[Advaita-l] Eternal Loka

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012, V Subrahmanian wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> rajaramvenk at gmail.com <javascript:;>> 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.
>
>
> RV: After mahapralaya, no one has a body. But we remain different and
reincarnate in the next srshti.  So, body need not be a differentiating
factor between Ishwara and Jivas or two Jivas. The conflict of interest
between Ishwara and Jiva does not arise if the latter desires as per the
will of the former.

>
>
>
> > 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-
> १०॥
> [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,
> etc.


RV: From all these, we can only say that it is Vishnu's maya. If some one
says that Sri Subrahmanian analyses philosophy well with his sharp
intelligence and vast learning, will it be appropriate to conclude that Sri
Subrahmanian is by nature devoid of intelligence and learning? Or that he
is intelligent only when he is analysing philosophy (tatastha lakshana) not
otherwise?