[Advaita-l] Eternal Loka

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

> That the very concept of time is within vyavahara and absolute does not
> > admit of any time.  That is why in the si.le.san. you find the word
> > 'yAvatsarvamuktiH' where the term yAvat means 'till such time'.  If you
> > understand that jIvas' bondage is only till such a time and that in truth
> > there is no bondage or liberation, there would be no room for delving on
> > that.
>
>
> RV: Appayya Dikshitar categorically denies liberation for any jiva until
> every one is liberated. If you give up you sthula and sukshuma sarira, you
> will become one with Ishwara. This is what he says. This is the eka jiva
> vada position.
>

Appayya Dikshitar's view has been severely refuted by the commentator of
the si.le.sangraha.  Pl. read the various defects he brings up on the basis
of logic, shruti and the bhashya to determine that such a view is wrong.

Are you saying that Ishwara has spatio-temporal limitation in advaita? He
> is transcendental to space and time. Ishwara, though maya sabalitha, is
> also without body and mind. He is pure consciousness.
>

For Ishwara there is the mAyA upAdhi for engaging in Ishwara-related
duties.  Not for the jnani.

> >
> > You failed to see the term '**व्यवहारा**पेक्षया' by Shankara which is
> what
> > warranted the 'by courtesy'.  In Vedanta the very discourse on bandha
> and mukti is by courtesy, to accommodate ignorant ones.
>
> > RV:   By courtesy is an incorrect translation of apEkshayA as you know
> much more than I do. It simply means in consideration of. In consideration
> of vyavahara, from where bandha and moksha are talked of, you have to admit
> Jaimini's view because brahman is what cimes as Ishwara. Neither Badarayana
> nor Sankara rank the perspectives of Jaimini and Audulomi.


The very labeling the two views as vyavaharika and paramarthika is nothing
but ranking.  How did you miss this?  In advaita both these do not mean the
same nor do they stay in the same realm.  In fact vyavaharika is mithyA.
That is why even Appayya uses the term 'baddhapuruSha vyavahAra dRShTyA'
while laboring to establish his view.  What is ignorant-based view is  by
no means equal to the liberated jiva's view.  Pl. try to understand this.



> A eka jiva vadin or bhagavad bhakta will say a jnani becomes Ishwara like
> Jaimini.


You are thoroughly wrong.  See what Appayya says while concluding his long
thesis:  'etadasambhavashcha ekajIvavAda, pAramArthikajIvabhedayorapi
doShaH'.  What this means is: the mukta jiva attaining IshwarabhaAva is
impossible in the pratibimbavAda and this impossibility applies equally in
the ekajIva vAda too.'  Since you have not got this point right, you are
insisting that an eka jIva vAdin will admit of jnani becoming Ishwara.  In
fact, as Sri Venkatesh pointed out, the concept of Ishwara itself, along
with the ideas of shruti, guru, etc. is an imagination in the only one
sajIva jIva acc. to eka jIva vAda.  In such a situation how will he admit
that the mukta jIva will become Ishwara!!  When that one sajIva jIva
attains right knowledge, all the kalpana-s like Ishwara, shruti, guru, will
end.

Nor will a bhagavadbhakta will say that 'the mukta jiva will become
Ishwara'.  For a bhakta there is dvaita bhAvana for ever. For an Advaita
bhakta he is no different from a nirguNa jnAni.  So, here too your
understanding is flawed.


> A nana jiva vadin or a jnana yogi will say a jnani realised that I am pure
> intelligence (Audulomi). Both will be right because Ishwara is pure
> consciousness and vice versa (Bh G 14 27. - please also read Madhusudana).
>

In fact your thinking that the Jaimini and Audulomi views are based on the
diff. between eka and nAnA jIva vAda itself is wrong.  See what Appayya
says, as cited by me above: in both eka and nAnA jiva vAda-s, the jnani
attaining Ishwarahood is impossible.  So, your entire thesis is toppled by
this.

>
>
> > How do you know?  While Ishwara itself is an introduction, an adhyAropa,
> by  Vedanta for helping understanding of the Brahman beyond Ishwaratva,
> only to  be dropped in the final understanding, how can you hold that
> jnanis attain  Ishwara and remain eternally so?
>
> RV: If you understand that Ishwara is your Innermost Self, how can you
> drop Him?


No Advaitin  will understand in the above manner.  He will correctly
understand that nirguNa brahman, not Ishwara, is his true self.  Ishwara,
as antaryAmin, is not the true self of the jIva.  Ishwara, as nirguNa
brahman, divested of antaryAmitvam, etc. is the true nature of the jiva.


> Let Sankara say that I (sastras) introduced the concept of Ishwara and
> I want you to drop it, then we will drop Him.


That is what Shankara has explicitly said in the BSB 2.1.14 statement I
cited.


> Ishwara, by definition is an intelligent being (1.1.4) and you talk of Him
> as if It is a non-intelligent pradhana.


Ishwara is chetana, agreed.  But Ishwara is sarvajnatva sarva shaktitva
combined chetana, too.  That is the diff.  Nirguna brahman is not.


> Does Sankara use such language any where for Ishwara?


