What is 'aprAkRta' ?

[V Subrahmanian]

श्रीगुरुभ्यो नमः

Whenever a reference is made to the body/attributes of
Brahman/Ishwara/avatAra it is said to be 'aprAkRta'. It would be beneficial
to know exactly what this term means. The dictionary gives these: 1. not
vulgar 2.Not original 3. Not ordinary, extraordinary 4. special.

Of these the first two are out of our context. The latter two may be
considered. However, it is often sought to be made out that this 'aprAkRta'
is something that is not a product of prakRti. To be specific, something
that is not a product of the three guNas, the five elements. In other words
it is 'apAnchabhautikam'. Now a question arises as to what exactly this
means. What is this 'substance' ? In the scripture we have two things that
are talked about: 1. Brahman/Atman, also called Chit, PuruSha, etc. and
translated/translatable as 'spirit'. 2. prakRti or triguNAtmikA mAyA, also
called jaDa tattva, matter. A third entity is not there spoken of anywhere.

So, if something is 'aprAkRta' does it mean that it is non-matter or
non-material? Going by the 'only' two tattvas as above, that which is
'apraakRta' has to be Chit or spirit. If it is not matter/material, it has
to be spirit. If it is not either, then what is the 'substance' with which
the body of Brahman/Ishwara/Vishnu made? We better take it as
'chinmayarUpam' if we want to ward off praakRta/pAnchabhautika rUpa and its
consequences. It is a vivarta of Brahman.

Then, is the body of Brahman only spirit/Chit? Now, we have the scripture
itself declaring that the spirit is 'avikArI'/'avikAryaH'. If the Chit is
of such a nature, how is it that the shape/form of a ' body' is taken on by
Chit? How is this possible when the Chit is avikAri? Also, whenever we talk
of a form, it is paricchinna, finite. How can the 'shareera', aprAkRta,
though, still be aparicchinna/sarvavyApaka? In the शेषशयन ViShNu's case, we
can see that VishNu is reclining on the snake-bed which is itself placed in
the ksheera sAgara. Now, the body of VishNu is certainly not pervading the
snake-bed or the milk-ocean. It is finite. If it is said that Vishnu is
infinite then we have to take that the snake-bed, the ocean, Lakshmi, etc.
are all VishNu alone appearing in those names-forms. This will be no
different from saying that He is vishvarUpa, akin to the vishvarUpa darshana
of the Bh.Gita. सहस्त्रशीर्ष-सहस्रपात्-सहस्राक्षः will all be meaningful
only if we look at the situation as: all the heads, feet, hands, eyes, etc.
that are there in the world are His/He alone. Otherwise we will be
imagining a multi-headed hydra or a centipede or millipede-kind of creature
of ViShNu.

Shankaracharya has used this word in the Gitabhashya 4.9 thus:

जन्म मायारूपम्, कर्म च साधुपरित्राणादि, मे मम दिव्यम् = *अप्राकृतम्* -
ऐश्वरं एवं यथोक्तं यो वेत्ति तत्त्वतः ...

Interestingly Shankara has commented for the preceding verse thus:

तां प्रकृतिं स्वाम् अधिष्ठाय वशीकृत्य संभवामि देहवानिव भवामि जात इव
आत्ममायया आत्मनः मायया, न परमार्थतो लोकवत्।

And Bhagavan Himself has said that this prakRti/mAyA is His: मम माया
दुरत्यया.

Here we get the hint that it is only 'controlled prakRti' that is called
'aprAkRtam'. In other words, when prakRiti is handled in such a way that it
does not bind a person, it is aprAkRtam. It is the shuddha
sattva/rajas/tamas guNas that are involved as against the malina sattva,
etc. that characterize the jiva's samsara/samsaritva.

I have also heard that 'aprAkrtam' janma/karma means that it is not the way
a jiva comes to take birth: owing to ajnana, through past karma, to reap the
effects thereof and work for creating new janma-s. That alone is the
difference between the janma/karma of a bound-jiva and Brahman taking a
birth/body. It also admits of reason that a difference is made between the
avatAra body and its growth, old-age, etc. and final disappearance AND the
'eternal' body of VishNu such as seen reclining on the anantha. In the
former case, all the prAkRta functions are seen even though great miraculous
displays of power do manifest. Even these have to be seen as within the
vast, infinite, scope of maayA, prakRti. In the case of bound jiva-s the
manifestation of only limited powers of prakRti is seen whereas in the
avatAra's case the extraordinary powers of prakRti come to the fore.

The shruti says: *अशरीरं शरीरेषु* अनवस्थेषु अवस्थितम्. महान्तं विभुमात्मानं
मत्वा धीरो न शोचति ( Kathopanishat 1.2.22)

*न संदृशे* तिष्ठति रूपमस्य न चक्षुषा पश्यति कश्चनैनम् । हृदा मनीषा
मनसाऽभिक्लृप्तो य एतद्विदुरमृतास्ते भवन्ति ॥ 2.3.9 ॥

In the above we find that the Upanishad is categorical about Brahman not
having a form. None can 'see' Brahman with the physical eye. One can
however 'know' that it is Brahman that appears as the vishvarUpa. Again,
one can know through the disciplined mind that Brahman which is without any
form whatsoever.

However, as Shankara says in the BSB, Brahman/Ishwara can and does take on a
form, any including the ones spoken of above, to bless/help an aspirant in
his sadhana.:

*स्यात्परमेश्वरस्यापि* इच्छावशात् मायामयं रूपं साधकानुग्रहार्थम् ।
(1.1.vii.20) (Ishwara, out of compassion, takes on, by His Maya, a form to
grace the spiritual aspirant.)

The case of हिरण्यश्मश्रुः is about a form, of golden hue, described by the
Upanishad for upAsana purpose. It says such a One's finger-joints are the
Rg.Veda, etc. We cannot say that this kind of a form of Brahman is 'niyata'
because we know that Rg.veda etc. have come out of Brahman as Its Breath:
यस्य निश्शवसितमेतदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदो.... (Also do we not see VishNu
picturised as clean-shaven!!) The 'hands' are described in the Purusha sUkta
as representing the kShatriya. Such varied descriptions of Brahman's form
and the various parts only show that these cannot be the niyata rUpa of
Brahman. The above quoted Katha shruti and the Mundaka: *दिव्यो ह्यमूर्तः
पुरुषः* सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजः. अप्राणो ह्यमनाः शोभ्रो ह्यक्षरात् परतः परः ॥
(2,1,2) teach in unequivocal terms that there is no form/body/mind, sense
organs for Brahman. There is nothing in these mantras to suggest that ONLY
the prAkRta body, etc. are negated here. There are no statements to say
that Brahman has a specific, natural body, with parts, mind, etc. that are
'aprAkRta' either. The body/forms of Brahman described in purANa-s and
painted by artists following such descriptions only serve as an aid to
sadhakas to concentrate their mind upon them, by withdrawing from the forms
that the world of senses provide.

It is only because we, as humans, have an adhyAsa-based attachment to our
body/senses, relationships, tastes, behaviours, etc. that the scripture, on
the nyAya of यक्षानुरुपो बलिः depicts Brahman variously as with a human-type
body शिरःपाण्यादिमान् देह्ः, with a female consort, a family, an abode, etc.
There are ways to 'satiate' Brahman's hunger through a variety of
neivedyams, a lot of services, upachAra-s, nRtya, geetha, ashvArohaNa,
gajArohaNa, etc. ..everything meant to sublimate our own slavery to these
tastes, behaviours, requirements, etc.

To conclude, 'aprAkRtam' means only 'controlled prAkRtam' and 'mAyAmayam'.
It can take the name of 'IshvarEcchA' too. In any case it does not
constitute the true, absolute nature of Brahman as taught in the Upanishads,
some of which we have seen above. Not getting aged/diseased, etc. of a
divine form is also within the infinite, unimaginable powers of Maya:
अघटितघटनापटीयसी माया. Sri Krishna too says in the Gita that there is no
limit to His vibhUti-s.

In all such discourses we have to remember that everything, the divine form,
vibhUti pradarshanam, etc. is never without the jiva-jagat (paratantra) in
mind. It is by default परतन्त्रसापेक्षक. Anything that is dependent on the
paratantra for its manifestation/display/existence cannot be deemed to be
the स्वरूपभूतस्वभाव of the स्वतन्त्रब्रह्मन्. It is 'for the sake' of the
jiva/jagat that Brahman, as Ishwara, takes on form/s. If this 'sake' is
not there, there is no need for Brahman to assume such form/s.

Om Tat Sat
_______________________________________________
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

Fo

[Shyam]

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 26, 2011, at 7:25 AM, V Subrahmanian <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> श्रीगुरुभ्यो नमः
>
> Whenever a reference is made to the body/attributes of
> Brahman/Ishwara/avatAra it is said to be 'aprAkRta'. It would be beneficial
> to know exactly what this term means. The dictionary gives these: 1. not
> vulgar 2.Not original 3. Not ordinary, extraordinary 4. special.
>
> Of these the first two are out of our context. The latter two may be
> considered. However, it is often sought to be made out that this 'aprAkRta'
> is something that is not a product of prakRti. To be specific, something
> that is not a product of the three guNas, the five elements. In other words
> it is 'apAnchabhautikam'. Now a question arises as to what exactly this
> means. What is this 'substance' ? In the scripture we have two things that
> are talked about: 1. Brahman/Atman, also called Chit, PuruSha, etc. and
> translated/translatable as 'spirit'. 2. prakRti or triguNAtmikA mAyA, also
> called jaDa tattva, matter. A third entity is not there spoken of anywhere.
>
> So, if something is 'aprAkRta' does it mean that it is non-matter or
> non-material? Going by the 'only' two tattvas as above, that which is
> 'apraakRta' has to be Chit or spirit. If it is not matter/material, it has
> to be spirit. If it is not either, then what is the 'substance' with which
> the body of Brahman/Ishwara/Vishnu made? We better take it as
> 'chinmayarUpam' if we want to ward off praakRta/pAnchabhautika rUpa and its
> consequences. It is a vivarta of Brahman.
>
> Then, is the body of Brahman only spirit/Chit? Now, we have the scripture
> itself declaring that the spirit is 'avikArI'/'avikAryaH'. If the Chit is
> of such a nature, how is it that the shape/form of a ' body' is taken on by
> Chit? How is this possible when the Chit is avikAri? Also, whenever we talk
> of a form, it is paricchinna, finite. How can the 'shareera', aprAkRta,
> though, still be aparicchinna/sarvavyApaka? In the शेषशयन ViShNu's case, we
> can see that VishNu is reclining on the snake-bed which is itself placed in
> the ksheera sAgara. Now, the body of VishNu is certainly not pervading the
> snake-bed or the milk-ocean. It is finite. If it is said that Vishnu is
> infinite then we have to take that the snake-bed, the ocean, Lakshmi, etc.
> are all VishNu alone appearing in those names-forms. This will be no
> different from saying that He is vishvarUpa, akin to the vishvarUpa darshana
> of the Bh.Gita. सहस्त्रशीर्ष-सहस्रपात्-सहस्राक्षः will all be meaningful
> only if we look at the situation as: all the heads, feet, hands, eyes, etc.
> that are there in the world are His/He alone. Otherwise we will be
> imagining a multi-headed hydra or a centipede or millipede-kind of creature
> of ViShNu.
>
> Shankaracharya has used this word in the Gitabhashya 4.9 thus:
>
> जन्म मायारूपम्, कर्म च साधुपरित्राणादि, मे मम दिव्यम् = *अप्राकृतम्* -
> ऐश्वरं एवं यथोक्तं यो वेत्ति तत्त्वतः ...
>
> Interestingly Shankara has commented for the preceding verse thus:
>
> तां प्रकृतिं स्वाम् अधिष्ठाय वशीकृत्य संभवामि देहवानिव भवामि जात इव
> आत्ममायया आत्मनः मायया, न परमार्थतो लोकवत्।
>
> And Bhagavan Himself has said that this prakRti/mAyA is His: मम माया
> दुरत्यया.
>
> Here we get the hint that it is only 'controlled prakRti' that is called
> 'aprAkRtam'. In other words, when prakRiti is handled in such a way that it
> does not bind a person, it is aprAkRtam. It is the shuddha
> sattva/rajas/tamas guNas that are involved as against the malina sattva,
> etc. that characterize the jiva's samsara/samsaritva.
>
> I have also heard that 'aprAkrtam' janma/karma means that it is not the way
> a jiva comes to take birth: owing to ajnana, through past karma, to reap the
> effects thereof and work for creating new janma-s. That alone is the
> difference between the janma/karma of a bound-jiva and Brahman taking a
> birth/body. It also admits of reason that a difference is made between the
> avatAra body and its growth, old-age, etc. and final disappearance AND the
> 'eternal' body of VishNu such as seen reclining on the anantha. In the
> former case, all the prAkRta functions are seen even though great miraculous
> displays of power do manifest. Even these have to be seen as within the
> vast, infinite, scope of maayA, prakRti. In the case of bound jiva-s the
> manifestation of only limited powers of prakRti is seen whereas in the
> avatAra's case the extraordinary powers of prakRti come to the fore.
>
> The shruti says: *अशरीरं शरीरेषु* अनवस्थेषु अवस्थितम्. महान्तं विभुमात्मानं
> मत्वा धीरो न शोचति ( Kathopanishat 1.2.22)
>
> *न संदृशे* तिष्ठति रूपमस्य न चक्षुषा पश्यति कश्चनैनम् । हृदा मनीषा
> मनसाऽभिक्लृप्तो य एतद्विदुरमृतास्ते भवन्ति ॥ 2.3.9 ॥
>
> In the above we find that the Upanishad is categorical about Brahman not
> having a form. None can 'see' Brahman with the physical eye. One can
> however 'know' that it is Brahman that appears as the vishvarUpa. Again,
> one can know through the disciplined mind that Brahman which is without any
> form whatsoever.
>
> However, as Shankara says in the BSB, Brahman/Ishwara can and does take on a
> form, any including the ones spoken of above, to bless/help an aspirant in
> his sadhana.:
>
> *स्यात्परमेश्वरस्यापि* इच्छावशात् मायामयं रूपं साधकानुग्रहार्थम् ।
> (1.1.vii.20) (Ishwara, out of compassion, takes on, by His Maya, a form to
> grace the spiritual aspirant.)
>
> The case of हिरण्यश्मश्रुः is about a form, of golden hue, described by the
> Upanishad for upAsana purpose. It says such a One's finger-joints are the
> Rg.Veda, etc. We cannot say that this kind of a form of Brahman is 'niyata'
> because we know that Rg.veda etc. have come out of Brahman as Its Breath:
> यस्य निश्शवसितमेतदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदो.... (Also do we not see VishNu
> picturised as clean-shaven!!) The 'hands' are described in the Purusha sUkta
> as representing the kShatriya. Such varied descriptions of Brahman's form
> and the various parts only show that these cannot be the niyata rUpa of
> Brahman. The above quoted Katha shruti and the Mundaka: *दिव्यो ह्यमूर्तः
> पुरुषः* सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजः. अप्राणो ह्यमनाः शोभ्रो ह्यक्षरात् परतः परः ॥
> (2,1,2) teach in unequivocal terms that there is no form/body/mind, sense
> organs for Brahman. There is nothing in these mantras to suggest that ONLY
> the prAkRta body, etc. are negated here. There are no statements to say
> that Brahman has a specific, natural body, with parts, mind, etc. that are
> 'aprAkRta' either. The body/forms of Brahman described in purANa-s and
> painted by artists following such descriptions only serve as an aid to
> sadhakas to concentrate their mind upon them, by withdrawing from the forms
> that the world of senses provide.
>
> It is only because we, as humans, have an adhyAsa-based attachment to our
> body/senses, relationships, tastes, behaviours, etc. that the scripture, on
> the nyAya of यक्षानुरुपो बलिः depicts Brahman variously as with a human-type
> body शिरःपाण्यादिमान् देह्ः, with a female consort, a family, an abode, etc.
> There are ways to 'satiate' Brahman's hunger through a variety of
> neivedyams, a lot of services, upachAra-s, nRtya, geetha, ashvArohaNa,
> gajArohaNa, etc. ..everything meant to sublimate our own slavery to these
> tastes, behaviours, requirements, etc.
>
> To conclude, 'aprAkRtam' means only 'controlled prAkRtam' and 'mAyAmayam'.
> It can take the name of 'IshvarEcchA' too. In any case it does not
> constitute the true, absolute nature of Brahman as taught in the Upanishads,
> some of which we have seen above. Not getting aged/diseased, etc. of a
> divine form is also within the infinite, unimaginable powers of Maya:
> अघटितघटनापटीयसी माया. Sri Krishna too says in the Gita that there is no
> limit to His vibhUti-s.
>
> In all such discourses we have to remember that everything, the divine form,
> vibhUti pradarshanam, etc. is never without the jiva-jagat (paratantra) in
> mind. It is by default परतन्त्रसापेक्षक. Anything that is dependent on the
> paratantra for its manifestation/display/existence cannot be deemed to be
> the स्वरूपभूतस्वभाव of the स्वतन्त्रब्रह्मन्. It is 'for the sake' of the
> jiva/jagat that Brahman, as Ishwara, takes on form/s. If this 'sake' is
> not there, there is no need for Brahman to assume such form/s.
>
> Om Tat Sat
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> ***@advaita-vedanta.org
_______________________________________________
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, contac

