[Advaita-l] mithyA and abhAva chatuShTaya - Vaadiraaja's Nyayaratnavali Slokas 43-46

[Venkatesh Murthy]

 Namaste
 On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Harsha Bhat <harsha9519 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Venkatesh Murthy Sir,
>
>
>       You said in one of your previous mails that...
>
> The Visistadvaitis also agree there is one Reality Qualifed by Cit and
> Acit. But if Advaitis say the Cit and Acit are Mithyaa only but not
> real this they do not accept.
>
> My question is ,you said in advaitha Chit is mithya....
>
> That means sat-CHIT-ananda (Brahman) is also mithya..as it has chit...that
> means even BRAHMAN IS MITHYA according to advaitha !!!!!

The Cit and Acit in Visistadvaita means Spirit and Matter. Cit is the
Jeeva. Jeeva is Brahman in Advaita. There is no separate reality
Jeeva. But in Visistadvaita the Jeeva is like part of the body of
Brahman.


>
> Then advaitha Changes to bhudhists Shunya vada !!!!...
>
> So Please elaborate on this part ....
>
> Regards,
> Harsha Bhat
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>> Namaste
>>
>> > How can there be two nitya vastu's AND one vastu be dependent on the
>> > other?
>> > Both eternal-ness and dependence cannot simultaneously be true. Either
>> > nityatvam of both must be wrong, or the dependence of one on the other
>> > must
>> > be wrong.
>>
>> Kindly read Gita 2-12 - http://www.bhagavad-gita.us/bhagavad-gita-2-12/
>>
>> na tv evāhaḿ jātu nāsaḿ
>> na tvaḿ neme janādhipāḥ
>> na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ
>> sarve vayam ataḥ param
>>
>> Translation -
>> Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these
>> kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.
>>
>> Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya have quoted the Sruti -
>> nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam
>> eko bahunam yo vidadhati Kaman
>>
>> ‘Eternal among eternals, sentient among sentients, the one, who
>> fulfils the desires of the many’ (Sve. U. VI. 13, Ka. U. V. 13).
>>
>> Kindly see also Ramanujacharya's comments -
>>
>> Indeed, I, the Lord of all, who is eternal, was never non-existent,
>> but existed always. It is not that these selves like you, who are
>> subject to My Lordship, did not exist; you have always existed. It is
>> not that ‘all of us’, I and you, shall cease to be ‘in the future’,
>> i.e., beyond the present time; we shall always exist. Even as no doubt
>> can be entertainted that I, the Supreme Self and Lord of all, am
>> eternal, likewise, you (Arjuna and all others) who are embodied
>> selves, also should be considered eternal. The foregoing implies that
>> the difference between the Lord, the sovereign over all, and the
>> individual selves, as also the differences among the individual selves
>> themselves, are real. This has been declared by the Lord Himself. For,
>> different terms like ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘these’, ‘all’ and ‘we’ have been
>> used by the Lord while explaining the truth of eternality in order to
>> remove the misunderstanding of Arjuna who is deluded by ignorance.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Namaste Sri Venkatesh,
>> >
>> > You said
>> >>>Advaitis are making the
>> >>>JUMP to -
>> >>>
>> >>>Paratantra Sattaa = Mithyaatva
>> >
>> > It is not a jump, it is a definition.
>> >
>> > That which has no svatantra sattaa is defined to be mithya. Reality of
>> > Brahman is in its svatantra sattaa, as jagat is dependent on Brahman for
>> > existence, it is mithyA. The words illusion or unreal are used for the
>> > world
>> > from that perspective.
>> >
>> > What I cannot understand is the dvaita position which says that jagat is
>> > dependent on Brahman, but fails to say that Brahman is the only
>> > traikAlika
>> > abAdhita vastu.
>> >
>> > How can there be two nitya vastu's AND one vastu be dependent on the
>> > other?
