[Advaita-l] Advaita-l Digest, Vol 110, Issue 7
ramesh badisa
badisa66 at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 9 12:28:17 CDT 2013
Namaskaram,
I have one question lingering in my mind for a while, and would like to know your responses.
While reciting Gayatri mantra, it is always good that the mind be focused on the meaning of the mantra. This is known to all. However, instead on the 'meaning', can one focus on any Saguna Brahman form. Is there anything wrong in doing this? If not, can it give the same results. What would be the final result of this?
Namaskaram,
ramesh
________________________________
From: "advaita-l-request at lists.advaita-vedanta.org" <advaita-l-request at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 1:00 PM
Subject: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 110, Issue 7
Send Advaita-l mailing list submissions to
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
advaita-l-request at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
advaita-l-owner at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Advaita-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: 'Ishwaro'ham' and 'IshwarabhAvaH' (Shyam)
2. Re: 'Ishwaro'ham' and 'IshwarabhAvaH' (??????????????????)
3. Re: Padmapurana verse on Mayavada (Rajaram Venkataramani)
4. Re: 'Ishwaro'ham' and 'IshwarabhAvaH' (Rajaram Venkataramani)
5. Re: Padmapurana verse on Mayavada (Sunil Bhattacharjya)
6. Re: Padmapurana verse on Mayavada (Sunil Bhattacharjya)
7. Re: 'Ishwaro'ham' and 'IshwarabhAvaH' (Rajaram Venkataramani)
8. Re: Padmapurana verse on Mayavada (Rajaram Venkataramani)
9. Re: Padmapurana verse on Mayavada (V Subrahmanian)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 13:17:13 -0400
From: Shyam <shyam_md at yahoo.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] 'Ishwaro'ham' and 'IshwarabhAvaH'
Message-ID: <0DF892E8-856A-4969-8461-674C5EEF612B at yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
PranAms
There is (are)
a
blissful
form(s)
of
Brahman?
Hari OM
Shyam
On Sep 8, 2013, at 12:29, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
> blissful forms of
> brahman.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 00:32:08 +0530
From: ?????????????????? <lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] 'Ishwaro'ham' and 'IshwarabhAvaH'
Message-ID:
<CAJH_SbyhFzLuxzub0XhAALAZnidOG3Zst7WAxBg=kKUV20LqCg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
*??????????????????
*www.lalitaalaalitah.com
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com
> wrote:
> ?>?
> ?I can't understand what do you want to express by 'particular form is
> > eternal as knowledge of Ishvara'. Do you mean that forms and
> Ishvara-GYAna
> > are similar or same !!??? That's untenable.
> >
> RV: The jAti is not eternal as an idealised name and form in the platonian
> sense. It is eternal as a collection forms with an associated name.
>
?Let me examine this post here :
Let us take the second sentence-
What does it mean ?
jAti is eternal - is understood. It's oath part.
The part of sentence starting from 'as a...' is either cause or explanation
of eternity?
If first, then just formation of a cluster with a name associated can not
be the cause of eternity of jAti.? How could formation of cluster justify
that ?
If other, the first part of sentence would go upto the word 'collection'.
Then the first part will be: jAti is eternal as a collection. Now where
will you add rest of words starting from 'forms...'.
A collection of forms that share a lot
> of similarities between them is called a pot.
?A collection of forms is not called 'a pot'. It is called 'collection of
pots'.
And, if I accept the sentence as it is, then what will be the name for
individual pot.
?
> If your
> opinion is that an ideal pot is eternal and the individual pots are
> instances of the ideal, even then we have the conclusion that the name and
> form is eternal.
?I hope in your uses 'ideal pot' means jAti. But, what does 'instances of
ideal' means?
If 'a place of revelation', then only your use of words can be justified.
Anyway, existence of individual pot is temporary - is my motive. And,
similar to that the form of kR^iShNa.
And, as not many kR^iShNa-s are seen, so there is no possibility of
kR^iShNa-jAti too.
?
> If a new name or form is created, it is done by modifying
> an existing name and form by adding, removing or distorting parts thereof.
> Thus a new jAti is a modification of an existing jAti only.
>
?Wrong.
In first part you were talking about individuals, and hence you must
conclude about same in the second sentence.
Anyway, you are against your own stand because you are propounding that
jAti can be modified. That means jAti is not eternal, isn't it.
So, you started for eternity of individual forms and went to negate
eternity of jAti itself !!
?
>
> Ishwara, by definition, being omniscient must know all the names and forms
> - not only the jAti but also the particular. In this sense, all names and
> forms are eternal.
?I can not sense any sense here.
Ishvara can not know dead ones as living ones. That will make him
hallucinated. So, individual names and forms of past things and people are
not eternal in this way too.
?
> They exist as long as Ishwara exists. If it is not so,
> then Ishwara cannot create the world as before and accord results of
> actions done in a previous kalpa. Shruti also confirms that Ishwara is a
> container of all names and forms. Sankara quotes the following in BSB
> 2.1.14.
