[advaitin] Notes on Brahmasuutra - IIIa

[K. Sadananda]

>-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
>GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds!  Get rates
>of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
>Apply NOW!
>http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/6/_/489436/_/967661046/
>---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
>
>
>namaste.
>
>I congratulate shri Sadananda garu for his scholarship and for his
>enthusiasm in presenting the Notes on Brahma sUtrA-s. The Notes is
>very clear and I am really grateful to him for this.

Murthy gaaru,

While I thanks you for your kind words, let us all remind oursleves that it
is all the borrowed knowledge - hence invocation to the lineage of all our
teachers in the begining of the notes.  We are so much blessed with such a
rich culture,  tradition and wisdom of our great teachers starting from
Shree Veda Vyaasa and Bhagavaan Shankara to preserve in the form of
suutra-s and bhaasya-s, there is nothing that we can give them back in
return other than passing on the torch to the next generation so that they
can appreciate their true inheritence.   When I was in India for an year on
sabbatical, I was deeply disturbed by so much of materialistic attutudes
and degradation of our cultural values through TV networks- from A to Z
TV-s with disco music in every language and every channel.  We need to have
agreesive  approach to presever our cultural heritage and glorious
teachings in the language that people can appreaciate its beauty.  Any way
this may not have anything to do with your comments but could not resist
expressing my thoughts and frustration.  If others are enjoying the notes
as much as I do in putting them in a form that I can understand, I consider
that the time is worth spent.


>On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Kuntimaddi Sadananda wrote:
>
>>                    Notes on Brahmasuutra -IIIa
>>
>> [...]
>
>> (A Note: We pause here for few days for us to think deeply - Is
>>puurvapakshi
>> or objector right in his arguments? If we are convinced of Adviata can we
>> contour his arguments to show that adhyaasa is possible in the case of
>> aatma-anaatma case? - what do you think? How do you address these
>> objections? Can one argue that all the four requirements are met in the
>>case
>> of aatma-anaatma case as in the case of rope-snake example and therefore
>> adhyaasa is applicable? Or is it the time now to switch our party and move
>> to a different list?  The ball is now in your court.)
>>
>
>But, isn't there a difference in our seeing the adhyAsa of snake on
>the rope and of anAtmA on AtmA? I am sure there is.

In a way it is, since there is subject 'aatma' invovled which is beyond the
loukika anumaana. Shankar will address this issue in his samadhaanam.
First he needs to address the issues on their own grounds to  show that
puurvapakshhi is wrong.

>anAtmA on AtmA: It is the anAtmA which is seeing this. anAtmA on
>AtmA will be identical to snake on the rope if it is the snake that
>is seeing the adhyAsa. In anAtmA on AtmA, it is the anAtma that is
>perceiving the adhyAsa. In snake on the rope, it is not the snake
>that is seeing it, but another entity.

One has to be carefull.  anAtma being jadam, it cannot see - Remember Ch.
U. statement  'tad aikshata, bahu syaam .. etc. Seeing involves a chaitanya
vastu, a conscious entity. Inert thing cannot see. So you cannot say anAtmA
is seeing the adhyaasa.



>Just like snake does not have an existence apart from the rope, the
>anAtmA does not have existence either apart from the AtmA. However,
>because anAtmA *thinks* it has existence independent of AtmA, it
>falls into saMsAra and the whole misery. Because anAtmA wrongly
>sees AtmA as the object (which it can never do because anAtmA is
>the object and AtmA is always the subject), hence the difficulty
>in understanding adhyAsa, which we can do for snake on a rope
>but not as easily for anAtmA on AtmA.
>
>Am I correct in this presentation?

Remember in the adhyaas there is mixing up of satya and asatya aspect. Your
question is actually a clear example of this refection of this confusion
because of the mix up.  'I am a samsarii'  involves   'I am'  aspect that
includes the real or samaanya amsha or satya amsha - and that I am is both
'sat' and 'chit' involved.  now the claim or statment that anaatma is
seeing essentially because of this adhyaasa where the nature of the satya
amsha is superimposed on the astya amsha.  If you analyze your question
again deeply I am sure you will discover how and where this adhyaasa is
pervading.  Please think about it.  That is the saadhana Shankara wants us
to do as we study his bhaashyam.

Hari Om!
Sadananda

>
>Regards
>Gummuluru Murthy
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of
>Atman and Brahman.
>Searchable List Archives are available at:
>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/
>Temporary holiday stoppage of Email, send a blank email to
><advaitin-nomail at egroups.com>
>To resume normal delivery of Email, send a blank email to
><advaitin-normal at egroups.com>
>To receive email digest (one per day, send a blank email to
><advaitin-digest at egroups.com>
>To subscribe to advaitin list, send a blank email to
><advaitin-subscribe at egroups.com>


K. Sadananda
Code 6323
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington D.C. 20375
Voice (202)767-2117
Fax:(202)767-2623

--
bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam

Archives : http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l.html
Help     : Email to listmaster at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Options  : To leave the list send a mail to
           listserv at lists.advaita-vedanta.org with
           SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L in the body.