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

Rajaram Venkataramani rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Mon Sep 9 17:04:16 CDT 2013

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 9:43 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:

> Actually, I was just not replying to rAjArAm because his posts reveal that
> he possessed either no understanding or wrong understanding of the meaning
> of word 'jAti', 'eternal', etc.
> Until he grasps the correct meaning or accepts his failure to do so, there
> is no use to continue with him.
RV: What do you mean by no understanding? Any meanigful word will produce
an understanding in our minds. The understanding may not be what the
speaker intended and hence can be wrong but how is it possible to have no

> > > RV: I'm explaining two cases where a pot is eternal.
There can be no eternal pot.
RV: Why? If the word pot is eternal, then the object indicated by it must
also be eternal. ​

​See here, the 'is called a pot' portion can be directed to the subject
'collection of objects' in your sentence. Now, how could a collection of
objects, which are definitely not pot(otherwise you would have mentioned
it), which shares certain characteristics(of whom ? pot or plant ?) be
called pot ?? No sane person will accept it.
RV: By the word cow in cow dung, you mean a single cow, a set or collection
of cows and also a class of animals. The word pot can mean a single pot
(e.g. broken pot), collection of pots (e.g. pot store) and a class (e.g.
mud pot).

> Anyway, I just sense that you have no understanding of jAti and you are
> trying to explain it to us. Better send that 'scholar' here or CC him so
> that we could solve this with him.

RV: You have access to the scholar now where you are. He accepts that
Krishna's form is eternal (in vyavahara). We should go by pramanas not

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list