>
> 'He who is called ether is the revealer of all forms and names; that within
> which these forms and names are contained is Brahman' (*Kh*. Up. VIII, 14,
> 1); 'Let me evolve names and forms' (*Kh*. Up. VI, 3, 2); 'He, the wise
> one, who having divided all forms and given all names, sits speaking (with
> those names)' (Taitt. ?r. III, 12, 7); 'He who makes the one seed manifold'
> (*S*ve. Up. VI, l2).--
>
?OK. You mean satkAryavAda here.
So, just because everything is existing in the form of it's cause or it's
own form, you hold that it is eternal. In this sense, devadatta's dead
grandfather is also alive and hence he must start serving him directly with
medicines.
So, just get it that existence of anything in it's cause form is not
accepted as existence of the thing needed for behaviour. So, kR^iShNa's
form is not eternal.
?
> > > XX: How do you know Krishna's form is the same? We know the name
> Krishna
> > as
> > > Devaki Putra is eternal because it is said so in shruti but it need not
> > be
> > > that He has the same form.
> > >
> >
> > ?It is also not very clear.?
> >
> > ?Anyway, no name is eternal, as it is mithyA according to advaitin-s. If
> > you mean that A-pralayam, then it may be true. But, your intentions
> appear
> > otherwise.
> >
> RV: As long as Ishwara exists, there is no way to logically get rid of
> names and forms.
?By reading your words 'as long as Ishvara exists', it appears that Ishvara
is limited by time and hence not eternal. Now, where is the case of
eternity of anything created by him.
?
> Yes, a nirguna brahma jnAni can negate all names and forms
> along with Ishwara.
?OK. Only neglect, but can not kill. So, it appears here that Ishvara is
eternal.
You are confused as you are saying one thing in one part of post and
opposite in other part.
Be consistent.
?
> However, it is only theoretically known from sastras
> and our perception of others experience. As per eka jiva vada, those who we
> imagine have done it are only jiva bhAsas that have realised identity
> with our own self, the mukhya jIva or Ishwara. As the cycle of creation is
> eternal, sarva mukti and as a consequence negation of Ishwara is also
> impossible. This is not well understood commonly and hence the
> disillusionment about eternality of bhakti in advaita.
>
?So, ultimately you mean that there is no possibility of advaitic-mukti,
because without sarva-mukti there can not be real liberation. And, hence
Ishvara and everything he knows becomes eternal.
This appears essence of your logic.
Now, get it that as soon as you come to talk about mukhya-jIva in
eka-jIva-vAda, you are actually compromising with it's basics. You are just
negating your experience of being jIva and superimposing jIvAbhAsatva on
it. This is second level of adhyAsa.
I must say that for such people, eka-jIva-vAda was not taught.
?
> > > XX: If shruti and/or smrti say that His form is the same, we can accept
> > it.
> > >
> >
> > ?What if shruti says something opposed to yukti and other pramANa-s. He
> > seems to ignore this fact.
> > ?
> >
> RV: You are the one who is ignoring the purva mimamsa rule that on unseen
> matters, sabda alone is pramana.
?We are talking about form of kR^iShNa, which is by no means adR^iShTa.
Even his mother saw him nude, without reading scriptures.
?
> We dont know devas through any means other
> than through sastras.
?You may not know about indra, etc., but if you accept that kR^iShNa took
avatAra on earth, then it comes that his case is not similar to others.
?
> Even if we have bhagavad sAkshAtkAra, we only see
> through direct perception what is known through sastras.
So, you mean that dhruva, etc. just saw chaturbhuja rUpa and that rUpa
didn't do anything with them, no boons, no words....because it is not said
by shAstra that viShNu says those words, and of course dhruva must not have
read something like that !!
?
> In the absence of
> pratyaksha and sabda, we cannot infer the names such as Krishna, Rama,
> Narasimha etc.
?Utterly ignoring facts of birth of rAma and kR^iShNa just to prove your
stance correct.
?
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 21:22:31 +0100
From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
To: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>, A discussion
group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Padmapurana verse on Mayavada
Message-ID:
<CAD412pZJ7NBDXUABf68J6m-VoLVZiiCe0m2T7OhvqhbFaumGFw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
"yen?tivrajya tri-gu?a?" does not mean one becoming traigunya.
RV: Please check Sridhara Swamin's purport and then we can come to yours if
it is inadequate.
>
>
You are nor right in assuming that the Advaitin desires for Mukti.
RV: What is the purpose of sravana, manana and nidhidhyasana if it is not
for moksha? On the other hand, a pure bhakta loves god out of natural
attraction. He does not desire moksha.
>
> The Bhagavatam itself says that the Bhakta does not get any type of Mukti.
> Anybody with open mind will very well understand that the mental state of
> the Bhakta is such that he prefers to stay in the dark by clinging to the
> Ishvara through the rope of Bhakti and does not want to open the door to
> get the light of Jnana. The Advaita jnana may not come to such people in
> one birth.
>
> RV: If you are not qualified and follow the path of jnana, you run the
risk of becoming unhappy. On the other hand, Bhakti does not need
qualification as we see from countless examples in smrti and legends.
Also, there is no risk for a bhakta. If he does not get atma jnana, he will
be born in a family of yogis etc. and continue. Krisha says my devotee
never perishes. A bhakta may reject five types of moksha but he
nevertheless gets vishnu bhava - mad-bh?v?yopapadyate.
sa eva bhakti-yog?khya
?tyantika ud?h?ta?
yen?tivrajya tri-gu?a?
mad-bh?v?yopapadyate
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 21:55:57 +0100
From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] 'Ishwaro'ham' and 'IshwarabhAvaH'
Message-ID:
<CAD412pYgTsAVMoSeVyFOxnLSvy1s9Cf2H6uPG7dVsiPkip9Haw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sunday, September 8, 2013, ?????????????????? wrote:
> *??????????????????
> *www.lalitaalaalitah.com
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> rajaramvenk at gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > wrote:
>
> > ?>?
> > ?I can't understand what do you want to express by 'particular form is
> > > eternal as knowledge of Ishvara'. Do you mean that forms and
> > Ishvara-GYAna
> > > are similar or same !!??? That's untenable.
> > >
> > RV: The jAti is not eternal as an idealised name and form in the
> platonian
> > sense. It is eternal as a collection forms with an associated name.
> >
>
> ?Let me examine this post here :
> Let us take the second sentence-
> What does it mean ?
> jAti is eternal - is understood. It's oath part.
> The part of sentence starting from 'as a...' is either cause or explanation
> of eternity?
> If first, then just formation of a cluster with a name associated can not
> be the cause of eternity of jAti.? How could formation of cluster justify
> that ?
> If other, the first part of sentence would go upto the word 'collection'.
> Then the first part will be: jAti is eternal as a collection. Now where
> will you add rest of words starting from 'forms...'.
>
> A collection of forms that share a lot
> > of similarities between them is called a pot.
>
>
> ?A collection of forms is not called 'a pot'. It is called 'collection of
> pots'.
> And, if I accept the sentence as it is, then what will be the name for
> individual pot.
> ?
>
>
> > If your
> > opinion is that an ideal pot is eternal and the individual pots are
> > instances of the ideal, even then we have the conclusion that the name
> and
> > form is eternal.
>
>
> ?I hope in your uses 'ideal pot' means jAti. But, what does 'instances of
> ideal' means?
> If 'a place of revelation', then only your use of words can be justified.
> Anyway, existence of individual pot is temporary - is my motive. And,
> similar to that the form of kR^iShNa.
> And, as not many kR^iShNa-s are seen, so there is no possibility of
> kR^iShNa-jAti too.
> ?
>
> RV: I'm explaining two cases where a pot is eternal. In one case, there is
an ideal pot and other pots are made similar to that. In the second case,
there is no ideal pot but a collection of objects that share certain
characteristics is called a pot. When we say pot, we can refer to both the
jAti or collection and an individual. There can be a jAti with a single
member also. The jAti is eternal is the argument.
>
> > If a new name or form is created, it is done by modifying
> > an existing name and form by adding, removing or distorting parts
> thereof.
> > Thus a new jAti is a modification of an existing jAti only.
> >
>
> ?Wrong.
> In first part you were talking about individuals, and hence you must
> conclude about same in the second sentence.
> Anyway, you are against your own stand because you are propounding that
> jAti can be modified. That means jAti is not eternal, isn't it.
> So, you started for eternity of individual forms and went to negate
> eternity of jAti itself !!
> ?
RV: I'm not negating eternality of jAti but saying the opposite. An
apparently new jAti is nothing but modification of existing ones.
>
> >
> > Ishwara, by definition, being omniscient must know all the names and
> forms
> > - not only the jAti but also the particular. In this sense, all names and
> > forms are eternal.
>
>
> ?I can not sense any sense here.
> Ishvara can not know dead ones as living ones. That will make him
> hallucinated. So, individual names and forms of past things and people are
> not eternal in this way too.
> ?
RV: We can only say that Ishwara knows every thing through the power of
maya. He will not know a dead man as alive but know all that a dead man
did. His name and form are eternal as His knowledge.
>
> > They exist as long as Ishwara exists. If it is not so,
> > then Ishwara cannot create the world as before and accord results of
> > actions done in a previous kalpa. Shruti also confirms that Ishwara is a
> > container of all names and forms. Sankara quotes the following in BSB
> > 2.1.14.
> >
> > 'He who is called ether is the revealer of all forms and names; that
> within
> > which these forms and names are contained is Brahman' (*Kh*. Up. VIII,
> 14,
> > 1); 'Let me evolve names and forms' (*Kh*. Up. VI, 3, 2); 'He, the wise
> > one, who having divided all forms and given all names, sits speaking
> (with
> > those names)' (Taitt. ?r. III, 12, 7); 'He who makes the one seed
> manifold'
> > (*S*ve. Up. VI, l2).--
> >
>
> ?OK. You mean satkAryavAda here.
