[Advaita-l] Eternal Loka

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Tue Jul 30 21:15:54 CDT 2013

Well said Sri Sada ji.  No guNa can legitimately be in Brahman because
every guNa, without any exception, is attributed to brahman ONLY ensuing
from the world or jiva.  Without jagat/jIva there cannot be a single guNa
that brahman can have.  jagatkartRtvam, sarvAntaryAmitvam, saulabhyam,
saushIlyam etc... to have any or all of these Brahman has to depend on the
jagat/jIva.  For ONLY for their sake brahman bears the burden of these
guNas.  If not for them these need not be borne by brahman.  Advaita sees
this truth, on the basis of the shruti and declares brahman to be nirguNa
at the paramarthic level.  Brahman has to depend on those (jiva/jagat)
which depend on It for their very existence (paratantra satyam) to have any
guNas. That is the sorry state of Brahman if guNas have to be admitted in


On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:58 AM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
> >
> >Please answer a basic question. "If there is no sarvajna Ishwara after
> >pralaya, who will create as before and award rewards of karma in previous
> >kalpa?"
> --------
> Shree Rajaram - There is fundamental problem in the whole analysis. All
> that you mentioned, Iswara with sarvajna, laya, pralaya, karma, jiiva,
> jnaanam, ajnanaam -lokas, even puurva miimamsa, utta miimaamsa that include
> Sreedhara swami  bhaashya, Bhattas, praabhaakaras, miimaasa positions, and
> anything else you name it, all and any divisions and distinctions which
> differentiates in terms of sajaati, vijaati swagata bhedas - all  are only
> transactionally real. Noone disputes that. From paaramaarthika point -
> existence-consciousness alone was there which has no distinctions of any
> kind - ekam eva advitiiyam. Hence nirguna brahman we talk about refers to
> that prajnanam brahma - that which is one without a second. Ontologically
> paramaarthika satyam differs from vyaavahaarika satyam which again differs
> form praatibhaasika satyam. The adviata teaching is from paaramaarthika
> satyam. Confusion arises if try to mix these things - from what reference
> these
>  distinctions you mentioned are valid. You may not agree with this, but
> advaita categorically dismisses any distinctions of any kind from the
> absolute point.
> Just my 2c
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list