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

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
*www.lalitaalaalitah.com


On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:34 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> RV: What do you mean by no understanding? Any meanigful word will produce
> an understanding in our minds. The understanding may not be what the
> speaker intended and hence can be wrong but how is it possible to have no
> understanding?
>

​Only relation of word with meaning doesn't grants that word will produce
understanding. It is 'the knowledge of relation of word and meaning' which
is needed. That's why I can't understand Tamil, although Tamil words have
meanings.
So, it is possible that words may not generate any understanding.
​


>  > > > RV: I'm explaining two cases where a pot is eternal.
> ​
> There can be no eternal pot.
> RV: Why? If the word pot is eternal, then the object indicated by it must
> also be eternal. ​
>

​The name of devadatta's grandfather is eternal, hence his grandfather is
eternal !!! Who is going to put faith in such idiotic logic?
​


> ​See here, the 'is called a pot' portion can be directed to the subject
> 'collection of objects' in your sentence. Now, how could a collection of
> objects, which are definitely not pot(otherwise you would have mentioned
> it), which shares certain characteristics(of whom ? pot or plant ?) be
> called pot ?? No sane person will accept it.
> RV: By the word cow in cow dung, you mean a single cow, a set or collection
> of cows and also a class of animals. The word pot can mean a single pot
> (e.g. broken pot), collection of pots (e.g. pot store) and a class (e.g.
> mud pot).
>

​It may be. But, you were talking of eternal pot. What does this logic
benefits to that stance ?
​


> >> Anyway, I just sense that you have no understanding of jAti and you are
> > trying to explain it to us. Better send that 'scholar' here or CC him so
> > that we could solve this with him.
>
>
> RV: You have access to the scholar now where you are. He accepts that
> Krishna's form is eternal (in vyavahara). We should go by pramanas not
> dogmas.
>

​Sure, I'll ask once I meet him.​