> So, just because everything is existing in the form of it's cause or it's
> own form, you hold that it is eternal. In this sense, devadatta's dead
> grandfather is also alive and hence he must start serving him directly with
> medicines.
> So, just get it that existence of anything in it's cause form is not
> accepted as existence of the thing needed for behaviour. So, kR^iShNa's
> form is not eternal.
>
>
> RV: Devadatta's dead grand father cannot come back in the same form as
Devadatta's dead grand father as that karma is finished. Krishna appears in
the same form as His form is not produced by karma but by His will. That is
the difference.
>
> > > > XX: How do you know Krishna's form is the same? We know the name
> > Krishna
> > > as
> > > > Devaki Putra is eternal because it is said so in shruti but it need
> not
> > > be
> > > > that He has the same form.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ?It is also not very clear.?
> > >
> > > ?Anyway, no name is eternal, as it is mithyA according to advaitin-s.
> If
> > > you mean that A-pralayam, then it may be true. But, your intentions
> > appear
> > > otherwise.
> > >
> > RV: As long as Ishwara exists, there is no way to logically get rid of
> > names and forms.
>
>
> ?By reading your words 'as long as Ishvara exists', it appears that Ishvara
> is limited by time and hence not eternal. Now, where is the case of
> eternity of anything created by him.
?
>
>
> > Yes, a nirguna brahma jnAni can negate all names and forms
> > along with Ishwara.
>
>
> ?OK. Only neglect, but can not kill. So, it appears here that Ishvara is
> eternal.
> You are confused as you are saying one thing in one part of post and
> opposite in other part.
> Be consistent.
> ?
RV: No inconsistency. As long as Ishwara exists is used in the sense He is
eternal.
>
>
> > However, it is only theoretically known from sastras
> > and our perception of others experience. As per eka jiva vada, those who
> we
> > imagine have done it are only jiva bhAsas that have realised identity
> > with our own self, the mukhya jIva or Ishwara. As the cycle of creation
> is
> > eternal, sarva mukti and as a consequence negation of Ishwara is also
> > impossible. This is not well understood commonly and hence the
> > disillusionment about eternality of bhakti in advaita.
> >
>
> ?So, ultimately you mean that there is no possibility of advaitic-mukti,
> because without sarva-mukti there can not be real liberation. And, hence
> Ishvara and everything he knows becomes eternal.
> This appears essence of your logic.
>
> Now, get it that as soon as you come to talk about mukhya-jIva in
> eka-jIva-vAda, you are actually compromising with it's basics. You are just
> negating your experience of being jIva and superimposing jIvAbhAsatva on
> it. This is second level of adhyAsa.
> I must say that for such people, eka-jIva-vAda was not taught.
> ?
RV: Let me be the mukhya jiva. Even then, I know that cycle of creation is
eternal.
>
>
> > > > XX: If shruti and/or smrti say that His form is the same, we can
> accept
> > > it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ?What if shruti says something opposed to yukti and other pramANa-s. He
> > > seems to ignore this fact.
> > > ?
> > >
> > RV: You are the one who is ignoring the purva mimamsa rule that on unseen
> > matters, sabda alone is pramana.
>
>
> ?We are talking about form of kR^iShNa, which is by no means adR^iShTa.
> Even his mother saw him nude, without reading scriptures.
> ?
RV: We know of Krishna only through scriptures. For this who saw Him during
avatara, He was known through direct perception. If we see Him now, it
will be though direc perception. But we can know He is Krishna only through
sastras.
>
>
> > Even if we have bhagavad sAkshAtkAra, we only see
> > through direct perception what is known through sastras.
>
>
> So, you mean that dhruva, etc. just saw chaturbhuja rUpa and that rUpa
> didn't do anything with them, no boons, no words....because it is not said
> by shAstra that viShNu says those words, and of course dhruva must not have
> read something like that !!
> ?
>
> RV: No one said such interaction is not possible. Those who interact know
through direct perception. Others though sabda pramana only - shrui or
smrti.
> > In the absence of
> > pratyaksha and sabda, we cannot infer the names such as Krishna, Rama,
> > Narasimha etc.
>
>
> ?Utterly ignoring facts of birth of rAma and kR^iShNa just to prove your
> stance correct.
RV: What is not proven?
> ?
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <javascript:;>
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 18:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
To: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>, A discussion group
for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Padmapurana verse on Mayavada
Message-ID:
<1378688509.15999.YahooMailNeo at web142603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
________________________________
From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
To: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2013 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Padmapurana verse on Mayavada
?"yen?tivrajya tri-gu?a?" does not mean one becoming?traigunya.??
RV: Please check Sridhara Swamin's purport and then we can come to yours if it is inadequate.
?
>
You are nor right in assuming that the Advaitin desires for Mukti.?
RV: What is the purpose of sravana, manana and nidhidhyasana if it is?not for moksha? On the other hand,?a?pure bhakta loves god out of natural attraction. He does not desire moksha.
