ramkisno at HOTMAIL.COM
Tue May 7 08:50:05 CDT 2002
On Mon, 6 May 2002 14:38:33 -0400, Shrinivas Gadkari
<sgadkari2001 at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>Some examples from pauranic accounts:
>When Sati burnt herself, Bhagvan Rudra was immersed in grief. And Bhagvan
>Vishnu had to intervene.
>Bhagvan Rudra had to run to save himself from Bhasmasura again Bhagvan
>Vishnu had to intervene.
>In the amarnath episode, Bhagvan Rudra told Parvati that he knows may
>secrets to avoid death. That is to say, he has to practise yoga.
>Bhagvan Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra were cursed by sage Brighu, showing that
>even they are a subject to curses.
>Two residents of Vaikuntha were cursed to take birth as Hiranyaksha and
>Hiranyakashapu. Nahusha fell from heaven to become a snake.
>Indra has been cursed many a times, e.g. Ahilya episode and had to suffer.
Thank you for the references. However, in each of these instances, the
Advaita view would be that they are all superimpositions upon the
substratum of Brahman. Vishnu, Rudra, Indra, Prajapati, Brihaspati are all
equally false in the pAramArtha view. Vishnu is nothing but
Brahman "limited" by Maya, just as jIvA is Brahman limited by avidyA
[Panchdasi]. There is only a difference of guNa between jIvA and Ishvara.
>Such accounts make me suspect that one cannot assume that it is possible
>to establish oneself eternally in perfect yoga.
When you say this, who do you think the oneself is? Advaita, as far as I
know, answers this question i.e. "Who am I" based on the authority of the
>Small lapses will be
>there. What is important is to have the knowledge and skill to recover
>from such temporary lapses and prevent them from snowballing. This in
>my view is liberation.
Pardon me if I assume incorrectly but I get the feeling that you hold jIvA
to be eternally separate from Brahman, and that the former must always be
engaged in some sort of effort to be in a constant state of liberation.
>Creation is a image projected in the mind of Jiva. The same as with
If your jIvA and mine are separate, why do we both see the same world? If
we were to meet, you would see me and I you. If you are my creation and I
am yours, then we are constantly creating the objects around us and what's
more, those objects are creating more objects, and in some cases, objects
that I create actually create me (as in me creating you and you, me). This
does not seem logical. But if you claim that the Ishvara is the only one
who creates (again, this is a fallacy as there is no such thing as creation
or destruction in the pAramArthik view), then it would make more sense.
>>However the question would be why a perfect one would need to rejoice,
>>or without intent. Then we can no longer call It the perfect one as It too
>>has states of rejoicing and non-rejoicing, the latter being a not-so-
>No one knows answer to this question. Why does the perfect one
>wish to entertain itself ?
>We just know that it does like to play and this world emerges.
Even things like lilA and mAyA are ascribed to Ishvara and not Brahman. The
play is Ishvara's not Brahman's. Brahman does not change one bit and always
is. The universe, gods, Ishvara, you and me are only Brahman seemingly
limited by nAma and rUpa.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list