[Advaita-l] Advaita-l Digest, Vol 146, Issue 33
Dinesh Patel MD
dgpatel1 at me.com
Fri Sep 23 11:32:59 CDT 2016
how do you define in common persons terms
shradha
faith
person or policy
kurushestra is coming in usa leadership
who will lead
any comments looking at out ancient history and exam,plaes
examples such as usa presidential elections or indias current leadership
or global spirituaism for peace
dineh
> On Sep 23, 2016, at 8:51 AM, advaita-l-request at lists.advaita-vedanta.org wrote:
>
> Send Advaita-l mailing list submissions to
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> advaita-l-request at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> advaita-l-owner at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Advaita-l digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T
> (Venkatraghavan S)
> 2. Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T
> (Ravi Kiran)
> 3. Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T
> (Bhaskar YR)
> 4. Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T
> (Raghav Kumar)
> 5. Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T
> (Bhaskar YR)
> 6. Re: Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin? (Sujal Upadhyay)
> 7. Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T
> (Ravi Kiran)
> 8. Re: Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin? (Bhaskar YR)
> 9. Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T
> (Bhaskar YR)
> 10. Re: QUESTION ON THARPANA&SRADHA (Bhaskar YR)
> 11. Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T
> (Ravi Kiran)
> 12. Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T
> (Ravi Kiran)
> 13. Re: एकोऽहं स्यां बहुहा
> प्रजाয়ेয়। - Ignorance resulted to the desire of
> being many? (Bhaskar YR)
> 14. QUESTION ON THARPANA&SRADHA (Anand Hudli)
> 15. Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T
> (Praveen R. Bhat)
> 16. Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T
> (Bhaskar YR)
> 17. Re: Whom did Shankara consider a Guru? (Praveen R. Bhat)
> 18. Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T
> (Ravi Kiran)
> 19. Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T
> (Venkatraghavan S)
> 20. Re: QUESTION ON THARPANA&SRADHA (Bhaskar YR)
> 21. Re: Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin? (Sujal Upadhyay)
> 22. Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T
> (Ravi Kiran)
> 23. Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T
> (Bhaskar YR)
> 24. Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T
> (Venkatraghavan S)
> 25. Re: Ramana Maharshi - Advaitin or Neo Advaitin? (Praveen R. Bhat)
> 26. Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T
> (Raghav Kumar)
> 27. Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T
> (Praveen R. Bhat)
> 28. Re: Whom did Shankara consider a Guru? (V Subrahmanian)
> 29. Re: Whom did Shankara consider a Guru? (Praveen R. Bhat)
> 30. Re: What is the difference between Maya and avidhya ?T
> (Venkatraghavan S)
>
>
> All things you mention in this paragraph are true for jnAna virodha avidyA
> also. If there are specific issues that require clarification, please ask.
>
>> Your responses on mUlAvidyA are much clear (as it only means jnAna
> virOdhi avidyA, which is destroyed through jnAna of adhishThAna ) and there
> are no further clarifications, if this being the definition.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>>
>>> Namaste Ravi Kiran ji,
>>> I haven't followed the thread , but some suggested answers n line.
>>>
>>> On 22 Sep 2016 2:55 p.m., "Ravi Kiran via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If there is any further explanation /elaboration behind this mention -
> that
>>>> mUlAvidya, which is bhAva rUpa (Ashrita in Brahman), is removed by
> Sruti
>>>> vAkya janita tattvajnAna alone without need for other abhyAsa, pl
> share the
>>>> links or articles.
>>>
>>> The bhAva rUpa of avidyA is also vyAvahArika only, not pAramaArthika.
> The removal of mUlAvidyA is like the removal of any mithyA vastu - through
> jnAna of adhishThAna. Any mithyA vastu has some bhAva rUpa in vyavahAra
> right? How do we say that is sublated? Same way for avidyA too. Whether it
> is bhAva rUpa or abhAva rUpa, when jnAna arises it ceases to be. (and it
> never was nor will be).
>>>
>>>>> And interestingly they say for the adhyAsa upAdAna is this
> mUlAvidyA, when
>>>>> adhyAsa goes ( i.e. correct knowledge of rope in place of snake) the
>>>>> knowledge of rajju jnana will not destroy the mUlAvidyA but at that
> sandhi
>>>>> samaya (juncture) the sarpa etc. get laya (merged) in their cause
> i.e.
>>>>> mUlAvidyA that is all.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interesting..if laya (merge) is accepted, isn't there a possibility to
>>>> emerge back/manifest at a future time ? how it is explained as
> Atyantika
>>>> avidyA nivrutti ?
>>>
>>> I am not sure what Sri Bhaskar is talking about. So I am only answering
> your last question above, Atyantika avidyA nivritti is because avidyA like
> any mithyA object is traikAlika bAdha pratoyogi. So once jnAna arises one
> realises that avidyA never was, is, will be. Whether it is bhAva or abhAva
> does not make a difference.
>>>
>>>> which also implies mUlAvidya cannot be destroyed like tUlAvidyA (upon
>>>> attaining tattva jnAna), but there is some mystic component (beeja
> shakti,
>>>> doing its part to release souls?)
>>>
>>> mUlAvidyA is indeed destroyed upon jnAna, so this consideration is moot.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Just for my understanding, would like to read more on this mUlAvidyA and
> its destruction through Atma jnAna (how it is explained), if it is covered
> somewhere earlier ( articles or links).
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you for giving another view than that of familiar sampradAya which is
> traditional. If we take past life into account than many things that a
> GYAnI undergoes in this life like sravaNa, manan, etc is already
> accomplished in past life of some dhyana siddha yoga brashTa jIvAtmA-s.