>The Bhagavatam itself says that the Bhakta does not get any type of Mukti. Anybody with open mind will? very well understand that the mental state of the Bhakta is such that he prefers to stay in the dark by clinging to the Ishvara through the rope of Bhakti and does not want to open the door to get the light of Jnana. The Advaita jnana may not come to such people in one birth.
>
>
RV: If?you are not qualified and follow the path of jnana, you run the risk of becoming unhappy. On the other hand,?Bhakti does not need qualification as we see from countless examples in smrti and legends. Also,?there is?no risk for a bhakta. If he does not?get atma jnana, he will be born in a family of yogis etc. and continue.??Krisha says my devotee never perishes.?A bhakta may reject five types of?moksha but he nevertheless?gets vishnu bhava -?mad-bh?v?yopapadyate.?
sa eva bhakti-yog?khya
?tyantika ud?h?ta?
yen?tivrajya tri-gu?a?
mad-bh?v?yopapadyate
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 18:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Padmapurana verse on Mayavada
Message-ID:
<1378690358.18697.YahooMailNeo at web142605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
1)
SKB : "yen?tivrajya tri-gu?a?" does not mean one becoming?traigunya.?
RV: Please check Sridhara Swamin's purport and then we can come to yours if it is inadequate.
SKB : Shridharaswami reluctantly wrote the commentary on the Bhagavatam only at the behest of his guru, who commanded him (Shridharaswami) to write the commentary only to set right the? wrong interpretation of the Bhagavatam by Madhvacharya. For any intelligent person reading the commentary on the Bhagavatam to understand the Bhagavatam is an insult to Vedavyasa. Vedavyasa clearly stated? that he wrote the Bhagavatam so that one and all should understand the Bhagfavatm. If you say that you do not understand what is written in the Bhagavatam without the help of a commenatary then I shall be constarined to take that you are not worthy of reading the Bhagavatam.
2)
SKB :You are not right in assuming that the Advaitin desires for Mukti.
RV: What is the purpose of sravana, manana and nidhidhyasana if it is?not
for moksha? On the other hand,?a?pure bhakta loves god out of natural
attraction. He does not desire moksha.
SKB : Oh, now we can see why you could not understand Advaita so far. For your information the Advaitin do not want to be in the dark. The Advaitin stalwarts had understood well the Upanishads
including? the Mahavakyas and that had told them that the Brahmavid is no different from Brahman. If you are not able to understand this simple thing, it may be better for you to pray to Lord Krishna to give you the Advaita Jnana. Krishna-bhaktas never perish but they remain in the dark as long as they do not have the Advaita Jnana but without the Advaita Jnana they cannot become one with Krishna
________________________________
From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
To: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2013 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Padmapurana verse on Mayavada
?"yen?tivrajya tri-gu?a?" does not mean one becoming?traigunya.??
RV: Please check Sridhara Swamin's purport and then we can come to yours if it is inadequate.
?
>
You are nor right in assuming that the Advaitin desires for Mukti.?
RV: What is the purpose of sravana, manana and nidhidhyasana if it is?not for moksha? On the other hand,?a?pure bhakta loves god out of natural attraction. He does not desire moksha.
>The Bhagavatam itself says that the Bhakta does not get any type of Mukti. Anybody with open mind will? very well understand that the mental state of the Bhakta is such that he prefers to stay in the dark by clinging to the Ishvara through the rope of Bhakti and does not want to open the door to get the light of Jnana. The Advaita jnana may not come to such people in one birth.
>
>
RV: If?you are not qualified and follow the path of jnana, you run the risk of becoming unhappy. On the other hand,?Bhakti does not need qualification as we see from countless examples in smrti and legends. Also,?there is?no risk for a bhakta. If he does not?get atma jnana, he will be born in a family of yogis etc. and continue.??Krisha says my devotee never perishes.?A bhakta may reject five types of?moksha but he nevertheless?gets vishnu bhava -?mad-bh?v?yopapadyate.?
sa eva bhakti-yog?khya
?tyantika ud?h?ta?
yen?tivrajya tri-gu?a?
mad-bh?v?yopapadyate
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 05:55:28 +0100
From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] 'Ishwaro'ham' and 'IshwarabhAvaH'
Message-ID:
<CAD412pYX=K_TffeGn7NKEw9zBtQ8JjZPVp5WmyreZzNkxmDoOw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sunday, September 8, 2013, ?????????????????? wrote:
> *??????????????????
> *www.lalitaalaalitah.com
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> rajaramvenk at gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > wrote:
>
> > ?>?
> > ?I can't understand what do you want to express by 'particular form is
> > > eternal as knowledge of Ishvara'. Do you mean that forms and
> > Ishvara-GYAna
> > > are similar or same !!??? That's untenable.
> > >
> > RV: The jAti is not eternal as an idealised name and form in the
> platonian
> > sense. It is eternal as a collection forms with an associated name.
> >
>
> ?Let me examine this post here :
> Let us take the second sentence-
> What does it mean ?
> jAti is eternal - is understood. It's oath part.
> The part of sentence starting from 'as a...' is either cause or explanation
> of eternity?
