[Advaita-l] No Parinama in Brahman says Shankara Bhagavatpada

[Venkatraghavan S]

Sudhanshuji,
If seeing is the basis of something going on - Seeing does not confer
reality to the going on, nor does it reveal its reality. One could have
simply imagined it / been mistaken.

I'm merely pointing the direction for you to follow, why don't you give it
some thought and come back with you find. I'd rather not have a one line
conversation on the list.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, 07:44 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Is that not obvious Venkataraghavan ji? I am seeing something going on.
>
> Sudhanshu.
>
> On Wed 26 Jun, 2019, 12:10 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Sudhanshuji,
>> Why do you think there is something going on?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, 05:57 Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l, <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Bhaskar ji,
>>>
>>> How does replacing avidyA by MAyA helps. It does not help one bit. What
>>> is
>>> Ananya? Not different, right. If MAyA is not different from Brahman, then
>>> the activity of MAyA is same as activity of Brahman. Even the cropping up
>>> of upAdhi, so as to make upAdhi-drishti and svarupa-drishti possible, is
>>> against the nishkriyatva of Brahman. No matter how many words are used,
>>> the
>>> very fact that there is something going on AND there is nothing except
>>> Brahman, is against nishkriyatva.
>>>
>>> To say that there is something vyAvahArika and PArmArthika is again
>>> against
>>> nishkriyatva. How does vyAvahArika crops up. Same problem. Problem can be
>>> resolved only if vyAvhArika is hare's horn. MithyAtva does not help. And
>>> vyAvhArika is obviously not hare's horn.
>>>
>>> So problem persists unless we say that we will eventually understand this
>>> when we will attain purity of mind.
>>>
>>> Sudhanshu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed 26 Jun, 2019, 09:54 Bhaskar YR, <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji
>>> > Hare Krishna
>>> >
>>> > Whether it is "gold appearing as ornament" or "bangle converting into
>>> gold"
>>> > -- there is activity. And that is against nishkriyatva.
>>> >
>>> > >  Your observation is quite logical and needs attention.  Yes, there
>>> > needs to be some activity to accept the creation (whether it is
>>> vivarta or
>>> > pariNAma) hence Advaita when talking about brahma kArya (activity)
>>> jagat it
>>> > brings in apara brahma, when there is talk about nishkriya brahman it
>>> > directly talks about parabrahma.  Kindly look at sUtra bhAshya
>>> 4.3.14.  Now
>>> > the question, is this aparabrahman/ saguNa brahman/sOpAdhika
>>> brahman/kArya
>>> > brahman something different from parabrahman??  The obvious answer is
>>> big
>>> > NO, why??  Because, sadeva Soumya idamagra asit, ekamevAdviteeyaM
>>> clarifies
>>> > shruti.
>>> >
>>> > I understand that the standard answer would be -- from the point of
>>> view
>>> > of gold, there is no activity. But from the point of view of gold,
>>> there is
>>> > no ornament itself.
>>> >
>>> > >  I would like to read this as :  from the point of view of gold ( can
>>> > the brahman has the point of view!!??  Just wondering 😊 ) there is no
>>> > activity since the socalled ornament (nAma rUpa kArya) is nothing but
>>> gold
>>> > (kAraNa) We may take note of the upAdhi drushti and svarUpa drushti as
>>> well
>>> > here to understand how jagat is nothing but brahman but brahman is not
>>> > jagat.  When the ornament seen as ornament it is upAdhi drushti
>>> (parichinna
>>> > drushti) but when the same ornament seen as gold then it is svarUpa
>>> > drushti.  Since there is no independent existence of ornament apart
>>> from
>>> > gold, kArya 'as it is' anrutam but the same kArya is satyaM when it is
>>> > viewed from its svarUpa drushti.  bhAshyakAra explains this in
>>> chAndOgya :
>>> > sarvaM cha nAmarUpAdi sadAtmanaiva satyaM vikArajAtaM svatastu anrutaM
>>> eva,
>>> > ... From the realization of sAmAnya behind all these vishesha-s only
>>> we can
>>> > find the answer to the question : kasminnu bhagavO vijnAte sarvamidaM
>>> > vijnAtaM bhavati ??  he is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa of this
>>> jagat
>>> > hence the shruti statement : sarvaM khalvidaM brahma, sarvaM
>>> brahmamayaM
>>> > jagat.
>>> >
>>> > The problem is -- gold CANNOT appear as ornament unless there is space
>>> > which is different from gold. Brahman CANNOT appear as world unless
>>> there
>>> > is something different from Brahman. A singular object cannot appear as
>>> > anything else. And that is not possible in advaita.
>>> >
>>> > >  it has been called as mAya (not avidyA atleast in my Advaita
>>> dictionary
>>> > though popularly floating theory is avidyA = mAya ) the shakti of
>>> brahman
>>> > which is  brahmAnanya.  That which has been  called as mUla prakruti
>>> (again
>>> > it is not mUlAvidyA which is an unwanted contribution by later
>>> > vyAkhyAnakAra-s to shankarAdvaita) that is the brahma.  ( yA
>>> mUlaprakrutiH
>>> > abhyupagamyate tadeva cha nO brahma)  says sUtra bhAshya.  This mUla
>>> > prakruti / shakti / mAya is the svarUpa of brahman hence lord in Geeta
>>> > affectionately says : mama svarUpabhUtA madeeya mAyA.  I just wonder
>>> what
>>> > would have been the result had I replaced the word mAya with avidyA
>>> here 😊
>>> >
>>> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>>> > bhaskar
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>