[Advaita-l] Fwd: Knowledge of Brahman

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Harsha Bhat via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Harsha Bhat <harsha9519 at gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Knowledge of Brahman
> To: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at braincells.com>
>
>
> Jaldar sir,
>                         Completely understood,
> But the very next mantra says...
>
> samane vrikshe purusho nimagno
>
>      hy anishaya shocati muhyamanah
>
> jushtam sada pashyaty anyam isham
>
>      asya mahimanam eti vita-shokah
>

The above reading is not correct.  It is not 'sadā' but 'yadā'.  That makes
the difference.  yadā=when the jīva-bird 'sees', realizes, anyam īśam = the
other, self, then.....it becomes free from misery.

मुण्डकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । तृतीयं मुण्डकम् । प्रथमः खण्डः । मन्त्रः २
समाने वृक्षे पुरुषो निमग्नोऽनीशया शोचति मुह्यमानः ।
जुष्टं *यदा* पश्यत्यन्यमीशमस्य महिमानमिति वीतशोकः ॥ २ ॥

जुष्टं सेवितमनेकैर्योगमार्गैः कर्मिभिश्च यदा यस्मिन्काले पश्यति ध्यायमानः
अन्यं वृक्षोपाधिलक्षणाद्विलक्षणम् ईशम्
असंसारिणमशनायापिपासाशोकमोहजरामृत्य्वतीतमीशं सर्वस्य जगतोऽयमहमस्म्यात्मा
सर्वस्य समः सर्वभूतस्थो नेतरोऽविद्याजनितोपाधिपरिच्छिन्नो मायात्मेति महिमानं
विभूतिं च जगद्रूपमस्यैव मम परमेश्वरस्य इति यदैवं द्रष्टा, तदा वीतशोकः भवति
सर्वस्माच्छोकसागराद्विप्रमुच्यते, कृतकृत्यो भवतीत्यर्थः ॥



regards
vs

>
>
> Which says ,even in mukthi there is this (Two birds beda ) right?...
>
> That means this suksha sharira is still there in moksha ??which is against
> advaitha which says only brahman is there in moksha..
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Sri Subrahmanian,
> > Very fine observations, indeed. Thanks for sharing.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Venkatraghavan
> >
> > On 11 Nov 2015 06:42, "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > A few years ago, Vidwan Sri Mani Dravid Sastrigal, in a Tamil talk on
> > the references to 'bheda' in the Brahma sutras had made an interesting
> > observation:
> > >
> > > In the Dvṣ suparṇa mantra the word 'tayoḥ anyaḥ pippalam svādvatti'
> does
> > not show any real difference between the two: jiva and Ishvara.  For a
> true
> > bheda to be indicated there is a vyakarana requirement, as per a sutra,
> > that a panchami has to be used. Hence, the mantra, if it wanted to show
> > jiva as different from Ishvara would have to say: tasmāt anyaḥ.  The
> tayoḥ
> > anyaḥ only means 'of the two, one is doing this....and the other
> > is...doing...'
> > >
> > > And in the subsequent mantra: the word 'anyam īśam' there is the word
> > anya which means 'other'.  Here too, the reference is not to show any
> > difference between the jiva and Ishvara but only that jiva who is
> > identified with the body, now identifies himself with the 'other' that is
> > Atma, which is only 'other' than/from the body.
> > >
> > > So, there is no place anywhere in the Veda where there is a real (as
> per
> > the non-advaitins) difference-indicating word is present.  On the other
> > hand, there are several aikya-teaching sentences in the Veda which alone
> > have become the problematic ones for the non-advaitins forcing them to
> > labor giving convoluted and extremely artificial explanations to them.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > vs
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Sri Harsha,
> > >>
> > >> You said:
> > >>
> > >> "In dwe suparne matra says even in moksha there are two
> > birds,So,according
> > >> to vedas only second bird (Bhudhi) exists even in moksha"
> > >>
> > >> This is not true. Not every statement in VedA is a mahAvAkya talking
> > about
> > >> paramArtha satyam. The dvA suparNa mantra refers to vyavahAra only,
> > where
> > >> the second bird (chidAbhAsa) is apparently engaged in activities,
> while
> > the
> > >> first (kUtastha) is the the silent sAkshi. This mantra does not talk
> > about
> > >> their aikyam explicitly, but that doesn't mean that their aikyam is
> not
> > >> true.  There are several other vAkyams that talk about aikyam, which
> is
> > the
> > >> ultimate reality, or as you say, "what exists in moksha".
> > >>
> > >> In general, bheda vAkyas can be reconciled with abheda (the former as
> > >> vyAhArika satya, and the latter being the pAramArthika satya), but if
> > you
> > >> take bhedA as ultimate reality, the abhedA vAkyas will be rendered
> > >> meaningless, and no VedA vAkya can be dismissed as meaningless.
> > >>
> > >> In interpreting Veda mantras one needs to consider the VedA as a
> whole,
> > >> because if one statement/mantra is taken in isolation it may lead only
> > to a
> > >> partial understanding, sometimes even a wrong one.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Venkatraghavan
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > >> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> > >>
> > >> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > >> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > >>
> > >> For assistance, contact:
> > >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>