[Advaita-l] 'Ishwaro'ham' and 'IshwarabhAvaH'

Rajaram Venkataramani rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Sun Sep 8 23:55:28 CDT 2013

On Sunday, September 8, 2013, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः wrote:

> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
> *www.lalitaalaalitah.com
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> rajaramvenk at gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > wrote:
> > ​>​
> > ​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
> > Ishvara-GYAna
> > > 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
> of eternity?
> 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
> that ?
> 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
> pots'.
> And, if I accept the sentence as it is, then what will be the name for
> individual pot.

> > 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
> ideal' means?
> 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
> kR^iShNa-jAti too.
> RV: I'm explaining two cases where a pot is eternal. In one case, there is
an ideal pot and other pots are made similar to that. In the second case,
there is no ideal pot but a collection of objects that share certain
characteristics is called a pot. When we say pot, we can refer to both the
jAti or collection and an individual. There can be a jAti with a single
member also. The jAti is eternal is the argument.

> > 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.
> >
> ​Wrong.
> 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 !!
RV: I'm not negating eternality of jAti but saying the opposite. An
apparently new jAti is nothing but modification of existing ones.

> >
> > 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.
RV:  We can only say that Ishwara knows every thing through the power of
maya. He will not know a dead man as alive but know all that a dead man
did. His name and form are eternal as His knowledge.

> > 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
> > 2.1.14.
> >
> > '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
> medicines.
> 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.
> RV: Devadatta's dead grand father cannot come back in the same form as
Devadatta's dead grand father as that karma is finished. Krishna appears in
the same form as His form is not produced by karma but by His will. That is
the difference.

> > > > XX: How do you know Krishna's form is the same? We know the name
> > Krishna
> > > 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
> > appear
> > > 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
> eternal.
> You are confused as you are saying one thing in one part of post and
> opposite in other part.
> Be consistent.
RV:  No inconsistency. As long as Ishwara exists is used in the sense He is

> > 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.
RV: Let me be the mukhya jiva. Even then, I know that cycle of creation is

> > > > 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.
RV: We know of Krishna only through scriptures. For this who saw Him during
avatara, He was known through  direct perception. If we see Him now, it
will be though direc perception. But we can know He is Krishna only through

> > 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 !!
> RV: No one said such interaction is not possible. Those who interact know
through direct perception. Others though sabda pramana only - shrui or

> > 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
> stance correct.

RV: What is not proven?

>> _______________________________________________
> 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 <javascript:;>

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list