[Advaita-l] (no subject)

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Praveen Ji,



Reg  << but as that hearing which makes the ear to be an ear, that sight
which makes the sight be a sight>>,



the understanding I have given, and which appealed to me, is what is given
by Sri Mani Dravid Shastrigal in his tamil translation (audio) on
Kenopanishad



Regards

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> ​Namaste Chandramouliji,​
>
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 6:55 PM, H S Chandramouli <
> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree it has not been used  as such. That is the reason why I said I
>> need it for my personal use. However when it is said that mAyA/avidya  is
>> responsible for srishti (through pariNAma) in some contexts, it has the
>> same connotation as in the bhashya for any of terms shrotra/manah etc.
>> Why do you conclude otherwise?
>>
> The difference I see is thus: श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रं, चक्षुषः चक्षुः, ​
> मनसो
> ​ मनः​, don't directly lead to the inner-essence of each of those, but as
> that hearing which makes the ear to be an ear, that sight which makes the
> sight be a sight, etc. Now, with Maya and avidyA, I do not think we would
> agree to say that that which makes Maya to be Maya or avidyA to be avidyA,
> since to avoid the doSha of nirguNa being a cause, we bring in Maya/
> avidyA. If we use this phrase, I think it would lead to saying that Maya or
> avidyA deludes because of brahma, which is clearly not the case.
>
> gurupAdukAbhyAm,
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
> ​
>