[Advaita-l] Partlessness of Brahman and Maya

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Praveen Ji,

Reg  <<Very well quoted. Whenever in the context of A (anything), E
(example) is
brought in as an example, to establish B (brahman, although nirguNa) via
guNa of E, the guNas of B and E are not exactly same. It is just that guNa
of B is contrasted with guNa of A via that of E, since E is well-known
(like A, unlike B) and easily contrasted with A. AkAshavat niravayaH,
AkAshavat sUkShmaH, AkAshavat ekaH, kUTavat nityaH, etc, are so, as
niravayavatva, saukShmya, aikya and nityatva of brahma is not the same as
of those in the examples >>,

Thank you very much for a very succinct explanation of the position. I
couldn’t have done better or as well. It has spared me the botheration of
having to explain the quote.

As a matter of fact, it is a very well established and accepted rule. But
somehow it appears to be overlooked fairly often leading to
doubts,confusion and even misunderstanding. Needless to say,  I am no
exception to it either.

 Thanks once again,

Regards

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:21 AM Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouliji,
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:07 PM H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Please see last sentence of Bhashya on Mandukya 3-3, copied here
> >
> >
> >
> > << यदा मन्दबुद्धिप्रतिपिपादयिषया श्रुत्या आत्मनो जातिरुच्यते जीवादीनाम् ,
> > तदा जातावुपगम्यमानायाम् एतत् निदर्शनं दृष्टान्तः यथोदिताकाशवदित्यादिः ॥
> >>
> >
> > << yadA mandabuddhipratipipAdayiShayA shrutyA Atmano jAtiruchyate
> jIvAdInAm
> > , tadA jAtAvupagamyamAnAyAm etat nidarshanaM dRRiShTAntaH
> > yathoditAkAshavadityAdiH || >>,
> >
> > Illustration of AkAsha is not to be taken literally as Sidhanta. It is
> > meant to explain easily to mandabudhis. It applies to all other instances
> > where the same technique is adopted in respect of AkAsha as representing
> > Brahman. Otherwise AkAsha has to be taken as nitya which is also stated
> in
> > the Mandukya Bhashya on 4-99 cited by you.
> >
>
> Very well quoted. Whenever in the context of A (anything), E (example) is
> brought in as an example, to establish B (brahman, although nirguNa) via
> guNa of E, the guNas of B and E are not exactly same. It is just that guNa
> of B is contrasted with guNa of A via that of E, since E is well-known
> (like A, unlike B) and easily contrasted with A. AkAshavat niravayaH,
> AkAshavat sUkShmaH, AkAshavat ekaH, kUTavat nityaH, etc, are so, as
> niravayavatva, saukShmya, aikya and nityatva of brahma is not the same as
> of those in the examples.
>
> Kind rgds,
> --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] */
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

<https://www.avast.com/en-in/recommend?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=default3&tag=c38b8036-11b2-4cda-8073-9f1b65c98183>
I’m
protected online with Avast Free Antivirus. Get it here — it’s free forever.
<https://www.avast.com/en-in/recommend?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=default3&tag=c38b8036-11b2-4cda-8073-9f1b65c98183>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>