[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** RE: Re: Re: [advaitin] Re: Fwd: Brahman has no default form; Only contextual form - Varaha Purana

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms
Hare Krishna


  *   I am afraid we are giving undue importance to upAdhi-s (prAkrutika or aprAkrutika) in determining the Ishwara tattva in advaita siddhAnta.  Anyway here is my take on your observation :

Thes shastras are very clear in these instances. They don't say "he died" it's rather "left for his abode".


?     Yes, for that matter if any noble or exalted soul leaves this earth we would address like that only, that does not mean Krishna went to his abode with shareera.  As we know that 'shareera' where 'krishna' was in, needs to meet its natural end hence Krishna showed the foot to hunter to obey the natural law of 'death' (shareera tyAga) because that body was 'born' in prison as an eighth child of Devaki.

If shankaracharya acharya clarified that the birth is not literal and not like any other jeevas(who has birth and death) in the same way we have to take the death as not literally if mentioned someone.


?     I don't know how this observation could anyway going to prove that Krishna or rAma have not undergone the natural cycle of birth and death when it is well documented in epics.  At the best we can say it is not prArabdha janita shareera like other mortal jeeva-s, Ishwara himself opted to take birth to do dushta shikshaNa, shishta rakshaNa.  But this is not the valid testimony to argue that Krishna's janma itself is not natural and Devaki-vasudeva are not the cause of physical birth of Krishna & Dasharatha-kausalya are not parents of rAma and rAma's birth is not the result of putrakAmeshti ritual.  I think we have to accept all these as facts / true events when rAma and krishNa physically blessed this earth in different yuga-s.


The problem of giving a bhautika shareera to bagavan makes it necessary that he possesses a mind body complex.


  *   saguNa brahman is explained as manOmaya, bhArUpa.  Lord's raNa taNtra (meticulous planning of Kurukshetra events to get rid of bheeshma, drONa, karNa, duryOdhana etc.) is quite conspicuous to prove that he was 'thinking' and planning to do dharma saMsthApana.  I hope you would understand the difference between possessing the BMI complex and operating / managing the proceedings.  guNa guNeshu vartante.  By the way,  how do you explain the offsprings  of Krishna and rAma?? Any other esoteric explanation other than bhutika or prAkrutika shareera of their wives and aprAkrutika or abhautika or mAyAmaya shareera of rAma & Krishna??  Kindly don't think it is mockery, this is my genuine doubt.

No one can say that bagavan only takes forms and has no Manas if it's taken in bhautika sense.
If teh chaitanyam in all jeevas is isvara and he enters a body/mind in his avataras, what is the difference between a jeeva and isvara Avatara? If we say that his Manas is having upadhis of sarvajntva,etc it can't be exactly bhautika. Same applies to the body.


?     I think we are mixing the vyAvahArika and pAramArthika drushti here.  From the transcendental view point there is no jeeveshwarabheda whatsoever and seeing the bheda is akshamya.  And from the transactional view point, there is karma janita jeeva and there is Ishwara who has taken the 'birth' to bless his devotees and protect the dharma.  Let us not mix it and confuse ourselves.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar