FAO Moderators
Jaldhar H. Vyas
jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM
Mon Jan 7 22:27:36 CST 2002
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, ken knight wrote:
> To avoid this e-mail address box becoming filled up,
> if you do not hear from me again before January 18th.
> could you please remove me temporarily from the list.
> I will then contact you again when back in action
> (without acting of course).
>
Write to listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org when you are ready to stop. We
will put you on hold rather than remove you because with Bhagawans krpa
you will be back with us again soon.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
It's a girl! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/
>From ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG Tue Jan 8 11:24:13 2002
Message-Id: <TUE.8.JAN.2002.112413.0530.ADVAITAL at LISTS.ADVAITAVEDANTA.ORG>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 11:24:13 +0530
Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
<ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
<ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
From: hbdave <hbd at DDIT.ERNET.IN>
Subject: Re: mAyA
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------73BE4395E4FB977770CD8E86"
--------------73BE4395E4FB977770CD8E86
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hemant wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D.V.N.Sarma" <narayana at HD1.VSNL.NET.IN>
> To: <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 7:16 AM
> Subject: Re: mAyA
>
> > On 6 Jan 2002, at 06:56, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> >
> > > > Etymologically Maya is that which measures.
> > >
> > > That doesn't sound right to me though I'll have to find where I put my
> > > Amarakosha to know for sure.
> > >
> > mAna = measure
> > mAta = one who measures
> > mEya = that which is measured
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Sarma
>
> That was the origanal sense of the word mAyA and there was no sense of any
> illusoriness(bhrama) about it.
> For example consider the following quotations from the Rg veda:
> By the name of the Lord and hers they shaped and measured the
> force of the Mother of Light ; wearing might after might of that Force as a
> robe the lords of Maya shaped out form in this Being.
> The Masters of Maya shaped all by his Maya ; the fathers who
> have divine vision set Him within as a child that is to be born.
> References Rg Veda III. 38; IX. 83. 3.
> Into later adwaita there crept this notion of bhrama or illusoriness (eg.
> optical illusion = dRishti bhrama). One good example of this is in
> manasollasa of sureSvara VII 27--30.
> Regards,
> Hemant
mAyA and related words appear at many places in RigVeda.
Though it is true that concepts "measure" "constraint", "limitation"
are associated with mA, but it is to be interpreted in a special way :
Nighantu gives following concept clustering :
mAyA - praj~nAnAmAni (3-9), i.e., knowledge (w/o capital K)
e.g cittam
The meaning is : one which leads to knowledge (but lower knowledge or ordinary
knowledge).
A related word used at several places in RigVeda is
mAyu.h - which is clustered as vA"ngnAmAni, (Nigh. 1-11)
i.e. equivalent to vaak (the languages of the Brain)
It is via vaak that we human beings are aware of and think about
the percieved world, so at the same time it is a power and a constraint.
The meaning is again one which gives knowledge but limited or constrained
knowledge.
Thus mAyA is something which gives constrained or limited knowledge, which
later on developed into its present
interpretation.
Hope this helps.
-- Himanshu
--------------73BE4395E4FB977770CD8E86
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
Hemant wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>----- Original Message -----
<BR>From: "D.V.N.Sarma" <narayana at HD1.VSNL.NET.IN>
<BR>To: <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
<BR>Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 7:16 AM
<BR>Subject: Re: mAyA
<P>> On 6 Jan 2002, at 06:56, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
<BR>>
<BR>> > > Etymologically Maya is that which measures.
<BR>> >
<BR>> > That doesn't sound right to me though I'll have to find where I
put my
<BR>> > Amarakosha to know for sure.
<BR>> >
<BR>> mAna = measure
<BR>> mAta = one who measures
<BR>> mEya = that which is measured
<BR>>
<BR>> regards,
<BR>>
<BR>> Sarma
<P>That was the origanal sense of the word mAyA and there was no sense
of any
<BR>illusoriness(bhrama) about it.
