[Advaita-l] 'Ishwaro'ham' and 'IshwarabhAvaH'

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

Actually, I was just not replying to rAjArAm because his posts reveal that
he possessed either no understanding or wrong understanding of the meaning
of word 'jAti', 'eternal', etc.
Until he grasps the correct meaning or accepts his failure to do so, there
is no use to continue with him.
We are using technical terms, he doesn't understand. He, however, replies.
Then we are unable to understand sanity of his reply. So, we again
logically try to test his replies with another technical terms he can not
understand. So, there is no use to continue.

But, if anyway I've to continue, let me try it below:

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
*www.lalitaalaalitah.com


On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Rajaram, I don't know where to start, so here are a few questions for you
> to ponder over.
>
>
> > > RV: I'm explaining two cases where a pot is eternal.

​
There can be no eternal pot.
​


> In one case, there is
> > an ideal pot and other pots are made similar to that.


Observing your previous sentence, it appears that according to you 'ideal
pot'​ is none other than 'eternal pot'.
Then the non-existence of eternal pot denies possibility to this 'ideal
pot' too.

 In the second case,
> > there is no ideal pot but a collection of objects that share certain
> > characteristics is called a pot.


​See here,
the 'is called a pot' portion can be directed to the subject 'collection of
objects' in your sentence.
Now, how could a collection of objects, which are definitely not
pot(otherwise you would have mentioned it), which shares certain
characteristics(of whom ? pot or plant ?) be called pot ??
No sane person will accept it.

Anyway, I just sense that you have no understanding of jAti and you are
trying to explain it to us.
Better send that 'scholar' here or CC him so that we could solve this with
him.
​


> When we say pot, we can refer to both the
> > jAti or collection and an individual.


​I hope you mean by word 'or' sameness. Now, jAti is not collection - is
the point to be noted.
If you meant something else by 'or', then reveal it.
​


> There can be a jAti with a single
> > member also.


​Here it becomes clear that you mean nothing other than collection by word
jAti, because you are saying that jAti has members.

Anyway, note again that we don't accept jAti in AkAsha, etc. which are
single.
​


> The jAti is eternal is the argument.
>

​But, what jAti is not understood - our stance.
​


> > RV: I'm not negating eternality of jAti but saying the opposite. An
> > apparently new jAti is nothing but modification of existing ones.
>

​So, how could you say that 'this jAti' is original and 'that jAti' is just
apparent modification ?

Don't hide your ignorance. Just ask the person who helps or wishes to help
you. We are also for the same purpose. But, if you just keep going on with
your wrong understanding and words, we can not help you.
Again, I will suggest you to learn something about technical terms of
nyAya, etc. either from AchArya or from books(if you could grasp
correctly).​