[Advaita-l] Eternal Loka

[Vijaya Kambhampati]

> 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'.


*From Vijaya Kambhampati:*

I agree with the last comment.

Ishwara is brahman seen through Maya by jivas and purusha.
Maya created time and space.

Maya protects (through its very nature) the existence of Ishwara who as a
result lives on forever and is protected by Maya from all destructive
forces.

 Brahman is changeless and maya continues till the jiva realises self as
brahman.So as long as there are any unrealised jivas, then an eternal Loka
with Ishwara in it will exist. But the jiva in it has to live and die and
may experience any loka only as long as his prarabdha will allow him to.

My humble opinion.
Vijaya Kambhampati




On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 6:00 PM, <advaita-l-request at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> wrote:

> Send Advaita-l mailing list submissions to
>         advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         advaita-l-request at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         advaita-l-owner at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Advaita-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Eternal Loka (Rajaram Venkataramani)
>    2. Fwd:  Eternal Loka (V Subrahmanian)
>    3. Re: Eternal Loka (Rajaram Venkataramani)
>    4. Re: Eternal Loka (V Subrahmanian)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 16:53:21 +0000
> From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
> To: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> Cc: "advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org"
>         <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Eternal Loka
> Message-ID:
>         <CAD412pYEzwbDpUVSzzQpG+LdY3FGpdyJVZtZdVekJf=Zp=
> vHaw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 07:34:54 +0530
> From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
>         <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Subject: [Advaita-l] Fwd:  Eternal Loka
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAKk0Te0UUE_pCNzOjiZJjZzsVyQMobfBecmmhSpAj+ke8D-iyQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Eternal Loka
> To: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> According to Advaita, on the basis of the Upanishads, everyone is an
> 'incarnation' of Brahman.  Yet all these jiva-s have to put in efforts to
> attain jnanam and through that, moksha. In the Bhagavatam itself soon after
> janma, Krishna addresses Devaki-Vasudeva that you have been giving birth to
> Me for the last three births of yours but failed to know Me. That shows
> that Devaki-Vasudeva couple are jiva-s in ignorance.
>
> Narada is an aspirant of Jnana, himself declaring: I am miserable as I do
> not know My self.  And seeks instruction from Sanatkumara in the Chandogya
> Upanishad seventh chapter.
>
> For Vyasa, Shankara says: A sage named 'apAntaratamas' incarnated as Vyasa
> at the confluence of the Dvapara and Kali yugas. He is an AdhikArika
> puruSha according to Shankara in the BSB.  Such a person is a jivanmukta
> with special portfolio till his prarabdha karma exhausts and thereafter a
> videha mukta.
>
> Shuka according to the Jivanmukti viveka of Vidyaranya Swamin was first
> instructed on Self-knowledge by his father Vyasa himself but as he was not
> getting the conviction he was sent by Vyasa to Janaka.  Upon being
> instructed by Janaka Shuka became enlightened.
>
> Parikshit, owing to a curse, renounced his kingdom and sought to hear the
> Bhagavat tattvam from Shuka muni and finally got it.
>
> Swami Paramarthananda has spoken about the Gopi-s alone, as per my
> listening to his Uddhavagita lectures.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > 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.
> >
>
> We have discussed this enough before and there is no point in going into it
> again.  You can study the sub-commentaries for the above Gita verse.
>
> >
> > >
> > RV: My main point Siva and Vishnu are not in bondage but they are able to
> > engage in devotion to each other.
> >
>
> Let them engage so.  That does not contradict the Turiya state of the
> Upanishadic teaching.  The idea of Shiva and Vishnu duality persists in the
> pre-Turiya states alone.   We have examples of one jivanmukta engaging in
> devotion of another one, alive or not, both being well aware that their
> bodies are unreal.  What is required for such practices is a body.  And a
> body for Brahman is not admitted in the Upanishads as an absolute reality.
>
> >
> >> regards
> >> subrahmanian.v
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 06:52:02 +0000
> From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
>         <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Eternal Loka
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAD412pakyRaj9g8AOc3UV3eCCQmczfJZUe5USppL2dJyOWqKEA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Thursday, November 8, 2012, V Subrahmanian wrote:
>
> >
> > > RV: My main point Siva and Vishnu are not in bondage but they are able
> to
> > > engage in devotion to each other.
> > >
> >
> > Let them engage so.  That does not contradict the Turiya state of the
> > Upanishadic teaching.  The idea of Shiva and Vishnu duality persists in
> the
> > pre-Turiya states alone.   We have examples of one jivanmukta engaging in
> > devotion of another one, alive or not, both being well aware that their
> > bodies are unreal.  What is required for such practices is a body.  And a
> > body for Brahman is not admitted in the Upanishads as an absolute
> reality.
> >
> > RV: We have digressed from the core question in to dhruva, gopis etc.
> partly because of me. The core question is whether an eternal loka albeit
> non-different from the lord is admissible in Advaita. 1. I brought up Siva
> - Vishnu devotion to show that it is possible. Both have no gaps in
> brahmajnanam and are not perishable. 2. I also referred to the usage of
> vaikuntha synonymously with the Lord and the Loka in SBh. 3. The reference
> to BG 8.9 was also to show Ishwara with inconceivable ETERNAL form exists
> according to Sankara. 4. The reference to eka jiva vada is also for the
> same reason.
>
> I would like to what you think about eternal loka in Advaita.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 13:22:59 +0530
> From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
>         <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Eternal Loka
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAKk0Te1HRWhG5HfJtXBsVYipqJBZniXFF_f6uUUgE4a6spVELw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > RV: We have digressed from the core question in to dhruva, gopis etc.
> > partly because of me. The core question is whether an eternal loka albeit
> > non-different from the lord is admissible in Advaita.
>
>
> In Advaita the absolute, pAramArthika satyam, is the nirguNa nirAkAra
> sakalavidha bheda rahita Brahman.  Anything other than this tattva is
> simply naught in Advaita.  A personality or divinity called Shiva or Vishnu
> is also kalpita according to Advaita, which are only upAya-s designed to
> help the aspirant's upasana.  This upAsana is expected to culminate in the
> upAsaka realizing that these forms/personalities are only appearances of
> the nirguNa brahman and not therefore absolutely real.  So, an advaita
> jnani is not expected to carry the notion that such divinities are
> absolutely real and that they or others along with them will continue for
> ever in any geographical, whether praakRta or aprAkRta loka.  If he carries
> such a notion he is not considered to be an advaita jnani.
>
> Shiva, Vishnu, etc. are admitted to be endowed with Advaita jnanam not with
> a view to establish the possibility of they remaining in any loka and
> engaging in worship of each other or being worshiped by others BUT with a
> view to help the aspirant develop faith in those divinities and direct his
> prayer to them so that, they being endowed with the Supreme Knowledge, will
> bless him and help him in his sadhana and finally 'confer' that advaita
> jnanam on him.  The Kanchi Periyava in his Advaita Sadhana series of
> lectures makes a grand finale thus:  Ishwara is Thyagaraja.  He makes the
> Supreme sacrifice of Himself by ceasing to be in the limelight the moment
> the jnanam is conferred on the aspirant.  What this depiction means is: the
> role of saguNa brahman ends on the dawn on the nirguna jnanam for the
> aspirant.
>
> The above alone is the purpose of Advaita admitting divinities and
> projecting them as endowed with Advaita jnanam.  Reading beyond this will
> result in endless confusion.
>
> Regards
> suibrahmanian.v
>
>
> > 1. I brought up Siva
> > - Vishnu devotion to show that it is possible. Both have no gaps in
> > brahmajnanam and are not perishable. 2. I also referred to the usage of
> > vaikuntha synonymously with the Lord and the Loka in SBh. 3. The
> reference
> > to BG 8.9 was also to show Ishwara with inconceivable ETERNAL form exists
> > according to Sankara. 4. The reference to eka jiva vada is also for the
> > same reason.
> >
> > I would like to what you think about eternal loka in Advaita.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>
> End of Advaita-l Digest, Vol 100, Issue 8
> *****************************************
>