[Advaita-l] An instance of Advaita wrongly comprehended

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Thank you Subrahmanianji. 


Yes, Panchadashi (6.130) says as follows:

तुच्छानिर्वचनीया च वास्तवी चेत्यसौ त्रिधा 
ज्ञेया माया त्रिभिर्बोधैः श्रौतयौक्तिकलौकिकौः

tuchChAnirvachanIyA cha vAstavI chetyasau tridhA .

jneyA mAyA tribhirbodhaiH shrautayauktikalaukikaiH .. 130..

If you permit me I will like to have the meaning as follows:

From the point of Shruti it is tuccha (low or insignificant), from the logical view it is anirvachanIyA (indefinable) and for the ordinary people it is vAstavI (real). 

Regards,
Sunil KB

________________________________
 From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
To: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] An instance of Advaita wrongly comprehended
 

The PanchadashI (6.130) of Swami Vidyaranya) says:

tuchChAnirvachanIyA cha vAstavI chetyasau tridhA .

j~neyA mAyA tribhirbodhaiH shrautayauktikalaukikaiH .. 130..
[130. Maya is looked upon in three ways. From the point of view of knowledge 
and Shruti it is non-existent; for empirical reason it is indefinable 
and for the ordinary people it is real.]

The following posts on the above could be useful to the members here:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2011-January/026421.html

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2011-January/026422.html

subrahmanian.v



On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:

Namaste Sadanandaji,
>
>Don't you think that the proper English equivalent word for "Mithya" will be "Confusion" rather than "False"? At least, with the use of the word "Confusion", the people will not get confused about the meaning of "Brahma satyam jaganmithya". The Jagat does exist and only the way the Jnani looks at it is different from the way an ajnani looks at it. 
>
>Regards,
>Sunil KB
>
>
>_
>