[Advaita-l] Eternal Loka

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012,  <rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. Swami Paramarthananda cannot take a position that contradicts what SBh
says with respect to devotees such as Dhruva, Gopis, Janaka etc. Sridhara
and Madhusudana call them jnanis of the highest order.

I do not know about janaka as a bhakta. He is known  as a nirguna brahma
jnani.  What 'highest order' means could be 'a jnani of the saguna
Brahman.'   In any case the Bhakti rasayana and other puranas are not
primary sources in Advaita for determining what jnana is and who a jnani
is.  The reliance is chiefly on the Upanishads and the Mahabharata cases of
Dharmavyadha and Vidura are cited by Shankara not because of their
Bhagavadbhakti but because of their brahmajnAnatvam.

> 2. Ishwara and Maya are beyond time according Madhusudana. Please give
reasons to say that they are within spacio temporal limitations.

'Beyond time' means 'they are not perishable as other created objects'. But
they are subject to sublation, bAdha, due to jnanam. Anything with a form
cannot be all pervading. When we have the case of Brahman taking a form as
Krishna etc. we have to choose between Krishna-form and the all-pervading
Brahman that is the basis for the appearance of the Krishna-form.
Naturally we have to say the all-pervading Brahman nature is the absolute
and the Krishna-form is relative.  A person who visualizes Krishna form
cannot, will not, see the shoulder of Krishna in the legs or the eyes in
the mouth. It is only because of 'differentiating' Krishna-form from all
other undesirable forms in the world helps meditation/concentration that a
certain form is given to Brahman.  This 'differentiating' is known by the
word 'pariccheda' or 'limiting' in Sanskrit.  A bhakta, even if he is an
advaita jnani and Brahman with a form, even in Vaikuntha, will thus 'limit'
each other just the way a table and chair will mutually exclude each
other.  Such a situation is not what conforms to the Upanishadic definition
of 'ananta' for Brahman.  Invariably one will have to say: Brahman is
Absolute and a form is relative.

> 3. There is no self-glorification when Vishnu and Siva worship each other.

If Vishnu is aware that Shiva is His own self, then worshiping Shiva cannot
have the thought 'Shiva is different from me' in absolute terms.  He might
at best have the 'pUjArtham kalpitam dvaitam' to render the worship an
experience in 'advaitAdapi sundaram.'  In fact it would be an example of a
painter appreciating his own creation.  Vishnu would see certain
exceptional attributes in Shiva and admire them, even though they are all
His (Vishnu's) guna-s alone.

regards
subrahmanian.v