[Advaita-l] Pramana for adhyaropa apavada
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Sat May 11 04:24:42 CDT 2013
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If the jiva is bhogyam, it is jaDa and this is contradictory to the
> > upanishad. And if the Lord is dependent on the jaDa jiva for his bhoga,
> > is no longer nityatRpta; He will be another samsAri who looks for
> > outside of him to remain sated. This is the consequence of having a jiva
> > that is different from the Lord.
> RV: we see two sentient beings love each other in this world and enjoy each
> other's love. neither of them become insentient because of being an object
> of enjoyment. what is the logic in saying that a jiva will be jada if he is
> enjoyed by the lord.
Vedanta teaches us that only the kShetram, the product of prakRti, can be
the bhogyam. The Consciousness principle can never be the bhogyam. When
two persons love each other, they love one or the other manifestation of
kShetram like the body, the mind, the intellect, etc. which are the seats
of the beauty, intelligence, caliber, etc. Only these can be seen and
experienced and appreciated in another. The sentience part which is the
Consciousness, is not an object at all. The upanishad says: na tatra sUryo
bhAti....tasya bhAsA sarvam idam vibhAti [Nothing can illumine That by
which alone everything else is illumined], The kenopanishad says: It
enlivens all instruments but no instrument can know/illumine It. The
Br.Up. teaches that only one's Self is the dearest of all. So, the goal of
the aspirant is to realize his self which can never be an object. All else
is not-self and jaDa. BhagavAn is pUrNakAmaH. The jnAni is AptakAmaH.
If the jiva is absolutely different from the Lord, then there is a defect
> of the Lord being dependent on some thing other than Him for bliss but if
> the Lord uses His eternal energies for His enjoyment, then He is self
> satisfied. Is it not?
Any enjoyment will require the tripuTee consisting of enjoyer, enjoyed and
the instruments. If it is said that all these three are the Lord Himself
then it is like the dream creation example of advaita and subject to end,
since there is the dreamer/creator of this triputee who is the
adhiShThaanam of this triad. All energies of Brahman are either world or
jiva centric. If the Lord is different from bliss then there is the need
for seeking something else for enjoying the bliss. If He is Bliss Himself
there is no need for Him to use his energies. If it is said it is a
pastime for the Lord, such concepts are outside the purview of serious
Vedanta vichAra. Those ideas might be helpful in giving one increased
saguna bhakti and chitta shuddhi. As Swami Paramarthananda says: Such
practices are a good starting point but can't be the ending point.
> > Even though mAyAshakti is beyond space and time, the mAyAkAryam, products
> > of mAyA, are surely within the gamut of space and time. Maya cannot, by
> > rule, create anything that defies this law.
> > RV: maya by definition can make the impossible possible. Where is the law
> that says maya cannot produce a form beyond space and time?
It is only upon encountering such a form can one say that there is such a
form. But as the Acharya explained, a mUrti concept cannot fit this
definition. That is why in the Upanishads 'sat/satyam' is specified as
mUrtadravyam, available for perception being formed objects and tyat as
amurta dravyam with no form and therefore cannot be seen. In a mUrti the
space between two shoulders and the head is not still the shoulder and
head, it is empty space. That will not form part of the murti. That is
why it is said the Lingam is a representative of all possible forms. If we
have a human type figure it is impossible to say that it pervades all. In
that body itself the hand does not pervade the legs and the legs do not
pervade the head. Even mAyA cannot make such a figure possible. If you
can conceive of one, Long Live Thee!!
> Leave alone the Upanishads, even Madhusudana says that the Lotd's eternal
> form is not made of pancha bhutas, which includes space. Sankara also says
> it is aprakrtam.
I have addressed this before. The aprAkRtam is still within prakRti alone.
That is what I have been told that Madhusudana has said in the Advaita
siddhi. The Rule is: any formed object can be only within prakRti;
Consciousness can never take a form unless it depends on prakRti. Bhagavan
says in the Gita: sambhavAmi Atma mAyayA. A complete study of the Bh.Gita
and the upanishad bhashyam will make this clear. Till such time there will
be endless questions and doubts.
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list