[Advaita-l] Eternal Loka

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:02 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am not convinced. My comments / questions inset.
>
> On Monday, October 29, 2012, V Subrahmanian wrote:
>
> >
> > where it is said that an enlightened one can materialize for either
> himself
> > or for others those worlds (enjoyments) that he wishes to.
>
> RV: For an enlightened one in Advaitam, there is no other and no desire.
> So, how it possible to materialise either for himself or the other? There
> is no matter also.
>

All this can happen when the body-mind apparatus is still available.  This
is about the case of a jivanmukta who has not yet disappeared from the
world. Read the Bh.Gita 2,3,4,5 chapters.

>
>
> RV: Ishwara, in Advaita, does not have body or mind. But he is able to
> manifest the entire jagat. The body of the Ishwara during an avatara or
> svatambu is not due to any karma. So, it is possible to have a body that is
> not dependent on karma. And it is possible to act without a body.
>

Ishwara  does all this with the mAyAshakti as the support.  [It is
svayambhu and not svatambu.]  And all the bodies that the Lord has taken
for a purpose like destroying evil and establishing virtue has had a
beginning and an end.  In all the avataras we see this.  So, if you argue
that a jiva also can have a body on those lines, then the moksha that the
mukta jiva has, with a body, will also end.  The feature that moksha is
eternal will be contradicted. Also, the avatara too is not without
prArabdha.  Vidyaranya has said this.  Pl. read Sri Anand Hudli's detailed
posts on this in this forum by suitably searching.

>
>
> RV: .  This enjoyment is not with 72 virgins. It is participation in the
> divine Krishna Lila (janma karma ca me divyam evam yo vetti tattvatah..).
>
> Even atmaramas are attracted to Hari. This is admitted by Sridhara Swami
> and Madhusudana. Even Sadasiva Brahmendral and Bhogendral relished Krishna
> and Rama Lila
>

There is no proof in the Chandogya shruti to support the view that the
enjoyment with women is enjoyment with gopi-s.  The very Bhagavatam which
says that Atmaaraama-s are attracted by the Lord's guNa-s also admits that
there has been 'dharmavyatikrama' or transgression/violation of the
principles of dharma when the Lord played with the 'other's wives'
amorously.  Shuka's reply to Parikshit's question is very explicit.

>
> > Also, for any enjoyments to take place, there have to be 'others'.
>
> RV: Why? The Lord does not have any other person  but enjoys. Even in
> loukika, we say "I enjoyed myself". Hari Himself appears as Gopis, Vyasa,
> Suka, Narada etc. as stated in SBh last chapter.
>

If this is to be admitted, then it is only Advaita. Also the Mahabharata
and another Purana records the event where the Lord says addressing Narada:
'This 'show' that I have displayed before you, Narada, is only mAyic, and
not real. Do not know Me to be endowed with all this.'   Shankara has cited
this in the BSB.  So, it is an admission by the Lord Himself that it is all
a show and not pAramArthic.  This will go well with Advaita. The dream
example suits this eminently.  The dreamer creates himself and all others,
both animate and inanimate, in the dream and interacts with all these with
the dream-sense organs.  But what is to be remembered is, in all such mAyic
shows, there is a beginning and an end.  On this count also the moksha, if
it is something involving 'others' will have a beginning and end.  It will
then be against the siddhAnta of all schools that hold that the moksha
state is the natural state of the jiva.

>
> >
>
> RV: There is no duality between shakti and shaktimaan. The Lord and His
> pure devotees are one.
>

This is only a vyAvahArika view.  It does not have absolute truth in it.
The admitted view, however, is: it is anirvachanIya; we can neither say the
two are non-different nor assert that they are different.  The 'shakti' for
Brahman is admitted ONLY with a view to explain the creation that the
shruti says has come from It. And that shakti is also admitted as
MAyA/prakRti.  Ultimately the scripture also teaches that this
mAyA/prakRti/kShetram is an entity that has no existence of its own;  it is
paratantra, it has to invariably depend on Brahman for its very sattA.
That which depends on another for its very being is no different from the
illusory snake that depends on the substratum rope for its very existence.
No one can give an example other than the rope-snake variety for the
phenomenon of the paratantra depending on the swatantra for its very
existence, sattA.  Even the Madhwa school admits that the paratantra gets
its sattA from the swatantra alone and that the former will be mere names
and a void in the absence of such a dependence. I have cited the words of
Dr.B.N.K.Sharma on this before.

>
> >
> RV: But as nothing really exists, the statement  everything is him becomes
> nothing in him.
>

Yes. This 'creation' for either himself (by an Atmavit) or for others is
also in the vyAvahArika plane alone.
>
>
> regards
> subrahmanian.v