[Advaita-l] Unmanifest and its Secrets

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

I checked with Sri Mani Dravid Sastrigal. He said that Krishna, Devaki
Putra,is pravaha nityam because shruti talks about Him as devaki putra. If
there is smrti pramana to say that his form and lila are the same in every
kalpa, then we have to accept them as pravaha nityam. Otherwise, not.

Is this okay?

On Friday, July 5, 2013, wrote:

> **
> Even in srshti drshti prakriya, when we see a pot, we infer that it is
> clay. Based on sabda pramana, we learn that its svarupa is brahman, which
> we are. So, we can conclude that the pot depends on our existence in this
> prakritya. Now, even in drshti srshti prakriya, though we create the pot
> when we see it, we create it with the quality that the pot existed from the
> time it was created by the potter yesterday and it will continue until it
> is destroyed by his playful son tomorrow. We will not think that our sleep
> or non-perception will destroy the pot.
>
> In both these prakriyas, we will think that Ishwara, Maya, Shastras,
> Sanatana Dharma etc. exist always. Therefore, Rama, Krishna etc. are
> eternal. In vyavahara, where alone speech exists, we can't speak of them as
> non-eternal.
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
> ------------------------------
> *From: * V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com <javascript:_e({},
> 'cvml', 'v.subrahmanian at gmail.com');>>
> *Date: *Fri, 5 Jul 2013 06:53:13 +0530
> *To: *Rajaram Venkataramani<rajaramvenk at gmail.com <javascript:_e({},
> 'cvml', 'rajaramvenk at gmail.com');>>
> *Subject: *Re: [Advaita-l] Unmanifest and its Secrets
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> When we wake up from sleep, we see a pot and infer that it is the same pot
> that we saw before we went to sleep. Though we did not see the pot, we
> don't think on waking that it did not exist when we were asleep.
>
>
> That is for the aspirant who cannot appreciate the dRShTi-sRShTi
> prakriyA.  He cannot appreciate that for the pot to exist and come within
> his range of consciousness, he has to be there a priori as
> existence-consciousness.  The pot is dependent on him for its
> sattA/sphuraNa.  This paratantratva for its very sattA makes it inevitably
> a mithyA object, just as the rope-snake has to depend upon the rope for its
> very sattA.  No other analogy can be advanced to explain the phenomenon of
> dependent reality, paratantra satyatvam.
>
> However, the avasthAtraya viveka delineated in the Panchadashi cited
> before is for the aspirant who can come out of the usual lot and appreciate
> the dRShTi-sRShTi prakriyA.
>
>
> According to the sastras, the forms of avataras are the same in every cycle. How
> they can be called anitya?
>
>
> That even His form has a beginning and an end is admitted by the Lord
> Himself in the BG verse cited .  Something that passes off and does not
> stay for ever is what is meant by 'anitya'.   In every cycle, however, even
> at every instance of one's perception of the divine form, the rule stated
> above: that it has a dependence on the perceiver's existence/consciousness
> for the form to be cognized and interacted is inviolable.
>
> For what indeed is satyam and mithyA, pl. recall the definition Shankara
> gives for these two in the Taittiriya up. bhashyam for the term 'satyam' of
> the upanishad.  To put it in a nutshell: that which undergoes
> transformation is mithyA.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, July 4, 2013, V Subrahmanian wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 7:35 PM, <rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What about Krishna, Rama, Siva? I'm not talking about sun, moon, stars etc.
>
>
>
> We have seen the shAnkara sUtra bhAShya vAkyam:  syAt parameshwarasyApi
> ichchAvashAt mAyAmayam rUpam, sAdhakAnugrahArtham [Ishwara can assume a
> form, which is mAyic, for the sake of blessing the aspirant.
>
> As per the Veda there is no rUpam for Brahman.  Any rUpam is possible only
> with the association of mAyA.  It is out of the aspirant's devotion that he
> is able to have the vision of his iShTa devatA with the desired form either
> in the waking or in the dream.  Even today devotees are reported to have
> had darshana  of one or the other form of Rama, Krishna,  Shiva, etc.  The
> most lovely vision of the deity's form had after deep prayer will not stay
> in the devotee's deep sleep.  That shows that the form is anitya.  Only the
> devotee's Self neither rises or sets.  The Panchadashi verse puts it in an
> unmatched way:
>
> सबोधोविषयाद्भिन्नो न बोधात्स्वप्नबोधवत् ।
> एवं स्थानत्रयेऽप्येका संवित्तद्वद्दिनान्तरे ॥६॥
> This consciousness (in the deep sleep state) is indeed distinct from the
> object (here, ignorance), but not from it ātmā, as is the consciousness in
> the state of dream. Thus in all the three states the consciousness (being
> homogeneous) is the same. It is so in other days too.
>
> Swami Vidyaranya, after establishing through logic and one's own universal
> experience, says that the conclusion arrived at  //Thus in all the three
> states the consciousness (being homogeneous) is the same.// in respect of
> one day, is the same in other days too.  And he extends this to all times
> to come:
>
> मासाब्दायुगकल्पेषु गतागम्येष्वनेकधा ।
> नोदेति नास्तमेत्येका संविदेषा स्वयंप्रभा ॥७॥
>
> Through the many months, years, ages and world cycles, past and future,
> consciousness is the sam
>
>