[Advaita-l] neha nAnAsti kiMchana

[Kotekal, Srinivas [Non-Employee/0200]]

Dear Kartik,

>> Dvaita say Brahmn is beyond logic. 

>But dvaita also falsely interprets "neha nAnAsti
>kiMchana", the subject of this thread. 

Did you read Jay's posting on "neha nAnAsti kiMchana.." ? 
If you missed by any chance, I repost it here for you ...

Read and tell me what do you mean by "dvaita also falsely interprets" ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Dear Bhaskar-jI,
 
>  sorry prabhuji, once you realised that *truth* there will be no triputi
>of vyavahAra.  nEha nanAsti kinchana
 
What is the context of nEha nAnAsti kimchana?.  Do you know?
 
The previous one says,
 
"tam dEvaaha sarvE arpitAstadu nAtyEti kaschana"
 
what does "arpita" mean?  -  it means "fastened to", "one which has
its roots in"
 
In shAstra,  "kamala NabhyArpita"  is used to describe padma-nAbha
which means "one who has kamala fastened to nAbhi", which means
the kamala has its roots in padma-nAbha.
 
Similarly,  here "dEvAha sarvE arpitAh" means all the dEvas have their
roots in Parabrahman.
 
The subject matter is such a "tam" -  that Parabrahman.
 
The next  line of kAtOpanishat says,  "ya iha nAnEva pashyati"
 
So,  what is that "iha" -  it is the same "tam" in that context of 
kaTOpanishat.
 
Veda-drishtr  has the direct perception (anubhava) of God  
(in this case, that vEda-drishtr is  Yama who is teaching NachikEta )
and therefore they use terms as "etat", "idam", "iha"  etc to denote
that proximity between what they are perceiving and themselves.
"etad vai tat"  is commonly encountered in upanishats.  
What is that etad?  Similarly,  here "iha"  is used.
 
To interpret "iha" has "this place" meaning "this world",  has no 
context at all in that upanishat.
 
AchArya Madhwa correctly interprets this,  "Neha nAnAsti kimchana"
as  in such a God in whom "sarvE devAha arpitAha" has no svagata-bhEda.
 
There is no bhEda between one paramAtma-roopa and another,
There is no bhEda between one guNa and other guNa of parabrahman.
There is no bhEda between His guNa, kriya, jnAna, bala, kriyA, ichchA etc
which is again very very consistent with other upanishats.
 
If you take "iha" to mean this varied world,  then look at the next one,
 
"anguShTamAtraha purushO madhya Atmani tishTati,  IshAnO bhootabhavyasya"
which is again talking of the same, "tam"  - Parabrahman as antaryAmin.
 
What ever  happened to the varied world here?
 
So please do not quote "nEha nAnAsti kimchana" bereft of its context 
ever again.   It is saying nothing about this varied world.   In the context
of that upanishat it is only talking about parabrahman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------


This communication is intended solely for the use of the addressee and may
contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from
disclosure.  If you are not the intended recipient, please note that any 
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited.  Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the 
sender immediately and delete it from his or her computer.