> If first, then just formation of a cluster with a name associated can not
> be the cause of eternity of jAti.? How could formation of cluster justify
> that ?
> If other, the first part of sentence would go upto the word 'collection'.
> Then the first part will be: jAti is eternal as a collection. Now where
> will you add rest of words starting from 'forms...'.
>
> A collection of forms that share a lot
> > of similarities between them is called a pot.
>
>
> ?A collection of forms is not called 'a pot'. It is called 'collection of
> pots'.
> And, if I accept the sentence as it is, then what will be the name for
> individual pot.
> ?
>
>
> > If your
> > opinion is that an ideal pot is eternal and the individual pots are
> > instances of the ideal, even then we have the conclusion that the name
> and
> > form is eternal.
>
>
> ?I hope in your uses 'ideal pot' means jAti. But, what does 'instances of
> ideal' means?
> If 'a place of revelation', then only your use of words can be justified.
> Anyway, existence of individual pot is temporary - is my motive. And,
> similar to that the form of kR^iShNa.
> And, as not many kR^iShNa-s are seen, so there is no possibility of
> kR^iShNa-jAti too.
> ?
>
> RV: I'm explaining two cases where a pot is eternal. In one case, there is
an ideal pot and other pots are made similar to that. In the second case,
there is no ideal pot but a collection of objects that share certain
characteristics is called a pot. When we say pot, we can refer to both the
jAti or collection and an individual. There can be a jAti with a single
member also. The jAti is eternal is the argument.
>
> > If a new name or form is created, it is done by modifying
> > an existing name and form by adding, removing or distorting parts
> thereof.
> > Thus a new jAti is a modification of an existing jAti only.
> >
>
> ?Wrong.
> In first part you were talking about individuals, and hence you must
> conclude about same in the second sentence.
> Anyway, you are against your own stand because you are propounding that
> jAti can be modified. That means jAti is not eternal, isn't it.
> So, you started for eternity of individual forms and went to negate
> eternity of jAti itself !!
> ?
RV: I'm not negating eternality of jAti but saying the opposite. An
apparently new jAti is nothing but modification of existing ones.
>
> >
> > Ishwara, by definition, being omniscient must know all the names and
> forms
> > - not only the jAti but also the particular. In this sense, all names and
> > forms are eternal.
>
>
> ?I can not sense any sense here.
> Ishvara can not know dead ones as living ones. That will make him
> hallucinated. So, individual names and forms of past things and people are
> not eternal in this way too.
> ?
RV: We can only say that Ishwara knows every thing through the power of
maya. He will not know a dead man as alive but know all that a dead man
did. His name and form are eternal as His knowledge.
>
> > They exist as long as Ishwara exists. If it is not so,
> > then Ishwara cannot create the world as before and accord results of
> > actions done in a previous kalpa. Shruti also confirms that Ishwara is a
> > container of all names and forms. Sankara quotes the following in BSB
> > 2.1.14.
> >
> > 'He who is called ether is the revealer of all forms and names; that
> within
> > which these forms and names are contained is Brahman' (*Kh*. Up. VIII,
> 14,
> > 1); 'Let me evolve names and forms' (*Kh*. Up. VI, 3, 2); 'He, the wise
> > one, who having divided all forms and given all names, sits speaking
> (with
> > those names)' (Taitt. ?r. III, 12, 7); 'He who makes the one seed
> manifold'
> > (*S*ve. Up. VI, l2).--
> >
>
> ?OK. You mean satkAryavAda here.
> So, just because everything is existing in the form of it's cause or it's
> own form, you hold that it is eternal. In this sense, devadatta's dead
> grandfather is also alive and hence he must start serving him directly with
> medicines.
> So, just get it that existence of anything in it's cause form is not
> accepted as existence of the thing needed for behaviour. So, kR^iShNa's
> form is not eternal.
>
>
> RV: Devadatta's dead grand father cannot come back in the same form as
Devadatta's dead grand father as that karma is finished. Krishna appears in
the same form as His form is not produced by karma but by His will. That is
the difference.
>
> > > > XX: How do you know Krishna's form is the same? We know the name
> > Krishna
> > > as
> > > > Devaki Putra is eternal because it is said so in shruti but it need
> not
> > > be
> > > > that He has the same form.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ?It is also not very clear.?
> > >
> > > ?Anyway, no name is eternal, as it is mithyA according to advaitin-s.
> If
> > > you mean that A-pralayam, then it may be true. But, your intentions
> > appear
> > > otherwise.
> > >
> > RV: As long as Ishwara exists, there is no way to logically get rid of
> > names and forms.
>
>
> ?By reading your words 'as long as Ishvara exists', it appears that Ishvara
> is limited by time and hence not eternal. Now, where is the case of
> eternity of anything created by him.
?
>
>
> > Yes, a nirguna brahma jnAni can negate all names and forms
> > along with Ishwara.
>
>
> ?OK. Only neglect, but can not kill. So, it appears here that Ishvara is
> eternal.
> You are confused as you are saying one thing in one part of post and
> opposite in other part.
> Be consistent.
> ?