>> > Both eternal-ness and dependence cannot simultaneously be true. Either
>> > nityatvam of both must be wrong, or the dependence of one on the other
>> > must
>> > be wrong.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Venkatraghavan
>> >
>> > On 4 Sep 2015 06:16, "Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l"
>> > <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Namaste
>> >> > The dependence of the world of matter and the souls on Brahman is in
>> >> > the
>> >> > sense that both are functioning at His will, which is the essential
>> >> > condition and sustaining principle that invests them with their
>> >> > reality
>> >> > and
>> >> > without which they would be but void names and bare possibilities. //
>> >> > (emphasis mine) (page 67)
>> >> >
>> >> > My comments:  The above statements show very clearly that for Dvaita,
>> >> > the
>> >> > paratantra cannot even ‘be’, ‘exist’, in the absence of the ‘sattaa’
>> >> > provided by / drawn from the Swatantra.  There is no
>> >> > ‘svatantra-sattaa’
>> >> > for
>> >> > the paratantra, it is ‘parataH sattaa’ alone it enjoys. The
>> >> > characterization
>> >> > of the true status of the paratantra as ‘mere void names and bare
>> >> > possibilities’ by none other than an acclaimed authority on Dvaita
>> >> > Vedanta,
>> >>
>> >> They may agree with the above though some Madhva Mathas may not accept
>> >> BNKS as the spokesman for Dvaita. But there is a JUMP from Paratantra
>> >> Satta to Mithyaatva Unreality by Advaitis. Advaitis are making the
>> >> JUMP to -
>> >>
>> >> Paratantra Sattaa = Mithyaatva
>> >>
>> >> because Sruti is telling Ekameva Adviteeyam. There is only one
>> >> Reality. If there is only one Reality what is this world we see? It
>> >> must be Mithyaa because Sruti cannot lie.
>> >>
>> >> The Visistadvaitis also agree there is one Reality Qualifed by Cit and
>> >> Acit. But if Advaitis say the Cit and Acit are Mithyaa only but not
>> >> real this they do not accept.
>> >>
>> >> Therefore the disagreement in Advaitis and Visistadvaitis and Dvaitis
>> >> is BASICALLY Mithyaatva of the world and Jeevas. If Advaitis are
>> >> taking support of Ekameva Adviteeyam to talk Mithyaatva the
>> >> Visistadvaitis and Dvaitis have to give a different meaning to this.
>> >>
>> >> Why the Visistadvaitis and Dvaitis cannot accept Mithyaatva? Because
>> >> they cannot accept the whole world is a big fat Illusion like the
>> >> Advaitis. Everything and everyone we see around us is a big lie and a
>> >> big Error. This they do not accept. They ask how can everything be an
>> >> Error?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:55 PM, V Subrahmanian
>> >> <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l
>> >> > <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Namaste
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Actually, in Dvaita, the Only Swatantra Satyam is Brhaman (Viṣṇu)
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > everything other than Brahman enjoys only paratantra satyatvam,
>> >> >> > dependent
>> >> >> > reality.  Veda too, thus, comes under paratantra satyam.  P.S is
>> >> >> > something
>> >> >> > that does not have a reality of its own; it is forced to 'derive'
>> >> >> > reality
>> >> >> > from Brahman.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think the Dvaitis may not agree with this. Just because a thing is
>> >> >> dependent on God it cannot be unreal.
>> >> >> They will say Svatantra Prameya and Paratantra Prameya are both
>> >> >> real.
