[Advaita-l] Eternal Loka
rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Mon Aug 12 06:36:32 CDT 2013
Hare Krishna. I agree with everything you said except the statement "I am
not saying that the above understanding is wrong. *But to hold that that is
the final view of Vedanta/Dikshita would be wrong*". You are basically
showing a bias towards auDulomi's view over Jaimini's. This bias is not
present in the bhashyams. Both the views that a jnani is brahman orjanani
is ishwara are accepted as valid. If this world is seen, a jnani is
Ishwara. If this world is not seen the jnani is brahman. Both the
conclusion about the position of a jnani are taken only from vyavahara. In
my understanding, A jnana yogi realises oneness with brahman. A bhakti yogi
realises oneness with Ishwara. What the jnanis call unity with brahman is
what uttama bhaktas call union with Ishwara.
Coming back to the topic, you are taking a position directly opposed to
Jaimini, Sabara, Sridhara all the way to Appayya IF you say that Vishnu
(Siva) or Vaikuntha (Kailasha) is not eternal. This vaikuntha is not one of
the tiers of satya loka but sAakshAt Vishnu, who is eternal. Rajagopal
Ganapatigal once me told me the story of Appayya Dikshitar. I dont know its
veracity but am quoting it as it captures the spirit. Appayya Dikshitar was
doubtful of how deep his devotion to Lord Siva was. He asked his disciples
to make a potion from UmattangAi that will make him lose control of his
mind and speak. In the state of delirium, he composed a great verse on Lord
Siva. When he was revived, he was pleased with the mercy of Lord Siva on
him. Ganapatigal jokingly said that such an experiment should not be
attempted nowadays because the disciples will not revive you.
He does not consider Siva or Kailasa non-eternal. As long as we speak about
them, we have to only speak of them as eternal or we will violate sabda
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:17 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 3:27 AM, V Subrahmanian <
> v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> > > rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Where does Appayya Dikshitar say that this Vaikuntha or Vishnu is
> > > > non-eternal? If Ishwara is a concept, so are all vyavahara satyams.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This must be in reference to the Brahma sutra of the fourth chapter.
> > 4.4.5
> > > gives Jaimini's view which appears to be alluded to by Appayya
> > > 4.4.6 gives the view of auDulomi that opposes Jaimini's. In 4.4.7
> > > bAdarAyaNa the author of the brahma sutras settles the issue by
> > > both Jaimini's and auDulomi's views as admissible from the vyavaharika
> > and
> > > pAramarthika viewpoints. Pl. see the shankara bhashyam for this.
> > >
> > > RV: I am afraid that this is an incorrect inference from the bhashyam.
> > From a vyavahara perpective, you do not consider an atma jnani to be one
> > with Ishwara as it tantamounts to superimposing on him characterisitcs of
> > Ishwara.
> This will not happen as the creatorship, etc. of Ishwara are not admitted
> for a jnani vide BSB 4.4.17. In any case, this is with reference to saguNa
> brahma upasaka-s who attain Ishwara sAyujyam. Here Shankara clarifies that
> this function, however, is admissible only for the 'nityasiddha Ishwara.'
> and not to the mukta jIva-s. As for BSB 4.4.5 it is the satyakAmatvam,
> satyasamkalpatvam and some bhoga-s which the shruti mentions for the jnani,
> which are attainable only as one with Ishwara. This view of Jaimini is
> refuted by auDulomi who relies on the chinmAtra svarUpatvam of a jnani and
> therefore the impossibility of any bhoga-s which naturally involves
> dwaitam. He holds the shurti passages on bhoga as eulogical reference only
> to convey that the jnani is free from misery. Both these views are
> admissible as per bAdarAyaNa from different viewpoints. In the world
> people think a mukta to be one with Ishwara and would grant them what they
> pray for, etc. You can view this post, incidentally on the same headline,
> From a paramartika point of view, you dont have either bondage or
> > liberation.
> Yes. That is why auDulomi's view of the chinmAtra nature of the mukta is
> upheld as giving the pAramArthika view by bAdarAyaNa and non-contradictory
> by Dikshita in the si.le.san.
> > >
> > RV: In Siddhantalesa Sangraha, Appayya Dikshitar takes up the question
> > whether a mukta attains oneness with Parameshwara or Nirguna Brahman. He
> > says that a jiva attains oneness with Ishwara and not Nirguna Brahman. He
> > explains that a jIvA is a reflection of Ishwara and is non-different from
> > Ishwara because (in pratibimba vAdA) bimba and pratibimba are identical.
> > When a jIvA gets liberated, the mirror of ajnAna(sthula and sukshuma
> > sarira) pertaining to that jIva is destroyed but the jIvA continues to
> > exist as Ishwara. Until all jIvAs get liberated, which will happen after
> > infinite time or in other words never, Ishwara will continue to exist as
> > their bimba. Therefore no jIvA can attain the ultimate salvation when the
> > world is totally dissolved until all jIvas are liberated. Hence the term
> > "sarva mukti". The same sthula sarira does not return for any one. The
> > sukshuma sarira does not return for a jnani. But even a jnani remains
> > forever in the memory, if we can call it that, of the omniscient Ishwara.
> This is only the vyAvahArika view as the very existence of Ishwara is
> dependent on the world and the world will have to depend on Ishwara for its
> sustenance, dharma, etc. So, this view is non--contradictory to the
> Jaimini view.
> > I had a follow up discussion with Sri Mani Dravid Sastrigal to confirm
> > understanding.
> I am not saying that the above understanding is wrong. But to hold that
> that is the final view of Vedanta/Dikshita would be wrong. When I first
> responded that Dikshita was only alluding to the Jaimini view, I was only
> guessing. My guess turned out to be on the right track when I read the
> si.le.san. on the above topic along with the commentary: krishnAlankaara,
> spending quite a lot of time. He cites Dikhshita saying in his
> 'nyArakShAmaNi' that what he said in the si.le.sang. is non-contradictory
> to the nirguNa mukti. The commentator cites the actual passages of
> Dikshita in the other book where he says: what we have said in the
> si.le.san. that the mukta attains to Ishwara is admissible since the
> shuddha chaitanyam forms the common ground for both jiva-s and Ishwara and
> as such the mukta identifying himself with that shuddha chaitanyam *can be
> admitted to be experiencing Ishwaratvam, the various fruits of the
> upAsaka-s and the overall sarvAtmatvam. For this Dikshita cites the
> vAmadeva-articulation of his realization: 'I was manu, I was sUrya, etc.'
> Such a realization only says that 'everything that has been in the past,
> everything that is now, and everything that will be in the future is
> grounded on the nirguNa Brahman and that brahman am I.' Such a realization
> is not contradictory to the nirguNa brahman realization of Advaita.
> Dikshita's and Jaimini's view, that is conditional alone, is ONLY with a
> view to give validity to the shruti 'the mukta will enjoy bhoga-s with
> women, eating, etc.' in the Chandogya. There, in the upanishad, Shankara
> has commented that 'the mukta, AS Indra, etc. will enjoy these bhoga-s'.
> So, whatever experience whoever has in whatever loka due to whatever karma
> CAN be said to be the nirguNa Brahman's bhoga since in Advaita the entire
> creation, past, present and future is superimposition on Brahman OR a
> projection of Brahman, just like a dreamer projects his own dream and
> experiences everything there as he is what everyone he has projected and
> every object that is projected there.
> And since the jnani realizes himself to be none other than that Brahman,
> there is nothing wrong in holding that he is one with ishwara who is the
> one that has become the world.
> The commentator concludes saying that 'just as in Jaimini's view, Dikshita
> too admits the bhoga-s, as Ishwara, for the jnani.
> This is only a notional view. Since there is no sthula and sUkshma sharira
> for the Jnani, as per the shruti, there can be no real bhoga for the
> jnani. All bhogas of everyone in creation CAN be wished to be that of the
> jnani, just as all bhogas of everyone* may be *thought to be that of
> nirguna brahman *because* it is the basis for all superimposition.
> Anyone who studies the concluding part of the si.le.san. along with the
> extremely painstakingly written commentary will appreciate the above
> explanations. The ultimate conclusion arising from the above discussion
> is: the Jnani becomes one with nirguNa brahman - this is the parama
> siddhanta of Advaita. The avAntara (gauNa) siddhanta is that the jnani
> remains AS Ishwara and everyone else. Both these are admissible as
> non-contradictory, to give credence to various shruti passages based on
> different view points: vyAvahArika or pAramArthika. The vyavaharika is the
> one that admits of creation, Ishwara, jivas, bandha and moksha. The
> paramarthika is the one that negates all creation and therefore no bandha
> and moksha.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list