[Advaita-l] 'Ishwaro'ham' and 'IshwarabhAvaH'
rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Tue Sep 10 01:17:00 CDT 2013
The crux of this discussion is whether Krishna's form is eternal.
Madhusudana Saraswati establishes that in BhG 4.6. Sridhara Swami
also holds that view. Please check with your scholarly teacher. He agrees
with that. If time permits, please also meet Muralidhara Swamigal and
Krishna Premi. They are advaitins who hold this correct view. Not even a
single advaita acharya holds a view that the divine forms are not eternal
in vyavahara. They may say vyavahara itself is unreal but once you talk
about vyavahara you cannot escape eternality of Krishna's or Lalita's form.
Only relation of word with meaning doesn't grants that word will produce
> understanding. It is 'the knowledge of relation of word and meaning' which
> is needed. That's why I can't understand Tamil, although Tamil words have
> meanings. So, it is possible that words may not generate any understanding.
RV: When you hear kazhaNi, it will either give you the understanding that
it has no meaning because it is not a proper word or that it has an unknown
meaning because you dont know Tamil. it is incapable of producing no
understanding. Sabda is self - evident. The fact I discuss jAti shows that
I have an understanding. You can only accuse of me being an idiot and not
understanding the correct meaning.
> > > > > 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.
> The name of devadatta's grandfather is eternal, hence his grandfather is
> eternal !!! Who is going to put faith in such idiotic logic?
RV: All vaidhikas who understand mImAmsa basics should. If a
qualified one desires the pitru loka, it will appear. It cannot if it is
forever gone. It normally does not appear because the karma that produced
it is finished. However, Ishwara sankalpa is able to revive the dead.
Manifest or not, Devadatta's father is never forgotten by Ishwara. Krishna
tells Arjuna that many lives have passed for you and me but I remember all
> > 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
> > 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).
> It may be. But, you were talking of eternal pot. What does this logic
> benefits to that stance ?
RV: You accused not understanding jAti on he basis I use jAti to mean a
collection. I showed how a jAti name pot can be used to indicate the
jAti, a collection of individual members of the jAti or an individual
member. As to the use of this logic, if the word pot is eternal, the object
pot is. In fact, we don't know of any object other than our mental
modification in terms of a name and form. In the same way, if the word
Krishna is eternal as it is in the Vedas, the Krishna is.
> > >> Anyway, I just sense that you have no understanding of jAti and you
> > > trying to explain it to us. Better send that 'scholar' here or CC him
> > > 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
> > dogmas.
> Sure, I'll ask once I meet him.
RV: Please do and we can skype together if you want when you are at his
place on a Sunday morning.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list