>> >> >> For Dvaitis there is no Connection between Reality
>> >> >> and Independence like Advaitis are making. Something like Jeeva can
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> Real but Dependent. God Vishnu is Real and Independent.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Here are a few excerpts from my earlier posts in this forum:
>> >> >
>> >> > The article (series) is here:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/buddhism-advaita-and-dvaita-1/
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Dr.BNK Sharma (BNK) On page 146 of the Book in the footnote are given
>> >> > by
>> >> > BNK
>> >> > the eight verses quoted by Sri Madhvacharya in the work
>> >> > ‘Tattvodyota’:
>> >> >
>> >> > On page 142 of the Book BNK says:
>> >> >
>> >> > // The TattvasankhyAna (11 granthas) enumerates the categories
>> >> > recognized by
>> >> > Madhva.  Herereality is dichotomized into ‘Swatantra’ (Independent)
>> >> > and
>> >> > ‘paratantra’ (dependent).  This is the highest metaphysical and
>> >> > ontological
>> >> > classification in Madhva’s system, whence his system derives its name
>> >> > ‘Dvaita’.  God Vishnu is the One Highest Independent Real.  All else
>> >> > is
>> >> > dependent on Him, including the Goddess Lakshmi, the presiding deity
>> >> > of
>> >> > a-cit prakRti.  // (emphasis mine)
>> >> >
>> >> > //Everything in finite reality is grounded in the Infinite reality
>> >> > and
>> >> > needs
>> >> > it for its being and becoming.//  p.62
>> >> >
>> >> > The dependence of the world of matter and the souls on Brahman is in
>> >> > the
>> >> > sense that both are functioning at His will, which is the essential
>> >> > condition and sustaining principle that invests them with their
>> >> > reality
>> >> > and
>> >> > without which they would be but void names and bare possibilities. //
>> >> > (emphasis mine) (page 67)
>> >> >
>> >> > My comments:  The above statements show very clearly that for Dvaita,
>> >> > the
>> >> > paratantra cannot even ‘be’, ‘exist’, in the absence of the ‘sattaa’
>> >> > provided by / drawn from the Swatantra.  There is no
>> >> > ‘svatantra-sattaa’
>> >> > for
>> >> > the paratantra, it is ‘parataH sattaa’ alone it enjoys. The
>> >> > characterization
>> >> > of the true status of the paratantra as ‘mere void names and bare
>> >> > possibilities’ by none other than an acclaimed authority on Dvaita
>> >> > Vedanta,
>> >> > Dr.BNK  clearly depicts the Advaitic position with regard to the
>> >> > naama-rUpa
>> >> > prapancha.  Of special significance is the Advaitic interpretation of
>> >> > the
>> >> > Chandogya mantra: , वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयम् मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्
>> >> > which
>> >> > clearly applies to the above characterization of the paratantra by
>> >> > the
>> >> > Dvaita school. In advaita too, just as the Dvaitins have specified,
>> >> > the
>> >> > created world has no substance of its own other than Brahman.  It is
>> >> > nothing
>> >> > but ‘void names and bare possibilities’ without Brahman. A pot is but
>> >> > a
>> >> > ‘void name and a bare possibility’ without the clay, the material
>> >> > cause.
>> >> > A
>> >> > wave or an ocean are but ‘void names and barepossibilities’ without
>> >> > their
>> >> > material water. Thus according to BNK, Dvaita considers that the
>> >> > ‘natural’
>> >> > nature of the world of names and forms to be ‘mere voids and bare
>> >> > possibilities’.  However, ONLY when they are endowed with Hari’s
>> >> > ‘apekShA’,
>> >> > consideration, they acquire a paratantra reality.  And Hari too can
>> >> > exist
>> >> > without them and that is His True nature and His ‘apekShA’ of them is
>> >> > only
>> >> > out of His Will, otherwise termed mAyA.
>> >> >
>> >> > All that Advaita categorises under ‘vyavahaarika’ is shown under
>> >> > ‘paratantra’ in  Dvaita. While Advaita holds Brahman alone as the
>> >> > PaaramArthika, Dvaita has ‘ViShNu’ alone to show under Swatantra.
>> >> > Thus,
>> >> > the
>> >> > two-fold categorisation of the Tattva/Satya is not avoidable even for
>> >> > Dvaita.
>> >> >
>> >> > A statement from Sri Raghavendra Tirtha's (a highly respected Acharya
>> >> > of
>> >> > the
>> >> > Madhva sampradaya) commentary on the PuruSha sUktam.  The Swami,
>> >> > while
>> >> > commenting on the words 'पुरुष एवेदं सर्वम्’ [All this is that
>> >> > PuruSha
>> >> > alone] has cited a verse from a smRti:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "yadadHInA yasya sattA tat tadityEva bHanyatE"
>> >> >
>> >> > यदधीना यस्य सत्ता तत् तदित्येव भण्यते ।
>> >> >
>> >> > [That whose sattA, existence, is dependent on Him (something other
>> >> > than
>> >> > itself) is spoken of as 'He Himself'.]
>> >> >
>> >> > To explain, the 'idam', the created world, the paratantra, depends on
>> >> > That
>> >> > (Him) for its very existence.  That way it (the created world) is
>> >> > spoken
>> >> > of
>> >> > as 'The PuruSha, the Creator, Himself'.  Of course the Madhvas
>> >> > carefully
>> >> > avoid giving it an advaitic meaning.
