully. Or please show my wordings where I had said that a jeevan muktas has no soul. I will explain on this again.
Swami Ramswarup: Several times you have said please that the soul of jeevan mukta after leaving the present body will merged in God. So naturally the soul will not have existence. I cannot locate your correct words at this juncture being busy please.
Swamiji's previous reply: "but jeevan mukta is a soul himself. Jeevan mukta like Vyas Muni, Yagyavalkya etc., used to discharge their duties daily"
Ram Suri present reply: I agree on this. But I never said that a jeevan mukta has no soul. Or else please prove it.
Swamiji's previous reply: I had already explained Rigveda mantra 1/164/20 which says about tree (made of prakriti), birds (soul ) and third God( who is witness of all). I would request you to study this mantra from philosopher of Vedas because two types of souls have not been mentioned in Vedas.
Ram Suri present reply: It is possible that you did not read my earlier answer carefully. Even if you had read it, it is possible that you did not understand it. I never said that there are two types of souls in my answer. I once again request you to read the answers carefully and then reply. Also please show me where I had said two types of souls. I will explain it again.
Swami Ramswarup: You have been telling please about conditioned and unconditioned souls, is it not two types? If I am wrong please clarify again.
Swamiji's previous reply: Souls are uncounted, quality being same and the God is omnipresent.
Ram Suri present reply: Souls are uncounted. I agree on this. But what are you trying to prove from it? Every body also knows that divine is omnipresent. So, what is your question or objection here? Are you trying to say that since there are uncounted souls, and since divine is one, they both are different? I answered to this objection many times in my previous postings that under what circumstances soul is different from divine, and under what situations soul becomes divine. Surprisingly, you are unable to catch this point sir.
Swami Ramswarup: God is separate and souls are separate and prakriti is separate by qualities and God is omnipresent and the sense of saying this all is that souls cannot be merged into God, as you say please.
Swamiji's previous reply: My Dear, the literal meaning doesn't solve the purpose and dear you don't even know the literal meaning of Vedas, I think so.
Ram Suri present reply: Sir! I remember you saying previously that you have limited understanding of Vedas. Now how come you judge with your limited understanding about me whether I know or not? It is not possible. Right?
Swami Ramswarup: I know I have told you that you have unlimited knowledge. Previously you first told me that there is no any guarantee that I have knowledge of Vedas and you have told me that even above also that I do not know even literal knowledge of the Vedas. So I, based on not having literal knowledge etc., have told you a wiser of unlimited knowledge please. But I thank you that a wiser like you is carrying on talk with a man who is even does not know ABC about any knowledge.Thanking you and hope you will sure shower blessing upon me, a simple man to carry on this discussion till its finalization with your happiness.
Swamiji's previous reply: That if a sadhak is still away to practice ashtang yoga, then secret of mantra will not be known.
Ram Suri present reply: Sir! How do you know for sure either me or some other persons do astanga yoga or not. What is the basis for this assumption by you? This is the trouble with you. You assume by default that others do not do astanga yoga but you only do it. You assume that others do not read any thing, but you only read them. You assume that others do not know Sanskrit, but you only know it. Sir! This type of assumption is not good.
Swami Ramswarup: Trouble is this that you are a wiser having unlimited knowledge and you are carrying the discussion with a simple man. Now come to the point, he who does ashtang yoga or not, he himself know and this is not to be told to anybody else. If I say the fundamental of the Vedas i.e., Rigveda mantra 1/164/16 says that the lack of knowledge of yoga do not know about the secrets of Vedas, shastras,upnishads, Bhagwat Geeta etc., so it is not a mean that who is doing yoga or who is not yoga practice please. You utter your own made views always which are accepted too. Where I have told about ashtang yoga or studying of Vedas being done by me or anybody else. Sir your views are wonderful and happily accepted. Where I told that I know Sanskrit and no others?
Swamiji's previous reply: So I will be happy if you start studying Vedas to know even literal meaning of any divine word of any Veda.
Ram Suri present reply: Thanks for your kind words. On the other hand, sir! For how many divine words of Vedas did you understand the literal meaning so far with your limited understanding, as you had claimed earlier?
Swami Ramswarup: I know nothing but know that Vedas are true being eternal knowledge direct from God. You are a wiser than me having unlimited knowledge please.
Swamiji's previous reply: The study of Vedas sure gives peace as had been giving in the past three yugas.
