[Advaita-l] Eternal Loka
rajaramvenk at gmail.com
rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Tue Nov 6 02:22:13 CST 2012
1. Swami Paramarthananda cannot take a position that contradicts what SBh says with respect to devotees such as Dhruva, Gopis, Janaka etc. Sridhara and Madhusudana call them jnanis of the highest order. A student can be ill-informed but not a teacher. He should be very careful about his utterances. If a teacher is ill-informed, he is a bane of our dharma because he will hold sway over the minds of the best of scholars.
2. Ishwara and Maya are beyond time according Madhusudana. Please give reasons to say that they are within spacio temporal limitations.
3. There is no self-glorification when Vishnu and Siva worship each other.
4. Eka Jiva Vada is advaita view only.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 12:44:56
To: Rajaram Venkataramani<rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Eternal Loka
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:44 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:58 PM, <rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dear Sri Subrahmanian,
> RV: I agree that krama mukti is relative but dont think uttama bhakti (I
> am He) is relative. Vaikuntha refers to the world but also to the Lord.
> Please refer SBh 10.13.38 and SBh 4.12.43, where it is said that the term
> Vaikuntha is used to refer Sri Krishna in particular and the Lord in
Vaikuntha as a world can have multiple beings, the Lord, the various jIvas,
etc. But Vaikuntha as the Lord cannot have internal differences:
svagatabheda varjita is bhagavan even according to Dvaita.
> Generally, there is fear when there is duality and possibility of an end.
> But there is no fear in Vaikuntha. Please refer SBh 12.11.19. I am not
> saying that there is an eternal loka but that this concept is admissible in
> Advaita for three reasons. One, the Lord (and hence his loka which is
> non-different from Him) is eternal.
It is only eternal in time. But the Brahman of the Upanishads is beyond
the very concept of time. That is the Turiya. All eternality within time
is limited to the concept of Ishwara of the Mandukya upanishad taught in
the sixth mantra.
> Two, the jiva is not liberated in eka jiva vada.
If there is no liberation there is no utility of this vada.
> Three, an akama bhakta cannot be forced to get advaita siddhi.
Without Advaita jnanam there is no way this bhakta can free himself from
> RV: What is the contradiction? When there is soham and vasudevam sarvam
> iti bhavam, there is no other. A yogi who has multiple bodies will not see
> them as different persons.
The Mundaka Upanishad teaches:
*यथा नद्यः स्यन्दमानाः* समुद्रेऽस्तं गच्छन्ति नामरूपे विहाय । तथा विद्वान्
नामरूपाद्विमुक्तः परात्परं पुरुषमुपैति दिव्यम् ॥Mundakopanishat 3.2.8
The Jnani (who is alive, with a body), ceases to be an individual
identifiable with a body upon the exhaustion of prarabdha. The name and
form of the vidwan cease to be. With no name/form there is no way there
can be bhagavan-bhakta duality, even if advaita jnanam is there for the
bhakta. Also, Brahman that is Bhagavan cannot see anything as the
Mundakopanishat says there are no eyes, etc. for Brahman. The bhakta also
being Brahman cannot see bhagavan for the same reason. With no possibility
of seeing each other the purpose of retaining the duality despite advaita
jnanam in a certain loka is nil.
> RV: I have given the reference from SBh where it clearly says Dhruva was a
> jivan mukta. Earlier, I pointed to the verse from SBh where gopis, sukha
> etc. are considered to be non-different from Hari. On what scriptural basis
> is Swami Paramarthananda saying this?
This is answered in the previous paragraph. If gopis, shuka are all
non-different from Brahman, what will see and enjoy what? What will
acknowledge those services? Brahman is nitya tripta not needing any
service whatsoever. In a non-difference scenario there is no duality
possible. Why ever would a Bhagavan/Brahman create a bhakta who is
non-different from him? If it is for enjoyment, it is no different from
self-glorification. Then bhagavan has the kAmam / longing for someone to
continuously praise him or adore him. Such a one is no bhagavan. First
of all it is an impossibility in Advaita. If the bhakta knows that there
was really no bondage there is no way a body can continue in moksha. For,
a body is a must even in a supposed bondage. When this supposition is no
longer there, there can't be a body too. I shall rather stop here.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list