[Advaita-l] 'Ishwaro'ham' and 'IshwarabhAvaH'

Rajaram Venkataramani rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Sat Aug 31 03:45:45 CDT 2013

On Saturday, August 31, 2013, V Subrahmanian wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> rajaramvenk at gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > Couple of professors and at least one traditional scholar acknowledge my
> > understanding of advaita or more predisely the philosophy of bhakti in
> > advaita is correct.
> I am sure you are under an illusion.  No scholar worth his name will
> approve of your understanding of bhakti continuing in a dvaita-like mukti
> in advaita.  Such a situation is not advaita.

RV:  When did I say it is dwaita like bhakti? I asked you to please read
bhAvarthadIpikA abd Bhaktirasayana to form correct view of bhakti in
advaita. Please let me know what you find incorrect in the below summary of
philosophy of bhakti in advaita.

> If you stand in front of a mirror, you will say I am that. It is a correct
> statement. You can also say that we (the reflected and reflection) are in
> reality one but as reflected and reflection we are different because we
> exhibit different characteristics. The reflection is a dependent reality
> and reflected is independent. You can say that it is not even appropriate
> to call the reflected as reflected because it is by definition independent.
> The position of Brahman, Sakshi, Ishwara and Jiva - according to different
> schools of advaita - is like that. It is dhrsti bheda or difference in
> perspective. Now, as a reflection you can look at the reflected and say I
> am your reflection, you are my reflected or that you are me. All these are
> right and correspond to the three levels of devotion. The reflection
> (devotee) can say that the relfected (Lord) is - the cause of - bliss
> (ananda) as in raso vai saha. Even the Lord can say to a devotee or a jnani
> that you are - the cause of - bliss. Now, imagine you place a mirror in the
> place where heart of the reflection is as an analogy for melted mind. It
> will reflect the Lord. The original reflection (devoted jiva) and the
> reflection in the heart (the lord) can interact as in I am yours, you are
> mine and I am you. Herein we have created through the instrument of maya
> (mirror) an interaction (bhakti characterised as love) between two entities
> which are in essence one. This interaction can also take the form of
> inaction and total absorption (bhakti characterised as knowledge). As the
> mirror (maya) is eternal, we can say that this bhakti (characterised as
> love or knowledge) is eternal. The svarupa of this bhakti is known to be
> ananda through direct experience (pratyaksha) and that it is the absolute
> (paramarthika) is known through inference (anumana) eternal ananda is pure
> consciousness (suddha consciousness). It is also paramarthika as it leads
> to that and nitya because it is indispensable as nitya is used in that
> sense also in the case of nitya karma. As to what happens on videha mukti,
> the conclusions arrived at stand. If there are many mirrors (sthula and
> sukshuma sariras) and one of them is destroyed, the others continue to
> exist from a vyavahara perspective. Therefore, we can say that the sarvajna
> ishwara knows the path of the jiva whose ignorance (mirror) was destroyed
> and hence the lila is eternal as Ishwara's knowledge. It can also be said
> that the lord can re-enact the lila by incarnating as the Lord and devotee.
> In this sense also, we can say that the lila is eternal. We can also say
> that reflection has become reflected. All of this is from a vyavahara
> perspective and that is the only perspective from which we speak all
> philosophical constructs.

> > Even if no one thought I'm right, what is important is
> > whether I'm basing my statements on facts.  As I said below, no one is
> > liberated in eka jiva vada yet.
> A vada is only a construct, only to be negated.  If a vada does not lead
> one to liberation it is not a vada/prakriyA.  A scholar asked Ramana: Which
> is  correct: eka jiva vada or the nAnA-jiva construct?  He kept quiet.
> When insisted, he replied in Tamil: ellA vAdattaiyum vittAl aduthAn sari
> [If one gives up all constructs, that alone is the right thing]
> In fact the eka jiva construct is admitted to be the pre-eminent one in
> advaita, which goes by the other name dRShT-sRShTi vAda. To say that one is
> not liberated is wrong.
> RV: We can be silent when our mind is devoid of thoughts. When we discuss
philosophy, we cannot say we won't accept  right conclusions.  In eka jIva
vAdA, we can consider one jivabhAsas to be liberated and others bound but
in reality no one is until the mukhya jIva is.

> If you have access to this book, pl. read through those pages noted above.
> Since the pages are too many I desist from scanning them for upload.
> RV:  I will but can you tell me what is incorrect in my understanding of
eka jIva vada and why.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list