[Advaita-l] Paroksha to Aparoksha

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms
Hare Krishna


This satyatvam is only upon negating the nAmarUpa dvandva, kriya, kAraka,
etc. The basis for this is mRttiketyEva satyam, vAchArambhaNam nAmadheyam.
It does not answer the question above.

>  It does answer the question in a more emphatic way...nAma, rUpa, 
vyavahAra everything is THAT only and there is nothing apart from THAT, 
nehanAnAsti kiMchana..if you want to realize the satyatva of mruttike 
which is adhishtAna, you have to see the 'mruttike' in all its nAma rUpa 
and those who realize this satyatva would know that kArya what they are 
seeing is nothing but 'veshesha' darshana of that kAraNa.  bramArpaNam, 
brahmahaviH, brahmAgnau, brahmaNAhutaM too says this. 

Why should I make any efforts to 'bring in' saguNa brahman; the bhAShya is
replete with references to saguNa brahman (eg. the third adhyAya and 
fourth
adhyAya of the brahmasutra).

>  I too have quoted plenty of bhAshya vAkya-s to prove that jeeva attains 
brahma in sushupti and that brahman is not upAsya adheena kArya / saguNa 
brahma but parabrahman...I have quoted explicitly where shankara says 
pareNa brahma, svamapeeto bhavati etc. but you comfortably said neglected 
it by holding one bhAshya vAkya as the big RULE to interpret all these 
unambiguous bhAshya quotes!! BTW, have you checked this basic RULE what 
you are trying to impose on most of the bhAshya vAkya-s is acceptable to 
all scholars in advaita vedAnta?? 

*//tatraivam sati yatra yadadhyAsaH, tatkRtena doSheNa guNena vaa
aNumAtreNApi sa na sambadhyate…// [‘This being so, the locus
(Atman/Brahman) is not affected in any way either by the merits or 
demerits
of the things superimposed.’]

>  I am not asking you whether Atman is effected by this or not...I am 
just asking you how can vyavahAra is possible in nishkriya & nirvishesha 
brahman possible?? 

sarvAtmabhAva is for his anusandhAna and the Atmapratipatti.  But his
vyavahAra will not be possible with that bhAva.

> with the  sarvAtmabhAva only vyavahAra possible without any 'bedha 
buddhi', whereas if you sit in sAkshi and say OK I am sAkshi to other 
person's suffering and I'll sit and watch it from a comfortable distance 
means it is sheer entertainment of beda buddhi..And due to this beda 
buddhi that sAkshi jnAni would always remains separate entity and seeing 
objective world apart from him..


The above is not the correct depiction/understanding of the sAkshi of the
Vedanta.

>  Oh O !!  Arguments like, this is not correct interpretation, this is 
not traditional view point, this is not brahman, selective quoting of one 
bhAshya vAkya forms the RULE for all other bhAshya vAkya interpretation 
etc. etc. I too can do any no. of days with you  without much use...So, 
let us remember the golden rule ' Agree to disagree ' and leave this 
thread :-))  Thanks for your time.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar