[Advaita-l] Eternal Loka

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

> 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.
>
> RV: I get it but if I don't, happy to be corrected if you can point out
what I don't.

>
> 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.
>
> RV : By introducing " by courtesy", you are reducing the weight age that
Badarayana and Sankara assign to Jaimini's view. You are also making it
impossible to admit eka jiva vada where jnanis in sastras and the world
have only attained 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.
>
> RV: My sentence above is from Sringeri publication of Vivekachudamani
commentary of Periyava. BTW, Madhusudana clearly talks about two paths -
bhakti and jnana. IMO, Sankara does too.

>
>
> 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?
>
> RV: Sankara is not negating Ishwara but duality. Why don't you show a
comment by Sankara that Ishwara is non-eternal and I will shut up?