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

Swamisarvabhutananda swami.sarvabhutananda at gmail.com
Mon Sep 9 18:37:30 CDT 2013

I appreciate your reply toRV.
The basics of shraddA if not there and if one wants to argue for the sake of argument and such a person cannot be handled,as the EGO wants to establish the idea.
It is a pramAna vishayA and shraddA.
I enjoy this group discussion.

Sent from my iPad

On 10-Sep-2013, at 2:13 AM, 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.
> We are using technical terms, he doesn't understand. He, however, replies.
> Then we are unable to understand sanity of his reply. So, we again
> logically try to test his replies with another technical terms he can not
> understand. So, there is no use to continue.
> But, if anyway I've to continue, let me try it below:
> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
> *www.lalitaalaalitah.com
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
> svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Rajaram, I don't know where to start, so here are a few questions for you
>> to ponder over.
>>>> RV: I'm explaining two cases where a pot is eternal.
>> There can be no eternal pot.
>> In one case, there is
>>> an ideal pot and other pots are made similar to that.
> Observing your previous sentence, it appears that according to you 'ideal
> pot'​ is none other than 'eternal pot'.
> Then the non-existence of eternal pot denies possibility to this 'ideal
> pot' too.
> In the second case,
>>> there is no ideal pot but a collection of objects that share certain
>>> characteristics is called a pot.
> ​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.
> 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.
>> When we say pot, we can refer to both the
>>> jAti or collection and an individual.
> ​I hope you mean by word 'or' sameness. Now, jAti is not collection - is
> the point to be noted.
> If you meant something else by 'or', then reveal it.
>> There can be a jAti with a single
>>> member also.
> ​Here it becomes clear that you mean nothing other than collection by word
> jAti, because you are saying that jAti has members.
> Anyway, note again that we don't accept jAti in AkAsha, etc. which are
> single.
>> The jAti is eternal is the argument.
> ​But, what jAti is not understood - our stance.
>>> RV: I'm not negating eternality of jAti but saying the opposite. An
>>> apparently new jAti is nothing but modification of existing ones.
> ​So, how could you say that 'this jAti' is original and 'that jAti' is just
> apparent modification ?
> Don't hide your ignorance. Just ask the person who helps or wishes to help
> you. We are also for the same purpose. But, if you just keep going on with
> your wrong understanding and words, we can not help you.
> Again, I will suggest you to learn something about technical terms of
> nyAya, etc. either from AchArya or from books(if you could grasp
> correctly).​
> _______________________________________________
> 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