>> >> >
>> >> > So here there is a confirmation from the Madhva school itself for the
>> >> > fact
>> >> > that the paratantra (the dependent reality, the vyAvahArika of
>> >> > Advaita)
>> >> > has
>> >> > no existence, sattA, of its own; it exists on the borrowed existence
>> >> > of
>> >> > the
>> >> > Swatantra (the independent Reality, the paaramArthika of Advaita).
>> >> >
>> >> > As I had stated earlier, such a situation is best explained by the
>> >> > rope-snake analogy.  The illusory/superimposed snake has no
>> >> > existence,
>> >> > sattA, of itself.  As long as one sees a snake there, its 'existence'
>> >> > is
>> >> > no
>> >> > different from the existence of the underlying rope there.  The
>> >> > rope's
>> >> > existence itself is transferred, as it were, to the snake and the
>> >> > vyavahara
>> >> > goes on: there exists a snake.  While in truth there is the rope
>> >> > alone
>> >> > and
>> >> > no snake at all, the sattA being One Only and not two, it is
>> >> > concluded
>> >> > that
>> >> > the rope alone appears as the snake.  When the rope-knowledge is had,
>> >> > what
>> >> > gets sublated is the 'snake' alone and NOT the 'existence', sattA.
>> >> > In
>> >> > fact,
>> >> > sattA, which is truly Brahman, Sat, Itself, can never go out of
>> >> > existence: न
>> >> > अभावो विद्यते सतः. Now he will start saying 'there IS a rope' or 'a
>> >> > rope
>> >> > exists'.  But this will be too much for the Dvaitins to admit
>> >> > although
>> >> > they
>> >> > mean this alone without saying it in so many words.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > regards
>> >> >
>> >> > vs
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 12:00 PM, V Subrahmanian
>> >> >> <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l
>> >> >> > <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Namaste,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Vaadiraaja has asked this interesting question to Advaitis. Then
>> >> >> >> he
>> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> making allegation Advaiti behaviour is like killing his own
>> >> >> >> mother.
>> >> >> >> रजतार्थी भ्रमे जाते तदैव तदपेक्षया ।
>> >> >> >> तत्र गत्वा बाधकं च तत्काले प्रतिपद्यते ॥
>> >> >> >> A person desiring silver goes to find it and gets the Shell
>> >> >> >> Silver
>> >> >> >> Illusion. Examining the Shell Silver the Illusion is cancelled
>> >> >> >> then
>> >> >> >> and there itself.
>> >> >> >> तदनर्थी भ्रमे जातेऽप्युपेक्ष्य स्वगृहं गतः ।
>> >> >> >> बाधं च नैव जानीते को विशेषस्तयोर्वद ॥
>> >> >> >> A person not desiring silver and seeing the Shell Silver will
>> >> >> >> ignore
>> >> >> >> it and go home. For him there is no cancellation of Shell Silver
>> >> >> >> Illusion. Tell me what is the difference between the two?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Vaadiraaja is making this example. There are two persons A and B.
>> >> >> >> A
>> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> interested in getting silver. If he sees Shell Silver Illusion he
>> >> >> >> will
>> >> >> >> examine it and find it is not silver but Ilusion Silver only. It
>> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> Pratibhasika Silver. Therefore his Illusion has ended. Person B
>> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> not
>> >> >> >> at all interested in silver even if it is lying in front of him.
>> >> >> >> He
>> >> >> >> will see the Shell Silver Illusion. But he will not even examine
>> >> >> >> it
>> >> >> >> because he is not interested. He ignores the Shell Silver and
>> >> >> >> goes
>> >> >> >> home. For him there is no Illusion cancellation.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What is the difference between the two? Vaadiraaja is saying
>> >> >> >> Advaiti
>> >> >> >> will simply say there is no difference. Because Pratibhasika and
>> >> >> >> Vyavaharika are the same for him. Person A has Vyavaharika
>> >> >> >> knowledge
>> >> >> >> it is not Silver but Shell. But Shell is also Illusion only. It
>> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> not
>> >> >> >> Brahman. Person B has Pratibhasika knowledge of Silver. Both
>> >> >> >> Shell
>> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> Silver are Illusions only. There is no difference between them.