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Subbuji - Beautiful analysis.
Hari Om!
Sadananda


--- On Tue, 7/26/11, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
Here we get the hint that it is only 'controlled prakRti' that is called
'aprAkRtam'.  In other words, when prakRiti is handled in such a way that it
does not bind a person, it is aprAkRtam.  It is the shuddha
sattva/rajas/tamas guNas that are involved as against the malina sattva,
etc. that characterize the jiva's samsara/samsaritva.

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:25 PM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
Then, is the body of Brahman only spirit/Chit? Now, we have the scripture
itself declaring that the spirit is 'avikArI'/'avikAryaH'. If the Chit is
of such a nature, how is it that the shape/form of a ' body' is taken on by
Chit? How is this possible when the Chit is avikAri? Also, whenever we talk
of a form, it is paricchinna, finite. How can the 'shareera', aprAkRta,
though, still be aparicchinna/sarvavyApaka?

RV: RV: If there is a real material body, then why does Sankara say dehavan
iva? Maya is the cause of time and space. Hence it is transcendental to
spacio-temporal limitation. A form that is maya rupam aprakrtam can be
transcendent to space and time though beyond the conception of our little
mind. Is it not?

Otherwise we will be imagining a multi-headed hydra or a centipede or
millipede-kind of creature of ViShNu.

RV: All hands and forms may be His but the Visvarupa is special because
Krishna gave Arjuna divine eyes to see them. It is not something deduced
through logic that it is a sum of all forms or imagined.

Here we get the hint that it is only 'controlled prakRti' that is called
'aprAkRtam'. In other words, when prakRiti is handled in such a way that it
does not bind a person, it is aprAkRtam. It is the shuddha
sattva/rajas/tamas guNas that are involved as against the malina sattva,
etc. that characterize the jiva's samsara/samsaritva.

RV: Even our body is controlled by Ishvara and does not control Him. So,
what is the difference between our prakrta rupam and His aprakrta rupam?
There is visuddha sattvam. What is visuddha rajas and tamas? I have never
heard of it but if there is veda pramana to say that I would like to know.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:25 PM, V Subrahmanian
> <***@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> RV: RV: If there is a real material body, then why does Sankara say dehavan
> iva?


There is the body but the ignorance-based identification with it is absent
in the case of Bhagavan and a Jivanmukta. Yet those who see and interact
with that 'person' Krishna during His life did that taking for granted that
'this is a person, with a body.... just as we are'. Shankara puts the true
state of affairs by that remark 'dehavAn iva'.



> Maya is the cause of time and space. Hence it is transcendental to
> spacio-temporal limitation. A form that is maya rupam aprakrtam can be
> transcendent to space and time though beyond the conception of our little
> mind. Is it not?
>

How? When I see or picture while reading a purANic description of Lord
ViShNu reclining on the sheShatalpa, I point out to the reclining male human
figure on the serpent-bed as 'this is the Lord', and say 'this is the
seShatalpa' and go on to point to each member there as 'this is Mother
Lakshmi', this is the vast ksheera sAgara. Why do i not say or think 'it is
just Vishnu and nothing else'? It is because when a form is attributed to
Ishwara/Bhagavan, His becoming 'nirdeshya' is inevitable despite the
Vishnusahasranama saying He is 'anirdeshyavapuH'. Our very differentiating
Vishnu from the various members surrounding Him is proof of the fact that
attributing a form in the absolute sense and sarva-vyApakatva do not go
together. However, if it is agreed that the form is only in the relative
sense, then there is no problem in seeing the limited form and yet 'knowing'
that ViShNu is indeed 'vyApanashIlaH' as Shankara has explained in the Katha
bhashya for the mantra 'tad viShNoH paramam padam'

//तद्विष्णोः *व्यापनशीलस्य* ब्रह्मणः परमात्मनो वासुदेवाख्यस्य परमं प्रकृष्टं
पदं स्थानं सतत्त्वमित्येतद्यदसौ आप्नोति विद्वान् - (That man of knowledge
reaches the end of the road, i.e. the very supreme goal to be reached beyond
samsAra. He becomes free from all the worldly bondages. That is the
highest place, i.e. the very nature, of *ViShNu,* of *the all-pervading
Brahman*, of the Supreme Self, who is called Vasudeva.)//

Note that the Upanishad uses the adjective 'paramam' for the word padam. So
that itself shows that this 'state' of VishNu is the absolute state as
opposed to His human body-form. Shankara's bhashyam is in strict accordance
to the wordings there.

>
> Otherwise we will be imagining a multi-headed hydra or a centipede or
> millipede-kind of creature of ViShNu.
>
> RV: All hands and forms may be His but the Visvarupa is special because
> Krishna gave Arjuna divine eyes to see them. It is not something deduced
> through logic that it is a sum of all forms or imagined.
>

Yes. The purpose of those Divine Eyes is unique. It enabled Arjuna to
'see' the Lord as everything in creation, the past, present and the future,
even while he was seeing Krishna in the battlefield in front of him. Arjuna
saw himself too in that vision. When we are asked to have 'vishvarUpa
Ishwara bhakti' we take a lesson from that vision Arjuna had and get to see
it in our lives as well. Although the Gita description is illustrative, it
does not and need not happen the same way to everyone. It is enough if we
gain the understanding that every event, small or big, past, present and
future, is 'placed' 'in' the Lord, the paratattva. In other words, Brahman
is the adhishThAnam for every thing, event, person, being in the creation.
The soumya and ugra are both equally the manifestation of Brahman.

>
> Here we get the hint that it is only 'controlled prakRti' that is called
> 'aprAkRtam'. In other words, when prakRiti is handled in such a way that
> it
> does not bind a person, it is aprAkRtam. It is the shuddha
> sattva/rajas/tamas guNas that are involved as against the malina sattva,
> etc. that characterize the jiva's samsara/samsaritva.
>
> RV: Even our body is controlled by Ishvara and does not control Him. So,
> what is the difference between our prakrta rupam and His aprakrta rupam?
> There is visuddha sattvam. What is visuddha rajas and tamas? I have never
> heard of it but if there is veda pramana to say that I would like to know.
>

Our body/life is controlled by Ishwara and maya but not by us. Whereas,
Ishwara's body and avatara-life are controlled by Him and not by maya.
Creation, sustenance and destruction of the universe is the effect of
shuddha rajas, sattvam and tamas. While these very three guNas in their
ashuddha/malina forms bind a jiva, these very guNa-s, being inevitable even
for Ishwara/Brahman to engage in any activity, do not bind Him, being
shuddha in their manifestations. For example, all of us do need tamoguNa
for getting the necessary daily sleep. But the evil of delusion,
procrastination, etc. also are effects of tamas. Ishwra, as avatAra too
slept and woke up every day. He taught and blessed humanity using the
shuddha sattva. He fought and slayed the wicked with the shuddha rajas. We
become victims of malina sattva, etc. while Ishwara uses these very guNas,
inevitable as they are, in their shuddha form. There are purAnic statements
to the effect of sattva, etc. matched with creation, sustenance, etc. of the
universe. In fact, Brahman itself is shown as BrahmA endowed with rajas,
VishNu endowed with sattva and Shiva with tamas.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v

>
>
_______________________________________________
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:
listmast

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 6:05 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> > RV: RV: If there is a real material body, then why does Sankara say
> dehavan
> > iva?
>
> There is the body but the ignorance-based identification with it is absent
> in the case of Bhagavan and a Jivanmukta. Yet those who see and interact
> with that 'person' Krishna during His life did that taking for granted that
> 'this is a person, with a body.... just as we are'. Shankara puts the true
> state of affairs by that remark 'dehavAn iva'.
>


> RV: Is this the traditional position or your interpretation? I have not
> checked Abhinava Gupta but Madhusudana takes supports two postions. One,
> where the body is made of maya, which is different from the bodies of jivas,
> virata purusha and hiranyagarbha. Two, there is no body made of maya even.
> He strongly condemns any position that says there is a body and indweller
> with respect to the lord. He is it illogical and it is not worth discussing
> with such people.
>


> > Maya is the cause of time and space. Hence it is transcendental to
> > spacio-temporal limitation. A form that is maya rupam aprakrtam can be
> > transcendent to space and time though beyond the conception of our little
> > mind. Is it not?
> >
>
> How?

RV: As maya is transcendent to space and time and indeterminate, the lord's
form which is mayarupam is also indeterminate as well as transcendent to
space and time. In BG 8.9, Sankara says that Saguna Brahman always has a
form though inconceivable. Based on this, I am inclined to say that
according to Sankara the form is not manifest for the sake of devotee alone
but is intrinsic to the Lord though a specific form is manifest in an
avatar. Visvarupa is not created for Arjuna because his question in BG
11.3, I want to see your divine form (aisvaram rupam te).

Our very differentiating Vishnu from the various members surrounding Him is
proof of the fact that attributing a form in the absolute sense and
sarva-vyApakatva do not go together.

RV: We differentiate because of ignorance. Though bhagavatam explicitly says
nara narayano hari:, we think of nara as a jiva and narayana as isvara. When
we see both together, we think Krishna is God and Arjuna is a devotee.
There are statements that Lakshmi and Narayana are one but we see them as
different persons as if there are two bodies with two different souls as in
the case of Jivas. When we see Krishna, Gopis, Arjuna, Yasoda etc. as all
different manifestations of Vasudeva, then we see differently. Also, if we
see that the form is not prakrta but aprakrta (transcendental to space
even), then we see it as sarva vyapi. It is like I look at the sky and
think it is like an umbrella but in reality it is infinite.

I would like to know your thoughts which is perhaps based on a thorough
analysis of the position of the tradition on the form of the lord.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:49 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 6:05 PM, V Subrahmanian <***@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> > ***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > RV: RV: If there is a real material body, then why does Sankara say
> > dehavan
> > > iva?
> >
> > There is the body but the ignorance-based identification with it is
> absent
> > in the case of Bhagavan and a Jivanmukta. Yet those who see and interact
> > with that 'person' Krishna during His life did that taking for granted
> that
> > 'this is a person, with a body.... just as we are'. Shankara puts the
> true
> > state of affairs by that remark 'dehavAn iva'.
> >
>


> > RV: Is this the traditional position or your interpretation?


This is the traditional position.

>
>
> > > Maya is the cause of time and space. Hence it is transcendental to
> > > spacio-temporal limitation. A form that is maya rupam aprakrtam can be
> > > transcendent to space and time though beyond the conception of our
> little
> > > mind. Is it not?
> > >
> >
> > How?
>
> RV: As maya is transcendent to space and time and indeterminate, the lord's
> form which is mayarupam is also indeterminate as well as transcendent to
> space and time. In BG 8.9, Sankara says that Saguna Brahman always has a
> form though inconceivable. Based on this, I am inclined to say that
> according to Sankara the form is not manifest for the sake of devotee alone
> but is intrinsic to the Lord though a specific form is manifest in an
> avatar. Visvarupa is not created for Arjuna because his question in BG
> 11.3, I want to see your divine form (aisvaram rupam te).
>

This is the clarification Anandagiri gives to the words of the bhashyam on
BG 8.9:

'एतदप्रमेयं ध्रुवं' इति श्रुतिमाश्रित्याह -- अचिन्त्यरूपमिति। नहि परस्य
किंचिदपि रूपादि वस्तुतोऽस्ति अरूपवदेव हीति न्यायात् कल्पितमपि नास्मदादिभिः
शक्यते चिन्तयितुमित्याह -- नास्येति।

The *Brahmasutra bhashya reference given by Anandagiri is 3.2.14 and 15
which pl. read. There Badarayana (and Shankara) confirms that Brahman has
no form. I am happy that some of the shruti passages quoted by me in this
thread are there in the bhashyam. Though this is the absolute position, the
sutra/bhashya 15 talk about the relative position where brahman's form is
also talked about in the shruti. These, acc. to the bhashyam are only
upadhi based, for particular purposes. So, the 'form' of the Lord, as
Iswara, is not available for contemplation/imagination. *
*
*
*Aishwaram rUpam is vishwarUpam. Because, Ishwara is not separate from the
created universe. That is why in the Mandukya upanishad, the Cosmic Being
is called by three names, jagrat: virAT, swapna: hiranyagarbha and sushupti:
Ishwara. This sushupti state Iswara cannot have any formal form; it is only
an abode of all the karma-vasanas in bija form, ready for manifesting in the
next creation. Indeed, such an Ishwara's form is no form at all in the
sense that it cannot be imagined/contemplated upon. Indeed even for virAT
or hiranyagarbha no specific contoured-form can be given. The word 'form'
that we might have in mind, a contoured one like a human, is not the one
meant by Shankara in that bhashyam you quoted. virAT is still a form of
brahman and yet not like the one of a human. *

>
> Our very differentiating Vishnu from the various members surrounding Him is
> proof of the fact that attributing a form in the absolute sense and
> sarva-vyApakatva do not go together.
>
> RV: We differentiate because of ignorance. Though bhagavatam explicitly
> says
> nara narayano hari:, we think of nara as a jiva and narayana as isvara.
> When
> we see both together, we think Krishna is God and Arjuna is a devotee.
> There are statements that Lakshmi and Narayana are one but we see them as
> different persons as if there are two bodies with two different souls as in
> the case of Jivas. When we see Krishna, Gopis, Arjuna, Yasoda etc. as all
> different manifestations of Vasudeva, then we see differently. Also, if we
> see that the form is not prakrta but aprakrta (transcendental to space
> even), then we see it as sarva vyapi. It is like I look at the sky and
> think it is like an umbrella but in reality it is infinite.
>
> I would like to know your thoughts which is perhaps based on a thorough
> analysis of the position of the tradition on the form of the lord.
>

What you have said above is true. We can see Krishna as sarvavyApi only
when we see Him as everything in creation.
If we see Him as Yashodhanandan, we restrict Him to a baby or a lad. He is
confined just to Yashodha's bosom.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v

> _______________________________________________
>
_______________________________________________
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 as

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:53 AM, V Subrahmanian
<***@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> This is the clarification Anandagiri gives to the words of the bhashyam on
> BG 8.9:
>
> 'एतदप्रमेयं ध्रुवं' इति श्रुतिमाश्रित्याह -- अचिन्त्यरूपमिति। नहि परस्य
> किंचिदपि रूपादि वस्तुतोऽस्ति अरूपवदेव हीति न्यायात् कल्पितमपि नास्मदादिभिः
> शक्यते चिन्तयितुमित्याह -- नास्येति।
>
> The *Brahmasutra bhashya reference given by Anandagiri is 3.2.14 and 15
> which pl. read. There Badarayana (and Shankara) confirms that Brahman has
> no form.
>

RV: Thanks for the clarification. In BS 3.2.15 Sankara quotes 'He who is
called ether is the revealer of all forms and names. That within which forms
and names are, that is Brahman' (*Kh*. Up. VIII, 14, 1). How is this
understood as Brahman is not a container of nescience or its effects?
_______________________________________________
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

[V Subrahmanian]

2011/7/30 Rajaram Venkataramani <***@gmail.com>

> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:53 AM, V Subrahmanian
> <***@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >
> > This is the clarification Anandagiri gives to the words of the bhashyam
> on
> > BG 8.9:
> >
> > 'एतदप्रमेयं ध्रुवं' इति श्रुतिमाश्रित्याह -- अचिन्त्यरूपमिति। नहि परस्य
> > किंचिदपि रूपादि वस्तुतोऽस्ति अरूपवदेव हीति न्यायात् कल्पितमपि
> नास्मदादिभिः
> > शक्यते चिन्तयितुमित्याह -- नास्येति।
> >
> > The *Brahmasutra bhashya reference given by Anandagiri is 3.2.14 and 15
> > which pl. read. There Badarayana (and Shankara) confirms that Brahman
> has
> > no form.
> >
>
> RV: Thanks for the clarification. In BS 3.2.15 Sankara quotes 'He who is
> called ether is the revealer of all forms and names. That within which
> forms
> and names are, that is Brahman' (*Kh*. Up. VIII, 14, 1). How is this
> understood as Brahman is not a container of nescience or its effects?


Even though Brahman, in absolute terms, is not the container.....yet keeping
that in mind it would not be wrong to say that Brahman is the adhiShThAnam,
substratum, of all names and forms. For there are no real objects that are
referred by names and forms; Brahman is the substance of all the 'objects'.
In the Bh.G.9.4 and 5 we have the teaching: All beings are there in The
Lord. Also, they are not there in the Lord. This means, we have to give a
locus, a support, for the beings in the creation for they cannot be by
themselves, being paratantra. They 'exist' on the sattaa borrowed from the
Swatantra, Brahman. The Lord clarifies that they do not really exist in Him
meaning that they are only appearances in Him, with Him as the substratum.
The superimposed serpent does not stick to the rope though it is only
because the rope is there one sees, by mistake, a serpent (something other
than the rope) there. In this way we can account for names and forms being
'within' Brahman.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v


> _____________________________________________
> 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:
> ***@advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
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:
***@advaita

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 6:07 PM, V Subrahmanian <***@gmail.com>wrote:

> 2011/7/30 Rajaram Venkataramani <***@gmail.com>
>
> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:53 AM, V Subrahmanian
> > <***@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > This is the clarification Anandagiri gives to the words of the bhashyam
> > on
> > > BG 8.9:
> > >
> > > 'एतदप्रमेयं ध्रुवं' इति श्रुतिमाश्रित्याह -- अचिन्त्यरूपमिति। नहि परस्य
> > > किंचिदपि रूपादि वस्तुतोऽस्ति अरूपवदेव हीति न्यायात् कल्पितमपि
> > नास्मदादिभिः
> > > शक्यते चिन्तयितुमित्याह -- नास्येति।
> > >
> > > The *Brahmasutra bhashya reference given by Anandagiri is 3.2.14 and 15
> > > which pl. read. There Badarayana (and Shankara) confirms that Brahman
> > has
> > > no form.
> > >
> >
> > RV: Thanks for the clarification. In BS 3.2.15 Sankara quotes 'He who is
> > called ether is the revealer of all forms and names. That within which
> > forms
> > and names are, that is Brahman' (*Kh*. Up. VIII, 14, 1). How is this
> > understood as Brahman is not a container of nescience or its effects?
>
>
> Even though Brahman, in absolute terms, is not the container.....yet
> keeping
> that in mind it would not be wrong to say that Brahman is the adhiShThAnam,
> substratum, of all names and forms. For there are no real objects that are
> referred by names and forms; Brahman is the substance of all the 'objects'.
> In the Bh.G.9.4 and 5 we have the teaching: All beings are there in The
> Lord. Also, they are not there in the Lord. This means, we have to give a
> locus, a support, for the beings in the creation for they cannot be by
> themselves, being paratantra. They 'exist' on the sattaa borrowed from the
> Swatantra, Brahman. The Lord clarifies that they do not really exist in
> Him
> meaning that they are only appearances in Him, with Him as the substratum.
> The superimposed serpent does not stick to the rope though it is only
> because the rope is there one sees, by mistake, a serpent (something other
> than the rope) there. In this way we can account for names and forms being
> 'within' Brahman.
>
> Regards,
> subrahmanian.v
>
> RV: Here the upanishadic verse quoted in Sankara Bhashya explicitly says
> that all names and forms are in the Nirguna Brahman. It would be better to
> ascertain what Sankara says in his commentary to this particular upanishadic
> verse instead of correlating with BG 9.4 and 5, which are with respect to
> material world and bodies not Lord's names and forms. I say this because in
> one place Kanchi Mahaperiyava, considered a stalwart advaitin by many, says
> that Nirguna Brahman is devoid of qualities does not mean it is nothing but
> that every thing is present in it as itself! My veda teacher, Late Sri
> Sundararama Ganapatigal, associated with Sringeri Mutt, said "Krishna is
> present as Brahman. Krishna's form is present as long as time exists and you
> exist" There was an example given by my mother, of course she did not know
> the source, that white light is devoid of particularities of red, blue and
> green and we say it is not red, not blue and not green. But through a prism
> it manifest all of them. Llike that Nirguna Brahman is not any of the
> particular saguna form but through maya He manifests all of them.
>
_______________________________________________
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:
listmaste

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

Sri Subrahmanian had perhaps forgotten to reply and when prompted sent a
reply to me individually. If no one disagrees, I will take it as the
official position.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org>
Date: Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] What is 'aprAkRta' ?
To: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org>




On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Can you please respond to this?
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org>
> Date: Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 7:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] What is 'aprAkRta' ?
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <
> advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>> RV: Here the upanishadic verse quoted in Sankara Bhashya explicitly says
>> that all names and forms are in the Nirguna Brahman. It would be better to
>> ascertain what Sankara says in his commentary to this particular upanishadic
>> verse instead of correlating with BG 9.4 and 5, which are with respect to
>> material world and bodies not Lord's names and forms.
>>
>
It is not the Lord's names and forms that forms part of Brahman in that
Upanishadic mantra. In the final analysis, all the material worlds and the
bodies are merely names and forms with their substance being Brahman. In
other words,. Brahman alone appears as those very many names and forms.
That is what is called vivarta.



> I say this because in one place Kanchi Mahaperiyava, considered a
>> stalwart advaitin by many, says that Nirguna Brahman is devoid of qualities
>> does not mean it is nothing but that every thing is present in it as itself!
>>
>
This is exactly what is meant by vivarta.


> My veda teacher, Late Sri Sundararama Ganapatigal, associated with
>> Sringeri Mutt, said "Krishna is present as Brahman. Krishna's form is
>> present as long as time exists and you exist" There was an example given by
>> my mother, of course she did not know the source, that white light is devoid
>> of particularities of red, blue and green and we say it is not red, not blue
>> and not green. But through a prism it manifest all of them. Llike that
>> Nirguna Brahman is not any of the particular saguna form but through maya He
>> manifests all of them.
>>
>
> This is very rightly said.

vs

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org
> wrote:

> Sri Subrahmanian had perhaps forgotten to reply and when prompted sent a
> reply to me individually. If no one disagrees, I will take it as the
> official position.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org>
> Date: Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] What is 'aprAkRta' ?
> To: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > I say this because in one place Kanchi Mahaperiyava, considered a
> >> stalwart advaitin by many, says that Nirguna Brahman is devoid of
> qualities
> >> does not mean it is nothing but that every thing is present in it as
> itself!
> >>
> >
> This is exactly what is meant by vivarta.
>

Just adding a clarification: This is what is called the vedAnta sat-kArya
vAda as opposed to the saankhya sat kArya vAda. In the latter the effects
exist in the cause prior to creation/manifestation as the effects. In the
former case, however, the effects exist in the cause prior to manifestation
AS the CAUSE ITSELF.

v.subrahmanian

>
>
>

[Bhaskar YR]

In the former case, however, the effects exist in the cause prior to
manifestation
AS the CAUSE ITSELF.

praNAms
Hare Krishna

And it is also better to be noted that cause does not 'become' effect at
any point of time to say in srushti cause has become effect. brahmA
KaraNa vAda is just there to strengthen the vedAntic ultimate truth that
is ajAta vAda and to refute other vAda-s like pradhAna kAraNa vAda,
satkArya vAda, asatkArya vAda etc. propagated by other schools. kArikA
bhAshya of shankara confirms this.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr-zOhu8KlzJ1LQT0dZR+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> And it is also better to be noted that cause does not 'become' effect at
> any point of time to say in srushti cause has become effect. brahmA
> KaraNa vAda is just there to strengthen the vedAntic ultimate truth that
> is ajAta vAda and to refute other vAda-s like pradhAna kAraNa vAda,
> satkArya vAda, asatkArya vAda etc. propagated by other schools. kArikA
> bhAshya of shankara confirms this.
>
> RV: Madhusudana says that the Lord's form is NOT CREATED at all. He also
supports the view that the Lord and His form are non-different.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms
Hare Krishna

RV prabhuji :

It is vishishtopadhi as Sankara clarfies in the case of Ishvara, which
reveals rather than cover or erroneously project.

bhaskar :

Kindly clarify where exactly shankara says Ishwara's is vishishtOpAdhi
unlike jeeva's sAmAnyOpAdhi. From the siddhAnta drushti, brahman is
nirAkAra, nirguNa, nirvishesha and I dont think shankara compromises this
position of shruti anywhere. In the ArambhAdhikaraNa sUtra bhAshya
shankara makes it very clear that the lordship of the lord, his
sarvajnatva, sarvashaktitva etc. are only relative to the limitation
caused by the conditioning of adjuncts of the nature of avidyA. Atman is
ultimately nirguNa, niravayava and in reality Atman is divested of all
conditioning factors and on the dawn of jnAna, there cannot be any room
for conception like the ruler and the ruled, sarvajnatva etc. However, I
do agree that shankara while talking about upAsana, krama mukti etc. does
agree that Ishwara has the special ability to create and jeeva in
hiraNyagarbha lOka never matches the qualities of Ishwara in this respect.

RV prabhuji :

Brahman is like a featureless sleeping snake (nirguna brahman)which when
it dances (saguna brahman or adi karta narayayna) produces ghost images
(pancha bautika loka) through the instrument of maya.

bhaskar :

I think paramahaMsa rAmakrishna also gives this example to show
shiva-shakti abedha. I do agree that when it comes to the 'reality' of
srushti, the srushtikarta is nothing but that omnipotent and omniscient
Ishwara. shankara too acknowledges this in the very second sUtra of
brahma sUtra. And elsewhere shankara talks about the 'exclusive
attributes' of the brahman since mundaka shruti says this brahman is
sarvajnaH, sarvavit etc. But, again, all these points donot prove that
brahman is even in the paramArthika sense vishishtOpAdhika Ishwara.
sOpAdhika brahma is meant only for meditation and saguNOpAsana. And for
the enquiry & realization it would be shruti-s ultimatum i.e. nirguNa,
nirAkAra, nirupAdhika, nirvishesha parabrahman only.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

[Ramanan Subramanian]

My two cents on this issue:

//
> Jivan Muktas have a body made of
> material elements created due to prarabda karma. Their form is not eternal
> like the Lord's.
>

It would be incorrect to say that. Just like the Ishwara's avatara has a
beginning and end on the physical plane and yet the devotee several
centuries later too can pray and be blessed by that avatara, a jivanmukta
too can be prayed to and his blessings and guidance got by devotees long
after his physical death.
//

I would refer to Bhagavatam and Sridhara Swami's commentary on the same. It
adds credence to RV's position:

lokābhirāmāḿ sva-tanuḿ dhāraṇā-dhyāna-mańgalam
yoga-dhāraṇayāgneyyādagdhvā dhāmāviśat svakam (11.31.6)

Sridharaswami's commentary:

योगिनामिव स्वच्छन्द-मृत्यु भ्रमं वारयति -- लोकाभिरामं इति । अयम् अर्थः -
योगिनो हि स्वच्छन्द-मृत्यवः, स्वां तनुं आग्नेय्या योग-धारणया दग्ध्वा
लोकान्तरम् प्रविशन्ति । भगवांस्तु न तथा, किन्त्वदग्ध्वैव स्व-तनु-सहित एव
स्वकं धाम वैकुण्ठाख्यं अविशत् । तत्र हेतुः -- लोकाभिरामम् । लोकानां
अभिरामोऽभितो रमणं स्थितिर्यस्यां ताम् । जगदाश्रयत्वेन जगतोऽपि दाह-प्रसङ्गाद्
इत्यर्थः । किञ्च, धारणाया ध्यानस्य च मन्गलं शोभनम् । विषयं इतरथा
तयोर्निर्विषयत्वं स्यात् । दृश्यते च आद्यपि तद्-उपासकानां तथैव
तद्रूपसाक्शात्कारः फलप्राप्तिश्चेति भावः । इच्छाशरिइराभिप्रायेण वा यथाश्रुतं
एवास्तु, तत्रापि तु लोकाभिरामां इत्यादिइनां विशेषाणामानर्थक्य-प्रसन्गात्,
तदप्यदग्ध्वा तिरोधाय निर्गत इत्येव साम्प्रतम् ॥
Here is a relevant quote from Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya of Shankara

"mRutaM maraNam , tadrahitaM vapurasyeti amRutavapuH" ('amRutavapuH' is He
Whose body is free from death)

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Bhaskar YR <***@in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> RV prabhuji :
>
> It is vishishtopadhi as Sankara clarfies in the case of Ishvara, which
> reveals rather than cover or erroneously project.
>
> bhaskar :
>
> Kindly clarify where exactly shankara says Ishwara's is vishishtOpAdhi
> unlike jeeva's sAmAnyOpAdhi. From the siddhAnta drushti, brahman is
> nirAkAra, nirguNa, nirvishesha and I dont think shankara compromises this
> position of shruti anywhere. In the ArambhAdhikaraNa sUtra bhAshya
> shankara makes it very clear that the lordship of the lord, his
> sarvajnatva, sarvashaktitva etc. are only relative to the limitation
> caused by the conditioning of adjuncts of the nature of avidyA. Atman is
> ultimately nirguNa, niravayava and in reality Atman is divested of all
> conditioning factors and on the dawn of jnAna, there cannot be any room
> for conception like the ruler and the ruled, sarvajnatva etc. However, I
> do agree that shankara while talking about upAsana, krama mukti etc. does
> agree that Ishwara has the special ability to create and jeeva in
> hiraNyagarbha lOka never matches the qualities of Ishwara in this respect.
>
> RV prabhuji :
>
> Brahman is like a featureless sleeping snake (nirguna brahman)which when
> it dances (saguna brahman or adi karta narayayna) produces ghost images
> (pancha bautika loka) through the instrument of maya.
>
> bhaskar :
>
> I think paramahaMsa rAmakrishna also gives this example to show
> shiva-shakti abedha. I do agree that when it comes to the 'reality' of
> srushti, the srushtikarta is nothing but that omnipotent and omniscient
> Ishwara. shankara too acknowledges this in the very second sUtra of
> brahma sUtra. And elsewhere shankara talks about the 'exclusive
> attributes' of the brahman since mundaka shruti says this brahman is
> sarvajnaH, sarvavit etc. But, again, all these points donot prove that
> brahman is even in the paramArthika sense vishishtOpAdhika Ishwara.
> sOpAdhika brahma is meant only for meditation and saguNOpAsana. And for
> the enquiry & realization it would be shruti-s ultimatum i.e. nirguNa,
> nirAkAra, nirupAdhika, nirvishesha parabrahman only.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> ***@advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Ramanan Subramanian <***@gmail.com>wrote:

> My two cents on this issue:
>
> //
> > Jivan Muktas have a body made of
> > material elements created due to prarabda karma. Their form is not
> eternal
> > like the Lord's.
> >
>
> It would be incorrect to say that. Just like the Ishwara's avatara has a
> beginning and end on the physical plane and yet the devotee several
> centuries later too can pray and be blessed by that avatara, a jivanmukta
> too can be prayed to and his blessings and guidance got by devotees long
> after his physical death.
> //
>
> I would refer to Bhagavatam and Sridhara Swami's commentary on the same. It
> adds credence to RV's position:


I do not see that the quote given by you contradicts my position either.
All that I have said is that a jivanmukta's form is still available for a
devotee for dhaarana, dhyana, etc. There are innumerable instances where
Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati SwamigaL or Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha SwamigaL
have appeared in dreams and in the waking also to bless a person, clarify
something, or even give a mantropadesha. Even today several decades after
their physical departure from this world these instances take place. I had
not disputed any position that the quote you have given contains. This
comment of Sridhara Swamin applies to the jivanmukta acharya who has shed
his body: दृश्यते च आद्यपि (i think this has to be adyaapi) तद्-उपासकानां
तथैव तद्रूपसाक्शात्कारः फलप्राप्तिश्चेति भावः.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v


> lokābhirāmāḿ sva-tanuḿ dhāraṇā-dhyāna-mańgalam
> yoga-dhāraṇayāgneyyādagdhvā dhāmāviśat svakam (11.31.6)
>
> Sridharaswami's commentary:
>
> योगिनामिव स्वच्छन्द-मृत्यु भ्रमं वारयति -- लोकाभिरामं इति । अयम् अर्थः -
> योगिनो हि स्वच्छन्द-मृत्यवः, स्वां तनुं आग्नेय्या योग-धारणया दग्ध्वा
> लोकान्तरम् प्रविशन्ति । भगवांस्तु न तथा, किन्त्वदग्ध्वैव स्व-तनु-सहित एव
> स्वकं धाम वैकुण्ठाख्यं अविशत् । तत्र हेतुः -- लोकाभिरामम् । लोकानां
> अभिरामोऽभितो रमणं स्थितिर्यस्यां ताम् । जगदाश्रयत्वेन जगतोऽपि
> दाह-प्रसङ्गाद्
> इत्यर्थः । किञ्च, धारणाया ध्यानस्य च मन्गलं शोभनम् । विषयं इतरथा
> तयोर्निर्विषयत्वं स्यात् । दृश्यते च आद्यपि तद्-उपासकानां तथैव
> तद्रूपसाक्शात्कारः फलप्राप्तिश्चेति भावः । इच्छाशरिइराभिप्रायेण वा
> यथाश्रुतं
> एवास्तु, तत्रापि तु लोकाभिरामां इत्यादिइनां विशेषाणामानर्थक्य-प्रसन्गात्,
> तदप्यदग्ध्वा तिरोधाय निर्गत इत्येव साम्प्रतम् ॥
> Here is a relevant quote from Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya of Shankara
>
> "mRutaM maraNam , tadrahitaM vapurasyeti amRutavapuH" ('amRutavapuH' is He
> Whose body is free from death)
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
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 a

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

The method of early Advaita Vedanta Page 223-
'From the absolute perspective, Sankara does distinguish between
Išvara and the absolute Brahman, the sole Being that is pure Awareness.
If he did not make such a distinction then his teaching would be a kind of
monistic theism, but it would not be non-dualism (advaita). At the level
of vyavahara. when the discussion has to do with the cosmos, the
teaching of the Upanisads is that the Lord existed before the creation of
the universe and the Lord has become the universe and everything in it (“I
shall become many, I shall be born”.). Šankara acceps this, but he also
accepts that there are šruti statements that deny all distinctions (“neti
neti”, “asthula” etc.), and unlike Ramanuja. who gives a restricted
meaning to the statements of negation às denying only evil qualities'

Adi Sankara will say Isvaratva of Isvara is illusion. If Madhusudana
or anyone says opposite he is not agreeing with Sankaracharya.

But there is one objection. If Krishna has Prakruta Sharira like us
how he could at once enjoy and impregnate 16000 wives and have so many
sons. How he could lift Govardhana with one finger and how could he
kill so many demons in Gokula? Only superhuman can do this.

2011/8/3 V Subrahmanian <***@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Ramanan Subramanian <***@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> My two cents on this issue:
>>
>> //
>> > Jivan Muktas have a body made of
>> > material elements created due to prarabda karma. Their form is not
>> eternal
>> > like the Lord's.
>> >
>>
>> It would be incorrect to say that.  Just like the Ishwara's avatara has a
>> beginning and end on the physical plane and yet the devotee several
>> centuries later too can pray and be blessed by that avatara, a jivanmukta
>> too can be prayed to and his blessings and guidance got by devotees  long
>> after his physical death.
>> //
>>
>> I would refer to Bhagavatam and Sridhara Swami's commentary on the same. It
>> adds credence to RV's position:
>
>
> I do not see that the quote given by you contradicts my position either.
> All that I have said is that a jivanmukta's form is still available for a
> devotee for dhaarana, dhyana, etc.  There are innumerable instances where
> Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati SwamigaL or Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha SwamigaL
> have appeared in dreams and in the waking also to bless a person, clarify
> something, or even give a mantropadesha.  Even today several decades after
> their physical departure from this world these instances take place.  I had
> not disputed any position that the quote you have given contains. This
> comment of Sridhara Swamin applies to the jivanmukta acharya who has shed
> his body: दृश्यते च आद्यपि (i think this has to be adyaapi) तद्-उपासकानां
> तथैव तद्रूपसाक्शात्कारः फलप्राप्तिश्चेति भावः.
>
> Regards,
> subrahmanian.v
>
>
>> lokābhirāmāḿ sva-tanuḿ dhāraṇā-dhyāna-mańgalam
>> yoga-dhāraṇayāgneyyādagdhvā dhāmāviśat svakam (11.31.6)
>>
>> Sridharaswami's commentary:
>>
>> योगिनामिव स्वच्छन्द-मृत्यु भ्रमं वारयति -- लोकाभिरामं इति । अयम् अर्थः -
>> योगिनो हि स्वच्छन्द-मृत्यवः, स्वां तनुं आग्नेय्या योग-धारणया दग्ध्वा
>> लोकान्तरम् प्रविशन्ति । भगवांस्तु न तथा, किन्त्वदग्ध्वैव स्व-तनु-सहित एव
>> स्वकं धाम वैकुण्ठाख्यं अविशत् । तत्र हेतुः -- लोकाभिरामम् । लोकानां
>> अभिरामोऽभितो रमणं स्थितिर्यस्यां ताम् । जगदाश्रयत्वेन जगतोऽपि
>> दाह-प्रसङ्गाद्
>> इत्यर्थः । किञ्च, धारणाया ध्यानस्य च मन्गलं शोभनम् । विषयं इतरथा
>> तयोर्निर्विषयत्वं स्यात् । दृश्यते च आद्यपि तद्-उपासकानां तथैव
>> तद्रूपसाक्शात्कारः फलप्राप्तिश्चेति भावः । इच्छाशरिइराभिप्रायेण वा
>> यथाश्रुतं
>> एवास्तु, तत्रापि तु लोकाभिरामां इत्यादिइनां विशेषाणामानर्थक्य-प्रसन्गात्,
>> तदप्यदग्ध्वा तिरोधाय निर्गत इत्येव साम्प्रतम् ॥
>> Here is a relevant quote from Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya of Shankara
>>
>> "mRutaM maraNam , tadrahitaM vapurasyeti amRutavapuH" ('amRutavapuH' is He
>> Whose body is free from death)
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> ***@advaita-vedanta.org
>



--
Regards

-Venkatesh
_______________________________________________
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, c

[Ramanan Subramanian]

When we claim something, it is best to quote passages from commentaries of
Acharyas themselves, rather than present someone else's final
analysis/judgement on the subject. Will it be possible to provide evidence
of that kind and demonstrate in what way is Ishvara different from absolute
Brahman?