Ram Suri present reply: Most of the people are at the reader level only. And that's what you are also asking to do now. That is the reason why they are unable to grasp the very subtle meaning of Vedas. This is the very same reason we had persons like Ravan, Kansa, Duyodhan etc in the past, and also in the present in different forms. Ravan had read all Vedas, but he did not understand the essence of the spirituality of Vedas.
Swami Ramswarup: Please give any proof that Ravana read Vedas. The dignities you have told above with literal knowledge I tell you are of those who were against the Vedas. Ravana used to kill the Rishis from whom the Vedas are listened. Then how he learnt Vedas from a Rishi. Rishi Vishwamitr jee brought Shri Ram to escape from the demons deputed by Ravana. With literal knowledge I say to you, a wise man that perhaps, it has been a saying that Ravana read Vedas and could not understand. Thisis a tact to ruin the Vedas' knowledge. Please accept it or not because it is from a literal knowledge. But here you are again changing the topic of merged soul.
Ram Suri: Thus Ravan was only a good reader, but not spiritually inclined person. That is the reason he kidnapped Sita and fought with Lord Ram and died in the war. Because of people like Dhuryodhan, Kansa etc, lots, lots of innocent people were killed. You say it is peaceful in the past three yugas, when lots of people were killed. Peace could be established only due to Lord Ram and Lord Krishna during their respective yugas.
Swami Ramswarup: With literal knowledge I say that Soul is free always to do good or bad. In all Vedas specially Yajurveda mantra 11/14 -15,10/22,11/77-78,11/82,Saamveda 1172, Atharvaveda 2/7/1-2, it is mentioned that the king must punish the evils. I think it is enough please. Otherwise please clarify if there should have no war at that time like Shri Ram- Ravana, Shri Krishna -Kans and Mahabharta etc.
Swamiji's previous reply: Please study Saamveda wherein the importance of Yajna has been stressed by Almighty God to get peace, to burn sins and even to get salvation. After studying Vedas, if one starts studying holy Geeta then he will be surprised that holy Geeta is fully based on four Vedas and he will be able to understand the real meaning of Bhagwat geeta. That is why Shri Krishna says that He is Saamveda. So to know the reality of Shri Krishna, one will have to study and follow the path of Saamveda.
Ram Suri present reply: If one has to read SaamVed in order to know the reality of Lord Krishna, then in Gita, Lord Krishna also said that he is the king of heaven (Indra) among gods. Did you also learn about Indra as per your self-rule?
Swami Ramswarup: Yes I have explained before with the literal knowledgeabout Indra etc., please see there.
Ram Suri: But when you do not believe in the existence of other gods, how can you learn about the king of gods, Indra? You could not have learnt about Indra. Right?Therefore, when you do not follow this rule, then how come you ask others to follow it? Please do not misunderstand me that I am insulting you or anyone.
Swami Ramswarup: I am not forcing you to study any Veda but has said clearly to follow your path. There is no any other power like God's to help the only one Almighty God who creates the universe, says Vedas. And Bhagwat Geeta is based on Vedas please. With literal knowledge I have given the knowledge of swarg, narak and indra etc., according to knowledge of Vedas. If not accepted then it's okay please.
Swamiji's previous answer: "And in 13/4 chapter that all this knowledge is in the Vedas and Rishis have already told from Vedas i.e., Shri Krishna is giving knowledge from Vedas too".
Ram Suri previous reply: You gave a wrong reference from Gita. The correct reference is 13/5. But it is ok. I am not so serious on this. Let us move on.
Swamiji's previous reply: NO, I QUOTED 13/4 WHICH ISCORRECT AND YOU HAVE QUOTED 13/5 WHICH ISWRONG.
Ram Suri present reply: You have said the following in your previous reply: "And in 13/4 chapter that all this knowledge is in the Vedas and Rishis have already told from Vedas i.e., shri Krishna is giving knowledge from Vedas too". However, when I pointed out your mistake in my email, you are still saying that the reference you quoted iscorrect. In this reference there is no mention of Vedas and Rishis please.
Swami Ramswarup: It is mentioned in 13/4 that ,"RISHIBHIHI BAHUDAGEETAM" ETC., ETC., AND IT IS Geeta printed by Geeta Press Gorakhpur, here Rishibhi means who knows Ved mantras, Geetam means to sing a song of Ved mantrasetc., etc.
Ram Suri: Please do not be hurry, and I once again request you to look into this reference carefully. In 13/5 sloka, the words rishis and Vedas are present. I will wait for your answer for this.
Swami Ramswarup: Please quote your reference 13/5 stating shlokas.