[Advaita-l] Eternal Loka

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Even after so many exchanges in this and earlier threads you do not
> seemed
> > to have grasped the difference between relative eternality and absolute
> > eternality.
> >
> > RV: I get it but if I don't, happy to be corrected if you can point out
> what I don't.
>

That the very concept of time is within vyavahara and absolute does not
admit of any time.  That is why in the si.le.san. you find the word
'yAvatsarvamuktiH' where the term yAvat means 'till such time'.  If you
understand that jIvas' bondage is only till such a time and that in truth
there is no bondage or liberation, there would be no room for delving on
that.

>
> >
> > एवं अपि *पारमार्थिकचैतन्यमात्रस्वरूपाभु*पगमे अपि **व्यवहारा**पेक्षया
> > *पूर्वस्य> अपि *उपन्यासादिभ्यः अवगतस्य ब्राह्मस्य ऐश्वर्यरूपस्य
> अप्रत्ययाख्यानादविरोधं
> > बादरायण आचार्यो मन्यते   ।। ७ ।।
> >
> > You can see how emphatically Shankara says: the auDulomi view is
> admissible> from the absolute point of view and Jaimini's is *also *(by
> courtesy) admitted from the relative point of view.  This should settle all
> > misconceptions on the topic once for all.
> >
> > RV : By introducing " by courtesy", you are reducing the weight age that
> Badarayana and Sankara assign to Jaimini's view.


You failed to see the term '**व्यवहारा**पेक्षया' by Shankara which is what
warranted the 'by courtesy'.  In Vedanta the very discourse on bandha and
mukti is by courtesy, to accommodate ignorant ones.


> You are also making it impossible to admit eka jiva vada where jnanis in
> sastras and the world have only attained oneness with Ishwara.
>

How do you know?  While Ishwara itself is an introduction, an adhyAropa, by
Vedanta for helping understanding of the Brahman beyond Ishwaratva, only to
be dropped in the final understanding, how can you hold that jnanis attain
Ishwara and remain eternally so?  Did I not point out that the Br.Up.
precludes the sUkshma sharIra's departure from the jnani's body upon
death?  Such being the case where is the individuality that will persist
in/as Ishwara eternally for a Jnani?  In fact, there is no such an entity
called jnani upon death.  Also, I pointed out, from the nyAyarakshaamaNi
where Appayya himself has clarified his statement on Ishwara prApti for a
jnani in the si.le.sang. by saying that since Brahmachaitanyam is the
substrate for the jiva and Ishwara, the jnani being none other than
brahman, is admitted to be everything.  What is difficult in this, keeping
in mind that even this is only vyAvahArika, as pointed by Shankara, in the
jaimini-view?

>
> >
> >  What the jnanis call unity with brahman  is what uttama bhaktas call
> > union with Ishwara.
> >
> > Actually in Advaita, on the basis of the BG, the supreme bhakta is jnani,
> > one with Brahman.  So, the 'two' types of identification is not
> admissible
> > in Advaita.
> >
> > RV: My sentence above is from Sringeri publication of Vivekachudamani
> commentary of Periyava.


To which verse is the above commentary?


> BTW, Madhusudana clearly talks about two paths -
> bhakti and jnana. IMO, Sankara does too.
>

Where does Madhusudana and Shankara specify two paths?

>
> >
> >
> > 2. Br.sutra bhashyam 2.1.14:
> >
> > तदेवमविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेदापेक्षमेवेश्वरस्येश्वरत्वं सर्वज्ञत्वं
> > सर्वशक्तित्वं च न परमार्थतो विद्यायापास्तसर्वोपाधिस्वरूप
> > आत्मनीशित्रीशितव्यसर्वज्ञत्वादिव्यवहार उपपद्यते ।
> >
> >
> > //Thus, * only in the realm of the ignorance-created *upAdhis are
> Ishwara's Lordship, Omniscience and Omnipotence, and not in the
> pAramArthika realm> which implies that the ignorance-created upAdhis have
> been negated/dispelled by True knowledge.  In this post-negation scenario
> the ignorance-realm of Ishwara-Ishitavya (ruler-ruled) duality and
> omniscience, etc. do not have a place.//
> >
> >
> > How can such an Ishwara be eternal?  What shabda pramANam has Shankara
> violated?
> >
> > RV: Sankara is not negating Ishwara but duality. Why don't you show a
> comment by Sankara that Ishwara is non-eternal and I will shut up?
>

Can't you see from that bhashyam that the very concept of Ishwara is
upAdhi-dependent?  And such upAdhi is ignorance-created?  And that when
ignorance is destroyed the upAdhis are destroyed and Ishwaratvam itself
ceases to exist?  What more do you need Shankara to state?  There can be no
greater clarity than here on the ultimate non-existence of
Ishwara/Ishvaratvam.  In fact the very idea of Ishwaratvam is in the realm
of ignorance-created duality.  So, when duality is negated
Ishwara/Ishwaratvam automatically gets negated.  That is what Shankara
explicitly, not implicitly, states in that sentence.

I think it is better for you to take time off to contemplate on the various
inputs provided here instead of raising questions requiring same answers in
different words.

regards
vs

> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>