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

[rajaramvenk at gmail.com]

Namaskaram. What is your pramana for concluding that I argue for arguments sake out of sheer ego? Even if you think I'm wrong, do you think it is possible that my conviction may be due to wrong understanding rather than bad intention? As far as I know, I have no interest but truth of the subject. 

Madhusudana Saraswati like Sridhara explicitly says Krishna's form is eternal. It is not just his opinion but supported by logic and sabda pramana. If you say Krishna's form is temporary, it is for you to base your statement on the works of an advaita purvacharya and sastras. I agree that we - not only me but we - should go by pramanas. 
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: Swamisarvabhutananda <swami.sarvabhutananda at gmail.com>
Sender: "Advaita-l" <advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:07:30 
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Reply-To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
 <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] 'Ishwaro'ham' and 'IshwarabhAvaH'

OM
I appreciate your reply toRV.
The basics of shraddA if not there and if one wants to argue for the sake of argument and such a person cannot be handled,as the EGO wants to establish the idea.
It is a pramAna vishayA and shraddA.
I enjoy this group discussion.

Sent from my iPad
WISHES AND LOVE
SWAMI SARVABHUTANANDA

On 10-Sep-2013, at 2:13 AM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:

> Actually, I was just not replying to rAjArAm because his posts reveal that
> he possessed either no understanding or wrong understanding of the meaning
> of word 'jAti', 'eternal', etc.
> Until he grasps the correct meaning or accepts his failure to do so, there
> is no use to continue with him.
> We are using technical terms, he doesn't understand. He, however, replies.
> Then we are unable to understand sanity of his reply. So, we again
> logically try to test his replies with another technical terms he can not
> understand. So, there is no use to continue.
> 
> But, if anyway I've to continue, let me try it below:
> 
> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
> *www.lalitaalaalitah.com
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
> svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Rajaram, I don't know where to start, so here are a few questions for you
>> to ponder over.
>> 
>> 
>>>> RV: I'm explaining two cases where a pot is eternal.
> 
> ​
> There can be no eternal pot.
> ​
> 
> 
>> In one case, there is
>>> an ideal pot and other pots are made similar to that.
> 
> 
> Observing your previous sentence, it appears that according to you 'ideal
> pot'​ is none other than 'eternal pot'.
> Then the non-existence of eternal pot denies possibility to this 'ideal
> pot' too.
> 
> In the second case,
>>> there is no ideal pot but a collection of objects that share certain
>>> characteristics is called a pot.
> 
> 
> ​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.
> 
> 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.
> ​
> 
> 
>> When we say pot, we can refer to both the
>>> jAti or collection and an individual.
> 
> 
> ​I hope you mean by word 'or' sameness. Now, jAti is not collection - is
> the point to be noted.
> If you meant something else by 'or', then reveal it.
> ​
> 
> 
>> There can be a jAti with a single
>>> member also.
> 
> 
> ​Here it becomes clear that you mean nothing other than collection by word
> jAti, because you are saying that jAti has members.
> 
> Anyway, note again that we don't accept jAti in AkAsha, etc. which are
> single.
> ​
> 
> 
>> The jAti is eternal is the argument.
> 
> ​But, what jAti is not understood - our stance.
> ​
> 
> 
>>> RV: I'm not negating eternality of jAti but saying the opposite. An
>>> apparently new jAti is nothing but modification of existing ones.
> 
> ​So, how could you say that 'this jAti' is original and 'that jAti' is just
> apparent modification ?
> 
> Don't hide your ignorance. Just ask the person who helps or wishes to help
> you. We are also for the same purpose. But, if you just keep going on with
> your wrong understanding and words, we can not help you.
> Again, I will suggest you to learn something about technical terms of
> nyAya, etc. either from AchArya or from books(if you could grasp
> correctly).​
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> 
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> 
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org