[Advaita-l] Accounting for Brahman appearing as the world

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:20 PM, sreenivasa murthy <narayana145 at yahoo.co.in
> wrote:

> Dear Sri Subramanian,
>
>  You write : " An explanation attributed to Swami Vivekananda The first
> one is
> reducing one's ego completely, bhakti. The second one is expanding one's
> ego so large as to loose all pettiness."
>
>       Can an entity do that? How to do it?
>

The sadhanas stated in the Bhagavadgita and Upanishads help one achieve
that.



> With respectful namaskars,
> Sreenivasa Murthy
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> *To:* A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
> vedanta.org>
> *Cc:* V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, 11 September 2017 11:34 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Advaita-l] Accounting for Brahman appearing as the world
>
> An explanation attributed to Swami Vivekananda:  A fish caught in a net can
> escape in two ways: it can squeeze itself and get out of a hole in the net.
> It can expand so big as to come out bursting the net. The first one is
> reducing one's ego completely, bhakti. The second one is expanding one's
> ego so large as to loose all pettiness. This is jnana.
>
> vs
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Namaste
> >
> > A good Upama will help us to understand better. Rivers like Ganga and
> > Kaveri will join the ocean. When the rivers join the ocean there is no
> more
> > Ganga and Kaveri in the ocean. We cannot say this water here in the ocean
> > is Ganga and this water is Kaveri water. Everything is ocean only.
> > Therefore the Ganga and Kaveri are lost in the ocean and no more. This is
> > Baadha. But we can say also Ganga and Kaveri have merged into ocean. They
> > have become One with ocean. This is Aikya. Similarly Aham Brahma is
> > explained in two ways. Aham can get lost and wiped out and Brahman only
> > remains. Or we can say Aham has merged with Brahman. Both are correct.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:01 AM, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Raghav ji,
> > >
> > > With reference to the Tat, the sense gained generally is: a saguṇa
> entity
> > > that is the Lord of the universe being the cause, sustainer, etc. This
> is
> > > also actually Chit alone.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > subbu
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
> > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Namaste Subbu ji
> > > > Thank you for the explanations.
> > > > You are saying that the resolution of jagat as brahma (by bAdha) is
> not
> > > > entirely different from 'conventional ahaM' resolving in to its
> > > > adhiShThAnaM brahma in the case where ahaM and brahma are having the
> > > > primary meaning of cid-avivikta-abhAsaH where the primary meaning is
> > > > *entirely* given up through jahallakShaNA and in such a case we could
> > > hold
> > > > that bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNyam does indeed hold  in this 'second case' ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just need some more clarity about the word cid-avivikta-abhAsaH ...
> Or
> > to
> > > > put it a little in detail below
> > > >
> > > > On 10-Sep-2017 10:54 PM, "V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l" <
> > > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear All,
> > > >
> > > > I think the various views/understandings expressed in this thread can
> > be
> > > > reconciled.  In the book 'Sridakṣiṇāmūrtistotram Vol.1, on page 506
> us
> > a
> > > > subtitle: 6.6.14 Interpetation of the Mahavakya - Jahallakṣaṇā. There
> > the
> > > > method is stated thus:
> > > >
> > > > //In the school which speaks in terms of the ābhāsavāda prakriyā, the
> > > > primary senses of 'That' and 'thou' are taken either as
> ābhā-aviviktam
> > > > chaitanyam, i.e, Consciousness as not distinguished from the apparent
> > > > consciousness or as chidaviviktābhāsaḥ, i.e., the apparent
> > consciousness
> > > as
> > > > not distinguished from the Consciousness, as pointed out by the
> > > > Nyāyaratnāvalī on the Siddhāntabindu (1). In the first case, the
> > > Mahāvākya
> > > > is to be understood by having recourse to partial abandonment i.e.,
> the
> > > > bhāgatyāgalakṣaṇā as has been delineated
> > > >
> > > > In the second case,
> > > > however, it is to be understood by having recourse to the
> jahallakṣaṇā
> > > > i.e., the total abandonment of the primary senses of the words 'That'
> > and
> > > > 'thou' by pointing to the Consciousness that is the Substratum.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This second case is not clear to me ... Tvam pada primary meaning
> being
> > > > cid-avivikta-abhAsaH  'apparent consciousness not distinguished from
> > > > Consciousness' ,  is comprehensible  but what would be the primary
> > > meaning
> > > > of the word 'That' in the second case, 'apparent consciousness not
> > > > distinguished from Consciousness'? This phrase is not clear esp. in
> the
> > > > context of 'That'.
> > > >
> > > > Also on a different note, isn't jahallakShaNA also used in the case
> > where
> > > > 'tvam pada' is still having paricchinatvaM while tat-pada is nirguNam
> > > > brahma?
> > > >
> > > > On
> > > > sublation of what is illusorily regarded in parlance as the meaning
> of
> > > the
> > > > word 'thou', the Substratum that is the Consciousness, stands out. So
> > > also
> > > > in the case of the meaning of the word 'That.'//
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It is this sublation, bādha, that is meant by 'apavāda' in the BSB
> > 3.3.9
> > > > (that I had cited earlier). The Bhāṣyaratnaprabhā says:
> > > > बुद्धिपूर्वकाभेदारोपोऽध्यासः,
> > > > बाधोऽपवादः.  The wrong identity with body-mind complex is given up
> > > through
> > > > right knowledge and the substratum Chit becomes apparent. The
> > contingency
> > > > of 'aham nāsmi' too does not arise.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This I understand is the same as sarvam
> > > > (jagat) brahma where the jagat is negated and the Substratum Brahman
> > > alone
> > > > stands out. The difference between bhāgatyāga.. and jahallak....is
> that
> > > in
> > > > the former the adhyasta part is given up, tyakta and the anandhyasta
> > part
> > > > is retained. In the latter there is no recognition of parts (bhāga)
> and
> > > the
> > > > entire anubhūta vastu is given up which by itself gives place for the
> > > > substratum to come to the limelight.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now my doubt is clearer...I can understand tvam-shabda the anubhUta
> > vastu
> > > > being,  'given up for' / resolving in to,  its adhiSThAnaM but what
> > would
> > > > it mean to say that tat-padam or brahma as *anubhUta vastu* is given
> > up?
> > > >
> > > > This is in agreement with what is
> > > > articulated by Sri SSS:  <<  The way the understanding of the nature
> “
> > > this
> > > > stalk of a tree is a man only “ by a person completely negates the
> idea
> > > of
> > > > the tree stalk, the  understanding  “I am Brahman “ completely
> negates
> > > the
> > > > idea of “ I “( aham )  ( in anAtma, anything else ) >>.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you
> > > > Om
> > > > Raghav
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think the difference between the two lakṣaṇās lies in the way the
> > > > Acharyas have presented the thought; the end-result does not changing
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > warm regards
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>