[Advaita-l] Abedha

[Kaushik Chevendra]

On Tue 11 Aug, 2020, 7:32 PM 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!!!!
>

Then are the tamasa souls independent of the lord? Are  the tamasa hells
independent of the lord?

>
>
> /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
>