[Advaita-l] Sleep, tamas and brahman

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Thu May 3 04:09:41 EDT 2018

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Kalyan via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> //There is a saying in Sanskrit: abaddham paThitvA kuchodyam karoti - which
> means: a person studies a text disjointedly and raises irrelevant
> objections.//
> If these are "irrelevant" objections, at least I dont see you answering
> them. When pointed out that BU 4.3 has so many statements denying ignorance
> in deep sleep, you have gone completely silent on the main issue.

To demonstrate that the objections are irrelevant, the saying, and the
replies were necessary. You call my so many replies related to BU 4.3
'silence'? The meaning of 'denial' of avidya there is clearly stated,
clarified. If you are not willing to take it, it is only silence on your

> // It is wrong to expect the 'complete'
> teaching to be available explicitly in one text/bhashya itself//
> No such rule exists.

That such a rule is admitted by Shankara / sampradaya is evident from the
very many bhashyas he has penned.

>  //In the case on hand, we have Shankara giving the 'ruling' (in
> the Mandukya Bhashya)  that 'in all the Upanishads, whenever there is the
> mention of the jiva attaining to the Supreme in deep sleep, it is the
> sabeeja Brahman (saguna) that is implied//
> Given that Shankara adopts a diametrically opposite viewpoint in B U
> bhAshya, why should the BU be treated as inferior to MaU?

This is where exactly the problem exists. The impression you get that
Shankara is adopting a totally 'opposite' view is what is questioned. There
is no superior-inferior as far as texts are concerned. For Shankara even
the karma kanda is as important as the Jnan kanda. He has explicitly stated
the eka vaakyataa, one thread running through all texts/portions. When this
is accepted, the ruling in MaU bhashya naturally gets applied in BU
bhashya.  On innumerous occasions Shankara has cited 'vaakya shesha',
'shrutyantara', shaakhaantara as necessary inputs to conclude/decide on
issues. So, going to other texts from the text on hand is a natural
necessity in understanding Vedanta. If this is not admitted, the outcome is
what we have seen in your stand.


> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://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