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:37 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com=
>>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Sri Sujal Ji observed concerning Sri Ramana Maharshi
>>
>>
>>
>> << What Bhaskar ji says is true. He didnt belong to any traditional
>> sampradAya. >>,
>>
>>
>>
>> In the =E2=80=9Cfamiliar=E2=80=9D ( I am intentionally using the word ins=
> tead of
>> =E2=80=9Ctraditional=E2=80=9D the reasons for which would be clear later =
> in this post)
>> advaita sampradAya, the attainment of jnana takes place in the same body =
> in
>> which the sAdhanAs are undertaken. Hence terms like shrOtriya, guru-shish=
> ya
>> parampara etc could be relevant and they could be linked to the jnAni.
>> However this is only one aspect of the advaita sampradAya concerning
>> fruition of knowledge vis-=C3=A0-vis sAdhanas. There is another aspect of=
> the
>> advaita sampradAya which is broughtout by Sri BhagavatpAda in BSB 3-4-52.
>> Relevant portion is reproduved below.
>>
>>
>>
>> << =E0=A4=8F=E0=A4=A4=E0=A4=A6=E0=A5=81=E0=A4=95=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=A4=E0=A4=
> =82 =E0=A4=AD=E0=A4=B5=E0=A4=A4=E0=A4=BF =E2=80=94 =E0=A4=AF=E0=A4=A6=E0=A4=
> =BE =E0=A4=AA=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=B0=E0=A4=95=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=B0=E0=A4=BE=E0=A4=
> =A8=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=A4=E0=A4=B8=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=AF =E0=A4=B5=E0=A4=BF=E0=A4=
> =A6=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=AF=E0=A4=BE=E0=A4=B8=E0=A4=BE=E0=A4=A7=E0=A4=A8=E0=A4=B8=
> =E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=AF =E0=A4=95=E0=A4=B6=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=9A=E0=A4=BF=E0=A4=A4=
> =E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=AA=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=B0=E0=A4=A4=E0=A4=BF=E0=A4=AC=E0=A4=A8=E0=
> =A5=8D=E0=A4=A7=E0=A5=8B =E0=A4=A8
>> =E0=A4=95=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=B0=E0=A4=BF=E0=A4=AF=E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=87 =E0=A4=89=
> =E0=A4=AA=E0=A4=B8=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=A5=E0=A4=BF=E0=A4=A4=E0=A4=B5=E0=A4=BF=E0=
> =A4=AA=E0=A4=BE=E0=A4=95=E0=A5=87=E0=A4=A8 =E0=A4=95=E0=A4=B0=E0=A5=8D=E0=
> =A4=AE=E0=A4=BE=E0=A4=A8=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=A4=E0=A4=B0=E0=A5=87=E0=A4=A3, =E0=
> =A4=A4=E0=A4=A6=E0=A4=BE =E0=A4=87=E0=A4=B9=E0=A5=88=E0=A4=B5 =E0=A4=B5=E0=
> =A4=BF=E0=A4=A6=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=AF=E0=A4=BE =E0=A4=89=E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=8D=E0=
> =A4=AA=E0=A4=A6=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=AF=E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=87 ; =E0=A4=AF=E0=A4=A6=E0=
> =A4=BE =E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=81 =E0=A4=96=E0=A4=B2=E0=A5=81
>> =E0=A4=A4=E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=AA=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=B0=E0=A4=A4=E0=A4=BF=
> =E0=A4=AC=E0=A4=A8=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=A7=E0=A4=83 =E0=A4=95=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=B0=
> =E0=A4=BF=E0=A4=AF=E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=87 =E0=A4=A4=E0=A4=A6=E0=A4=BE =E0=A4=85=
> =E0=A4=AE=E0=A5=81=E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=B0=E0=A5=87=E0=A4=A4=E0=A4=BF =
> =E0=A5=A4 >>
>>
>>
>>
>> << etaduktaM bhavati =E2=80=94 yadA prakrAntasya vidyAsAdhanasya
>> kashchitpratibandho na kriyate upasthitavipAkena karmAntareNa, tadA ihaiv=
> a
>> vidyA utpadyate ; yadA tu khalu tatpratibandhaH kriyate tadA amutreti | >=
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Translation by Swami Gambhirananda << This being the case, our answer is
>> ; =E2=80=9CThe generation of knowledge takes place even in this life if t=
> here is no
>> obstruction to the means adopted=E2=80=9D. The idea amplied is this : Kno=
> wledge is
>> possible even in this life, provided the means adopted for enlightenment
>> are not obstructed in any way by some other result of past work that
>> fructifies just then. Should it, however , be obstructed, the fruition
>> comes in a subsequent birth. >>
>>
>>
>>
>> In such cases, quite clearly, terms like shrotriya, guru-shishya
>> parampara etc cannot obviously be linked to the jnAni in the current body=
> .
>> They are not relevant either. Since Sri Bhagavatpada himself has admitted
>> such possibility, surely such a jnAni is not to be considered as being
>> outside the purview of =E2=80=9Ctraditional=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cbonafid=
> e=E2=80=9D advaita sampradAya..
>> Sri Ramana maharshi comes under this category for those of us who conside=
> r
>> him to be a jnani. He does come under the purview of =E2=80=9Ctraditiona=
> l=E2=80=9D
>> advaita sampradAya as much as the others coming under the =E2=80=9Cfamil=
> iar=E2=80=9D
>> advaita sampradAya and in whose case terms like shrOtriya, guru-shishya
>> parampara etc are relevant.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Yes, if mUlAvidyA is accepted as jnAna virodhi and there are no
>> requirements for samAdhi abhyAsa etc for its destruction, there are no
>> questions.
>>
>> praNAms
>>
>> Hare Krishna
>>
>>
>>
>> FYI, according to some traditional Advaita Acharya-s, after removal of
>> avidyA there should be an experience of Atma sAkshAtkAra (brahma
>> sAkshAtkAra that he is adviteeya). To experience it the means are shrava=
> Na
>> and manana. So, shravaNa and manana mean dhAraNa (like in yOga school) a=
> nd
>> nidhidhyAsana means =E2=80=98dhyAna=E2=80=99 on that holding (concentrate=
> d) object (here it
>> is shAstra vAkya) and darshana means samAdhi. And in this samAdhi, Atma
>> sAkshAtkAra (adviteeya jnana) happens which removes the sAkshAtkAra of
>> jagat (the world of duality).
>>
>
> But, we dont find such explanation or details mentioned in bhAshya .. so,
> it could be a prakriyA followed much later ?
>
>>
>>
>> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>>
>> bhaskar
>>
>
> praNAms
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Interesting read ..
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Raghav Kumar <raghavkumar00 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste
>> Maybe this is useful. Link of Sri Subrahmanianji post given at the end.
>>
>> avidyA is upAdAna kAraNa while brahman reflected in avidyA ( triguNAtmikA
>> mAyA) is the nimitta kAraNam.
>>
>> Quote starts here -
>> "In the bhashyam for the Brahma Sutra 1.1.5 =E0=A4=88=E0=A4=95=E0=A5=8D=
> =E0=A4=B7=E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=87=E0=A4=83 =E0=A4=A8 =E0=A4=85=E0=A4=B6=E0=A4=AC=
> =E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=A6=E0=A4=AE=E0=A5=8D we have an
>> interesting question-answer:
>>
>> Brahman 'saw/deliberated/desired' and therefore we conclude that It is
>> chetana vastu.
>>
>> Now, this Brahman is the subject, =E0=A4=88=E0=A4=95=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=B7=E0=
> =A4=A3=E0=A4=95=E0=A4=B0=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=A4=E0=A4=BE. What is the object, ka=
> rma,
>> that is 'seen' by the kartA Brahman?
>>
>> Says the bhashyam: =E0=A4=95=E0=A4=BF=E0=A4=82 =E0=A4=AA=E0=A5=81=E0=A4=
> =A8=E0=A4=83 =E0=A4=A4=E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=95=E0=A4=B0=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=
> =AE, =E0=A4=AF=E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=AA=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=B0=E0=A4=BE=E0=A4=
> =97=E0=A5=81=E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=AA=E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=87=
> =E0=A4=83 =E0=A4=88=E0=A4=B6=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=B5=E0=A4=B0=E0=A4=9C=E0=A5=8D=
> =E0=A4=9E=E0=A4=BE=E0=A4=A8=E0=A4=B8=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=AF =E0=A4=B5=E0=A4=BF=
> =E0=A4=B7=E0=A4=AF=E0=A5=8B
>> =E0=A4=AD=E0=A4=B5=E0=A4=A4=E0=A4=BF ? =E0=A4=87=E0=A4=A4=E0=A4=BF =E0=A5=
> =A4 What is the object, karma, that is 'seen' by the kartA
>> Brahman, prior to creation? =E0=A4=A4=E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=8D=
> =E0=A4=B5=E0=A4=BE=E0=A4=A8=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=AF=E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=B5=E0=
> =A4=BE=E0=A4=AD=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=AF=E0=A4=BE=E0=A4=82 =E0=A4=85=E0=A4=A8=E0=
> =A4=BF=E0=A4=B0=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=B5=E0=A4=9A=E0=A4=A8=E0=A5=80=E0=A4=AF=E0=A5=
> =87 =E0=A4=A8=E0=A4=BE=E0=A4=AE=E0=A4=B0=E0=A5=82=E0=A4=AA=E0=A5=87
>> =E0=A4=85=E0=A4=B5=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=AF=E0=A4=BE=E0=A4=95=E0=A5=83=E0=A4=A4=
> =E0=A5=87 =E0=A4=B5=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=AF=E0=A4=BE=E0=A4=9A=E0=A4=BF=E0=A4=95=
> =E0=A5=80=E0=A4=B0=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=B7=E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=87 =E0=A4=87=E0=A4=A4=
> =E0=A4=BF =E0=A4=AC=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=B0=E0=A5=82=E0=A4=AE=E0=A4=83 =E0=A5=A4
>> //Name and form, we reply, which can be defined neither as being identica=
> l
>> with Brahman nor as different from it, unevolved but about to be evolved.=
> //
>>
>
>
>> This 'object' vishaya, for Brahman, the kartA, prior to creation, is:
>> avidyA/mAyA/mUlAvidyA.
>>
>
> 1) If this is admitted prior to creation, how it is reconciled with -
>
> nitya-shuddha-buddha-mukta Brahma svarUpa, as in
>
> Sruti vAkya - sad eva, saumya, idam agra AsId ekam evAdvitIyam - In the
> beginning, .. there was **existence alone** ?
>
> 2) can we know the source of this interpretation of bhAshya ( =E0=A4=85=E0=
> =A4=A8=E0=A4=BF=E0=A4=B0=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=B5=E0=A4=9A=E0=A4=A8=E0=A5=80=E0=A4=
> =AF=E0=A5=87
> =E0=A4=A8=E0=A4=BE=E0=A4=AE=E0=A4=B0=E0=A5=82=E0=A4=AA=E0=A5=87 =E0=A4=85=
> =E0=A4=B5=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=AF=E0=A4=BE=E0=A4=95=E0=A5=83=E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=87) a=
> s mUlAvidyA and its definition as upAdAna kArana, bhAva
> rUpa (Ashrita in Brahman) ?