RV: No inconsistency. As long as Ishwara exists is used in the sense He is
eternal.
>
>
> > However, it is only theoretically known from sastras
> > and our perception of others experience. As per eka jiva vada, those who
> we
> > imagine have done it are only jiva bhAsas that have realised identity
> > with our own self, the mukhya jIva or Ishwara. As the cycle of creation
> is
> > eternal, sarva mukti and as a consequence negation of Ishwara is also
> > impossible. This is not well understood commonly and hence the
> > disillusionment about eternality of bhakti in advaita.
> >
>
> ?So, ultimately you mean that there is no possibility of advaitic-mukti,
> because without sarva-mukti there can not be real liberation. And, hence
> Ishvara and everything he knows becomes eternal.
> This appears essence of your logic.
>
> Now, get it that as soon as you come to talk about mukhya-jIva in
> eka-jIva-vAda, you are actually compromising with it's basics. You are just
> negating your experience of being jIva and superimposing jIvAbhAsatva on
> it. This is second level of adhyAsa.
> I must say that for such people, eka-jIva-vAda was not taught.
> ?
RV: Let me be the mukhya jiva. Even then, I know that cycle of creation is
eternal.
>
>
> > > > XX: If shruti and/or smrti say that His form is the same, we can
> accept
> > > it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ?What if shruti says something opposed to yukti and other pramANa-s. He
> > > seems to ignore this fact.
> > > ?
> > >
> > RV: You are the one who is ignoring the purva mimamsa rule that on unseen
> > matters, sabda alone is pramana.
>
>
> ?We are talking about form of kR^iShNa, which is by no means adR^iShTa.
> Even his mother saw him nude, without reading scriptures.
> ?
RV: We know of Krishna only through scriptures. For this who saw Him during
avatara, He was known through direct perception. If we see Him now, it
will be though direc perception. But we can know He is Krishna only through
sastras.
>
>
> > Even if we have bhagavad sAkshAtkAra, we only see
> > through direct perception what is known through sastras.
>
>
> So, you mean that dhruva, etc. just saw chaturbhuja rUpa and that rUpa
> didn't do anything with them, no boons, no words....because it is not said
> by shAstra that viShNu says those words, and of course dhruva must not have
> read something like that !!
> ?
>
> RV: No one said such interaction is not possible. Those who interact know
through direct perception. Others though sabda pramana only - shrui or
smrti.
> > In the absence of
> > pratyaksha and sabda, we cannot infer the names such as Krishna, Rama,
> > Narasimha etc.
>
>
> ?Utterly ignoring facts of birth of rAma and kR^iShNa just to prove your
> stance correct.
RV: What is not proven?
> ?
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <javascript:;>
>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 06:13:21 +0100
From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
To: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>, A discussion
group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Padmapurana verse on Mayavada
Message-ID:
<CAD412pbEYp9XideNOgjNRnL2-6GrmUWwbVYYO_jhh7hDov_T9A at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Dear Shri Sunil,
There is no need for commentary if you understand that a pure bhakta
attains the supreme state of vishnu simply by the power of devotion though
he does not even desire liberation what to speak of temporary material
gains. Even advaita jnanam comes to him on its own accord.
sa eva *bhakti-yog?khya*
?tyantika ud?h?ta?
*yen?tivrajya tri-gu?a?*
*mad-bh?v?yopapadyate*
However, if your mind plays with the direct words of smrti, you have to go
to bhashya or a guru who as bhagavad bhakti. There are 11 extant
commentaries on SBh and it is not an insult to Vyasa but the statement of
its profound nature.
Best Regards
Rajaram Venkataramani
On Monday, September 9, 2013, Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:
> 1)
> SKB : "yen?tivrajya tri-gu?a?" does not mean one becoming traigunya.
>
> RV: Please check Sridhara Swamin's purport and then we can come to yours
> if it is inadequate.
>
> SKB : Shridharaswami reluctantly wrote the commentary on the Bhagavatam
> only at the behest of his guru, who commanded him (Shridharaswami) to write
> the commentary only to set right the wrong interpretation of the
> Bhagavatam by Madhvacharya. For any intelligent person reading the
> commentary on the Bhagavatam to understand the Bhagavatam is an insult to
> Vedavyasa. Vedavyasa clearly stated that he wrote the Bhagavatam so that
> one and all should understand the Bhagfavatm. If you say that you do not
> understand what is written in the Bhagavatam without the help of a
> commenatary then I shall be constarined to take that you are not worthy of
> reading the Bhagavatam.
>
> 2)
> SKB :You are not right in assuming that the Advaitin desires for Mukti.
>
>
> RV: What is the purpose of sravana, manana and nidhidhyasana if it is not
> for moksha? On the other hand, a pure bhakta loves god out of natural
> attraction. He does not desire moksha.
