[Advaita-l] Eternal Loka

[rajaramvenk at gmail.com]

If I were you, I will not judge Sridhara's compliance with the tradition based on what some meat eating swami said recently. I will do it the other way round. 

I always maintained that sarvajna Ishwara is eternal in advaita. He is adi karta Narayana beyond particulars but who assumes all names and forms. Even a mukta, who is in vyavahara, cannot deny His existence. It is Shri Jaldhar who said Ishwara loses His identity and becomes one with parabrahman. He is, perhaps basing his opinion on the statements that the krama muktas who go to Hiranyagarbha loka attain parabrahman at the end of the kalpa along with their deity. I don't know because he has not clarified. It is Shri Vidyasankar who said if Vyavahara is eternal there can be no moksha for anyone. My understanding is as is Ishwara so is vyavahara - eternal. Moksha is metaphorical in advaita. 
 
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:10:29 
To: Rajaram Venkataramani<rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Eternal Loka

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Shri Subramanian,
>
> There is a fundamental fault in this analysis. You should not be looking
> at the usage of brahmaloka in advaita texts or sastras to understand what
> Sridhara means by Vaikuntha. Instead, you should see the usage of Vaikuntha
> by Sridhara in other places to understand what he means by Vaikuntha
> here. There are two usages of Vaikuntha by Sridhara and Bhagavatham - one
> it refers to a loka and two to sarvajna Vishnu. If you can show any other
> usage in sastras or advaita texts, it is worth a discussion.
>

First of all, a consideration of Sridharaswamin's commentary of the
bhAgavatam is only by courtesy.  What I mean is, when someone wants to
study Advaita, he is not directed to study sridhara's commentary on the
bhagavatam or even the BG.  So, his usage of the term vaikunTha can be
compared with the standard advaitic texts/bhasyam and assessed in reference
to them.  If sridhara is non-contradicting the bhashyams that is accepted.
If it contradicts the popular advaitic works/bhashyam then one will have to
conclude that sridhara is commenting only in 'that local context' of the
text which he has on hand.

By saying that I am not throwing out sridhara's comment for the term
'brahmaloka' of the bhagavatam as vaikuntha.  I have earlier shown the
shankara's commentary of 'tad vishnoH paramam padam' of the kathopanishat
which is purely advaitic brahman and not any loka or vishnu's foot (which
is not made of flesh and blood as our foot but which is some aprAkRta one
which an Iskcon brahmacharin vehemently tried to assert in Bangalore long
ago.)

>
> Please answer a basic question. "If there is no sarvajna Ishwara after
> pralaya, who will create as before and award rewards of karma in previous
> kalpa?"


No one has said that there is no sarvajna Ishwara in pralaya.  Ishwara is
sarvajna always.  All creation rests in avyakta for which the support is
brahman.  At the beginning of the next sriShTi,  it is Ishwara who
contemplates ' I shall become many, I shall be born as all, etc.'  Unless
you show a vAkyam from the advaitic texts to the effect that there is no
Ishwara in / after pralaya there is no point in continuing this
discussion.  And by admitting a sarvajna nitya Ishwara the advaitic
position of the kUTastha nityatva of nirguNa brahman is not in any danger.
For, the former is in the vyavaharika and the latter is the paramarthika.

regards
vs

>
>