[Advaita-l] Eternal Loka
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Fri Aug 16 07:31:09 CDT 2013
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> > 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
By definition a vArtika, virtually a commentary, is 'ukta-anukta-durukta
chintA' where what is said, unsaid and wrongly said in the original is
analyzed. In the present case KrishNAlankAra is not a khaNDana grantha;
only a certain aspect of the original is shown as disagreeable.
> 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.
Being beyond space and time is itself not sufficient; being beyond avyakta,
etc. is what is required for considering whether it is nirguNa brahman or
Ishwara. See the last sentence of Shankara's commentary for the very first
mantra of the mandukya upanishad:
//...and whatever else that is inferable from its effects but not
circusribed by time, eg. the Unmanifested and the rest, that, too, is
As has been shown before this very upanishad holds the concept of Ishwara
as the seed of creation and therefore not the ultimate Reality, Turiya.
This is in the sixth mantra and the seventh mantra negates all those
mentioned prior to that including the tattva in the sixth mantra. Latest
instance was the Taittiriyopanishad Bhashya holding the tattvam obtaining
prior to creation as avyAkRtam brahma which is denoted by the word 'asat'
in the Upanishad. Since this was pointed out several times before, there
was no need to raise the above question again for the umpteenth time.
> > The very labeling the two views as vyavaharika and paramarthika is
> > but ranking. How did you miss this? In advaita both these do not mean
> > 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
This statement would be misleading. Where has he said that? In the portion
of the si.le.sang. being discussed, it is only said that 'yAvat sarvamukti'
the mukta will be one with Ishwara. That does not mean that there is no
liberation. In the concluding sentence it is said : 'the
*chinmAtra*state of the mukta is non-contradictory to admitting him to
be one with
Ishwara from the ignorant's point....'
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.
The very labeling the views as paramarthika and vyavaharika is nothing but
ranking one over the other and it goes without saying that the latter is
mithyA, being admitting the ignorant's view.
> 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.
This sutra is about saguNavidyA. The ratnaprabhA commentary introduces the
bhashyam for this by specifying this: 'Thus, so far (in the previous
adhikaraNam) after discussing the (paravidyA) nirguNa brahma jnAni, now the
(aparavidyA) saguNabrahma upAsaka's case is being discussed....' The case
is about the upAsaka who has gone to brahmaloka and if he desires pitRloka,
then his pitR-s materialize there by his mere will'. Therefore it is not
to be mixed with the nirguNa brahma jnAni, who is a mukta already. And
this saguNa upAsaka's powers also will work only as long as his upAsana
phala/puNya phala is there. Thereafter, the punya will lapse and the
entire brahma loka will come to an end and all the residents thereof will
become mukta-s without body-mind. They attain the same state of an
aparokshajnAni who attained jnanam in the human world and lived for the
rest of his destined life and dies and thereafter loses all individual
> > You are thoroughly wrong. See what Appayya says while concluding his
> > thesis: 'etadasambhavashcha ekajIvavAda, pAramArthikajIvabhedayorapi
> > doShaH'. What this means is: the mukta jiva attaining IshwarabhaAva is
> > impossible in the pratibimbavAda and this impossibility applies equally
> > 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.
> > 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,
> > 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.
Since I have not studied the Advaita siddhi I cannot comment on what you
say as being said there. I cannot verify it too since no reference is
given. That apart, there is no such thing as someone 'becomes a sarvajna'
and then gets qualified for eka jiva vada. The only sajIva jIva in that
vAda is having the entire creation, along with Ishwara, shAstra, etc. as
his imagination. So, there is no need to expect him to utter something
that is not contradicted. The abAdhita veda vAkyams are as-they-are his
imagination. He is not expected to even explain them or their meaning.
> 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.
Let me tell you that an advaita sAdhaka is not required to study those. It
is enough if one knows, if one wants, that finally there is the
culmination: tvamEvAham in the three stages of Madhusudana which is none
other than the advaitic 'aham brahma asmi'. With such understanding there
is no way Advaita will admit any bhakta despite his stated ultimate
realization to be one with Ishwara eternally.
> 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.
I have not denied that the chit is one's real nature. What is so special
there? It is the well-known identity underlying the 'aham brahma asmi'
which is also present in the 7th chapter about the highest bhakta/jnani.
'jnAnI tu Atmaiva..'. It is also present in the 10.20 'aham AtmA
> 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 ...
In fact for no one it is a matter of self-contradiction or a surprise. We
have discussed/referred to several Advaita Acharyas/jnanis who have been
great bhaktas too. All that will not make any difference in the Advaita
moksha which is non-negotiable. If a great bhakta thinks that he will for
ever be in/with the Lord, that is not approved in advaita as Vedantic
jnana. There is no point in discussing this further for all that could be
said on this topic is already said several times in several ways.
> 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 ..."
Let me state that the Advaita tradition does not hold that those who became
jnanis before Madhusudana's advent were not mukta-s of the Vedanta
tradition. Nor would Madhusudana himself say so. I have cited his
introductory verse to the Advaita siddhi where he declares Vishnu, giving
up his ajnana as a jIva revels in the state free from all mAyA.
> *We just have to understand his solution. In BSB maya is said to be one
> with brahman and different.
Where is this said and by which sentence?
> Nirguna Brahman is Itself referred to as sarvajna Ishwara by Sankara.
I have shown the Gaudpada verse where the word sarvajna occurs with ref. to
Brahman and Shankara in the commentary parses the word as 'sarvaH cha asau
jnaH cha' [Brahman is everything as well as jnapti'. This is quite
different from the sarvajna Ishwara of the sixth mantra of mandukya which
is negated in the seventh. If there is any other reference, pl. show it.
> It warrants a thorough discussion not a superficial reference. We have
> enough evidence to show
> that a jivan mukta is hari bhakta.
I have already shown several instances. So, that will not help us here.
> You have to say at what point bhagavad bhakti should be given up - videha
> mukti? Please think through before you say that.
There is no such thing as 'giving up bhagavadbhakti by a jnani'. A jnani
can happily revel in bhagavad bhakti (saguNa) without harm to his nirguna
jnana (pUjArtham kalpitam dvaitam...). But all this is only before his
death. In videha mukti there is no individuality at all to keep bhakti and
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list