[Advaita-l] Eternal Loka

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

RV,

You are quoting different authorities and I presume what you are doing is not for deriving pleasure by pitting the versions of one against that of the other. You seem to know thoroughly what all the authorities are saying.  The truth has to be one and therefore if you understand what the authorities are saying why don't you spell out that total truth according to your understanding. May be many of us, if not all, will accept you as the enlightened guru and learn from you. That is because you have not been satisfied with the debate so far and  what else do you hope to get from the same forum that responded to you so far.

Sincerely,

SKB



________________________________
 From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Eternal Loka
 

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.


RV: Appayya Dikshitar categorically denies liberation for any jiva until
every one is liberated. If you give up you sthula and sukshuma sarira, you
will become one with Ishwara. This is what he says. This is the eka jiva
vada position.

Are you saying that Ishwara has spatio-temporal limitation in advaita? He
is transcendental to space and time. Ishwara, though maya sabalitha, is
also without body and mind. He is pure consciousness.


>
> 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.
>
> RV:   By courtesy is an incorrect translation of apEkshayA as you know
much more than I do. It simply means in consideration of. In consideration
of vyavahara, from where bandha and moksha are talked of, you have to admit
Jaimini's view because brahman is what cimes as Ishwara. Neither Badarayana
nor Sankara rank the perspectives of Jaimini and Audulomi. A eka jiva vadin
or bhagavad bhakta will say a jnani becomes Ishwara like Jaimini. A nana
jiva vadin or a jnana yogi will say a jnani realised that I am pure
intelligence (Audulomi). Both will be right because Ishwara is pure
consciousness and vice versa (Bh G 14 27. - please also read Madhusudana).

> > 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?

RV: If you understand that Ishwara is your Innermost Self, how can you drop
Him? Let Sankara say that I (sastras) introduced the concept of Ishwara and
I want you to drop it, then we will drop Him. Ishwara, by definition is
an intelligent being (1.1.4) and you talk of Him as if It is a
non-intelligent pradhana. Does Sankara use such language any where for
Ishwara? We have to keep the spirit of Sankara especially someone like you
who had dedicated your life for Him.

Even logically, how can a true bhakta give up Ishwara? He becomes a bhakta
only after surrendering himself to Ishwara. It is like saying that a girl
given in kanniga dhanam can give up her husband like in modern day
divorces. She belongs to her husband. She may see her husband in every
object as in the description of bhakti by Sankara that you quoted or she
may yearn for him every moment of separation as did gopis when Krishna went
to Mathura. Her love may be powerful enough for her husband to see her in
every object. The husband may give himself to her as did Lord Rama to Sita.
Even if He is her property, she can't give Him up ever. They can at best
become one as did Meera and Krishna.

Did I not point out that the Br.Up.
> precludes the sUkshma sharIra's departure from the jnani's body upon
> death?

RV: There is no sukshuma sarira for a jnani who has attained oneness with
Ishwara. Ishwara also does not have sukshuma sarira.

>   Such being the case where is the individuality that will persist
> in/as Ishwara eternally for a Jnani?

RV: There is no individuality (if by that you mean ahankara) for that
Vishnu (Rudra if you will or Shakti) who is beyond all names and forms.


> 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?

RV: I don't have problem in admitting Audulomi's view that a jnani is
suddha caitanyam. I equally don't have problem in admitting that a jnani is
Ishwara. Only those who see Ishwara as different from Brahman will have
problem with Jaimini's view.

>
> To which verse is the above commentary?
>
> RV : Foreword. Not periyava's own words.

>
> > BTW, Madhusudana clearly talks about two paths -
> > bhakti and jnana. IMO, Sankara does too.
> >
>
> Where does Madhusudana and Shankara specify two paths?
>
> RV: Sankara in Ch 12.  Madhusudana, in many places in Gudarthadipika and
also Bhaktirasayana. Please read thesis by Lance and Niranjan. These works
are not without faults but hey gave good points on bhakti in advaita.

>
> 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.
>

RV: Your argument is like saying that when a pot is destroyed space is
destroyed. Only the dualistic conception of space as one within and outside
is destroyed not space itself. If Ishwara will become non-existent on
moksha as you say, Jaimini will be plain wrong because he says you will be
Ishwara. Following him, Appayya Dikshitar will also be wrong. They will be
right if you accept eka jiva vada.
_______________________________________________
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