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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Sudhanshuji,

The point is that even the seeing is not going on. An imaginary entity
imagines that it is seeing change. Neither the seen, seeing or seer exist.

This is the adhyAropa apavAda prakriyA.
1) The world exists.
2) It must have a creator.
3) Its creator is Brahman.
4) Creation is only an appearance.
5) Appearances do not exist.
6) There is no world.
7) There is no creator.

What remains? That is the thing.

Regards
Venkatraghavan

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, 07:57 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Venaktaraghavan ji,
>
> Imagination/being mistaken too imply change. Change is "something going
> on". My one-line reply is not really one-line since I had explained my
> point in the instant list in quite detail above. I value your opinions very
> much. In my opinion, this is a real problem for which I cannot see any
> solution. However, I am unimpressed by solutions such as -- this is for
> manda-dhi and you will understand when you will get purity of mind. For
> manda-dhi, pariNamavAda is there, for kushAgra-dhi, vivartavAda is there.
> It is the basically issue of changelessness, infiniteness and change. In my
> understanding, unless change is hare's horn (which it is obviously not) the
> changelessness and infiniteness are compromised as exolained by me in mails
> in the list above.
>
> Thanks.
> Sudhanshu.
>
> On Wed 26 Jun, 2019, 12:20 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>