[Advaita-l] Eternal Loka

[rajaramvenk at gmail.com]

There is no presumption. Even if you don't accept other pramanas, you have to accept pratyaksha.  pratyaksha reveals that world exists along with time. You cannot prove, without other pramanas, that there was a creation or there will be destruction. So, the world is eternal. 
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: Ramesam Vemuri <vemuri.ramesam at gmail.com>
Sender: "Advaita-l" <advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:33:30 
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Reply-To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
 <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Eternal Loka

Respected Members,

"If there is no sarvajna Ishwara after pralaya, who will create as before
and award rewards of karma in previous kalpa?"

In a statement like the above, the key words look to me to be "(a world) as
BEFORE."

Because we recognized something to be in the likeness of what was earlier,
we assumed that it must have been the product resulting from the earlier
thing based on the operation of cause-effect relationships we are familiar
with. From then on, we are using impeccable logic, shastra-s, pramANa, the
words of authoritative commentators and so on to explain / understand the
various subsequent issues.

But have we subjected our INITIAL presumption, which seems to have slipped
from below our radar of hair-splitting analysis, to the same rigor of
unbiased, fair and open examination that we are insisting for later on
developments?

What incontestable evidence can one  ever have that a world is created in
the exact similitude or as an effect of whatever was there earlier? Is this
not a huge unverified (unverifiable) conclusion?

Brahman (the word does not stand for an entity but used only as a pointer
to some inexpressible 'no-thing thing' having certain "intrinsic qualities"
like Beingness-Knowingness-Infiniteness) is HISTORYLESS (no past - is ever
afresh and anew). Perhaps, creation is anew from moment to moment, with
each new thought coming and going!

regards,


On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaskaram.
>
> We can rest assured that the modern meat eating globe trotting swamis know
> little about Advaitam compared to Sridhara. Do you think he did not know
> paramarthika or vyavaharika when he wrote so about Vaikuntha? I pointed out
> the basic flaw in Shree Subrahmanian's analysis of the usage of Vaikuntha
> by Sridhara, which you have not responded to.
>
> I repeatedly asked a basic question that exposes a fundamental flaw in your
> understanding of Advaitam, which has gone unanswered. Further discussion is
> meaningful only if you can answer this.
>
>  "If there is no sarvajna Ishwara after pralaya, who will create as before
> and award rewards of karma in previous kalpa?"
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 31, 2013, kuntimaddi sadananda wrote:
>
> > From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > >
> > >Please answer a basic question. "If there is no sarvajna Ishwara after
> > >pralaya, who will create as before and award rewards of karma in
> previous
> > >kalpa?"
> > --------
> > Shree Rajaram - There is fundamental problem in the whole analysis. All
> > that you mentioned, Iswara with sarvajna, laya, pralaya, karma, jiiva,
> > jnaanam, ajnanaam -lokas, even puurva miimamsa, utta miimaamsa that
> include
> > Sreedhara swami  bhaashya, Bhattas, praabhaakaras, miimaasa positions,
> and
> > anything else you name it, all and any divisions and distinctions which
> > differentiates in terms of sajaati, vijaati swagata bhedas - all  are
> only
> > transactionally real. Noone disputes that. From paaramaarthika point -
> > existence-consciousness alone was there which has no distinctions of any
> > kind - ekam eva advitiiyam. Hence nirguna brahman we talk about refers to
> > that prajnanam brahma - that which is one without a second. Ontologically
> > paramaarthika satyam differs from vyaavahaarika satyam which again
> differs
> > form praatibhaasika satyam. The adviata teaching is from paaramaarthika
> > satyam. Confusion arises if try to mix these things - from what reference
> > these
> >  distinctions you mentioned are valid. You may not agree with this, but
> > advaita categorically dismisses any distinctions of any kind from the
> > absolute point.
> > Just my 2c
> > Hari Om!
> > Sadananda
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 <javascript:;>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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