[Advaita-l] Eternal Loka

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:50 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

RV: In SBh 10.3.7 - 8, it is said that Devaki is (devakyam deva-rupinyam)
sakshat Hari. In SBh 12.13.19, it is said that Brahma, Narada, Vyasa, Sukha
and Parikshit are avatars of Hari only. In SBh 12.8.32, it is said that
Nara and Narayana are incarnations of Hari only (nara narayano hari:). Most
of these characters are incarnations of Hari Himself. I fail to see any
scriptural support for Swami Paramarthananda's opinion that puranic
characters attained krama mukti.


> 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.
>

RV: If your argument is right, then there can no inconceivable form.
Sankara refers to the ever existent inconceivable form of Ishwara (BG
8.9).  Madhusudana clearly says that these forms of the lord are NOT made
of five elements. We only have experience of forms made of five elements.

> 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.
>

RV: My main point Siva and Vishnu are not in bondage but they are able to
engage in devotion to each other.

>
> regards
> subrahmanian.v
>
>
>