[Advaita-l] 'Ishwaro'ham' and 'IshwarabhAvaH'
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com
Sun Sep 8 14:02:08 CDT 2013
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com
> I can't understand what do you want to express by 'particular form is
> > eternal as knowledge of Ishvara'. Do you mean that forms and
> > are similar or same !!??? That's untenable.
> RV: The jAti is not eternal as an idealised name and form in the platonian
> sense. It is eternal as a collection forms with an associated name.
Let me examine this post here :
Let us take the second sentence-
What does it mean ?
jAti is eternal - is understood. It's oath part.
The part of sentence starting from 'as a...' is either cause or explanation
If first, then just formation of a cluster with a name associated can not
be the cause of eternity of jAti. How could formation of cluster justify
If other, the first part of sentence would go upto the word 'collection'.
Then the first part will be: jAti is eternal as a collection. Now where
will you add rest of words starting from 'forms...'.
A collection of forms that share a lot
> of similarities between them is called a pot.
A collection of forms is not called 'a pot'. It is called 'collection of
And, if I accept the sentence as it is, then what will be the name for
> If your
> opinion is that an ideal pot is eternal and the individual pots are
> instances of the ideal, even then we have the conclusion that the name and
> form is eternal.
I hope in your uses 'ideal pot' means jAti. But, what does 'instances of
If 'a place of revelation', then only your use of words can be justified.
Anyway, existence of individual pot is temporary - is my motive. And,
similar to that the form of kR^iShNa.
And, as not many kR^iShNa-s are seen, so there is no possibility of
> If a new name or form is created, it is done by modifying
> an existing name and form by adding, removing or distorting parts thereof.
> Thus a new jAti is a modification of an existing jAti only.
In first part you were talking about individuals, and hence you must
conclude about same in the second sentence.
Anyway, you are against your own stand because you are propounding that
jAti can be modified. That means jAti is not eternal, isn't it.
So, you started for eternity of individual forms and went to negate
eternity of jAti itself !!
> Ishwara, by definition, being omniscient must know all the names and forms
> - not only the jAti but also the particular. In this sense, all names and
> forms are eternal.
I can not sense any sense here.
Ishvara can not know dead ones as living ones. That will make him
hallucinated. So, individual names and forms of past things and people are
not eternal in this way too.
> They exist as long as Ishwara exists. If it is not so,
> then Ishwara cannot create the world as before and accord results of
> actions done in a previous kalpa. Shruti also confirms that Ishwara is a
> container of all names and forms. Sankara quotes the following in BSB
> 'He who is called ether is the revealer of all forms and names; that within
> which these forms and names are contained is Brahman' (*Kh*. Up. VIII, 14,
> 1); 'Let me evolve names and forms' (*Kh*. Up. VI, 3, 2); 'He, the wise
> one, who having divided all forms and given all names, sits speaking (with
> those names)' (Taitt. Âr. III, 12, 7); 'He who makes the one seed manifold'
> (*S*ve. Up. VI, l2).--
OK. You mean satkAryavAda here.
So, just because everything is existing in the form of it's cause or it's
own form, you hold that it is eternal. In this sense, devadatta's dead
grandfather is also alive and hence he must start serving him directly with
So, just get it that existence of anything in it's cause form is not
accepted as existence of the thing needed for behaviour. So, kR^iShNa's
form is not eternal.
> > > XX: How do you know Krishna's form is the same? We know the name
> > as
> > > Devaki Putra is eternal because it is said so in shruti but it need not
> > be
> > > that He has the same form.
> > >
> > It is also not very clear.
> > Anyway, no name is eternal, as it is mithyA according to advaitin-s. If
> > you mean that A-pralayam, then it may be true. But, your intentions
> > otherwise.
> RV: As long as Ishwara exists, there is no way to logically get rid of
> names and forms.
By reading your words 'as long as Ishvara exists', it appears that Ishvara
is limited by time and hence not eternal. Now, where is the case of
eternity of anything created by him.
> Yes, a nirguna brahma jnAni can negate all names and forms
> along with Ishwara.
OK. Only neglect, but can not kill. So, it appears here that Ishvara is
You are confused as you are saying one thing in one part of post and
opposite in other part.
> However, it is only theoretically known from sastras
> and our perception of others experience. As per eka jiva vada, those who we
> imagine have done it are only jiva bhAsas that have realised identity
> with our own self, the mukhya jIva or Ishwara. As the cycle of creation is
> eternal, sarva mukti and as a consequence negation of Ishwara is also
> impossible. This is not well understood commonly and hence the
> disillusionment about eternality of bhakti in advaita.
So, ultimately you mean that there is no possibility of advaitic-mukti,
because without sarva-mukti there can not be real liberation. And, hence
Ishvara and everything he knows becomes eternal.
This appears essence of your logic.
Now, get it that as soon as you come to talk about mukhya-jIva in
eka-jIva-vAda, you are actually compromising with it's basics. You are just
negating your experience of being jIva and superimposing jIvAbhAsatva on
it. This is second level of adhyAsa.
I must say that for such people, eka-jIva-vAda was not taught.
> > > XX: If shruti and/or smrti say that His form is the same, we can accept
> > it.
> > >
> > What if shruti says something opposed to yukti and other pramANa-s. He
> > seems to ignore this fact.
> RV: You are the one who is ignoring the purva mimamsa rule that on unseen
> matters, sabda alone is pramana.
We are talking about form of kR^iShNa, which is by no means adR^iShTa.
Even his mother saw him nude, without reading scriptures.
> We dont know devas through any means other
> than through sastras.
You may not know about indra, etc., but if you accept that kR^iShNa took
avatAra on earth, then it comes that his case is not similar to others.
> Even if we have bhagavad sAkshAtkAra, we only see
> through direct perception what is known through sastras.
So, you mean that dhruva, etc. just saw chaturbhuja rUpa and that rUpa
didn't do anything with them, no boons, no words....because it is not said
by shAstra that viShNu says those words, and of course dhruva must not have
read something like that !!
> In the absence of
> pratyaksha and sabda, we cannot infer the names such as Krishna, Rama,
> Narasimha etc.
Utterly ignoring facts of birth of rAma and kR^iShNa just to prove your
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list