[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** RE: Re: Re: [advaitin] Re: Fwd: Brahman has no default form; Only contextual form - Varaha Purana

[Kaushik Chevendra]

Namaste.
Bhaskarji this is becoming hairsplitting at this point. Forgive me for
saying so.

When we say that ramakrishna paramahamsa etc are direct forms of isvara
instead of viboothis, even then there is no problem. The "ichavasat" roopam
indicates that the lord can take forms as per his own will. When he became
narasimha he emerged out of a pillar, when he became kurma he just
manifested so, when he became varaha he just manifested so. In these
avatars there is no "birth" or "death" of the roopam. But in the case of
Rama, he appeared as an absolute human. So if we are to say that
ramakrishna paramahamsa etc are avataras of the lord, his iccha was to
appear as a normal human. In his case he has a choice and absolute control
of whatever way he wishes to live, appear, leave his body etc. Wether he
wants to appear as a human like rama, or like the supreme lord himself as
varaha/narasimha/ kurma etc it is his "icha". Depending on the context he
appears and lives accordingly. In the case of bagavatpada, Ramana Maharshi
etc he appeared as a human like vedavyasa(Vishnu roopam) as a part of his
Leela

On Fri, 24 Mar, 2023, 5:14 pm Bhaskar YR, <bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com>
wrote:

> praNAms Hare Krishna
>
>
>
> Incidentally when I was watching SVBC channel   a relative question raised
> in my mind with regard to this prAkrutika and aprAkrutika shareera of
> Ishwara.  Is Lord Venkateshwara was having prAkrutika and aprAkrutika
> shareera??
>
>
>
> All the ichavasat roopas of isvara are prakritaprakriti only.
>
>
>
> Ø     Our Adiguru bhagavatpAda is sAkshAt avatAra of Bhagavan shankara,
> if not outside within the circle of Advaita tradition we firmly believe
> so.  This avatAra purusha shankara was too having the shareera like
> above??
>
>
>
> What about the detailed episodes after vishNu descending from vaikunta
> after bhrugu's curse, Lakshmi viyOga etc. ??
>
> All these are leelas only. Like rama crying for Sita, krishna crying
> infront of yashoda ma etc.
>
>
>
> Ø     Very easy to reconcile this way all the episodes in the history of
> avatAra purusha-s since we have already subjectively and sentimentally
> accepted them as Ishwara.  If transactionally we cannot compare rAma &
> Krishna avatAra with that of shankara’s bhagavadpAda avatAra or
> dakshniNamurthy’s avatAra as ramaNa or rAma & krishna’s avatAra as
> rAmakrishna parama haMsa, then there must be some subjective prejudices
> here about rAma & Krishna due to very strong legacy behind them!!  Do you
> think that is the determining factor here to conclude anything rationally
> about their birth and disappearance or in rough terms ‘death’!!??
>
>
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>
> bhaskar
>