<BR>For example consider the following quotations from the Rg veda:
<BR>
By the name of the Lord and hers they shaped and measured the
<BR>force of the Mother of Light ; wearing might after might of that Force
as a
<BR>robe the lords of Maya shaped out form in this Being.
<BR>
The Masters of Maya shaped all by his Maya ; the fathers who
<BR>have divine vision set Him within as a child that is to be born.
<BR>References Rg Veda III. 38; IX. 83. 3.
<BR>Into later adwaita there crept this notion of bhrama or illusoriness
(eg.
<BR>optical illusion = dRishti bhrama). One good example of this is in
<BR>manasollasa of sureSvara VII 27--30.
<BR>Regards,
<BR> Hemant</BLOCKQUOTE>
mAyA and related words appear at many places in RigVeda.
<BR>Though it is true that concepts "measure" "constraint", "limitation"
<BR>are associated with <I>mA</I>, but it is to be interpreted in a special
way :
<P>Nighantu gives following concept clustering :
<P>mAyA - praj~nAnAmAni (3-9), i.e., knowledge (w/o capital K)
<BR>
e.g cittam
<P>The meaning is : one which leads to knowledge (but lower knowledge or
ordinary knowledge).
<P>A related word used at several places in RigVeda is
<BR>mAyu.h - which is clustered as vA"ngnAmAni, (Nigh. 1-11)
<BR>
i.e. equivalent to<I> vaak</I> (the languages of the Brain)
<P>It is via<I> vaak</I> that we human beings are aware of and think about
<BR>the percieved world, so at the same time it is a power and a constraint.
<P>The meaning is again one which gives knowledge but limited or constrained
knowledge.
<P>Thus mAyA is something which gives constrained or limited knowledge,
which later on developed into its present
<BR>interpretation.
<P>Hope this helps.
<BR>-- Himanshu <BR>
<BR></HTML>
--------------73BE4395E4FB977770CD8E86--
>From Tue Jan 8 12:39:30 2002
Message-Id: <TUE.8.JAN.2002.123930.0700.>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 12:39:30 -0700
Reply-To: besprasad at lycos.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
<ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
From: Prasad Balasubramanian <besprasad at LYCOS.COM>
Organization: Lycos Mail (http://mail.lycos.com:80)
Subject: giving birth
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
namasthe,
I heard from many learned elders advising bramhachAris to takeup gruhasthAshramA with a vAkyA from the vedas.
"prajayA hi manushyaH pUrNaH"
Can someone explain the significance of this vAkyA ? As well the significance of pitru tharpaNam ? If possible, the relationship between these two.
Why has it been declared in Vedas that a man is complete only if he gives birth ? What happens to one who is not able to give birth in his/her present jenma (will he/she be reborn ? ) Commentaries on Brahma Sutras by Swami Krishnananda has two paragraphs as following
<<Jiva or soul, for the purpose of our subject, is a concentrated point of desire. The soul that we are discussing about here is not the Universal Soul; it is rather the bound soul and no one can be bound unless there is a concentralisation of desire at a spatio-temporal point.
It is desire that is born, not a child. The human being is a shape taken by a mass of desires. Every cell of our body is made up of desires. It vibrates with desires -- any number of desires. But since any number of desires cannot be fulfilled through a single body, a certain set of desires is chosen intelligently for the purpose of fulfilling them through a single incarnation. >>
If this is so, then is giving birth just helping a set of desires to takeup a body so that it continues fulfilling itself ?
If one does not give birth Or is not able to give birth, is a different set of parents selected for the soul to be given a body ? I dont know whether the very sentance "soul is taking a body" is right or not. As well, the process of a souls getting a bodies is not (if not "is not", it should be atleast "should not") going to stop when a set of parents are not able to give birth. In which case, why cant one intentionally refrain from giving birth ?
Hows this veda vAkyA applicable to sannyasis and others who get/dont get liberation in the present Jenma?
shree guruByo namaH
Prasad
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list