[Advaita-l] Eternal Loka

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Tue Oct 30 05:13:42 CDT 2012

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

> > RV: 1. Even when an avatara ends Ishwara continues to exist. The Krishna
> tells Arjuna that many lives have passed for us which you have forgotten
> but not me. Manifesting many forms within (child, youth etc.) and between
> avataras (rama, krishna etc.) does not affect His state. The same is
> possible or a mukta jiva also? If it is said tt this form is still
> different from the Lord, the difference between Vishnu and His form is not
> admitted by Madhusudana (Rahu's head).

I think you are overlooking a flaw here.  On the one hand you want a state
of liberation where there are mukta-s as different from Ishwara/Brahman in
a loka.  On the other hand you are citing the case of Ishwara accomplishing
things without a body and asking: why can't the mukta jiva's function like
Ishwara (without body)?   How can mukta-s remain in moksha avasthaa as
different from Ishwara, without a body?  The differentiating factor between
two individuals has to be the body at the fundamental level.  Without the
body how indeed can a mukta jiva serve the Lord or engage in bhoga of the
various objects like women, vehicles, tasty food etc.? If mukta jivas too
have the power to manifest several bodies/forms by their mere wish, we have
to still encounter the contingency of these bodies/forms too having a
beginning and an end.  Then, there will be no way one can make a
differentiation between Ishwara and a mukta jiva, both having the power to
manifest bodies at will.

> 2. What is the scriptural basis to say avatar has prarabda karma? Kanchi
> Periyava says there is no body due to karma for avatara. So, there seems to
> be two ways within the sampradaya.

That Rama had to go the forest all of a sudden, face separation from Sita
due to abduction without prior notice, etc. are deemed to be events not
without a cause. The Avatara has been designed in such a way as to include
such events.  In fact Rama Himself talks about misfortune, etc. while
recalling events in their lives. Exact quotes from the Ramayana will be
helpful here. See these posts too:





RV: As Maya is beyond even time, how can it be admissible that aprakra maya
rupam has beginning and end? If Hari only appears as His devotees also,
then there are no others.

The very puranas, texts, that talk about these avataras also speak of their
'disappearance'.  Thus Rama's end in the Sarayu river, Krishna's end upon
the hunter's arrow attack, etc. are evidences. If Hari alone appears as his
devotees, it is only akin to a dream; very Advaita-friendly.

> RV: If you replace anirvachanIya with achintya, it souds like achintya
> bhedAbheda of gaudiyas.

It would be logical to call the gaudiya scheme to be sounding like
Advaita :- )  Also, note that there can be similarities too across schools
in certain aspects.

> What is the scriptural basis to say that Brahman is devoid of all shaktis?

Brahman is taught to be 'nishkalam, nishkriyam...etc. ' The teaching 'mAyAm
tu prakRtim viddhi mAyinam tu maheshwaram' shows that that shakti is a tool
for Ishwara. On the one had the teaching is 'brahman has no action.' On the
other the actions of brahman are made possible through mAyA.  That shows:
in absolute terms Brahman has no intrinsic shakti of Its own.  It has to
depend on mAyA to accomplish any and every thing. See these Bh.Gita verses:

एतद्योनीनि भूतानि सर्वाणीत्युपधारय । अहं कृत्स्नस्य जगतः प्रभवः
प्रलयस्तथा ॥Ch.7.6
[With these two, the parA and aparA (prakRti) together am I the cause,
source, of the entire creation. ]

मम योनिर्महद्ब्रह्म तस्मिन् गर्भं दधाम्यहम्। संभवः सर्वभूतानां ततो भवति
भारत॥  14.3

[I, Bhagavan, place the seed in My womb, mAyA.  From 'that' all this
creation proceeds.]

मयाध्यक्षेण प्रकृतिः सूयते सचराचरम्। हेतुनानेन कौन्तेय जगद्विपरिवर्तते॥९-
[With Me presiding, prakRti brings forth this creation of moving and
unmoving objects.....']

>From a study of the above sample one can arrive at the conclusion that
Brahman depends on a power to accomplish the work of creation, sustenance,

The Upanishad describes Brahman as satyam, jnanam, anantam.  To be this
Brahman does not need the shakti.  It is ONLY with regard to creation,
sustenance, etc. there is the need for a shakti.  That shows that Brahman
can and does remain without the shakti and the dependence on the shakti is
only incidental, contingent upon engaging in any sort of action.  Therefore
the naturally niShkriyam Brahman becomes a creator, etc. ONLY upon
resorting to the Shakti.  In other words, shakti is a superimposition by
the scripture on Brahman in order to explain the perceived world. When an
aspirant is able to graduate to the level of seeing beyond, disregarding,
creation, the need for this entity shakti is transcended.  This is the



More information about the Advaita-l mailing list