[Advaita-l] Eternal Loka

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

>
> 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.
>
RV: We dont have to accept his explanation if we have a different
understanding that is more logical and satisfying.

>  Being beyond space and time is itself not sufficient;


RV: We both agree Ishwara is nitya. Depending on the criteria for kutastha
and pravahara nitya, we have to decide which one it is but that is
irrelevant for the discussion. Even if He is only pravahara nitya, all
names and forms are eternal as Vishnu.

>
> 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.
>
RV: The very fact that you are talking to me who is not liberated means
sarva mukti has not happened and as a consequence no one is as yet
liberated. All those who are said to be liberated in sastras and
sampradayas now only exist as Ishwara. I hope you agree with this.

>
> 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.


RV: The jnani in your dream and his view is your kalpana from the
position of ignorance and vyavahara. If you dont understand / accept the
eka jiva vada position that no one is as yet liberated, then you will not
understand / accept that the talk of paramarthika is only your kalpana from
vyavahara. There is no ontological gradation between these views as both
are from within vyavahara only.


> 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.
>
RV: You may want to take up a serious study of Bhakti Rasayana, Advaita
Siddhi and Gudartha Dipika. On one hand, you say you cannot comment but
then go on to comment. It is a self-contradictory.

>
>
> Let me tell you that an advaita sAdhaka is not required to study those.
>
RV: You wont understand bhakti in advaita if you dont study. You may still
get moksha by Ishwaranugraha and be one with Him though due to akhandakara
vrttti you may be the objectless consciousness.

> 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.
>
RV: I am sorry state this bluntly but dont think you get the problem of
bhakti in advaita and how Madhusudana resolves it. Or why scholars are
divided in their opinion on if or not he resolved it.

>
> 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
> jnanam too.


RV: No one deines that because all that we attain with sthula and sukshuma
sariras will be lost. Having said that bhakti is eternal argues Madhusudana
using logic not sentiment. You may want to find some teacher who has
bhagavat sakshatkara (preferably krishna's as all rasas are exhibited only
by Him) and also learn bhakti rasayana and gudartha dipika. It will help
you to have well - informed discussion on the topic.