[Advaita-l] Eternal Loka

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

>
> 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.
>
RV: How can a view opposed to Appayya Dikshitar's be called a commentary on
his work? A commentary should establish the conslusion of the original
author. You can call this work a critique of or re-interpretation of
Appayya Dikshitar's work as per the author's understanding. It can not,
need not, should not and will not be accepted without serious
qualification.

> For Ishwara there is the mAyA upAdhi for engaging in Ishwara-related
> duties.  Not for the jnani.
>
RV: The relation between maya and brahman is another topic by itself. On
the current topic, my position is that Vishnu or Vaikuntha, the maya
sabalitha brahman, the sarvajna Ishwara is beyond space and time - hence
eternal. If you disagree, please let me know why with reasons.  .

>
> 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.
>
>
RV: In eka jiva vada that Appayya subscribes to, no one is really
liberated. Our transaction is verily the proof for it. There is only one
view - that of the conditioned, ours. The paramartika description is also
done from vyavahara only. You yourself told me that bandha and moksha are
from vyavahara point of view. So, there is no need to rank one over the
other. Even if you do, it is mute point because the validity of both is
admitted without qualification. In fact, the next verse continues with the
Jaimini position not Audulomi's because it talks about the Mukta willing
pitru loka and getting it without any extraneous effort.

>
>

> 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.
>
RV: You are half - right. I am thourough but not wrong! In Advaita Siddhi,
it is said that a jIVa is sarvajna. samastyabhimAnino jIvasya sarvajnatva
sarvakartrtva svIkArAt meaning 'Because one accepts that the collective
person is Omniscience and Omnipotent". This mukhya samastyabhimmani jiva
has knowledge to create (srsthyanukulajnanavatva). There is one jIvA who is
a reflection of Ishwara and non-different. We are reflections of that in
various minds. We are jIvabhAsas. When we give up our sthula and sukshuma
sariras, we become that Omniscient one. This is the position of eka jiva
vada. Logically, you, in eka jIva vAda, cannot create a sarvajna Ishwara or
sarvajna Vedas if you are not a sarvajna. Or you should at least capable of
making statements that can never be contradicted (avadita vishayatva). In
pratibimba vada, Ishwara and Jiva are non-different as bimba and pratibimba
are identical unlike in abhasa where they are not.



>
> 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.
>
RV: Please study the stages of devotion especially bhakta rasa tattva by
Sridhara and Madhusudana.  Try to understand what is santa rasa without
preconceived notions.

>  Ishwara is chetana, agreed.  But Ishwara is sarvajnatva sarva shaktitva
> combined chetana, too.  That is the diff.  Nirguna brahman is not.
>
RV: If Ishwara is cit, then pray tell me how He is not the Self. Sankara
establishes the identity of Innermost Self and the Supreme Self in 14.27.

>
> 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.
>
RV: Irrespective of what you or Vidyasankar may think, many scholars think
that Madhusudana has reconciled Bhakti and Advaita. Swami Gambhirananda
quotes Modi, ".. in spite of being a follower of Sankara's monism, he was
an ardent devotee of Sri Krishna. To Madhusudana this was neither
self-contradictory nor surprising ... Just as in the days of Kumarila
Bhatta and Sankara the most important problem was the reconciliation of
Karma and Jnana, so in the days of Madhusudana and Vallabhathe greatest
problem was that of jnana and bhakti ... but it was left for Madhusudana to
solve it *thoroughly ..." *We just have to understand his solution. In BSB
maya is said to be one with brahman and different. Nirguna Brahman is
Itself referred to as sarvajna Ishwara by Sankara. It warrants a thorough
discussion not a superficial reference. We have enough evidence to show
that a jivan mukta is hari bhakta. You have to say at what point bhagavad
bhakti should be given up - videha mukti? Please think through before you
say that.