[Advaita-l] Abedha

[Kaushik Chevendra]

Doesn't the Lord also even if a person does the the most worst sin. If he
takes shelter under hari he is saved.
Lord also says a confirmed sinner worshipping the Lord should be
considered  saintly as he has taken the best resolve.


Isn't Lord the inner controller for the tamsic souls as well?

Thank you sir.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2020, 19:32 Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste,
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 1:44 AM Shrinivas Gadkari via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Namaste,
> >
> > While I am not at all endorsing the extreme view point of
> "dvaita-vedAnta",
> > one should not take the other extreme view of, "jIva = Ishvara" either.
> > The most compelling support for this comes from the concluding section
> > of brahma sUtra-s. The author of brahma sUtra indeed considers
> > "liberated souls" similar to Ishvara in many ways, BUT also different
> > from Ishvara in some other ways.
> >
> >
> > jIva possibly can attain the state of Ishvara asymptotically, but that
> > will take such a lo.....ong time - likely spanning countless cycles of
> > creation and destruction, that for all practical purposes, it is
> > best to settle with identity+difference view point.
> >
> >
> >
> Such view does not have support form any part of the scriptures.
>
>   According to BORI edition of Mahabharata, it is under Shanti parva [12th
> parva- moxadharma], chapter 306 and shloka # 054:
>
> anyascha raajansa parastatthAnyaH pancavimshakaH |
> tatsthatvaadanupasyanti eka eva hi saadhava ||
>
> The supreme being is considered by foolish people to be same as any other
> soul, but the real wise see it as unique and different [eka eva]
>
> Also, I have found some very interesting analysis by my friend in the
> Dvaita list on this topic. With his permission, let me quote him.
>
> Upon the strength of Brahmasutras, one notes that the scriptures
> consider the Lord to be devoid of any partiality (favoritism or otherwise).
> This
> implies multiple things, but of interest here is the conclusion that
> the Lord is not responsible for evil, but some souls are. That brings up
> the
> question of whether such souls are evil temporarily or are always so.
> Those believing in the former also hold that the temporary evil is due to
> the
> influence of prakriti's tAmasa guNa. This association of tAmasa guNa is
> due to the anAdi karma of the Jiva and NOT due to Jiva svabhAva - thus they
> hold. (AFIK this is Shree Vaishnava's position).
>
> Now, such a position, is logically flawed and opposes scriptures. The three
> types of behavior that the Gita expounds are said to be rooted in the
> Jiva svabhava. The idea that there are tAmasic Jivas can be found, not
> just in 17.2 but also, in other portions of the Mahabharata. For example,
> consider this one from the Shantiparva (12.180.24 : the discussion
> between Bhrigu Maharshi and Sage Bharadvaja):
>
> tamo rajashcha sattvaM cha viddhi __ jIvaguNAn.h imAn.h __
> sachetanaM jIvaguNaM vadanti; sa cheShTate cheShTayate cha sarvam.h
> tataH paraM kShetravidaM vadanti; prAvartayad.h yo bhuvanAni sapta
> na jIvanAsho.asti hi dehabhede; mithyaitadAhurmR^ita ityabuddhAH
> jIvastu dehAntaritaH prayAti; dashArdhataivAsya sharIrabhedaH ||
>
> (There is a similar passage in vana parva and in Narada Purana.43 )
>
> That their destiny, as described in the Ishavasya U. and B.U., about
> being eternally engulfed in darkness and great misery is also described.
> The hells
> described in other places do not have 'avidyA-upAsana' as the reason. It
> is wrong performance of deeds or adhArmic activities that beget hells such
> as
> raurava. Nearly every other scripture -- Vishnu Purana, Brahma
> Purana, Bhagavata, Garuda Purana, Mahabharata -- describe these hells and
> also
> mention that correct performance of acts will beget svarga. However,
> the quartet of tAmisra, andhatAmisra etc are related to hari-dvesha.
> Whether
> these hells are temporary or not is the subject of the
> saptAdhikaraNa: 3.1.16. Srimad Acharya quotes Mahabharata to show that
> these two hells are
> permanent, unlike the other 5 main hells:
>
> rauravo.atha mahAnshchaiva vahnirvaitaraNI tathA |
> kumbhIpAka iti proktAnyanityanarakANi cha |
> tAmisrachAndhatAmisro __ dvau nityau __ samprakIrtitau |
> iti sapta pradhAnAni garIyo hyuttarottaram.h ||
>
> Consonant with that, it can be observed that in anushAsana parva
> of Mahabharata, Lord Shiva tells his consort about the time periods in the
> various hells. Tamas and Andhatamas, which are said to be obtained
> by tAmasic Jivas (whose laxaNa is 'atattve tattvadarshibhiH'), do not even
> feature in that list of narakas.
>
> Srimad Acharya quotes kaunTharavya shruti for showing that these hells
> are eternal. Sri Jayatirtha also shows that the RgVeda 7.104.3, wherein
> Indra
> and Soma are said to ensure that whoever gets into tamas never get out
> of it:
>
> indrAsomA duShkR^ito vabre antaranArambhaNe tamasi pravidhyatAm.h |
> yathA nAtaH __punarekashchenodayAt.h || (Quoted by Dr.BNK Sharma in his
> BPC,Vol 2, pp 406 fn2)
>
> Why, even I.U. 3, 9-14 and B.U, 6.4.10/11 do show that these hells
> are eternal. While the proper worshipers of 'AtmA' are said to get eternal
> places, the wrong worshipers of AtmA get temporary places? Isn't B.U.14
> (ye tadviduramR^itAste bhavanti athetare duHkhamevApiyanti) clear that
> both,
> correct and wrong knowledge, obtain eternal places? tAmasic people
> getting correct knowledge is ruled out by the Lord's declaration that they
> never
> reach Him and He hurls such 'mUDhAH' into asura-yoni. IMO, the
> Chandogya Upanishad's depiction of Indra and Virochana being under the
> tutelage of
> Brahma teaches precisely that. While the former, though initially
> satisfied with wrong knowledge, gets correct knowledge finally, Virochana
> is satisfied
> with wrong knowledge and teaches that to his group (is there any recount
> of his getting correct knowledge in any birth?). Chaturmukha Brahma's
> warning
> applies: anupalabhya AtmAnaM ananuvidya vrajato yatara
> etadupaniShado bhaviShyanti devA vAsurA vA te parAbhaviShyanti |
>
> So, if you hold the middle ground and say the relationship is
> identity-cum-difference, the implication would be that the identity part
> will bring the Lord in the eternal hell. That is quite anti-vedic
> position!!!!
>
> /sv
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>