>> >> >> >> This
>> >> >> >> is the Advaiti argument. If you take there are only two Sattas
>> >> >> >> Paramarthika and Pratibhasika  this will be the result. But if
>> >> >> >> you
>> >> >> >> take three Sattas Paramarthika, Vyavaharika and Pratibhasika the
>> >> >> >> Advaiti will say Person A has Vyavaharika knowledge and Person B
>> >> >> >> has
>> >> >> >> Pratibhasika knowledge. There is a difference between them here.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> अनिवर्त्य महाभ्रान्तिजनकोन्मादरोगवान् ।
>> >> >> >> सर्वोपकारिवेदादेर्हीनादपि च हीनताम् ।
>> >> >> >> यो ब्रूते वैदिकच्छद्मी हन्ति मातरमेव सः ।
>> >> >> >> विश्वापकारकरणं तस्य लीलेति मे मतिः ॥
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Actually, in Dvaita, the Only Swatantra Satyam is Brhaman (Viṣṇu)
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > everything other than Brahman enjoys only paratantra satyatvam,
>> >> >> > dependent
>> >> >> > reality.  Veda too, thus, comes under paratantra satyam.  P.S is
>> >> >> > something
>> >> >> > that does not have a reality of its own; it is forced to 'derive'
>> >> >> > reality
>> >> >> > from Brahman.  The only example possible for this phenomenon is
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > rope-snake.  While the advaitin openly says that the Veda is only
>> >> >> > vyavaharika satya (paratantra satya), the Dvaitin does not openly
>> >> >> > say
>> >> >> > that.
>> >> >> > He accepts veda as paratantra satya and insists that it is 'as
>> >> >> > real
>> >> >> > as
>> >> >> > Brahman', an argument that no one will take.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thus, by according a lower level of satyatvam, a second-class
>> >> >> > citizen
>> >> >> > status, to Veda, the Dvaitin has no right to accuse the advaitin
>> >> >> > on
>> >> >> > this
>> >> >> > count.  The   यो ब्रूते वैदिकच्छद्मी हन्ति मातरमेव सः  accusation
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > Sri
>> >> >> > Vadiraja rebounds on himself. By according a non-swatantra satyam
>> >> >> > status
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > Veda and swearing by the veda makes him a vaidika cchadmī even
>> >> >> > more
>> >> >> > than
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > advaitin who openly admits that veda has only vyavaharika satyam.
>> >> >> > If
>> >> >> > he
>> >> >> > says that within paratantra satya, entities like Lakshmi, veda,
>> >> >> > vāyu
>> >> >> > have a
>> >> >> > higher status, then the advatin also has the response: within
>> >> >> > vyavaharika,
>> >> >> > veda, guru, upadesha, sādhana, realization, etc have a higher
>> >> >> > status.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thus, there is no strength in Sri Vādiraja's objection.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > regards
>> >> >> > vs
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The Advaiti is a maniac with a mental disease from the
>> >> >> >> Uncancellable
>> >> >> >> Great Illusion. He has the disguise of  having a Veda base. The
>> >> >> >> Vedas
>> >> >> >> are doing good to all but he is saying they have a very poor
>> >> >> >> status.
>> >> >> >> It is like he is killing his own mother. I feel doing harm to the
>> >> >> >> world is his Leela.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Vaadiraaja has not understood Advaita theories. In dreamless
>> >> >> >> sleep
>> >> >> >> will Vaadiraaja see his mother? No. Will he see the world objects
>> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> people of the world in dreamless sleep? No. Can we say he has
>> >> >> >> killed
>> >> >> >> his mother in dreamless sleep? No. Can we say he has done harm to
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> world in dreamless sleep? No. Will he hear Vedas in dreamless
>> >> >> >> sleep?
>> >> >> >> No. Then why is he blaming Advaitis of killing mother and harming
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> world? Because he has not even understood dreamless sleep. First
>> >> >> >> he
>> >> >> >> must understand dreamless sleep and then only he can understand
>> >> >> >> Moksha. He is very far from understanding Moksha.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Taking Vyavaharika Illusory objects to be real is a bigger mental
>> >> >> >> disease than realization of the objects unreality. Those people
>> >> >> >> are
>> >> >> >> the maniacs because they search for happiness in worldly objects
>> >> >> >> thinking they are real.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Regards
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -Venkatesh
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> 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
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Regards
>> >>
>> >> -Venkatesh
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>>
>> -Venkatesh
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh