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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Bhaskar ji

One more point to consider in favor of a simpler prAkRta explanation, is
that Sri Ramachandra's exploits are not so impossibly magical as to
necessitate a magical explanation for his sharIra. In fact Indrajit and
others seemed to possess even more superhuman powers etc. than Sri Rama,
despite these others having a bhautika sharIra. So postulating an
"apraKrta" sharIra seems wholly unnecessary to explain his exploits.

Again, If Buddha is accepted as an avatAra (albeit in a peculiar fashion),
then the fact of his leaving the body in the usual way as recorded
historically, goes against postulating magical explanations for Buddha's
body.

The only possible factor/reason for bringing in new categories and concepts
like aprAkRta etc., could be as follows.
1. "All that is prAkRta is karma janita"
2. "Ishvara's divine forms as well as avatAras are not karma janita."
3. Ergo Ishvara's forms cannot be prAkRta.

If 1. and 2. are accepted only then we can perhaps reason that some new
category like aprAkRta has to be brought in to explain the spontaneous
*origination* of a body for avatAras without a karma record. Once it
originates, this sharIra interacts just like prAkRta entities. That would
square with the mention by acharyas of the sharIra being not entirely
outside of prakRti either.

Is all this mere hair splitting? I would suggest not. Because if care is
not exercised in introducing such tricky explanations, then
dvaita-satyatvaM creeps in through the back door.

It is noteworthy that the bhedAbheda-vadins of Bengali Vaishnavism have
affinity for such aprAkRta logic to justify that Goloka Vrindavana and
Krishna are eternal, imperishable because the conventional logic such as
"anything that changes is perishable", "anything with parts will fall
apart", etc., applies only to prAkrtic entities and do not (as per their
claim) apply to the aprAkRta forms ( a.k.a transcendental form and pastimes
of the Lord in his eternal abode.)

That is why, this point is being laboured a little


Om
Raghav







On Tue, 21 Mar, 2023, 10:08 am Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

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