> SKB : Oh, now we can see why you could not understand Advaita so far. For
> your information the Advaitin do not want to be in the dark. The Advaitin
> stalwarts had understood well the Upanishads
> including the Mahavakyas and that had told them that the Brahmavid is no
> different from Brahman. If you are not able to understand this simple
> thing, it may be better for you to pray to Lord Krishna to give you the
> Advaita Jnana. Krishna-bhaktas never perish but they remain in the dark as
> long as they do not have the Advaita Jnana but without the Advaita Jnana
> they cannot become one with Krishna
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> To: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com <javascript:;>>; A
> discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org<javascript:;>
> >
> Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2013 1:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Padmapurana verse on Mayavada
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "yen?tivrajya tri-gu?a?" does not mean one becoming traigunya.
> RV: Please check Sridhara Swamin's purport and then we can come to yours
> if it is inadequate.
>
> >
> You are nor right in assuming that the Advaitin desires for Mukti.
> RV: What is the purpose of sravana, manana and nidhidhyasana if it is not
> for moksha? On the other hand, a pure bhakta loves god out of natural
> attraction. He does not desire moksha.
>
> >The Bhagavatam itself says that the Bhakta does not get any type of
> Mukti. Anybody with open mind will very well understand that the mental
> state of the Bhakta is such that he prefers to stay in the dark by clinging
> to the Ishvara through the rope of Bhakti and does not want to open the
> door to get the light of Jnana. The Advaita jnana may not come to such
> people in one birth.
> >
> >
> RV: If you are not qualified and follow the path of jnana, you run the
> risk of becoming unhappy. On the other hand, Bhakti does not need
> qualification as we see from countless examples in smrti and legends.
> Also, there is no risk for a bhakta. If he does not get atma jnana, he will
> be born in a family of yogis etc. and continue. Krisha says my devotee
> never perishes. A bhakta may reject five types of moksha but he
> nevertheless gets vishnu bhava - mad-bh?v?yopapadyate.
> sa eva bhakti-yog?khya
> ?tyantika ud?h?ta?
> yen?tivrajya tri-gu?a?
> mad-bh?v?yopapadyate
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <javascript:;>
>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 17:33:17 +0530
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Padmapurana verse on Mayavada
Message-ID:
<CAKk0Te3tWENSPV3YU3yQRO=J4XL6FGbumrWtcX89j2MshVs9-g at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Shri Sunil,
>
> There is no need for commentary if you understand that a pure bhakta
> attains the supreme state of vishnu simply by the power of devotion though
> he does not even desire liberation what to speak of temporary material
> gains. Even advaita jnanam comes to him on its own accord.
>
> sa eva *bhakti-yog?khya*
> ?tyantika ud?h?ta?
> *yen?tivrajya tri-gu?a?*
> *mad-bh?v?yopapadyate*
>
What is that 'bhAva'? If it is saguNa, then the Lakshmipatitvam of Vishnu
is inescapable. The devotees attaining to vishnubhAva will be lakshmipatis
by default. No one can prevent this because Vishnu Himself cannot prevent
being Lakshmipati since the Shv.up. defines Ishwara as 'mAyAm tu prakRtim
viddhi, mAyinam tu maheshwaram.' The very prospect of being maheshwara is
impossible without the dependence on the Lakshmi-principle.
If on the other hand, vishnubhAva is nirgunam, then the bhakta attaining it
is impossible, for the bhakta, with the advaitic knowledge will realize
that he is already vishnu, vyApanashIla, as Shankara explains in the
kathopanishad bhashyam. In that case there is no choice for the bhakta to
'not even desire moksha' and prefer to be a bhakta. Such supposed
bhakti-rasa statements as 'though he does not even desire liberation...'
are completely devoid of any substance and only look immature. They can at
best be arthavada statements directed at enthusing aspirants to have
devotion to bhagavan. The Vedanta is moksha shAstra. No one comes to it
for a purpose other than that.
The only way to escape both these possibilities is to admit the moksha of
the dvaita and vishishtadvaita systems where the mukta will remain
different from the Lord in the designated loka.
The munDakopaniShad bhAShya on mantra 3.2.6:
//They become freed on every side - they do not stand in need
of going elsewhere. And this is in accord with such Vedic and SmRti texts
as: 'Just as the footprints of birds cannot be traced in space and of
aquatics in water, similar is the course of the men of knowledge.'
(Mahabharata shAntiparvan 239.24), 'Those who want to go beyond the courses
of the world, do not tread on any path'(itihAsa upaniShat18). The Paths
(to be followed after death), which are dependent on spatial limitation,
are indeed within phenomenal existence, since they are attained through
limited means. But, Brahman, being the All, is not a goal to be attained
in terms of spatial limitations. Should Brahman be circumscribed by space
like any concrete object, It will be supported by something else, It will
have parts, It will be impermanent and a product. But Brahman cannot be
so; therefore Its attainment, too, cannot be determined in terms of
limitation of space. Besides, the knowers of Brahman accept only that
liberation which consists of the removal of ignorance, etc., which are the
causes of mundane bondage, and not that which is a product. //
regards
subrahmanian.v
>
>
>
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org <javascript:;>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
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
------------------------------
End of Advaita-l Digest, Vol 110, Issue 7
*****************************************
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list