[Advaita-l] Eternal Loka

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

It appears that there is a confusion among the scholars as to whether Ishwara and Nirguna Brahman are one and the same or are different. This is happening because the scholars very often forget that He had the desire to be many and that desire-laden state of His is the Ishwara (Apara Brahman) and there is the creation. When that desire is over He is back to His old state and the pralaya is nothing but a statement of this. Nirguna Brahman and Ishwara were never two different entities. 

Regards,
Sunil KB




________________________________
 From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 4:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Eternal Loka
 

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

>  You are basically showing a bias towards auDulomi's view over Jaimini's.
> This bias is not present in the bhashyams. Both the views that a jnani is
> brahman or jnani is  ishwara are accepted as valid.


Even after so many exchanges in this and earlier threads you do not seemed
to have grasped the difference between relative eternality and absolute
eternality.

If at all there is a bias, it is towards truth and against falsehood.
Appayya himself has condensed the adhikaranam above in the nayamanjari by
stating one is savisheSha mukti and the other nirvisheSha.  So, one can see
that the si.le.sang. position of Appayya is not any absolute one; but only
relative.  IshvarbhAvApatti for mukta jiva is only notional for as per the
Br.up. the jnani's death is marked by no sUkshma sharIram leaving the body
and there being no individuality left in the muktAvasthA.

The two views are held valid ONLY from DIFFERENT viewpoints and not on the
same levels.  In the si.le.sang. commentary there are two types of shruti-s
discussed with regard to the mukta: 1. the one that admits bhoga and 2. the
one that precludes even perception of the second. It is only from the first
type the identification of the jnani with Ishwara is admitted.  That is the
vyavaharika dvaita dRShti. In the second type of shruti passages no duality
is admissible and hence no identification with Ishwara.  This is very
clearly stated by Shankara in the bhAShyam for BSB 4.4.7:

एवं अपि *पारमार्थिकचैतन्यमात्रस्वरूपाभु*पगमे अपि *व्यवहारा*पेक्षया *पूर्वस्य
अपि *उपन्यासादिभ्यः अवगतस्य ब्राह्मस्य ऐश्वर्यरूपस्य अप्रत्ययाख्यानादविरोधं
बादरायण आचार्यो मन्यते   ।। ७ ।।


You can see how emphatically Shankara says: the auDulomi view is admissible
from the absolute point of view and Jaimini's is *also *(by courtesy)
admitted from the relative point of view.  This should settle all
misconceptions on the topic once for all.




> If this world is seen, a jnani is Ishwara. If this world is not seen the
> jnani is brahman. Both the conclusion about the position of a jnani are
> taken only from vyavahara. In
> my understanding, A jnana yogi realises oneness with brahman. A bhakti
> yogi realises oneness with Ishwara. What the jnanis call unity with brahman
> is what uttama bhaktas call union with Ishwara.
>

Actually in Advaita, on the basis of the BG, the supreme bhakta is jnani,
one with Brahman.  So, the 'two' types of identification is not admissible
in Advaita.

>
>
> He does not consider Siva or Kailasa non-eternal. As long as we speak
> about them, we have to only speak of them as eternal or we will violate
> sabda pramana.
>

I am sorry you are making such wild claims/accusations.
Let me present two bhashya sentences from Shankara:

1.Shankara, commenting on the Bhagavadgita verse 13.18, says:


अस्मिन् सम्यग्दर्शने कः अधिक्रियते इति उच्यते -- मद्भक्तः मयि ईश्वरे
सर्वज्ञे परमगुरौ वासुदेवे समर्पितसर्वात्मभावः यत् पश्यति शृणोति स्पृशति वा
'सर्वमेव भगवान् वासुदेवः' *इत्येवंग्रहाविष्टबुद्धिः *मद्भक्तः। स एतत्
यथोक्तं सम्यग्दर्शनं विज्ञाय, मद्भावाय मम भावः मद्भावः परमात्मभावः तस्मै
मद्भावाय उपपद्यते मोक्षं गच्छति।।  (One is reminded of the word
'कृष्णग्रहाविष्टः’ of the srImadbhAgavatam while describing the state of
PrahlAda as he was a young boy. He was not enamoured by the toys that he
was given in a bounty.  He was 'possessed' as it were by a 'spirit' called
'kriShNa'.)  It is doubtful if Shankara has surpassed Himself anywhere else
compared to the expression of Bhakti here.  Nor can anyone surpass Him in
this.)

//Who is fit to attain this right knowledge? He who is devoted to Me, who
regards Me, Vasudeva, the Supreme Lord, the Omniscient, the Supreme Guru,
as the Self, the Soul, the Essence, of everything, i.e., he who is
possessed, as it were, with the idea that all that he sees or hears or
touches is nothing but the Lord, Vasudeva.  Thus devoted to Me, and having
attained the right knowledge described above, he is fit to attain to My
state, i.e. he attains Moksha.//


No one can surpass Ishwara bhakti of the above type expressed by Shankara.
Yet here is the ultimate position:


2. Br.sutra bhashyam 2.1.14:

तदेवमविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेदापेक्षमेवेश्वरस्येश्वरत्वं सर्वज्ञत्वं
सर्वशक्तित्वं च न परमार्थतो विद्यायापास्तसर्वोपाधिस्वरूप
आत्मनीशित्रीशितव्यसर्वज्ञत्वादिव्यवहार उपपद्यते ।


//Thus, * only in the realm of the ignorance-created *upAdhis are Ishwara's
Lordship, Omniscience and Omnipotence, and not in the pAramArthika realm
which implies that the ignorance-created upAdhis have been
negated/dispelled by True knowledge.  In this post-negation scenario the
ignorance-realm of Ishwara-Ishitavya (ruler-ruled) duality and omniscience,
etc. do not have a place.//


How can such an Ishwara be eternal?  What shabda pramANam has Shankara
violated?


vs
_______________________________________________
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