>
> It is with this basic material that Ishwara/Brahman creates the world which
>> is the manifest form of the unmanifest. Thus, in the analysis done by
>> Shankaracharya, we have a neat subject-object-predicate tool involved. Th=
> e
>> subject is: Brahman. The Object: is the avyaktaa/maayaa/avidyaa/
>> mUlAvidyA/unmanifest/shakti/beeja-shakti. The predicate: is the
>> =E0=A4=88=E0=A4=95=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=B7=E0=A4=A3=E0=A4=95=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=B0=
> =E0=A4=BF=E0=A4=AF=E0=A4=BE the act of 'seeing/deliberating/desiring'. It i=
> s this
>> predicate that became the vital ground for the Vedantin to refute the
>> saankhyan proposition and clinch the issue in favour of the Brahman of th=
> e
>> Upanishads. And that clinching reasoning is: BECAUSE 'seeing' can be a
>> property of only a sentient being. Now, four important corollaries stem
>> from the above Bhashyam: 1. Shankara teaches that there is a =E0=A4=B5=E0=
> =A4=BF=E0=A4=B7=E0=A4=AF-=E0=A4=B5=E0=A4=BF=E0=A4=B7=E0=A4=AF=E0=A4=BF
>> realtionship between avidyA and Brahman. 2. Avidya is the viShaya and
>> Brahman, the viShayI. Therefore, the viShaya, AvidyA/ajnAna/mAya has to b=
> e
>> a bhavarUpa vastu. 3. This bhAvarUpa avidyA is the upAdaana kAraNam for t=
> he
>> world. It is with this shakti Brahman becomes the Creator. 4. This
>> bhAvarUpa avidyA is viShaya for Brahman 'before' creation. In other words=
> ,
>> prior to adhyAsa, there is a cause and this cause is avidyA."
>>
>> http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2010-March/024077.html
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>> praNAms
>>
>> Hare Krishna
>>
>>
>>
>> The mention of upAdAna kArana (instead of nimitta kArana), bhAva rUpa
>> (Ashrita in Brahman), existence of causal potentiality much before any
>> adhyAsa occurs, laya, beeja shakti wrt mUlAvidyA, possible content-wise
>> difference between tUlAvidyA and mUlAvidya?, gives rise to many
>> clarifications, as some doubts related to persistence of avidyA beeja in
>> kArana sharIra which is not removed by jnAna of adhishThAna, but require=
> s
>> samAdhi like abhyAsa to completely remove it.
>>
>> =C3=98 mUlAvidyA is the material cause (upAdAna kAraNa) for the adhyAsa=
> .
>> So, if you see the sarpa in place of rajju it is the effect of that
>> mUlAvidyA or for this mithyAjnAna (adhyAsa) the main avidyA (mUlAvidyA) i=
> s
>> the material cause. jnana of rajju can remove only this adhyAsa but not
>> its upAdAna kAraNa which is mUlAvidyA
>>
>
> As per the clarification from VenkatraghavanJi, mUlAvidyA is seen as jnAna
> virOdhi and hence destroyed with Atma jnAna uttpatti ..
>
> So, it cannot linger anymore as bhavarUpain Brahman after jnAna prApti.
>
>> which is present even in sushupti (not as jnAnAbhAva) and it is NOT an
>> antaHkaraNa dOsha-s like jnAnAbhAva, saMshaya and anyathAgrahaNa. It is
>> avidyA beeja Shakti which is existed in brahman.
>>
>
> It means, this mUlAvidya is bhavarUpa (*anirvachanIyA)* in Brahman, though
> Brahman is *ekam eva* advitIyam.
>
> Pure Existence ( sad eva) also means possible presence of bhavarUpa
> mUlAvidya?
>
>
>
>> Hence according to them brahman / Atman is the Ashraya for this mUlAvidyA
>> which is an entity or substance (adhishtAna padArtha) in bhAvarUpa.
>>
>
> If it is accepted as a padArtha, it cannot be a jnAna virOdhi as jnAna is
> vastu tantra alone..
>
>> Due to this bhAva rUpa mUlAvidyA only first brahman thought of becoming
>> =E2=80=98many=E2=80=99. So says this school of thought.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>>
>> bhaskar
>>
>
> praNAms
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Finding a good Muhurta involves looking at all the five elements of the
> panchAnga, namely, tithi, vAra, nakShatra, yoga, and karaNa. The weekday or
> vAra is just one of the factors. Although sUrya is considered to be a
> malefic in JyotiSha, the degree of his malevolence is not as great as that
> of Kuja and shani. So you will find that in many cases, if other factors
> are auspicious, Sundays become acceptable. Another obvious reason is, of
> course, the fact that Sunday is a holiday for working people and everyone
> can attend the event, which makes Sunday muhurtas particularly attractive
> and convenient.
>
> Anand
>
>
>
>
>
> On 23 Sep 2016 4:38 pm, "Ravi Kiran via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> This 'object' vishaya, for Brahman, the kartA, prior to creation, is:
>>> avidyA/mAyA/mUlAvidyA.
>>>
>>
>> 1) If this is admitted prior to creation, how it is reconciled with -
>>
>> nitya-shuddha-buddha-mukta Brahma svarUpa,
>
> As mithyA.
>
> as in
>>
>> Sruti vAkya - sad eva, saumya, idam agra AsId ekam evAdvitIyam - In the
>> beginning, .. there was **existence alone** ?
>>
> There is an anvaya needed before translation here, else it would mean there
> *was* existence and is not there now going against the very definition of
> sat! he saumya, idaM jagat agre sadeva AsIt, ekamevAdvitIyam. This world
> was existence alone earlier.
>
> --Praveen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 22 Sep 2016 11:35 pm, "V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I also wish to point to two other cases here. There was a great saint by
>> name Sridhara Swami in Sagar, Karnataka. He is extremely popular in those
>> parts. His life and teachings are worth studying. He was not a sannyasi
>> with any da=C5=9Ban=C4=81mi name.
>
> Just so that some don't misunderstand, let me clarify that Bhagavan
> Sridhara Swamiji was initiated into Advaita sampradAya sannyAsa in
> Shigehalli, Sirsi, by Swami Shivananda of Shigehalli maTha. He didn't take
> this or any pITha offered.
>
> The earlier Sringeri Jagadguru was visited by him.
>>
>
> And vice versa, if not the other way around. HH Abhinava Vidyatirtha
> Swamiji had broken his journey at Delhi to meet Bhagavan Sridhara Swamiji
> who was then there and he offered the Sringeri pITha.
>
> gurushridharArpaNamastu,
> --praveen
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>> This 'object' vishaya, for Brahman, the kartA, prior to creation, is:
>>>> avidyA/mAyA/mUlAvidyA.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 1) If this is admitted prior to creation, how it is reconciled with -
>>>
>>> nitya-shuddha-buddha-mukta Brahma svarUpa,
>>
>> As mithyA.
>>
>
> so, we are accepting mUlAvidyA presence(bhAva rupa) in Pure Existence
> ( nitya-shuddha-buddha-mukta
> Brahma svarUpa), though as mithyA ? ( just like jagat experience as mithyA
> after jnAna prApti)
>
> In that case, Pure Existence was never without mUlAvidyA (though mithyA) ?
>
>> as in
>>>
>>> Sruti vAkya - sad eva, saumya, idam agra AsId ekam evAdvitIyam - In the
>>> beginning, .. there was **existence alone** ?
>>>
>> There is an anvaya needed before translation here, else it would mean
>> there *was* existence and is not there now
>>
> Existence alone IS :)
>
> Isn't the context , in the beginning ( before creation, before jagat,
> before world).. Pure Existence alone IS ( without any mithyA) ? :)
>
>> going against the very definition of sat! he saumya, idaM jagat agre
>> sadeva AsIt, ekamevAdvitIyam. This world was existence alone earlier.
>>
>
> this anvaya introduced the world, to link the context to, after creation as
> well...a nice attempt :)
>
>
>
>> --Praveen
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> JnAni being embodied is only from an ajnAni's perspective. From jnAni's
> perspective, he was not, is not, will not be embodied. This distinction of
> jIvanmukti and videhamukti are all from vyAvahArika standpoint only. A
> jnAni considers himself as nityamukta.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On 23 Sep 2016 12:52 p.m., "Bhaskar YR" <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
>
>> praNAms
>>
>> Hare Krishna
>>
>> As per the clarification from VenkatraghavanJi, mUlAvidyA is seen as jnAn=
> a
>> virOdhi and hence destroyed with Atma jnAna uttpatti ..
>>
>> =C3=98 Yes, this is what I too said, since mUlAvidyA is jnana virOdhi l=
> ike
>> other avidyA lakshaNa-s, it would go after tattva jnana.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, it cannot linger anymore as bhavarUpain Brahman after jnAna prApti.
>>
>>
>>
>> =C3=98 Yes, that would be the ideal case. But as long as jnAni is
>> embodied he will be having avidyA lesha though he is Jeevan mukta only
>> after videha mukti he would attain atyantika Atmaikatva jnana.
>>
>>
>>
>> which is present even in sushupti (not as jnAnAbhAva) and it is NOT an
>> antaHkaraNa dOsha-s like jnAnAbhAva, saMshaya and anyathAgrahaNa. It is
>> avidyA beeja Shakti which is existed in brahman.
>>
>>
>>
>> It means, this mUlAvidya is bhavarUpa (*anirvachanIyA)* in Brahman,
>> though Brahman is *ekam eva* advitIyam.
>>
>> Yes, that is what they will say to drive home the point that for the
>> srushta this =E2=80=98avidyA=E2=80=99 is the preraka Shakti in brahman.
>>
>>
>>
>> Pure Existence ( sad eva) also means possible presence of bhavarUpa
>> mUlAvidya? If it is accepted as a padArtha, it cannot be a jnAna virOdhi
>> as jnAna is vastu tantra alone..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =C3=98 Perhaps you might not aware of this vyAkhyAna. But let me sto=
> p
>> here prabhuji. This topic had come for some vigorous/bitter discussion
>> earlier in this group and due to which I had lost satsangha of somany goo=
> d
>> prabhuji-s. Hence donot want to re-kindle this issue with a fresh debate=
> .
>>
>>
>> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>>
>> bhaskar
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There is a saying (Not related to this, but not unrelated either)
> Men have tongue, tongue does not have bones, so one can twist anyway one
> wants to :)
>
> To be safe, it is always better to first have abase in a traditional
> sampradAya. Once the traditional base becomes the base of our life i.e.
> becomes a part of us, one can then read any works of non-traditional
> sampradAya or any saint.
>
> Hare Krishna
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for giving another view than that of familiar sampradAya which
>> is traditional. If we take past life into account than many things that a
>> GYAnI undergoes in this life like sravaNa, manan, etc is already
>> accomplished in past life of some dhyana siddha yoga brashTa jIvAtmA-s.
>>
>> praNAms Sri Sujal prabhuji
>> Hare Krishna
>>
>> Yes, according to this provision, any person, who his / her followers
>> think that he is brahma jnAni would become sAMpradAyik Acharya :-) since
>> his followers can always argue that he completed the formalities in pUrva
>> janma/janma-s itself to bring him within the ambit of orthodox saMpradAya
>> :-) BTW, the discussion about phala of shravaNAdi sAdhana in sUtra
>> bhAshya (IhikAdhikaraNa) is not to ignore the sAmpradAyik background in
>> current janma of the jnAni / sAdhaka, it is there to discuss the issues
>> like, if there is any obstruction due to karmAntara vipAka, the shravaNAdi
>> sAdhana would not bear the fruit (jnana) in previous janma however if there
>> is no obstruction as such in this janma the sAdhaka of shravanAdi sAdhana
>> would get the jnana in current janma itself etc. At any stretch of our
>> imagination we cannot hold it as pramANa to justify the lack of saMpradAya
>> of a particular jnAni :-)
>>
>> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>> bhaskar
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>> praNAms
>>
>> Hare Krishna
>>
>> As per the clarification from VenkatraghavanJi, mUlAvidyA is seen as jnAn=
> a
>> virOdhi and hence destroyed with Atma jnAna uttpatti ..
>>
>> =C3=98 Yes, this is what I too said, since mUlAvidyA is jnana virOdhi l=
> ike
>> other avidyA lakshaNa-s, it would go after tattva jnana.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, it cannot linger anymore as bhavarUpain Brahman after jnAna prApti.
>>
>>
>>
>> =C3=98 Yes, that would be the ideal case. But as long as jnAni is
>> embodied he will be having avidyA lesha though he is Jeevan mukta only
>> after videha mukti he would attain atyantika Atmaikatva jnana.
>>
>
> Yes, if jnAni is accepted as having avidyA lesha ( prArabdha..), what about
> one's tattva jnAna, so attained ?
>
> Is it atyantika avidyA nivrutti or is there any more lingering beeja (being
> a padartha) ?
>
>>
>>
>> which is present even in sushupti (not as jnAnAbhAva) and it is NOT an
>> antaHkaraNa dOsha-s like jnAnAbhAva, saMshaya and anyathAgrahaNa. It is
>> avidyA beeja Shakti which is existed in brahman.
>>
>>
>>
>> It means, this mUlAvidya is bhavarUpa (*anirvachanIyA)* in Brahman,
>> though Brahman is *ekam eva* advitIyam.
>>
>> Yes, that is what they will say to drive home the point that for the
>> srushta this =E2=80=98avidyA=E2=80=99 is the preraka Shakti in brahman.
>>
>>
>>
>> Pure Existence ( sad eva) also means possible presence of bhavarUpa
>> mUlAvidya? If it is accepted as a padArtha, it cannot be a jnAna virOdhi
>> as jnAna is vastu tantra alone..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =C3=98 Perhaps you might not aware of this vyAkhyAna. But let me sto=
> p
>> here prabhuji. This topic had come for some vigorous/bitter discussion
>> earlier in this group and due to which I had lost satsangha of somany goo=
> d
>> prabhuji-s. Hence donot want to re-kindle this issue with a fresh debate=
> .
>>
>
> Yes, neither do I want to lose precious satsangha here.. Let me rest my
> questions here ..
>
>
>>
>> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>>
>> bhaskar
>>
>
> praNAms
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On 23 Sep 2016 1:17 p.m., "Bhaskar YR" <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
>
>> JnAni being embodied is only from an ajnAni's perspective. From jnAni's
>> perspective, he was not, is not, will not be embodied. This distinction o=
> f
>> jIvanmukti and videhamukti are all from vyAvahArika standpoint only. A
>> jnAni considers himself as nityamukta.
>>
>> praNAms
>>
>> Hare Krishna
>>
>>
>>
>> Very well said prabhuji. These are the exact words I too used when the
>> jnAni=E2=80=99s BMI, prArabda karma etc. discussion at its peak. Unfort=
> unately
>> not gone well with some knowers of tradition.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>>
>> Bhaskar
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We can have the three ideas of
> 1. Clay objects ie., nama rupa-s
> 2. Clay lump mRtpiNDam i.e., the first undifferentiated kArya from which
> all other nama rupa are formed.
> 3. Clay i.e., enjoys kAraNam status w.r.t. the karya. But later to be
> understood as devoid of even kAraNopAdhi.
>
> This understanding of the same word 'sat' is to be arrived at later on and
> not when jagat sRShTi is going to be explained. In the verses subsequent to
> sadevasaumya idam agre AsIt the topic deals with sRShTi prakriya, so the
> word 'tad' and 'sat' both are kAraNopAdhisahitam brahma.
>
> =E0=A4=A4=E0=A4=A6=E0=A5=88=E0=A4=95=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=B7=E0=A4=A4 =E0=A4=AC=
> =E0=A4=B9=E0=A5=81 =E0=A4=B8=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=AF=E0=A4=BE=E0=A4=82 =E0=A4=AA=
> =E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=B0=E0=A4=9C=E0=A4=BE=E0=A4=AF=E0=A5=87=E0=A4=AF=E0=A5=87=E0=
> =A4=A4=E0=A4=BF =E0=A4=A4=E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=87=E0=A4=9C=E0=
> =A5=8B=E0=A4=BD=E0=A4=B8=E0=A5=83=E0=A4=9C=E0=A4=A4 =E0=A4=A4=E0=A4=A4=E0=
> =A5=8D=E0=A4=A4=E0=A5=87=E0=A4=9C =E0=A4=90=E0=A4=95=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=B7=E0=
> =A4=A4 =E0=A4=AC=E0=A4=B9=E0=A5=81 =E0=A4=B8=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=AF=E0=A4=BE=E0=
> =A4=82
> =E0=A4=AA=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=B0=E0=A4=9C=E0=A4=BE=E0=A4=AF=E0=A5=87=E0=A4=AF=E0=
> =A5=87=E0=A4=A4=E0=A4=BF =E0=A4=A4=E0=A4=A6=E0=A4=AA=E0=A5=8B=E0=A4=BD=E0=
> =A4=B8=E0=A5=83=E0=A4=9C=E0=A4=A4
>
> This difference between kAraNam brahma and kAryam brahma can
> from a different perspective be understood to be the same as what Sri
> Chandrashekhara Bharati Swamiji mentions in Dialogues.
>
> There we have Ishvara or kAraNam brahma who by merely his sAkShitvam
> triggers creation. But for this that same sAkShi Ishvara reflected in
> triguNAtmikA mAyA becomes kArya brahman or mAyopahitam brahma, a term used
> synonymously with hiraNyagarbha the vedapuruSha who deals with the nitty
> gritty of sRShTi sthiti and laya.
>
> It may be difficult to give an exact analogy. But we can use the following.
>
> The Original Sun which illuminates a bowl of water compared to kAraNam
> brahma or Ishvara.
> The reflected Sun which is visible in the water is kArya brahma or
> hiraNyagarbha whose 'presence' in the water energizes it and causes
> convection evaporation etc. In each kalpa this reflection can be said to
> change and a new mahApuruSha is given the status of hiraNyagarbha.
>
> The water itself is avidyA/mAyA which is the viShaya of the viShayin.
>
> Incidentally it is said sri hanuman is going to be the firstborn
> hiraNyagarbha in the next kalpa or cycle of creation. I do not know the
> original reference for this.
>
> Om
> Raghav
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>> This 'object' vishaya, for Brahman, the kartA, prior to creation,
> is:
>>>>> avidyA/mAyA/mUlAvidyA.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1) If this is admitted prior to creation, how it is reconciled with -
>>>>
>>>> nitya-shuddha-buddha-mukta Brahma svarUpa,
>>>
>>> As mithyA.
>>>
>>
>> so, we are accepting mUlAvidyA presence(bhAva rupa) in Pure Existence
>> ( nitya-shuddha-buddha-mukta
>> Brahma svarUpa), though as mithyA ? ( just like jagat experience as mithy=
> A
>> after jnAna prApti)
>>
>> In that case, Pure Existence was never without mUlAvidyA (though mithyA) =
> ?
>>
>>> as in
>>>>
>>>> Sruti vAkya - sad eva, saumya, idam agra AsId ekam evAdvitIyam - In
> the
>>>> beginning, .. there was **existence alone** ?
>>>>
>>> There is an anvaya needed before translation here, else it would mean
>>> there *was* existence and is not there now
>>>
>> Existence alone IS :)
>>
>> Isn't the context , in the beginning ( before creation, before jagat,
>> before world).. Pure Existence alone IS ( without any mithyA) ? :)
>>
>>> going against the very definition of sat! he saumya, idaM jagat agre
>>> sadeva AsIt, ekamevAdvitIyam. This world was existence alone earlier.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> JnAni being embodied is only from an ajnAni's perspective.
>
>
> Even jnAnI's mukti is from ajnAnI's perspective only, in pAramarthika there
> being no bandha or mukti. Why that, even jnAni's body is seen belonging to
> the jnAnI as prArabdha by the ajnAnI, just as the latter considers his own
> body to be his own.
>
>
>> From jnAni's
>> perspective, he was not, is not, will not be embodied.
>
>
> If a jnAnI has a perspective, that is also superimposed by an ajnAnI.
> However, all that is perceived has to be explained. So jnAnI having sharIra
> as prArabdha, he is seen to take care of it as sharIradharma.
>
>
>
>> This distinction of
>> jIvanmukti and videhamukti are all from vyAvahArika standpoint only.
>
>
> His upAdhi would limit the jnAnaphala based on his level of niShThA, hence
> the categories even for jnAnIs and videhamukti as a stage where upAdhi no
> longer limits in any way.
>
>
>> A
>> jnAni considers himself as nityamukta.
>
>
> Once again, the very idea of jnAni "considering" something indicates
> jIvabhAva, individualization, which means avidyAlesha.
>
> On another point you had made earlier:
>
>> Same way for avidyA too. Whether it
>> is bhAva rUpa or abhAva rUpa, when jnAna arises it ceases to be. (and it
>> never was nor will be).
>
> Anything that is abhAvarUpa cannot and does not have to cease to be on rise
> of jnAna since it was never there. Moreover, if anything abhAvarUpa can
> cause a problem then what is to stop it from doing anything else? We will
> have no say against Buddhists shUnyavAda then! Ergo, the na~n in avidyA is
> virodhArthe na~n, which means that which opposed vidyA, not abhAvarthe as
> in not being there at all. The same counter to Buddhism works here, if you
> say avidyA *is* bhAvarUpa, the *isness* is the basis for its presence, and
> its virodha, so it cannot not be at all. So the sampradAya says yatki~ncit
> bhAvarUpa.
>
>
> Kind rgds,
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
> [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>
>
>
>
>
>> Namaste Subbuji,
>>
>> On 22 Sep 2016 11:35 pm, "V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l" <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I also wish to point to two other cases here. There was a great saint =
> by
>>> name Sridhara Swami in Sagar, Karnataka. He is extremely popular in tho=
> se
>>> parts. His life and teachings are worth studying. He was not a sannyas=
> i
>>> with any da=C5=9Ban=C4=81mi name.
>>
>> Just so that some don't misunderstand, let me clarify that Bhagavan
>> Sridhara Swamiji was initiated into Advaita sampradAya sannyAsa in
>> Shigehalli, Sirsi, by Swami Shivananda of Shigehalli maTha. He didn't tak=
> e
>> this or any pITha offered.
>>
>
> Thanks for your response. I mentioned about the da=C5=9Ban=C4=81mi name be=
> cause the
> website says that his pre-monastic name was also Shreedhara...Normally the
> monastic name will be different with some additional 'Ananda', etc. like
> for example, Shivananda who you mention above.
>
>> The earlier Sringeri Jagadguru was visited by him.
>>>
>>
>> And vice versa, if not the other way around. HH Abhinava Vidyatirtha
>> Swamiji had broken his journey at Delhi to meet Bhagavan Sridhara Swamiji
>> who was then there and he offered the Sringeri pITha.
>>
> Is it possible for you to give the approximate year of this? In Sringeri
> the practice followed is that the reigning Head will himself give sannyasa
> to the successor designate. Someone who is already a sannyasin will not be
> a candidate for consideration. The present Jagadguru Sri Bharati Tirtha
> Swamiji was given sannyasa by the then Jagadguru in 1974 after some eight
> years of study in Sringeri.
>
> http://www.sringeri.net/jagadgurus/sri-bharati-tirtha-mahaswamiji/biography=
> -of-sri-bharati-tirtha-mahaswamiji
>
> There are other considerations like the person to be selected for the
> p=C4=AB=E1=B9=ADham will have to be from Yajurveda =C5=9B=C4=81kh=C4=81.
>
>
>
> regards
> vs
>
>
>> gurushridharArpaNamastu,
>> --praveen
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 8:43 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Just so that some don't misunderstand, let me clarify that Bhagavan
>>> Sridhara Swamiji was initiated into Advaita sampradAya sannyAsa in
>>> Shigehalli, Sirsi, by Swami Shivananda of Shigehalli maTha. He didn't ta=
> ke
>>> this or any pITha offered.
>>>
>>
>> I mentioned about the da=C5=9Ban=C4=81mi name because the website says th=
> at his
>> pre-monastic name was also Shreedhara...Normally the monastic name will b=
> e
>> different with some additional 'Ananda', etc.
>>
>
> As I said I clarified only so that others don't end up thinking that he
> wasn't a sannyAsi. He was a sampradAya sannyAsi but as you say his name
> continued without the dashanAmi sannyAsa name like Bhagavatpada's did.
>
>> The earlier Sringeri Jagadguru was visited by him.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And vice versa, if not the other way around. HH Abhinava Vidyatirtha
>>> Swamiji had broken his journey at Delhi to meet Bhagavan Sridhara Swamij=
> i
>>> who was then there and he offered the Sringeri pITha.
>>>
>> Is it possible for you to give the approximate year of this?
>>
> I'm sorry, I don't recall if the date was mentioned in the Shridhara
> Swamiji's charita which has this information. I currently don't have the
> book to look it up.
>
>
>> In Sringeri the practice followed is that the reigning Head will himself
>> give sannyasa to the successor designate. Someone who is already a
>> sannyasin will not be a candidate for consideration. The present Jagadgur=
> u
>> Sri Bharati Tirtha Swamiji was given sannyasa by the then Jagadguru in 19=
> 74
>> after some eight years of study in Sringeri.
>>
>
>> http://www.sringeri.net/jagadgurus/sri-bharati-tirtha-
>> mahaswamiji/biography-of-sri-bharati-tirtha-mahaswamiji
>>
>> There are other considerations like the person to be selected for the
>> p=C4=AB=E1=B9=ADham will have to be from Yajurveda =C5=9B=C4=81kh=C4=81.
>>
> I know these rules of Sringeri maTha, but it may have been an exceptional
> case, if that. There are some other things I would like to mention but I
> will take it offline with you. Thanks.
>
> Kind rgds,
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
> [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>
>
>
>
>
> You may be slightly frustrated at the answers in line below, so apologies
> in advance!
>
> On 23 Sep 2016 4:12 p.m., "Praveen R. Bhat" <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>> JnAni being embodied is only from an ajnAni's perspective.
>>
>>
>> Even jnAnI's mukti is from ajnAnI's perspective only, in pAramarthika
> there being no bandha or mukti. Why that, even jnAni's body is seen
> belonging to the jnAnI as prArabdha by the ajnAnI, just as the latter
> considers his own body to be his own.
>
> Indeed.
>
>>> From jnAni's
>>> perspective, he was not, is not, will not be embodied.
>>
>>
>> If a jnAnI has a perspective, that is also superimposed by an ajnAnI.
>
> Yes.
>
> "However, all that is perceived has to be explained. So jnAnI having
> sharIra as prArabdha, he is seen to take care of it as sharIradharma."
>
> Explained to whom? Only to the ajnAni. As you correctly say, he is "seen to
> take care of it". In actuality there is no seeing or taking care.
>
>>>
>>> This distinction of
>>> jIvanmukti and videhamukti are all from vyAvahArika standpoint only.
>>
>>
>> His upAdhi would limit the jnAnaphala based on his level of niShThA,
> hence the categories even for jnAnIs and videhamukti as a stage where
> upAdhi no longer limits in any way.
>
> Again these are only vyAvahArika constructs. I am not wedded to them, but
> if you see any merit in preserving them, I see no harm in it.
>
>>>
>>> A
>>> jnAni considers himself as nityamukta.
>
>> Once again, the very idea of jnAni "considering" something indicates
> jIvabhAva, individualization, which means avidyAlesha.
>
> The use of "considering" was only a figure of speech. I don't have any
> qualms accepting avidyAlesha, but again that is only a vyAvahArika
> construct.
>
>> On another point you had made earlier:
>>>
>>> Same way for avidyA too. Whether it
>>> is bhAva rUpa or abhAva rUpa, when jnAna arises it ceases to be. (and it
>>> never was nor will be).
>>
>> Anything that is abhAvarUpa cannot and does not have to cease to be on
> rise of jnAna since it was never there. Moreover, if anything abhAvarUpa
> can cause a problem then what is to stop it from doing anything else? We
> will have no say against Buddhists shUnyavAda then! Ergo, the na~n in
> avidyA is virodhArthe na~n, which means that which opposed vidyA, not
> abhAvarthe as in not being there at all. The same counter to Buddhism works
> here, if you say avidyA *is* bhAvarUpa, the *isness* is the basis for its
> presence, and its virodha, so it cannot not be at all. So the sampradAya
> says yatki~ncit bhAvarUpa.
>
> I do not believe avidyA to be abhAvarUpa. So I am fully in agreement with
> your arguments for yatkinchit bhavarupa.
>
> My point is we are anyway going to do apavAda of it, so why split hairs.
>
> 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
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list