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Venkatesh Murthy <***@gmail.com>wrote:

> Namaste
>
> The method of early Advaita Vedanta Page 223-
> 'From the absolute perspective, Sankara does distinguish between
> Išvara and the absolute Brahman, the sole Being that is pure Awareness.
> If he did not make such a distinction then his teaching would be a kind of
> monistic theism, but it would not be non-dualism (advaita). At the level
> of vyavahara. when the discussion has to do with the cosmos, the
> teaching of the Upanisads is that the Lord existed before the creation of
> the universe and the Lord has become the universe and everything in it (“I
> shall become many, I shall be born”.). Šankara acceps this, but he also
> accepts that there are šruti statements that deny all distinctions (“neti
> neti”, “asthula” etc.), and unlike Ramanuja. who gives a restricted
> meaning to the statements of negation às denying only evil qualities'
>
> Adi Sankara will say Isvaratva of Isvara is illusion. If Madhusudana
> or anyone says opposite he is not agreeing with Sankaracharya.
>
> But there is one objection. If Krishna has Prakruta Sharira like us
> how he could at once enjoy and impregnate 16000 wives and have so many
> sons. How he could lift Govardhana with one finger and how could he
> kill so many demons in Gokula? Only superhuman can do this.
>
> 2011/8/3 V Subrahmanian <***@gmail.com>:
> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Ramanan Subramanian <***@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> My two cents on this issue:
> >>
> >> //
> >> > Jivan Muktas have a body made of
> >> > material elements created due to prarabda karma. Their form is not
> >> eternal
> >> > like the Lord's.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It would be incorrect to say that. Just like the Ishwara's avatara has
> a
> >> beginning and end on the physical plane and yet the devotee several
> >> centuries later too can pray and be blessed by that avatara, a
> jivanmukta
> >> too can be prayed to and his blessings and guidance got by devotees
> long
> >> after his physical death.
> >> //
> >>
> >> I would refer to Bhagavatam and Sridhara Swami's commentary on the same.
> It
> >> adds credence to RV's position:
> >
> >
> > I do not see that the quote given by you contradicts my position either.
> > All that I have said is that a jivanmukta's form is still available for a
> > devotee for dhaarana, dhyana, etc. There are innumerable instances where
> > Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati SwamigaL or Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha
> SwamigaL
> > have appeared in dreams and in the waking also to bless a person, clarify
> > something, or even give a mantropadesha. Even today several decades
> after
> > their physical departure from this world these instances take place. I
> had
> > not disputed any position that the quote you have given contains. This
> > comment of Sridhara Swamin applies to the jivanmukta acharya who has shed
> > his body: दृश्यते च आद्यपि (i think this has to be adyaapi) तद्-उपासकानां
> > तथैव तद्रूपसाक्शात्कारः फलप्राप्तिश्चेति भावः.
> >
> > Regards,
> > subrahmanian.v
> >
> >
> >> lokābhirāmāḿ sva-tanuḿ dhāraṇā-dhyāna-mańgalam
> >> yoga-dhāraṇayāgneyyādagdhvā dhāmāviśat svakam (11.31.6)
> >>
> >> Sridharaswami's commentary:
> >>
> >> योगिनामिव स्वच्छन्द-मृत्यु भ्रमं वारयति -- लोकाभिरामं इति । अयम् अर्थः -
> >> योगिनो हि स्वच्छन्द-मृत्यवः, स्वां तनुं आग्नेय्या योग-धारणया दग्ध्वा
> >> लोकान्तरम् प्रविशन्ति । भगवांस्तु न तथा, किन्त्वदग्ध्वैव स्व-तनु-सहित एव
> >> स्वकं धाम वैकुण्ठाख्यं अविशत् । तत्र हेतुः -- लोकाभिरामम् । लोकानां
> >> अभिरामोऽभितो रमणं स्थितिर्यस्यां ताम् । जगदाश्रयत्वेन जगतोऽपि
> >> दाह-प्रसङ्गाद्
> >> इत्यर्थः । किञ्च, धारणाया ध्यानस्य च मन्गलं शोभनम् । विषयं इतरथा
> >> तयोर्निर्विषयत्वं स्यात् । दृश्यते च आद्यपि तद्-उपासकानां तथैव
> >> तद्रूपसाक्शात्कारः फलप्राप्तिश्चेति भावः । इच्छाशरिइराभिप्रायेण वा
> >> यथाश्रुतं
> >> एवास्तु, तत्रापि तु लोकाभिरामां इत्यादिइनां
> विशेषाणामानर्थक्य-प्रसन्गात्,
> >> तदप्यदग्ध्वा तिरोधाय निर्गत इत्येव साम्प्रतम् ॥
> >> Here is a relevant quote from Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya of Shankara
> >>
> >> "mRutaM maraNam , tadrahitaM vapurasyeti amRutavapuH" ('amRutavapuH' is
> He
> >> Whose body is free from death)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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:
> > ***@advaita-vedanta.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> -Venkatesh
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> ***@advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Ramanan Subramanian <***@gmail.com>wrote:

> When we claim something, it is best to quote passages from commentaries of
> Acharyas themselves, rather than present someone else's final
> analysis/judgement on the subject. Will it be possible to provide evidence
> of that kind and demonstrate in what way is Ishvara different from absolute
> Brahman?
>

Just for the record and not for any debate, I am presenting some material
that is ready at hand. The following is an excerpt from a discussion I had
with a Madhva scholar:

Dvaitin (D): If you admit that Avidya and Ishwareccha are one and the same,
Avidya cannot be Anirvachya because, just as Jnana and Ananda are very
nature of Ishwara so also is his Iccha or will.

Advaitin (A): I have no problem here. For me Jnana and Ananda are svarUpa
lakshaNas of Brahman. विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म. IchchA is only an ApekShika
guNa of Brahman. जीव-प्रकृतिविषयकापेक्षां विना ब्रह्मणः (ईश्वरस्य) इच्छा
नामककिमपि वक्तुं अशक्यः । तन्निरपेक्षितेच्छायाः साधनं/स्थापनं अशक्यः केनापि
। विज्ञानानन्दे तु ब्रह्मणः परतन्त्रनिरपेक्षतयैव सिध्यतः । ब्रह्मणः इच्छा
नियमेन जीवं प्रति वा प्रपञ्चं प्रति वा एव भवति । अत एव अस्मन्मते तस्याः
तटस्थलक्षणत्वेन स्वीकारः । यद्यत्परतन्त्रापेक्षितं तत् न स्वतन्त्रस्य
स्वरूपलक्षणं भवितुमर्हति ।
D:The statement देवस्यैष स्वभावोsयं clearly mentions that इच्छा is also his
nature. A: देवस्यैष स्वभावोsयं इत्यस्य निराकरणमनन्तरश्लोके वर्तते - *आप्तकामस्य
का स्पृहा *इति । अत्र स्वभावशब्दः मायार्थकः, न तु ब्रह्मणः स्वरूपसूचकः ।
अत्र इच्छादीनाम् (भोग, क्रीडायुक्तस्य) सर्वं देवस्य ब्रह्मणः मायासम्बन्धेन
प्राप्तस्वभावः, गुणः, लक्षणः । मायासम्बन्धं विना इच्छादीनां ब्रह्मणि
असम्भवात् तेषां तटस्थलक्षणत्वमेव युक्तं वक्तुम् । माण्डूक्यकारिकागतावेतौ
श्लोकौ अस्मन्मते पूर्वपक्षत्वेनैव स्वीकृतौ । तत्र आनन्दगिरयः टीकायां वदन्ति
श्लोकत्रयं/चतुष्टयं वा समुच्चीय – // नो खलु आप्तकामस्य परस्याऽऽत्मनो मायां
विना विभूतिख्यापनमुपपद्यते । ....न च परमानन्दस्वभावस्य परस्य विना मायामिच्छा
संगच्छते । न हि तस्य स्वतोऽविक्रियस्य इच्छादिभाक्त्वं युक्तम् । न च
मायामन्तरेण तस्य भोगक्रीडे उपपद्येते । ततो मायामयी भगवतः सृष्टिरित्यर्थः ।
// इति । [This is an 'evidence' from the words of an Advaita Acharya, Sri
Anandagiri, based on Shankara's commentary for the above verse/s of the
Gaudapada karika for the first chapter of the Mandukya kArikAs. These
portions/verses are sAkShaat shruti for the Dvaitins.]

D:So it is not a तटस्थलक्षणम् । भवदनुमानं श्रुतिबाधितम् । A:नात्र श्रुतिः
कापि प्रदर्शिता । माण्डूक्य’श्रुति:’ चेद्भवत्प्रदर्शिता सा तु अस्मन्मते
कारिकात्वेनैव स्वीक्रियते तत्रापि तत्पूर्वपक्षत्वेनैव, उत्तरत्र
तन्निरासदर्शनात् । D:किञ्च यः सर्वज्ञः सर्ववित् इति श्रुत्यनुरोधेन
सर्वज्ञत्वमनुमतमेव । तच्च परतन्त्रसर्वापेक्षमिति ज्ञानमपि तटस्थलक्षणमापद्येत।

A: इदमस्माकमिष्टमेव । सृष्टिप्रकरणस्थस्य तस्य वाक्यस्य तटस्थलक्षणत्वेनैव
अस्माभिः स्वीकृतिः । ब्रह्मणः निरस्तसर्वोपाधिलक्षणबोधकवाक्यान्येव
स्वरूपलक्षणतां गच्छन्ति ।


A: //Brahman can very well do without the paratantra. Yet out of its
inexorable will it seeks to do with the paratantra. // This is a sentence
from Dr.BNK Sharma. This inexorable will alone is called Maya since it is
no different from mAyAshakti. icchAshakti is one of the shaktivisheshas of
mAya. Jnana and Ananda of Brahman are not like this; they are the very
nature of Brahman.



D: Admitting that Avidya=Ishwareccha and that Avidya is Anirvachya would
render Ishwara himself Anirvachya.



A: That is not harmful for Advaita. As I have stated in my preliminary note
in the article refuting the Palimaru mutt Swamiji’s understanding/objection,
Ishwara belongs to the realm of Maya in Advaita.
D: If you admit that Ishwara is Anirvachya, he should also be Badhya. This
is equivalent to agree Nirishwaravada. This is the greatest अवज्ञा of God
making you a subject of the statement अवजानन्ति मां मूढा मानुषीं
तनुमाश्रितम्(Gita 9-11). The consequences follow without saying.



A: This (Nirishwaravada...) is the greatest misunderstanding of the Shruti
and Advaita on your part. The very Ishwara that all non-advaitins are able
to talk about today is only because of Advaita establishing Him on firm
grounds. There cannot be a greater avajnA of Brahman/God than attaching
1000 legs to Brahman and equating It to a millipede (कीटविशेषः) by wrongly
understanding the shruti expression सहस्रपात्. मानुषीं तनुमाश्रितम् ब्रह्म
कीटविशेषतामद्यते भवन्मते | The consequences follow without saying.


End of the excerpt


Regards,

subrahmanian.v
_______________________________________________
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:
***@adv

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Venkatesh Murthy <***@gmail.com>wrote:

> Namaste
>
> The method of early Advaita Vedanta Page 223- 'From the absolute
> perspective, Sankara does distinguish between
> Išvara and the absolute Brahman, the sole Being that is pure Awareness. If
> he did not make such a distinction then his teaching would be a kind of
> monistic theism, but it would not be non-dualism (advaita). At the level of
> vyavahara. when the discussion has to do with the cosmos, the teaching of
> the Upanisads is that the Lord existed before the creation of the universe
> and the Lord has become the universe and everything in it (“I shall become
> many, I shall be born”.). Šankara acceps this, but he also accepts that
> there are šruti statements that deny all distinctions (“neti neti”,
> “asthula” etc.), and unlike Ramanuja. who gives a restricted
> meaning to the statements of negation às denying only evil qualities'
>
RV: If you accept one secondary source (Michael Comans), you have to accept
others (Paul Hacker). According to the latter's research, Brahman and
Ishwara are interchangeably used everywhere in Sankara Bhasya! To be fair,
Ramanuja resolves the objection of selective attribution of qualities to
Brahman by classifying the locus of attributes - Ishwara, Nitya Siddha and
Baddhatma. As I mentioned in an earlier mail, the problem in his approach is
that the relationship between the attribute and the object is ill-defined.
This is resolved by Madhwa but he cannot define the locus of the
relationship itself as it is a real entity and cannot exist in two
substratum. Sankara resolves it the best by denying all particularities in
Brahman, which is Infinite. It is like white light which is none of the
colours but is the sum of all colours present as white manifested
individually through the prism of maya.

Adi Sankara will say Isvaratva of Isvara is illusion. If Madhusudana or
anyone says opposite he is not agreeing with Sankaracharya.

RV: He refers (cf. BG 15.14 - 18) to Nirupadhikara Brahman as Ishwaranila
(by nature Ishwara). It is because Ishwara is not Rulership. When the river
merges in to the ocean, the ocean does not sublate but the river does and
along with that the river's perception of the ocean. From the Ocean's
perspective, there is none other than itself.

But there is one objection. If Krishna has Prakruta Sharira like us how he
could at once enjoy and impregnate 16000 wives and have so many sons. How he
could lift Govardhana with one finger and how could he kill so many demons
in Gokula? Only superhuman can do this.

RV: You can acquire siddhis to operate multiple bodies or play around with
material laws. The main point is what Madhusudana says. It cannot be gross,
subtle, limited or cosmic because all of them belong to someone and He is
already in them as the Inner Controller. It has to be maya rupam and
aprakrtam as Sankara says.

> There are innumerable instances where Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati SwamigaL
or Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha SwamigaL
> have appeared in dreams and in the waking also to bless a person,
clarify something, or even give a mantropadesha. Even today > > several
decades after their physical departure from this world these instances take
place.

RV: As quoted earlier, an adhikarapurusha can do it. That a jivan mukta's
body is a product of prarabda karma is well known and its nature is distinct
from that of the Lord.
_______________________________________________
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:
***@advaita-vedant

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Adi Sankara will say Isvaratva of Isvara is illusion. If Madhusudana or
> anyone says opposite he is not agreeing with Sankaracharya.
>
>
> RV: He refers (cf. BG 15.14 - 18) to Nirupadhikara Brahman as Ishwaranila
> (by nature Ishwara). It is because Ishwara is not Rulership.
>

Could you pl. indicate where the above two terms appear in the bhashyam?

Regards,
v.subrahmanian.

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:14 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> > Adi Sankara will say Isvaratva of Isvara is illusion. If Madhusudana or
> > anyone says opposite he is not agreeing with Sankaracharya.
> >
> >
> > RV: He refers (cf. BG 15.14 - 18) to Nirupadhikara Brahman as Ishwaranila
> > (by nature Ishwara). It is because Ishwara is not Rulership.
> >
>
> Could you pl. indicate where the above two terms appear in the bhashyam?
>

I dont know how to write in sanskrit on this.
vishishtopadhi (bg 15.15).
ishanashila: or lord by nature (bg 15.18) this is with respect to Narayana,
the omniscient, nirupadhikara brahman. so omniscience is not due to upadhi.
bg 14.27 is also relvant
adhikarapurusha (bsb 3.3.32)

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 4:06 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org
> wrote:

>
> > Could you pl. indicate where the above two terms appear in the bhashyam?
> >
> I dont know how to write in sanskrit on this.
> vishishtopadhi (bg 15.15).
>

While introducing verse 15.16 Shankara recalls what was stated by the Lord
in verses 15.12 onwards. These verses happen to talk of the glories
(vibhUti-s) of the Lord such as His being the Light even for the luminous
bodies sun, moon, etc. This, Shankara says, is a specially attributed
nature of Brahman, vishishtopadhiH. That shows that according to Shankara
this nature of Brahman being the luminosity of the luminous entities, etc.
is not its svarUpalakshanam but only owing to a superimposed attribute.


> ishanashila: or lord by nature (bg 15.18) this is with respect to Narayana,
> the omniscient, nirupadhikara brahman. so omniscience is not due to upadhi.
>

This word, ishanashila, occurs at the end of the commentary for 15.17. In
fact even at the very beginning of the gita commentary Shankara invokes a
purANic verse on NarayaNa, depicting Him as saguNa Brahman only.
Throughout, as per context, Ishwara means only saguNa Brahman. Here too, in
15.17 Shankara says this Omniscient One, Ishwara. the One who is by nature
the Governor, called Narayana...is the one who pervades/enters the entire
universe. Evidently it is a description of SaguNa Brahman.

In 15.16, while introducing it, Shankara separates the verses up to and
including 15.15 which spoke of the sopaadhika Brahman from the rest of the
verses from 15.16 onwards as delineating the nirupAdhika Brahman. This
nirupAdhika Brahman is the one free of the upAdhis of kshara and akshara.
The svarUpa, the essential nature of Brahman, is what gets determined in the
rest of the verses says Shankara.

It is to be understood that even the IshanashIlatva, sarvajnatva, the
sarvavyApakatva/sarvapraviShTatva, etc. of Brahman are owing to / related to
the created world which exists as the manifest, kshara and the unmanifest
akshara. Even in 15.17 that saguNatva vestige is not totally severed. ONLY
in 15.18 it gets completely severed by the word uttamaH. One, perhaps the,
strong indication of this complete severance of saguNa upAdhis is this: the
bhashya says: He who knows Me the PuruShottama as 'I am He'.... 'ahamasmi
iti puruShottamam'. Surely the knowing jiva/aspirant cannot claim the
attributes of sarvajnatva/sarvapraviShTatva, IshanashIlatva, etc. described
above as his own attributes. That shows that the aikya jnanam can occur
ONLY after discarding all those attributes and knowing Brahman as kevala sat
chit ananda svarUpa which is also the jiva's real nature after discarding
the five koshas consisting of the body-mind-ego apparatus.



> bg 14.27 is also relvant
>

Even here, Shankara gives the saguNa-para meaning first and then gives the
nirguNa-para vyAkhyAnam. In the latter, He considers the word 'brahman' as
saguNa brahman and says that the Lord is the abode/support of that saguNa
Brahman.

adhikarapurusha (bsb 3.3.32)

The above purusha is only an exalted jivanmukta with exceedingly great puNya
at his credit that Ishwara does not let him go out of the created universe
so easily. He wants such a special person to occupy certain great cosmic
positions and exhaust all his puNya thereby and then finally get completely
liberated, videha mukti. VyAsa is such a person/position. Sun, sUrya, is
another.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v

>
>
>

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 3:01 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

>
> While introducing verse 15.16 ....Sun, sUrya, is another.
>
RV: The thread is moving to another topic - upadhi. I would like to close
this thread with the comment that maya rupam aprakrtam in Sankara bhashya
means what Madhusudana exposits: Lord's form is not made of material
elements like ours. If there is any other opinion within the advaita
tradition, then that is worth discussing ONLY if it is posted with
references.

[sriram]

Dears
I would like to add that the Viswarupa darsana yogam confirms that the
Bhagavan`s form is nonmaterial.R.Krishnamoorthy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rajaram Venkataramani" <rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org>
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta"
<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Fwd: What is 'aprAkRta' ?


> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 3:01 AM, V Subrahmanian
> <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>
>>
>> While introducing verse 15.16 ....Sun, sUrya, is another.
>>
> RV: The thread is moving to another topic - upadhi. I would like to close
> this thread with the comment that maya rupam aprakrtam in Sankara bhashya
> means what Madhusudana exposits: Lord's form is not made of material
> elements like ours. If there is any other opinion within the advaita
> tradition, then that is worth discussing ONLY if it is posted with
> references.
> _______________________________________________
> 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-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 6:50 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr-zOhu8KlzJ1LQT0dZR+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> RV prabhuji :
> It is vishishtopadhi as Sankara clarfies in the case of Ishvara, which
> reveals rather than cover or erroneously project.
>
> bhaskar :
>
> Kindly clarify where exactly shankara says Ishwara's is vishishtOpAdhi
> unlike jeeva's sAmAnyOpAdhi.
>

RV: In many places - 15.15 for example.

> From the siddhAnta drushti, brahman is nirAkAra, nirguNa, nirvishesha and
> I dont think shankara compromises this
> position of shruti anywhere. In the ArambhAdhikaraNa sUtra bhAshya
> shankara makes it very clear that the lordship of the lord, his
> sarvajnatva, sarvashaktitva etc. are only relative to the limitation caused
> by the conditioning of adjuncts of the nature of avidyA. Atman is
> ultimately nirguNa, niravayava and in reality Atman is divested of all
> conditioning factors and on the dawn of jnAna, there cannot be any room for
> conception like the ruler and the ruled, sarvajnatva etc.

RV: We have to understand nirvisesha correctly. Pl.see my other post on
white light. It is full of attributes and *homogenous *unlike Ramanuja and
Madhwa say*. *It is advaya jnanam or jnapti (undifferentiated
knowledge). Everything is in Brahman as Brahman not as some thing else that
has a relationship to it.

It is important to understand sarvajnatvam of Ishwara. Now, vishesha jnana
or knowledge of specific objects is possible only with respect to the
spacio-temporal object and cannot exist in the absence of it. In
that paricularized sense sarvajnatvam, seen with respect to particular
objects, is relative and confined to spacio-temporal boundaries, an effect
of maya. You can become a sarvajna and ruler by realizing Purusha is
different from Buddhi (P.Y.S. 3.14 or MS BG 6.20) but you will still be a
step away from Ishwara. The cause of this particularized sarvajnatvam is
moola avidya or para maya, which is transcendental to space and time. This
para-maya is the divine energy of Ishwara and being shakti is non-different
from Ishwara, who is transcendental to spacio-temporal limitations.
Therefore sarvajnatvam, without particularities, is essential nature of
Ishwara.

Sri Bhaskar: However, I do agree that shankara while talking about upAsana,
krama mukti etc. does agree that Ishwara has the special ability to create
and jeeva in hiraNyagarbha lOka never matches the qualities of Ishwara in
this respect.

RV: Agree. Hiranyagarbha, as you know, is different from Ishwara discussed
above.

RV prabhuji :

>
> Brahman is like a featureless sleeping snake (nirguna brahman)which when it
> dances (saguna brahman or adi karta narayayna) produces ghost images (pancha
> bautika loka) through the instrument of maya.
>
> bhaskar :
>
> I think paramahaMsa rAmakrishna also gives this example to show
> shiva-shakti abedha. I do agree that when it comes to the 'reality' of
> srushti, the srushtikarta is nothing but that omnipotent and omniscient
> Ishwara. shankara too acknowledges this in the very second sUtra of brahma
> sUtra. And elsewhere shankara talks about the 'exclusive attributes' of the
> brahman since mundaka shruti says this brahman is sarvajnaH, sarvavit etc.
> But, again, all these points donot prove that brahman is even in the
> paramArthika sense vishishtOpAdhika Ishwara. sOpAdhika brahma is meant only
> for meditation and saguNOpAsana. And for
> the enquiry & realization it would be shruti-s ultimatum i.e. nirguNa,
> nirAkAra, nirupAdhika, nirvishesha parabrahman only.
>
RV: I dont know if Ramakrishna is a paramahamsa but if interested will share
with you offline the interesting episode that lead me to get to this snake
example. If you see BG 15. 14 - 18, Sankara talks about Ishwara as
Sopadhikara and also Niropadhikara. It is not correct to say that Ishwara is
always sopadhikara and Brahman is always niropadhikara. It is like
wrongly saying Brahman is formless and Ishwara is Brahman with form. Brahman
and Ishwara are one (BG 8.24 for e.g.) The main difference between Brahman
and Ishwara is the point of view. At the moment at which you merge in to
Ishwara, you become Brahman. It is like ganges entering the ocean and
becoming the latter. The ocean does not become non-existent but the view of
it as an external object of upasana is sublated because you are that.

[Bhaskar YR]

> RV: Madhusudana says that the Lord's form is NOT CREATED at all. He also
supports the view that the Lord and His form are non-different.

praNAms
Hare Krishna

And shankara says lord's form (upAdhi) and his omniscience, omnipotence
etc. holds good only in transactional reality where avidyA holds sway. So,
as per shankara, empirically speaking para brahman conditioned by name and
form which have been set up by avidyA becomes Ishwara or Lord, just as
universal ether limited as it were by jar space, pot space etc. I think
the statement : ' Lord and his form or body are non-different' is the
stand of vishishtAdvaita.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr-zOhu8KlzJ1LQT0dZR+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> > RV: Madhusudana says that the Lord's form is NOT CREATED at all. He also
> supports the view that the Lord and His form are non-different.
>
>
> And shankara says lord's form (upAdhi) and his omniscience, omnipotence
> etc. holds good only in transactional reality where avidyA holds sway. So,
> as per shankara, empirically speaking para brahman conditioned by name and
> form which have been set up by avidyA becomes Ishwara or Lord, just as
> universal ether limited as it were by jar space, pot space etc.

RV: It is vishishtopadhi as Sankara clarfies in the case of Ishvara, which
reveals rather than cover or erroneously project. It is not that Brahman is
some empty shell but is full of everything. It is not like Ramanuja says a
container of all things but as Sankara says as Brahman Itself. My mother
gives the example of white light which is in a sense a container of all
frequencies of light but is actually none of the particular frequencies. Or
it is like the mind where all memories are present as mind itself until it
thinks of lotus and manifests it. The lotus is mind only but is a name and
form. Or Brahman is like a featureless sleeping snake (nirguna brahman)
which when it dances (saguna brahman or adi karta narayayna) produces ghost
images (pancha bautika loka) through the instrument of maya.

I think the statement : ' Lord and his form or body are non-different' is
the stand of vishishtAdvaita.
.
RV: From the basics I know of, vishishtadvaitns say that the lord's body is
an inseparable attribute of the lord but dont explain the if the object
(viz. the lord) is intrinsically formless as it should be if there is an
attribute attached to it and dont say what is the the locus of the attribute
as it cannot be external or internal to the object. Madhwa tries to do that
by talking about an intinsic relationship between the object and
attribute. But cannot explain if the "intrinsic relationship" is located in
the object or the attribute in addition to the original problem of if the
attribute is intrinsic or not to the object. Gaudiyas say that the form and
the lord are one, which is supported in smrti (abhijnatva nama namine). But
they dont explain what is outside the contours of the form but are okay
because they say it is acintya rupam. The best is Sankara, who says that the
form is Maya Rupam Aprakrtam. Now this, in one interpretation places the
form as beyond elements giving us the inspiration for bhagavat bhakti like
in Vaishnava schools and as Maya is anirvachaniya, he also places it beyond
logical enquiry. He also allows for Madhusudana to support the view that it
is non-different from Vishnu as Shakti and Shaktiman are one. Thus
Sankara also supports the view that this para mayika form is avirbhava so
that we dont think of Krishna's form as a created entity when we worship
Him. Basically, we worship Vishnu in the form we choose and merrge in to Him
like so many devotees like Andal and Meera have done. We dont have to cut
the form with a knife as Ramakrishna did!

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:53 AM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
RV: If there is a real material body, then why does Sankara say dehavan
iva?
Sri V Subrahmanian: There is the body but the ignorance-based identification
with it is absent in the case of Bhagavan and a Jivanmukta. Yet those who
see and interact with that 'person' Krishna during His life did that taking
for granted that 'this is a person, with a body.... just as we are'.
Shankara puts the true state of affairs by that remark 'dehavAn iva'.

RV: Is this the traditional position or your interpretation?

Sri V Subrahmanian: This is the traditional position.
RV: I need direct textual evidence from early acharyas that the traditional
advaita position is that the Lord's body is made of material elements.
Sridharacharya, if I remember right, does not think that the Lord's body is
made of five elements. Madhusudana categorically rejects that notion that
His body is made of material elements - gross or subtle, limited or cosmic
or even an acceptance of fresh body. He clearly says Krishna's body is
nothing like ours or others. He also says that his view is the view of
Sankara and Anandagiri. Quoting Gambhirananda's translation of Madhusudana
(4.6), "If His body be made of gross elements, then, on the assumption that
it is a limited gross body, it wil be the waking state and it will be
similar to that of ours and others; and on the assumption that it is a
cosmic, He will become a jiva called Virat, on account of possessing his
(Virat's) upadhi (cosmic gross body). On the other hand, if His body is made
of subtle elements, then, on the assumption that it is a limited subtle
body, it will be the state of dream and be like that of ourselves and
others; and on the assumption that it is a cosmic subtle body, He be the
jiva called Hiranyagarbha, on account of having his (Hiranyagarbha's) upadhi
(cosmic subtle body). And thus the conslusion is that, the supreme Lord
verily cannot come to have a body made of elements that is not (already)
occupied by a jiva. Not can it be said that, as one is possessed by a ghost,
in the same way God Himself enters in to that kind of a body which is indeed
occupied by a jiva! Because, if it is admitted that the experiences of that
(particular) jiva within the limitation of that body belong to that jiva,
then, since the entry of God in to all the bodies as the inner Controller is
already there, therefore it is useless to assume a special body for Him; and
it (it is held that) those experiences do not belong (to that jiva), then it
is illogical to say that this is a body of that jiva. Hence in the first
half (of the verse), 'Even though I am birthless, undecaying by nature, and
the Lord of beings,' He admits that God cannot have a body made of elements.
By saying 'ajah api san, eventhough I am birthless,' He dispels the notion
His acceptance of a fresh body; (the notion of) separation from a previous
body by saying 'avyayatma (ap san) eventhough undecaying by nature';(and the
notion of) His being subject to merit and demerit by saying 'isvarah api san
bhutanam, even though the Lord of beings' - of all beginning from Brahma to
a lump of grass, which are subject to birth. How then this embodiment? This
He answers in the second half (of the verse);Adhishtaya, by controlling;
svam, My; prakrtim, Prakrti; sambhavami, I am born. By ruling over, by
bringing under control, t hrough the light of Consciousness, prakrtim,
Prakrti, called Maya, which is possessed of numerous strange powers, which
is capable of rendering the impossible actual; which is svam, My own, an
upadhi of Mine, I am born; Associated verily with the particular
modification of that Maya, I become possessed of a body, as it were, and
born, as it were. The beginningless Maya itself, which is My upadhi, which
is eternal in the sense that it exists as long as Time exists, which makes
Me the source of the universe, and which functions merely under My will is
My body by virtue of being predominantly made up of the quality of pure
sattva. And as possessed of that, it is but logical for Me to be birthless,
undecaying, and the Ruler. Hence it is reasonable that I have this Yoga to
Vivasvan and to you through this body which is verily eternal. Accordingly,
there is the Sruti, 'Brahman which is embodied in akasa (Tai 1.6.2). Here
akasa, Space, means, the Undifferentiated, because it is seen to be so such
texts as 'That which is pervaded by the Unamnifested akasa alone (Br.
3.8.7), and because there is the aphorism, 'Space (akasa) is Brahman, for
Brahman's indicatory mark is in evidence (BS 1.1.22). Arjuna's doubt: In
that case, since there is no body made of elements, therefore how can there
be the apprehension of Your being a man etc., which are its characteristics?
As to that, He says: Atma mayaya, by means of My own Maya. It is verily
through My own Maya that the cognition of My being a man etc. occurs for the
benefit of humanity; but it is not so in reality. This is the idea. So has
it been said in the Mokshadharma 'O Narada, that you see Me is verily this
Maya conjured up by Me. Otherwise you could not have see Me who am possessed
of all qualities of the elements (MBh 12.339.44-5). That is to say, 'With
physical eyes you cannot see Me who am possessed of all qualities of the
elements and who am endowed with causal body as the upadhi.' It has been
said by the venerable Commentator "And He, the Lord ... creatures
(Introduction to BG). It has also been explained by the annotator
(Anandagiri) that the Lord took birth in a divine form created through Maya
and given shape to by His own will."

After that Madhusudana supports the view of others who say that the Lord is
non-different from the body. Then he closes with the view that those who
talk illogically saying that the Lord is the possessor of a body is not
worth being refuted.

[V Subrahmanian]

All this explanation by Madhusudana boils down to:


1. //My body by virtue of being predominantly made up of the quality of
pure
sattva. // This only means that it is still within the gamut of
Prakruti. Sattva is a mode of prakriti and shuddha sattva is only a refined
sattva that does not bind. I have already given explanation for this. For
example, the gita says that sattva binds through jnana-sanga and
sukha-sanga. This is for the jiva. But Ishwara uses the very same sattva
during his avatar/cosmic management without getting bound. His jnanam is
sarvajnatvam, not caused by the operation of senses. However, during an
avatara, He too, might require the sense organs to do the appropriate acts.

2. Actually what has been said for Ishwara about 'not really having a
body but only appearing to be' applies to the jiva too. The
upanishadic/vedantic position is that the jiva too is in truth consciousness
alone and no body can be there for it. While a body is assumed by it out of
ajnana, Ishwara assumes a body out of full jnana.
3. We have the Bhagavatam say that Devaki was so conspicuously
resplendent while 'carrying' Krishna that Kamsa had some disturbed feelings.
This shows that there was the fetus growing just as any other jiva would be
prior to be delivered.
4. Whatever explanation one gives for the 'body' of Ishwara/avatara, it
cannot be outside the purview of prakRiti. As Madhusudana explains prakriti
can make the impossible possible; this is true in the case of Ishwara as
well as the jiva.

Having said that I think we should not be dwelling too long on this topic
for it does not deserve it. Things within maya/prakriti do evoke a variety
of explanations and all can be defective one way or the other. That is the
reason why Dhanapati suri, the author of the Bhashyotkarsha deepikaa often
picks up Madhusudana for criticism. Nilakantha too comes in for criticism.


Regards.
subrahmanian.v
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org
> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:53 AM, V Subrahmanian
> <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
> RV: If there is a real material body, then why does Sankara say dehavan
> iva?
> Sri V Subrahmanian: There is the body but the ignorance-based
> identification
> with it is absent in the case of Bhagavan and a Jivanmukta. Yet those who
> see and interact with that 'person' Krishna during His life did that taking
> for granted that 'this is a person, with a body.... just as we are'.
> Shankara puts the true state of affairs by that remark 'dehavAn iva'.
>
> RV: Is this the traditional position or your interpretation?
>
> Sri V Subrahmanian: This is the traditional position.
> RV: I need direct textual evidence from early acharyas that the traditional
> advaita position is that the Lord's body is made of material elements.
> Sridharacharya, if I remember right, does not think that the Lord's body is
> made of five elements. Madhusudana categorically rejects that notion that
> His body is made of material elements - gross or subtle, limited or cosmic
> or even an acceptance of fresh body. He clearly says Krishna's body is
> nothing like ours or others. He also says that his view is the view of
> Sankara and Anandagiri.

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 7:37 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> All this explanation by Madhusudana boils down to:
>
>
> 1. //My body by virtue of being predominantly made up of the quality of
> pure
> sattva. // This only means that it is still within the gamut of
> Prakruti. Sattva is a mode of prakriti and shuddha sattva is only a
> refined
> sattva that does not bind. I have already given explanation for this.
> For
> example, the gita says that sattva binds through jnana-sanga and
> sukha-sanga. This is for the jiva. But Ishwara uses the very same
> sattva
> during his avatar/cosmic management without getting bound. His jnanam is
> sarvajnatvam, not caused by the operation of senses. However, during an
> avatara, He too, might require the sense organs to do the appropriate
> acts.
>

RV: The best I can do is to request you to be kind enough to re-read
Madhusudana's commentary. Madhusudana clearly says that His body is NOT made
of pancha bhutas as concluded by you. He repeatedly and logically asserts
that It is NOTHING LIKE OURS. It is NOT CREATED at all even. He also
supports a second explanation that the Lord and His body are
non-different!
2. Actually what has been said for Ishwara about 'not really having a body
but only appearing to be' applies to the jiva too. The
upanishadic/vedantic position is that the jiva too is in truth
consciousness alone and no body can be there for it. While a body is
assumed by it out of ajnana, Ishwara assumes a body out of full jnana.
RV: Again, please re-read Madhusudana's commentary. He clearly distinguishes
between the jiva's body all the way up to Virata and Hiranyagarbha.
3. We have the Bhagavatam say that Devaki was so conspicuously
resplendent while 'carrying' Krishna that Kamsa had some disturbed
feelings. This shows that there was the fetus growing just as any other
jiva would be prior to be delivered.
RV: Please read Bhagavatam. Vishnu appeared in four handed form and then as
a two handed baby before entering her womb to give Devaki the pleasure of
carrying Him as a baby. The prison cell was resplendent due to the radiance
from Krishna's body.
4. Whatever explanation one gives for the 'body' of Ishwara/avatara, it
cannot be outside the purview of prakRiti. As Madhusudana explains
prakriti can make the impossible possible; this is true in the case of
Ishwara as well as the jiva.
RV: Madhusudana also supports the position that Ishwara and His body are
non-different! Of course, it is more important to understand what is maya
rupam. We cannot knowingly misunderstand Ishwara and Maya when acharyas such
as Sankara, Anandagiri, Sridhara and Madhusudana have explained it with so
much effort.

Having said that I think we should not be dwelling too long on this topic
for it does not deserve it. Things within maya/prakriti do evoke a variety
of explanations and all can be defective one way or the other. That is the
reason why Dhanapati suri, the author of the Bhashyotkarsha deepikaa often
picks up Madhusudana for criticism. Nilakantha too comes in for criticism.
RV: I dont know if Dhanapati Suri, who came much later, disagrees with
Madhusudana on this point. If he does, he has to give reasons. We cannot
take a position against Madhusudana in the hope that someone will disagree
with him. I dont think this is a trivial point because Bhagavat Bhakti is
critical pre-condition (18.67) to qualifiy for atma jnana. If one thinks
that Bhagavat Rupam is like ours in any way, then he cannot have bhakti. It
is for this reason that Madhusudana dwells so much on this.


Regards.
subrahmanian.v

> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org
> > wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:53 AM, V Subrahmanian
> > <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:
> > RV: If there is a real material body, then why does Sankara say dehavan
> > iva?
> > Sri V Subrahmanian: There is the body but the ignorance-based
> > identification
> > with it is absent in the case of Bhagavan and a Jivanmukta. Yet those
> who
> > see and interact with that 'person' Krishna during His life did that
> taking
> > for granted that 'this is a person, with a body.... just as we are'.
> > Shankara puts the true state of affairs by that remark 'dehavAn iva'.
> >
> > RV: Is this the traditional position or your interpretation?
> >
> > Sri V Subrahmanian: This is the traditional position.
> > RV: I need direct textual evidence from early acharyas that the
> traditional
> > advaita position is that the Lord's body is made of material elements.
> > Sridharacharya, if I remember right, does not think that the Lord's body
> is
> > made of five elements. Madhusudana categorically rejects that notion that
> > His body is made of material elements - gross or subtle, limited or
> cosmic
> > or even an acceptance of fresh body. He clearly says Krishna's body is
> > nothing like ours or others. He also says that his view is the view of
> > Sankara and Anandagiri.
> _______________________________________________
> 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-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
>

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org
> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 7:37 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org
> >wrote:
>
> >
> RV: The best I can do is to request you to be kind enough to re-read
> Madhusudana's commentary. Madhusudana clearly says that His body is NOT
> made
> of pancha bhutas as concluded by you. He repeatedly and logically asserts
> that It is NOTHING LIKE OURS. It is NOT CREATED at all even. He also
> supports a second explanation that the Lord and His body are
> non-different!
>

One logical flaw I can point out in the above is that if by 'Lord' we mean
Satchitanandaghana, Brahman, then it cannot be/have a body. Everyone was
witness to the baby krishna growing up to an adult and an aged one. Brahman
has no vikAra-s. The body has. Only that which is in some way or the other
connected with prakriti can have modifications of whatever type.


>
>

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms
Hare Krishna

One logical flaw I can point out in the above is that if by 'Lord' we mean
Satchitanandaghana, Brahman, then it cannot be/have a body.

> Yes, and the same satchidAnandaghana parabrahman has been coined as
sOpAdhika brahman to accommodate the sAdhaka-s who are more particular to
do upAsana. As far as I remember, somewhere in geeta bhAshya shankara
says, brahman assumes the form according to the 'iccha' of his devotees
and in that form only he will do 'anugraha'..is that verse : yo yo yAm
yAm tanuM bhaktaH shraddhayArchitumicchati?? not sure.

Everyone was
witness to the baby krishna growing up to an adult and an aged one.
Brahman
has no vikAra-s. The body has. Only that which is in some way or the
other
connected with prakriti can have modifications of whatever type

> I think krishna stopped growing further from his adult-hood, because,
sofar I have seen only bAla krishna and adult krishna photo-s & have not
seen aged krishna with grey hair, curved back, wrinkle skin, walking stick
krishna..but mahAbhArata says, after the 'death' of krishna, arjuna has
performed the 'antya saMskAra to krishna's 'pArthiva' shareera :-))

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Namaste Bhaskar:

After kR^iSWhNaa's antyasa.mskara while trying to escort his family, arjuna could not defend and
protect kRiShNaa's family and most of his wives went to abhira willingly.  This is found in the mausala parva of mahaabhaarata.


Rgds

Dr. Yadu


________________________________
From: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr-zOhu8KlzJ1LQT0dZR+***@public.gmane.org>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9q/***@public.gmane.org.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2011 2:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] What is 'aprAkRta' ?

praNAms
Hare Krishna

One logical flaw I can point out in the above is that if by 'Lord' we mean
Satchitanandaghana, Brahman, then it cannot be/have a body.

>  Yes, and the same satchidAnandaghana parabrahman has been coined as
sOpAdhika brahman to accommodate the sAdhaka-s who are more particular to
do upAsana. As far as I remember, somewhere in geeta bhAshya shankara
says, brahman assumes the form according to the 'iccha' of his devotees
and in that form only he will do 'anugraha'..is that verse :  yo yo yAm
yAm tanuM bhaktaH shraddhayArchitumicchati?? not sure.

Everyone was
witness to the baby krishna growing up to an adult and an aged one.
Brahman
has no vikAra-s.  The body has.  Only that which is in some way or the
other
connected with prakriti can have modifications of whatever type

>  I think krishna stopped growing further from his adult-hood, because,
sofar I have seen only bAla krishna and adult krishna photo-s & have not
seen aged krishna with grey hair, curved back, wrinkle skin, walking stick
krishna..but mahAbhArata says, after the 'death' of krishna, arjuna has
performed the 'antya saMskAra to krishna's 'pArthiva' shareera :-))

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

_______________________________________________
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-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Dr. Yadu Moharir <ymoharir-/***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> Namaste Bhaskar:
>
> After kR^iSWhNaa's antyasa.mskara while trying to escort his family, arjuna
> could not defend and
> protect kRiShNaa's family and most of his wives went to abhira willingly.
> This is found in the mausala parva of mahaabhaarata.
>
>
> RV: I know it is addressed to Sri Bhaskar and apologies for my
> inappropriateness in asking this. According to the translation on
> sacredtexts site, they were forcibly carried away. If we read it with what
> Vyasa said, they died and not live with Abhiras willingly. "In my very
> sight, O Brahmana, thousands of Vrishni ladies *were carried away* by the
> Abhiras of the country of the five waters, who assailed us." Vyasa said,
> "The mighty car-warriors of the Vrishni and the Andhaka races have all been
> consumed by the Brahmana’s curse. O chief of Kuru’s race, it behoveth thee
> *not to grieve for their destruction*."


If you disagree, please quote the original. Also, please note Mahabharata
has layers of text on top of Jayabharatham.

Krishna even runs away from the battlefiled (ha ha) but it does not make His
body prakrta. It is aprakrta.

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Namaste Rajaram:


All this is because we love to operate between "pariShakaara & samanvaya:" while ignoring the pratyaksha,

Just like, scholars keep discussing and concentrating "paraa", "maddhyamaa" & paShyanti", while totally ignoring the "vaikhari"; thus they never become "ONE (advaya)" with the meaning that was possibly conveyed through the speech (viakhari)..


What good has come out of ignoring the historical connection with the Western regions of Afghanistan, as Indians classified the inhabitants of the entire region as melcchha and vraatyaa's !? My apologies to the list if this falls beyond the narrow focus of this list.


Rgds

Dr. Yadu



________________________________
From: Rajaram Venkataramani <***@gmail.com>
To: Dr. Yadu Moharir <***@yahoo.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-***@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2011 4:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] What is 'aprAkRta' ?





On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Dr. Yadu Moharir <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

Namaste Bhaskar:
>
>After kR^iSWhNaa's antyasa.mskara while trying to escort his family, arjuna could not defend and
>protect kRiShNaa's family and most of his wives went to abhira willingly.  This is found in the mausala parva of mahaabhaarata.
>
>
>RV: I know it is addressed to Sri Bhaskar and apologies for my inappropriateness in asking this. According to the translation on sacredtexts site, they were forcibly carried away. If we read it with what Vyasa said, they died and not live with Abhiras willingly. "In my very sight, O Brahmana, thousands of Vrishni ladies were carried away by the Abhiras of the country of the five waters, who assailed us." Vyasa said, "The mighty car-warriors of the Vrishni and the Andhaka races have all been consumed by the Brahmana’s curse. O chief of Kuru’s race, it behoveth thee not to grieve for their destruction."
 
If you disagree, please quote the original. Also, please note Mahabharata has layers of text on top of Jayabharatham.
 
Krishna even runs away from the battlefiled (ha ha) but it does not make His body prakrta. It is aprakrta.
_______________________________________________
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:
***@advaita-vedanta.or

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:34 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

>
> One logical flaw I can point out in the above is that if by 'Lord' we mean
> Satchitanandaghana, Brahman, then it cannot be/have a body. Everyone was
> witness to the baby krishna growing up to an adult and an aged one.
> Brahman
> has no vikAra-s. The body has. Only that which is in some way or the
> other
> connected with prakriti can have modifications of whatever type.
>
> RV: Please re-read Madhusudana's bhashya. There is NO CREATION of the body.
> Madhusudana has already answered your question in his bhashya that I posted
> ascribing the doubt to Arjuna. Arjuna's doubt: In that case, since there is
> no body made of elements, therefore how can there be the apprehension of
> Your being a man etc., which are its characteristics? As to that, He says:
> Atma mayaya, by means of My own Maya. It is verily through My own Maya that
> the cognition of My being a man etc. occurs for the benefit of humanity; but
> it is not so in reality. This is the idea.
>

Krishna does not become aged - nava yauvanam ca (though He can manifest
whatever IS part of His infinite glories). Jivan Muktas have a body made of
material elements created due to prarabda karma. Their form is not eternal
like the Lord's.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org
> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:34 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > One logical flaw I can point out in the above is that if by 'Lord' we
> mean
> > Satchitanandaghana, Brahman, then it cannot be/have a body. Everyone was
> > witness to the baby krishna growing up to an adult and an aged one.
> > Brahman
> > has no vikAra-s. The body has. Only that which is in some way or the
> > other
> > connected with prakriti can have modifications of whatever type.
> >
> > RV: Please re-read Madhusudana's bhashya. There is NO CREATION of the
> body.
> > Madhusudana has already answered your question in his bhashya that I
> posted
> > ascribing the doubt to Arjuna. Arjuna's doubt: In that case, since there
> is
> > no body made of elements, therefore how can there be the apprehension of
> > Your being a man etc., which are its characteristics? As to that, He
> says:
> > Atma mayaya, by means of My own Maya. It is verily through My own Maya
> that
> > the cognition of My being a man etc. occurs for the benefit of humanity;
> but
> > it is not so in reality. This is the idea.
>
> I would like to add that there is the other option of meaning
'mAyA-shabalitam Brahma' for the word
the 'Lord'. This is in perfect synchronization with the Mandukya 6th mantra
on Ishwara and the bhashya.
Since such a Brahman, in association with maya, is called Ishwara, his
'body' that we referred to earlier and
the 'body' as an avatara are definitely inseparable from maya/prakrti. That
is what is meant by 'My own maya' which
Shankara has explained very well. That explains the statement 'The Lord and
His body are non-different' (both being maayic). There is no ambiguity here.
He 'comes into being' 'sambhavAmi' by controlling His maya/prakriti.
'ajAyamAno bahudhA vijAyate' says the purusha suktam. The birthless one
takes birth in so many ways/forms. All this will be impossible
unless maya/prakriti is brought in in some form or the other. That is the
final word in Advaita on this matter.

>
> Krishna does not become aged - nava yauvanam ca (though He can manifest
> whatever IS part of His infinite glories).


It is quite well known through the sources such as the Mahabharata that
Krishna was over 120 years old at the
time of the avatara-ending. Yudhishtira was a little older than Him.
Arjuna was younger and so on. There was certainly a modification
in His bodily appearance. He no longer could be carried by Devaki and
cuddled by Nandagopa. He had married and given birth to sons and grand
sons. All these are pointers to vikara.

I think we are not adding anything new to this discussion. The scriptural
position has been well stated long ago and needs no reiteration.


> Jivan Muktas have a body made of
> material elements created due to prarabda karma. Their form is not eternal
> like the Lord's.
>

It would be incorrect to say that. Just like the Ishwara's avatara has a
beginning and end on the physical plane and yet the devotee several
centuries later too can pray and be blessed by that avatara, a jivanmukta
too can be prayed to and his blessings and guidance got by devotees long
after his physical death.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:29 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> Sri V Subrahmanian: I would like to add that there is the other option
> of meaning 'mAyA-shabalitam Brahma' for the word
> the 'Lord'. This is in perfect synchronization with the Mandukya 6th
> mantra on Ishwara and the bhashya. Since such a Brahman, in association with
> maya, is called Ishwara, his 'body' that we referred to earlier and the
> 'body' as an avatara are definitely inseparable from maya/prakrti. That is
> what is meant by 'My own maya' which Shankara has explained very well. That
> explains the statement 'The Lord and His body are non-different' (both being
> maayic). There is no ambiguity here.
>
> RV: Your point is Krishna's body is made of five elements like ours.
> Madhusudana says Krishna's body is not made of five elements and explains
> why. He also says his position is in line with Sankara and Anandagiri. If
> you accept them as acharyas, you have to retract your position accepting
> incorrect analysis or at least quote an acharya like Sureshwara or Padmapada
> to prove that Krishna's body is indeed made of five elements. It will at
> least tell us that there two views in the sampradaya.
>


> Now you are coming up with another analysis on why the Lord and His form
> are non-different. Madhusudana has clearly given the reasons for his support
> of that secondary view in a one page long commentary. He is not saying the
> Lord is Mayika.
>


> Krishna does not become aged - nava yauvanam ca (though He can manifest
> > whatever IS part of His infinite glories).
>
> Sri Subrahmanian: It is quite well known through the sources such as the
> Mahabharata that Krishna was over 120 years old at the
> time of the avatara-ending. Yudhishtira was a little older than
> Him. Arjuna was younger and so on. There was certainly a modification in
> His bodily appearance. He no longer could be carried by Devaki and cuddled
> by Nandagopa. He had married and given birth to sons and grand sons. All
> these are pointers to vikara.
>
RV: As Madhusudana pointed out His body is not material and He instructed
Vivasvan long ago with the SAME body. For Devaki, He manifested a child
form, for Gopis the Youth form, for Krishna and Vivasvan a Teacher form etc.
at different times. As Madhusudana pointed Maya makes the impossible
possible.

>
> I think we are not adding anything new to this discussion. The scriptural
> position has been well stated long ago and needs no reiteration.
>
RV: Yes - the scriptural position has been well stated long ago by
Madhusudana and long long ago by Sridhara, Anandagiri and Sankara. It needs
no re-interpretation in twenty first century especially without supporting
evidence.


> > Jivan Muktas have a body made of material elements created due to
> prarabda karma. Their form is not eternal like the Lord's.
> It would be incorrect to say that. Just like the Ishwara's avatara has a
> beginning and end on the physical plane and yet the devotee several
> centuries later too can pray and be blessed by that avatara, a jivanmukta
> too can be prayed to and his blessings and guidance got by devotees long
> after his physical death.
>
RV: You can pray to any form you like even manjal pillayar (turmeric
ganapathi) and para Vasudeva will be the benefactor through that form. The
point will remain that Krishna's form being para mayika is eternal and
exists as long as time exists. A jivan mukta's body is created using
material elements due to prarabda karma. It does not exist after videha
mukti. Having said that in BS 3.3.32, Sankara talks about adhikara purusha
who continues to remain after death and gives the example of Vyasa, Narada
and Sanatkumara.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:55 PM, V Subrahmanian <***@gmail.com>wrote:

> श्रीगुरुभ्यो नमः
>
>
> So, if something is 'aprAkRta' does it mean that it is non-matter or
> non-material? Going by the 'only' two tattvas as above, that which is
> 'apraakRta' has to be Chit or spirit. If it is not matter/material, it has
> to be spirit. If it is not either, then what is the 'substance' with which
> the body of Brahman/Ishwara/Vishnu made? We better take it as
> 'chinmayarUpam' if we want to ward off praakRta/pAnchabhautika rUpa and its
> consequences. It is a vivarta of Brahman.
>

Here is a composition of Sri Purandara Dasa that brings out the material of
which the Lord's body is made of:

Venkatachala Nilayam Vaikunta Pura Vasam
Pankaja Netram Parama Pavitram
Shanka Chakra Dhara *Cinmaya Rupam*
Venkatacala Nilayam Vaikunta Pura Vasam ||

Read the entire lyrics and also hear the song here:

http://meerasubbarao.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/venkatachala-nilayam-vaikuntha-pura-vasam-lyrics/
_______________________________________________
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 assis