Yes. That is why I cited that BSB 2.1.14 sentence.  Sarvajnatva,etc. are
avidyAkalpita-effects that are superimposed in nirguna brahman.  So, by
knowledge all these are to be dropped, rather, get dropped.  When these are
dropped there is no such entity to be called Ishwara.  Nor a jiva.  There
is, was and will be one  pure nirguna brahman. This is the Advaita
siddhanta.  As Sri Vidyashankar pointed out much before, you seem to be
making an attempt to somehow bring about a marriage between Advaita and
some form of vaishnavism and trying to pass it off as the advaita of
Shankara sampradaya.  Such attempts will not succeed.  Taking the support
of Madhusudana too will not help in this.

We have to keep the spirit of Sankara especially someone like you
> who had dedicated your life for Him.
>
> Even logically, how can a true bhakta give up Ishwara? He becomes a bhakta
> only after surrendering himself to Ishwara.


What is the use in delving on this?  As stated several times before, the
greatest bhakta as per Advaita is the greatest nirguNa jnAni who has
understood as stated by me in the foregoing. All the talk of gopis, etc.
will not weigh with the ultimate position of advaita.


>
> Did I not point out that the Br.Up. precludes the sUkshma sharIra's
> departure from the jnani's body upon  death?
>
> RV: There is no sukshuma sarira for a jnani who has attained oneness with
> Ishwara. Ishwara also does not have sukshuma sarira.
>

Then what is the purpose of the jnani attaining Ishwara? That is one of the
points of criticism against Appayya made out by the commentator to the
si.le.sang.

>
> >   Such being the case where is the individuality that will persist
> > in/as Ishwara eternally for a Jnani?
>
> RV: There is no individuality (if by that you mean ahankara) for that
> Vishnu (Rudra if you will or Shakti) who is beyond all names and forms.
>

But Advaita does not admit of the jnani becoming any of the gods upon
liberation.

>
> RV: I don't have problem in admitting Audulomi's view that a jnani is
> suddha caitanyam. I equally don't have problem in admitting that a jnani is
> Ishwara. Only those who see Ishwara as different from Brahman will have
> problem with Jaimini's view.
>

The commentator points out that Appayya himself, being not happy with what
he said in the si.le.sang. gives an explanation in his nyAyarakShAmaNi. I
referred to that line of thinking which is more acceptable, earlier.

>
> > Can't you see from that bhashyam that the very concept of Ishwara is
> > upAdhi-dependent?  And such upAdhi is ignorance-created?  And that when
> > ignorance is destroyed the upAdhis are destroyed and Ishwaratvam itself
> > ceases to exist?  What more do you need Shankara to state?  There can be
> no
> > greater clarity than here on the ultimate non-existence of
> > Ishwara/Ishvaratvam.  In fact the very idea of Ishwaratvam is in the
> realm
> > of ignorance-created duality.  So, when duality is negated
> > Ishwara/Ishwaratvam automatically gets negated.  That is what Shankara
> > explicitly, not implicitly, states in that sentence.
> >
>
> RV: Your argument is like saying that when a pot is destroyed space is
> destroyed. Only the dualistic conception of space as one within and outside
> is destroyed not space itself. If Ishwara will become non-existent on
> moksha as you say,


Ishwara becoming non-existent is only from the jnani's point of view; not
in the ajnanis'.


> Jaimini will be plain wrong because he says you will be
> Ishwara.


No. Jaimini only says that there are the shruti passages which talk of
bhoga to a liberated person and that will be enjoyed as Ishwara.  As I
pointed out, it is purely to give credence to such shruti passages did the
jaimini view come up.  Again, it is by courtesy, to accommodate those
passages.  Shankara makes this clear in the badarayana view.


> Following him, Appayya Dikshitar will also be wrong.


Appayya's insistence has been refuted by the commentator, as I said above.
Appayya himself concludes that discourse by saying that the (jaimini) view
is from the ajnani point of view; avidyAkalpita..

Let me conclude by pointing out what MDS pointed out here:  Some people
think that the mukta jIva will not have complete aishwaryam and it will be
bereft of prapancha srishti, etc. But the sutra denies this power ONLY to
the saguNopasaka who has attained brahma loka and enjoys all brAhma
bhoga-s.  In order to establish that the AtmajnAni will not have even this
restriction, Appayya admits of IshwarabhAva for the Atma jnani to show that
if this is admitted, the mukta puruSha will not have any less
bhoga/aishwarya compared to Ishwara.  This will go well with the thinking
of ignorant persons that a mukta is equal to Ishwara, able to do anything.
That all this is only notional is also admitted by Appayya.  A mukta being
chinmAtra (as per Audulomi and the paramarthika view) cannot really be a
savishesha and experience all bhogas too.  Yet in order to accommodate the
shruti passages that talk of bhoga, a notional co-existence of the
nirvishesha and savishesha mukti-s is admitted.

I have absolutely no problem with this.  But I am sure you will have many
questions on this.  It is best to understand this way, as I pointed out
before, and suggested by Appayya in the nyayarakshamani:  Since nirguNa
brahman is the substratum of everything ignorance projects, and the jnani
identifying himself with nirguna brahman, it would not be wrong to hold,
from ignorance point of view, that he, such brahman, though being chinmAtra
in absolute terms, is experiencing everything in creation, as every
experiencer, in relative terms.  That way all the shruti passages will get
accommodated and the ignorant people too will feel satisfied.

regards
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
>