[Advaita-l] What is Krishna's 'tattva'?

[Venkatraghavan S]

Ok that is fine. I don't understand where you are going with this though?

Regards
Venkatraghavan

2017-11-22 9:20 GMT+00:00 H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>:

> Swami Gambhirananda translation
>
> << Name and form which constitute the seeds of the entire expanse of
> phenomenal existence, and which are conjured up by nescience, are, as it
> were, non-different from the omniscient God,...... >>.
>
> The  " as it were " refers to " Name and form " and not " nescience ". I am
> not sure if I am making a mistake here.
>
> Regards
>
> 2017-11-22 14:37 GMT+05:30 Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>:
>
> > Please see where the word iva occurs in advaita sharada (its with the
> next
> > word इवाविद्याकल्पिते) and how Sw Gambhirananda translates it. Anyway
> the q
> > was rhetorical as the answer is given in the email itself. By denying
> > difference between effect and cause, identity is not affirmed.
> > The same idea is conveyed by the bhAmatikAra -  न खल्वनन्यत्वमित्यभेदं
> > ब्रूमः, किन्तु भेदं व्यासेधामः and the siddhikAra - अभेदे
> > कार्यकारणभावव्याहत्या कथंचिदपि भेदस्यावश्याभ्युपेयत्वात्.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Venkatraghavan
> >
> > On 22 Nov 2017 8:36 a.m., "H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l" <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> > Reg  << 2) names and forms, which are as though conjured by ignorance,
> are
> > the
> > seeds of the world, and are part of Ishvara.
> > ​>>,
> >
> > Perhaps  " which are as though conjured by ignorance " should read as "
> > which are conjured by ignorance " and  "are part of Ishvara" should read
> > as " are as though part of Ishvara" ?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > 2017-11-22 13:50 GMT+05:30 H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Reg  << Why does Shankara say that names and forms are sarvajnasya
> > > Ishvarasya
> > > AtmabhUta (ie they are part of him), and later say sarvajna: Ishvara:
> > > tAbhyAm anya: (ie he is different from them)?
> > > ​ >>,
> > >
> > > The important word
> > > इव
> > > ​ (
> > >  iva
> > > ​)​
> > > ​appears to be
> > >  misssing from
> > > ​t​
> > > he translation.
> > > ​I think t
> > > his leads to the question mark.​
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > 2017-11-22 12:40 GMT+05:30 Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>:
> > >
> > >> Yes, the effect is non different from the cause. However it does not
> > mean
> > >> the cause is same as the effect.
> > >>
> > >> Please read the full bhAShya of 2.1.14.
> > >>
> > >> Especially: सर्वज्ञस्येश्वरस्यात्मभूते इवाविद्याकल्पिते
> > >> नामरूपेतत्त्वान्यत्वाभ्यामनिर्वचनीये
> > >> संसारप्रपञ्चबीजभूतेसर्वज्ञस्येश्वरस्य मायाशक्तिः प्रकृतिरिति
> > >> चश्रुतिस्मृत्योरभिलप्येते ; ताभ्यामन्यः सर्वज्ञ ईश्वरः,
> > >>
> > >> Why does Shankara say that names and forms are sarvajnasya Ishvarasya
> > >> AtmabhUta (ie they are part of him), and later say sarvajna: Ishvara:
> > >> tAbhyAm anya: (ie he is different from them)?
> > >>
> > >> *Thus, the effect is non different from the cause, but the cause is
> > >> different from the effect.*
> > >>
> > >> Continuing,
> > >>  एवमविद्याकृतनामरूपोपाध्यनुरोधीश्वरो भवति,
> > >> व्योमेवघटकरकाद्युपाध्यनुरोधि ; स च
> > >> स्वात्मभूतानेवघटाकाशस्थानीयानविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितनामरूपकृतका
> > >> र्यकरणसङ्घातानुरोधिनो
> > >> जीवाख्यान्विज्ञानात्मनः प्रतीष्टेव्यवहारविषये ;
> > >> *तदेवमविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेदापेक्षमेवेश्वरस्येश्वरत्वं
> > >> सर्वज्ञत्वंसर्वशक्तित्वं च, न परमार्थतो विद्यया
> > >> अपास्तसर्वोपाधिस्वरूपेआत्मनि ईशित्रीशितव्यसर्वज्ञत्वादिव्यवहार
> > >> उपपद्यते ;  *
> > >> He is saying that Ishvara's omniscience, etc are contingent upon the
> > >> avidyAtmaka upAdhi, and without such an upAdhi there is no rulership,
> > >> omniscience etc.
> > >>
> > >> To summarise, the same bhAShya passage says
> > >> 1) the world is non different from Brahman
> > >> 2) names and forms, which are as though conjured by ignorance, are the
> > >> seeds of the world, and are part of Ishvara.
> > >> 3) However Ishvara is different from them.
> > >> 4) His omniscience depends on the upAdhi conjured up ignorance.
> > >> 5) Free of upAdhi, there is neither ruler, nor ruled, nor omniscience
> > etc.
> > >>
> > >> The only way these multiple statements can simultaneously hold true is
> > if
> > >> they are being said from two frames of reference. In vyavahAra, you
> have
> > >> names and forms from ignorance, out of which this world appears. Such
> a
> > >> world is non different from Brahman. However Ishvara, whose
> omniscience
> > >> stems from an upAdhi conjured up by ignorance, is different from them.
> > >>
> > >> In paramArtha, there is no ignorance, thus no upAdhi, nor names and
> > forms
> > >> and no world. Talk of non difference with Brahman is absurd here,
> > because
> > >> there is only one entity, so there is neither difference nor non
> > >> difference.
> > >>
> > >> It is knowledge of such a upAdhi rahita Brahman that is moksha, thus
> > there
> > >> is no point holding on to ananyatvam of kArya, look at the kArya
> kAraNa
> > >> atIta vastu.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Venkatraghavan
> > >>
> > >> On 22 Nov 2017 4:26 a.m., "Durga Prasad Janaswamy via Advaita-l" <
> > >> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hari Om,
> > >> >
> > >> > Pranams.
> > >> >
> > >> > Everything not Brahman is asat.
> > >> >
> > >> > mithyA is non-difference from, i.e.non-existence in isolation from,
> > >> > Brahman.
> > >> >
> > >> > Brahma Sutra: 2.1.14
> > >> > अभ्युपगम्य चेमं व्यावहारिकं भोक्तृभोग्यलक्षणं विभागम् ‘
> स्याल्लोकवत्’
> > >> इति
> > >> > परिहारोऽभिहितः ; न त्वयं विभागः परमार्थतोऽस्ति, यस्मात्तयोः
> > >> > कार्यकारणयोरनन्यत्वमवगम्यते । कार्यमाकाशादिकं बहुप्रपञ्चं जगत् ;
> कारणं
> > >> परं
> > >> > ब्रह्म ; तस्मात्कारणात्परमार्थतोऽनन्यत्वं व्यतिरेकेणाभावः
> > >> > कार्यस्यावगम्यते ।
> > >> >
> > >> > Swami Gambhirananda's translation:
> > >> > Assuming, for the sake of argument, an empirical difference between
> > the
> > >> > experiencer and the things experienced, the refutation (under the
> > >> previous
> > >> > aphorism) was advance by holding that "the distinction can well
> exist
> > as
> > >> > observed in common experience". But in reality, this difference does
> > not
> > >> > exist, since a non-difference between those cause and effect is
> > >> recognized.
> > >> > The effect is the universe, diversified as space etc. and the cause
> is
> > >> the
> > >> > supreme Brahman. In reality it is known that the effect has
> > >> non-difference
> > >> > from, i.e.non-existence in isolation from, that cause.
> > >> >
> > >> > regards
> > >> > -- durga prasad
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> > >> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Namaste Sri Sreenivasa Murthy,
> > >> > > To clarify, all my email is saying that there is nothing beyond
> you
> > -
> > >> > > nothing outside, nothing inside. The methodology given in shruti -
> > >> neti
> > >> > > neti is also saying that. There is nothing to memorize, nothing to
> > >> > > interiorize, only stuff to be given up. Every conception of
> Brahman
> > is
> > >> > not
> > >> > > Brahman. Everything not Brahman is mithyA. Everything mithyA is to
> > be
> > >> > given
> > >> > > up.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Kind 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
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>