From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Fri Dec 1 11:22:10 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2023 21:52:10 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Fwd: Vedanta Retreat - Tamil version - at Chennai - Dec 2023 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Limited Seats - Prior Registration Mandatory: https://tinyurl.com/ABChennai See flyer here: https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/zVSm-dDGtxQ From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Sat Dec 2 03:02:41 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2023 13:32:41 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] A Tamil-English post on Kamban's 'rope-snake' type analogy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 30 Nov 2023, 5:16 pm 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin, < advaitin at googlegroups.com> wrote: > The silver that is perceived in nacre is real but it cannot be part of any > activity, such as picking it up. Therefore, the silver is bhrama > > > > *praNAms * > > Hare Krishna > > > > But I read somewhere within Advaita tradition there are some > ?anirvachaneeya khyAti vAdins? who sees the reality of snake in rope and > silver in nacre. Just because without any anirvachaneeya snake you don?t > get scared by seeing mere rope or without seeing any silver in nacre you > wont get temptation to pick it up. The vAda is something like this. What > is the difference between this vAda and V.advaitins satkhyAti vAda !!?? > The 'anirvachaneeya khyAti vAdins? are Advaitins. The difference between the Ramanuja view and Advaita is: While in Ramanuja school the bhrama vastu is real, in Advaita the object is anirvachaniya that is sadasad vilakshana. This means it is neither asat like shasha vishaana not sat like Brahman. If asat it would not have been perceived at all. A hare's horn will not become an object of perception. Not is it sat like Brahman since upon knowledge of adhishthana rope the snake gets negated, it undergoes baadha. warm regards subbu > > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > bhaskar > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "advaitin" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65815176B3C07FCE8A8265A08482A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com > > . > From bhatpraveen at gmail.com Sat Dec 2 21:58:13 2023 From: bhatpraveen at gmail.com (Praveen R. Bhat) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2023 08:28:13 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Brahmasutravritti pATha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste, Due to some breaks, we completed pAda 3.3 only today and shall move to 3.4 in the next pATha. The playlist of the recordings of this live Brahmatattvaprakashika pATha is available with onscreen book at https://bit.ly/brahmatattvaprakashika gurupAdukAbhyAm, --Praveen R. Bhat /* ?????? ????? ????????, ?? ??? ??????????? Through what should one know That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */ > From sjayana at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 22:10:52 2023 From: sjayana at yahoo.com (S Jayanarayanan) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2023 03:10:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Advaita-l] Jagadguru Speaks: Complete Surrender to the Lord Saves even a Sinner References: <1013152670.5943955.1701573052921.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1013152670.5943955.1701573052921@mail.yahoo.com> (Around the beginning of the month, a nugget of Wisdom from the Jagadguru may be posted on the Chaturamnaya list : http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/chaturamnaya ) ? ? It is only to ensure our welfare at all times that the sages of yore? have authored many Sastras, Itihasas and Puranas. There is no? doubt that a person who understands the import of these texts at? least to some extent, and lives in accordance, will benefit by them.? ? However, some people express doubt saying, "I have committed? many sins. Even if I were to act now in conformity with the? Hitopadesas, how can I be saved??? ? In this regard, Lord Krishna says in the Gita:? ? ??? ?????????????? ???? ???????????? | ??????? ? ???????? ?????????????? ?? ?? ? ? The Lord has thus assured us that even those who commit misdeeds? will be considered noble if they repent fully and reform and then? worship him with unwavering devotion. He who suffers a guilty? conscience for his past misdeeds and undergoes the necessary? repentance, cultivating an unflinching devotion to God, will? eventually become fit to receive the grace of the all-merciful Lord.? As he continues to walk the dharmic path, he attains peace.? ? We must always remember the Lord?s assurance in the Gita?? ? ??????? ??????????? ? ?? ????? ????????? | ? Therefore, no one must waste his life cursing himself ?an? ungrateful wretch? or ?a sinner who cannot be saved? and so on.? The Lord's compassion is boundless! He will forgive and accept any? one who sincerely repents and submits to him.? ? Our blessings for all to understand this well and surrender to the Lord. ? ? October 2017 From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Sun Dec 3 01:44:29 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2023 12:14:29 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] A Kannada article on Kumara Vyasa's Bharata - Vaidika Pashupata - Advaita Message-ID: ???????????? ?????? ?????????, ????? ?????? ?? ? ?????????? ???? https://tinyurl.com/mrxd85mc From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Sun Dec 3 03:32:42 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2023 14:02:42 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Fwd: Atharvashiras, Brihajjabala, Kaivalya upanishads in Shivarahasya Purana In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: See images here: https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/56HVfZZ8FWU The above is the very clear annotation of the Atharva Shiras Upanishad. https://archive.org/details/eGcz_shiva-rahasya-maha-itihasa-maheshwar-part-1-jangamwadi-math-collection/page/n212/mode/1up?view=theater 2. Reference to kaivalya and Brihajjabala Upanishads for Shiva in the Siva rahasya purana: All these Upanishads are listed in the Muktikopanishad collection of 108 Upanishads. While the Atharva shiras and Kaivalya are commented upon by the 13 - 14 Century CE Advaita Acharya/s, the Brihajjabala along with all the others have been commented upon by Upanishad brahma yogin of the 17th Century. These Upanishads, along with the Shvetashwatara, also stand annotated in the Shiva Purana. regards subbu From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Sun Dec 3 07:41:29 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2023 18:11:29 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Fwd: 'Adviteeya Acharya Sri Shankaracharyaru' Kannada by Vasudeva Karantha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If anyone sends Rs 30 to this number 94496 64003 and contact them through whatsapp, and send address , mobile phone number... They will send them the book. See image here: https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/zhwkLuhEtcs From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Sun Dec 3 23:13:21 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 09:43:21 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiB74KSt4KS+4KSw4KSk4KWA4KSv4KS14KS/?= =?utf-8?b?4KSm4KWN4KS14KSk4KWN4KSq4KSw4KS/4KS34KSk4KWNfSBNZXRob2Rz?= =?utf-8?q?_to_learn_Sanskrit?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: ??????? ?????? Date: Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 8:18?AM Subject: {???????????????????} Methods to learn Sanskrit To: ??????????????????? ? Best Methods to learn Sanskrit: ? ?????????????????? ? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???????????? ????? ? Buy: amzn.eu/d/8i6atCK ? PDF: bit.ly/3N5tStb ? ???????? ? ?????????????????? ???????????????? ? Buy: samskritabharati.in/correspondence_courses.php ? PDF: t.ly/Lvu15 ? Learn Sanskrit in 30 Days ? Buy: amzn.eu/d/9o68MHR ? PDF: t.ly/M7Zwb ?Samskrit Tutorial : t.ly/5NH3w ? sanskritfromhome.in ? sanskrit.today/getting-started/ ? Knowledgology : t.ly/MKRG5 ? ?????????????????????????????? : t.ly/lhf3U ? Kallola? : tinyurl.com/ynyefl9e ? ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ??? (Take Admission) bit.ly/48bdf7J ? ??????? ?????? ????? samskritabharati.in/spoken_samskrit_class ? Visit Samvadshala : samskritabharati.in/samvadashala Full List: t.ly/SBTQN -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "???????????????????" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/da0add02-4761-4e56-9acf-1b05169d13c7n%40googlegroups.com . From karavind09 at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 00:11:16 2023 From: karavind09 at gmail.com (Aravinda Rao) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 10:41:16 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] =?utf-8?b?KioqVU5DSEVDS0VEKioqIFJlOiAgRndkOiB74KSt?= =?utf-8?b?4KS+4KSw4KSk4KWA4KSv4KS14KS/4KSm4KWN4KS14KSk4KWN4KSq4KSw?= =?utf-8?b?4KS/4KS34KSk4KWNfSBNZXRob2RzCXRvIGxlYXJuIFNhbnNrcml0?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very useful information Subrahmanian ji, thank you. Many students keep asking. Aravinda Rao On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 10:00?AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: ??????? ?????? > Date: Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 8:18?AM > Subject: {???????????????????} Methods to learn Sanskrit > To: ??????????????????? > > > ? Best Methods to learn Sanskrit: > > ? ?????????????????? ? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???????????? ????? > ? Buy: amzn.eu/d/8i6atCK > ? PDF: bit.ly/3N5tStb > > ? ???????? ? ?????????????????? ???????????????? > ? Buy: samskritabharati.in/correspondence_courses.php > ? PDF: t.ly/Lvu15 > > ? Learn Sanskrit in 30 Days > ? Buy: amzn.eu/d/9o68MHR > ? PDF: t.ly/M7Zwb > > ?Samskrit Tutorial : t.ly/5NH3w > ? sanskritfromhome.in > ? sanskrit.today/getting-started/ > > ? Knowledgology : t.ly/MKRG5 > ? ?????????????????????????????? : t.ly/lhf3U > ? Kallola? : tinyurl.com/ynyefl9e > > > ? ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ??? (Take Admission) > bit.ly/48bdf7J > ? ??????? ?????? ????? > samskritabharati.in/spoken_samskrit_class > ? Visit Samvadshala : > samskritabharati.in/samvadashala > > Full List: t.ly/SBTQN > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "???????????????????" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to bvparishat+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/da0add02-4761-4e56-9acf-1b05169d13c7n%40googlegroups.com > < > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/da0add02-4761-4e56-9acf-1b05169d13c7n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer > > > . > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 02:49:19 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 13:19:19 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: 'Adviteeya Acharya Sri Shankaracharyaru' Kannada by Vasudeva Karantha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To procure the book please follow this procedure: First one has to send the message to his Whatsapp mentioning the title of the book, number of copies required and the address to which the book/s to be sent. Then, depending on the location he will specify the postage charges. After that one has to credit the money to his phone. When this process is over, he will send the book/s. regards On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 6:11?PM V Subrahmanian wrote: > > If anyone sends Rs 30 to this number 94496 64003 and contact them > through whatsapp, and send address , mobile phone number... They will send > them the book. > > See image here: https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/zhwkLuhEtcs > From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 11:58:02 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 22:28:02 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Five kinds of 'bhrama' and their correction - Annapurna Upanishad Message-ID: In this minor upanishad there is a conversation between Ribhu (Guru) and Nidagha (Disciple). Five kinds of errors are specified, that mark bondage and their respective correction that marks liberation: ???????????????? https://sa.wikisource.org/s/wr3 ????? ???????? ???? ?????? ???????? ? ????????? ????????????? ????????? ????? ? 12? ?????????? ????????? ??????? ?? ????????? ? ??????????????????? ????? ??????? ? 13? ?????????????? ?????????? ???????? ? ???????????????? ???????? ?????? ????? ? ??????????????????? ??? ??????? ????? ? 15? https://www.vyasaonline.com/annapurna-upanishad/#:~:text=The%20Annapurna%20Upanishad%20asserts%2C%20in,person%2Dego)%20as%20Self . *?Annapurna Upanishad 1.37?38Translated by AGK Warrier* *Five delusions* The *Annapurna Upanishad* asserts, in verses 1.13 to 1.15, that delusions are of five kinds. The first is believing in the distinction between Jiva (living being) and god as if they have different forms. The second delusion, asserts the text, is equating agency (actor-capacity, person-ego) as Self. Assuming Jiva as equivalent - and permanently attached - to body is the third delusion, states the text. The fourth delusion is to assume the cause of the universe to be changing, and not constant. The fifth delusion, asserts the Upanishad, is to presume the unchanging Reality in the universe to be different from the cause of the universe. These five delusive premises, asserts the text, prevents the understanding of Self. Their correction is as follows: 1. ?????????????????????? ???????? ???????? ? By recognizing the 'original' and the 'reflection' are really non-different, the error of 'difference' between Jiva and Ishwara is removed. 2. ?????????????????? ??????????????????????? ???????? ? The analogy of redness in crystal teaches that the doership/agency, katrutva, a person thinks is his true nature, is gone. The redness only appears in the crystal due to proximity of the red flower. So too the agency one experiences is actually in the body-mind complex, but wrongly perceived in the Atman, due to proximity. 3. ??????????????? ???????????? ???????? ? By knowing that the pot-space and house-space are only conditionings of unconditioned space, the delusion that one is indeed endowed with the three bodies/sharirams: kAraNa, sukshma and sthUla, is dispelled. The gross and subtle bodies are only upadhis created by avidya (kAraNa sharira). Once this is known the delusion of being a jiva is dispelled. 4. ???????????????? ???????????????? ???????????? ???????? ? The cause-effect analysis teaches us that the effect does not have a separate existence apart from the cause: This aspect of x having no existence apart from its cause y, is analogous to the superimposed snake having no separate existence from the substratum rope. Similarly the world, the effect of, the superimposition on Brahman, has no separate existence from Brahman. This realization dispels the false idea that the world is real (just like the knowledge of the rope dispels the erroneous idea that the world is real.) Shankara has on several occasions equated the clay-pot analogy with the rope-snake analogy. 5. ?????????????? ?????????????? ???????? ? The understanding that the ornament is non-different from gold dispels the error that the world is a transformation of Brahman. When understood and viewed from the teaching of the Chandogya Upanishad: ??????????? ?????? ????????, ????????????? ??????, the effect, ornament, is not really a transformation of gold. ?????????? ????????? ????????????????????? ? ????? ?????????? ?? ???????????????????? ? 16? By contemplating on the above lines one would clearly realize he is Brahman and the appearance of the world is not real, and will get established in Brahman. The Guru Ribhu instructs and blesses his disciple Nidagha: You too thus contemplating attain the knowledge of the Self. This reminds us of the commentary of Shankara for the Bh.Gita 2.16: You too Arjuna, on the lines of the Jnanis, viewing the transformations in life as mithya, practice forbearance. (Such a practice will result in the actualizing of the Jivan-mukta state). Om Tat Sat From agnimile at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 18:33:35 2023 From: agnimile at gmail.com (Venkatraghavan S) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 07:33:35 +0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Five kinds of 'bhrama' and their correction - Annapurna Upanishad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Subbuji, Thank you for sharing this - it is so clear, there is no excuse really for misunderstanding. Regards, Venkatraghavan On Tue, 5 Dec 2023, 00:58 V Subrahmanian, wrote: > In this minor upanishad there is a conversation between Ribhu (Guru) and > Nidagha (Disciple). Five kinds of errors are specified, that mark bondage > and their respective correction that marks liberation: > ???????????????? > https://sa.wikisource.org/s/wr3 > > ????? ???????? ???? ?????? ???????? ? > ????????? ????????????? ????????? ????? ? 12? > > ?????????? ????????? ??????? ?? ????????? ? > ??????????????????? ????? ??????? ? 13? > > ?????????????? ?????????? ???????? ? > ???????????????? ???????? ?????? ????? ? > ??????????????????? ??? ??????? ????? ? 15? > > > https://www.vyasaonline.com/annapurna-upanishad/#:~:text=The%20Annapurna%20Upanishad%20asserts%2C%20in,person%2Dego)%20as%20Self > . > > > *?Annapurna Upanishad 1.37?38Translated by AGK Warrier* > > *Five delusions* > > The *Annapurna Upanishad* asserts, in verses 1.13 to 1.15, > that delusions are of five kinds. > > The first is believing in the distinction between Jiva (living being) and > god as if they have different forms. > > The second delusion, asserts the text, is equating agency (actor-capacity, > person-ego) as Self. > > Assuming Jiva as equivalent - and permanently attached - to body is the > third delusion, states the text. > > The fourth delusion is to assume the cause of the universe to be changing, > and not constant. > > The fifth delusion, asserts the Upanishad, is to presume the unchanging > Reality in the universe to be different from the cause of the universe. > These five delusive premises, asserts the text, prevents the understanding > of Self. > Their correction is as follows: > > 1. ?????????????????????? ???????? ???????? ? > > By recognizing the 'original' and the 'reflection' are really > non-different, the error of 'difference' between Jiva and Ishwara is > removed. > > 2. ?????????????????? ??????????????????????? ???????? ? > > The analogy of redness in crystal teaches that the doership/agency, > katrutva, a person thinks is his true nature, is gone. The redness only > appears in the crystal due to proximity of the red flower. So too the > agency one experiences is actually in the body-mind complex, but wrongly > perceived in the Atman, due to proximity. > > 3. ??????????????? ???????????? ???????? ? > > By knowing that the pot-space and house-space are only conditionings of > unconditioned space, the delusion that one is indeed endowed with the > three bodies/sharirams: kAraNa, sukshma and sthUla, is dispelled. The gross > and subtle bodies are only upadhis created by avidya (kAraNa sharira). Once > this is known the delusion of being a jiva is dispelled. > > 4. ???????????????? ???????????????? ???????????? ???????? ? > > The cause-effect analysis teaches us that the effect does not have a > separate existence apart from the cause: This aspect of x having no > existence apart from its cause y, is analogous to the superimposed snake > having no separate existence from the substratum rope. Similarly the world, > the effect of, the superimposition on Brahman, has no separate existence > from Brahman. This realization dispels the false idea that the world is > real (just like the knowledge of the rope dispels the erroneous idea that > the world is real.) > Shankara has on several occasions equated the clay-pot analogy with the > rope-snake analogy. > > 5. ?????????????? ?????????????? ???????? ? > > The understanding that the ornament is non-different from gold dispels the > error that the world is a transformation of Brahman. When understood and > viewed from the teaching of the Chandogya Upanishad: ??????????? ?????? > ????????, ????????????? ??????, the effect, ornament, is not really a > transformation of gold. > > > ?????????? ????????? ????????????????????? ? > ????? ?????????? ?? ???????????????????? ? 16? > > By contemplating on the above lines one would clearly realize he is > Brahman and the appearance of the world is not real, and will get > established in Brahman. The Guru Ribhu instructs and blesses his disciple > Nidagha: You too thus contemplating attain the knowledge of the Self. > > This reminds us of the commentary of Shankara for the Bh.Gita 2.16: You > too Arjuna, on the lines of the Jnanis, viewing the transformations in > life as mithya, practice forbearance. (Such a practice will result in the > actualizing of the Jivan-mukta state). > > Om Tat Sat > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "advaitin" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2kBEVfD0uxoAXEt%3DVh%3DJ3%3DpJ0BH4oh0xHt_kMe4q%3D2BA%40mail.gmail.com > > . > From hschandramouli at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 02:22:53 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 12:52:53 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Five kinds of 'bhrama' and their correction - Annapurna Upanishad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Reg // Shankara has on several occasions equated the clay-pot analogy with the rope-snake analogy //, Can you please give reference to where in the Bhashya this equation is stated. Regards On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 10:28?PM V Subrahmanian wrote: > In this minor upanishad there is a conversation between Ribhu (Guru) and > Nidagha (Disciple). Five kinds of errors are specified, that mark bondage > and their respective correction that marks liberation: > ???????????????? > https://sa.wikisource.org/s/wr3 > > ????? ???????? ???? ?????? ???????? ? > ????????? ????????????? ????????? ????? ? 12? > > ?????????? ????????? ??????? ?? ????????? ? > ??????????????????? ????? ??????? ? 13? > > ?????????????? ?????????? ???????? ? > ???????????????? ???????? ?????? ????? ? > ??????????????????? ??? ??????? ????? ? 15? > > > https://www.vyasaonline.com/annapurna-upanishad/#:~:text=The%20Annapurna%20Upanishad%20asserts%2C%20in,person%2Dego)%20as%20Self > . > > > *?Annapurna Upanishad 1.37?38Translated by AGK Warrier* > > *Five delusions* > > The *Annapurna Upanishad* asserts, in verses 1.13 to 1.15, > that delusions are of five kinds. > > The first is believing in the distinction between Jiva (living being) and > god as if they have different forms. > > The second delusion, asserts the text, is equating agency (actor-capacity, > person-ego) as Self. > > Assuming Jiva as equivalent - and permanently attached - to body is the > third delusion, states the text. > > The fourth delusion is to assume the cause of the universe to be changing, > and not constant. > > The fifth delusion, asserts the Upanishad, is to presume the unchanging > Reality in the universe to be different from the cause of the universe. > These five delusive premises, asserts the text, prevents the understanding > of Self. > Their correction is as follows: > > 1. ?????????????????????? ???????? ???????? ? > > By recognizing the 'original' and the 'reflection' are really > non-different, the error of 'difference' between Jiva and Ishwara is > removed. > > 2. ?????????????????? ??????????????????????? ???????? ? > > The analogy of redness in crystal teaches that the doership/agency, > katrutva, a person thinks is his true nature, is gone. The redness only > appears in the crystal due to proximity of the red flower. So too the > agency one experiences is actually in the body-mind complex, but wrongly > perceived in the Atman, due to proximity. > > 3. ??????????????? ???????????? ???????? ? > > By knowing that the pot-space and house-space are only conditionings of > unconditioned space, the delusion that one is indeed endowed with the > three bodies/sharirams: kAraNa, sukshma and sthUla, is dispelled. The gross > and subtle bodies are only upadhis created by avidya (kAraNa sharira). Once > this is known the delusion of being a jiva is dispelled. > > 4. ???????????????? ???????????????? ???????????? ???????? ? > > The cause-effect analysis teaches us that the effect does not have a > separate existence apart from the cause: This aspect of x having no > existence apart from its cause y, is analogous to the superimposed snake > having no separate existence from the substratum rope. Similarly the world, > the effect of, the superimposition on Brahman, has no separate existence > from Brahman. This realization dispels the false idea that the world is > real (just like the knowledge of the rope dispels the erroneous idea that > the world is real.) > Shankara has on several occasions equated the clay-pot analogy with the > rope-snake analogy. > > 5. ?????????????? ?????????????? ???????? ? > > The understanding that the ornament is non-different from gold dispels the > error that the world is a transformation of Brahman. When understood and > viewed from the teaching of the Chandogya Upanishad: ??????????? ?????? > ????????, ????????????? ??????, the effect, ornament, is not really a > transformation of gold. > > > ?????????? ????????? ????????????????????? ? > ????? ?????????? ?? ???????????????????? ? 16? > > By contemplating on the above lines one would clearly realize he is > Brahman and the appearance of the world is not real, and will get > established in Brahman. The Guru Ribhu instructs and blesses his disciple > Nidagha: You too thus contemplating attain the knowledge of the Self. > > This reminds us of the commentary of Shankara for the Bh.Gita 2.16: You > too Arjuna, on the lines of the Jnanis, viewing the transformations in > life as mithya, practice forbearance. (Such a practice will result in the > actualizing of the Jivan-mukta state). > > Om Tat Sat > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "advaitin" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2kBEVfD0uxoAXEt%3DVh%3DJ3%3DpJ0BH4oh0xHt_kMe4q%3D2BA%40mail.gmail.com > > . > From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 03:22:54 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 13:52:54 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Five kinds of 'bhrama' and their correction - Annapurna Upanishad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 12:53?PM H S Chandramouli wrote: > Namaste > > Reg // Shankara has on several occasions equated the clay-pot analogy > with the rope-snake analogy //, > > Can you please give reference to where in the Bhashya this equation is > stated. > In the Chandogya 6.2.2 bhashya: The question is: How can the Sat, Brahman, that is devoid of parts be stated to 'become' the world which is full of parts? The reply is: Just like the rope-parts are the source for snake, etc. effects, that are imagined, so too from the sat-parts the vikara entities can be admitted. Shankara cites the vacharambhana shruti for this where the clay- clay products analogy is given and Shankara further connects this analogy to Sat alone is Satyam (and the effects, jagat, is not satyam): ????????? ??? ??? ????????????????????? ? ??? ????, ?????????????????? ????????????????? ???????????????????? ?????????? ???????????????????? ? ??????????? ?????? ??????? ????????????? ??????? (??. ?. ? ? ? ? ?) ??? ???? ?????? ? ??? ??????? ? ?????????????? ????????? ????????????????? ? In the Chandogya 6.2.3 bhashya: How did Brahman resolve? 'I shall become many and be born excessively;. Shankara explains this as 'just as clay taking the form pot, etc.. OR just as rope etc. taking the form of snake etc. being imagined: ??????????????, ?? ? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ???????? ??????????????????,* ??? ???????????????? ??? ?? ????????? ?????????????? ????????????????? ? * At this juncture Anandagiri comments: ????????????????????????????????????? ? The two analogies given by Shankara - clay.. and rope.. are in accordance with parinama vaada and vivarta vaada respectively. Again Shankara....; Here again the rope-snake analogy is given alongside the clay - clay products analogy. In both cases, Shankara says,. there is a bhrama: mrudo anyabuddhi: thinking that the clay products are different from clay. This imagining is the same as taking the rope for the snake: ???? ?? ?????????????????? ? ?????????????, *??? **???????? ???????????? ???? ???????????, ??? ?? ?????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????????? ???? ? ??????????????????** ?? ???????????????? ?????????, ??? ? ????????????????? ???????????????,* ?????? ?????????????????????????????????? ????????? ? ???? ???? ?????????? ? ???????? ???? ??? (??. ?. ? ? ? ? ?) ???, ?????????????????? (??. ?. ? ? ? ? ?) ????????????????? ? Here are some more results from Anandagiri's just Chandogya Bhashya teeka where the vivarta vaada is specified by him: https://tinyurl.com/2typ7yw7 warm regards subbu > > From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com Tue Dec 5 05:01:43 2023 From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 10:01:43 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Five kinds of 'bhrama' and their correction - Annapurna Upanishad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: praNAms Hare Krishna 1. Snake rope analogy shows brahman is nimitta 2. Clay pot analogy shows brahman is upAdAna So, brahman is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa. The unchanging cause in all clay articles is mrut sAmAnya which is vivartOpadAna. Snake rope analogy is help us to understand imagination of parts in brahman. Further it would help us to understand without undergoing any changes brahman (rope) appears as jagat (snake). But important observation by bhAshyakAra himself in this very chAndOgya bhAshya is jagat is NOT like snake on rope. asadeva tarhi sarvaM yadgruhyate rajjuriva sarpAdyAkAreNa?? Is the doubt asked after seeing the analogies of both rajju-sarpa and mrud-ghata. For that bhAshyakAra answers rather ?clarifies? : ? na, sat eva dvaitabhedena anyathAgruhyamANatvAt nAsatvaM kasyachit kvachit iti bhrUmaH. Nothing here is non-existent at any time. This is quite in accordance with the Atmaikatva darshana, Samyak darshana or sarvAtma darshana of paramArthajnAni. For him whatever IS there ?brahman? only and nothing ?apart? from brahman. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From hschandramouli at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 07:18:18 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 17:48:18 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Five kinds of 'bhrama' and their correction - Annapurna Upanishad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Bhaskar Ji, Reg // The unchanging cause in all clay articles is mrut sAmAnya which is vivartOpadAna //, Sri SSS himself explicitly states that transformation of gold into ring is pariNAma. Surely this would apply to Clay-Pot transformation as well. Please refer Bhashya on MAndUkya KArikA 3-7 copied below // ????????????????????? ??????? ? ??????, ??? ????????? ???????? // // yasmAtparamArthAkAshasya ghaTAkAsho na vikAraH, yathA suvarNasya ruchakAdiH // Translation by Sri SSS (translation from kannada to English mine) // ghaTAkAsha is not a transformation (Foot Note 1) of real AkAsha. The way ring etc are of gold (vikAra) or the way foam,bubble etc are (transformations. Not transformations like these). Foot note 1 ; Not kArya ; Not pariNAma. // The above is literal translation of the kannada text. Clearly Sri SSS has explicitly stated the Gold-Ring (Clay-Pot by extension) as pariNAQma and not vivarta. If you were to accept this, then the statement in your post cited above // The unchanging cause in all clay articles is mrut sAmAnya which is vivartOpadAna // would need revision. If revised, then the whole understanding of ** brahman is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa ** needs to be revised. Not sure if you are in agreement with such a position. Please clarify. Regards On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 3:31?PM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin < advaitin at googlegroups.com> wrote: > praNAms > > Hare Krishna > > > > 1. Snake rope analogy shows brahman is nimitta > 2. Clay pot analogy shows brahman is upAdAna > > > > So, brahman is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa. The unchanging cause in all > clay articles is mrut sAmAnya which is vivartOpadAna. Snake rope analogy > is help us to understand imagination of parts in brahman. Further it would > help us to understand without undergoing any changes brahman (rope) > appears as jagat (snake). But important observation by bhAshyakAra himself > in this very chAndOgya bhAshya is jagat is NOT like snake on rope. asadeva > tarhi sarvaM yadgruhyate rajjuriva sarpAdyAkAreNa?? Is the doubt asked > after seeing the analogies of both rajju-sarpa and mrud-ghata. For that > bhAshyakAra answers rather ?clarifies? : ? na, sat eva dvaitabhedena > anyathAgruhyamANatvAt *nAsatvaM kasyachit kvachit iti bhrUmaH*. Nothing > here is non-existent at any time. This is quite in accordance with the > Atmaikatva darshana, Samyak darshana or sarvAtma darshana of > paramArthajnAni. For him whatever IS there ?brahman? only and nothing > ?apart? from brahman. > > > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > bhaskar > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "advaitin" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB6592C622FA857956E0DDF2888485A%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com > > . > From hschandramouli at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 07:26:38 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 17:56:38 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Five kinds of 'bhrama' and their correction - Annapurna Upanishad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste. On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:53?PM V Subrahmanian wrote // At this juncture Anandagiri comments: ????????????????????????????????????? ? The two analogies given by Shankara - clay.. and rope.. are in accordance with parinama vaada and vivarta vaada respectively //, My understanding is different. The transformation is of the combination of Brahman and avyAkruta. The Clay-Pot analogy is with reference to the transformation of avYakruta while the Rope-Snake analogy is with reference to the transfiguration (vivarta) of Brahman. In my understanding this is not the same as equating Clay-Pot and Rope-Snake analogies. I will leave it at that. Thanks for the clarification. Regards On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:53?PM V Subrahmanian wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 12:53?PM H S Chandramouli > wrote: > >> Namaste >> >> Reg // Shankara has on several occasions equated the clay-pot analogy >> with the rope-snake analogy //, >> >> Can you please give reference to where in the Bhashya this equation is >> stated. >> > > > In the Chandogya 6.2.2 bhashya: The question is: How can the Sat, > Brahman, that is devoid of parts be stated to 'become' the world which is > full of parts? The reply is: Just like the rope-parts are the source for > snake, etc. effects, that are imagined, so too from the sat-parts the > vikara entities can be admitted. Shankara cites the vacharambhana shruti > for this where the clay- clay products analogy is given and Shankara > further connects this analogy to Sat alone is Satyam (and the effects, > jagat, is not satyam): > > ????????? ??? ??? ????????????????????? ? ??? ????, ?????????????????? > ????????????????? ???????????????????? ?????????? ???????????????????? ? ??????????? > ?????? ??????? ????????????? ??????? (??. ?. ? ? ? ? ?) > ??? > ???? ?????? ? ??? ??????? ? ?????????????? ????????? ????????????????? ? > > > In the Chandogya 6.2.3 bhashya: How did Brahman resolve? 'I shall become > many and be born excessively;. Shankara explains this as 'just as clay > taking the form pot, etc.. OR just as rope etc. taking the form of snake > etc. being imagined: > > ??????????????, ?? ? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ???????? ??????????????????,* > ??? ???????????????? ??? ?? ????????? ?????????????? ????????????????? ? * > > At this juncture Anandagiri comments: > ????????????????????????????????????? ? The two analogies given by > Shankara - clay.. and rope.. are in accordance with parinama vaada and > vivarta vaada respectively. > > Again Shankara....; > Here again the rope-snake analogy is given alongside the clay - clay > products analogy. In both cases, Shankara says,. there is a bhrama: mrudo > anyabuddhi: thinking that the clay products are different from clay. This > imagining is the same as taking the rope for the snake: > > ???? ?? ?????????????????? ? ?????????????, *??? **???????? ???????????? > ???? ???????????, ??? ?? ?????????? ???????????????? > ???????????????????????? ???? ? ??????????????????** ?? ???????????????? > ?????????, ??? ? ????????????????? ???????????????,* ?????? > ?????????????????????????????????? ????????? ? ???? ???? ?????????? ? > ???????? ???? ??? (??. ?. ? ? ? ? ?) > > ???, ?????????????????? (??. ?. ? ? ? ? ?) > > ????????????????? ? > > Here are some more results from Anandagiri's just Chandogya Bhashya teeka > where the vivarta vaada is specified by him: > > https://tinyurl.com/2typ7yw7 > > warm regards > subbu > > > > > >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "advaitin" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0gbAKH5SRddHr4A6LciyT2uAzi0pD8v3G4Gz9o68a4Aw%40mail.gmail.com > > . > From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com Tue Dec 5 23:18:02 2023 From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2023 04:18:02 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Five kinds of 'bhrama' and their correction - Annapurna Upanishad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: praNAms Sri Chandramouli prabhuji Hare Krishna Do you mean to say Sri SSS by referring to suvarNAbharaNa (mrudghata) as pariNAma and talking about brahman is getting transformed into jagat!!?? I don?t think so. Anyway, I have written that in the light of both analogies which talks about brahman as nimitta (without undergoing any changes) in rope-snake and upAdAna (in respect of kArya-kAraNa ananyatvam as in gold-ornament). But yes, there is a possibility that one can think about pariNAma and wrongly brahman is getting transformed into the jagat just like clay becoming pot. From this example and with this wrong understanding one will not be able to understand the transactionless (vyavahArAteeta) brahman. But subtility of this example also (like snake-rope) again conveying the transactionless brahman alone ( sarva vyavahArAteeta brahma pratipAdanArthaM and mruttiketyeva satyaM) because of the fact that we are talking about here mrut sAmAnya (not mrut pinda per se). It is ONLY clay lump which undergoes transformation and becoming a clay-pot. And in all these vyavahAra clay (sAmAnya) remains as clay only which does not undergo any changes. In this sense mrut sAmAnya is already /always transactionless / changeless. Just like through qualified jnana (upAdhi parichinna jnana) we see gold-ring, gold-bangle, gold-necklace etc. the gold always remains as gold only and nAma rUpa is entirely dependent on this gold-sAmAnya. Here mrut sAmAnya is vivartOpadAna kAraNa for the mrut-pinda and mrudghata. kArya-kAraNa prakriya never ever advocate pariNAma vAda OTOH it propagates brahmaikatvaM. And all these vAda-s like bimba-pratibimba, avaccheda, vivarta-pariNAma, kArya-kAraNa, sAmAnya-vishesha etc. as you know, are just there within the master prakriya i.e. adhyArOpa-apavAda. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From chevendrakaushik at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 08:50:23 2023 From: chevendrakaushik at gmail.com (Kaushik Chevendra) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2023 19:20:23 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Gita bhasya 9.18 Message-ID: Namaste In the Gita bhasya while commenting on the 9.18 acharya gives a set of atttibutes of bagavan Krishna. Gita 9.18 - I am the Supreme Goal of all living beings, and I am also their Sustainer, Master, Witness, Abode, Shelter, and Friend. I am the Origin, End, and Resting Place of creation; I am the Repository and Eternal Seed. 18.1. ???? ??? ?? ???? ????????, ????? ??????, ?????? ??????, ?????? ????????? ??????????, ?????? ??????? ???????? ????????, ???? ???????? - ??????????? ??????, ?????? ??????????????????? ??? ??????, ?????? ????????? ????, ?????.- ???????? ??????? ???, ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???, ?????? ???????? ???????- ????????? ??????????, ???? ??????????? ???????????????, ?????? ? ??????????- ?????????? ??????? ? ? ?? ????? ???????? ????????; ?????? ? ?????????????? ?????????? ? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? - 18.1 'The 'goal' is the fruit of actions. The 'support' is He who sustains. The 'Lord' is the owner. He is the 'Witness' of both what is done and left undone. He is the 'Abode' for, all living beings dwell in Him. He is the 'Refuge' of those who suffer, the dispeller of the sufferings of those who have sought Refuge. He is the 'Friend' who aids irrespective of any service in return. He is also the 'Source or the world's origin. He is the 'Dissolution'-that in which the world is dissolved. He is 'Existence' as the world exists in Him; also the 'Treasury' of fruits which the living beings reap in future. He is the 'Seed'- the cause of sprouting of all that sprouts. It is 'indestructible' as it coexists with the world. Nothing seedless sprouts. This reminds me of a popular prayer sung in praise of lord Narayana ?tvameva mata pita tvameva, tvameva bandhu sakha tvameva, tvameva Vidya dravinam tvameva ?.? Namo Narayana From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Fri Dec 8 11:50:30 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2023 22:20:30 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Analogy of returning to one's true self - in Sundara Kaanda. Message-ID: In the Valmiki Ramayana while referring to Hanuman resuming his native form from the assumed various forms, the analogy given is: just as one would shed his delusion and realize his true self. ????????/?????????????/????? ? https://sa.wikisource.org/s/20 ??? ????? ????????? ???????????????? ???? ????????????? ?????? ??????????? ???? We have in the Bhagavatam: ???????????????????/??????? ?/??????? ?? https://sa.wikisource.org/s/e4r ????????????????? ?????? ?? ???????? ? ??????? ??????????????? ???????? ??????????? ? ? ? ? Liberation, mukti, is realizing one's true nature by giving up the ignorantly assumed form. For the Ramayana verse here are a few commentaries for the analogy part: Shiromani commentary: ???? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ???? ????? ????????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????????????? ?? 5.1.203 ?? A yogi realizing his nityananda svabhava after giving up the ignorantly assumed body form. Tattvadipika: ??????? ?????????????? ?? 5.1.196 ?? He is one who is free from avidya. Tilaka: ??????? ???? ????? ????????????? ?????????? ???? ?? ? ?????????????????????? ? ????????? ???????????????????????????????????? ?? 5.1.197 ?? Jivanmukta, non different from Brahman. Om tat sat From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 02:58:59 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:28:59 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] 'If Advaita becomes false, then does that not make the world true ?' Message-ID: See video in Hindi here: https://youtu.be/F8d7Rmg68uY?feature=shared Additional explanatory reading: That one is Brahman and never a samsari and the world is naught in all the three periods of time - is never sublatable. That is, there is no subsequent knowledge/pramana that contradicts this. Shankara Bhagavatpada has said in BSB 2.1.14 which teaches this: *??? ??????? ?????????????? ????????????????????????? ???????????????????* ? ?????????? ? ??? ????, ????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????, ?????????????????? ??????????????? ? *? ??????????????????? ??? ????? ??????? , ? ???????? ???????? (??. ?. ? ? ?? ? ?)?????????????????, ????????????? ? ??????????? ??????????????? ? ?????????????? ? ? ???????????????? ?????????????? ????? ??????? ; ????????????????????????? , ?????????????????????? ?* ????????????????????????????? ????? ???????????????? ?????? ????????????????? ? ????????????? ???????? ??????????? ?????????? ???????? ?????????? ????????????? ??????????? .. Meaning: We cannot say that this realization will not arise, for we have the Chandogya shruti that says that Shvetaketu realized the truth. Also the means to such realization also are stipulated. Nor can this realization be stated to be useless/harmful or a delusion as the fruit of avidya nivrutti is perceptible (for the realized one) and also since there is no subsequent knowledge that sublates/annuls this realization. Extra: ...thus by this ultimate pramana (the aparoksha jnana) all pre-realization vyavahara stands annulled. Also, read the last few verses of Panchadashi 1 chapter where it is said 'in any case, avidya once dispelled will not return. This was said in the wake of situations like the realized one might die in pain, lunacy, etc. Such situations that might result in his not remembering his realized state during death and the question - will such a one be born again? will not arise since there is no pramana that can set aside the sakshatkara that has once arisen. The knowledge has arisen by the means of the shastra and only a stronger pramana can set it aside. But we do not see a pramana stronger than shastra. The popular tiger chasing in dream' analogy also is relevant here: The dream, along with the tiger, chasing and fear - are all sublated upon waking. But the fact of having woken up, caused by the dream tiger chasing, is not sublated; it remains uncontradicted. Thus, even if the means is false, the end effect need not be false; it can be true. Such is the firm 'decision' in this matter. From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 12:47:11 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2023 23:17:11 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] The world is akin to dream, magic and reverie - Bhagavatam Message-ID: ???????????????????/??????? ?/??????? ?? https://sa.wikisource.org/s/v4y ??????????? ??????? ????????? ???????? ? ????? ???? ?????? ???????????????? ? ?? ? In Brahman the world is fashioned like clouds on the canvas of the sky. The created world is perceived in the waking (and dream) and not perceived in deep sleep. It is akin to a dream, magic show and reverie (daydream). The analogy of dream, magic, daydream are used in abundance in the Advaita bhashyas: ?????? ?????????? ?????????????????? ? ???????????? *???????????????* *??????????**?????? ???? *, ??????????? ?????? ????????? (??. ?. ? ???Mandukya karika 2.38 ??????????????? ??????????????? ??????????? *?????**????????????? ; ?????????????????????????????? ?* 2.9 (There is a post from Sri Suresh Srinivasamurthy highlighting many Advaita-friendly verses from the Bhagavatam, taken from this site: https://sarvatmabrahmastra.blogspot.com/2021/06/srimadbhagavatam-in-support-of-advaita.html ) Om tat sat From narayana145 at yahoo.co.in Sun Dec 10 00:32:27 2023 From: narayana145 at yahoo.co.in (sreenivasa murthy) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2023 05:32:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Advaita-l] Message of the Upanishads References: <1630915064.1398442.1702186347370.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1630915064.1398442.1702186347370@mail.yahoo.com> Respected members, ?? Mother Sruti declares : YatranAnyat paSyati nAnyat SRuNOti nAnyat ?????????? ?vijAnAti sa BUmA || Chandogya 7-24-1 SatyaM? jnAnaM?anantam? brahma || TaittarIya 2-1 sarvagM?hyEtadbrahma? ayamAtmA? ??????????????? brahma|| ManDukya Mantra 2 brahmaivEdagM?viSvaM? variShTham || muMDaka 2-2-12 sa EvEdagM sarvaM || Chandogya 7-25-1 ahamEvEdagam??sarvam || Chandogya 7-25-1 AtmaivEdagaM??sarvam? || Chandogya 7-25-2 Atmata EvEdagM?sarvam || Chandogya 7-26-1 prapaMcOpaSamam??Sivam?? advaitam? caturtham?manyantE ?????? sa? AtmA?sa? VijnEyaH || Mandukya mantra 7 >From the above quoted mantras it follows that Aham which is myself and which is HERE and NOW is ?BUmA, Atman, Brahman. And also I amanantam and advaitam. ?I am HERE & NOW. Hence where nAnuis there which is HERE & NOW, There is no second thing besides me which can beseen, Which can be heard or which can be thought about. So I AM advaitatattva. ? This is the only conclusion one that can be drawnfrom the above quoted Sruti mantras. I request the the very well versed Scholars in Vedanta to ponder over the implications of these mantrasand show how what has been stated in these mantras is a fact of life. This litmus test to all the great scholars of this group. With respectful namaskars,Sreenivasa Murthy. From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com Tue Dec 12 06:39:08 2023 From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:39:08 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) Message-ID: praNAms Hare Krishna As we all know seeing the snake in place of rope is the problem of seer. But is there any problem in seen rope also to look like a snake ?? Yes, seems to be the answer by some!! Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From vikkyjagan at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 10:22:24 2023 From: vikkyjagan at gmail.com (Vikram Jagannathan) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:22:24 -0600 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaskaram Shri Bhaskar ji, I am taking 'problem' to mean something different from the as-is true nature of that entity. Could you please clarify what problem is said to exist in the seen rope by others? There are definitely characteristics of the rope that bring about the remembrance of an earlier perceived snake. Adhyasa also is mutual, implying some of the characteristics of the rope are superimposed on the imagined snake as well. But none of this should be a 'problem' within the rope itself per-se. Apart from the sat-khyati-vadins, for all others there is not an iota of the snake in the rope. What actually exists is just the true nature of the rope as-is. with humble prostrations, Vikram On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 5:39?AM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin < advaitin at googlegroups.com> wrote: > praNAms > > Hare Krishna > > > > As we all know seeing the snake in place of rope is the problem of seer. > But is there any problem in seen rope also to look like a snake ?? Yes, > seems to be the answer by some!! > > > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > bhaskar > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "advaitin" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB659211456296C536E0BDB337848EA%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com > > . > From sjayana at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 23:59:36 2023 From: sjayana at yahoo.com (S Jayanarayanan) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 04:59:36 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Advaita-l] Prashnottara Ratna Malika - 17 References: <620638564.419039.1702443576583.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <620638564.419039.1702443576583@mail.yahoo.com> (Continued from previous post) ? ? Q90. ????????? ?? ?????? What gives more joy than life itself? A90. ???????? ?????????? ? One?s duty, executed according to family traditions, and the company of good and saintly people. ? ? Q91. ?? ?????????? What should be protected with all efforts? Q91. ??????? ???????? ??? ????????? | Good reputation, a faithful wife and intelligent discrimination. ? ? Q92. ?? ??????? ?????? In this world, what is the plant that satisfies all desires? A92. ????????????????? ?????? ? Knowledge given to a good and sincere student. ? ? Q93. ????????????????????? What is the eternal banyan tree? A93. ??????? ????????????? ???? ??? | A gift offered to a worthy person, from one who has knowledge and understanding. ? ? (To be Continued) From 313sakthinarayanan at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 00:03:51 2023 From: 313sakthinarayanan at gmail.com (sakthi narayanan) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 10:33:51 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Prayoga books ( Shodashopachara during Homa/Havan) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 7, 2023, 05:34 sakthi narayanan <313sakthinarayanan at gmail.com> wrote: > ????????? > > ?????? ???????????? ???????? ???? > ???????? > From hschandramouli at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 04:01:31 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 14:31:31 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Vikram Ji, > Reg // Adhyasa also is mutual, implying some of the characteristics of the rope are superimposed on the imagined snake as well //, Why is the snake considered to be ** imagined ** in AdhyAsa??. Snake is ** experienced as existing ** and not as ** imagined **. Even after knowing it to be a rope, recollection is one of experiencing the existence of the snake, not of ** imagining ** the snake. And in Advaita SiddhAnta the snake has a certain level of Reality/Existence, namely prAtibhAsika Reality. Regards From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 06:17:34 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 16:47:34 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 2:31?PM H S Chandramouli wrote: > > > Namaste Vikram Ji, >> > Reg // Adhyasa also is mutual, implying some of the characteristics of > the rope are superimposed on the imagined snake as well //, > > Why is the snake considered to be ** imagined ** in AdhyAsa??. Snake is ** > experienced as existing ** and not as ** imagined **. Even after knowing > it to be a rope, recollection is one of experiencing the existence of the > snake, not of ** imagining ** the snake. And in Advaita SiddhAnta the snake > has a certain level of Reality/Existence, namely prAtibhAsika Reality. > Shankara has held the adhyasta entity to be an imagined/concocted one. That the one under delusion does not know that he has concocted and hence he thinks he is experiencing it. When the truth is known he will also realize that he had only imagined it. Of course, the entire samsara anubhava, experience, is also a kalpana, as per siddhanta: ??????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? ? - ??????? ???; ????????? ??? ??? ????????????????????? ? ??? ????, ?????????????????? ????????????????? ???????????????????? ?????????? ???????????????????? ? ??????????? ?????? ??????? ????????????? ??????? (??.??? .. ??????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? ? - ??????? ???????? ????? ???????? ??????????????????, ??? ???????????????? ??? ?? ????????? ?????????????? ????????????????? ? The Vedanta paribhasha too holds this citing Sureshwara and even the Sutra bhashya (Sundara Pandya): ??????????????????????????????? ???? ????????????????????? ? ???????? - " ??????????????? ?????? ??????????? ??????? ? ?????? ?????????? ?????????????????????????? ?" ??? ? '? ?????????????'-??? ??????????????????????????????? ?????????????? ????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????? ? ???????? " ?????????????? ?? ???? ?????????????" ??? ? ??? ??????????????????????????????????????? ???? ??????????????????????????????? ???? ? ? ??????????? ???????????????????????????????, ??????????????????????? ????????????????????????????? ? ????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????? ? ??????? ????????????????- " ?????? ???? ???? ???????????????? ? ??? ? ?????? ?????? ???????????????????? ?" ??? ? > Regards > subbu > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "advaitin" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdMz1S78-S16Fk4_FeO_ySB%2B6BG_SXUNjDF%3DO9OB5m6Bog%40mail.gmail.com > > . > From hschandramouli at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 07:28:13 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 17:58:13 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste. ????????? or ?????? etc also have the meaning *created*. Not necessarily *imagined*. It is in this sense Bhashya needs to be understood in the current context. Reg Swami Sureswaracharya vArtika cited // ??????? ????????????????- " ?????? ???? ???? ???????????????? ? ??? ? ?????? ?????? ???????????????????? ? //, ?????????????? should be understood as *created with ajnAna as upAdAna kAraNam*. This is clear by the following vArtika verse BUBV 1-4-371 // ???? ????????????????? ?????????????? ? ??????? ???????????? ?????? ??????????? ? // // asya dvaitendrajAlasya yadupAdAnakAraNam | aj~nAnaM tadupAshritya brahma kAraNamuchyate || // There are any number of verses in the vArtika which reflect the same understanding. Same with Vedanta Paribhasha. Regards On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 4:47?PM V Subrahmanian wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 2:31?PM H S Chandramouli > wrote: > >> >> >> Namaste Vikram Ji, >>> >> Reg // Adhyasa also is mutual, implying some of the characteristics of >> the rope are superimposed on the imagined snake as well //, >> >> Why is the snake considered to be ** imagined ** in AdhyAsa??. Snake is >> ** experienced as existing ** and not as ** imagined **. Even after >> knowing it to be a rope, recollection is one of experiencing the existence >> of the snake, not of ** imagining ** the snake. And in Advaita SiddhAnta >> the snake has a certain level of Reality/Existence, namely prAtibhAsika >> Reality. >> > > > Shankara has held the adhyasta entity to be an imagined/concocted one. > That the one under delusion does not know that he has concocted and hence > he thinks he is experiencing it. When the truth is known he will also > realize that he had only imagined it. Of course, the entire samsara > anubhava, experience, is also a kalpana, as per siddhanta: > > ??????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? ? - ??????? > > ???; ????????? ??? ??? ????????????????????? ? ??? ????, > ?????????????????? ????????????????? ???????????????????? ?????????? > ???????????????????? ? ??????????? ?????? ??????? ????????????? ??????? > (??.??? > > .. > > ??????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? ? - ??????? > > ???????? ????? ???????? ??????????????????, ??? ???????????????? ??? ?? > ????????? ?????????????? ????????????????? ? > > The Vedanta paribhasha too holds this citing Sureshwara and even the Sutra > bhashya (Sundara Pandya): > > ??????????????????????????????? > > ???? ????????????????????? ? ???????? - " ??????????????? ?????? > ??????????? ??????? ? ?????? ?????????? ?????????????????????????? ?" ??? > ? '? ?????????????'-??? > > > ??????????????????????????????? > > ?????????????? ????????????????????????????????? > ??????????????????????????????? ? ???????? " ?????????????? ?? ???? ?????????????" > ??? ? ??? ??????????????????????????????????????? ???? > > > ??????????????????????????????? > ???? ? ? ??????????? ???????????????????????????????, > ??????????????????????? ????????????????????????????? ? ????????????????? > ???????? ???????????????????? ? ??????? ????????????????- " ?????? ???? > ???? ???????????????? ? ??? ? ?????? ?????? ???????????????????? ?" ??? ? > > >> Regards >> > subbu > >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "advaitin" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdMz1S78-S16Fk4_FeO_ySB%2B6BG_SXUNjDF%3DO9OB5m6Bog%40mail.gmail.com >> >> . >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "advaitin" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2%3DOMZg2%2B%3D8CFmOuED28UhX3h%2BYoscg1A%3DBZmzUxtNRAA%40mail.gmail.com > > . > From vikkyjagan at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 11:50:41 2023 From: vikkyjagan at gmail.com (Vikram Jagannathan) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 10:50:41 -0600 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaskaram Shri Chandramouli ji, I believe your question / comment is one of semantics & standpoint. I do not see a contradiction. Kindly requesting you to please share what you mean by 'imagined' versus 'created' versus 'experienced as existing'. My intent is shared below. The snake is said to be imagined (as opposed to being pratyaksha or directly perceived) because this adhyasa is of the nature of remembrance (recollection) of an earlier experience in a different locus. In Vedanta Paribhasha, recollection is not accepted as pratyaksha pramana. Of course, it is accepted that the snake is 'experienced as existing'. But this experience (prama) is not arising from a valid pratyaksha pramana. Being 'imagined' and 'experiencing as existing' are not opposites or mutually exclusive. The 'imagination' is vyavaharika reality and, as you said, 'experience as existing' is pratibhasika reality. As the pratibhasika reality is sublated by the vyavaharika knowledge, the recollection of earlier experience of the snake is understood to be an imagination. It is an imagination, again, since the snake does not actually exist in the rope but only appeared to exist as such. My understanding of 'creation' (manifestation) is that once created (manifested), the object is valid as a pratyaksha object. If the object is not pratyaksha post-creation, then it is a mere imagination in the vyavaharika sense. Moving on to BUBV-1-4-371, ajnana is the upadana karanam of "dvaitendrajala". Particularly, "indrajala" means illusion / art of magic, sorcery, jugglery, delusion etc. Ignorance is the material cause of illusion. In that way, it can be argued that illusion is 'created' by ignorance. Applying this to our rope-snake example, it can be argued that the snake is 'created' by the ignorance of rope. But this 'creation' does not have the same ontological reality as of the cause because the cause is ignorance and not knowledge. Thus, it is in a way differentiated from the other 'creation' with knowledge as the cause (such as a pot from a lump of clay) and is termed 'imagination', similar to "indrajala". with humble prostrations, Vikram On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 6:28?AM H S Chandramouli wrote: > Namaste. > > ????????? or ?????? etc also have the meaning *created*. Not necessarily > *imagined*. It is in this sense Bhashya needs to be understood in the > current context. > > Reg Swami Sureswaracharya vArtika cited // ??????? ????????????????- " > ?????? ???? ???? ???????????????? ? ??? ? ?????? ?????? > ???????????????????? ? //, > > ?????????????? should be understood as *created with ajnAna as upAdAna > kAraNam*. This is clear by the following vArtika verse BUBV 1-4-371 > > // ???? ????????????????? ?????????????? ? > > ??????? ???????????? ?????? ??????????? ? // > > // asya dvaitendrajAlasya yadupAdAnakAraNam | > > aj~nAnaM tadupAshritya brahma kAraNamuchyate || // > > There are any number of verses in the vArtika which reflect the same > understanding. > > Same with Vedanta Paribhasha. > > Regards > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 4:47?PM V Subrahmanian > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 2:31?PM H S Chandramouli < >> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Namaste Vikram Ji, >>>> >>> Reg // Adhyasa also is mutual, implying some of the >>> characteristics of the rope are superimposed on the imagined snake as well >>> //, >>> >>> Why is the snake considered to be ** imagined ** in AdhyAsa??. Snake is >>> ** experienced as existing ** and not as ** imagined **. Even after >>> knowing it to be a rope, recollection is one of experiencing the existence >>> of the snake, not of ** imagining ** the snake. And in Advaita SiddhAnta >>> the snake has a certain level of Reality/Existence, namely prAtibhAsika >>> Reality. >>> >> >> >> Shankara has held the adhyasta entity to be an imagined/concocted one. >> That the one under delusion does not know that he has concocted and hence >> he thinks he is experiencing it. When the truth is known he will also >> realize that he had only imagined it. Of course, the entire samsara >> anubhava, experience, is also a kalpana, as per siddhanta: >> >> ??????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? ? - ??????? >> >> ???; ????????? ??? ??? ????????????????????? ? ??? ????, >> ?????????????????? ????????????????? ???????????????????? ?????????? >> ???????????????????? ? ??????????? ?????? ??????? ????????????? ??????? >> (??.??? >> >> .. >> >> ??????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? ? - ??????? >> >> ???????? ????? ???????? ??????????????????, ??? ???????????????? ??? ?? >> ????????? ?????????????? ????????????????? ? >> >> The Vedanta paribhasha too holds this citing Sureshwara and even the >> Sutra bhashya (Sundara Pandya): >> >> ??????????????????????????????? >> >> ???? ????????????????????? ? ???????? - " ??????????????? ?????? >> ??????????? ??????? ? ?????? ?????????? ?????????????????????????? ?" >> ??? ? '? ?????????????'-??? >> >> >> ??????????????????????????????? >> >> ?????????????? ????????????????????????????????? >> ??????????????????????????????? ? ???????? " ?????????????? ?? ???? >> ?????????????" ??? ? ??? ??????????????????????????????????????? ???? >> >> >> ??????????????????????????????? >> ???? ? ? ??????????? ???????????????????????????????, >> ??????????????????????? ????????????????????????????? ? ????????????????? >> ???????? ???????????????????? ? ??????? ????????????????- " ?????? ???? >> ???? ???????????????? ? ??? ? ?????? ?????? ???????????????????? ?" ??? ? >> >> >> >>> Regards >>> >> subbu >> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "advaitin" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdMz1S78-S16Fk4_FeO_ySB%2B6BG_SXUNjDF%3DO9OB5m6Bog%40mail.gmail.com >>> >>> . >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "advaitin" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2%3DOMZg2%2B%3D8CFmOuED28UhX3h%2BYoscg1A%3DBZmzUxtNRAA%40mail.gmail.com >> >> . >> > From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 12:11:35 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 22:41:35 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In the Vedanta Paribhasha, the adhyasta vastu is stated to be 'produced' at that time of the adhyasa: ??? ??????????????????? ?????????????????????? ????* ??????????????????????????????*????????? ????? ??????*?????* ? *?????????????*???????????? ???????????????????? *??????????????????????????? ???? ??????????????????????????? ??????????????????* ???????????????????? This 'producing' 'at that time of adhyasa/bhrama/ajnana, is not the same of creation by Ishwara in the manner of Atma > Akasha > Vayu..etc. Hence, the kalpana/kalpita of sarpa in rajju is not being created in the ontological sense. This sarpa creation is having ajnana as upAdaana and it is anAd and anirvAchya. Even when Brahman is said to be the kAraNam, the upAdAna stated here is ajnAnam and this ajnAnam is not of Brahman but that of the jiva-s. That is a shakti of Brahman, also called mAyA, prakriti, etc. warm regards subbu On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 5:58?PM H S Chandramouli wrote: > Namaste. > > ????????? or ?????? etc also have the meaning *created*. Not necessarily > *imagined*. It is in this sense Bhashya needs to be understood in the > current context. > > Reg Swami Sureswaracharya vArtika cited // ??????? ????????????????- " > ?????? ???? ???? ???????????????? ? ??? ? ?????? ?????? > ???????????????????? ? //, > > ?????????????? should be understood as *created with ajnAna as upAdAna > kAraNam*. This is clear by the following vArtika verse BUBV 1-4-371 > > // ???? ????????????????? ?????????????? ? > > ??????? ???????????? ?????? ??????????? ? // > > // asya dvaitendrajAlasya yadupAdAnakAraNam | > > aj~nAnaM tadupAshritya brahma kAraNamuchyate || // > > There are any number of verses in the vArtika which reflect the same > understanding. > > Same with Vedanta Paribhasha. > > Regards > > >> From kartik.unix at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 15:56:34 2023 From: kartik.unix at gmail.com (Kartik Vashishta) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 14:56:34 -0600 Subject: [Advaita-l] New Books Uploaded Message-ID: OM OM NAMAH SIVANANDAYA Revered Blessed Self, Sadar Pranam, By the grace of Guru and that of God, more books have been uploaded to: https://gurudevsivananda.org This includes "Varanasi Rediscovered" by Sri B. Bhattacharya. Pranam, OM Kartik Vashishta OM From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 02:24:49 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 12:54:49 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Shankara says: Avidya is vidyA virodha Message-ID: While introducing the Bh.Gita verse 2.69: ?? ???? ??????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ? ?? ? Shankara says: ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ? ???????????????????? ?????????????? ?????????????????? ??????????????? ????????, *???????????? ?????????????? * ?????????... The actions, both secular and scriptural, of the Jnani, being products of Avidya, cease when avidya has ceased. And Avidya itself ceases since it is vidyA-virodha. What is noteworthy in the words of Shankara is: He holds avidya to be something that has for its nature of being opposed to Vidya, Knowledge. In other words, that which has Knowledge, Jnana, Vidya, for its annihilation, is the existent entity, bhAva rUpa, Avidya. Om Tat Sat From hschandramouli at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 03:16:08 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 13:46:08 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste. Reg // In the Vedanta Paribhasha, the adhyasta vastu is stated to be 'produced' at that time of the adhyasa: ??? ??????????????????? ?????????????????????? ???? * ??????????????????????????????*????????? ????? ??????*?????* ? *?????????????*???????????? ???????????????????? *??????????????????????????? ???? ??????????????????????????? ??????????????????* ???????????????????? //, This is just what I have also stated. Rope-snake being **Imagined ** does not involve origination or production of a vastu namely **snake**. Its ontological status is certainly not the same as that of Creation by Iswara. But surely **production ** of a vastu in adhyAsa does involve vesting that vastu with a certain level of ontological status, by definition. Its ontological status is stated to be prAtibhAsika while Creation by Iswara has the ontological status of vyAvahArika. Regards On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:41?PM V Subrahmanian wrote: > In the Vedanta Paribhasha, the adhyasta vastu is stated to be 'produced' > at that time of the adhyasa: > > ??? ??????????????????? ?????????????????????? ????* > ??????????????????????????????*????????? > > ????? ??????*?????* ? *?????????????*???????????? > > ???????????????????? *??????????????????????????? ???? > ??????????????????????????? ??????????????????* ???????????????????? > > This 'producing' 'at that time of adhyasa/bhrama/ajnana, is not the same > of creation by Ishwara in the manner of Atma > Akasha > Vayu..etc. Hence, > the kalpana/kalpita of sarpa in rajju is not being created in the > ontological sense. This sarpa creation is having ajnana as upAdaana and it > is anAd and anirvAchya. Even when Brahman is said to be the kAraNam, the > upAdAna stated here is ajnAnam and this ajnAnam is not of Brahman but that > of the jiva-s. That is a shakti of Brahman, also called mAyA, prakriti, > etc. > > warm regards > subbu > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 5:58?PM H S Chandramouli > wrote: > >> Namaste. >> >> ????????? or ?????? etc also have the meaning *created*. Not necessarily >> *imagined*. It is in this sense Bhashya needs to be understood in the >> current context. >> >> Reg Swami Sureswaracharya vArtika cited // ??????? ????????????????- " >> ?????? ???? ???? ???????????????? ? ??? ? ?????? ?????? >> ???????????????????? ? //, >> >> ?????????????? should be understood as *created with ajnAna as upAdAna >> kAraNam*. This is clear by the following vArtika verse BUBV 1-4-371 >> >> // ???? ????????????????? ?????????????? ? >> >> ??????? ???????????? ?????? ??????????? ? // >> >> // asya dvaitendrajAlasya yadupAdAnakAraNam | >> >> aj~nAnaM tadupAshritya brahma kAraNamuchyate || // >> >> There are any number of verses in the vArtika which reflect the same >> understanding. >> >> Same with Vedanta Paribhasha. >> >> Regards >> >> >>> From hschandramouli at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 04:19:58 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 14:49:58 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Vikram Ji, My understanding is as follows. Reg // The snake is said to be imagined (as opposed to being pratyaksha or directly perceived) because this adhyasa is of the nature of remembrance (recollection) of an earlier experience in a different locus. In Vedanta Paribhasha, recollection is not accepted as pratyaksha pramana.//, Not in my understanding of the Bhashya. No doubt recollection is not accepted as pratyaksha pramana. That the snake is of the nature of remembrance (recollection) is akhyAti vAda of Mimamsaka (Prabhakara). This has been refuted in no uncertain terms by Sri Bhagavatpada. In the Advaita Siddhanta as advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada, snake is actually *produced* by avidyA. It gains its status of *pratyaksha* because the experience is **It is a snake**. The *It is* part is *pratyaksha* in the sense it is pramAtru bhAsya while the snake part is *pratyaksha* being sAkshi bhAsya. Vedanta Paribhasha also mentions as follows while admitting this as pratyaksha // ?? ?? ? ??????????????????? ????????????????????? ?????????????????????? ?// // ata eva cha prAtibhAsikarajatasthale rajatAkArAvidyAvRRittiH sAmpradAyikaira~NgIkRRitA | //. Reg // But this experience (prama) is not arising from a valid pratyaksha pramana //, Not exactly. Snake is sAkshi bhAsya. Are not hunger or thirst considered pratyaksha? They are so because they are sAkshi bhAsya. Reg // Being 'imagined' and 'experiencing as existing' are not opposites or mutually exclusive //, Not in my understanding. They are certainly mutually exclusive. *Imagined* excludes any corresponding vastu as *existing*. Reg // Ignorance is the material cause of illusion //. Are you considering Ignorance as a vastu (bhAvarUpa) or as absence of knowledge? The doubt arises because of your followup statement ** because the cause is ignorance and not knowledge **. If vastu, then illusion also is a vastu. If not, then both it and illusion are not vastu. So the question of one being the material cause of another does not arise. Regards On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:20?PM Vikram Jagannathan wrote: > Namaskaram Shri Chandramouli ji, > > I believe your question / comment is one of semantics & standpoint. I do > not see a contradiction. Kindly requesting you to please share what you > mean by 'imagined' versus 'created' versus 'experienced as existing'. My > intent is shared below. > > The snake is said to be imagined (as opposed to being pratyaksha or > directly perceived) because this adhyasa is of the nature of remembrance > (recollection) of an earlier experience in a different locus. In Vedanta > Paribhasha, recollection is not accepted as pratyaksha pramana. Of course, > it is accepted that the snake is 'experienced as existing'. But this > experience (prama) is not arising from a valid pratyaksha pramana. Being > 'imagined' and 'experiencing as existing' are not opposites or mutually > exclusive. The 'imagination' is vyavaharika reality and, as you said, > 'experience as existing' is pratibhasika reality. As the pratibhasika > reality is sublated by the vyavaharika knowledge, the recollection of > earlier experience of the snake is understood to be an imagination. It is > an imagination, again, since the snake does not actually exist in the rope > but only appeared to exist as such. > > My understanding of 'creation' (manifestation) is that once created > (manifested), the object is valid as a pratyaksha object. If the object is > not pratyaksha post-creation, then it is a mere imagination in the > vyavaharika sense. > > Moving on to BUBV-1-4-371, ajnana is the upadana karanam of > "dvaitendrajala". Particularly, "indrajala" means illusion / art of magic, > sorcery, jugglery, delusion etc. Ignorance is the material cause of > illusion. In that way, it can be argued that illusion is 'created' by > ignorance. Applying this to our rope-snake example, it can be argued that > the snake is 'created' by the ignorance of rope. But this 'creation' does > not have the same ontological reality as of the cause because the cause is > ignorance and not knowledge. Thus, it is in a way differentiated from the > other 'creation' with knowledge as the cause (such as a pot from a lump of > clay) and is termed 'imagination', similar to "indrajala". > > with humble prostrations, > Vikram > > > >>> >>> From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 05:17:55 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:47:55 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Shankara accepts the prAtibhAsika object to be 'non-existent but appears to be existing': ??????????????????????????????????????????? ?? - ??????? ?????????? ????????????????????? ?????? ?????????????? ?? ??????, ???????? ? ???????????????????????????????????????????????? *?????? ???? ????????* ??? ??? ??????????????? ??, ???? ????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????? Shankara uses the verb 'adhyasyati' / '???????????' to show that what is not there is superimposed: ?????????????? ???????? ????? ?????????? ??????????? ? ?????????????????????????? ? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ?????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????????????????? ??????? ???????????????????? ? ?????????????????? ???????? ? What is not there is superimposed. regards On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 1:46?PM H S Chandramouli wrote: > Namaste. > > Reg // In the Vedanta Paribhasha, the adhyasta vastu is stated to be > 'produced' at that time of the adhyasa: > > ??? ??????????????????? ?????????????????????? ???? > * ??????????????????????????????*????????? > > ????? ??????*?????* ? *?????????????*???????????? > > ???????????????????? *??????????????????????????? ???? > ??????????????????????????? ??????????????????* ???????????????????? //, > > This is just what I have also stated. Rope-snake being **Imagined ** does > not involve origination or production of a vastu namely **snake**. Its > ontological status is certainly not the same as that of Creation by Iswara. > But surely **production ** of a vastu in adhyAsa does involve vesting that > vastu with a certain level of ontological status, by definition. Its > ontological status is stated to be prAtibhAsika while Creation by Iswara > has the ontological status of vyAvahArika. > > Regards > > > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:41?PM V Subrahmanian > wrote: > >> In the Vedanta Paribhasha, the adhyasta vastu is stated to be 'produced' >> at that time of the adhyasa: >> >> ??? ??????????????????? ?????????????????????? ????* >> ??????????????????????????????*????????? >> >> ????? ??????*?????* ? *?????????????*???????????? >> >> ???????????????????? *??????????????????????????? ???? >> ??????????????????????????? ??????????????????* ???????????????????? >> >> This 'producing' 'at that time of adhyasa/bhrama/ajnana, is not the same >> of creation by Ishwara in the manner of Atma > Akasha > Vayu..etc. Hence, >> the kalpana/kalpita of sarpa in rajju is not being created in the >> ontological sense. This sarpa creation is having ajnana as upAdaana and it >> is anAd and anirvAchya. Even when Brahman is said to be the kAraNam, the >> upAdAna stated here is ajnAnam and this ajnAnam is not of Brahman but that >> of the jiva-s. That is a shakti of Brahman, also called mAyA, prakriti, >> etc. >> >> warm regards >> subbu >> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 5:58?PM H S Chandramouli < >> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Namaste. >>> >>> ????????? or ?????? etc also have the meaning *created*. Not >>> necessarily *imagined*. It is in this sense Bhashya needs to be understood >>> in the current context. >>> >>> Reg Swami Sureswaracharya vArtika cited // ??????? ????????????????- " >>> ?????? ???? ???? ???????????????? ? ??? ? ?????? ?????? >>> ???????????????????? ? //, >>> >>> ?????????????? should be understood as *created with ajnAna as upAdAna >>> kAraNam*. This is clear by the following vArtika verse BUBV 1-4-371 >>> >>> // ???? ????????????????? ?????????????? ? >>> >>> ??????? ???????????? ?????? ??????????? ? // >>> >>> // asya dvaitendrajAlasya yadupAdAnakAraNam | >>> >>> aj~nAnaM tadupAshritya brahma kAraNamuchyate || // >>> >>> There are any number of verses in the vArtika which reflect the same >>> understanding. >>> >>> Same with Vedanta Paribhasha. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> >>>> From vikkyjagan at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 17:44:32 2023 From: vikkyjagan at gmail.com (Vikram Jagannathan) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 16:44:32 -0600 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaskaram Shri Chandramouli ji, Reg // The snake is said to be imagined (as opposed to being pratyaksha or > directly perceived) because this adhyasa is of the nature of remembrance > (recollection) of an earlier experience in a different locus. In Vedanta > Paribhasha, recollection is not accepted as pratyaksha pramana.//, > > Not in my understanding of the Bhashya. No doubt recollection is not > accepted as pratyaksha pramana. > We can now start off on a common ground that recollection is not accepted as pratyaksha pramana. > That the snake is of the nature of remembrance (recollection) is akhyAti > vAda of Mimamsaka (Prabhakara). This has been refuted in no uncertain terms > by Sri Bhagavatpada. > Bhagavan Bhashyakara has provided the first definition of Adhyasa in BSB as "smriti-rupa paratra purvadrishtavabhasa" - "(Superimposition) is a cognition, on a different locus, having a nature similar to that of recollection, and cognising what has been experienced earlier". The key is "smriti-rupa", meaning, a nature of remembrance (recollection). Bhamatikara further defines "smriti-rupa" as "smriteh rupamiva rupam yasyeti smriti-rupah. asannihita-vishayatvam smritirupatvam." - "Its nature is like the nature of recollection. The non-presence of the object is of the essence of recollection." With this, and the above common ground, adhyasa (nature of remembrance) is not accepted as pratyaksha pramana in vyavaharika. > In the Advaita Siddhanta as advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada, snake is > actually *produced* by avidyA. It gains its status of *pratyaksha* because > the experience is **It is a snake**. The *It is* part is *pratyaksha* in > the sense it is pramAtru bhAsya while the snake part is *pratyaksha* being > sAkshi bhAsya. Vedanta Paribhasha also mentions as follows while admitting > this as pratyaksha > > // ?? ?? ? ??????????????????? ????????????????????? > ?????????????????????? ?// > > // ata eva cha prAtibhAsikarajatasthale rajatAkArAvidyAvRRittiH > sAmpradAyikaira~NgIkRRitA | //. > There is no denying that while there is the perception of a snake, and it is not yet sublated by the perception of the rope, it does appear as if it is a valid pramana for the cognizer. But this pramana is subject to sublation, and when sublated becomes apramana. The above reference to Vedanta Paribhasha exactly illustrates this point that even in the case of a "pratibhasika" existence of silver in a shell, the perception of silver is due to the avidya-vritti in the form of silver. This avidya-vritti is vyavaharika kevala-sakshi-vishaya, but there is no object (silver) corresponding to this in vyavaharika. Hence in Vedanta Paribhasha, this silver is qualified as pratibhasika. The existence of a vritti gives the snake / silver a relative reality and the non-existence of the object in its locus at the vyavaharika level downgrades the ontological status to only pratibhasika instead of vyavaharika. This also matches Shri Subbu ji's reference to Bhashyakara accepting the pratibhasika object to be 'non-existent but appears to be existing'. Non-existent in its locus from vyavaharika, and appears to be existing from pratibhasika. This point in Vedanta Paribhasa occurs in the context "na hi vR^itti.n vinA sAkShiviShayatva.n kevalasAkShivedyatvam.h kintvindriyAnumAnAdipramANavyApAramantareNa sAkShiviShayatvam.h" where the standard sensual perception is incapable of operating. To summarize, we are not denying the actual experience of a snake cognized as existing. We are only saying that a non-existing (in its locus) snake appears to be existing. This 'appearance' is an experience that is witnessed subjectively by the witness alone. This is so because the object of experience is only created in antahkarana by avidya-vritti and not actual vishya. Therefore, though the snake is 'created' by ignorance, it is differentiated from other valid vyavaharika perceptions wherein the antahkarana-vritti matches the vishya. Hence "imagined". This is again, more of semantics and standpoint. > Reg // But this experience (prama) is not arising from a valid > pratyaksha pramana //, > > Not exactly. Snake is sAkshi bhAsya. Are not hunger or thirst considered > pratyaksha? They are so because they are sAkshi bhAsya. > Yes, experiences of hunger or thirst or happiness or sorrow are all kevala-sakshi-vedya, but in all these cases the object of these experiences (namely hunger, thirst, happiness, sorrow) are all true kevala-sakshi-vishyas alone in the form of antahkarana-vritti identical to the corresponding vrittis (hunger-vritti, thist-vritti, happiness-vritti, sorrow-vritti). But in the case of the perception of a snake, the object in question is technically a rope and thus the kevala-sakshi-vedya of the snake does not match the actual vishaya. Snake too is only a mis-matched kevala-sakshi-vishaya; hence pratibhasika only. That which is pramana in pratibhasika alone, is apramana in vyavaharika. > Reg // Being 'imagined' and 'experiencing as existing' are not opposites > or mutually exclusive //, > > Not in my understanding. They are certainly mutually exclusive. *Imagined* > excludes any corresponding vastu as *existing*. > Do you mean to say that 'imagined' can only be used with respect to non-existing vastu such as hare's horns or sky-flower? If so, this is different from my definition of 'imagined' as I stated earlier. Again, a matter of semantics. Moreover, proceeding with your definition of 'imagined', which excludes any corresponding vastu as 'existing', how can there be an experience of imagination of a non-existing vastu? If a non-existing vastu can be experienced as an imagination, then as the object of imagination / experience, the object does exist; and hence self-contradicts its non-existence! > Reg // Ignorance is the material cause of illusion //. > > Are you considering Ignorance as a vastu (bhAvarUpa) or as absence of > knowledge? The doubt arises because of your followup statement ** because > the cause is ignorance and not knowledge **. If vastu, then illusion also > is a vastu. If not, then both it and illusion are not vastu. So the > question of one being the material cause of another does not arise. > Yes, I am aligned with both Vartikakara (particularly in the scope of BUBV-1-4-371) and Vedanta-Paribhasa-kara (particularly in the context of rajatakara-avidya-vritti) that avidya is bhava-rupa. It is not necessary that the cause and effect should have the same ontological status. Here, in rope-snake & shell-silver examples, the cause is a vastu in vyavakarika standpoint and the effect is a vastu in pratibhasika standpoint. However, since you asked this question, my personal understanding (looking to check its validity based on our acharyas' teachings) is that avidya is both abhava and bhava-rupa. The avarana aspect is abhava and the vikshepa aspect is bhava-rupa. This is possible, without any self-contradiction, because of the very nature of avidya. This seems to me to explain the so-called contradictions within our system. At the day-to-day / empirical level, avidya seems grosser and subject to modifications. But as we start seeking inwards, the grossness turns subtler and eventually vanishes altogether. This is like a piece of solid metal which appears rigid from a day-to-day perspective, but deep within, at the subatomic / quantum level, it is merely a gaseous cloud of subatomic particles. But I am seeking validity from our sampradhayam and happy to stand corrected. with humble prostrations, Vikram From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Fri Dec 15 06:40:49 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 17:10:49 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] 'If, then' Statement: If Linga purana is Tamasa, then the Veda is also Tamasa: Message-ID: ???????????? - ?????????/??????? ?? https://sa.wikisource.org/s/4h9 ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ?????? ???????????????? ????????? ??????????? ??.? ?? Maheswara has to be meditated upon and that results in moksha, liberation. One attains to the True nature of Brahman, the Truth of Pradhana (Maya), Purusha (Jiva) and Ishwara. This is a paraphrasing of the Shvetashwatara mantra: ??????????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????? ??? ???????? ??.?? ?? ?? ??????? ???????????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ? ??????????? ??????? ?????? ? ?? ???????? ????? ????????? ? ? ? Shvetashvatara 3.4 It was Rudra who created Hiranyagarbha in the yore. ???????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????????????? ??? ???? ????????? ???????? ???? ???? ??.?? ?? The second line above is from the Taittiriya Upanishad: Whence words along with mind return without reaching. ????? ???????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ? ??????? ??? ??????????????????? ?????????? ??.?? ?? Again from the Taittiriya. He who realizes Brahman is freed from fear. ????????? ???????? ????? ??????? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ????????????????????????????? ??.?? ?? The second line above and the next verse are from the Taittiriya Aranyaka (Mahanarayana Upanishad): ????????? ???? ??????????????????? *????? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ????????* ??.?? ?? (Sarvam Kahlvidam Brahma of the Chandogya Upanishad) ?????? ?? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????????????????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ??.?? ?? Here are the Mahanarayana upanishad mantras on Shiva: ???????? ??? ? ?????????????? ??? ? ???????? ??? ? ????????????? ??? ? ???????? ??? ? ????????????? ??? ? ???????? ??? ? ????????????? ??? ? ??????? ??? ? ???????????? ??? ? ???? ???? ????????? ??? ? ?????? ??? ? ??????????? ??? ? ????? ??? ? ?????????? ??? ? ?????? ??? ? ??????????? ??? ? ?????? ??? ? ??????????? ??? ? ????? ??? ? ?????????? ??? ? (This corresponds to the first line of the verse above: 28.21) ?????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? ???????? ? ?? ????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?? ??? ??? ? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ? ????????? ??? ? ?? ???????? ??? ????????? ??? ????????? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ????????? ??? ????????? ??? ???? ??? ????????? ??? ???????????? ??? ????????? ??? ? ?? ??????????? ???????? ????????????? ? ?????? ???? ????????? ?????? ????? ????????????? ? ?? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ????? ? ????? ?????? ?????????? ? ?? ????? ??????????????????? ??????????? ????????????????????????????????????? ???? ?? ????? ????????? ? ?? ??? ??????????? ???????????? ??????????? ??????????? ?????????? ??????? ??????? ??? ??? ? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????????????? ? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?? ??? ??? ? ?? *????? ?? ???????????? ??????? ??? ????? ? ?????? ?? ??????* *?????? ??? ??? ?* ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ? ??? ? *????? ????? ???????????? ??????? ??? ????? ? ??* ?????????? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ? ????? ?????? ???? ? *?????????? ???????????? ??????? ??? ????? ? ?? All these correspond to the above cited verse of the Linga purana)* (Read English transliteration too here: https://www.facebook.com/298228120325658/posts/596990433782757/) These verses of the Linga Purana are about saguna dhyanam that leads to Nirguna realization: ?????????????? ????? ?????? ?????? ? ??????? ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ??.?? ?? ?????? ????? ? ???????? ?????????? ????????? *?????? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ??.?? ??* ??????? ?????? ??????????????? ???????? ? ??????? *??? ????????? ?????????????? ????? ????????? ??.?? ??* ??????????? ? ??????????? ???????? ???????? ????????????? ? ?????? ?????????? ??? ??.?? ?? With so many passages annotating the Upanishad, if the Linga Purana is held to be Tamasa, then default the fallout is that the Veda/Upanishad is also Tamasa. In other words, only if there are Tamasa Veda/Upanishads can one call some Puranas Tamasa. Advaitins alone will not have a problem here; all others who are sectarians will have a problem. Om Tat Sat From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Fri Dec 15 06:50:16 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 17:20:16 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] 'If, then' Statement: If Linga purana is Tamasa, then the Veda is also Tamasa: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A correction: //then default the fallout // to be read as: then the default fallout... regards subbu On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 5:10?PM V Subrahmanian wrote: > ???????????? - ?????????/??????? ?? > https://sa.wikisource.org/s/4h9 > > ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ?????? > ???????????????? ????????? ??????????? ??.? ?? > Maheswara has to be meditated upon and that results in moksha, liberation. > One attains to the True nature of Brahman, the Truth of Pradhana (Maya), > Purusha (Jiva) and Ishwara. > > This is a paraphrasing of the Shvetashwatara mantra: > > ??????????? ???????? ??????? ??????? > ???????????? ?????????? ???????? ??? ???????? ??.?? ?? > > ?? ??????? ???????????????? > ?????????? ?????? ??????? ? > ??????????? ??????? ?????? > ? ?? ???????? ????? ????????? ? ? ? Shvetashvatara 3.4 > > It was Rudra who created Hiranyagarbha in the yore. > > ???????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????????????? > ??? ???? ????????? ???????? ???? ???? ??.?? ?? > > The second line above is from the Taittiriya Upanishad: Whence words along > with mind return without reaching. > > ????? ???????? ????????? ?????? ????????? > ? ??????? ??? ??????????????????? ?????????? ??.?? ?? > > Again from the Taittiriya. He who realizes Brahman is freed from fear. > > ????????? ???????? ????? ??????? ??????? > ????? ????? ??? ????????????????????????????? ??.?? ?? > > The second line above and the next verse are from the Taittiriya Aranyaka > (Mahanarayana Upanishad): > > ????????? ???? ??????????????????? > *????? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ????????* ??.?? ?? (Sarvam > Kahlvidam Brahma of the Chandogya Upanishad) > > ?????? ?? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????? > ??? ?????????????????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ??.?? ?? > > Here are the Mahanarayana upanishad mantras on Shiva: > > ???????? ??? ? ?????????????? ??? ? > ???????? ??? ? ????????????? ??? ? > ???????? ??? ? ????????????? ??? ? > ???????? ??? ? ????????????? ??? ? > ??????? ??? ? ???????????? ??? ? > ???? ???? ????????? ??? ? > ?????? ??? ? ??????????? ??? ? > ????? ??? ? ?????????? ??? ? > ?????? ??? ? ??????????? ??? ? > ?????? ??? ? ??????????? ??? ? > ????? ??? ? ?????????? ??? ? (This corresponds to the first line of the > verse above: 28.21) > > ?????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ??????????? > ???????? ? ?? > ????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?? ??? ??? ? > ??? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ? ????????? ??? ? ?? > ???????? ??? ????????? ??? ????????? ??? ??????? > ??? ????? ??? ????????? ??? ????????? ??? > ???? ??? ????????? ??? ???????????? ??? > ????????? ??? ? ?? > ??????????? ???????? ????????????? ? ?????? ???? > ????????? ?????? ????? ????????????? ? ?? > ?????????? ??????? ???????? ????? ? ????? ?????? > ?????????? ? ?? > ????? ??????????????????? ??????????? > ????????????????????????????????????? ???? ?? ????? ????????? > ? ?? > ??? ??????????? ???????????? ??????????? ??????????? > ?????????? ??????? ??????? ??? ??? ? ?? > ??? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????????????? ? > ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?? ??? ??? ? ?? > *????? ?? ???????????? ??????? ??? ????? ? ?????? ?? ??????* > *?????? ??? ??? ?* > ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ? > ??? ? > *????? ????? ???????????? ??????? ??? ????? ? ??* > ?????????? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ? ????? > ?????? ???? ? > *?????????? ???????????? ??????? ??? ????? ? ?? All these correspond to > the above cited verse of the Linga purana)* > (Read English transliteration too here: > https://www.facebook.com/298228120325658/posts/596990433782757/) > > These verses of the Linga Purana are about saguna dhyanam that leads to > Nirguna realization: > > ?????????????? ????? ?????? ?????? ? ??????? > ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ??.?? ?? > > ?????? ????? ? ???????? ?????????? ????????? > > *?????? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ??.?? ??* > ??????? ?????? ??????????????? ???????? ? ??????? > > *??? ????????? ?????????????? ????? ????????? ??.?? ??* > ??????????? ? ??????????? ???????? > ???????? ????????????? ? ?????? ?????????? ??? ??.?? ?? > With so many passages annotating the Upanishad, if the Linga Purana is > held to be Tamasa, then default the fallout is that the Veda/Upanishad is > also Tamasa. In other words, only if there are Tamasa Veda/Upanishads can > one call some Puranas Tamasa. Advaitins alone will not have a problem here; > all others who are sectarians will have a problem. > > Om Tat Sat > > > > From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Sat Dec 16 00:33:41 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2023 11:03:41 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Swami Veereshananda Ji:Indian Spiritual values ......English discourse Message-ID: This was at the Vedanta Retreat, Bangalore last week: https://youtu.be/HJiBEZj4sXQ From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Sat Dec 16 00:44:42 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2023 11:14:42 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Online classes of 'Darshana shastra' by Swami Haribrahmendrananda in Sanskrit Message-ID: ?????????????? ????????? ,?????,?????? Online Darshana shastra classes by Pujya Swami Haribrahmendrananda , Uttarakashi This is the link to join this WhatsApp Group where we will begin the classes with P?jya Swamiji Haribrahmendrananda Tirtha. https://chat.whatsapp.com/BxiTlhPA7ov5nghVjO54SK ??????????????? ????? ????????????* ??? ???? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??????????????????????????,???????, ?????????????????????????, ?????????? ????? - ??????? ????????? ??????? ? ?????? - 2024 ????????? ??????? ????????????? ???????? ??? ??????????? ????????? ???????????? https://surveyheart.com/form/657c3f589b1a133d167487f9 From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Sat Dec 16 12:01:09 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2023 22:31:09 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] =?utf-8?b?4KSv4KSm4KS/IOCkueCkriDgpKzgpY3gpLDgpLk=?= =?utf-8?b?4KWN4KSuICjgpK3gpJfgpLXgpL7gpKgpIOCkueClgCDgpLngpYjgpIIg?= =?utf-8?b?4KSk4KWLIOCkueCkruCkvuCksOClgCDgpLbgpJXgpY3gpKTgpL/gpK8=?= =?utf-8?b?4KS+4KSCIOCkleCkueCkvuCkgSDgpLngpYjgpIIgPyBIaW5kaSBzaG9y?= =?utf-8?q?t_talk?= Message-ID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cZr_IXkki8 Super Advaitic ideas conveyed in the language of Bhakti ????????? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????????? ??? ???? ??? -- ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ????????? From sunkasalvishwa at gmail.com Sun Dec 17 22:40:34 2023 From: sunkasalvishwa at gmail.com (Vishwanath Hegde) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 09:10:34 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Ekashloki (Vedanta Stotra Series-3) Message-ID: Happy to announce the release of Ekashloki as a part of Vedanta Stotra series. With a great effort we are doing this. Singer, audio editor, video editor, Composer etc all are Vedanta students. Watch and share. https://youtu.be/q-N4H1QrqYI?si=7YfN91RcToCoiwYK From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Mon Dec 18 02:32:04 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 13:02:04 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiB74KSt4KS+4KSw4KSk4KWA4KSv4KS14KS/?= =?utf-8?b?4KSm4KWN4KS14KSk4KWN4KSq4KSw4KS/4KS34KSk4KWNfSBFa2FzaGxv?= =?utf-8?q?ki?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Vishwanath Hegde Date: Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 9:26?AM Subject: {???????????????????} Ekashloki To: The third video of Vedanta Stotra Series - Ekashloki is released today. Please watch and share https://youtu.be/q-N4H1QrqYI?si=7YfN91RcToCoiwYK -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "???????????????????" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANc5dsAmC0MdF2XXHjApu0ygu38kgM3%3DfQTbwFEFcBGwH9GxQA%40mail.gmail.com . From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Tue Dec 19 11:34:50 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 22:04:50 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Fwd: Vedanta Retreat - Noida, Delhi NCR - Jan 2024 English In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: See flyer here: https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/BjZa7aG8hhw Kindly request esteemed members of this group to help disseminate this information, contributing to its success as witnessed in South India in spreading the message of Bhagavatpada and in fostering a community of devoted and well-informed Advaitins. For more information and Registration https://tinyurl.com/VedantaDel From svedagarbha at gmail.com Tue Dec 19 22:51:32 2023 From: svedagarbha at gmail.com (Srinath Vedagarbha) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 22:51:32 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste, On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 7:28?AM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > What is this "waking up" to higher truth. Dream and waking are identical is > proved by logic. MANDUkya does that. AItareya proclaims that. Even without > realizing that, the logical conclusion is for one and all -- there is no > difference between waking and dream. Not even a bit of difference. > > Your argument is not logical. Waking state is superior and certainly there are valid reasons to attribute a higher reality to the waking, To list few; 1. The very pramANa you are invoking to prove your point, such as MANDUkya, AItareya etc. shrutis, which do exist only in the waking state! Your own pramANas disproves you and proves otherwise! Waking state is indeed superior! 2. You allude to abAdhita-artha of 2+2=4 in dreams. But such abAdhitatva comes only because 2=2=4 is valid in waking to begin with. Other way is not the case. Vision seen in dreams such as you becoming the King does not have any abAdhitatva in waking. Hence, yathAartha jnyAna (not just artha as you hold) in waking state determines abAdhitatva of all artha in dreams. Not the other way. Hence the waking state is indeed superior! 3. Dream state is pervaded by the waking state. Dreaming is indeed an event in waking reality with specific kAla-dEsha. Its creations are dependent on vasana of waking state. Dream is finally brought to a stop by the reality of the waking state, such as alarm ringing etc. It is not otherway, you cannot go into (or wake up to) dream by a dream alarm. This asymmetry proves waking and dreaming are not the same. Hence the waking state is indeed superior! Regards /SV From sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com Tue Dec 19 23:02:04 2023 From: sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com (Sudhanshu Shekhar) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 09:32:04 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Srinath ji. //Waking state is superior and certainly there are valid reasons to attribute a higher reality to the waking, To list few; 1. The very pramANa you are invoking to prove your point, such as MANDUkya, AItareya etc. shrutis, which do exist only in the waking state! Your own pramANas disproves you and proves otherwise! Waking state is indeed superior! 2. You allude to abAdhita-artha of 2+2=4 in dreams. But such abAdhitatva comes only because 2=2=4 is valid in waking to begin with. Other way is not the case. Vision seen in dreams such as you becoming the King does not have any abAdhitatva in waking. Hence, yathAartha jnyAna (not just artha as you hold) in waking state determines abAdhitatva of all artha in dreams. Not the other way. Hence the waking state is indeed superior! 3. Dream state is pervaded by the waking state. Dreaming is indeed an event in waking reality with specific kAla-dEsha. Its creations are dependent on vasana of waking state. Dream is finally brought to a stop by the reality of the waking state, such as alarm ringing etc. It is not otherway, you cannot go into (or wake up to) dream by a dream alarm. This asymmetry proves waking and dreaming are not the same. Hence the waking state is indeed superior!// How do you know that the state which you refer to as waking is not a dream? You state that waking is superior to dream. But to determine that what you think as waking is not a dream. In dream also, you thoght that to be waking. Let us first understand this. 1. In dream also, Shruti were there and relied upon as pramANa. 2. Untenable as the non-dream-hood of waking is still to be proved. 3. Same as 2. Both 2 and 3 were used by you in your dream to aver the non-dream-hood of your dream. Proves nothing. Regards. On Wed, 20 Dec 2023, 09:21 Srinath Vedagarbha, wrote: > > Namaste, > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 7:28?AM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > >> >> What is this "waking up" to higher truth. Dream and waking are identical >> is >> proved by logic. MANDUkya does that. AItareya proclaims that. Even without >> realizing that, the logical conclusion is for one and all -- there is no >> difference between waking and dream. Not even a bit of difference. >> >> > Your argument is not logical. > > Waking state is superior and certainly there are valid reasons to > attribute a higher reality to the waking, To list few; > > 1. The very pramANa you are invoking to prove your point, such as > MANDUkya, AItareya etc. shrutis, which do exist only in the waking state! > Your own pramANas disproves you and proves otherwise! Waking state is > indeed superior! > > 2. You allude to abAdhita-artha of 2+2=4 in dreams. But such > abAdhitatva comes only because 2=2=4 is valid in waking to begin with. > Other way is not the case. Vision seen in dreams such as you becoming the > King does not have any abAdhitatva in waking. Hence, yathAartha jnyAna > (not just artha as you hold) in waking state determines abAdhitatva of all > artha in dreams. Not the other way. Hence the waking state is indeed > superior! > > 3. Dream state is pervaded by the waking state. Dreaming is indeed an > event in waking reality with specific kAla-dEsha. Its creations are > dependent on vasana of waking state. Dream is finally brought to a stop by > the reality of the waking state, such as alarm ringing etc. It is not > otherway, you cannot go into (or wake up to) dream by a dream alarm. This > asymmetry proves waking and dreaming are not the same. Hence the waking > state is indeed superior! > > Regards > /SV > > > > From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com Wed Dec 20 04:18:31 2023 From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 09:18:31 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: praNAms Sri Srinath Vedagarbha prabhuji ( just typing your name ?vedagarbha? gives me goosebumps, I don?t know why!!) Hare Krishna avasthAtraya mithyatva or adhyArOpitatva is drive home the point that Atman / brahman is neither antaHprajna nor bahirprajna etc. and he is avasthAteeta. It is in this sense there is similarity between jaagrat prapancha and Svapna prapancha and both are adhyArOpita on brahman as he is ultimately nirguNam, shAntaM, advaitam and prapanchOpashamanaM. It is in this sense again the dream world too presents an exact replica of waking world. Anyway queries with regard to this is countered by asking : you are asking this question in dream or waking?? You may / will do same things in dream also without doubting that you are in dream!! KathOpanishad mantra : svapnAntaM jAgaritAntaM chObhaU yenAnupashyati etc. supports this view point. But it is not at all there to belittle the Ishwara srushti which we experience in jAgrat Avastha. To experience the mithyatva of jagrat Avastha and relevant prapacha we have to ?wake up? to the higher reality insists bhAshyakAra. It is in this sense only bhAshyakAra explains there is paramArtha in Ishwara srushti whereas jeeva mAnasa Kalpita Svapna prapancha there is not even an iota of paramArtha!!...But some pundits are of the opinion that these things have been said maNdAdhikAri-s keeping in mind SDV and they have to elevate themselves to next level i.e. DSV and finally ajAtavAda etc. So each and every quotes/siddhAnta in bhAshya according to them is ranked and anything that said in SDV is not good for mOksha ? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com Wed Dec 20 04:56:44 2023 From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 09:56:44 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: praNAms Sri Vikram Jagannathan prabhuji Hare Krishna Kindly pardon me for this belated reply. December work pressure at office ? Here is my short reply : I am taking 'problem' to mean something different from the as-is true nature of that entity. Could you please clarify what problem is said to exist in the seen rope by others? ? According to some, rope is the product of mUlAvidyA, after realizing that it is rope not snake, the avidyA with regard to snake will ?merge? in ?rope? avidyA (mUlAvidyA) and complete annihilation (nishesha nirmUlana) happens ONLY after complete nAmAvashesha of nAma rUpa, hence antaHkaraNa, nAma rUpa etc. are the product of mulAvidyA recognizing the rope as rope is NOT jnana as rope is the product of mUlAvidyA or rOpe (nAma and rUpa) itself mUlAvidyA!! There are definitely characteristics of the rope that bring about the remembrance of an earlier perceived snake. Adhyasa also is mutual, implying some of the characteristics of the rope are superimposed on the imagined snake as well. But none of this should be a 'problem' within the rope itself per-se. ? As per some theory, There are two different types of jnana should occur before realizing that there is rope and not snake i.e. vrutti vyApti jnana (pramANa bhUta jnana) and phala vyApti jnana (phala bhUta jnana) coz. brahmAshrita avidyA has two special powers (shakti) one is encompasses the brahman (sva-svarUpa) and some part of the same avidyA covers and projects the outer things also like a black solid screen covering the objects behind it. In this sense rope (an external thing and yathArtha jnana of this rope) too is covered by some part of the avidyA. Just removal of jnAnAdhyAsa is not enough there should be a removal of arthAdhyAsa as well. Apart from the sat-khyati-vadins, for all others there is not an iota of the snake in the rope. What actually exists is just the true nature of the rope as-is. ? Anirvachaneeya khyAti vAdins would argue that there was some anirvachaneeya snake in rope and that is the reason why we trembled, sweated and ran away!! Hence avidyA is anirvachaneeya!!. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From vikkyjagan at gmail.com Wed Dec 20 12:32:38 2023 From: vikkyjagan at gmail.com (Vikram Jagannathan) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 11:32:38 -0600 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaskaram Shri Bhaskar ji, Thanks for sharing more details. > > I am taking 'problem' to mean something different from the as-is true > nature of that entity. Could you please clarify what problem is said to > exist in the seen rope by others? > > > > ? According to some, rope is the product of mUlAvidyA, after > realizing that it is rope not snake, the avidyA with regard to snake will > ?merge? in ?rope? avidyA (mUlAvidyA) and complete annihilation (nishesha > nirmUlana) happens ONLY after complete nAmAvashesha of nAma rUpa, hence > antaHkaraNa, nAma rUpa etc. are the product of mulAvidyA recognizing the > rope as rope is NOT jnana as rope is the product of mUlAvidyA or rOpe (nAma > and rUpa) itself mUlAvidyA!! > > I do not wish to go deep into the validity of mula-avidya (or not); however, would like to state a couple of points for more reflection. 1. Within the context of the illustration: jnana of snake = pratibhasika jnana; jnana of rope = vyavaharika jnana; ajnana of rope as snake = earlier pratibhasika jnana with respect to later vyavaharika jnana; purely from vyavaharika perspective, there is no jnana or ajnana of snake; the very conversation of 'snake' is only with respect to the pratibhasika perspective. Similarly, jnana of rope = vyavaharika jnana; Brahman Jnana = paramarthika jnana; ajnana of rope = earlier vyavaharika jnana with respect to later paramarthika jnana; purely from paramarthika perspective, there is no jnana or ajnana of rope; the very conversation of 'rope' is only with respect to the vyavaharika perspective. He who remembers the earlier cognition of snake and later cognition of rope alone can talk about the ajnana; There is no ajnana in pure vyavaharika. Similarly, he who remembers the earlier cognition of rope and later realization of Brahman alone can talk about the ajnana; There is no ajnana in pure paramarthika. 2. It is accepted by all Advaitins that the 'phenomenon & perception' of duality is only an 'appearance' in Brahman and that there is no actual duality whatsoever in Brahman (neha nanasti kinchana). Anyone who feels there is actual duality in Brahman breaks the fundamental premise of Advaita to begin with! This means there is some 'X'-factor that is not actually present in Brahman, but only 'appears' to be in Brahman and results in the 'phenomenon & perception' of duality in an otherwise One & non-dual Brahman. Mula-avidya-vadins call this 'X'-factor as mula-avidya as the cause and the entire 'phenomenon & perception' of duality as its effect. Now, since in our sampradhayam an effect is non-different from the cause, it is said the 'phenomenon & perception' of all plurality, including the rope, is non-different from this mula-avidya. In this sense, the rope is fundamentally non-different from mula-avidya itself. This 'X'-factor can be substituted with any other term one chooses, but in my understanding the concept - the rope is non-different from this 'X'-factor - remains the same. When this 'X'-factor is sublated (taranti) the ekam-eva-advitiya nitya-suddha-buddha-mukta-svarupa Brahman is directly realized. > > > There are definitely characteristics of the rope that bring about the > remembrance of an earlier perceived snake. Adhyasa also is mutual, implying > some of the characteristics of the rope are superimposed on the imagined > snake as well. But none of this should be a 'problem' within the rope > itself per-se. > > > > ? As per some theory, There are two different types of jnana should > occur before realizing that there is rope and not snake i.e. vrutti vyApti > jnana (pramANa bhUta jnana) and phala vyApti jnana (phala bhUta jnana) > coz. brahmAshrita avidyA has two special powers (shakti) one is > encompasses the brahman (sva-svarUpa) and some part of the same avidyA > covers and projects the outer things also like a black solid screen > covering the objects behind it. In this sense rope (an external thing and > yathArtha jnana of this rope) too is covered by some part of the avidyA. > Just removal of jnAnAdhyAsa is not enough there should be a removal of > arthAdhyAsa as well. > > > Agreed that this is one theory. Vritti-vyapti and phala-vyapti refer to inner workings / etymology of perception in general. Jnana-adhyasa and artha-adhyasa refers to the inner workings of adhyasa. Do you have a different theory for deep etymology of perception and how adhyasa works? > Apart from the sat-khyati-vadins, for all others there is not an iota of > the snake in the rope. What actually exists is just the true nature of the > rope as-is. > > > > ? Anirvachaneeya khyAti vAdins would argue that there was some > anirvachaneeya snake in rope and that is the reason why we trembled, > sweated and ran away!! Hence avidyA is anirvachaneeya!!. > > > Agreed. However, the trembling etc. is applicable to all khyati-vadins; it is not unique to anirvachaniya-khyati-vadins. Everyone also agrees to the 'perception' of an 'existing' snake. The difference is in how, where & why. I am assuming there is no disagreement on this point. Now, personally deliberately side-stepping the controversy around adhyasa/avidya, let me ask this question: do you agree that mithyatva is anirvachaniya? Meaning, that which is considered as mithya is neither sat nor asat nor both? Also, do you agree that Brahman alone is satya and everything else that is believed to be existing is mithya? If so, do you agree that whatever is called 'avidya', that is distinct from Brahman, is also mithya? If so, the nature of 'avidya' is anirvachaniya? If you disagree on any of these, please kindly explain. I am just trying to see if we are all aligned at this level or not; it sets a common ground. The rest of difference of opinions, IMHO, is down to semantics and understanding, which I do not wish to enter into. with humble prostrations, Vikram From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Thu Dec 21 03:38:00 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:08:00 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Advaitic flavour and Shve Up. in the Skanda puranam Message-ID: In the Skandapurana we have an Advaitic expression of Brahman and a rephrasing of the Shvetashvatara Upanishad: ~ ?????????????/????? ? (???????????)/??????????? ?????/??????? ?? https://sa.wikisource.org/s/ge2 ??????????? ???????? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????????? ??????? ? ????? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?? Before creation Brahman, the partless, Pure Consciousness, Bliss, Resplendent, the First, One only, Shiva the Supreme remained. ? ????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ?? ??????????????????? ????? ???????? ???????? ?? ?? ?? He alone, at the beginning, after creating the Rajo-formed Brahmaa, from Himself, assigning the function of creatinng the world to him. He also blessed him with the Vedas. ?????? ????????? ???????????????????? ?? ???????????? ???? ????????????[?] ? ???????? ?? ?? ?? Shia gave Brahmaa the concise Self knowledge that is the essence of the Upanishadic corpus which is the Rudradhyaya (of the Krishna Yajur Veda). ?????????? ????????????????????? ??????? ?? ????????? ??? ??????? ???????????? ???????????? ?? ?? ?? The Advaitic imperishable Brahman essence that is ancient, of Shiva, the supreme Truth is enshrined in the Rudradhyaya. The above is both a teaching of Advaita and also a condensation of the Shvetashvataropanishad. From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Thu Dec 21 05:11:50 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 15:41:50 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Advaitic flavour and Shve Up. in the Skanda puranam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Some inputs from the Shvetashvataropanishad shown below in between. On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 2:08?PM V Subrahmanian wrote: > In the Skandapurana we have an Advaitic expression of Brahman and a > rephrasing of the Shvetashvatara Upanishad: > > ~ ?????????????/????? ? (???????????)/??????????? ?????/??????? ?? > https://sa.wikisource.org/s/ge2 > > ??????????? ???????? ????? ??????? ???? ?? > ?????????? ??????? ? ????? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?? > > Before creation Brahman, the partless, Pure Consciousness, Bliss, > Resplendent, the First, One only, Shiva the Supreme remained. > > ? ????? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ?? > ??????????????????? ????? ???????? ???????? ?? ?? ?? > > He alone, at the beginning, after creating the Rajo-formed Brahmaa, from > Himself, assigning the function of creating the world to him. He also > blessed him with the Vedas. > The above is sourced from the Shvetashvataropanishad: ??? ????????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?? ???????? ????????? ????? ? ?? ? ????????????????????? ???????????? ?????? ????????? (????. ?. ? ? ??) I, an Vedantic aspirant take refuge in that Rudra who in the yore created Brahma and blessed him with the Veda. > > ?????? ????????? ???????????????????? ?? > ???????????? ???? ????????????[?] ? ???????? ?? ?? ?? > > Shiva gave Brahmaa the concise Self knowledge that is the essence of the > Upanishadic corpus which is the Rudradhyaya (of the Krishna Yajur Veda). > > ?????????? ????????????????????? ??????? ?? > ????????? ??? ??????? ???????????? ???????????? ?? ?? ?? > > The Advaitic imperishable Brahman essence that is ancient, of Shiva, the > supreme Truth is enshrined in the Rudradhyaya. > > The above is both a teaching of Advaita and also a condensation of the > Shvetashvataropanishad. > In the Shvetashvataropanishad one can find many passages from the Rudradhyaya of the Krishna Yajur veda. Om Tat Sat From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com Thu Dec 21 05:59:17 2023 From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 10:59:17 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: praNAms Sri Vikram Jagannathan prabhuji Hare Krishna I do not wish to go deep into the validity of mula-avidya (or not); however, would like to state a couple of points for more reflection. ? But some would definitely have problem with MV and vehemently rejected it as an alien theory in mUla shAnkara bhAshya and latest contribution by later vyAkhyAnakAra-s in the name of shankara siddhAnta!! And I am one of the followers of those who think so and sitting in the box of asaMpradAyavAdins ? 1. Within the context of the illustration: jnana of snake = pratibhasika jnana; jnana of rope = vyavaharika jnana; ajnana of rope as snake = earlier pratibhasika jnana with respect to later vyavaharika jnana; purely from vyavaharika perspective, there is no jnana or ajnana of snake; the very conversation of 'snake' is only with respect to the pratibhasika perspective. ? Do you mean to say snake is virtual satya like mrugatrushNa even after realizing that there is no water !!?? But I agree with you that virtual (prAtibhAsika) satya is less satya when compared to transactional (vyavahArika) satya and transactional satya is less satya when compared to transcendental satya. (pAramArthika satya). But I am really having the problem in accepting sarpa as prAtibhAsika satya since as per the analogy sarpa is adhyasta due to misconception of rope. Because like mrugatrushNa you will not continue to see the sarpa in rajju to call it as prAtibhAsika satya. Similarly, jnana of rope = vyavaharika jnana; Brahman Jnana = paramarthika jnana; ? And if I may add to this pAramArthika jnana is NOT any vyavahAra abhAva jnana but vyavahAra bAdhita jnana. Hope you would agree to this. ajnana of rope = earlier vyavaharika jnana with respect to later paramarthika jnana; purely from paramarthika perspective, there is no jnana or ajnana of rope; the very conversation of 'rope' is only with respect to the vyavaharika perspective. * Yes and determining the real nature (doing the jignAsa) of vyAvahArika rope is what constitutes brahma jignAsa. ( enquiring the reality behind nAmarUpAtmaka jagat). He who remembers the earlier cognition of snake and later cognition of rope alone can talk about the ajnana; * Yes, his earlier abhAva of rajju jnana and as a result his vipareeta grahaNa of rajju (adhyAsa / anyathAgrahaNa). There is no ajnana in pure vyavaharika. Similarly, he who remembers the earlier cognition of rope and later realization of Brahman alone can talk about the ajnana; There is no ajnana in pure paramarthika. ? All vyavahAra is avidyApurassara only is it not?? And that is what bhAshyakAra explains in adhyAsa lakshaNa bhAshya (sakala laukika and vaidika vyavahAra) and as you rightly observed there is absolutely no existence of ajnAna in (pure) pAramArthika. 2. It is accepted by all Advaitins that the 'phenomenon & perception' of duality is only an 'appearance' in Brahman and that there is no actual duality whatsoever in Brahman (neha nanasti kinchana). * Yes prabhuji. Anyone who feels there is actual duality in Brahman breaks the fundamental premise of Advaita to begin with! ? Yes, agreed This means there is some 'X'-factor that is not actually present in Brahman, but only 'appears' to be in Brahman and results in the 'phenomenon & perception' of duality in an otherwise One & non-dual Brahman. Mula-avidya-vadins call this 'X'-factor as mula-avidya as the cause and the entire 'phenomenon & perception' of duality as its effect. * As per some that X factor need not be brahmAbhinna citing the justification that there is no bedha between shakti and shaktivanta as the sarvajnatvaM is in the svabhAva of brahman (itareya introduction and sUtra 1-1-4). And according to some this shakti is not avidyA but mAya. And in their dictionary of Advaita vedAnta mAya is not avidyA. When it is seen in the form of nAma rUpa it is brahmAnanya and when it is seen separately from adhishtAna it is avidyAkalpita. Here later mAya is antaHkaraNa dOsha and jeevaashrita and there is no provision to accept that there is brahmAshrita avidyA in shakti rUpa which is neither agrahaNa nor anyathAgrahaNa nor samshaya. The fourth type mysterious MV. Now, since in our sampradhayam an effect is non-different from the cause, it is said the 'phenomenon & perception' of all plurality, including the rope, is non-different from this mula-avidya. In this sense, the rope is fundamentally non-different from mula-avidya itself. ? kArya-kAraNa ananyatvaM is there to drive home the point that brahman is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa and brahmaikatvaM not to establish the brahmAshrita avidyA as mUlakAraNa and resultant vyAkruta nAma rUpa. This 'X'-factor can be substituted with any other term one chooses, but in my understanding the concept - the rope is non-different from this 'X'-factor - remains the same. When this 'X'-factor is sublated (taranti) the ekam-eva-advitiya nitya-suddha-buddha-mukta-svarupa Brahman is directly realized. ? Yes, that X factor as per shruti termed as mAya, prakruti, avyAkruta, shakti etc. with this only parameshwara does the creation and it is the motivational force through which he does the act of creation clarifies bhAshyakAra. And this mAyA shakti admitted between Chaitanya kAraNa ? achetana (jada) kArya prapancha it belongs to brahman only because at the very beginning there was only brahman without a second. If this shakti is wrongly attributed to avidyA then we will have to conclude even before the creation of jeeva-jagat brahman at the very beginning itself having the avidyA ( an avidyAvanta brahman!!??) no need to say it is apasiddhAnta. ? I am coming to your concluding queries to me : do you agree that mithyatva is anirvachaniya? Meaning, that which is considered as mithya is neither sat nor asat nor both? * I reckon this definition bhAshyakAra gives to mAya not to mithyA or avidyA, somewhere else bhAshyakAra gives the example of dviteeya Chandra darshana as mithyA darshana due to karaNa dOsha. avidyA is nirvachaneeya hence bhAshyakAra without any ambiguity explains it as jnAnAbhAva, vipareeta grahaNa and saMshaya, if I am right at this place he does not say avidyA is also anirvachaneeya. Also, do you agree that Brahman alone is satya and everything else that is believed to be existing is mithya? * A small correction from my perspective / understanding: brahman alone is satya and everything else that is believed to be existing aloof(apart) from brahman is mithyA. kAryAkArOpi kAraNasya AtmabhUta eva, anAtmabhUtasya anArabhyatvAt clarifies bhAshyakAra in sUtra bhAshya. If so, do you agree that whatever is called 'avidya', that is distinct from Brahman, is also mithya? * See, as you know in the adhyAsa bhAshya itself bhAshyakAra clarifies what is being called as adhyAsa that is avidyA only. And I don?t think this adhyAsa has the two types to propagate theories like arthAdhyAsa, so when the adhyAsa / misconception gone in the mind the Bhuta vastu vashaya jnana happens on its own without any special effort (vastu taNtra jnana). So, yes what ever ?distinct? from brahman in reality does not exist, satyanchAnrutancha satyamabhavat yadidaM kiMcha shruti says. If so, the nature of 'avidya' is anirvachaniya? * How avidyA is anirvachaneeya not able to understand especially when avidyA is NOT mAya in our books ? as said above, the shakti proposed as an X factor between cause and effect would always be subject to this ambiguity. Since mAya can be viewed from two different angles i.e. brahman ( as his shakti) and nAma rUpa jagat (its vyAkruta / manifested form) it can be termed as anirvachaneeya and a-vyakta (avyakta hi sA mAyA tattva anyatvA nirUpaNasya ashaktatvAt. Foam, buble, water example given by bhAshyakAra with regard to this. * If you disagree on any of these, please kindly explain. * To the best of my ability I have explained prabhuji. I am aware that these are all not standardly propagated Advaita module which is there in tradition as shankara vedAnta for ages but some have their own doubts and raised their voices about what is there in vyAkhyAna is not finding its place in mUla PTB. So it may look odd to traditionals to see these view points in Advaita siddhAnta pratipAdana ? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From sjayana at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 16:23:39 2023 From: sjayana at yahoo.com (S Jayanarayanan) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 21:23:39 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Advaita-l] Prashnottara Ratna Malika - 18 References: <916997797.2435425.1703193819890.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <916997797.2435425.1703193819890@mail.yahoo.com> (Continued from previous post) ? ? Q94. ??? ??????? ????????? What is the supreme weapon? A94. ??????? | Reasoning. ? ? Q95. ???? ? ??? Who is the mother of all? A95. ????:? The cow. ? ? Q96. ??? ?? ????? What is real strength? A96. ????????? | Courage. ? ? Q97. ?? ????????? What is death? A97. ???????????????? | Carelessness. ? ? (To be Continued) From svedagarbha at gmail.com Thu Dec 21 21:06:39 2023 From: svedagarbha at gmail.com (Srinath Vedagarbha) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 21:06:39 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Sri.Sudhansu ji, On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 11:02?PM Sudhanshu Shekhar wrote: > > How do you know that the state which you refer to as waking is not a > dream? You state that waking is superior to dream. But to determine that > what you think as waking is not a dream. In dream also, you thoght that to > be waking. > In my dream I might have thought it was real, but subsequently it is getting contradicted all the time. So, unless waking is contradicted, you cannot say it is also the same as the dream. You may invoke shabda pramANa in saying it "would" eventually. But that is a different story. Remember, your original claim is that you prove "based on logic" (indifference between waking and dream state). I am restricting scope of my argument to logic alone as it was your original premise. > > Let us first understand this. > > 1. In dream also, Shruti were there and relied upon as pramANa. > Nope. in this waking state, shruti's pramANya is due to its apouruShEyattvaM. Shruti vAkya seen in the dream is your own kalpita (or you are the kartu) and does not have independent avichinna parampara. If you allude to its abAdhita-artha, as said before such artha pramANya is due its pramANya established apriory in the waking state and not independent of it. > > 2. Untenable as the non-dream-hood of waking is still to be proved. > It is not contradicted (yet). The onus is on the one who says it would contradict. Do not forget you are a vaidIka and hold svataha-pramANya! > > 3. Same as 2. Both 2 and 3 were used by you in your dream to aver the > non-dream-hood of your dream. Proves nothing. > > Again all such claims in the dreams are indeed contradicted. In the case of waking state, I always wake up to the same bed, same house and to the same Advaita forum! This prove waking is non-contradicted,Can you say the same to dream? Canyou go to the dream to the same continuity of scene(s) as you dreamt before? Hence it is logical to say dream state has sAdriShya with the waking state. It is wrong to claim both are the same. Regards, SV From svedagarbha at gmail.com Thu Dec 21 21:13:19 2023 From: svedagarbha at gmail.com (Srinath Vedagarbha) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 21:13:19 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Sri.Bhaskar-ji, On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 4:18?AM Bhaskar YR wrote: > praNAms Sri Srinath Vedagarbha prabhuji ( just typing your name > ?vedagarbha? gives me goosebumps, I don?t know why!!) > > > Glad to hear that. It shows your deep inclination of respect and high regards to vEda-vAngmaya. My respect to you. > > > avasthAtraya mithyatva or adhyArOpitatva is drive home the point that > Atman / brahman is neither antaHprajna nor bahirprajna etc. and he is > avasthAteeta. It is in this sense there is similarity between jaagrat > prapancha and Svapna prapancha and both are adhyArOpita on brahman as he is > ultimately nirguNam, shAntaM, advaitam and prapanchOpashamanaM. > I understand your point, but my argument is to counter the original claim that both the states are the same is proved purely on logic. I am restricting myself to this scope. Regards, SV > From raghavkumar00 at gmail.com Thu Dec 21 21:24:14 2023 From: raghavkumar00 at gmail.com (Raghav Kumar Dwivedula) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 07:54:14 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Srinath ji As you know, in the vaitathya prakaraNam, we have the prasiddha hetu, dRshyatvAt mithyAtvam etc., with the shloka "vaitathyam sarvabhAvAnAm svapna AhurmanIshinaH". Would you agree that, that yukti of Sri Gaudapada, establishing the ontological equivalence of waking and dream, is sound? Om Raghav P S. On another tangential note, I always feel happy to see how both advaitins and dvaitins have the same love for Sri Krishna Bhagavan - as I am reminded of the upcoming occasion of Gita Jayanti tomorrow. On Fri, 22 Dec, 2023, 7:43 am Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l, < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaste Sri.Bhaskar-ji, > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 4:18?AM Bhaskar YR > wrote: > > > praNAms Sri Srinath Vedagarbha prabhuji ( just typing your name > > ?vedagarbha? gives me goosebumps, I don?t know why!!) > > > > > > Glad to hear that. It shows your deep inclination of respect and high > regards to vEda-vAngmaya. My respect to you. > > > > > > > > > avasthAtraya mithyatva or adhyArOpitatva is drive home the point that > > Atman / brahman is neither antaHprajna nor bahirprajna etc. and he is > > avasthAteeta. It is in this sense there is similarity between jaagrat > > prapancha and Svapna prapancha and both are adhyArOpita on brahman as he > is > > ultimately nirguNam, shAntaM, advaitam and prapanchOpashamanaM. > > > > I understand your point, but my argument is to counter the original claim > that both the states are the same is proved purely on logic. I am > restricting myself to this scope. > > Regards, > SV > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From svedagarbha at gmail.com Thu Dec 21 21:32:49 2023 From: svedagarbha at gmail.com (Srinath Vedagarbha) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 21:32:49 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste, On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 4:18?AM Bhaskar YR wrote: ...But some pundits are of the opinion that these things have been said > maNdAdhikAri-s keeping in mind SDV and they have to elevate themselves to > next level i.e. DSV and finally ajAtavAda etc. So each and every > quotes/siddhAnta in bhAshya according to them is ranked and anything that > said in SDV is not good for mOksha ? > > > You may have to ask such punditas that to claim SDV is for maNdAdhikAri, such pundits must persist adhikAra-bhEda even from outside of SDV framework. Otherwise no point in calling people of SDV are such. If claimed from DSV, such claim is merely their "drusTi" and not really real. If claimed from ajAti vAda framework, it is self negation because at least we have some jAta bhEda tatva of "adhikAra tAratamyA" in that framework. On the other hand if they are saying sitting within the SDV itself, maNDattva applies with equal force and claims can be ignored easily! Just my two cents. Regards, SV From svedagarbha at gmail.com Thu Dec 21 22:23:23 2023 From: svedagarbha at gmail.com (Srinath Vedagarbha) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 22:23:23 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Sri. Raghav-ji, On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 9:24?PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaste Srinath ji > As you know, in the vaitathya prakaraNam, we have the prasiddha hetu, > dRshyatvAt mithyAtvam etc., with the shloka "vaitathyam sarvabhAvAnAm > svapna AhurmanIshinaH". > > Would you agree that, that yukti of Sri Gaudapada, establishing the > ontological equivalence of waking and dream, is sound? > > The hEtu "dRshyatvAt" used in that anumAna is under tension with Sri GaudapadAchrya's guru Sri.Veda Vyasa's sUtra II.2.26 "Om naasatOdrishTatvAt Om". Although Acharya Shankara's reading of that sUtra is a diffrent context and nothing to do with mithyatvam of this jagat, but the very hEtu he uses to refute Bauddhas (Vainasikas) is the same "dRshyatvAt". Not that I am invoking the authority of Vyasa or Shankara, but there exist a disagreement on the hEtu itself in the tradition. Regards, SV From sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com Thu Dec 21 23:15:51 2023 From: sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com (Sudhanshu Shekhar) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 09:45:51 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Srinath ji. //In my dream I might have thought it was real, but subsequently it is getting contradicted all the time.// In dream-1, you thought that dream-1 was real and the dream-2 you saw within the dream was unreal and was getting contradicted within the sustenance of dream-1. Also, dream-1 did not appear to be contradicted so long as dream-1 lasted. So what? Dream-1 was still a dream and dream-2 was also a dream. "Not getting contradicted in state-A" does not imply that state-A is not a dream. As evident from the example of dream-1. Getting contradicted or not getting contradicted is an irrelevant criterion. Dream-2 got contradicted during sustenance of dream-1, and it was a dream. Dream-1 did not get contradicted during sustenance of dream-1, it was still a dream. In so called "waking" you "think" that it is not a dream because dream is contradicted and this waking lasts, but this does not imply that so called "waking" is not a dream. On the analogy of dream-1. //So, unless waking is contradicted, you cannot say it is also the same as the dream.// Dream-1 was not contradicted till it lasted. Only dream-2 appeared as dream to you within dream-1. Does that imply that dream-1 was not a dream when it was on. Non-contradiction during its sustenance does not imply non-dream-hood as evident from the example of dream-1. Therefore, your assertions are contradicted by the dream experience. //You may invoke shabda pramANa in saying it "would" eventually. But that is a different story. Remember, your original claim is that you prove "based on logic" (indifference between waking and dream state). I am restricting scope of my argument to logic alone as it was your original premise.// It is based on logic which is preceded by experience. You experience dream-2, dream-1 and now so called waking. And you analyse logically and arrive at their identity. You have no other tools. The so called shAstra are within the domain of respective dreams. I am not going to use them even though they clearly hold the identity of waking and dream. They are not needed in this aspect. //Nope. in this waking state, shruti's pramANya is due to its apouruShEyattvaM. Shruti vAkya seen in the dream is your own kalpita (or you are the kartu) and does not have independent avichinna parampara.// These are the statements you made in dream-2 and dream-1 also. These are your beliefs just as you believed dream-2-shruti and dream-1-shruti to be apaurusheya. Since waking and dream are identical, both Shruti are kalpita. //If you allude to its abAdhita-artha, as said before such artha pramANya is due its pramANya established apriory in the waking state and not independent of it.// The only abAdhita-artha is myself without the idea of I. To illustrate this, I said 2+2=4. The reality is, the only abAdhita-artha is myself. Rest everything is bAdhita. And this myself is not dependent on waking or dream. On the contrary, dream and waking are dependent thereupon. //It is not contradicted (yet). The onus is on the one who says it would contradict. Do not forget you are a vaidIka and hold svataha-pramANya!// As above. We will come to svatah-prAmANya etc later. First, let us discuss our experience of waking and dream. //Again all such claims in the dreams are indeed contradicted. In the case of waking state, I always wake up to the same bed, same house and to the same Advaita forum! This prove waking is non-contradicted,Can you say the same to dream? Canyou go to the dream to the same continuity of scene(s) as you dreamt before?// In dream also, same thing happened. Same bed, same house, same advaita forum. And the same continued and appeared to continue for ever. No difference whatsoever sir. Non-contradiction during the sustenance of a state does not imply non-dream-hood of the state as evident from the analogy of non-contradiction of dream-1 during its sustenance. //Hence it is logical to say dream state has sAdriShya with the waking state. It is wrong to claim both are the same.// Since there exists no parameter based whereupon the dream can be established to be distinct from "waking", it is logical to aver their identity. Regards. Sudhanshu Shekhar. On Fri, 22 Dec 2023, 07:36 Srinath Vedagarbha, wrote: > Namaste Sri.Sudhansu ji, > > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 11:02?PM Sudhanshu Shekhar < > sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> How do you know that the state which you refer to as waking is not a >> dream? You state that waking is superior to dream. But to determine that >> what you think as waking is not a dream. In dream also, you thoght that to >> be waking. >> > > In my dream I might have thought it was real, but subsequently it is > getting contradicted all the time. So, unless waking is contradicted, you > cannot say it is also the same as the dream. > > You may invoke shabda pramANa in saying it "would" eventually. But that is > a different story. Remember, your original claim is that you prove "based > on logic" (indifference between waking and dream state). I am restricting > scope of my argument to logic alone as it was your original premise. > > > >> >> Let us first understand this. >> >> 1. In dream also, Shruti were there and relied upon as pramANa. >> > > Nope. in this waking state, shruti's pramANya is due to its > apouruShEyattvaM. Shruti vAkya seen in the dream is your own kalpita (or > you are the kartu) and does not have independent avichinna parampara. If > you allude to its abAdhita-artha, as said before such artha pramANya is > due its pramANya established apriory in the waking state and not > independent of it. > > >> >> 2. Untenable as the non-dream-hood of waking is still to be proved. >> > > It is not contradicted (yet). The onus is on the one who says it would > contradict. Do not forget you are a vaidIka and hold svataha-pramANya! > > > >> >> 3. Same as 2. Both 2 and 3 were used by you in your dream to aver the >> non-dream-hood of your dream. Proves nothing. >> >> Again all such claims in the dreams are indeed contradicted. In the case > of waking state, I always wake up to the same bed, same house and to the > same Advaita forum! This prove waking is non-contradicted,Can you say > the same to dream? Canyou go to the dream to the same continuity of > scene(s) as you dreamt before? > > Hence it is logical to say dream state has sAdriShya with the waking > state. It is wrong to claim both are the same. > > Regards, > SV > > From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com Fri Dec 22 00:00:16 2023 From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 05:00:16 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: praNAms Hare Krishna I am just wondering after reading all these (ku) tarka about similarity between jAgrat & svapna, why on the earth bhAshyakAra considers vijnAnavAdins as pUrvapaxi and taken all the troubles to prove him wrong in abhAvadhikaraNa, especially in sutra bhAshya-s like in nAbhAva upalabdeH & vaidharmyAccha na svapnAdhivat etc. (2-2-28 & 29) !! If at all he himself saying all is just mind game in kArika bhAshya!! Has bhAshyakAra contradicted himself in sUtra bhAshya and kArikaa bhAshya!!?? Or we ourselves deluded and quoting both bhAshya-s out of context?? If at all bhAshyakAra-s perception about bAhya jagat is in complete agreement with that of vijnAnavAdins? vAda why on the earth bhAshyakAra attacked them and passionately proved them wrong (infact he attacks them personally and warns them that they don?t have control on their tongue and speak whatever they want !! And again, to our surprise, in kArika bhAshya all of a sudden advocated the same vijnAnavAdins? vAda ?mind all? theory!!?? Perhaps pundits here would say when bhAshyakAra writing sUtra bhAshya, he was writing so keeping SDV module and mandAdhikAri-s in mind and while writing kArikAbhAshya he was addressing the applicants in DSV, the mumukshu-s in super league ? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 00:41:39 2023 From: kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com (Kuntimaddi Sadananda) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 05:41:39 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> PraNAms to all. So much discussion on the topic.?Here is what I understand.1. Nature has provided dream and deep sleep experiences to show all the three states are not real even though I experience these.? 2. A Dream is not a dream for a dreamer who is in the dream.? 3. Goudapada in Vaitatya prakarana establishes that perceptibility, transactability, etc., are not criteria for absolute reality. What is absolutely real is that which never undergoes a change - trikaala abhaditam satyam. 3. The dream is realized as false only after waking up. One cannot realize this while in the dream.4. Waking is also not absolutely real by the above definition. 5. Deep sleep experience shows that one who is sleeping alone is really real while the worlds - waking and dream worlds are dismissed along with time and space.? 6. In contrast to a dream, one can realize that the waking state is not real by developing the required discriminative intellect (nithya anitya vastu viveka). That intellect cannot be developed in the dream state since intellect has to be at a minimum for one to go into a dream state. 7. Drishti Srishti vas Srishti Drishti perspectives depend on the mind. Deep sleep experience indicates that other than the self in that state, there is no world or time - no other jeevas also - showing DSV. Also, perceptual analysis (Vedanta Paribhasha) shows that the 'existence of an object (including other jeeva) is established by the knowledge of its existence. In essence, I, the subject has to ascertain - an object, the other Bodies, and the world exist by perceiving them. From the point of perceiver who is in the world of objects, SDV is valid.? 8. Realization can take place only in the waking state with the mind that has sadhana chutushtaya sampatti or needed qualifications.? Just could not resist. Just my 2c - for those interested. Hari Om!Sadananda ? On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 10:30:30 AM GMT+5:30, Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l wrote: praNAms Hare Krishna I am just wondering after reading all these (ku) tarka about similarity between jAgrat & svapna, why on the earth bhAshyakAra considers vijnAnavAdins as pUrvapaxi and taken all the troubles to prove him wrong in abhAvadhikaraNa, especially in sutra bhAshya-s like in nAbhAva upalabdeH & vaidharmyAccha na svapnAdhivat etc.? (2-2-28 & 29) !!? If at all he himself saying all is just mind game in kArika bhAshya!!? Has bhAshyakAra contradicted himself in sUtra bhAshya and kArikaa bhAshya!!??? Or we ourselves deluded and quoting both bhAshya-s out of context??? If at all bhAshyakAra-s perception about bAhya jagat is in complete agreement with? that of vijnAnavAdins? vAda why on the earth bhAshyakAra attacked them and passionately proved them wrong (infact he attacks them personally and warns them that they don?t have control on their tongue and speak whatever they want !! And again, to our surprise,? in kArika bhAshya all of a sudden advocated the same vijnAnavAdins? vAda? ?mind all? theory!!??? Perhaps pundits here would say when bhAshyakAra writing sUtra bhAshya,? he was writing so keeping SDV module and mandAdhikAri-s in mind and while writing kArikAbhAshya he was addressing the applicants in DSV, the mumukshu-s in super league ? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar _______________________________________________ Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ To unsubscribe or change your options: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 01:25:51 2023 From: sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com (Sudhanshu Shekhar) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 11:55:51 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Namaste Bhaskar ji. You need to acquaint yourself of the difference between vijnAnavAda and mukhya-vedAnta-siddhAnta namely DSV. Perhaps, you can then appreciate that the tarka adduced are not ku-tarka rather heart and soul of VedAnta. In any case, labelling the argument as ku-tarka without any counterargument is worthy of being ignored. Before running to BhAshyakAra, we need to understand our own experience. That there was a BhAshyakAra who wrote PTB, said this and that in MANDukya and BSB -- are not sufficient to indicate non-dream-hood of waking -- on the solitary ground that you told exactly same thing in dream also. There was a dream-Shankara and dream-BSB saying these things and yet it was only a dream. Namaste AchArya ji. 3. The dream is realized as false only after waking up. One cannot realize > this while in the dream. > Through logic preceded by experience, the dream-hood of world can be known even if the world is not sublated. "Waking up" is nothing but substitution of one dream by another dream. 4. Waking is also not absolutely real by the above definition. > Waking is identical to dream as there exists no parameter based whereupon the both can be distinguished. > 5. Deep sleep experience shows that one who is sleeping alone is really > real while the worlds - waking and dream worlds are dismissed along with > time and space. > The really real never sleeps. He sees the presence of world in dream and absence of world in sushupti. He always sees. He never sleeps because His vision is never lost. > 6. In contrast to a dream, one can realize that the waking state is not > real by developing the required discriminative intellect (*nithya anitya > vastu viveka*). > The dream-hood of waking is arrived by logic preceded by experience. Waking and dream are identical. To aver //That intellect cannot be developed in the dream state since intellect has to be at a minimum for one to go into a dream state.// is putting the cart before the horse as waking has not been established to be distinct from dream. 7. Drishti Srishti vas Srishti Drishti perspectives depend on the mind. > Deep sleep experience indicates that other than the self in that state, > there is no world or time - no other jeevas also - showing DSV. Also, > perceptual analysis (Vedanta Paribhasha) shows that the 'existence of an > object (including other jeeva) is established by the knowledge of its > existence. In essence, I, the subject has to ascertain - an object, the > other Bodies, and the world exist by perceiving them. From the point of > perceiver who is in the world of objects, SDV is valid. > DSV states there is singular jIva, SDV says there are multi-jIva. That is the basic difference. DSV assumes jnAtaika-sattA of world whereas SDV assumes ajnAta-satta of world. They are suitable in accordance with gradation of adhikarI. > > 8. Realization can take place only in the waking state with the mind that > has *sadhana chutushtaya sampatti* or needed qualifications. > No difference between waking and dream. > Just could not resist. > It is an irresistible topic. It is the crux and heart of VedAnta. In fact, all topics are inter-connected. > From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com Fri Dec 22 02:18:07 2023 From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 07:18:07 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji Hare Krishna You need to acquaint yourself of the difference between vijnAnavAda and mukhya-vedAnta-siddhAnta namely DSV. * For the time being let us ignore your different modules and its hierarchy etc. First, educate us what is being refuted here by bhAshyakAra and what is that ?supports? your claim (mukhya vedAnta siddhAnta) here in bhAshya explanation. If you want to argue that what is being refuted here is ?entirely? different from your superior DSV module you have to be clear in your assertion before giving higher rank to DSV and contrasting the same from vijnAnavAda, is it not!!?? I doubt I have seen anything of this order in your mails, OTOH elsewhere in one of your statements, you said ( I may be wrong) in this particular issue (mind is all) shankara is in agreement with vijnAnavAdins? Perhaps, you can then appreciate that the tarka adduced are not ku-tarka rather heart and soul of VedAnta. ? If the heart and soul of vedAnta is mere DSV and SDV is inferior to DSV not fit for mOksha, again you have to prove DSV is entirely different from Advaita pUrvapaxi vijnAnavAdi who endorses the view upalabdhi itself Vishaya (both jnana and Artha) and this upalabdhi itself comes and goes (kshaNika) etc. Till that time you don?t have any valid point to defend your stand as shrutyanugraheeta tarka/yukti. In any case, labelling the argument as ku-tarka without any counterargument is worthy of being ignored. ? That is what is expected from you as usual, hence I ignored your mails ? Before running to BhAshyakAra, we need to understand our own experience. That there was a BhAshyakAra who wrote PTB, said this and that in MANDukya and BSB -- are not sufficient to indicate non-dream-hood of waking -- on the solitary ground that you told exactly same thing in dream also. There was a dream-Shankara and dream-BSB saying these things and yet it was only a dream. ? This is where the traces of kutarka I can find!! with the same logical inference why don?t I say even dream world also as real as waking world and both are capable of giving me mOksha and right place of doing sAdhana!! Why on the earth I should ignore and tag it as illusory instead using the same logic I can treat both states are as reality only. Anyway in kArika itself kArikAgaara agreed that the worlds of Vishwa, taijasa and prAjna?s world are real!! And again, to assert and prove the oneness of Atman why should I reject the existence of world ( for which Ishwara is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa) as non existent for me it is clear sign of immaturity and illogical coz. Knowingly or unknowingly you are attributing some existence to ?something? apart from Atman and asking us to negate it as illusory. Oneness is not at the cost of duality but it is the very essence of duality, the jnAni-s realization is I am myself in many forms but they are not in me (see Lord?s declaration in geeta) and is the bhUma drushti or Samyak drushti of jnAni-s as well and please note they are not the poor students in the module of SDV as you reckon. Even an idiot (dehAtmavAna) does feel his ?oneness? despite the existence of his different body parts!! You should first realize in shankara?s Advaita vedAnta : perception of dvaita is not opposed to Advaita jnana, coz. Of the simple fact dvaita perception is pratyaksha pramANita and Advaita darshana is shAstra pramANita and shAstra janita vyavahAra bAdhita jnana and NOT vyavahAra abhAva jnana both pramANa-s are not mutually contradicting and advocating what is valid in its own sphere of pramANa. * Anyway, all these things said umpteen times just to hear the concluding illogical statements like : ?to be ignored or just stepping stone and good only in some initial stages / module etc.??. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 02:53:02 2023 From: sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com (Sudhanshu Shekhar) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 13:23:02 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Namaste Bhaskar ji. I will answer all your questions. First you explain what is the difference between vijnAnavAda and drishTi-srishTi-vAda. //If you want to argue that what is being refuted here is ?entirely? different from your superior DSV module you have to be clear in your assertion before giving higher rank to DSV and contrasting the same from vijnAnavAda, is it not!!?? I doubt I have seen anything of this order in your mails, OTOH elsewhere in one of your statements, you said ( I may be wrong) in this particular issue (mind is all) shankara is in agreement with vijnAnavAdins// Sir, there are agreements between SDV and DSV also. So? Does it mean that DSV and SDV are same? VijnAnavAda has got nothing to do with VedAnta or DSV. In some respect, there may be identity of conclusion in both. That does not prove that they are same. //If the heart and soul of vedAnta is mere DSV and SDV is inferior to DSV not fit for mOksha, again you have to prove DSV is entirely different from Advaita pUrvapaxi vijnAnavAdi who endorses the view upalabdhi itself Vishaya (both jnana and Artha) and this upalabdhi itself comes and goes (kshaNika) etc. Till that time you don?t have any valid point to defend your stand as shrutyanugraheeta tarka/yukti.// You learn about the difference of DSV and vijnAvAda from texts if you feel like. If you think they are same, carry on with the idea. //with the same logical inference why don?t I say even dream world also as real as waking world and both are capable of giving me mOksha and right place of doing sAdhana!! Why on the earth I should ignore and tag it as illusory instead using the same logic I can treat both states are as reality only.// Sir ji. The illusoriness of dream is well-accepted to both parties. Hence, it is eligible to become an example in logic to deduce inference. The reality of waking world is not acceptable to both parties. Hence, you cannot take that as an example. This is Logic101. //Anyway in kArika itself kArikAgaara agreed that the worlds of Vishwa, taijasa and prAjna?s world are real!! // News!! //And again, to assert and prove the oneness of Atman why should I reject the existence of world ( for which Ishwara is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa) as non existent for me it is clear sign of immaturity and illogical coz.// Your dream world was created by abhinna-nimitta-upadan-kAraNa Ishwara? Test your conclusion on the litmus test of identity of waking and dream. //Knowingly or unknowingly you are attributing some existence to ?something? apart from Atman and asking us to negate it as illusory.// There is no existence to anything except Atman. Illusion ka definition hi hai -- traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitvam. //Oneness is not at the cost of duality but it is the very essence of duality, the jnAni-s realization is I am myself in many forms but they are not in me (see Lord?s declaration in geeta) and is the bhUma drushti or Samyak drushti of jnAni-s as well and please note they are not the poor students in the module of SDV as you reckon. Even an idiot (dehAtmavAna) does feel his ?oneness? despite the existence of his different body parts!! You should first realize in shankara?s Advaita vedAnta : perception of dvaita is not opposed to Advaita jnana, coz. Of the simple fact dvaita perception is pratyaksha pramANita and Advaita darshana is shAstra pramANita and shAstra janita vyavahAra bAdhita jnana and NOT vyavahAra abhAva jnana both pramANa-s are not mutually contradicting and advocating what is valid in its own sphere of pramANa.// Pehle aap ye prove kijiye ki you are not in a dream, then we can see what Gita says and what shAstra says. Your reliance on Shruti and Gita is same as your reliance on dream-Shruti and dream-Gita. //Anway, all these things said umpteen times just to hear the concluding illogical statements like : ?to be ignored or just stepping stone and good only in some initial stages / module etc.??.// You try your level best to distinguish dream and waking. If you cannot distinguish, then appreciate the implication of their identity. From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 04:21:15 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 14:51:15 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Even if the object, person and events seen in a dream seem real at the time, on waking up it is known that they are not real. Vedanta takes this experience as an example and concludes that the samsara/bandha experienced in the waking is not real. In the Bhagavatam and Brahmasutras, Veda Vyasa has called dream as Mayika, illusory. The meaning of 'maayaa' as God's will, Ishwarecchaa, does not hold good here. Dream creation is by the jiva - Srimad Bhagavatam In this chapter of the Bhagavata, as an analogy for the Supreme Lord creating the world and entering into it, is said to be akin to the creation of the Jiva creating the dream by his mind out of his Avidya shakti: ???????????????????/??????? ??/??????????/??????? ?? https://sa.wikisource.org/s/v4e ???????? ???? - ????? ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ????????? ? ??????? ???????? ???????? ????????? ????????????? ? ?? ? ??? ????? ?????? ?????????????? ? ???????? ???? ??? ???????? ??????????????? ? ?? ? Just as a sleeping man appears to have created the world with his own illusion (ignorance) and entered it, so the Supreme Lord dwells as if he has created this world with his magical power and entered it. From this illustration, the Srimad Bhagavatam reveals that the creation of the world and the entry of the Supreme Being into it is also illusory and not real. This premise is accepted only in Advaita. . The Brahmasutra also says the same: ?????????? ?? ??????????????????????????????????? ? ? ? 3.2.3 Shankara's commentary for the fact that the creation in a dream is illusory; not real: ??????? ????? ??????????? ? ???????? ? ???????? , ??????? ??????? ????????????? ; ????? ??????? ???????, ? ???????????????????? ? ??????? ?? ?????????????? ? ??????? ? ? ? 3.2.4 Upanishad and Shankara Bhasya passages on the creation of dream is by the jiva himself: ???????????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ???????? ??????????? (??. ?. ? ? ? ? ?) ??? ?????????????????? ? ????? ?? ?? ???????? ???????? (?. ?. ? ? ? ? ?) ??? ???????????????????? ????? ??????? ???????? ???????????? ? ???? ?? ?????????? ????? ?????? ?????????? ??? ??????? ?????????? ????????? ????????? ? ??????????? (??. ?. ? ? ? ? ?) ?????????? ? ??? ? ????????????? ????????? ? Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: 4.3.9: ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ???????? ????????????????? ?????? ????? ???????????? ? ? ? Dhruva says: ???????????????????/??????? ?/??????? ?? https://sa.wikisource.org/s/aw4 ??????? ??? ?????? ??????????????? ? ???????????????????????????????? ? ?? ? Dhruva realizes that this world is imagined in him by the Maya power of Ishwara. He gives an illustration for this: Just as a dream, Gandharva nagara (a phantom city) is created by ignorance, so the world is created by the maya power of Ishwara. From this statement we know incidentally: The dream-creation is by the jiva, endowed with avidya. Even in the Garuda Purana, Veda Vyasa elaborately says that dream is illusory and unreal, the waking world is also the same. For this the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad gives the well-known illustration 'Chariot, horse, road - all imagined in a dream': ??? ?????? ??????? ????? ??? ? ?????? ? ?,???.?? ? ??? ?????????????? ?????? ? ?? ??????? ? Chariots, etc. seen in dreams are not real. Thus the objects of consciousness are not real ones. (Bru. Upa. ? ???? ???, ? ??????, ? ??????? ???????? ??????????????? ????? ..the Advaita meaning of this famous mantra can be seen here in this Puranic verse.) ?????????? ????? ???? ?????????????????? (???) ??? ? ?,???.?? ? Objects take different forms in waking and dream (vasanamaya). ?????????? ?????? ???????????????????? ? ??????????? ????????? ????????? ? ?,???.?? ? Similarly, Para Brahman takes different forms in the waking state. ???????????????? ??????? ??????? ? ????????? ???? ???????????????? ? ?,???.?? ? We believe things to be real without questioning that they are made of maya. By reflection it is evident that they are false: vicharena viparyeti. They exist only in our imagination. In the Srimad Bhagavatam, Yashoda marvels at the sight of the entire universe in the child Krishna's mouth and muses: ?B 10.8.40 ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????????: ? ??? ???????? ?????????? ?: ?????????????? ???????: ? ?? ? 'Is it a dream, God's Maayaa or my own imagination?' From this too we know that dreams are not real. Because as an analogy for impossible happenings in the world we say 'What, are you dreaming ?' There is very popular. The Upanishads themselves call the three states including sleep as the 'three dreams': Aitareya Upanishad: 1.3.12 ???? ?????? ????? ???????? Thus in many places the Upanishads and the Puranas say that dreams are not real and by that example, the waking world is also not real. A short video in Kannada by the Puthige Mutt (Madhwa) Seer on dreams: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kVxgL_63KUuGMpMHJrWaEpM5d88hCNVS/view?usp=sharing Om On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 1:23?PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaste Bhaskar ji. > > I will answer all your questions. First you explain what is the difference > between vijnAnavAda and drishTi-srishTi-vAda. > > //If you want to argue that what is being refuted here is ?entirely? > different from your superior DSV module you have to be clear in your > assertion before giving higher rank to DSV and contrasting the same from > vijnAnavAda, is it not!!?? I doubt I have seen anything of this order in > your mails, OTOH elsewhere in one of your statements, you said ( I may be > wrong) in this particular issue (mind is all) shankara is in agreement > with vijnAnavAdins// > > Sir, there are agreements between SDV and DSV also. So? Does it mean that > DSV and SDV are same? VijnAnavAda has got nothing to do with VedAnta or > DSV. In some respect, there may be identity of conclusion in both. That > does not prove that they are same. > > //If the heart and soul of vedAnta is mere DSV and SDV is inferior to DSV > not fit for mOksha, again you have to prove DSV is entirely different from > Advaita pUrvapaxi vijnAnavAdi who endorses the view upalabdhi itself > Vishaya (both jnana and Artha) and this upalabdhi itself comes and goes > (kshaNika) etc. Till that time you don?t have any valid point to defend > your stand as shrutyanugraheeta tarka/yukti.// > > You learn about the difference of DSV and vijnAvAda from texts if you feel > like. If you think they are same, carry on with the idea. > > > //with the same logical inference why don?t I say even dream world also as > real as waking world and both are capable of giving me mOksha and right > place of doing sAdhana!! Why on the earth I should ignore and tag it as > illusory instead using the same logic I can treat both states are as > reality only.// > > Sir ji. The illusoriness of dream is well-accepted to both parties. Hence, > it is eligible to become an example in logic to deduce inference. The > reality of waking world is not acceptable to both parties. Hence, you > cannot take that as an example. This is Logic101. > > //Anyway in kArika itself kArikAgaara agreed that the worlds of Vishwa, > taijasa and prAjna?s world are real!! // > > News!! > > //And again, to assert and prove the oneness of Atman why should I reject > the existence of world ( for which Ishwara is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa) > as non existent for me it is clear sign of immaturity and illogical coz.// > > Your dream world was created by abhinna-nimitta-upadan-kAraNa Ishwara? Test > your conclusion on the litmus test of identity of waking and dream. > > //Knowingly or unknowingly you are attributing some existence to > ?something? apart from Atman and asking us to negate it as illusory.// > > There is no existence to anything except Atman. Illusion ka definition hi > hai -- traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitvam. > > //Oneness is not at the cost of duality but it is the very essence of > duality, the jnAni-s realization is I am myself in many forms but they are > not in me (see Lord?s declaration in geeta) and is the bhUma drushti or > Samyak drushti of jnAni-s as well and please note they are not the poor > students in the module of SDV as you reckon. Even an idiot (dehAtmavAna) > does feel his ?oneness? despite the existence of his different body > parts!! You should first realize in shankara?s Advaita vedAnta : > perception of dvaita is not opposed to Advaita jnana, coz. Of the simple > fact dvaita perception is pratyaksha pramANita and Advaita darshana is > shAstra pramANita and shAstra janita vyavahAra bAdhita jnana and NOT > vyavahAra abhAva jnana both pramANa-s are not mutually contradicting and > advocating what is valid in its own sphere of pramANa.// > > Pehle aap ye prove kijiye ki you are not in a dream, then we can see what > Gita says and what shAstra says. Your reliance on Shruti and Gita is same > as your reliance on dream-Shruti and dream-Gita. > > //Anway, all these things said umpteen times just to hear the concluding > illogical statements like : ?to be ignored or just stepping stone and good > only in some initial stages / module etc.??.// > > You try your level best to distinguish dream and waking. If you cannot > distinguish, then appreciate the implication of their identity. > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 04:21:53 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 14:51:53 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Sri Vidyaranya in his Anubhutiprakasha, on Aitareya Upanishad, says: ??????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ? ??????? ?????????????? ????? ??????? ???????? || 17 Dream is present only during its existence; not during sleep and waking. In the same way, being of the nature of dream, all the three states are stated by the Upanishad as three dreams. ???????????????????????? ????? ???????? - The gross, subtle and causal worlds are three dreams - explains Upanishad Brahma Yogin for the Aitareya mantra. Also since there is ignorance about the Truth, which persists in all three states, the svapnatvam of all three are admissible. We get this reasoning from the Mandukya Karika: ?????????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????????? ? ?????????????????????? ??????? ??? ? ?? ? > > From hschandramouli at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 04:28:24 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 14:58:24 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Reg // Also since there is ignorance about the Truth, which persists in all three states, the svapnatvam of all three are admissible. We get this reasoning from the Mandukya Karika //, Since the words ** all three ** are mentioned, it automatically implies that there are some differences between them, though ** svapnatvam ** may be common to them. Regards On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 2:52?PM V Subrahmanian wrote: > Sri Vidyaranya in his Anubhutiprakasha, on Aitareya Upanishad, says: > > ??????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ? > ??????? ?????????????? ????? ??????? ???????? || 17 > > Dream is present only during its existence; not during sleep and waking. > In the same way, being of the nature of dream, all the three states are > stated by the Upanishad as three dreams. > > ???????????????????????? ????? ???????? - The gross, subtle and causal > worlds are three dreams - explains Upanishad Brahma Yogin for the Aitareya > mantra. > > Also since there is ignorance about the Truth, which persists in all three > states, the svapnatvam of all three are admissible. We get this reasoning > from the Mandukya Karika: > > ?????????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????????? ? > ?????????????????????? ??????? ??? ? ?? ? > > >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "advaitin" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te09DVaQx3bd2NtST%2BkpYxMLCuvpnoK3RBi5V5LJbBTDfw%40mail.gmail.com > > . > From sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 04:31:38 2023 From: sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com (Sudhanshu Shekhar) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 15:01:38 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Namaste V Subramanian ji. Nice references. In fact BhAgavAta PurANa 6.16.53-54 takes the example of dream within dream and avers complete identity of waking, dream and deep sleep. Regards. On Fri, 22 Dec 2023, 14:52 V Subrahmanian, wrote: > Sri Vidyaranya in his Anubhutiprakasha, on Aitareya Upanishad, says: > > ??????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ? > ??????? ?????????????? ????? ??????? ???????? || 17 > > Dream is present only during its existence; not during sleep and waking. > In the same way, being of the nature of dream, all the three states are > stated by the Upanishad as three dreams. > > ???????????????????????? ????? ???????? - The gross, subtle and causal > worlds are three dreams - explains Upanishad Brahma Yogin for the Aitareya > mantra. > > Also since there is ignorance about the Truth, which persists in all three > states, the svapnatvam of all three are admissible. We get this reasoning > from the Mandukya Karika: > > ?????????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????????? ? > ?????????????????????? ??????? ??? ? ?? ? > > >> >> From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 04:36:13 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 15:06:13 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 3:01?PM Sudhanshu Shekhar wrote: > Namaste V Subramanian ji. > > Nice references. > > In fact BhAgavAta PurANa 6.16.53-54 takes the example of dream within > dream and avers complete identity of waking, dream and deep sleep. > Nice, could you pl. produce the Bhagavata verses? Thanks subbu > > Regards. > > On Fri, 22 Dec 2023, 14:52 V Subrahmanian, > wrote: > >> Sri Vidyaranya in his Anubhutiprakasha, on Aitareya Upanishad, says: >> >> ??????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ? >> ??????? ?????????????? ????? ??????? ???????? || 17 >> >> Dream is present only during its existence; not during sleep and waking. >> In the same way, being of the nature of dream, all the three states are >> stated by the Upanishad as three dreams. >> >> ???????????????????????? ????? ???????? - The gross, subtle and causal >> worlds are three dreams - explains Upanishad Brahma Yogin for the Aitareya >> mantra. >> >> Also since there is ignorance about the Truth, which persists in all >> three states, the svapnatvam of all three are admissible. We get this >> reasoning from the Mandukya Karika: >> >> ?????????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????????? ? >> ?????????????????????? ??????? ??? ? ?? ? >> >> >>> >>> From sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 04:38:40 2023 From: sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com (Sudhanshu Shekhar) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 15:08:40 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Namaste V Subramanian ji. Sent the screenshot of reference along with Sridhari TIkA. On Fri, 22 Dec 2023, 15:06 V Subrahmanian, wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 3:01?PM Sudhanshu Shekhar < > sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Namaste V Subramanian ji. >> >> Nice references. >> >> In fact BhAgavAta PurANa 6.16.53-54 takes the example of dream within >> dream and avers complete identity of waking, dream and deep sleep. >> > > Nice, could you pl. produce the Bhagavata verses? Thanks > > subbu > >> >> Regards. >> >> On Fri, 22 Dec 2023, 14:52 V Subrahmanian, >> wrote: >> >>> Sri Vidyaranya in his Anubhutiprakasha, on Aitareya Upanishad, says: >>> >>> ??????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ? >>> ??????? ?????????????? ????? ??????? ???????? || 17 >>> >>> Dream is present only during its existence; not during sleep and waking. >>> In the same way, being of the nature of dream, all the three states are >>> stated by the Upanishad as three dreams. >>> >>> ???????????????????????? ????? ???????? - The gross, subtle and causal >>> worlds are three dreams - explains Upanishad Brahma Yogin for the Aitareya >>> mantra. >>> >>> Also since there is ignorance about the Truth, which persists in all >>> three states, the svapnatvam of all three are admissible. We get this >>> reasoning from the Mandukya Karika: >>> >>> ?????????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????????? ? >>> ?????????????????????? ??????? ??? ? ?? ? >>> >>> >>>> >>>> From hschandramouli at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 04:40:48 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 15:10:48 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Namaste. It is difficult to understand the discussion. Avoiding the words waking/dream, if in any state one is able to recollect that there are other states different from the one he is in at that time, it certainly means different states of awareness are admitted by the person. It is quite another matter as to which is more real or less real, or which is dream/waking. There cannot be any controversy about the existence of different states themselves. Regards On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 3:08?PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaste V Subramanian ji. > > Sent the screenshot of reference along with Sridhari TIkA. > > On Fri, 22 Dec 2023, 15:06 V Subrahmanian, > wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 3:01?PM Sudhanshu Shekhar < > > sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Namaste V Subramanian ji. > >> > >> Nice references. > >> > >> In fact BhAgavAta PurANa 6.16.53-54 takes the example of dream within > >> dream and avers complete identity of waking, dream and deep sleep. > >> > > > > Nice, could you pl. produce the Bhagavata verses? Thanks > > > > subbu > > > >> > >> Regards. > >> > >> On Fri, 22 Dec 2023, 14:52 V Subrahmanian, > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Sri Vidyaranya in his Anubhutiprakasha, on Aitareya Upanishad, says: > >>> > >>> ??????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ? > >>> ??????? ?????????????? ????? ??????? ???????? || 17 > >>> > >>> Dream is present only during its existence; not during sleep and > waking. > >>> In the same way, being of the nature of dream, all the three states are > >>> stated by the Upanishad as three dreams. > >>> > >>> ???????????????????????? ????? ???????? - The gross, subtle and causal > >>> worlds are three dreams - explains Upanishad Brahma Yogin for the > Aitareya > >>> mantra. > >>> > >>> Also since there is ignorance about the Truth, which persists in all > >>> three states, the svapnatvam of all three are admissible. We get this > >>> reasoning from the Mandukya Karika: > >>> > >>> ?????????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????????? ? > >>> ?????????????????????? ??????? ??? ? ?? ? > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com Fri Dec 22 04:42:42 2023 From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 09:42:42 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: praNAms Hare Krishna svapnatvaM ( for example trayee svapnaaH) is to convey the sAdrushyam not to strike the absolute similarity. Svapna being internal and confined to individual and waking world being wide and outside but the sAdrushyaM is both are seen and changing, bhAshyakAra clarifies somewhere in kArikA bhAshya itself. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 05:01:31 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 15:31:31 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The Bhagavatam says: 6.16,53,54: ??? ???????: ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ? ???????????????? ?????? ?????? ??????: ? ?? ? ??? ?????????? ??????????? ??????: ? *???????????? *??????? ??? ????????? ??? ??????? ? ?? ? When a person is in deep sleep, he dreams and sees in himself many other objects, such as great mountains and rivers or perhaps even the entire universe, although they are far away. Sometimes when one awakens from a dream he sees that he is in a human form, lying in his bed in one place. Then he sees himself, in terms of various conditions, as belonging to a particular nationality, family and so on. All the conditions of deep sleep, dreaming and wakefulness are but energies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. One should always remember the original creator of these conditions, the Supreme Lord, who is unaffected by them. The term 'MAyAmAtrAni' rings with the Gaudapada Karika, Agama PrakaraNa: ???????? ??? ??????? ???????? ? ????? ? ????????????? ???????????? ????????? ? ?? ? This is Karika for Shankara and Shruti for Madhwa. The Vaithathya prakarana of the Karika makes an observation that the waking and dream are different on these grounds: ??????????????? ??????? ?????????????? ??????? ? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ? ? ? ???????????????? ??????? ?????????? ????????? ? ????????????? ????? ? ??????????????????? ?????????? ? ??? ???? ??????? ????????? ??????? ???????? , ??? ?????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ? ????????????????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ? ??????????????????????? ? ??????????????? ??????? ????????????????? ???? ? ????????????????? ???????????????? ? The sameness of the dream and waking is stated with an anumAna prayoga. The only difference is that: The objects of the dream are 'inside' the dreamer's body and also compressed. However, the sameness is on the ground of both the dream and waking being drshya and asatya. ????????????? ?????? ?????????????????? ? ??????? ?? ??????? ???????????? ?????? ? ? ? ???????????? ??????? ???????????? ?????? ??????? ?????????????????????????????????????? ??? ????????????????????? ???? ? That they are observed, objectified, is common to both dream and waking. One can read the next few verses for a kind of an argument on the above concept. The regards subbu On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 3:12?PM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin < advaitin at googlegroups.com> wrote: > praNAms > > Hare Krishna > > > > svapnatvaM ( for example trayee svapnaaH) is to convey the sAdrushyam not > to strike the absolute similarity. Svapna being internal and confined to > individual and waking world being wide and outside but the sAdrushyaM is > both are seen and changing, bhAshyakAra clarifies somewhere in kArikA > bhAshya itself. > > > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > bhaskar > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "advaitin" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB6592F7C063FFFD0C115946688494A%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com > > . > From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com Fri Dec 22 05:19:45 2023 From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 10:19:45 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: praNAms Hare Krishna Yes the supreme personality is the original creator of these conditions. Sri SSS somewhere says Atmanu tanna vishesha shaktiyondige tOrikoLLUvude vividhAvastagaLu haageye avanu avasthegaLannu meeridavanu aagiddaane. The waking world is karma bhUmi though changing not illusory. And subsequent lOka-s obtained through karma phala (taught by the veda-s karma kAnda) too not illusory but satyam clarifies bhAshyakAra elsewhere. Hence it is not called as bhrAnti but satya ( a transactional reality) the stage of reality provided by parabrahman for the sake of karmi-s to experience their karma phala. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar When a person is in deep sleep, he dreams and sees in himself many other objects, such as great mountains and rivers or perhaps even the entire universe, although they are far away. Sometimes when one awakens from a dream he sees that he is in a human form, lying in his bed in one place. Then he sees himself, in terms of various conditions, as belonging to a particular nationality, family and so on. All the conditions of deep sleep, dreaming and wakefulness are but energies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. One should always remember the original creator of these conditions, the Supreme Lord, who is unaffected by them. The term 'MAyAmAtrAni' rings with the Gaudapada Karika, Agama PrakaraNa: From sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 05:37:36 2023 From: sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com (Sudhanshu Shekhar) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 16:07:36 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Namaste V Subramanian ji. The translation is incorrect. Sridhari TIkA explains correctly. The verse talks about dream within dream. A man is fast asleep and sees entire world within himself in dream-2. The dream-2 breaks within dream-1 and he finds himself in one corner (within dream-1). Such are the three states of waking etc which are only-mAyA. Therefore, one should always remember the drashTA thereof which is beyond. Regards. On Fri, 22 Dec 2023, 15:31 V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l, < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > The Bhagavatam says: 6.16,53,54: > > ??? ???????: ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ? > ???????????????? ?????? ?????? ??????: ? ?? ? > ??? ?????????? ??????????? ??????: ? > *???????????? *??????? ??? ????????? ??? ??????? ? ?? ? > > When a person is in deep sleep, he dreams and sees in himself many other > objects, such as great mountains and rivers or perhaps even the entire > universe, although they are far away. Sometimes when one awakens from a > dream he sees that he is in a human form, lying in his bed in one place. > Then he sees himself, in terms of various conditions, as belonging to a > particular nationality, family and so on. All the conditions of deep sleep, > dreaming and wakefulness are but energies of the Supreme Personality of > Godhead. One should always remember the original creator of these > conditions, the Supreme Lord, who is unaffected by them. > > The term 'MAyAmAtrAni' rings with the Gaudapada Karika, Agama PrakaraNa: > > ???????? ??? ??????? ???????? ? ????? ? ????????????? ???????????? > ????????? ? ?? ? > > This is Karika for Shankara and Shruti for Madhwa. > > The Vaithathya prakarana of the Karika makes an observation that the waking > and dream are different on these grounds: > > ??????????????? ??????? ?????????????? ??????? ? > ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ? ? ? > > ???????????????? ??????? ?????????? ????????? ? ????????????? ????? ? > ??????????????????? ?????????? ? ??? ???? ??????? ????????? ??????? > ???????? , ??? ?????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ? ????????????????? > ??????? ????????? ??????? ? ??????????????????????? ? ??????????????? > ??????? ????????????????? ???? ? ????????????????? ???????????????? ? > The sameness of the dream and waking is stated with an anumAna prayoga. The > only difference is that: The objects of the dream are 'inside' the > dreamer's body and also compressed. However, the sameness is on the ground > of both the dream and waking being drshya and asatya. > > ????????????? ?????? ?????????????????? ? > ??????? ?? ??????? ???????????? ?????? ? ? ? > ???????????? ??????? ???????????? ?????? ??????? > ?????????????????????????????????????? ??? ????????????????????? ???? ? > > That they are observed, objectified, is common to both dream and waking. > > One can read the next few verses for a kind of an argument on the above > concept. > > The > > regards > subbu > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 3:12?PM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin < > advaitin at googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > praNAms > > > > Hare Krishna > > > > > > > > svapnatvaM ( for example trayee svapnaaH) is to convey the sAdrushyam not > > to strike the absolute similarity. Svapna being internal and confined to > > individual and waking world being wide and outside but the sAdrushyaM is > > both are seen and changing, bhAshyakAra clarifies somewhere in kArikA > > bhAshya itself. > > > > > > > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > > > bhaskar > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "advaitin" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB6592F7C063FFFD0C115946688494A%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com > > < > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB6592F7C063FFFD0C115946688494A%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer > > > > . > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com Fri Dec 22 05:46:17 2023 From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 10:46:17 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: praNAms Hare Krishna Talking and arguing about dream within dream waking from dream 2 to dream 1 within dream etc. indicates apriory acceptance of some other state standing there and adjudging the validity and authenticity of these states as dream or otherwise. Perhaps that state is 'master dream' state ? and we don?t know when & where we are going to wake-up from this state. After mahApraLaya!!?? May be ? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 06:48:23 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 17:18:23 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks Sudhanshu ji for the clarification. If possible pl post the Sridhari Tika. One can convert image to text here: Image to Text (Extract Text From Image) warm regards subbu On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 4:07?PM Sudhanshu Shekhar wrote: > Namaste V Subramanian ji. > > The translation is incorrect. Sridhari TIkA explains correctly. The verse > talks about dream within dream. A man is fast asleep and sees entire world > within himself in dream-2. The dream-2 breaks within dream-1 and he finds > himself in one corner (within dream-1). > > Such are the three states of waking etc which are only-mAyA. Therefore, > one should always remember the drashTA thereof which is beyond. > > Regards. > > On Fri, 22 Dec 2023, 15:31 V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l, < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > >> The Bhagavatam says: 6.16,53,54: >> >> ??? ???????: ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ? >> ???????????????? ?????? ?????? ??????: ? ?? ? >> ??? ?????????? ??????????? ??????: ? >> *???????????? *??????? ??? ????????? ??? ??????? ? ?? ? >> >> When a person is in deep sleep, he dreams and sees in himself many other >> objects, such as great mountains and rivers or perhaps even the entire >> universe, although they are far away. Sometimes when one awakens from a >> dream he sees that he is in a human form, lying in his bed in one place. >> Then he sees himself, in terms of various conditions, as belonging to a >> particular nationality, family and so on. All the conditions of deep >> sleep, >> dreaming and wakefulness are but energies of the Supreme Personality of >> Godhead. One should always remember the original creator of these >> conditions, the Supreme Lord, who is unaffected by them. >> >> The term 'MAyAmAtrAni' rings with the Gaudapada Karika, Agama PrakaraNa: >> >> ???????? ??? ??????? ???????? ? ????? ? ????????????? ???????????? >> ????????? ? ?? ? >> >> This is Karika for Shankara and Shruti for Madhwa. >> >> The Vaithathya prakarana of the Karika makes an observation that the >> waking >> and dream are different on these grounds: >> >> ??????????????? ??????? ?????????????? ??????? ? >> ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ? ? ? >> >> ???????????????? ??????? ?????????? ????????? ? ????????????? ????? ? >> ??????????????????? ?????????? ? ??? ???? ??????? ????????? ??????? >> ???????? , ??? ?????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ? >> ????????????????? >> ??????? ????????? ??????? ? ??????????????????????? ? ??????????????? >> ??????? ????????????????? ???? ? ????????????????? ???????????????? ? >> The sameness of the dream and waking is stated with an anumAna prayoga. >> The >> only difference is that: The objects of the dream are 'inside' the >> dreamer's body and also compressed. However, the sameness is on the ground >> of both the dream and waking being drshya and asatya. >> >> ????????????? ?????? ?????????????????? ? >> ??????? ?? ??????? ???????????? ?????? ? ? ? >> ???????????? ??????? ???????????? ?????? ??????? >> ?????????????????????????????????????? ??? ????????????????????? ???? ? >> >> That they are observed, objectified, is common to both dream and waking. >> >> One can read the next few verses for a kind of an argument on the above >> concept. >> >> The >> >> regards >> subbu >> >> On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 3:12?PM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin < >> advaitin at googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> > praNAms >> > >> > Hare Krishna >> > >> > >> > >> > svapnatvaM ( for example trayee svapnaaH) is to convey the sAdrushyam >> not >> > to strike the absolute similarity. Svapna being internal and confined >> to >> > individual and waking world being wide and outside but the sAdrushyaM is >> > both are seen and changing, bhAshyakAra clarifies somewhere in kArikA >> > bhAshya itself. >> > >> > >> > >> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! >> > >> > bhaskar >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups >> > "advaitin" group. >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >> an >> > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> > >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB6592F7C063FFFD0C115946688494A%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com >> > < >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB6592F7C063FFFD0C115946688494A%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer >> > >> > . >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >> >> To unsubscribe or change your options: >> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >> >> For assistance, contact: >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >> > From sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 06:59:38 2023 From: sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com (Sudhanshu Shekhar) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 17:29:38 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: ? ??? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ? ???????????????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????????? ??????? ? ???????????? ??????? ?????????? ??? ??????? ???? ?????? - ??? ???????? ?????? ?????? ? ?????? ??????, ???????? ????????? ??????, ?????? ???????, ??? ??????????? ??????????? ?????? ???????????? ??????? ?? ????????? ??? ??????? ????-?? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??, ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??, ???? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??, ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???-?? ? ??? ???????????????????? ????????????????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ??? ??????? ??????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????-????? ?????????? ? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????????????? ????????????????????? ?????? ? ??????????? ????????? ??????? ? ????????????? ? ??? ?????? ????????? ???????????????????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????????????? ? ??? ?????????????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????? ??????? ????? ?????????? ?? ??? ??????????????????? ??????? ????-???? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ???????? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??, ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?? ?? ???????? ??? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ???, ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???-??? From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 10:13:27 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 20:43:27 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the Sridhari commentary. One of the statements of Yama in this chapter: https://www.transliteral.org/pages/z100517064042/view ?????? ??????? ? ?? ??????????????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????????????? ???? ???? Just as manoratha (imagination that is indulged in the waking) and dream are not real, so also this world which is perceived through all senses is not absolutely real. (There is a definition for the waking state: ???????????????????? ??????? Waking is that state where the objects are contacted through senses.) ?? ???????????? ?? ??? ??????? ??????? ? Because of this, the wise do not grieve over anything, whether long standing or short-lived. ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ???? Because there is a rule that what is born must die. We know from this saying of the Bhagavatam: The world is akin to dream, not real like the proverbial castle in the air. This premise stated by Veda Vyasa in the Bhagavatam is accepted with no compromise only in Advaita. This premise is contradictory to the doctrinal beliefs of other schools. See Sridhara Swami?s commentary here: https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/8uCaO1Qdov0 regards subbu On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 5:29?PM Sudhanshu Shekhar wrote: > ? > > ??? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ? ???????????????? ?????? ?????? > ??????? ???? > > ??? ?????????? ??????????? ??????? ? ???????????? ??????? ?????????? ??? > ??????? ???? > > ?????? - ??? ???????? ?????? ?????? ? ?????? ??????, ???????? ????????? > ??????, ?????? ???????, ??? ??????????? ??????????? ?????? ???????????? > ??????? ?? ????????? ??? ??????? ????-?? ?? > > ??????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ???? > ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?? > ????? ??, ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??, ???? ?? ??? ?? ?????? > ??????? ???????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??, ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? > ???????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???-?? ? > > > ??? ???????????????????? ????????????????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ??? > ??????? ??????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????-????? > ?????????? ? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????????????? ????????????????????? > ?????? ? ??????????? ????????? ??????? ? ????????????? ? ??? ?????? > ????????? ???????????????????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????????????? ? > ??? ?????????????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????????????????????????????? > ?????????????????? ??????? ????? ?????????? ?? ??? ??????????????????? > ??????? ????-???? > > > ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? > ???????? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??, ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? > ? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? > ???? ?? ????????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ? > > ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??????? > ??? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ??? > ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???????? > ??? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???? > ?? ? > > ?? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?? ?? > ???????? ??? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ???, ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? > ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???-??? > From sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 10:29:13 2023 From: sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com (Sudhanshu Shekhar) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 20:59:13 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Namaste V Subramanian ji. There are plethora of statements in Bhagvat PurANa. In one shloka, it is clearly said that perception in jAgrat is without artha just like swapna. Regards. On Fri, 22 Dec, 2023, 8:43 pm V Subrahmanian, wrote: > Thanks for the Sridhari commentary. > > One of the statements of Yama in this chapter: > > https://www.transliteral.org/pages/z100517064042/view > > ?????? ??????? ? ?? ??????????????? > > ??? ?????? ??????? ??????????????? ???? ???? > > Just as manoratha (imagination that is indulged in the waking) and dream > are not real, so also this world which is perceived through all senses is > not absolutely real. > > > (There is a definition for the waking state: ???????????????????? > ??????? Waking is that state where the objects are contacted through > senses.) > > > ?? ???????????? ?? ??? ??????? ??????? ? > > Because of this, the wise do not grieve over anything, whether long > standing or short-lived. > > ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ???? > > Because there is a rule that what is born must die. > > > We know from this saying of the Bhagavatam: The world is akin to dream, > not real like the proverbial castle in the air. This premise stated by Veda > Vyasa in the Bhagavatam is accepted with no compromise only in Advaita. > This premise is contradictory to the doctrinal beliefs of other schools. > > > See Sridhara Swami?s commentary here: > https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/8uCaO1Qdov0 > > regards > > subbu > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 5:29?PM Sudhanshu Shekhar < > sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote: > >> ? >> >> ??? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ? ???????????????? ?????? >> ?????? ??????? ???? >> >> ??? ?????????? ??????????? ??????? ? ???????????? ??????? ?????????? ??? >> ??????? ???? >> >> ?????? - ??? ???????? ?????? ?????? ? ?????? ??????, ???????? ????????? >> ??????, ?????? ???????, ??? ??????????? ??????????? ?????? ???????????? >> ??????? ?? ????????? ??? ??????? ????-?? ?? >> >> ??????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ???? >> ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?? >> ????? ??, ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??, ???? ?? ??? ?? ?????? >> ??????? ???????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??, ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? >> ???????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???-?? ? >> >> >> ??? ???????????????????? ????????????????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ??? >> ??????? ??????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????-????? >> ?????????? ? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????????????? ????????????????????? >> ?????? ? ??????????? ????????? ??????? ? ????????????? ? ??? ?????? >> ????????? ???????????????????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????????????? ? >> ??? ?????????????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????????????????????????????? >> ?????????????????? ??????? ????? ?????????? ?? ??? ??????????????????? >> ??????? ????-???? >> >> >> ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? >> ???????? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??, ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? >> ? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? >> ???? ?? ????????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ? >> >> ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??????? >> ??? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ??? >> ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???????? >> ??? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???? >> ?? ? >> >> ?? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?? ?? >> ???????? ??? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ???, ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? >> ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???-??? >> > From svedagarbha at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 11:35:00 2023 From: svedagarbha at gmail.com (Srinath Vedagarbha) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 11:35:00 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 10:13?AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > We know from this saying of the Bhagavatam: The world is akin to dream, not > real like the proverbial castle in the air. This premise stated by Veda > Vyasa in the Bhagavatam is accepted with no compromise only in Advaita. > This premise is contradictory to the doctrinal beliefs of other schools. > > Well, for others it is very crystal clear whenever shAstra equates waking with dream state. Sri. MadhwaAcharya quotes paramOpanishad in His VTVN work on this subject; "anitva vikAritva pAratantraAdi rUpataH | svapnAdi sAMyam jagatO, na tu bhOdha nirvatyAtA | sarvajnasya yatO vishNuH sarva dvaita pratIyatE | bhOdhAsahaM tato naitat kMtvAjnAvashamasya hi" -- iti paramOpanishadi (Wherever this world is said to be akin to dream in shAstras, it has to be understood not as mithya. It is said so because both are similar in sense of their anityatva, vikAritva and pAratantryatva. When this dvaita jagat is in Vishnu's knowledge (pratIti) and since He is sarvajna, how can His knowledge be brAnti and how can this jagt be mithya? This jagat is not sublatable by knowledge. It is real and under His controllership.) In many places Upanishad talk about nature of swapna avastha. To quote some; 1. Br. Upa -- swapnEna shArIramabhi prahatyAsuptaH suptAnabhi chAkaShIti, shukramAdAya punarEti stAnam hiraNmayaH puruShaH Eka-haMsaH 2. In another instance the same Br.U clearly says Deva creates vaasanamaya swapna padArthas by taking various small & large forms, sports with sthree forms and sees jIva-s in scariest objects of dream. "swapnAnta uchAvachamIyamAnO rupANi dEvaH kurutE bahUni, utEva steebhiH saha mOdamAnO jakshadutEvApi *bhayAni pashyan*" 3. The same theme is asserted when Upa. Says "na tatra ratha-yOgA na panthAnO bhavanti, atha rathAn rathayOgAn pathaH srujatE, ?? sa hI kartha " (in swapna, initially there will not be chariots, nor paths. Swapna kartha Brahman creates the chariots, paths etc for the jIva) 4. Same Brahman Who creates the swapnAdi avsta-s controlls those very avasta-traya states of the jIva. 5. In another instance says "sa vA Esha Etasmin swapnAntE ratvAcharitvA driStAiva puNyam pApam cha punaH pratinyAyam pratiyOnyA dravati budhAntAaiva" etc... (Only this Isha moves jIva between swana and shuspti avastas, witnessing jIva's puNya and paapa, again bringing him to jaagrata avasta) /SV From narayana145 at yahoo.co.in Fri Dec 22 11:42:37 2023 From: narayana145 at yahoo.co.in (sreenivasa murthy) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 16:42:37 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <370355471.1675256.1703263357239@mail.yahoo.com> Dear friends, Is it not much better if some of you become jnanis/ muktas and then? give authentic first hand answers? With rspectful namaskars,Sreenivasa Murthy On Friday, 22 December, 2023 at 03:11:08 pm IST, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l wrote: Namaste. It is difficult to understand the discussion. Avoiding the words waking/dream, if in any state one is able to recollect that there are other states different from the one he is in at that time, it certainly means different states of awareness are admitted by the person. It is quite another matter as to which is more real or less real, or which is dream/waking. There cannot be any controversy about the existence of different states themselves. Regards On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 3:08?PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaste V Subramanian ji. > > Sent the screenshot of reference along with Sridhari TIkA. > > On Fri, 22 Dec 2023, 15:06 V Subrahmanian, > wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 3:01?PM Sudhanshu Shekhar < > > sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Namaste V Subramanian ji. > >> > >> Nice references. > >> > >> In fact BhAgavAta PurANa 6.16.53-54 takes the example of dream within > >> dream and avers complete identity of waking, dream and deep sleep. > >> > > > > Nice, could you pl. produce the Bhagavata verses?? Thanks > > > > subbu > > > >> > >> Regards. > >> > >> On Fri, 22 Dec 2023, 14:52 V Subrahmanian, > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Sri Vidyaranya in his Anubhutiprakasha, on Aitareya Upanishad, says: > >>> > >>> ??????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ? > >>> ??????? ?????????????? ????? ??????? ???????? || 17 > >>> > >>> Dream is present only during its existence; not during sleep and > waking. > >>> In the same way, being of the nature of dream, all the three states are > >>> stated by the Upanishad as three dreams. > >>> > >>> ???????????????????????? ????? ???????? - The gross, subtle and causal > >>> worlds are three dreams - explains Upanishad Brahma Yogin for the > Aitareya > >>> mantra. > >>> > >>> Also since there is ignorance about the Truth, which persists in all > >>> three states, the svapnatvam of all three are admissible. We get this > >>> reasoning from the Mandukya Karika: > >>> > >>> ?????????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????????? ? > >>> ?????????????????????? ??????? ??? ? ?? ? > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > _______________________________________________ Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ To unsubscribe or change your options: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From cheenu.blueocean at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 15:12:28 2023 From: cheenu.blueocean at gmail.com (Cheenu) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2023 07:12:28 +1100 Subject: [Advaita-l] =?utf-8?q?A_Special_Ensemble=3A_Songs_of_Sri_Avudai_?= =?utf-8?q?Akkal_Friday_17_Nov_2023_=E2=80=93_Turtledge?= Message-ID: <2F38367F-83DA-492C-9B8C-095C127BFD24@gmail.com> Namo Ramanaya Below the recent concert of Songs of Sri Avudai Akkal and all previous concerts embedded as well. https://turtlewedge.wordpress.com/2023/12/23/a-special-ensemble-songs-of-sri-avudai-akkal-friday-17-nov-2023/ Namaskarams Cheenu Sent from my iPhone From sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 20:32:42 2023 From: sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com (Sudhanshu Shekhar) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2023 07:02:42 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Namaste Srinath ji. The basic question remains. How can one know that he is not dreaming right now. How can he be sure that it is not a dream within dream within dream ad infinitum. Let us be very clear. There is no means to know that we are not dreaming right now. And this is a sufficient reason to conclude that one can not posit anything which is non-dream. Even sushupti also becomes dream just as the sushupti within dream was nothing but dream. ShAstra is part of dream. Just as it was part of dream within dream within dream. So, neither Madhva nor Shankara nor Rigveda nor BrihadAraNyaka nor BhAgavata PurANa can help us in any manner in this respect. In other aspects, what and of how much use they are, we can discuss some other time. Regards. On Fri, 22 Dec 2023, 22:05 Srinath Vedagarbha, wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 10:13?AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > >> >> >> We know from this saying of the Bhagavatam: The world is akin to dream, >> not >> real like the proverbial castle in the air. This premise stated by Veda >> Vyasa in the Bhagavatam is accepted with no compromise only in Advaita. >> This premise is contradictory to the doctrinal beliefs of other schools. >> >> > Well, for others it is very crystal clear whenever shAstra equates waking > with dream state. > > Sri. MadhwaAcharya quotes paramOpanishad in His VTVN work on this subject; > > "anitva vikAritva pAratantraAdi rUpataH | > svapnAdi sAMyam jagatO, na tu bhOdha nirvatyAtA | > sarvajnasya yatO vishNuH sarva dvaita pratIyatE | > bhOdhAsahaM tato naitat kMtvAjnAvashamasya hi" -- iti paramOpanishadi > > (Wherever this world is said to be akin to dream in shAstras, it has to be > understood not as mithya. It is said so because both are similar in sense > of their anityatva, vikAritva and pAratantryatva. When this dvaita jagat is > in Vishnu's knowledge (pratIti) and since He is sarvajna, how can His > knowledge be brAnti and how can this jagt be mithya? This jagat is not > sublatable by knowledge. It is real and under His controllership.) > > In many places Upanishad talk about nature of swapna avastha. To quote > some; > > 1. Br. Upa -- swapnEna shArIramabhi prahatyAsuptaH suptAnabhi chAkaShIti, > shukramAdAya punarEti stAnam hiraNmayaH puruShaH Eka-haMsaH > > 2. In another instance the same Br.U clearly says Deva creates vaasanamaya > swapna padArthas by taking various small & large forms, sports with sthree > forms and sees jIva-s in scariest objects of dream. > "swapnAnta uchAvachamIyamAnO rupANi dEvaH kurutE bahUni, utEva steebhiH > saha mOdamAnO jakshadutEvApi *bhayAni pashyan*" > > 3. The same theme is asserted when Upa. Says "na tatra ratha-yOgA na > panthAnO bhavanti, atha rathAn rathayOgAn pathaH srujatE, ?? sa hI kartha > " (in swapna, initially there will not be chariots, nor paths. Swapna > kartha Brahman creates the chariots, paths etc for the jIva) > > 4. Same Brahman Who creates the swapnAdi avsta-s controlls those very > avasta-traya states of the jIva. > > 5. In another instance says "sa vA Esha Etasmin swapnAntE ratvAcharitvA > driStAiva puNyam pApam cha punaH pratinyAyam pratiyOnyA dravati > budhAntAaiva" etc... > (Only this Isha moves jIva between swana and shuspti avastas, witnessing > jIva's puNya and paapa, again bringing him to jaagrata avasta) > > /SV > > From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 00:46:08 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2023 11:16:08 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world? In-Reply-To: References: <1431474474.2507620.1703223699438@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 10:05?PM Srinath Vedagarbha wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 10:13?AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > >> >> >> We know from this saying of the Bhagavatam: The world is akin to dream, >> not >> real like the proverbial castle in the air. This premise stated by Veda >> Vyasa in the Bhagavatam is accepted with no compromise only in Advaita. >> This premise is contradictory to the doctrinal beliefs of other schools. >> >> > Well, for others it is very crystal clear whenever shAstra equates waking > with dream state. > > Sri. MadhwaAcharya quotes paramOpanishad in His VTVN work on this subject; > > "anitva vikAritva pAratantraAdi rUpataH | > svapnAdi sAMyam jagatO, na tu bhOdha nirvatyAtA | > sarvajnasya yatO vishNuH sarva dvaita pratIyatE | > bhOdhAsahaM tato naitat kMtvAjnAvashamasya hi" -- iti paramOpanishadi > > (Wherever this world is said to be akin to dream in shAstras, it has to be > understood not as mithya. It is said so because both are similar in sense > of their anityatva, vikAritva and pAratantryatva. When this dvaita jagat is > in Vishnu's knowledge (pratIti) and since He is sarvajna, how can His > knowledge be brAnti and how can this jagt be mithya? This jagat is not > sublatable by knowledge. It is real and under His controllership.) > In the Srimadbhagavatam is a verse on the mAyA-nature of the universe explained with the rope-snake analogy: http://vedabase.net/sb/10/14/25/ ????????? ??????? ????????? ????? ???? ?????? ??????????? ? *??????????????????????????* *???????? ?????????????? ??? ?? 10.14.25* //A person who mistakes a rope for a snake becomes fearful, but he then gives up his fear upon realizing that the so-called snake does not exist. Similarly, for those who fail to recognize You as the Supreme Soul of all souls, the expansive illusory material existence arises, but knowledge of You at once causes it to subside. // The third line ???????? ??????? ????????????? specifically teaches that ?through Knowledge the falsely projected duality ceases? which is nothing but ??????????????????. The rope-snake analogy too is significant in the above bhAgavatam verse. In the following verse too of the BhAgavatam (UddhavagItaa 17.55) we have the illusory nature of the world-objects described: *????? ?? ?????????? ??? ??????? ? ?????????* ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ??????? //Even though the sense-world (of objects/subject and perceiving) is unreal, ?????????? ???, the relative existence of a man who dwells on sense-objects is never at an end, as troubles come in dreams. (Since dreams are admitted to be effects of the impressions of the waking state.)// The BhAgavatam, again, in the uddhavagItA chapter 23 verse 32 teaches: ??? ??? ?????????????????????? , ??????????? ????????????? ? ? ?????? ???????? ?????, *???????? ???????? ??????????* ???? //Even if the illumined man sees the objects of the outgoing senses, he does not consider them as something real and other than the Self, because they are rejected by inference on account of their multiplicity ? as a man, on waking from sleep, dismisses the vanishing dream perceptions. // Here one can appreciate the word ?????? which is reminiscent of the Shruti ???? ???? ????? ??????? which is interpreted in Advaita as ?there is no multiplicity at all in the Truth, Brahman?. The Bhagavatam validates only the Advaitic interpretation of this shruti in the above verse. In this verse too the bhAgavtapurANa contradicts the ?? ?? ?????????????? idea of Sri Madhva. For, here in the bhAgavatam the very dream analogy is used to show how the illumined/enlightened man perceives the world the way the man *awakened from dream (?????????/?????????) considers the dream-vision.* In other words, the ????????????? of the world is specifically taught by the bhAgavatam through the dream analogy. The analogy fits the dArShTaantika in both aspects: dream ? awakening ? sublation of dream objects/events. samsAra/prapancha ? illumination/enlightenment ? sublation of the world (mithyAtvanishchaya). We said all the above to show how the Buddhist verse quoted by Sri Madhva says something (??????? ?????????? ?????????????? ????????????) that is already found in the purANa, smRti. In one of the several verses cited from a Buddhist source by Madhwa in the Tattvodyota, to show that Advaita too has the same/similar tenets - ????? ?? ???????? ???????? ??????? ???????????? ? ??????? ?????????? *?????????????? ???????????? ??* we see the nivrtti leading to parmartha drishTi or the paramartha drishti resulting in the experience of nivritti of the world-perception as satya. ???? ???????????? ????????????? ???????? , ???? ???????????????????? By this teaching the Chandogya shruti makes it very clear that the non-perceiving of the world as the world but perceiving it as none other than the substratum Brahman, bhUmA, is true realization. The opposite of this vision is bondage, alpam. By this anvaya-vyatireka method the shruti establishes the unreality of the world. This is the reply to Madhva?s objection: ? ? ?????????????????? ????????????? [Nor is there any proof for the ignorance-base of the world]. ??????????????? / ????????????? of the world-bhrama/perception is what is taught by such Shruti passages. Also, are there free usages of the rope-snake, dream, gandharva nagara, mirage-water, etc. type analogies for the world in the Madhwa corpus, independent of the smriti, etc. he cites? warm regards subbu > > In many places Upanishad talk about nature of swapna avastha. To quote > some; > > 1. Br. Upa -- swapnEna shArIramabhi prahatyAsuptaH suptAnabhi chAkaShIti, > shukramAdAya punarEti stAnam hiraNmayaH puruShaH Eka-haMsaH > > 2. In another instance the same Br.U clearly says Deva creates vaasanamaya > swapna padArthas by taking various small & large forms, sports with sthree > forms and sees jIva-s in scariest objects of dream. > "swapnAnta uchAvachamIyamAnO rupANi dEvaH kurutE bahUni, utEva steebhiH > saha mOdamAnO jakshadutEvApi *bhayAni pashyan*" > > 3. The same theme is asserted when Upa. Says "na tatra ratha-yOgA na > panthAnO bhavanti, atha rathAn rathayOgAn pathaH srujatE, ?? sa hI kartha > " (in swapna, initially there will not be chariots, nor paths. Swapna > kartha Brahman creates the chariots, paths etc for the jIva) > > 4. Same Brahman Who creates the swapnAdi avsta-s controlls those very > avasta-traya states of the jIva. > > 5. In another instance says "sa vA Esha Etasmin swapnAntE ratvAcharitvA > driStAiva puNyam pApam cha punaH pratinyAyam pratiyOnyA dravati > budhAntAaiva" etc... > (Only this Isha moves jIva between swana and shuspti avastas, witnessing > jIva's puNya and paapa, again bringing him to jaagrata avasta) > > /SV > > From rajaramvenk at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 06:26:39 2023 From: rajaramvenk at gmail.com (Rajaram Venkataramani) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2023 11:26:39 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Panchayatana Puja Message-ID: Is there a good resource on the references to Panchayatana puja and kramam for different Siva, Vishnu, Surya, Aditya, and Shakti Panchayatana? I have seen a few from smrti and the procedure learnt through prevali g practices but am looking for an authentic text, if it exists, on the topic. From vikkyjagan at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 21:12:41 2023 From: vikkyjagan at gmail.com (Vikram Jagannathan) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2023 20:12:41 -0600 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaskaram Shri Bhaskar ji, Before we continue on the main thread, I would like to understand the extent we are aligned on the fundamentals of Advaita. Below, I have mentioned my current understanding in a sequential order. Please let me know if you agree with these points or not. If you disagree with any point, please stop there and do not proceed until we discuss that particular point and come to an agreement. I would like to open this discussion to the entire group and request others to share & contribute their agreements / disagreements. I have deliberately kept the explanations for these statements to a minimum. If we agree to the statement, but have different explanations / reasons for arriving at that, that's fine; we will get an opportunity to clarify as we go deeper. With the right spirit and intention, we will have subsequent posts where we continue to add more points. 1. The svarupa lakshana of Brahman is: existence (sat), real (satya), consciousness (chit), knowledge (jnana), bliss (ananda), eternal (nitya), infinite (anadi & ananta), full (purna), partless (avyaya), homogeneous (eka rasa), immutable (kutastha), unchanging (avikara), pure (suddha), devoid of any differentiation whatsoever (sajatiya, vijatiya, svagata abheda) 2. Per ekam-eva-advitiyam, there is no sajatiya or vijatiya or svagata bheda, whatsoever, in Brahman 3. Per neha-nanasti-kinchana, there is no plurality or ?other? or something ?else? whatsoever in Brahman 4. An infinite homogeneous partless immutable entity cannot have any attributes (viseshana), since an attribute is defined as a quality that is inseparable but distinct from the substance, and there cannot be any distinction in a completely abheda homogenous entity 5. This Brahman is designated as nirvisesha Brahman for the sake of convenience 6. Any quality associated with Brahman, that has in context or in relation something ?else?, is only a tatastha lakshana of Brahman. This includes qualities such as sarvajna, sarvasakthi, sarveshvara, creator-sustainer-destroyer of the universe, antaryami, witness, being the locus for something else, etc. 7. These qualities are the attributes (viseshana) of Brahman and are distinct manifestations 8. Their relationship with Brahman is that of attribute-substance or shakti-shaktivan or possessed-possessor. In all these cases, they are inseparable but distinct from Brahman. 9. Brahman described as possessing these qualities is designated as savisesha Brahman for the sake of convenience 10. Ontologically, sat is that which once ascertained as existing always remains unchanged across all time. Nirvisesha Brahman is sat. 11. Ontologically, asat is that which is never experienced as existing. Hare?s horn is asat. 12. Ontologically, mithya is that which is neither sat nor asat nor both (sadasat-vilakshana) - it appears to exist but later sublated. The universe of plurality, the viseshanas & sakthis of savisesha Brahman, snake on a rope, rope itself, mirage, double-moon are all examples of this mithya category. If you do not agree with this definition, please clarify what is the ontological status of a mithya entity. 13. Anirvachaniya explicitly means the entity cannot be specifically described as sat or as asat or as both simultaneously - the reason why an object may appear to exist but later sublated. There may be other definitions, but if you do not agree with this definition, please clarify what is the right definition of anirvachaniya and if anirvachaniya is sat or asat or both or something else? 14. If the above two points are in agreement, then the ontological status of anirvachaniya is mithya 15. In our current ignorance we believe the entire perceived universe of plurality and change has an independent existence. What is the actual ontological status of the universe and what is the ontological status of the universe as we believe it to be in our ignorance? Both mithya? 16. But let?s say that through shastra and sadhana, we gain the knowledge that this universe is only a nama-rupa change of Brahman and is completely dependent on Brahman. What now becomes the actual ontological status of the universe and the ontological status of our perception of the universe? Still both mithya? 17. Does the nitya-suddha-buddha-mukta-svarupa nirvisesha Brahman perceive or cognize the universe? Answer is no? 18. Is there the perception of this universe for the savisesha Brahman? Answer is yes? 19. Do you believe that, per ?brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati?, a knower of Brahman (jnani) verily becomes (is) Brahman? Is this savisesha Brahman or nirvisesha Brahman? Answer is nirvisesha Brahman? 20. Does this knower of Brahman perceive or cognize the universe? Answer is no? 21. In Adhyasa Bhashya, right after stating the first definition of adhyasa as ?smriti rupa ??, Bhagavan bhashyakara explains various theories of how adhyasa could occur. After the last theory, bhagavatpada states in the sentence ?sarvathapi tu?? that the one common mechanism in adhyasa is ?cognition of one thing having the qualities of another?. 22. Various later acharyas have called this particular section of the Bhashya as explanation of ?khyati-vada (theory of error)?. Bhagavan bhashyakara calls this error (khyati) itself as adhyasa. 23. ?Khyati?, as related to an incorrect cognition, is a term used in pre-Sankara period itself, such as PatajaliYogaSutra-2.5. 24. Various later acharyas, in their sub-commentaries, have explained that the common mechanism (sarvathapi tu ...) stated in the bhashya is the universal concept of ?anirvachaniya khyati?. 25. Anirvachaniya, also because the various khyati vada can be broadly categorized as sat-khyati, asat-khyati or sat-asat-khyati. Bhagavatpada?s common explanation is an underlying thread amongst all these khyati vada. Hence it transcends being exclusively described as sat or asat or sat-asat. 26. In answering the question on how there can be a superimposition between light & dark or ?I? and ?thou?, bhashyakara says that nevertheless (tathapi) this is a natural worldly experience of coupling the real & unreal 27. Though of mutually conflicting attributes and a logical impossibility, bhashyakara still says that adhyasa is still a common observation in the world and only explains it as a 'natural' (naisargikah) phenomenon. Implying that this phenomenon cannot be exactly described or is thus anirvachaniya. 28. This natural phenomenon is adhyasa 29. This adhyasa is also later termed as avidya 30. The entire gamut of loka vyavahara (secular and religious) depends on this adhyasa or is the effect of this adhyasa 31. Since adhyasa is also avidya, the entire gamut depends on and is the effect of this avidya 32. Since this natural phenomenon is anirvachaniya, the exact explanation for adhyasa or avidya is anirvachaniya 33. In other words, Adhyasa as a term is described as ?atasmin tad buddhi?. But, how or why adhyasa take place in a certain way cannot be exactly described. 34. Examples of this anirvachaniya adhyasa are shell silver, double moon, rope snake, mirage, colored crystal, red hot iron ball, ?I?-ness and ?mine?-ness with BMI and objects 35. In all these examples, the resulting entity, the result of adhyasa, is distinct from the true object; and the true object doesn?t actually contain all the perceived qualities of the resulting entity 36. For example, when a rope is perceived as a snake, there is actually no snake whatsoever in the rope. The qualities of the snake are superimposed on the rope and the rope appears as the snake. 37. Prior to the perception of the rope as the snake, while the rope is perceived as the snake, after the true cognition of the rope as a rope, across all these periods, there is never actually a snake in the rope 38. The superimposed qualities, which actually are not present in the actual object, only appears to be present in the object during adhyasa 39. As long as the resulting adhyasa entity is perceived to be so, the entity is considered as real and existing 40. But on the dawn of true discriminative knowledge, the true nature and qualities of the actual object is perceived as-is 41. At this point the earlier cognition of the adhyasa entity is understood to be false and not actually present in the actual object 42. Because the adhyasa entity is actually not present in the actual object, the adhyasa entity cannot be called as sat 43. At the same time, because the adhyasa entity was experienced as existing prior to dawn of true knowledge, the adhyasa entity cannot be called as asat 44. Obviously the adhyasa entity cannot be both sat and asat simultaneously due to mutual contradiction 45. Thus the ontological status of the adhyasa entity is neither sat nor asat nor both (sadasat-vilakshana). The adhyasa entity is mithya 46. Since adhyasa is also called avidya, avidya too is only mithya 47. Since adhyasa or avidya is anirvachaniya, mithya too is anirvachaniya 48. Anirvachaniya is sadasat-vilakshana 49. Nirvisesha Brahman is perceived as savisesha Brahman due to adhyasa. In other words, the viseshanas are superimposed on Brahman 50. When adhyasa is overcome, the nirvisesha Brahman is realized as-is with humble prostrations, Vikram From kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com Sat Dec 23 22:01:14 2023 From: kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com (Kuntimaddi Sadananda) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2023 03:01:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1782834581.2786085.1703386874858@mail.yahoo.com> Vikramji -PraNAms Enjoyed reading your crisp itemized list.? It would be complete if you added two aspects of avidya - aavarana and vkshepa aspects, and which one gets eliminated with Vedanta janita vidya.? Hari Om!Sadananda On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 07:42:59 AM GMT+5:30, Vikram Jagannathan wrote: Namaskaram Shri Bhaskar ji, Before we continue on the main thread, I would like to understand the extent we are aligned?on the fundamentals of Advaita. Below, I have mentioned my current understanding in a sequential order. Please let me know if you agree with these points or not. If you disagree with any point, please stop there and do not proceed until we discuss that particular point and come to an agreement. I would like to open this discussion to the entire group and request others to share & contribute their agreements / disagreements. I have deliberately?kept the explanations for these statements to a minimum. If we agree to the statement, but have different?explanations / reasons for arriving at that, that's fine; we will get an opportunity to clarify as we go deeper. With the right spirit and intention, we will have subsequent posts where we continue to add more points. 1. The svarupa lakshana of Brahman is: existence (sat), real (satya), consciousness (chit), knowledge (jnana), bliss (ananda), eternal (nitya), infinite (anadi & ananta), full (purna), partless (avyaya), homogeneous (eka rasa), immutable (kutastha), unchanging (avikara), pure (suddha), devoid of any differentiation whatsoever (sajatiya, vijatiya, svagata abheda) 2. Per ekam-eva-advitiyam, there is no sajatiya or vijatiya or svagata bheda, whatsoever, in Brahman 3. Per neha-nanasti-kinchana, there is no plurality or ?other? or something ?else? whatsoever in Brahman 4. An infinite homogeneous partless immutable entity cannot have any attributes (viseshana), since an attribute is defined as a quality that is inseparable but distinct from the substance, and there cannot be any distinction in a completely abheda homogenous entity 5. This Brahman is designated as nirvisesha Brahman for the sake of convenience 6. Any quality associated with Brahman, that has in context or in relation something ?else?, is only a tatastha lakshana of Brahman. This includes qualities such as sarvajna, sarvasakthi, sarveshvara, creator-sustainer-destroyer of the universe, antaryami, witness, being the locus for something else, etc. 7. These qualities are the attributes (viseshana) of Brahman and are distinct manifestations 8. Their relationship with Brahman is that of attribute-substance or shakti-shaktivan or possessed-possessor. In all these cases, they are inseparable but distinct from Brahman. 9. Brahman described as possessing these qualities is designated as savisesha Brahman for the sake of convenience 10. Ontologically, sat is that which once ascertained as existing always remains unchanged across all time. Nirvisesha Brahman is sat. 11. Ontologically, asat is that which is never experienced as existing. Hare?s horn is asat. 12. Ontologically, mithya is that which is neither sat nor asat nor both (sadasat-vilakshana) - it appears to exist but later sublated. The universe of plurality, the viseshanas & sakthis of savisesha Brahman, snake on a rope, rope itself, mirage, double-moon are all examples of this mithya category. If you do not agree with this definition, please clarify what is the ontological status of a mithya entity. 13. Anirvachaniya explicitly means the entity cannot be specifically described as sat or as asat or as both simultaneously - the reason why an object may appear to exist but later sublated. There may be other definitions, but if you do not agree with this definition, please clarify what is the right definition of anirvachaniya and if anirvachaniya is sat or asat or both or something else? 14. If the above two points are in agreement, then the ontological status of anirvachaniya is mithya 15. In our current ignorance we believe the entire perceived universe of plurality and change has an independent existence. What is the actual ontological status of the universe and what is the ontological status of the universe as we believe it to be in our ignorance? Both mithya? 16. But let?s say that through shastra and sadhana, we gain the knowledge that this universe is only a nama-rupa change of Brahman and is completely dependent on Brahman. What now becomes the actual ontological status of the universe and the ontological status of our perception of the universe? Still both mithya? 17. Does the nitya-suddha-buddha-mukta-svarupa nirvisesha Brahman perceive or cognize the universe? Answer is no? 18. Is there the perception of this universe for the savisesha Brahman? Answer is yes? 19. Do you believe that, per ?brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati?, a knower of Brahman (jnani) verily becomes (is) Brahman? Is this savisesha Brahman or nirvisesha Brahman? Answer is nirvisesha Brahman? 20. Does this knower of Brahman perceive or cognize the universe? Answer is no? 21. In Adhyasa Bhashya, right after stating the first definition of adhyasa as ?smriti rupa ??, Bhagavan bhashyakara explains various theories of how adhyasa could occur. After the last theory, bhagavatpada states in the sentence ?sarvathapi tu?? that the one common mechanism in adhyasa is ?cognition of one thing having the qualities of another?. 22. Various later acharyas have called this particular section of the Bhashya as explanation of ?khyati-vada (theory of error)?. Bhagavan bhashyakara calls this error (khyati) itself as adhyasa. 23. ?Khyati?, as related to an incorrect cognition, is a term used in pre-Sankara period itself, such as PatajaliYogaSutra-2.5. 24. Various later acharyas, in their sub-commentaries, have explained that the common mechanism (sarvathapi tu ...) stated in the bhashya is the universal concept of ?anirvachaniya khyati?. 25. Anirvachaniya, also because the various khyati vada can be broadly categorized as sat-khyati, asat-khyati or sat-asat-khyati. Bhagavatpada?s common explanation is an underlying thread amongst all these khyati vada. Hence it transcends being exclusively described as sat or asat or sat-asat. 26. In answering the question on how there can be a superimposition between light & dark or ?I? and ?thou?, bhashyakara says that nevertheless (tathapi) this is a natural worldly experience of coupling the real & unreal 27. Though of mutually conflicting attributes and a logical impossibility, bhashyakara still says that adhyasa is still a common observation in the world and only explains it as a 'natural' (naisargikah) phenomenon. Implying that this phenomenon cannot be exactly described or is thus anirvachaniya.28. This natural phenomenon is adhyasa 29. This adhyasa is also later termed as avidya 30. The entire gamut of loka vyavahara (secular and religious) depends on this adhyasa or is the effect of this adhyasa 31. Since adhyasa is also avidya, the entire gamut depends on and is the effect of this avidya 32. Since this natural phenomenon is anirvachaniya, the exact explanation for adhyasa or avidya is anirvachaniya 33. In other words, Adhyasa as a term is described as ?atasmin tad buddhi?. But, how or why adhyasa take place in a certain way cannot be exactly described. 34. Examples of this anirvachaniya adhyasa are shell silver, double moon, rope snake, mirage, colored crystal, red hot iron ball, ?I?-ness and ?mine?-ness with BMI and objects 35. In all these examples, the resulting entity, the result of adhyasa, is distinct from the true object; and the true object doesn?t actually contain all the perceived qualities of the resulting entity 36. For example, when a rope is perceived as a snake, there is actually no snake whatsoever in the rope. The qualities of the snake are superimposed on the rope and the rope appears as the snake. 37. Prior to the perception of the rope as the snake, while the rope is perceived as the snake, after the true cognition of the rope as a rope, across all these periods, there is never actually a snake in the rope 38. The superimposed qualities, which actually are not present in the actual object, only appears to be present in the object during adhyasa 39. As long as the resulting adhyasa entity is perceived to be so, the entity is considered as real and existing 40. But on the dawn of true discriminative knowledge, the true nature and qualities of the actual object is perceived as-is 41. At this point the earlier cognition of the adhyasa entity is understood to be false and not actually present in the actual object 42. Because the adhyasa entity is actually not present in the actual object, the adhyasa entity cannot be called as sat 43. At the same time, because the adhyasa entity was experienced as existing prior to dawn of true knowledge, the adhyasa entity cannot be called as asat 44. Obviously the adhyasa entity cannot be both sat and asat simultaneously due to mutual contradiction 45. Thus the ontological status of the adhyasa entity is neither sat nor asat nor both (sadasat-vilakshana). The adhyasa entity is mithya 46. Since adhyasa is also called avidya, avidya too is only mithya 47. Since adhyasa or avidya is anirvachaniya, mithya too is anirvachaniya 48. Anirvachaniya is sadasat-vilakshana 49. Nirvisesha Brahman is perceived as savisesha Brahman due to adhyasa. In other words, the viseshanas are superimposed on Brahman 50. When adhyasa is overcome, the nirvisesha Brahman is realized as-is with humble prostrations,Vikram -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLcWDvKRnz0S2z7rQvXpuAaot1y4h-kRTu%2B1UCVMmN80TQ%40mail.gmail.com. From vemuri.ramesam at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 08:08:21 2023 From: vemuri.ramesam at gmail.com (Ramesam Vemuri) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2023 08:08:21 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Shri Vikram Jagannathan JI, Namaskarams and Kudos to you, Sir, for the excellent and clear pointwise unambiguous listing of the fundamental approach that Advaita takes in its doctrine. I wish to make two observations, if you do not mind: i) A Deletion suggested: Under the itemized list at # 12 is the sentence: "The universe of plurality, the viseshanas & sakthis of savisesha Brahman, snake on a rope, rope itself, mirage, double-moon are all examples of this mithya category. " In the well-known 'snake-on-the-rope' analogy, rope stands for the formless and featureless *brahman* Itself. Therefore, I submit that the words "rope itself" may be deleted. ii) Two Additions suggested: (a) In the "adhyAsa bhAShya," bhAShyakAra Shankara himself expresses why or when "adhyAsa" does arise. "The unattached Self (brahman) cannot become a cognizer with the activity of perception etc., without accepting the senses, mind and body are Its own. (b) "The Self (brahman) is not absolutely beyond apprehension, because It is apprehended as the content of the concept "I"; and is self-revealing entity. On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 9:50?PM Vikram Jagannathan via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: From hschandramouli at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 08:14:18 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2023 18:44:18 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaskaram Vikram Ji, Reg // These qualities are the attributes (viseshana) of Brahman and are distinct manifestations //, This seems to contradict point 4 unless you distinguish between Brahman and nirvisesha Brahman of point 5. But that does not appear to be the case as the word Brahman appears to be used in other places in the post without clearly mentioning any qualifications. Perhaps it would be better to use the word Chaitanya for nirvisesha Brahman and correct the post accordingly at other places where Chaitanya is intended. Just a suggestion. I thought it would make it easier to comprehend your intention unambiguously. All the more so because the word Brahman is used in the Bhashya in three different contexts, namely nirvisesha Brahman, mAyA vishishta nirvisesha Brahman, and mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman. Even in respect of mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman, in my understanding, only AvaraNa sahita nirvisesha Brahman is intended and not AvaraNa rahita nirvisesha Brahman where ever reference is made to mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman in the Bhashya. For example in respect of sAkshi, antaryAmi etc. You may like to consider Regards On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 8:05?AM Vikram Jagannathan via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaskaram Shri Bhaskar ji, > > Before we continue on the main thread, I would like to understand the > extent we are aligned on the fundamentals of Advaita. Below, I have > mentioned my current understanding in a sequential order. Please let me > know if you agree with these points or not. If you disagree with any point, > please stop there and do not proceed until we discuss that particular point > and come to an agreement. > > I would like to open this discussion to the entire group and request others > to share & contribute their agreements / disagreements. I have > deliberately kept the explanations for these statements to a minimum. If we > agree to the statement, but have different explanations / reasons for > arriving at that, that's fine; we will get an opportunity to clarify as we > go deeper. > > With the right spirit and intention, we will have subsequent posts where we > continue to add more points. > > 1. The svarupa lakshana of Brahman is: existence (sat), real (satya), > consciousness (chit), knowledge (jnana), bliss (ananda), eternal (nitya), > infinite (anadi & ananta), full (purna), partless (avyaya), homogeneous > (eka rasa), immutable (kutastha), unchanging (avikara), pure (suddha), > devoid of any differentiation whatsoever (sajatiya, vijatiya, svagata > abheda) > 2. Per ekam-eva-advitiyam, there is no sajatiya or vijatiya or svagata > bheda, whatsoever, in Brahman > 3. Per neha-nanasti-kinchana, there is no plurality or ?other? or something > ?else? whatsoever in Brahman > 4. An infinite homogeneous partless immutable entity cannot have any > attributes (viseshana), since an attribute is defined as a quality that is > inseparable but distinct from the substance, and there cannot be any > distinction in a completely abheda homogenous entity > 5. This Brahman is designated as nirvisesha Brahman for the sake of > convenience > 6. Any quality associated with Brahman, that has in context or in relation > something ?else?, is only a tatastha lakshana of Brahman. This includes > qualities such as sarvajna, sarvasakthi, sarveshvara, > creator-sustainer-destroyer of the universe, antaryami, witness, being the > locus for something else, etc. > 7. These qualities are the attributes (viseshana) of Brahman and are > distinct manifestations > 8. Their relationship with Brahman is that of attribute-substance or > shakti-shaktivan or possessed-possessor. In all these cases, they are > inseparable but distinct from Brahman. > 9. Brahman described as possessing these qualities is designated as > savisesha Brahman for the sake of convenience > 10. Ontologically, sat is that which once ascertained as existing always > remains unchanged across all time. Nirvisesha Brahman is sat. > 11. Ontologically, asat is that which is never experienced as existing. > Hare?s horn is asat. > 12. Ontologically, mithya is that which is neither sat nor asat nor both > (sadasat-vilakshana) - it appears to exist but later sublated. The universe > of plurality, the viseshanas & sakthis of savisesha Brahman, snake on a > rope, rope itself, mirage, double-moon are all examples of this mithya > category. If you do not agree with this definition, please clarify what is > the ontological status of a mithya entity. > 13. Anirvachaniya explicitly means the entity cannot be specifically > described as sat or as asat or as both simultaneously - the reason why an > object may appear to exist but later sublated. There may be other > definitions, but if you do not agree with this definition, please clarify > what is the right definition of anirvachaniya and if anirvachaniya is sat > or asat or both or something else? > 14. If the above two points are in agreement, then the ontological status > of anirvachaniya is mithya > 15. In our current ignorance we believe the entire perceived universe of > plurality and change has an independent existence. What is the actual > ontological status of the universe and what is the ontological status of > the universe as we believe it to be in our ignorance? Both mithya? > 16. But let?s say that through shastra and sadhana, we gain the knowledge > that this universe is only a nama-rupa change of Brahman and is completely > dependent on Brahman. What now becomes the actual ontological status of the > universe and the ontological status of our perception of the universe? > Still both mithya? > 17. Does the nitya-suddha-buddha-mukta-svarupa nirvisesha Brahman perceive > or cognize the universe? Answer is no? > 18. Is there the perception of this universe for the savisesha Brahman? > Answer is yes? > 19. Do you believe that, per ?brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati?, a knower of > Brahman (jnani) verily becomes (is) Brahman? Is this savisesha Brahman or > nirvisesha Brahman? Answer is nirvisesha Brahman? > 20. Does this knower of Brahman perceive or cognize the universe? Answer is > no? > 21. In Adhyasa Bhashya, right after stating the first definition of adhyasa > as ?smriti rupa ??, Bhagavan bhashyakara explains various theories of how > adhyasa could occur. After the last theory, bhagavatpada states in the > sentence ?sarvathapi tu?? that the one common mechanism in adhyasa is > ?cognition of one thing having the qualities of another?. > 22. Various later acharyas have called this particular section of the > Bhashya as explanation of ?khyati-vada (theory of error)?. Bhagavan > bhashyakara calls this error (khyati) itself as adhyasa. > 23. ?Khyati?, as related to an incorrect cognition, is a term used in > pre-Sankara period itself, such as PatajaliYogaSutra-2.5. > 24. Various later acharyas, in their sub-commentaries, have explained that > the common mechanism (sarvathapi tu ...) stated in the bhashya is the > universal concept of ?anirvachaniya khyati?. > 25. Anirvachaniya, also because the various khyati vada can be broadly > categorized as sat-khyati, asat-khyati or sat-asat-khyati. Bhagavatpada?s > common explanation is an underlying thread amongst all these khyati vada. > Hence it transcends being exclusively described as sat or asat or sat-asat. > 26. In answering the question on how there can be a superimposition between > light & dark or ?I? and ?thou?, bhashyakara says that nevertheless > (tathapi) this is a natural worldly experience of coupling the real & > unreal > 27. Though of mutually conflicting attributes and a logical impossibility, > bhashyakara still says that adhyasa is still a common observation in the > world and only explains it as a 'natural' (naisargikah) phenomenon. > Implying that this phenomenon cannot be exactly described or is thus > anirvachaniya. > 28. This natural phenomenon is adhyasa > 29. This adhyasa is also later termed as avidya > 30. The entire gamut of loka vyavahara (secular and religious) depends on > this adhyasa or is the effect of this adhyasa > 31. Since adhyasa is also avidya, the entire gamut depends on and is the > effect of this avidya > 32. Since this natural phenomenon is anirvachaniya, the exact explanation > for adhyasa or avidya is anirvachaniya > 33. In other words, Adhyasa as a term is described as ?atasmin tad buddhi?. > But, how or why adhyasa take place in a certain way cannot be exactly > described. > 34. Examples of this anirvachaniya adhyasa are shell silver, double moon, > rope snake, mirage, colored crystal, red hot iron ball, ?I?-ness and > ?mine?-ness with BMI and objects > 35. In all these examples, the resulting entity, the result of adhyasa, is > distinct from the true object; and the true object doesn?t actually contain > all the perceived qualities of the resulting entity > 36. For example, when a rope is perceived as a snake, there is actually no > snake whatsoever in the rope. The qualities of the snake are superimposed > on the rope and the rope appears as the snake. > 37. Prior to the perception of the rope as the snake, while the rope is > perceived as the snake, after the true cognition of the rope as a rope, > across all these periods, there is never actually a snake in the rope > 38. The superimposed qualities, which actually are not present in the > actual object, only appears to be present in the object during adhyasa > 39. As long as the resulting adhyasa entity is perceived to be so, the > entity is considered as real and existing > 40. But on the dawn of true discriminative knowledge, the true nature and > qualities of the actual object is perceived as-is > 41. At this point the earlier cognition of the adhyasa entity is understood > to be false and not actually present in the actual object > 42. Because the adhyasa entity is actually not present in the actual > object, the adhyasa entity cannot be called as sat > 43. At the same time, because the adhyasa entity was experienced as > existing prior to dawn of true knowledge, the adhyasa entity cannot be > called as asat > 44. Obviously the adhyasa entity cannot be both sat and asat simultaneously > due to mutual contradiction > 45. Thus the ontological status of the adhyasa entity is neither sat nor > asat nor both (sadasat-vilakshana). The adhyasa entity is mithya > 46. Since adhyasa is also called avidya, avidya too is only mithya > 47. Since adhyasa or avidya is anirvachaniya, mithya too is anirvachaniya > 48. Anirvachaniya is sadasat-vilakshana > 49. Nirvisesha Brahman is perceived as savisesha Brahman due to adhyasa. In > other words, the viseshanas are superimposed on Brahman > 50. When adhyasa is overcome, the nirvisesha Brahman is realized as-is > > with humble prostrations, > Vikram > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 08:12:31 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2023 18:42:31 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Advaita abheda jnanam - Padma puranam Message-ID: In this chapter of the Padma purana there is a fine description of the strict rigours a Sannyasin aught to follow. At the end, the kind of Jnana that he has to attain to be liberated is also taught. One can see the strictly Advaitic teaching here: ~ ???????????/????? ? (???????????)/??????? ?? https://sa.wikisource.org/s/wym ?? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ? ???????????????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??? This Lord Mahadeva is One and Supreme Shiva. This alone is the Imperishable, Advaitic, Eternal, Highest State. ????????????? ???? ????????? ????????????? ? ????????????? ????? ??????????? ?????? ??? He is known as Mahadeva since he revels in his own state of Jnana by Atma Yoga. ?????? ???? ???????????????????? ????????? ? ????????????????? ?? ? ???? ??? ???? ??? The Sannyasin does not comprehend any other Tattva other than this Mahadeva. He who knows Him as his own Self, Atman, attains the supreme state of liberation. ??????? ?? ??????????? ???????? ??????????? ? ? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ??? Those who consider themselves as different from Parameshwara do not realize that Truth; their effort is a waste. ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????????????? ? ? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ?????? ??? One Supreme Brahman alone is to be realized as the Tattva, Imperishable. That Supreme is Mahadeva and upon realizing this, one does not get bound ??????????? ????? ???? ????????? ? ??????????? ????? ???????????? ??? Hence let the Sannyasin, with a placid, controlled mind, revelling in the Jnana yoga, strive to attain the goal, the Supreme Mahadeva, Om Tat Sat From hschandramouli at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 08:32:53 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2023 19:02:53 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaskaram Vikram Ji, Reg // Ontologically, asat is that which is never experienced as existing. Hare?s horn is asat //, In my understanding, the words ** in any locus ** needs to be added at the end of ** as existing **. This is to avoid any mixup with all *imagined ** entities being understood as asat. For example, a snake just ** imagined** (not as ** it is a snake**) is also nonexistent. Because just the word ** snake ** being imagined implies absence of any locus. But snake itself cannot be called asat. Incidentally this was why I had suggested earlier that the word **imagined** with reference to rope-snake as inappropriate, because the experience there is **It is a snake**, implying a locus which is experienced through a pramANa. You may like to consider Regards Regards On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 6:44?PM H S Chandramouli wrote: > Namaskaram Vikram Ji, > > Reg // These qualities are the attributes (viseshana) of Brahman and are > distinct manifestations //, > > This seems to contradict point 4 unless you distinguish between Brahman > and nirvisesha Brahman of point 5. But that does not appear to be the > case as the word Brahman appears to be used in other places in the post > without clearly mentioning any qualifications. Perhaps it would be better > to use the word Chaitanya for nirvisesha Brahman and correct the post > accordingly at other places where Chaitanya is intended. > > Just a suggestion. I thought it would make it easier to comprehend your > intention unambiguously. All the more so because the word Brahman is used > in the Bhashya in three different contexts, namely nirvisesha Brahman, > mAyA vishishta nirvisesha Brahman, and mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman. > Even in respect of mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman, in my understanding, > only AvaraNa sahita nirvisesha Brahman is intended and not AvaraNa > rahita nirvisesha Brahman where ever reference is made to mAyA upahita nirvisesha > Brahman in the Bhashya. For example in respect of sAkshi, antaryAmi etc. > > You may like to consider > > Regards > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 8:05?AM Vikram Jagannathan via Advaita-l < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > >> Namaskaram Shri Bhaskar ji, >> >> Before we continue on the main thread, I would like to understand the >> extent we are aligned on the fundamentals of Advaita. Below, I have >> mentioned my current understanding in a sequential order. Please let me >> know if you agree with these points or not. If you disagree with any >> point, >> please stop there and do not proceed until we discuss that particular >> point >> and come to an agreement. >> >> I would like to open this discussion to the entire group and request >> others >> to share & contribute their agreements / disagreements. I have >> deliberately kept the explanations for these statements to a minimum. If >> we >> agree to the statement, but have different explanations / reasons for >> arriving at that, that's fine; we will get an opportunity to clarify as we >> go deeper. >> >> With the right spirit and intention, we will have subsequent posts where >> we >> continue to add more points. >> >> 1. The svarupa lakshana of Brahman is: existence (sat), real (satya), >> consciousness (chit), knowledge (jnana), bliss (ananda), eternal (nitya), >> infinite (anadi & ananta), full (purna), partless (avyaya), homogeneous >> (eka rasa), immutable (kutastha), unchanging (avikara), pure (suddha), >> devoid of any differentiation whatsoever (sajatiya, vijatiya, svagata >> abheda) >> 2. Per ekam-eva-advitiyam, there is no sajatiya or vijatiya or svagata >> bheda, whatsoever, in Brahman >> 3. Per neha-nanasti-kinchana, there is no plurality or ?other? or >> something >> ?else? whatsoever in Brahman >> 4. An infinite homogeneous partless immutable entity cannot have any >> attributes (viseshana), since an attribute is defined as a quality that is >> inseparable but distinct from the substance, and there cannot be any >> distinction in a completely abheda homogenous entity >> 5. This Brahman is designated as nirvisesha Brahman for the sake of >> convenience >> 6. Any quality associated with Brahman, that has in context or in relation >> something ?else?, is only a tatastha lakshana of Brahman. This includes >> qualities such as sarvajna, sarvasakthi, sarveshvara, >> creator-sustainer-destroyer of the universe, antaryami, witness, being the >> locus for something else, etc. >> 7. These qualities are the attributes (viseshana) of Brahman and are >> distinct manifestations >> 8. Their relationship with Brahman is that of attribute-substance or >> shakti-shaktivan or possessed-possessor. In all these cases, they are >> inseparable but distinct from Brahman. >> 9. Brahman described as possessing these qualities is designated as >> savisesha Brahman for the sake of convenience >> 10. Ontologically, sat is that which once ascertained as existing always >> remains unchanged across all time. Nirvisesha Brahman is sat. >> 11. Ontologically, asat is that which is never experienced as existing. >> Hare?s horn is asat. >> 12. Ontologically, mithya is that which is neither sat nor asat nor both >> (sadasat-vilakshana) - it appears to exist but later sublated. The >> universe >> of plurality, the viseshanas & sakthis of savisesha Brahman, snake on a >> rope, rope itself, mirage, double-moon are all examples of this mithya >> category. If you do not agree with this definition, please clarify what is >> the ontological status of a mithya entity. >> 13. Anirvachaniya explicitly means the entity cannot be specifically >> described as sat or as asat or as both simultaneously - the reason why an >> object may appear to exist but later sublated. There may be other >> definitions, but if you do not agree with this definition, please clarify >> what is the right definition of anirvachaniya and if anirvachaniya is sat >> or asat or both or something else? >> 14. If the above two points are in agreement, then the ontological status >> of anirvachaniya is mithya >> 15. In our current ignorance we believe the entire perceived universe of >> plurality and change has an independent existence. What is the actual >> ontological status of the universe and what is the ontological status of >> the universe as we believe it to be in our ignorance? Both mithya? >> 16. But let?s say that through shastra and sadhana, we gain the knowledge >> that this universe is only a nama-rupa change of Brahman and is completely >> dependent on Brahman. What now becomes the actual ontological status of >> the >> universe and the ontological status of our perception of the universe? >> Still both mithya? >> 17. Does the nitya-suddha-buddha-mukta-svarupa nirvisesha Brahman perceive >> or cognize the universe? Answer is no? >> 18. Is there the perception of this universe for the savisesha Brahman? >> Answer is yes? >> 19. Do you believe that, per ?brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati?, a knower of >> Brahman (jnani) verily becomes (is) Brahman? Is this savisesha Brahman or >> nirvisesha Brahman? Answer is nirvisesha Brahman? >> 20. Does this knower of Brahman perceive or cognize the universe? Answer >> is >> no? >> 21. In Adhyasa Bhashya, right after stating the first definition of >> adhyasa >> as ?smriti rupa ??, Bhagavan bhashyakara explains various theories of how >> adhyasa could occur. After the last theory, bhagavatpada states in the >> sentence ?sarvathapi tu?? that the one common mechanism in adhyasa is >> ?cognition of one thing having the qualities of another?. >> 22. Various later acharyas have called this particular section of the >> Bhashya as explanation of ?khyati-vada (theory of error)?. Bhagavan >> bhashyakara calls this error (khyati) itself as adhyasa. >> 23. ?Khyati?, as related to an incorrect cognition, is a term used in >> pre-Sankara period itself, such as PatajaliYogaSutra-2.5. >> 24. Various later acharyas, in their sub-commentaries, have explained that >> the common mechanism (sarvathapi tu ...) stated in the bhashya is the >> universal concept of ?anirvachaniya khyati?. >> 25. Anirvachaniya, also because the various khyati vada can be broadly >> categorized as sat-khyati, asat-khyati or sat-asat-khyati. Bhagavatpada?s >> common explanation is an underlying thread amongst all these khyati vada. >> Hence it transcends being exclusively described as sat or asat or >> sat-asat. >> 26. In answering the question on how there can be a superimposition >> between >> light & dark or ?I? and ?thou?, bhashyakara says that nevertheless >> (tathapi) this is a natural worldly experience of coupling the real & >> unreal >> 27. Though of mutually conflicting attributes and a logical impossibility, >> bhashyakara still says that adhyasa is still a common observation in the >> world and only explains it as a 'natural' (naisargikah) phenomenon. >> Implying that this phenomenon cannot be exactly described or is thus >> anirvachaniya. >> 28. This natural phenomenon is adhyasa >> 29. This adhyasa is also later termed as avidya >> 30. The entire gamut of loka vyavahara (secular and religious) depends on >> this adhyasa or is the effect of this adhyasa >> 31. Since adhyasa is also avidya, the entire gamut depends on and is the >> effect of this avidya >> 32. Since this natural phenomenon is anirvachaniya, the exact explanation >> for adhyasa or avidya is anirvachaniya >> 33. In other words, Adhyasa as a term is described as ?atasmin tad >> buddhi?. >> But, how or why adhyasa take place in a certain way cannot be exactly >> described. >> 34. Examples of this anirvachaniya adhyasa are shell silver, double moon, >> rope snake, mirage, colored crystal, red hot iron ball, ?I?-ness and >> ?mine?-ness with BMI and objects >> 35. In all these examples, the resulting entity, the result of adhyasa, is >> distinct from the true object; and the true object doesn?t actually >> contain >> all the perceived qualities of the resulting entity >> 36. For example, when a rope is perceived as a snake, there is actually no >> snake whatsoever in the rope. The qualities of the snake are superimposed >> on the rope and the rope appears as the snake. >> 37. Prior to the perception of the rope as the snake, while the rope is >> perceived as the snake, after the true cognition of the rope as a rope, >> across all these periods, there is never actually a snake in the rope >> 38. The superimposed qualities, which actually are not present in the >> actual object, only appears to be present in the object during adhyasa >> 39. As long as the resulting adhyasa entity is perceived to be so, the >> entity is considered as real and existing >> 40. But on the dawn of true discriminative knowledge, the true nature and >> qualities of the actual object is perceived as-is >> 41. At this point the earlier cognition of the adhyasa entity is >> understood >> to be false and not actually present in the actual object >> 42. Because the adhyasa entity is actually not present in the actual >> object, the adhyasa entity cannot be called as sat >> 43. At the same time, because the adhyasa entity was experienced as >> existing prior to dawn of true knowledge, the adhyasa entity cannot be >> called as asat >> 44. Obviously the adhyasa entity cannot be both sat and asat >> simultaneously >> due to mutual contradiction >> 45. Thus the ontological status of the adhyasa entity is neither sat nor >> asat nor both (sadasat-vilakshana). The adhyasa entity is mithya >> 46. Since adhyasa is also called avidya, avidya too is only mithya >> 47. Since adhyasa or avidya is anirvachaniya, mithya too is anirvachaniya >> 48. Anirvachaniya is sadasat-vilakshana >> 49. Nirvisesha Brahman is perceived as savisesha Brahman due to adhyasa. >> In >> other words, the viseshanas are superimposed on Brahman >> 50. When adhyasa is overcome, the nirvisesha Brahman is realized as-is >> >> with humble prostrations, >> Vikram >> _______________________________________________ >> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >> >> To unsubscribe or change your options: >> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >> >> For assistance, contact: >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >> > From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 11:25:14 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2023 21:55:14 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_Scientific_Evidence_=E2=80=93_Vedan?= =?utf-8?q?tic_Light_-_A_new_Book_for_Free_Download?= Message-ID: *Pranams* *Centre For Brahmavidya is delighted to present this newly published book, now available for free download.* *"Scientific Evidence ? Vedantic Light?* *[Gleanings from His Holiness Jagadguru ?r? Abhinava Vidy?t?rtha Mah?sv?min]* *A feature:* *One unacquainted with science and the scripture can** also * *read **this book.* *Click here to download the ebook for free. * ( https://www.centreforbrahmavidya.org/files/download/Scientific-Evidence-Vedantic-Light-ebook.pdf?sr=em ) Our scriptural texts teach that there is a *j?va* in every life form, be it a plant, a worm or a human. Numerous knotty, *j?va-*related questions arise when a planarian (a flatworm), which has a remarkable ability to regenerate, grafted plants, cloning of animals, embryo-splitting, natural and artificial human conception, etc., are considered. These are spelt out and answered in the light of the scripture in Chapter 1 of this book. In the next chapter, hypothesized links between the findings of science about the cosmos and what the scriptures have said, early Indian contributions in the fields of mathematics, medicine, and engineering, and the traditional resolution of any discordance between some Vedic statements and what is known by other means are taken up. Chapter 3 considers evolution as presented by Dawkins in *The Blind Watchmaker *in the light of the pervasive role of God revealed by the scripture. The pervasive impact of the human brain on the mind and consciousness as known from the data on brain damage, electrical stimulation, drugs, split-brain surgery, etc., is detailed in Chapter 4 and it is shown in depth that all such data can be accommodated within the framework of the scripture?s words about the mind and consciousness. Chapter 5 has some information about light, relativity, and quantum mechanics and how the scriptural teaching about causality is unchallenged by quantum interactions. Every scriptural explanation of H.H. Jagadguru ?r? Abhinava Vidy?t?rtha Mah?sv?min, the 35th Shankaracharya of the Sringeri Sharada Peetham, a great *yogin, *a* j?van-mukta*, and an undisputed authority on *Advaita-ved?nta*, is precise, clear, and traditional. The reigning 36th Shankaracharya of the Sringeri Sharada Peetham, H.H. Jagadguru ?r? Bh?rat?-t?rtha Mah?sv?min, has blessed this book with a *?r?mukha *(benedictory message). The printed edition of the book is available for purchase at Rs 80. For purchase of the printed edition, please contact: K Venkatramanan Mobile: 7397487666 Centre for Brahmavidya SVK Towers, 8th Floor A25, Industrial Estate, Guindy Chennai - 600032 India Email: contact at centreforbrahmavidya.org From vikkyjagan at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 18:16:15 2023 From: vikkyjagan at gmail.com (Vikram Jagannathan) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2023 17:16:15 -0600 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 9:50?PM Kuntimaddi Sadananda via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Vikramji -PraNAms > Enjoyed reading your crisp itemized list. > It would be complete if you added two aspects of avidya - aavarana and > vkshepa aspects, and which one gets eliminated with Vedanta janita vidya. > Hari Om!Sadananda > > Namaskaram Acharya Shri Sadananda ji, Definitely! I missed calling out that the earlier set of 50 points was just an initial list for discussion and agreement. Thought that we will go deeper and cover more points of fundamental Advaita as we align on these first. Avarana and vikshepa aspects of avidya will be an important component of the next list. Thanks a lot for your review and words of encouragement. On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 7:08?AM Ramesam Vemuri wrote: > Shri Vikram Jagannathan JI, > Namaskarams and Kudos to you, Sir, for the excellent and clear pointwise > unambiguous listing of the fundamental approach that Advaita takes in its > doctrine. > > I wish to make two observations, if you do not mind: > > i) A Deletion suggested: > > Under the itemized list at # 12 is the sentence: "The universe > of plurality, the viseshanas & sakthis of savisesha Brahman, snake on a rope, > rope itself, mirage, double-moon are all examples of this mithya > category. " > In the well-known 'snake-on-the-rope' analogy, rope stands for the > formless and featureless *brahman* Itself. Therefore, I submit that the > words "rope itself" may be deleted. > > ii) Two Additions suggested: > > (a) In the "adhyAsa bhAShya," bhAShyakAra Shankara himself expresses why > or when "adhyAsa" does arise. > "The unattached Self (brahman) cannot become a cognizer with the activity > of perception etc., without accepting the senses, mind and body are Its > own. > > (b) "The Self (brahman) is not absolutely beyond apprehension, because It > is apprehended as the content of the concept "I"; and is self-revealing > entity. > Namaskaram Shri Ramesam ji, I wholeheartedly welcome your suggestions, words of wisdom & encouragement. Regarding the 'deletion' suggestion ref. #12, though the title of this email thread focuses on the rope-snake analogy, my intent of reviewing the fundamentals is more holistic. Please permit me to clarify my intention: I agree with you that within the context of the illustration, rope is considered as sat as it illustrates the nirvisesha Brahman. For #12, I wish to call out that the examples of mithya entities are not limited to a specific illustration, but more from a holistic perspective. In that sense, the snake appearing instead of a rope, as well as the very rope itself (actual rope and not the analogy equivalent for nirvisesha Brahman) is mithya too. Rope (as the equivalent of Brahman) is considered as sat only within the context of the illustration, but outside the context even the rope is mithya only. The reason I deliberately included "rope itself" is to avoid a possibility that someone might just be focused on the illustration and fail to look at the bigger more holistic picture wherein even the rope is only mithya. Kindly let me know if we are in alignment here. Regarding the 'addition' suggestions; we will include both these in a subsequent set when we look at the adhyasa & avidya in more detail. On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 7:33?AM H S Chandramouli wrote: > Namaskaram Vikram Ji, > > Reg // Ontologically, asat is that which is never experienced as > existing. > Hare?s horn is asat //, > > In my understanding, the words ** in any locus ** needs to be added at the > end of ** as existing **. This is to avoid any mixup with all *imagined > ** entities being understood as asat. For example, a snake just ** > imagined** (not as ** it is a snake**) is also nonexistent. Because just > the word ** snake ** being imagined implies absence of any locus. But > snake itself cannot be called asat. > > Incidentally this was why I had suggested earlier that the word > **imagined** with reference to rope-snake as inappropriate, because the > experience there is **It is a snake**, implying a locus which is > experienced through a pramANa. > > You may like to consider > > Namaskaram Shri Chandramouli ji, Thanks a lot for your suggestions. I will definitely take it up for consideration, and would like to discuss these points with you and other members in the group. I don't see any problem with adding "in any locus" to #11, while at the same time I believe it might just be redundant. To clarify, can I say that even the snake just 'imagined' is not actually absent of any locus, but still has the locus in the antahkarana of the person imagining? This is because an imagination is also an antahkarana vritti, with the locus as the antahkarana. With this, every imagination also becomes mithya alone. What then about the case of a hare's horn? Can someone imagine it; and if so, does it then lose its status as asat and becomes mithya? What then can be an example of asat, since any example can still be confined within the realm of thought or imagination. Of course, we cannot limit mithya to external entities alone, since then kevala-sakshi-vishaya like punya-papa will also become asat. But then, this brings up the next question of what exactly is the definition of asat? I would like to seek out references / definitions from our purvacharyas. Maybe there is never a 'thing' as asat, except from a relative perspective, because there is a direct contraction between a 'thing' and 'asat'. Nevertheless, I will add "in any locus" to the bullet in my next iteration. Reg // These qualities are the attributes (viseshana) of Brahman and are > distinct manifestations //, > > This seems to contradict point 4 unless you distinguish between Brahman > and nirvisesha Brahman of point 5. But that does not appear to be the > case as the word Brahman appears to be used in other places in the post > without clearly mentioning any qualifications. > Yes, Chandramouli ji; you are correct that there is a point of distinction between Brahman in #7 versus Brahman in #4 and #5. Brahman described in #7 is designated as savisesha Brahman as stated in #9; whereas Brahman described in #4 is designated as nirvisesha Brahman as stated in #5. At the same time, there is only one Brahman alone and not two different Brahmans. The difference is only in our understanding of Brahman. This is precisely why we do not have an explicit designation of "nirguna Brahman / nirvisesha Brahman" or "saguna Brahman / savisesha Brahman" anywhere in vedanta. It is just Brahman. The context alone determines whether the said Brahman is considered in the nirvisesha svarupa (as the former) or is superimposed with various viseshanas (as the latter). This point is clarified in #49 and #50. Though Sankaracharya Bhagavatpada has taught us clear guidelines as to how one should understand from the context if Brahman should be considered in the svarupa aspect or be taken to possess the attributes, at times explicit designations are provided for clarity and convenience. To summarize, the real nature of Brahman is as indicated in #1 - #5. But in our current worldly experience we superimpose attributes on the attributeless entity (#49). Brahman as the result of our ignorant superimposition is considered in #6 - #9. It is one Brahman alone in different perspectives. > Perhaps it would be better to use the word Chaitanya for nirvisesha > Brahman and correct the post accordingly at other places where Chaitanya > is intended. > > Just a suggestion. I thought it would make it easier to comprehend your > intention unambiguously. All the more so because the word Brahman is used > in the Bhashya in three different contexts, namely nirvisesha Brahman, > mAyA vishishta nirvisesha Brahman, and mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman. > Even in respect of mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman, in my understanding, > only AvaraNa sahita nirvisesha Brahman is intended and not AvaraNa > rahita nirvisesha Brahman where ever reference is made to mAyA upahita nirvisesha > Brahman in the Bhashya. For example in respect of sAkshi, antaryAmi etc. > > You may like to consider > > Agreed. In the context of current discussion, clarity is more important for alignment. I will update the points to state "Chaitanya" for nirvisesha Brahman and "Isvara" for savisesha Brahman. A quick note - there are some contradictions and clarifications in "maya visishta nirvisesha Brahman" and "maya upahita nirvisesha Brahman", which can be discussed later. For easier reference and updates, I have uploaded the updated list to archives -> https://archive.org/details/reflections-on-fundamentals-of-advaita with humble prostrations, Vikram From narayana145 at yahoo.co.in Sun Dec 24 22:16:55 2023 From: narayana145 at yahoo.co.in (sreenivasa murthy) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2023 03:16:55 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <558616785.1919862.1703474215142@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Sri Vikram Jagannathan, Mother Sruti points out the TRUTH thus: Quote: (1) satyamjnanam anantam Brahma || Taittariya 2-1 (2) sarvagaMhi Etad brahma ayamAtmA brahma || ?????????????????????????????????????????Mandukya Mantra 2 ?(3)ahamEvEdagam?? sarvam ||Chandogya 7-25-1 (4)AtmaivEdagaM??sarvam? || Chandogya 7-25-2 (5)Atmata EvEdagM?sarvam || Chandogya 7-26-1 (6)brahmaivEdagM?viSvaM? variShTham || muMDaka (7) yat sAkShAt aparOkShAt brahma yaH ya AtmA sarvAntaraH (8)prapaMcOpaSamam??Sivam?? advaitam? caturtham ? ???manyantE ????? ???sa? AtmA?sa? VijnEyaH || Mandukya mantra 7? Unquote. Conclusionsdrawn in the light of the above quoted mantras: Atma is one'strue nature, which is actually present here and now because I ampresent here and now.?This fact can never be refuted. According tothe above mantras ?I am ananta i.e. infinite.? These teachingscan also be included in your list of your understanding. Withrespectful namaskars, SreenivasaMurthy On Monday, 25 December, 2023 at 04:46:34 am IST, Vikram Jagannathan wrote: On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 9:50?PM Kuntimaddi Sadananda via Advaita-l wrote: Vikramji -PraNAms Enjoyed reading your crisp itemized list.? It would be complete if you added two aspects of avidya - aavarana and vkshepa aspects, and which one gets eliminated with Vedanta janita vidya.? Hari Om!Sadananda Namaskaram Acharya Shri Sadananda ji, Definitely! I missed calling out that the earlier set of 50 points was just an initial list for discussion and agreement. Thought?that we will go deeper and cover more points of fundamental Advaita as we align on these first. Avarana and vikshepa aspects of avidya will be an important component of the next list. Thanks a lot for your review and words of encouragement. e you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLerKNJYgJ%2BYjh6-z6jgXmtt7dHvMdfSoyM5oBij_oQBpA%40mail.gmail.com. From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 23:48:51 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2023 10:18:51 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Advaita abheda jnanam - Padma puranam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That is the paradox. That very Padmapurana which is supposed to have the Mayavadam asat shaastram... verses which also derides the jiva - brahma aikya, also the portraying of Shiva as the Supreme as censurable, has the above cited verses too that teach aikya, teaching Shiva as the Supreme. regards subbu On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 11:56?PM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > In this chapter of the Padma purana there is a fine description of the > strict rigours a Sannyasin aught to follow. At the end, the kind of Jnana > that he has to attain to be liberated is also taught. One can see the > strictly Advaitic teaching here: > > ~ ???????????/????? ? (???????????)/??????? ?? > https://sa.wikisource.org/s/wym > > ?? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ? > ???????????????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??? > > This Lord Mahadeva is One and Supreme Shiva. This alone is the > Imperishable, Advaitic, Eternal, Highest State. > > ????????????? ???? ????????? ????????????? ? > ????????????? ????? ??????????? ?????? ??? > > He is known as Mahadeva since he revels in his own state of Jnana by Atma > Yoga. > > ?????? ???? ???????????????????? ????????? ? > ????????????????? ?? ? ???? ??? ???? ??? > > The Sannyasin does not comprehend any other Tattva other than this > Mahadeva. He who knows Him as his own Self, Atman, attains the supreme > state of liberation. > > ??????? ?? ??????????? ???????? ??????????? ? > ? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ??? > > Those who consider themselves as different from Parameshwara do not realize > that Truth; their effort is a waste. > > ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????????????? ? > ? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ?????? ??? > > One Supreme Brahman alone is to be realized as the Tattva, Imperishable. > That Supreme is Mahadeva and upon realizing this, one does not get bound > > ??????????? ????? ???? ????????? ? > ??????????? ????? ???????????? ??? > > Hence let the Sannyasin, with a placid, controlled mind, revelling in the > Jnana yoga, strive to attain the goal, the Supreme Mahadeva, > > Om Tat Sat > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From chevendrakaushik at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 23:50:35 2023 From: chevendrakaushik at gmail.com (Kaushik Chevendra) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2023 10:20:35 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Advaita abheda jnanam - Padma puranam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste sir. Other than the bagavatha purana all other puranas have some interpolations in the ending kandas. Hence we see such absolute contradictions in the purana itself. The Garuda purana is the epitome of this problem. Namo narayana On Mon, 25 Dec 2023 at 10:19 AM, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > That is the paradox. That very Padmapurana which is supposed to have the > Mayavadam asat shaastram... verses which also derides the jiva - brahma > aikya, also the portraying of Shiva as the Supreme as censurable, has the > above cited verses too that teach aikya, teaching Shiva as the Supreme. > > regards > subbu > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 11:56?PM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > In this chapter of the Padma purana there is a fine description of the > > strict rigours a Sannyasin aught to follow. At the end, the kind of > Jnana > > that he has to attain to be liberated is also taught. One can see the > > strictly Advaitic teaching here: > > > > ~ ???????????/????? ? (???????????)/??????? ?? > > https://sa.wikisource.org/s/wym > > > > ?? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ? > > ???????????????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??? > > > > This Lord Mahadeva is One and Supreme Shiva. This alone is the > > Imperishable, Advaitic, Eternal, Highest State. > > > > ????????????? ???? ????????? ????????????? ? > > ????????????? ????? ??????????? ?????? ??? > > > > He is known as Mahadeva since he revels in his own state of Jnana by Atma > > Yoga. > > > > ?????? ???? ???????????????????? ????????? ? > > ????????????????? ?? ? ???? ??? ???? ??? > > > > The Sannyasin does not comprehend any other Tattva other than this > > Mahadeva. He who knows Him as his own Self, Atman, attains the supreme > > state of liberation. > > > > ??????? ?? ??????????? ???????? ??????????? ? > > ? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ??? > > > > Those who consider themselves as different from Parameshwara do not > realize > > that Truth; their effort is a waste. > > > > ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????????????? ? > > ? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ?????? ??? > > > > One Supreme Brahman alone is to be realized as the Tattva, Imperishable. > > That Supreme is Mahadeva and upon realizing this, one does not get bound > > > > ??????????? ????? ???? ????????? ? > > ??????????? ????? ???????????? ??? > > > > Hence let the Sannyasin, with a placid, controlled mind, revelling in the > > Jnana yoga, strive to attain the goal, the Supreme Mahadeva, > > > > Om Tat Sat > > _______________________________________________ > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > > > For assistance, contact: > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From hschandramouli at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 02:57:47 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2023 13:27:47 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaskaram Vikram Ji, Reg // To clarify, can I say that even the snake just 'imagined' is not actually absent of any locus, but still has the locus in the antahkarana of the person imagining? //, No. Not in my understanding. Snake as ????? (j~nAna) (knowledge) or ?????? (smRRiti) (recollection) or ? imagined ? has antahkaraNa as its location. Not as a vastu. Regards On Mon, Dec 25, 2023 at 4:46?AM Vikram Jagannathan wrote: > On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 9:50?PM Kuntimaddi Sadananda via Advaita-l < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > >> Vikramji -PraNAms >> Enjoyed reading your crisp itemized list. >> It would be complete if you added two aspects of avidya - aavarana and >> vkshepa aspects, and which one gets eliminated with Vedanta janita vidya. >> Hari Om!Sadananda >> >> > Namaskaram Acharya Shri Sadananda ji, > > Definitely! I missed calling out that the earlier set of 50 points was > just an initial list for discussion and agreement. Thought that we will go > deeper and cover more points of fundamental Advaita as we align on these > first. Avarana and vikshepa aspects of avidya will be an important > component of the next list. Thanks a lot for your review and words of > encouragement. > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 7:08?AM Ramesam Vemuri > wrote: > >> Shri Vikram Jagannathan JI, >> Namaskarams and Kudos to you, Sir, for the excellent and clear pointwise >> unambiguous listing of the fundamental approach that Advaita takes in its >> doctrine. >> >> I wish to make two observations, if you do not mind: >> >> i) A Deletion suggested: >> >> Under the itemized list at # 12 is the sentence: "The universe >> of plurality, the viseshanas & sakthis of savisesha Brahman, snake on a rope, >> rope itself, mirage, double-moon are all examples of this mithya >> category. " >> In the well-known 'snake-on-the-rope' analogy, rope stands for the >> formless and featureless *brahman* Itself. Therefore, I submit that the >> words "rope itself" may be deleted. >> >> ii) Two Additions suggested: >> >> (a) In the "adhyAsa bhAShya," bhAShyakAra Shankara himself expresses >> why or when "adhyAsa" does arise. >> "The unattached Self (brahman) cannot become a cognizer with the activity >> of perception etc., without accepting the senses, mind and body are Its >> own. >> >> (b) "The Self (brahman) is not absolutely beyond apprehension, because >> It is apprehended as the content of the concept "I"; and is self-revealing >> entity. >> > > > Namaskaram Shri Ramesam ji, > > I wholeheartedly welcome your suggestions, words of wisdom & encouragement. > > Regarding the 'deletion' suggestion ref. #12, though the title of this > email thread focuses on the rope-snake analogy, my intent of reviewing the > fundamentals is more holistic. Please permit me to clarify my intention: I > agree with you that within the context of the illustration, rope is > considered as sat as it illustrates the nirvisesha Brahman. For #12, I wish > to call out that the examples of mithya entities are not limited to a > specific illustration, but more from a holistic perspective. In that sense, > the snake appearing instead of a rope, as well as the very rope itself > (actual rope and not the analogy equivalent for nirvisesha Brahman) is > mithya too. Rope (as the equivalent of Brahman) is considered as sat only > within the context of the illustration, but outside the context even the > rope is mithya only. The reason I deliberately included "rope itself" is to > avoid a possibility that someone might just be focused on the illustration > and fail to look at the bigger more holistic picture wherein even the rope > is only mithya. Kindly let me know if we are in alignment here. > > Regarding the 'addition' suggestions; we will include both these in a > subsequent set when we look at the adhyasa & avidya in more detail. > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 7:33?AM H S Chandramouli > wrote: > >> Namaskaram Vikram Ji, >> >> Reg // Ontologically, asat is that which is never experienced as >> existing. >> Hare?s horn is asat //, >> >> In my understanding, the words ** in any locus ** needs to be added at >> the end of ** as existing **. This is to avoid any mixup with all >> *imagined ** entities being understood as asat. For example, a snake just >> ** imagined** (not as ** it is a snake**) is also nonexistent. Because just >> the word ** snake ** being imagined implies absence of any locus. But >> snake itself cannot be called asat. >> >> Incidentally this was why I had suggested earlier that the word >> **imagined** with reference to rope-snake as inappropriate, because the >> experience there is **It is a snake**, implying a locus which is >> experienced through a pramANa. >> >> You may like to consider >> >> > Namaskaram Shri Chandramouli ji, > > Thanks a lot for your suggestions. I will definitely take it up for > consideration, and would like to discuss these points with you and other > members in the group. > > I don't see any problem with adding "in any locus" to #11, while at the > same time I believe it might just be redundant. To clarify, can I say that > even the snake just 'imagined' is not actually absent of any locus, but > still has the locus in the antahkarana of the person imagining? This is > because an imagination is also an antahkarana vritti, with the locus as the > antahkarana. With this, every imagination also becomes mithya alone. What > then about the case of a hare's horn? Can someone imagine it; and if so, > does it then lose its status as asat and becomes mithya? What then can be > an example of asat, since any example can still be confined within the > realm of thought or imagination. Of course, we cannot limit mithya to > external entities alone, since then kevala-sakshi-vishaya like punya-papa > will also become asat. But then, this brings up the next question of what > exactly is the definition of asat? I would like to seek out references / > definitions from our purvacharyas. Maybe there is never a 'thing' as asat, > except from a relative perspective, because there is a direct contraction > between a 'thing' and 'asat'. > > Nevertheless, I will add "in any locus" to the bullet in my next iteration. > > > Reg // These qualities are the attributes (viseshana) of Brahman and are >> distinct manifestations //, >> >> This seems to contradict point 4 unless you distinguish between Brahman >> and nirvisesha Brahman of point 5. But that does not appear to be the >> case as the word Brahman appears to be used in other places in the post >> without clearly mentioning any qualifications. >> > > Yes, Chandramouli ji; you are correct that there is a point of distinction > between Brahman in #7 versus Brahman in #4 and #5. Brahman described in #7 > is designated as savisesha Brahman as stated in #9; whereas Brahman > described in #4 is designated as nirvisesha Brahman as stated in #5. At the > same time, there is only one Brahman alone and not two different Brahmans. > The difference is only in our understanding of Brahman. This is > precisely why we do not have an explicit designation of "nirguna Brahman / > nirvisesha Brahman" or "saguna Brahman / savisesha Brahman" anywhere in > vedanta. It is just Brahman. The context alone determines whether the said > Brahman is considered in the nirvisesha svarupa (as the former) or is > superimposed with various viseshanas (as the latter). This point is > clarified in #49 and #50. Though Sankaracharya Bhagavatpada has taught us > clear guidelines as to how one should understand from the context if > Brahman should be considered in the svarupa aspect or be taken to possess > the attributes, at times explicit designations are provided for clarity and > convenience. > > To summarize, the real nature of Brahman is as indicated in #1 - #5. But > in our current worldly experience we superimpose attributes on the > attributeless entity (#49). Brahman as the result of our ignorant > superimposition is considered in #6 - #9. It is one Brahman alone in > different perspectives. > > > >> Perhaps it would be better to use the word Chaitanya for nirvisesha >> Brahman and correct the post accordingly at other places where Chaitanya >> is intended. >> >> Just a suggestion. I thought it would make it easier to comprehend your >> intention unambiguously. All the more so because the word Brahman is used >> in the Bhashya in three different contexts, namely nirvisesha Brahman, >> mAyA vishishta nirvisesha Brahman, and mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman. >> Even in respect of mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman, in my understanding, >> only AvaraNa sahita nirvisesha Brahman is intended and not AvaraNa >> rahita nirvisesha Brahman where ever reference is made to mAyA upahita nirvisesha >> Brahman in the Bhashya. For example in respect of sAkshi, antaryAmi etc. >> >> You may like to consider >> >> > Agreed. In the context of current discussion, clarity is more important > for alignment. I will update the points to state "Chaitanya" for nirvisesha > Brahman and "Isvara" for savisesha Brahman. A quick note - there are some > contradictions and clarifications in "maya visishta nirvisesha Brahman" and > "maya upahita nirvisesha Brahman", which can be discussed later. > > For easier reference and updates, I have uploaded the updated list to > archives -> > https://archive.org/details/reflections-on-fundamentals-of-advaita > > with humble prostrations, > Vikram > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "advaitin" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLerKNJYgJ%2BYjh6-z6jgXmtt7dHvMdfSoyM5oBij_oQBpA%40mail.gmail.com > > . > From agnimile at gmail.com Mon Dec 25 04:52:59 2023 From: agnimile at gmail.com (Venkatraghavan S) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2023 01:52:59 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste, I haven't followed the discussion in any detail, so apologies if I am misunderstanding the context in which certain things were said, but this sentence jumped at me: Reg // To clarify, can I say that even the snake just 'imagined' is not > actually absent of any locus, but still has the locus in the antahkarana of > the person imagining? // > The snake in the rope snake adhyAsa is not imagined "in the mind". Rather the adhyAsa takes place in the locus outside, which leads to the experience, "I see a snake *there *(e.g. in the passageway)". The locus is not the seer's mind, but the location of the rope. This differentiates it from asat, where no on can legitimately claim to have experienced the hare's horn at a particular place. That is why in the second definition of mithyAtvam, the words "pratipannopAdhau" (in the locus where it appears) are appended to the "traikAlika niShedha pratiyogitvam" (the absence in all three periods of time). The latter, traikAlika niShedha pratiyogitvam, is common to both asat and mithyA, but pratipanna-upAdhitvam is unique to mithyA only. The rope snake appears where the rope is. The hare's horn does not appear anywhere. Both don't exist. Kind regards, Venkatraghavan From vikkyjagan at gmail.com Tue Dec 26 00:30:24 2023 From: vikkyjagan at gmail.com (Vikram Jagannathan) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2023 23:30:24 -0600 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaskaram Shri Sreenivasa Murthy ji, Shri Chandramouli ji and Shri Venkataraghavan ji, Thanks a lot for additional details and clarifications. I will reflect more on the shared points. with humble prostrations, Vikram On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 8:50?PM Vikram Jagannathan via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaskaram Shri Bhaskar ji, > > Before we continue on the main thread, I would like to understand the > extent we are aligned on the fundamentals of Advaita. Below, I have > mentioned my current understanding in a sequential order. Please let me > know if you agree with these points or not. If you disagree with any point, > please stop there and do not proceed until we discuss that particular point > and come to an agreement. > > I would like to open this discussion to the entire group and request others > to share & contribute their agreements / disagreements. I have > deliberately kept the explanations for these statements to a minimum. If we > agree to the statement, but have different explanations / reasons for > arriving at that, that's fine; we will get an opportunity to clarify as we > go deeper. > > With the right spirit and intention, we will have subsequent posts where we > continue to add more points. > > 1. The svarupa lakshana of Brahman is: existence (sat), real (satya), > consciousness (chit), knowledge (jnana), bliss (ananda), eternal (nitya), > infinite (anadi & ananta), full (purna), partless (avyaya), homogeneous > (eka rasa), immutable (kutastha), unchanging (avikara), pure (suddha), > devoid of any differentiation whatsoever (sajatiya, vijatiya, svagata > abheda) > 2. Per ekam-eva-advitiyam, there is no sajatiya or vijatiya or svagata > bheda, whatsoever, in Brahman > 3. Per neha-nanasti-kinchana, there is no plurality or ?other? or something > ?else? whatsoever in Brahman > 4. An infinite homogeneous partless immutable entity cannot have any > attributes (viseshana), since an attribute is defined as a quality that is > inseparable but distinct from the substance, and there cannot be any > distinction in a completely abheda homogenous entity > 5. This Brahman is designated as nirvisesha Brahman for the sake of > convenience > 6. Any quality associated with Brahman, that has in context or in relation > something ?else?, is only a tatastha lakshana of Brahman. This includes > qualities such as sarvajna, sarvasakthi, sarveshvara, > creator-sustainer-destroyer of the universe, antaryami, witness, being the > locus for something else, etc. > 7. These qualities are the attributes (viseshana) of Brahman and are > distinct manifestations > 8. Their relationship with Brahman is that of attribute-substance or > shakti-shaktivan or possessed-possessor. In all these cases, they are > inseparable but distinct from Brahman. > 9. Brahman described as possessing these qualities is designated as > savisesha Brahman for the sake of convenience > 10. Ontologically, sat is that which once ascertained as existing always > remains unchanged across all time. Nirvisesha Brahman is sat. > 11. Ontologically, asat is that which is never experienced as existing. > Hare?s horn is asat. > 12. Ontologically, mithya is that which is neither sat nor asat nor both > (sadasat-vilakshana) - it appears to exist but later sublated. The universe > of plurality, the viseshanas & sakthis of savisesha Brahman, snake on a > rope, rope itself, mirage, double-moon are all examples of this mithya > category. If you do not agree with this definition, please clarify what is > the ontological status of a mithya entity. > 13. Anirvachaniya explicitly means the entity cannot be specifically > described as sat or as asat or as both simultaneously - the reason why an > object may appear to exist but later sublated. There may be other > definitions, but if you do not agree with this definition, please clarify > what is the right definition of anirvachaniya and if anirvachaniya is sat > or asat or both or something else? > 14. If the above two points are in agreement, then the ontological status > of anirvachaniya is mithya > 15. In our current ignorance we believe the entire perceived universe of > plurality and change has an independent existence. What is the actual > ontological status of the universe and what is the ontological status of > the universe as we believe it to be in our ignorance? Both mithya? > 16. But let?s say that through shastra and sadhana, we gain the knowledge > that this universe is only a nama-rupa change of Brahman and is completely > dependent on Brahman. What now becomes the actual ontological status of the > universe and the ontological status of our perception of the universe? > Still both mithya? > 17. Does the nitya-suddha-buddha-mukta-svarupa nirvisesha Brahman perceive > or cognize the universe? Answer is no? > 18. Is there the perception of this universe for the savisesha Brahman? > Answer is yes? > 19. Do you believe that, per ?brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati?, a knower of > Brahman (jnani) verily becomes (is) Brahman? Is this savisesha Brahman or > nirvisesha Brahman? Answer is nirvisesha Brahman? > 20. Does this knower of Brahman perceive or cognize the universe? Answer is > no? > 21. In Adhyasa Bhashya, right after stating the first definition of adhyasa > as ?smriti rupa ??, Bhagavan bhashyakara explains various theories of how > adhyasa could occur. After the last theory, bhagavatpada states in the > sentence ?sarvathapi tu?? that the one common mechanism in adhyasa is > ?cognition of one thing having the qualities of another?. > 22. Various later acharyas have called this particular section of the > Bhashya as explanation of ?khyati-vada (theory of error)?. Bhagavan > bhashyakara calls this error (khyati) itself as adhyasa. > 23. ?Khyati?, as related to an incorrect cognition, is a term used in > pre-Sankara period itself, such as PatajaliYogaSutra-2.5. > 24. Various later acharyas, in their sub-commentaries, have explained that > the common mechanism (sarvathapi tu ...) stated in the bhashya is the > universal concept of ?anirvachaniya khyati?. > 25. Anirvachaniya, also because the various khyati vada can be broadly > categorized as sat-khyati, asat-khyati or sat-asat-khyati. Bhagavatpada?s > common explanation is an underlying thread amongst all these khyati vada. > Hence it transcends being exclusively described as sat or asat or sat-asat. > 26. In answering the question on how there can be a superimposition between > light & dark or ?I? and ?thou?, bhashyakara says that nevertheless > (tathapi) this is a natural worldly experience of coupling the real & > unreal > 27. Though of mutually conflicting attributes and a logical impossibility, > bhashyakara still says that adhyasa is still a common observation in the > world and only explains it as a 'natural' (naisargikah) phenomenon. > Implying that this phenomenon cannot be exactly described or is thus > anirvachaniya. > 28. This natural phenomenon is adhyasa > 29. This adhyasa is also later termed as avidya > 30. The entire gamut of loka vyavahara (secular and religious) depends on > this adhyasa or is the effect of this adhyasa > 31. Since adhyasa is also avidya, the entire gamut depends on and is the > effect of this avidya > 32. Since this natural phenomenon is anirvachaniya, the exact explanation > for adhyasa or avidya is anirvachaniya > 33. In other words, Adhyasa as a term is described as ?atasmin tad buddhi?. > But, how or why adhyasa take place in a certain way cannot be exactly > described. > 34. Examples of this anirvachaniya adhyasa are shell silver, double moon, > rope snake, mirage, colored crystal, red hot iron ball, ?I?-ness and > ?mine?-ness with BMI and objects > 35. In all these examples, the resulting entity, the result of adhyasa, is > distinct from the true object; and the true object doesn?t actually contain > all the perceived qualities of the resulting entity > 36. For example, when a rope is perceived as a snake, there is actually no > snake whatsoever in the rope. The qualities of the snake are superimposed > on the rope and the rope appears as the snake. > 37. Prior to the perception of the rope as the snake, while the rope is > perceived as the snake, after the true cognition of the rope as a rope, > across all these periods, there is never actually a snake in the rope > 38. The superimposed qualities, which actually are not present in the > actual object, only appears to be present in the object during adhyasa > 39. As long as the resulting adhyasa entity is perceived to be so, the > entity is considered as real and existing > 40. But on the dawn of true discriminative knowledge, the true nature and > qualities of the actual object is perceived as-is > 41. At this point the earlier cognition of the adhyasa entity is understood > to be false and not actually present in the actual object > 42. Because the adhyasa entity is actually not present in the actual > object, the adhyasa entity cannot be called as sat > 43. At the same time, because the adhyasa entity was experienced as > existing prior to dawn of true knowledge, the adhyasa entity cannot be > called as asat > 44. Obviously the adhyasa entity cannot be both sat and asat simultaneously > due to mutual contradiction > 45. Thus the ontological status of the adhyasa entity is neither sat nor > asat nor both (sadasat-vilakshana). The adhyasa entity is mithya > 46. Since adhyasa is also called avidya, avidya too is only mithya > 47. Since adhyasa or avidya is anirvachaniya, mithya too is anirvachaniya > 48. Anirvachaniya is sadasat-vilakshana > 49. Nirvisesha Brahman is perceived as savisesha Brahman due to adhyasa. In > other words, the viseshanas are superimposed on Brahman > 50. When adhyasa is overcome, the nirvisesha Brahman is realized as-is > > with humble prostrations, > Vikram > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com Tue Dec 26 00:43:39 2023 From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 05:43:39 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: praNAms Sri Vikram prabhuji Hare Krishna I reckon first we have to take a deeper look at Sri Venktaraghavan prabhuji's observation i.e. snake is not 'mental imagination' but has a locus outside rope. Because this is what exactly I was having in mind when I was talking about rope is having some problem in -rope-snake' analogy. Would share my thoughts on his observation (specifically below statement) if my time permits today. //quote // The snake in the rope snake adhyAsa is not imagined "in the mind". Rather the adhyAsa takes place in the locus outside, which leads to the experience, "I see a snake there (e.g. in the passageway)". The locus is not the seer's mind, but the location of the rope. //unquote// Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! Bhaskar PS : @Venkatraghavan S prabhuji, any elaboration / further notes on the above statement would be highly appreciated From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Tue Dec 26 00:44:35 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 11:14:35 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Kurma Purana - the Verdict of the Veda Message-ID: ????????????-?????????/??????????????????? https://sa.wikisource.org/s/41h ?????? ???? ??????????????????? ? ????? ? ?????????????? ???? ?????????? ????????? ?? ??.?? In the above verse Mahavishnu says: I am one with Shiva and there is no difference between us. This is the verdict of the Vedas. We find here a contradiction to the unvedic idea of 'classification of Puranas based on the deity' found in the Puranas. Since the classification has no basis in the Vedas, the concept itself needs to be rejected as stated by Anandagiri to Sureshwaracharya's vartika: ?? ??????????????????????????? ????????? ? ???????????? ???????? ?????????? ????? ? [The Br.Up. ?he who, stationed in the p?thv? devat? impels the mind-body-organs of that devat??.? who is the antary?m?, jagadguru, even though one, is variously spoken of as Hari, Brahm? and Pin?k? (?iva).] Anandagiri: ??? ???????????????? ???????? ????????, ????????????? ????????? ??????????????? ??????? ???????????????, ?? ?? ? ?? ???????????? ? ??????? ?? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????????????? ????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ??????????????? ?????????????, ? ? ????????? ?????????????????? ???????????? ????????????? ???? ? ? ????????? ??????????????? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ???????????? ? Anandagiri says: How is it that while Isvara is the jagatk?ra?am according to the Shruti, the itih?sa, etc. say that there is the causehood as appropriately assigned to the trim?rti-s in creation, sustenance and dissolution? [the idea is: while the shruti says Brahman, Ishvara, is the jagatk?ra?am, we find the itih?sa, pur?na, etc. distributing that to three different entities functionally?] The above verse of Sureshvara is answering this question: Even though Ishwara is one only, he is spoken of as many, Hari, Brahm?, Pin?k?. Why is it that Ishwara is admitted to be one only? Since it is one Ishwara alone (not many) that is taught in the shruti as the antary?min.* If the pur??a-s, etc. say something different (three different individuals performing distinct functions), then since these texts are dependent on the Shruti for their pr?m??ya, they do not enjoy the status of the shruti; they are durbala, weak, only when they say something contradictory to the Shruti.* Since He, Ishwara, is the Guru of everyone (including devat?-s) this antary?min, Ishwara, alone gets the epithet of ?Jagadguru?. In this very Padmapurana while eulogising the greatness of the 12th canto of the Bhagavatam it is said that those who do not differentiate between Hari, Hara and Durga and look upon the Triad as Para Brahman are Vaishnavottamas: Greatest devotees of Vishnu. In the Kapila Upa Purana, 21st chapter, the non-difference of Hari and Hara is emphatically stated along with the censure of the idea of difference between the two and that the Moksha Jnana that is stated in this chapter should not be given out to 'non-Vaishnavas'. From this it is implied that those who differentiate between Hari and Hara are not Vaishnavas. We do not come across in the Vedas or Upanishads about any part thereof being Tamasa. Hence, if the Puranas say that some are tamasa, etc. then they being veda viruddha, they do not enjoy the status of being pramana. Above all, to divide is not the goal of the Veda; it is only to unite and converge in the Advaitam of the Mandukya Upanishad. Any text that teaches sectarianism, bigotry, etc. has to be rejected as being divergent from the Vedic goal. Om Tat Sat From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com Tue Dec 26 02:37:50 2023 From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 07:37:50 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Kurma Purana - the Verdict of the Veda In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: praNAms Hare Krishna In the above verse Mahavishnu says: I am one with Shiva and there is no difference between us. This is the verdict of the Vedas. We find here a contradiction to the unvedic idea of 'classification of Puranas based on the deity' found in the Puranas. Since the classification has no basis in the Vedas, the concept itself needs to be rejected as stated by Anandagiri to Sureshwaracharya's vartika: ? Just wondering the question of abedha between hari-hara still haunting even to the core advaitins and they are still searching all possible means to prove the absolute similarity between them!!. It is quite evident in Advaita too for chitta Shuddhi there is vedic karma / upAsana etc. and upAsana needs to be done as prescribed in shAstra and ?result? of the upAsana too will be different since upAsya devata too different. It is because of this prateeka (symbol) upAsana has been prescribed in the form sUrya, sAligrAma, linga etc. And there is a caution from bhAshyakAra as well that one should not think himself as prateeka and prateeka needs to be meditated as devata and not devata as prateeka etc. (for example fourth chapter in sUtra bhAshya). So one should not think I am ?kailAsa parameshwara Parvati pati? when contemplating on the vedic truth ?shivOhaM?, likewise one should not think that he himself as ?lakshmeepati mAhAvishNu? when doing the upAsana on vishNu tattva. So as long as there is jeeva with upAdhi identification is there as upAsaka, shiva & vishNu with their respective upAdhi (shymbol) also will be there differently as upAsya devata. So hari-hara abedha needs to be understood in this sense and as a matter of fact when we realize the secondless Chaitanya (nirupAdhika ekamevAdviteeya Chaitanya) there is absolutely no difference among anything (jeeva, jagat, Ishwara). So, upAsya devata, their respective upAdhi, their respective family members, their respective role in srushti prakriya, their respective upAsana / dhyAna / archana resultant phala too different as per upAsaka-s ?way? of upAsana and very much accepted in Advaita pradhAna vaidika karmAnushTANa and prateekOpAsana vidhi. So, in vyavahAra there is bedha and in pAramArthika no question of these talks as there remains ONLY ONE without second. So where exactly we are seeing the difference and where exactly we are seeing non-difference that too ONLY among Vividha devata-s!!?? Every Advaita sAdhaka should keep in mind that though we are doing the upAsana to Vividha devata, the tattva (not prateeka) behind all these upAsya devata is one and the same, it does not anyway mean there is absolutely no difference in prateeka itself. Shiva is shiva and vishNu is vishNu there is no need for seeing any unnecessary abedha among these vishesha upAdhi-s. * And as per some, these are all grand characters within one?s grand dream and everything (shiva-vishNu-bhagavati etc.) is just mental imagination and has no validity in some higher module called DSV ? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From raghavkumar00 at gmail.com Tue Dec 26 04:22:03 2023 From: raghavkumar00 at gmail.com (Raghav Kumar Dwivedula) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 14:52:03 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Chandramouli ji On Sun, 24 Dec, 2023, 8:55 pm H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l, < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaskaram Vikram Ji, > > Reg // Ontologically, asat is that which is never experienced as > existing. > Hare?s horn is asat //, > > In my understanding, the words ** in any locus ** needs to be added at the > end of ** as existing **. This is to avoid any mixup with all *imagined ** > entities being understood as asat. For example, a snake just ** imagined** > (not as ** it is a snake**) is also nonexistent. Because just the word ** > snake ** being imagined implies absence of any locus. But snake itself > cannot be called asat. > > Incidentally this was why I had suggested earlier that the word > **imagined** with reference to rope-snake as inappropriate, because the > experience there is **It is a snake**, implying a locus which is > experienced through a pramANa. > Thank you for this clarification. One additional factor to consider - Under the assumption that the word 'objects' refers not only to physical objects but also to existent entities like "democracy", "algebra" "poem" "Prime numbers" etc., since they exist and are experienced but not as objects of the five senses, we categorize these as objects cognized directly by the mind, "sAxI pratyaxa". Yet they are not asat. The locus of these objects would be the antaH karaNam or in some cases the locus would possibly be specific class objects like the collection of people who are citizens. How do we distinguish sAxI pratyaxa entities like "algebra", "democracy" etc which I understand are sat, from asat like hare's horns which can also be conceptualized by the mind? Om Raghav > > > You may like to consider > > Regards > > > > Regards > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 6:44?PM H S Chandramouli > > wrote: > > > Namaskaram Vikram Ji, > > > > Reg // These qualities are the attributes (viseshana) of Brahman and > are > > distinct manifestations //, > > > > This seems to contradict point 4 unless you distinguish between Brahman > > and nirvisesha Brahman of point 5. But that does not appear to be the > > case as the word Brahman appears to be used in other places in the post > > without clearly mentioning any qualifications. Perhaps it would be better > > to use the word Chaitanya for nirvisesha Brahman and correct the post > > accordingly at other places where Chaitanya is intended. > > > > Just a suggestion. I thought it would make it easier to comprehend your > > intention unambiguously. All the more so because the word Brahman is used > > in the Bhashya in three different contexts, namely nirvisesha Brahman, > > mAyA vishishta nirvisesha Brahman, and mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman. > > Even in respect of mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman, in my understanding, > > only AvaraNa sahita nirvisesha Brahman is intended and not AvaraNa > > rahita nirvisesha Brahman where ever reference is made to mAyA upahita > nirvisesha > > Brahman in the Bhashya. For example in respect of sAkshi, antaryAmi etc. > > > > You may like to consider > > > > Regards > > > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 8:05?AM Vikram Jagannathan via Advaita-l < > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > >> Namaskaram Shri Bhaskar ji, > >> > >> Before we continue on the main thread, I would like to understand the > >> extent we are aligned on the fundamentals of Advaita. Below, I have > >> mentioned my current understanding in a sequential order. Please let me > >> know if you agree with these points or not. If you disagree with any > >> point, > >> please stop there and do not proceed until we discuss that particular > >> point > >> and come to an agreement. > >> > >> I would like to open this discussion to the entire group and request > >> others > >> to share & contribute their agreements / disagreements. I have > >> deliberately kept the explanations for these statements to a minimum. If > >> we > >> agree to the statement, but have different explanations / reasons for > >> arriving at that, that's fine; we will get an opportunity to clarify as > we > >> go deeper. > >> > >> With the right spirit and intention, we will have subsequent posts where > >> we > >> continue to add more points. > >> > >> 1. The svarupa lakshana of Brahman is: existence (sat), real (satya), > >> consciousness (chit), knowledge (jnana), bliss (ananda), eternal > (nitya), > >> infinite (anadi & ananta), full (purna), partless (avyaya), homogeneous > >> (eka rasa), immutable (kutastha), unchanging (avikara), pure (suddha), > >> devoid of any differentiation whatsoever (sajatiya, vijatiya, svagata > >> abheda) > >> 2. Per ekam-eva-advitiyam, there is no sajatiya or vijatiya or svagata > >> bheda, whatsoever, in Brahman > >> 3. Per neha-nanasti-kinchana, there is no plurality or ?other? or > >> something > >> ?else? whatsoever in Brahman > >> 4. An infinite homogeneous partless immutable entity cannot have any > >> attributes (viseshana), since an attribute is defined as a quality that > is > >> inseparable but distinct from the substance, and there cannot be any > >> distinction in a completely abheda homogenous entity > >> 5. This Brahman is designated as nirvisesha Brahman for the sake of > >> convenience > >> 6. Any quality associated with Brahman, that has in context or in > relation > >> something ?else?, is only a tatastha lakshana of Brahman. This includes > >> qualities such as sarvajna, sarvasakthi, sarveshvara, > >> creator-sustainer-destroyer of the universe, antaryami, witness, being > the > >> locus for something else, etc. > >> 7. These qualities are the attributes (viseshana) of Brahman and are > >> distinct manifestations > >> 8. Their relationship with Brahman is that of attribute-substance or > >> shakti-shaktivan or possessed-possessor. In all these cases, they are > >> inseparable but distinct from Brahman. > >> 9. Brahman described as possessing these qualities is designated as > >> savisesha Brahman for the sake of convenience > >> 10. Ontologically, sat is that which once ascertained as existing always > >> remains unchanged across all time. Nirvisesha Brahman is sat. > >> 11. Ontologically, asat is that which is never experienced as existing. > >> Hare?s horn is asat. > >> 12. Ontologically, mithya is that which is neither sat nor asat nor both > >> (sadasat-vilakshana) - it appears to exist but later sublated. The > >> universe > >> of plurality, the viseshanas & sakthis of savisesha Brahman, snake on a > >> rope, rope itself, mirage, double-moon are all examples of this mithya > >> category. If you do not agree with this definition, please clarify what > is > >> the ontological status of a mithya entity. > >> 13. Anirvachaniya explicitly means the entity cannot be specifically > >> described as sat or as asat or as both simultaneously - the reason why > an > >> object may appear to exist but later sublated. There may be other > >> definitions, but if you do not agree with this definition, please > clarify > >> what is the right definition of anirvachaniya and if anirvachaniya is > sat > >> or asat or both or something else? > >> 14. If the above two points are in agreement, then the ontological > status > >> of anirvachaniya is mithya > >> 15. In our current ignorance we believe the entire perceived universe of > >> plurality and change has an independent existence. What is the actual > >> ontological status of the universe and what is the ontological status of > >> the universe as we believe it to be in our ignorance? Both mithya? > >> 16. But let?s say that through shastra and sadhana, we gain the > knowledge > >> that this universe is only a nama-rupa change of Brahman and is > completely > >> dependent on Brahman. What now becomes the actual ontological status of > >> the > >> universe and the ontological status of our perception of the universe? > >> Still both mithya? > >> 17. Does the nitya-suddha-buddha-mukta-svarupa nirvisesha Brahman > perceive > >> or cognize the universe? Answer is no? > >> 18. Is there the perception of this universe for the savisesha Brahman? > >> Answer is yes? > >> 19. Do you believe that, per ?brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati?, a knower of > >> Brahman (jnani) verily becomes (is) Brahman? Is this savisesha Brahman > or > >> nirvisesha Brahman? Answer is nirvisesha Brahman? > >> 20. Does this knower of Brahman perceive or cognize the universe? Answer > >> is > >> no? > >> 21. In Adhyasa Bhashya, right after stating the first definition of > >> adhyasa > >> as ?smriti rupa ??, Bhagavan bhashyakara explains various theories of > how > >> adhyasa could occur. After the last theory, bhagavatpada states in the > >> sentence ?sarvathapi tu?? that the one common mechanism in adhyasa is > >> ?cognition of one thing having the qualities of another?. > >> 22. Various later acharyas have called this particular section of the > >> Bhashya as explanation of ?khyati-vada (theory of error)?. Bhagavan > >> bhashyakara calls this error (khyati) itself as adhyasa. > >> 23. ?Khyati?, as related to an incorrect cognition, is a term used in > >> pre-Sankara period itself, such as PatajaliYogaSutra-2.5. > >> 24. Various later acharyas, in their sub-commentaries, have explained > that > >> the common mechanism (sarvathapi tu ...) stated in the bhashya is the > >> universal concept of ?anirvachaniya khyati?. > >> 25. Anirvachaniya, also because the various khyati vada can be broadly > >> categorized as sat-khyati, asat-khyati or sat-asat-khyati. > Bhagavatpada?s > >> common explanation is an underlying thread amongst all these khyati > vada. > >> Hence it transcends being exclusively described as sat or asat or > >> sat-asat. > >> 26. In answering the question on how there can be a superimposition > >> between > >> light & dark or ?I? and ?thou?, bhashyakara says that nevertheless > >> (tathapi) this is a natural worldly experience of coupling the real & > >> unreal > >> 27. Though of mutually conflicting attributes and a logical > impossibility, > >> bhashyakara still says that adhyasa is still a common observation in the > >> world and only explains it as a 'natural' (naisargikah) phenomenon. > >> Implying that this phenomenon cannot be exactly described or is thus > >> anirvachaniya. > >> 28. This natural phenomenon is adhyasa > >> 29. This adhyasa is also later termed as avidya > >> 30. The entire gamut of loka vyavahara (secular and religious) depends > on > >> this adhyasa or is the effect of this adhyasa > >> 31. Since adhyasa is also avidya, the entire gamut depends on and is the > >> effect of this avidya > >> 32. Since this natural phenomenon is anirvachaniya, the exact > explanation > >> for adhyasa or avidya is anirvachaniya > >> 33. In other words, Adhyasa as a term is described as ?atasmin tad > >> buddhi?. > >> But, how or why adhyasa take place in a certain way cannot be exactly > >> described. > >> 34. Examples of this anirvachaniya adhyasa are shell silver, double > moon, > >> rope snake, mirage, colored crystal, red hot iron ball, ?I?-ness and > >> ?mine?-ness with BMI and objects > >> 35. In all these examples, the resulting entity, the result of adhyasa, > is > >> distinct from the true object; and the true object doesn?t actually > >> contain > >> all the perceived qualities of the resulting entity > >> 36. For example, when a rope is perceived as a snake, there is actually > no > >> snake whatsoever in the rope. The qualities of the snake are > superimposed > >> on the rope and the rope appears as the snake. > >> 37. Prior to the perception of the rope as the snake, while the rope is > >> perceived as the snake, after the true cognition of the rope as a rope, > >> across all these periods, there is never actually a snake in the rope > >> 38. The superimposed qualities, which actually are not present in the > >> actual object, only appears to be present in the object during adhyasa > >> 39. As long as the resulting adhyasa entity is perceived to be so, the > >> entity is considered as real and existing > >> 40. But on the dawn of true discriminative knowledge, the true nature > and > >> qualities of the actual object is perceived as-is > >> 41. At this point the earlier cognition of the adhyasa entity is > >> understood > >> to be false and not actually present in the actual object > >> 42. Because the adhyasa entity is actually not present in the actual > >> object, the adhyasa entity cannot be called as sat > >> 43. At the same time, because the adhyasa entity was experienced as > >> existing prior to dawn of true knowledge, the adhyasa entity cannot be > >> called as asat > >> 44. Obviously the adhyasa entity cannot be both sat and asat > >> simultaneously > >> due to mutual contradiction > >> 45. Thus the ontological status of the adhyasa entity is neither sat nor > >> asat nor both (sadasat-vilakshana). The adhyasa entity is mithya > >> 46. Since adhyasa is also called avidya, avidya too is only mithya > >> 47. Since adhyasa or avidya is anirvachaniya, mithya too is > anirvachaniya > >> 48. Anirvachaniya is sadasat-vilakshana > >> 49. Nirvisesha Brahman is perceived as savisesha Brahman due to adhyasa. > >> In > >> other words, the viseshanas are superimposed on Brahman > >> 50. When adhyasa is overcome, the nirvisesha Brahman is realized as-is > >> > >> with humble prostrations, > >> Vikram > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > >> > >> To unsubscribe or change your options: > >> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > >> > >> For assistance, contact: > >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com Tue Dec 26 04:42:06 2023 From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 09:42:06 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji Hare Krishna The snake in the rope snake adhyAsa is not imagined "in the mind". Rather the adhyAsa takes place in the locus outside, which leads to the experience, "I see a snake there (e.g. in the passageway)". The locus is not the seer's mind, but the location of the rope. ? I don't know the context in which you are saying snake is not imagined in the mind. But bhAshyakAra clearly says the sarpa is 'buddhi parikalpita' ( just one example in chAdOgya : rajjvAdi sarpAdyAkAreNa 'buddhiparikalpitena')!! The rajju-sarpa example has been given to drive home the point that there is no sarpa in rajju and sarpaavayava are mere imagination. OTOH, brahman (rope) is transactionless as someone else is the nimitta to 'see' the sarpa in vyavahArarahita rajju. And as a result, when the rajju is examined properly we conclude that though it appeared like a snake ( at the time of congnition during the abhAva of rajju jnana) it was not a snake it was / is rajju only. We never ever think in our sublated (bAdhita) jnana that there was sarpa outside apart from our mental imagination. * IMO saying locus is outside for the adhyAsa is clear cut definition of arthAdhyAsa which is NOT the result of jnAnAdhyAsa and these two are mutually exclusive. Anyway, will wait for your further elaboration. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com Tue Dec 26 05:16:37 2023 From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 10:16:37 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Incidentally this was why I had suggested earlier that the word > **imagined** with reference to rope-snake as inappropriate, because > the experience there is **It is a snake**, implying a locus which is > experienced through a pramANa. praNAms Hare Krishna This is valid point. And otherway of looking at it is ( as usual at the risk of sounding asaMpradAyavAdins ? ) the effect of mAya (nAma rUpa) is the cause of looking at it differently. There is something to be outside to see it something else. And there should be some sAdrushyam ( similarity between what actually there and what is being perceived!!) This is simple of the fact that adhyAsa is only (mis) understanding of something as something else (atasmin tadbuddhiH). There should be some 'land' there to think and announce that I am landlord!! ? The land / rajju is not created by oneself who is thinking that he is landlord or who is seeing 'sarpa' in place of rajju. He is wrongly recognizing himself through them. The locus (adhishtAnam) is created by brahman and in that locus (Ashraya) the jeeva looks and takes it differently. ( I am not talking about adhishtAna rahita adhyAsa like talamala etc. as this can be discussed under different context) The bottom line here in rajju-sarpa analogy adhishtAna is there and that is rajju and due to some sAdrushyaM and remembrance of something similar (smruti rUpa sarpa / garland/crack on ground/gO mUtra dhAre etc.) one would see something else. If that is not the case then one would have imagined rajata in rajju, sarpa in shukti!! ? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From hschandramouli at gmail.com Tue Dec 26 05:48:11 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 16:18:11 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Raghav Ji, Reg // How do we distinguish sAxI pratyaxa entities like "algebra", "democracy" etc which I understand are sat, from asat like hare's horns which can also be conceptualized by the mind? //, In my understanding, terms like "algebra", "democracy" etc are mental concepts, not "objects". They cannot be classified as "sat" (existent). Regards On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 2:52?PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaste Chandramouli ji > > > > On Sun, 24 Dec, 2023, 8:55 pm H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l, < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > Namaskaram Vikram Ji, > > > > Reg // Ontologically, asat is that which is never experienced as > > existing. > > Hare?s horn is asat //, > > > > In my understanding, the words ** in any locus ** needs to be added at > the > > end of ** as existing **. This is to avoid any mixup with all *imagined > ** > > entities being understood as asat. For example, a snake just ** > imagined** > > (not as ** it is a snake**) is also nonexistent. Because just the word ** > > snake ** being imagined implies absence of any locus. But snake itself > > cannot be called asat. > > > > Incidentally this was why I had suggested earlier that the word > > **imagined** with reference to rope-snake as inappropriate, because the > > experience there is **It is a snake**, implying a locus which is > > experienced through a pramANa. > > > > Thank you for this clarification. > One additional factor to consider - > Under the assumption that the word 'objects' refers not only to physical > objects but also to existent entities like > "democracy", > "algebra" > "poem" > "Prime numbers" etc., since they exist and are experienced but not as > objects of the five senses, we categorize these as objects cognized > directly by the mind, "sAxI pratyaxa". Yet they are not asat. The locus of > these objects would be the antaH karaNam or in some cases the locus would > possibly be specific class objects like the collection of people who are > citizens. > > How do we distinguish sAxI pratyaxa entities like "algebra", "democracy" > etc which I understand are sat, from asat like hare's horns which can also > be conceptualized by the mind? > > Om > Raghav > > > > > > > > > You may like to consider > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 6:44?PM H S Chandramouli < > hschandramouli at gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Namaskaram Vikram Ji, > > > > > > Reg // These qualities are the attributes (viseshana) of Brahman and > > are > > > distinct manifestations //, > > > > > > This seems to contradict point 4 unless you distinguish between Brahman > > > and nirvisesha Brahman of point 5. But that does not appear to be the > > > case as the word Brahman appears to be used in other places in the post > > > without clearly mentioning any qualifications. Perhaps it would be > better > > > to use the word Chaitanya for nirvisesha Brahman and correct the post > > > accordingly at other places where Chaitanya is intended. > > > > > > Just a suggestion. I thought it would make it easier to comprehend your > > > intention unambiguously. All the more so because the word Brahman is > used > > > in the Bhashya in three different contexts, namely nirvisesha Brahman, > > > mAyA vishishta nirvisesha Brahman, and mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman. > > > Even in respect of mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman, in my > understanding, > > > only AvaraNa sahita nirvisesha Brahman is intended and not AvaraNa > > > rahita nirvisesha Brahman where ever reference is made to mAyA upahita > > nirvisesha > > > Brahman in the Bhashya. For example in respect of sAkshi, antaryAmi > etc. > > > > > > You may like to consider > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 8:05?AM Vikram Jagannathan via Advaita-l < > > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > > > >> Namaskaram Shri Bhaskar ji, > > >> > > >> Before we continue on the main thread, I would like to understand the > > >> extent we are aligned on the fundamentals of Advaita. Below, I have > > >> mentioned my current understanding in a sequential order. Please let > me > > >> know if you agree with these points or not. If you disagree with any > > >> point, > > >> please stop there and do not proceed until we discuss that particular > > >> point > > >> and come to an agreement. > > >> > > >> I would like to open this discussion to the entire group and request > > >> others > > >> to share & contribute their agreements / disagreements. I have > > >> deliberately kept the explanations for these statements to a minimum. > If > > >> we > > >> agree to the statement, but have different explanations / reasons for > > >> arriving at that, that's fine; we will get an opportunity to clarify > as > > we > > >> go deeper. > > >> > > >> With the right spirit and intention, we will have subsequent posts > where > > >> we > > >> continue to add more points. > > >> > > >> 1. The svarupa lakshana of Brahman is: existence (sat), real (satya), > > >> consciousness (chit), knowledge (jnana), bliss (ananda), eternal > > (nitya), > > >> infinite (anadi & ananta), full (purna), partless (avyaya), > homogeneous > > >> (eka rasa), immutable (kutastha), unchanging (avikara), pure (suddha), > > >> devoid of any differentiation whatsoever (sajatiya, vijatiya, svagata > > >> abheda) > > >> 2. Per ekam-eva-advitiyam, there is no sajatiya or vijatiya or svagata > > >> bheda, whatsoever, in Brahman > > >> 3. Per neha-nanasti-kinchana, there is no plurality or ?other? or > > >> something > > >> ?else? whatsoever in Brahman > > >> 4. An infinite homogeneous partless immutable entity cannot have any > > >> attributes (viseshana), since an attribute is defined as a quality > that > > is > > >> inseparable but distinct from the substance, and there cannot be any > > >> distinction in a completely abheda homogenous entity > > >> 5. This Brahman is designated as nirvisesha Brahman for the sake of > > >> convenience > > >> 6. Any quality associated with Brahman, that has in context or in > > relation > > >> something ?else?, is only a tatastha lakshana of Brahman. This > includes > > >> qualities such as sarvajna, sarvasakthi, sarveshvara, > > >> creator-sustainer-destroyer of the universe, antaryami, witness, being > > the > > >> locus for something else, etc. > > >> 7. These qualities are the attributes (viseshana) of Brahman and are > > >> distinct manifestations > > >> 8. Their relationship with Brahman is that of attribute-substance or > > >> shakti-shaktivan or possessed-possessor. In all these cases, they are > > >> inseparable but distinct from Brahman. > > >> 9. Brahman described as possessing these qualities is designated as > > >> savisesha Brahman for the sake of convenience > > >> 10. Ontologically, sat is that which once ascertained as existing > always > > >> remains unchanged across all time. Nirvisesha Brahman is sat. > > >> 11. Ontologically, asat is that which is never experienced as > existing. > > >> Hare?s horn is asat. > > >> 12. Ontologically, mithya is that which is neither sat nor asat nor > both > > >> (sadasat-vilakshana) - it appears to exist but later sublated. The > > >> universe > > >> of plurality, the viseshanas & sakthis of savisesha Brahman, snake on > a > > >> rope, rope itself, mirage, double-moon are all examples of this mithya > > >> category. If you do not agree with this definition, please clarify > what > > is > > >> the ontological status of a mithya entity. > > >> 13. Anirvachaniya explicitly means the entity cannot be specifically > > >> described as sat or as asat or as both simultaneously - the reason why > > an > > >> object may appear to exist but later sublated. There may be other > > >> definitions, but if you do not agree with this definition, please > > clarify > > >> what is the right definition of anirvachaniya and if anirvachaniya is > > sat > > >> or asat or both or something else? > > >> 14. If the above two points are in agreement, then the ontological > > status > > >> of anirvachaniya is mithya > > >> 15. In our current ignorance we believe the entire perceived universe > of > > >> plurality and change has an independent existence. What is the actual > > >> ontological status of the universe and what is the ontological status > of > > >> the universe as we believe it to be in our ignorance? Both mithya? > > >> 16. But let?s say that through shastra and sadhana, we gain the > > knowledge > > >> that this universe is only a nama-rupa change of Brahman and is > > completely > > >> dependent on Brahman. What now becomes the actual ontological status > of > > >> the > > >> universe and the ontological status of our perception of the universe? > > >> Still both mithya? > > >> 17. Does the nitya-suddha-buddha-mukta-svarupa nirvisesha Brahman > > perceive > > >> or cognize the universe? Answer is no? > > >> 18. Is there the perception of this universe for the savisesha > Brahman? > > >> Answer is yes? > > >> 19. Do you believe that, per ?brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati?, a knower > of > > >> Brahman (jnani) verily becomes (is) Brahman? Is this savisesha Brahman > > or > > >> nirvisesha Brahman? Answer is nirvisesha Brahman? > > >> 20. Does this knower of Brahman perceive or cognize the universe? > Answer > > >> is > > >> no? > > >> 21. In Adhyasa Bhashya, right after stating the first definition of > > >> adhyasa > > >> as ?smriti rupa ??, Bhagavan bhashyakara explains various theories of > > how > > >> adhyasa could occur. After the last theory, bhagavatpada states in the > > >> sentence ?sarvathapi tu?? that the one common mechanism in adhyasa is > > >> ?cognition of one thing having the qualities of another?. > > >> 22. Various later acharyas have called this particular section of the > > >> Bhashya as explanation of ?khyati-vada (theory of error)?. Bhagavan > > >> bhashyakara calls this error (khyati) itself as adhyasa. > > >> 23. ?Khyati?, as related to an incorrect cognition, is a term used in > > >> pre-Sankara period itself, such as PatajaliYogaSutra-2.5. > > >> 24. Various later acharyas, in their sub-commentaries, have explained > > that > > >> the common mechanism (sarvathapi tu ...) stated in the bhashya is the > > >> universal concept of ?anirvachaniya khyati?. > > >> 25. Anirvachaniya, also because the various khyati vada can be broadly > > >> categorized as sat-khyati, asat-khyati or sat-asat-khyati. > > Bhagavatpada?s > > >> common explanation is an underlying thread amongst all these khyati > > vada. > > >> Hence it transcends being exclusively described as sat or asat or > > >> sat-asat. > > >> 26. In answering the question on how there can be a superimposition > > >> between > > >> light & dark or ?I? and ?thou?, bhashyakara says that nevertheless > > >> (tathapi) this is a natural worldly experience of coupling the real & > > >> unreal > > >> 27. Though of mutually conflicting attributes and a logical > > impossibility, > > >> bhashyakara still says that adhyasa is still a common observation in > the > > >> world and only explains it as a 'natural' (naisargikah) phenomenon. > > >> Implying that this phenomenon cannot be exactly described or is thus > > >> anirvachaniya. > > >> 28. This natural phenomenon is adhyasa > > >> 29. This adhyasa is also later termed as avidya > > >> 30. The entire gamut of loka vyavahara (secular and religious) depends > > on > > >> this adhyasa or is the effect of this adhyasa > > >> 31. Since adhyasa is also avidya, the entire gamut depends on and is > the > > >> effect of this avidya > > >> 32. Since this natural phenomenon is anirvachaniya, the exact > > explanation > > >> for adhyasa or avidya is anirvachaniya > > >> 33. In other words, Adhyasa as a term is described as ?atasmin tad > > >> buddhi?. > > >> But, how or why adhyasa take place in a certain way cannot be exactly > > >> described. > > >> 34. Examples of this anirvachaniya adhyasa are shell silver, double > > moon, > > >> rope snake, mirage, colored crystal, red hot iron ball, ?I?-ness and > > >> ?mine?-ness with BMI and objects > > >> 35. In all these examples, the resulting entity, the result of > adhyasa, > > is > > >> distinct from the true object; and the true object doesn?t actually > > >> contain > > >> all the perceived qualities of the resulting entity > > >> 36. For example, when a rope is perceived as a snake, there is > actually > > no > > >> snake whatsoever in the rope. The qualities of the snake are > > superimposed > > >> on the rope and the rope appears as the snake. > > >> 37. Prior to the perception of the rope as the snake, while the rope > is > > >> perceived as the snake, after the true cognition of the rope as a > rope, > > >> across all these periods, there is never actually a snake in the rope > > >> 38. The superimposed qualities, which actually are not present in the > > >> actual object, only appears to be present in the object during adhyasa > > >> 39. As long as the resulting adhyasa entity is perceived to be so, the > > >> entity is considered as real and existing > > >> 40. But on the dawn of true discriminative knowledge, the true nature > > and > > >> qualities of the actual object is perceived as-is > > >> 41. At this point the earlier cognition of the adhyasa entity is > > >> understood > > >> to be false and not actually present in the actual object > > >> 42. Because the adhyasa entity is actually not present in the actual > > >> object, the adhyasa entity cannot be called as sat > > >> 43. At the same time, because the adhyasa entity was experienced as > > >> existing prior to dawn of true knowledge, the adhyasa entity cannot be > > >> called as asat > > >> 44. Obviously the adhyasa entity cannot be both sat and asat > > >> simultaneously > > >> due to mutual contradiction > > >> 45. Thus the ontological status of the adhyasa entity is neither sat > nor > > >> asat nor both (sadasat-vilakshana). The adhyasa entity is mithya > > >> 46. Since adhyasa is also called avidya, avidya too is only mithya > > >> 47. Since adhyasa or avidya is anirvachaniya, mithya too is > > anirvachaniya > > >> 48. Anirvachaniya is sadasat-vilakshana > > >> 49. Nirvisesha Brahman is perceived as savisesha Brahman due to > adhyasa. > > >> In > > >> other words, the viseshanas are superimposed on Brahman > > >> 50. When adhyasa is overcome, the nirvisesha Brahman is realized as-is > > >> > > >> with humble prostrations, > > >> Vikram > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > >> > > >> To unsubscribe or change your options: > > >> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > >> > > >> For assistance, contact: > > >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > > > For assistance, contact: > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Tue Dec 26 05:57:45 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 16:27:45 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 4:18?PM H S Chandramouli wrote: > Namaste Raghav Ji, > > Reg // How do we distinguish sAxI pratyaxa entities like "algebra", > "democracy" > etc which I understand are sat, from asat like hare's horns which can also > be conceptualized by the mind? //, > > In my understanding, terms like "algebra", "democracy" etc are mental > concepts, not "objects". They cannot be classified as "sat" (existent). > These fall in the category of kshetram: icchaa dveshah sukham duhkham...which are all vishaya to the vishayi the sakshi. All ghaTa jnana, specific vishayaka ajnana, samshaya, etc. too are sAkshi pratyaksha and have their locus in the antahkarana/manas. Being part of the concocted world, they too are concoctions. ???? ???????? ?????????? ?????????????? ????????????????????????????????????? ?? ?? ...This list, not exhaustive, is termed mind itself since they occur in the mind. Brihadaranyaka upanishad. > > Regards > subbu > > > > > From hschandramouli at gmail.com Tue Dec 26 06:26:19 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 16:56:19 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste. Reg // These fall in the category of kshetram: icchaa dveshah sukham duhkham...which are all vishaya to the vishayi the sakshi // and // ???? ???????? ?????????? ?????????????? ????????????????????????????????????? ?? ?? // These are said to be the attributes of the ego and they become vishaya to the vishayi the sAkshi only when there is their superimposition on the ego. Not otherwise. Regards On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 4:27?PM V Subrahmanian wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 4:18?PM H S Chandramouli > wrote: > >> Namaste Raghav Ji, >> >> Reg // How do we distinguish sAxI pratyaxa entities like "algebra", >> "democracy" >> etc which I understand are sat, from asat like hare's horns which can >> also >> be conceptualized by the mind? //, >> >> In my understanding, terms like "algebra", "democracy" etc are mental >> concepts, not "objects". They cannot be classified as "sat" (existent). >> > > These fall in the category of kshetram: icchaa dveshah sukham > duhkham...which are all vishaya to the vishayi the sakshi. All ghaTa jnana, > specific vishayaka ajnana, samshaya, etc. too are sAkshi pratyaksha and > have their locus in the antahkarana/manas. Being part of the concocted > world, they too are concoctions. > > ???? ???????? ?????????? ?????????????? > ????????????????????????????????????? ?? ?? ...This list, not exhaustive, > is termed mind itself since they occur in the mind. Brihadaranyaka > upanishad. > >> >> Regards >> > subbu > >> >> >> >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "advaitin" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te352VSeTkzkj_G9GLiJjQNWH9-FgVH1pj%3D9MBecQm-1%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com > > . > From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Tue Dec 26 11:13:53 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 21:43:53 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 4:27?PM V Subrahmanian wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 4:18?PM H S Chandramouli > wrote: > >> Namaste Raghav Ji, >> >> Reg // How do we distinguish sAxI pratyaxa entities like "algebra", >> "democracy" >> etc which I understand are sat, from asat like hare's horns which can >> also >> be conceptualized by the mind? //, >> >> In my understanding, terms like "algebra", "democracy" etc are mental >> concepts, not "objects". They cannot be classified as "sat" (existent). >> > > These fall in the category of kshetram: icchaa dveshah sukham > duhkham...which are all vishaya to the vishayi the sakshi. All ghaTa jnana, > specific vishayaka ajnana, samshaya, etc. too are sAkshi pratyaksha and > have their locus in the antahkarana/manas. Being part of the concocted > world, they too are concoctions. > > ???? ???????? ?????????? ?????????????? > ????????????????????????????????????? ?? ?? ...This list, not exhaustive, > is termed mind itself since they occur in the mind. Brihadaranyaka > upanishad. > In the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya, while expounding on what all go along with the jiva in transmigration, vidya, learning/knowledge, is also stated. Explaining that Anandagiri says: ?????? ?????? ???????????? ? ??????????? ?????????????????????? ? ??????? ?????????? ? ???????????? ??? ??????????????? ? ?????? ???? ?????? ? ??????????? ???????????? ? ??????? ?????? ? ???????????? ????????????????????? ? Faculties like Algebra, etc. come under ??????? ?????????? .. Any knowledge, scriptural or otherwise, ordained or prohibited, acquired by the jiva, will remain with him and will go with him upon death, and remain in the subsequent births. All this is located in the antahkaranam and hence objectified by the witness consciousness. > > >> Regards >> > subbu > >> >> >> >> >> From agnimile at gmail.com Tue Dec 26 11:37:59 2023 From: agnimile at gmail.com (Venkatraghavan S) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 08:37:59 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Bhaskar ji, I meant the locus of the snake is not the mind, it is the place outside. In my opinion, bhAShyakAra's phrase buddhiparikalpitena, should mean buddhyA parikalpitena and not necessarily buddhau parikalpitena, ie, the snake is imagined *by* the mind, not that that snake is located *in* the mind. The context of my comment is, as you rightly point out, the pratikarmavyavasthA that has been elaborately discussed by post Shankara AchArya-s, involving artha and jnAna adhyAsa. I don't think merely that one phrase in the bhAShya rules out the entire support structure, when there are alternative explanations available. The reason for the adhyasta object to be postulated to be *outside* is because of the perceptual experience "I saw it *there*" and the pravRtti towards (shell silver) or away from it (rope snake). Even though after the sublation one knows that there is no object outside in reality, one does not deny the fact that one had perceived it outside. One denies the validity of that perception in the past because there is no corresponding object outside in reality. It is not like a memory where even during the recollection one is aware that one is not perceiving a memory and one is merely recollecting what was seen. In the adhyAsa, there are certain perceptual elements - ie there is sensory contact with the locus of the adhyAsa (samprayoga). It is a product of a defect in the mind (doShajanyatva) - which differentiate it from memory, which is purely a mental construct, located in the mind. That is why in the adhyAsa bhAShya, the bhAshyakAra uses the phrase smRtirUpah, like a memory, to indicate that the adhyAsa shares with smRti the characteristic of arising due to samskAra, but is not smRti itself, because it is also doShajanya and has samprayoga. It is also the reason he adds the word paratra in that bhAShya (smRtirUpah paratra pUrvadRShTAvabhAsah), to indicate that the object was seen to be elsewhere, a particular location outside where something else was present. On that basis I agree that it is the doSha located in the mind which acts as a nimitta for the adhyAsa, but in my view that is not sufficient to make the adhyAsa itself located in the mind. Kind regards, Venkatraghavan On Tue, 26 Dec 2023, 01:42 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin, < advaitin at googlegroups.com> wrote: > praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji > > Hare Krishna > > > The snake in the rope snake adhyAsa is not imagined "in the mind". Rather > the adhyAsa takes place in the locus outside, which leads to the > experience, "I see a snake *there *(e.g. in the passageway)". The locus > is not the seer's mind, but the location of the rope. > > > > ? I don?t know the context in which you are saying snake is not > imagined in the mind. But bhAshyakAra clearly says the sarpa is ?buddhi > parikalpita? ( just one example in chAdOgya : rajjvAdi sarpAdyAkAreNa > ?buddhiparikalpitena?)!! The rajju-sarpa example has been given to drive > home the point that there is no sarpa in rajju and sarpaavayava are mere > imagination. OTOH, brahman (rope) is transactionless as someone else is > the nimitta to ?see? the sarpa in vyavahArarahita rajju. And as a result, > when the rajju is examined properly we conclude that though it appeared > like a snake ( at the time of congnition during the abhAva of rajju jnana) > it was not a snake it was / is rajju only. We never ever think in our > sublated (bAdhita) jnana that there was sarpa outside apart from our mental > imagination. > > > > - IMO saying locus is outside for the adhyAsa is clear cut definition > of arthAdhyAsa which is NOT the result of jnAnAdhyAsa and these two are > mutually exclusive. Anyway, will wait for your further elaboration. > > > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > bhaskar > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "advaitin" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AS8SPR01MB0015F5500A566D6FCED482B08498A%40AS8SPR01MB0015.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com > > . > > From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Tue Dec 26 11:48:58 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 22:18:58 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 10:08?PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaste Bhaskar ji, > I meant the locus of the snake is not the mind, it is the place outside. > > In my opinion, bhAShyakAra's phrase buddhiparikalpitena, should mean > buddhyA parikalpitena and not necessarily buddhau parikalpitena, ie, the > snake is imagined *by* the mind, not that that snake is located *in* the > mind. > Yes, even the Vedanta Paribhasha, I have heard, says that the 'illusory snake is 'produced' at that moment in the mind. We can say '*?????????????? ?????????????* ???????? ?????????? ?????' The snake is imagined '*as present in the locus, rope*' at that moment. warm regards subbu > > The context of my comment is, as you rightly point out, the > pratikarmavyavasthA that has been elaborately discussed by post Shankara > AchArya-s, involving artha and jnAna adhyAsa. I don't think merely that one > phrase in the bhAShya rules out the entire support structure, when there > are alternative explanations available. > > The reason for the adhyasta object to be postulated to be *outside* is > because of the perceptual experience "I saw it *there*" and the pravRtti > towards (shell silver) or away from it (rope snake). Even though after the > sublation one knows that there is no object outside in reality, one does > not deny the fact that one had perceived it outside. One denies the > validity of that perception in the past because there is no corresponding > object outside in reality. > > It is not like a memory where even during the recollection one is aware > that one is not perceiving a memory and one is merely recollecting what was > seen. In the adhyAsa, there are certain perceptual elements - ie there is > sensory contact with the locus of the adhyAsa (samprayoga). It is a product > of a defect in the mind (doShajanyatva) - which differentiate it from > memory, which is purely a mental construct, located in the mind. > > That is why in the adhyAsa bhAShya, the bhAshyakAra uses the phrase > smRtirUpah, like a memory, to indicate that the adhyAsa shares with smRti > the characteristic of arising due to samskAra, but is not smRti itself, > because it is also doShajanya and has samprayoga. It is also the reason he > adds the word paratra in that bhAShya (smRtirUpah paratra > pUrvadRShTAvabhAsah), to indicate that the object was seen to be elsewhere, > a particular location outside where something else was present. > > On that basis I agree that it is the doSha located in the mind which acts > as a nimitta for the adhyAsa, but in my view that is not sufficient to make > the adhyAsa itself located in the mind. > > Kind regards, > Venkatraghavan > > > > > From agnimile at gmail.com Tue Dec 26 11:56:51 2023 From: agnimile at gmail.com (Venkatraghavan S) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 08:56:51 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste, There is a typo in the sentence: "It is not like a memory where even during the recollection one is aware that one is not perceiving a *memory* and one is merely recollecting what was seen. " Please read this to be: "It is not like a memory where even during the recollection one is aware that one is not perceiving *the object* and one is merely recollecting what was seen." Regards Venkatraghavan On Tue, 26 Dec 2023, 08:38 Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l, < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaste Bhaskar ji, > I meant the locus of the snake is not the mind, it is the place outside. > > In my opinion, bhAShyakAra's phrase buddhiparikalpitena, should mean > buddhyA parikalpitena and not necessarily buddhau parikalpitena, ie, the > snake is imagined *by* the mind, not that that snake is located *in* the > mind. > > The context of my comment is, as you rightly point out, the > pratikarmavyavasthA that has been elaborately discussed by post Shankara > AchArya-s, involving artha and jnAna adhyAsa. I don't think merely that one > phrase in the bhAShya rules out the entire support structure, when there > are alternative explanations available. > > The reason for the adhyasta object to be postulated to be *outside* is > because of the perceptual experience "I saw it *there*" and the pravRtti > towards (shell silver) or away from it (rope snake). Even though after the > sublation one knows that there is no object outside in reality, one does > not deny the fact that one had perceived it outside. One denies the > validity of that perception in the past because there is no corresponding > object outside in reality. > > It is not like a memory where even during the recollection one is aware > that one is not perceiving a memory and one is merely recollecting what was > seen. In the adhyAsa, there are certain perceptual elements - ie there is > sensory contact with the locus of the adhyAsa (samprayoga). It is a product > of a defect in the mind (doShajanyatva) - which differentiate it from > memory, which is purely a mental construct, located in the mind. > > That is why in the adhyAsa bhAShya, the bhAshyakAra uses the phrase > smRtirUpah, like a memory, to indicate that the adhyAsa shares with smRti > the characteristic of arising due to samskAra, but is not smRti itself, > because it is also doShajanya and has samprayoga. It is also the reason he > adds the word paratra in that bhAShya (smRtirUpah paratra > pUrvadRShTAvabhAsah), to indicate that the object was seen to be elsewhere, > a particular location outside where something else was present. > > On that basis I agree that it is the doSha located in the mind which acts > as a nimitta for the adhyAsa, but in my view that is not sufficient to make > the adhyAsa itself located in the mind. > > Kind regards, > Venkatraghavan > > > > On Tue, 26 Dec 2023, 01:42 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin, < > advaitin at googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji > > > > Hare Krishna > > > > > > The snake in the rope snake adhyAsa is not imagined "in the mind". Rather > > the adhyAsa takes place in the locus outside, which leads to the > > experience, "I see a snake *there *(e.g. in the passageway)". The locus > > is not the seer's mind, but the location of the rope. > > > > > > > > ? I don?t know the context in which you are saying snake is not > > imagined in the mind. But bhAshyakAra clearly says the sarpa is ?buddhi > > parikalpita? ( just one example in chAdOgya : rajjvAdi sarpAdyAkAreNa > > ?buddhiparikalpitena?)!! The rajju-sarpa example has been given to drive > > home the point that there is no sarpa in rajju and sarpaavayava are mere > > imagination. OTOH, brahman (rope) is transactionless as someone else is > > the nimitta to ?see? the sarpa in vyavahArarahita rajju. And as a > result, > > when the rajju is examined properly we conclude that though it appeared > > like a snake ( at the time of congnition during the abhAva of rajju > jnana) > > it was not a snake it was / is rajju only. We never ever think in our > > sublated (bAdhita) jnana that there was sarpa outside apart from our > mental > > imagination. > > > > > > > > - IMO saying locus is outside for the adhyAsa is clear cut definition > > of arthAdhyAsa which is NOT the result of jnAnAdhyAsa and these two > are > > mutually exclusive. Anyway, will wait for your further elaboration. > > > > > > > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > > > bhaskar > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "advaitin" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AS8SPR01MB0015F5500A566D6FCED482B08498A%40AS8SPR01MB0015.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com > > < > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AS8SPR01MB0015F5500A566D6FCED482B08498A%40AS8SPR01MB0015.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer > > > > . > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From raghavkumar00 at gmail.com Tue Dec 26 12:08:16 2023 From: raghavkumar00 at gmail.com (Raghav Kumar Dwivedula) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 22:38:16 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Namaste Subbu ji and Chandramouli ji > > > On Tue, 26 Dec, 2023, 9:44 pm V Subrahmanian, > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 4:27?PM V Subrahmanian >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 4:18?PM H S Chandramouli < >>> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Namaste Raghav Ji, >>>> >>>> Reg // How do we distinguish sAxI pratyaxa entities like "algebra", >>>> "democracy" >>>> etc which I understand are sat, from asat like hare's horns which can >>>> also >>>> be conceptualized by the mind? //, >>>> >>>> In my understanding, terms like "algebra", "democracy" etc are mental >>>> concepts, not "objects". They cannot be classified as "sat" (existent). >>>> >>> >>> These fall in the category of kshetram: icchaa dveshah sukham >>> duhkham...which are all vishaya to the vishayi the sakshi. All ghaTa jnana, >>> specific vishayaka ajnana, samshaya, etc. too are sAkshi pratyaksha and >>> have their locus in the antahkarana/manas. Being part of the concocted >>> world, they too are concoctions. >>> >>> ???? ???????? ?????????? ?????????????? >>> ????????????????????????????????????? ?? ?? ...This list, not exhaustive, >>> is termed mind itself since they occur in the mind. Brihadaranyaka >>> upanishad. >>> >> >> In the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya, while expounding on what all go along with >> the jiva in transmigration, vidya, learning/knowledge, is also stated. >> Explaining that Anandagiri says: >> >> >> >> ?????? ?????? ???????????? ? ??????????? ?????????????????????? ? >> ??????? ?????????? ? ???????????? ??? ??????????????? ? ?????? ???? >> ?????? ? ??????????? ???????????? ? ??????? ?????? ? ???????????? >> ????????????????????? ? >> >> Faculties like Algebra, etc. come under ??????? ?????????? .. Any >> knowledge, scriptural or otherwise, ordained or prohibited, acquired by the >> jiva, will remain with him and will go with him upon death, and remain in >> the subsequent births. All this is located in the antahkaranam and hence >> objectified by the witness consciousness. >> >>> >>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>> subbu >>> >> > > Thank you for the responses. > > Hunger, thirst, IcchA, dveSha, algebra, democracy etc., fall in the same > category and are viShayas for the viShayin and they are as I understand > termed sAxI pratyaxa. They fall under pratyaxa pramANa viShayas but are not > the viShayas for the other five sense organs. They have vyAvahArika sattA > and are not asat like horns of the hare. > > Their locus can be said to be the antaHkaraNam itself and thus that > distinguishes the sAxI pratyaxa viShayas from horns of a hare which don't > have any locus. > > Om > > > > > > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com Tue Dec 26 23:18:11 2023 From: kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com (Kuntimaddi Sadananda) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 04:18:11 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58244223.3148994.1703650691319@mail.yahoo.com> PraNAms Here is my understanding.? Yes. In fact, every perception involves, cognition based on the attributes of the object as perceived by the senses (with all their limitations), and recognition based on the memory which involves comparing the objects perceived in the past with similar attributes.? Snake is out there, similar to any other objects perceived via the mind and the senses. The seer of the snake (rope) has a firm belief that it is a snake. Hence his body also reacts - fear, increased blood pressure, etc., which are real. When he runs away from it - other physical reactions also follow. He may live with that perception throughout his life if there is no contradictory experience to prove that it was not a snake but a rope. ?If there is another convincing pramaana - such as going back with torch light and checking if it is a snake or rope, and got convinced it is a rope, the snake that he imagined based on the attributes disappears in his mind with the understanding there is no snake there. This is praatibhasika error since he alone saw. This is in contrast to sunrise and sunset or trees running in opposite direction, while watching in as running train or mirage waters, etc. Where knowledge of reality does not eliminate the perceptions. The same applies to the perceived world which is vyaavahaarika error and will be perceived even after knowing that it is not really real but apparently real. Hence as long as body, mind, and intellect are functioning the Jnaani's body sees the world of plurality. However, his understanding is that it is mithyaa and not absolutely real. He may also understand that BMI is perceiving which is part of the Prakruti and He is akarthaa. That is his understanding.? Hence the discussion of whether Jnaani perceives the world or not - is yes or no - hence senses do perceive as long as they are functioning, but his understanding can be different - karmani akarmayaH pasyet.- one who sees as non-doer while his body, mind and intellect are doing.? For information only for those interested. The Indic Academy has published my book on the pratyaksha pramaana based on Vedanta Paribhasha -as 'How Do I Know'- now available online on Amazon. Dr. Aravindarao has written an introduction to the text.? Hari Om! Sadananda Yes, even the Vedanta Paribhasha, I have heard, says that the 'illusory snake is 'produced' at that moment in the mind. We can say '?????????????? ????????????? ???????? ?????????? ?????' The snake is imagined 'as present in the locus, rope' at that moment.?? warm regardssubbu? The context of my comment is, as you rightly point out, the pratikarmavyavasthA that has been elaborately discussed by post Shankara AchArya-s, involving artha and jnAna adhyAsa. I don't think merely that one phrase in the bhAShya rules out the entire support structure, when there are alternative explanations available. The reason for the adhyasta object to be postulated to be *outside* is because of the perceptual experience "I saw it *there*" and the pravRtti towards (shell silver) or away from it (rope snake). Even though after the sublation one knows that there is no object outside in reality, one does not deny the fact that one had perceived it outside. One denies the validity of that perception in the past because there is no corresponding object outside in reality. It is not like a memory where even during the recollection one is aware that one is not perceiving a memory and one is merely recollecting what was seen. In the adhyAsa, there are certain perceptual elements - ie there is sensory contact with the locus of the adhyAsa (samprayoga). It is a product of a defect in the mind (doShajanyatva) - which differentiate it from memory, which is purely a mental construct, located in the mind. That is why in the adhyAsa bhAShya, the bhAshyakAra uses the phrase smRtirUpah, like a memory, to indicate that the adhyAsa shares with smRti the characteristic of arising due to samskAra, but is not smRti itself, because it is also doShajanya and has? samprayoga. It is also the reason he adds the word paratra in that bhAShya (smRtirUpah paratra pUrvadRShTAvabhAsah), to indicate that the object was seen to be elsewhere, a particular location outside where something else was present. On that basis I agree that it is the doSha located in the mind which acts as a nimitta for the adhyAsa, but in my view that is not sufficient to make the adhyAsa itself located in the mind. Kind regards, Venkatraghavan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3qHdwANcs6Uj9yzAa5w7em1306BcvcDjzc%2Br7tw02V9w%40mail.gmail.com. From kartik.unix at gmail.com Wed Dec 27 00:23:35 2023 From: kartik.unix at gmail.com (Kartik Vashishta) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2023 23:23:35 -0600 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hari OM! I find it odd that an "unreal" snake can cause a "real" jump/aggravation/fear/jolt On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 9:20?AM H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaskaram Vikram Ji, > > Reg // Ontologically, asat is that which is never experienced as > existing. > Hare?s horn is asat //, > > In my understanding, the words ** in any locus ** needs to be added at the > end of ** as existing **. This is to avoid any mixup with all *imagined ** > entities being understood as asat. For example, a snake just ** imagined** > (not as ** it is a snake**) is also nonexistent. Because just the word ** > snake ** being imagined implies absence of any locus. But snake itself > cannot be called asat. > > Incidentally this was why I had suggested earlier that the word > **imagined** with reference to rope-snake as inappropriate, because the > experience there is **It is a snake**, implying a locus which is > experienced through a pramANa. > > You may like to consider > > Regards > > > > Regards > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 6:44?PM H S Chandramouli > > wrote: > > > Namaskaram Vikram Ji, > > > > Reg // These qualities are the attributes (viseshana) of Brahman and > are > > distinct manifestations //, > > > > This seems to contradict point 4 unless you distinguish between Brahman > > and nirvisesha Brahman of point 5. But that does not appear to be the > > case as the word Brahman appears to be used in other places in the post > > without clearly mentioning any qualifications. Perhaps it would be better > > to use the word Chaitanya for nirvisesha Brahman and correct the post > > accordingly at other places where Chaitanya is intended. > > > > Just a suggestion. I thought it would make it easier to comprehend your > > intention unambiguously. All the more so because the word Brahman is used > > in the Bhashya in three different contexts, namely nirvisesha Brahman, > > mAyA vishishta nirvisesha Brahman, and mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman. > > Even in respect of mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman, in my understanding, > > only AvaraNa sahita nirvisesha Brahman is intended and not AvaraNa > > rahita nirvisesha Brahman where ever reference is made to mAyA upahita > nirvisesha > > Brahman in the Bhashya. For example in respect of sAkshi, antaryAmi etc. > > > > You may like to consider > > > > Regards > > > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 8:05?AM Vikram Jagannathan via Advaita-l < > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > >> Namaskaram Shri Bhaskar ji, > >> > >> Before we continue on the main thread, I would like to understand the > >> extent we are aligned on the fundamentals of Advaita. Below, I have > >> mentioned my current understanding in a sequential order. Please let me > >> know if you agree with these points or not. If you disagree with any > >> point, > >> please stop there and do not proceed until we discuss that particular > >> point > >> and come to an agreement. > >> > >> I would like to open this discussion to the entire group and request > >> others > >> to share & contribute their agreements / disagreements. I have > >> deliberately kept the explanations for these statements to a minimum. If > >> we > >> agree to the statement, but have different explanations / reasons for > >> arriving at that, that's fine; we will get an opportunity to clarify as > we > >> go deeper. > >> > >> With the right spirit and intention, we will have subsequent posts where > >> we > >> continue to add more points. > >> > >> 1. The svarupa lakshana of Brahman is: existence (sat), real (satya), > >> consciousness (chit), knowledge (jnana), bliss (ananda), eternal > (nitya), > >> infinite (anadi & ananta), full (purna), partless (avyaya), homogeneous > >> (eka rasa), immutable (kutastha), unchanging (avikara), pure (suddha), > >> devoid of any differentiation whatsoever (sajatiya, vijatiya, svagata > >> abheda) > >> 2. Per ekam-eva-advitiyam, there is no sajatiya or vijatiya or svagata > >> bheda, whatsoever, in Brahman > >> 3. Per neha-nanasti-kinchana, there is no plurality or ?other? or > >> something > >> ?else? whatsoever in Brahman > >> 4. An infinite homogeneous partless immutable entity cannot have any > >> attributes (viseshana), since an attribute is defined as a quality that > is > >> inseparable but distinct from the substance, and there cannot be any > >> distinction in a completely abheda homogenous entity > >> 5. This Brahman is designated as nirvisesha Brahman for the sake of > >> convenience > >> 6. Any quality associated with Brahman, that has in context or in > relation > >> something ?else?, is only a tatastha lakshana of Brahman. This includes > >> qualities such as sarvajna, sarvasakthi, sarveshvara, > >> creator-sustainer-destroyer of the universe, antaryami, witness, being > the > >> locus for something else, etc. > >> 7. These qualities are the attributes (viseshana) of Brahman and are > >> distinct manifestations > >> 8. Their relationship with Brahman is that of attribute-substance or > >> shakti-shaktivan or possessed-possessor. In all these cases, they are > >> inseparable but distinct from Brahman. > >> 9. Brahman described as possessing these qualities is designated as > >> savisesha Brahman for the sake of convenience > >> 10. Ontologically, sat is that which once ascertained as existing always > >> remains unchanged across all time. Nirvisesha Brahman is sat. > >> 11. Ontologically, asat is that which is never experienced as existing. > >> Hare?s horn is asat. > >> 12. Ontologically, mithya is that which is neither sat nor asat nor both > >> (sadasat-vilakshana) - it appears to exist but later sublated. The > >> universe > >> of plurality, the viseshanas & sakthis of savisesha Brahman, snake on a > >> rope, rope itself, mirage, double-moon are all examples of this mithya > >> category. If you do not agree with this definition, please clarify what > is > >> the ontological status of a mithya entity. > >> 13. Anirvachaniya explicitly means the entity cannot be specifically > >> described as sat or as asat or as both simultaneously - the reason why > an > >> object may appear to exist but later sublated. There may be other > >> definitions, but if you do not agree with this definition, please > clarify > >> what is the right definition of anirvachaniya and if anirvachaniya is > sat > >> or asat or both or something else? > >> 14. If the above two points are in agreement, then the ontological > status > >> of anirvachaniya is mithya > >> 15. In our current ignorance we believe the entire perceived universe of > >> plurality and change has an independent existence. What is the actual > >> ontological status of the universe and what is the ontological status of > >> the universe as we believe it to be in our ignorance? Both mithya? > >> 16. But let?s say that through shastra and sadhana, we gain the > knowledge > >> that this universe is only a nama-rupa change of Brahman and is > completely > >> dependent on Brahman. What now becomes the actual ontological status of > >> the > >> universe and the ontological status of our perception of the universe? > >> Still both mithya? > >> 17. Does the nitya-suddha-buddha-mukta-svarupa nirvisesha Brahman > perceive > >> or cognize the universe? Answer is no? > >> 18. Is there the perception of this universe for the savisesha Brahman? > >> Answer is yes? > >> 19. Do you believe that, per ?brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati?, a knower of > >> Brahman (jnani) verily becomes (is) Brahman? Is this savisesha Brahman > or > >> nirvisesha Brahman? Answer is nirvisesha Brahman? > >> 20. Does this knower of Brahman perceive or cognize the universe? Answer > >> is > >> no? > >> 21. In Adhyasa Bhashya, right after stating the first definition of > >> adhyasa > >> as ?smriti rupa ??, Bhagavan bhashyakara explains various theories of > how > >> adhyasa could occur. After the last theory, bhagavatpada states in the > >> sentence ?sarvathapi tu?? that the one common mechanism in adhyasa is > >> ?cognition of one thing having the qualities of another?. > >> 22. Various later acharyas have called this particular section of the > >> Bhashya as explanation of ?khyati-vada (theory of error)?. Bhagavan > >> bhashyakara calls this error (khyati) itself as adhyasa. > >> 23. ?Khyati?, as related to an incorrect cognition, is a term used in > >> pre-Sankara period itself, such as PatajaliYogaSutra-2.5. > >> 24. Various later acharyas, in their sub-commentaries, have explained > that > >> the common mechanism (sarvathapi tu ...) stated in the bhashya is the > >> universal concept of ?anirvachaniya khyati?. > >> 25. Anirvachaniya, also because the various khyati vada can be broadly > >> categorized as sat-khyati, asat-khyati or sat-asat-khyati. > Bhagavatpada?s > >> common explanation is an underlying thread amongst all these khyati > vada. > >> Hence it transcends being exclusively described as sat or asat or > >> sat-asat. > >> 26. In answering the question on how there can be a superimposition > >> between > >> light & dark or ?I? and ?thou?, bhashyakara says that nevertheless > >> (tathapi) this is a natural worldly experience of coupling the real & > >> unreal > >> 27. Though of mutually conflicting attributes and a logical > impossibility, > >> bhashyakara still says that adhyasa is still a common observation in the > >> world and only explains it as a 'natural' (naisargikah) phenomenon. > >> Implying that this phenomenon cannot be exactly described or is thus > >> anirvachaniya. > >> 28. This natural phenomenon is adhyasa > >> 29. This adhyasa is also later termed as avidya > >> 30. The entire gamut of loka vyavahara (secular and religious) depends > on > >> this adhyasa or is the effect of this adhyasa > >> 31. Since adhyasa is also avidya, the entire gamut depends on and is the > >> effect of this avidya > >> 32. Since this natural phenomenon is anirvachaniya, the exact > explanation > >> for adhyasa or avidya is anirvachaniya > >> 33. In other words, Adhyasa as a term is described as ?atasmin tad > >> buddhi?. > >> But, how or why adhyasa take place in a certain way cannot be exactly > >> described. > >> 34. Examples of this anirvachaniya adhyasa are shell silver, double > moon, > >> rope snake, mirage, colored crystal, red hot iron ball, ?I?-ness and > >> ?mine?-ness with BMI and objects > >> 35. In all these examples, the resulting entity, the result of adhyasa, > is > >> distinct from the true object; and the true object doesn?t actually > >> contain > >> all the perceived qualities of the resulting entity > >> 36. For example, when a rope is perceived as a snake, there is actually > no > >> snake whatsoever in the rope. The qualities of the snake are > superimposed > >> on the rope and the rope appears as the snake. > >> 37. Prior to the perception of the rope as the snake, while the rope is > >> perceived as the snake, after the true cognition of the rope as a rope, > >> across all these periods, there is never actually a snake in the rope > >> 38. The superimposed qualities, which actually are not present in the > >> actual object, only appears to be present in the object during adhyasa > >> 39. As long as the resulting adhyasa entity is perceived to be so, the > >> entity is considered as real and existing > >> 40. But on the dawn of true discriminative knowledge, the true nature > and > >> qualities of the actual object is perceived as-is > >> 41. At this point the earlier cognition of the adhyasa entity is > >> understood > >> to be false and not actually present in the actual object > >> 42. Because the adhyasa entity is actually not present in the actual > >> object, the adhyasa entity cannot be called as sat > >> 43. At the same time, because the adhyasa entity was experienced as > >> existing prior to dawn of true knowledge, the adhyasa entity cannot be > >> called as asat > >> 44. Obviously the adhyasa entity cannot be both sat and asat > >> simultaneously > >> due to mutual contradiction > >> 45. Thus the ontological status of the adhyasa entity is neither sat nor > >> asat nor both (sadasat-vilakshana). The adhyasa entity is mithya > >> 46. Since adhyasa is also called avidya, avidya too is only mithya > >> 47. Since adhyasa or avidya is anirvachaniya, mithya too is > anirvachaniya > >> 48. Anirvachaniya is sadasat-vilakshana > >> 49. Nirvisesha Brahman is perceived as savisesha Brahman due to adhyasa. > >> In > >> other words, the viseshanas are superimposed on Brahman > >> 50. When adhyasa is overcome, the nirvisesha Brahman is realized as-is > >> > >> with humble prostrations, > >> Vikram > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > >> > >> To unsubscribe or change your options: > >> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > >> > >> For assistance, contact: > >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com Wed Dec 27 00:57:00 2023 From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 05:57:00 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** RE: Re: Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hari OM! I find it odd that an "unreal" snake can cause a "real" jump/aggravation/fear/jolt praNAms Hare Krishna Unreal shAstra can give real jnana or helps us to realize our svarUpa, a dream tiger's roaring can cause a 'real' raise in heart beats after waking ...advaita's standard definition with regard to the question how can an unreal can cause real ? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com Wed Dec 27 02:34:26 2023 From: sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com (Sudhanshu Shekhar) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 13:04:26 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** RE: Re: Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste. // I find it odd that an "unreal" snake can cause a "real" jump/aggravation/fear/jolt// We mistook a rope for a snake in the dream and jumped in fear in the dream. Later we realized in the dream that it was a rope and felt peaceful in the dream. (1) Neither the snake was real (2) nor the rope was real (3) nor was the jumping real (4) nor was the subsequent peace real. It is the unreal causing unreal as waking is identical to dream. The unreal shAstra removes unreal avidyA. The unreal dream-tiger removes unreal-dream. The reality is aloof from all this. It remains situated in its own glory. One may refer to Yoga VAsisTha 3.101 for more elaboration on this. Regards. Sudhanshu Shekhar. From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com Wed Dec 27 03:47:06 2023 From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 08:47:06 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: praNAms Hare Krishna (1) Neither the snake was real (2) nor the rope was real (3) nor was the jumping real (4) nor was the subsequent peace real. It is the unreal causing unreal as waking is identical to dream. The unreal shAstra removes unreal avidyA. The unreal dream-tiger removes unreal-dream. > keeping this in mind (waking mind or dreaming mind...god only knows....) The reality is aloof from all this. It remains situated in its own glory. > the above statement is itself unreal, the reality is unreal, its aloofness is unreal, its own glory is unreal, its socalled situated place is unreal!! One may refer to Yoga VAsisTha 3.101 for more elaboration on this. > what is yOga vAshishTa, when shAstra itself is unreal (atra veda aveda so says shruti) so, what is yOga vAshishta here !!?? , just a dream character and my dream's own creation without any substantiality outside ? No questioner here and nor any responder here... so, don?t go by all these unreal things as valid reference to prove something else is unreal, this is the ultimate teaching of vedAnta, no mOksha nor any mumukshu because at the first place no srushti. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com Wed Dec 27 04:23:12 2023 From: sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com (Sudhanshu Shekhar) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 14:53:12 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste. The reality is aloof from all this. It remains situated in its own glory. > > the above statement is itself unreal, the reality is unreal, its > aloofness is unreal, its own glory is unreal, its socalled situated place > is unreal!! > Whatever you speak about reality is unreal. The reality itself is not unreal. On account of being self-contradictory and on account of impossibility of assertion of unreality to unreal. One may refer to Yoga VAsisTha 3.101 for more elaboration on this. > > > what is yOga vAshishTa, when shAstra itself is unreal (atra veda > aveda so says shruti) so, what is yOga vAshishta here !!?? , just a dream > character and my dream's own creation without any substantiality outside ? > No questioner here and nor any responder here... so, don?t go by all these > unreal things as valid reference to prove something else is unreal, this is > the ultimate teaching of vedAnta, no mOksha nor any mumukshu because at the > first place no srushti. > Just as there was dream-YV, here is this waking-YV. Just as there was 3.101 in dream-YV, here is 3.101 in waking-YV. Just as one referred thereto in dream, so is one doing in this so called "waking". What is the problem? A dream is a dream. If a dream-book says dream to be dream, one can refer to it. There is no harm. If the dream-book says the dream to be non-dream, then that is rejectable. But if dream-book accepts dream to be dream, why should one not "go by that unreal book as valid reference to prove dreamhood of dream to those who believe in that book and in non-dream-hood of dream". Dream-X can very well prove dream-hood of dream to dream-Y by taking help of dream-YV. There is no illogicality here. From hschandramouli at gmail.com Wed Dec 27 04:46:34 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 15:16:34 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Venkat Ji, Reg // In my opinion, bhAShyakAra's phrase buddhiparikalpitena, should mean buddhyA parikalpitena and not necessarily buddhau parikalpitena, ie, the snake is imagined *by* the mind, not that that snake is located *in* the mind. The context of my comment is, as you rightly point out, the pratikarmavyavasthA that has been elaborately discussed by post Shankara AchArya-s, involving artha and jnAna adhyAsa //, I have a different understanding for the context of the phrase buddhiparikalpitena. Especially since it applies (anvaya) to ???????????????? also apart from ??????????????. Sri SSS in his translation cum commentary in kannada on Ch Up Bhashya specifically mentions so in Footnote 3 (referring to buddhiparikalpitena in the Bhashya) as below (translation mine) // This visheshaNa applies (anvaya) to previous term also. kArya also is budhikalpita. It is never distinct from kAraNa //. The ** previous term** referred to is ????????????????. Contextually, in Ch Up, the mantra 6-2-3 // ??????? ??? ????? ??????????? //, ??? (sat) which is One only becomes many while still maintaining its status as One only. Entire Creation is ??? (sat) only (combination of Chaitanya/Brahman and avyAkruta). It is vivarta with reference to Chaitanya/Brahman or pariNAma with reference to avyAkruta. The pariNAma transformation is of the Clay-Pot type, not Milk-Curd type. In my understanding, the phrase buddhiparikalpitena does not apply to snake per se. It refers to bheda buddhi amongst different forms the appearance could take place instead of the rope (vivarta as in ?????????????? illustration), namely snake, stick, garland, crack on the ground etc. In case of clay (pariNAma as in ???????????????? illustration), the forms could be pot, lump of clay etc. While all of them are rope (or clay) only, buddhi distinguishes them as different entities. This bheda buddhi amongst the forms instead of unity is addressed by the phrase buddhiparikalpitena. I hope I have conveyed my understanding meaningfully. Regards On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 10:08?PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaste Bhaskar ji, > I meant the locus of the snake is not the mind, it is the place outside. > > In my opinion, bhAShyakAra's phrase buddhiparikalpitena, should mean > buddhyA parikalpitena and not necessarily buddhau parikalpitena, ie, the > snake is imagined *by* the mind, not that that snake is located *in* the > mind. > > The context of my comment is, as you rightly point out, the > pratikarmavyavasthA that has been elaborately discussed by post Shankara > AchArya-s, involving artha and jnAna adhyAsa. I don't think merely that one > phrase in the bhAShya rules out the entire support structure, when there > are alternative explanations available. > > The reason for the adhyasta object to be postulated to be *outside* is > because of the perceptual experience "I saw it *there*" and the pravRtti > towards (shell silver) or away from it (rope snake). Even though after the > sublation one knows that there is no object outside in reality, one does > not deny the fact that one had perceived it outside. One denies the > validity of that perception in the past because there is no corresponding > object outside in reality. > > It is not like a memory where even during the recollection one is aware > that one is not perceiving a memory and one is merely recollecting what was > seen. In the adhyAsa, there are certain perceptual elements - ie there is > sensory contact with the locus of the adhyAsa (samprayoga). It is a product > of a defect in the mind (doShajanyatva) - which differentiate it from > memory, which is purely a mental construct, located in the mind. > > That is why in the adhyAsa bhAShya, the bhAshyakAra uses the phrase > smRtirUpah, like a memory, to indicate that the adhyAsa shares with smRti > the characteristic of arising due to samskAra, but is not smRti itself, > because it is also doShajanya and has samprayoga. It is also the reason he > adds the word paratra in that bhAShya (smRtirUpah paratra > pUrvadRShTAvabhAsah), to indicate that the object was seen to be elsewhere, > a particular location outside where something else was present. > > On that basis I agree that it is the doSha located in the mind which acts > as a nimitta for the adhyAsa, but in my view that is not sufficient to make > the adhyAsa itself located in the mind. > > Kind regards, > Venkatraghavan > > > > On Tue, 26 Dec 2023, 01:42 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin, < > advaitin at googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji > > > > Hare Krishna > > > > > > The snake in the rope snake adhyAsa is not imagined "in the mind". Rather > > the adhyAsa takes place in the locus outside, which leads to the > > experience, "I see a snake *there *(e.g. in the passageway)". The locus > > is not the seer's mind, but the location of the rope. > > > > > > > > ? I don?t know the context in which you are saying snake is not > > imagined in the mind. But bhAshyakAra clearly says the sarpa is ?buddhi > > parikalpita? ( just one example in chAdOgya : rajjvAdi sarpAdyAkAreNa > > ?buddhiparikalpitena?)!! The rajju-sarpa example has been given to drive > > home the point that there is no sarpa in rajju and sarpaavayava are mere > > imagination. OTOH, brahman (rope) is transactionless as someone else is > > the nimitta to ?see? the sarpa in vyavahArarahita rajju. And as a > result, > > when the rajju is examined properly we conclude that though it appeared > > like a snake ( at the time of congnition during the abhAva of rajju > jnana) > > it was not a snake it was / is rajju only. We never ever think in our > > sublated (bAdhita) jnana that there was sarpa outside apart from our > mental > > imagination. > > > > > > > > - IMO saying locus is outside for the adhyAsa is clear cut definition > > of arthAdhyAsa which is NOT the result of jnAnAdhyAsa and these two > are > > mutually exclusive. Anyway, will wait for your further elaboration. > > > > > > > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > > > bhaskar > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "advaitin" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AS8SPR01MB0015F5500A566D6FCED482B08498A%40AS8SPR01MB0015.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com > > < > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AS8SPR01MB0015F5500A566D6FCED482B08498A%40AS8SPR01MB0015.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer > > > > . > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com Wed Dec 27 06:52:28 2023 From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 11:52:28 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: praNAms Hare Krishna . If the dream-book says the dream to be non-dream, then that is rejectable. > Here point to be noted is, dream book says to the dreamer within the dream that there are three Avastha-s daily we are experiencing and one is waking, another is dreaming and dreamless sleep as well. Here dream book is not saying dream is not dream but saying there is some avasthA apart from dream and that is waking, that is where dream book speaking of Ishwara srushti, Ishwara krupe, saadrushyam of dream & waking states, objects in waking state having the paramArtha satya as its base whereas dreams are mere vAsana of waking state etc. etc. you call it waking or dreaming in that state only we are talking about other states accepting that we are not aware that we are beyond the three states, hence there is shAstra and there is jnana etc. Due to your special affiliation with dream state you are telling master dream and in that sub-dreams etc. whereas those who are more practical about it saying there are waking, dreaming and deep sleep states. Holding that particular state where we are in and taking about other two states, so it is nothing but 'aLiya alla magala ganda' (he is Not my son-in-law but he is my daughter's husband) type of assertions both from wakers and dreamers ? For example your last statement : Dream-X can very well prove dream-hood of dream to dream-Y by taking help of dream-YV. There is no illogicality here Can also be said like : Waking X very well prove his waking hood of waking state to waking Y by taking the help of waking YV in waking state. And he also can talk about some other state like dream, dream-X and dream Y who are talking about dream- YV like sudhAnshu and bhAskar talking here in waking/dream ? There is no illogicality here. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com Wed Dec 27 07:12:55 2023 From: sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com (Sudhanshu Shekhar) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 17:42:55 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: //> Here point to be noted is, dream book says to the dreamer within the dream that there are three Avastha-s daily we are experiencing and one is waking, another is dreaming and dreamless sleep as well. Here dream book is not saying dream is not dream but saying there is some avasthA apart from dream and that is waking, that is where dream book speaking of Ishwara srushti, Ishwara krupe, saadrushyam of dream & waking states, objects in waking state having the paramArtha satya as its base whereas dreams are mere vAsana of waking state etc. etc.// The dream-book says both. (1) There are three states, Ishwar srishTi etc. And also, (2) there are three dreams named as waking, dream and deep sleep. The dream-X experiences so called waking, dream and so called deep sleep within dream. Within dream, he supposedly "wakes up" and says, I had very nice dream and had a sound deep sleep. His "waking", dream and "deep sleep" are therefore nothing but dream. Therefore, (1) is merely doing anuvAda of dream-X's experience whereas (2) is giving the correct picture. //you call it waking or dreaming in that state only we are talking about other states accepting that we are not aware that we are beyond the three states, hence there is shAstra and there is jnana etc.// Be clearer in articulation. //Due to your special affiliation with dream state you are telling master dream and in that sub-dreams etc. whereas those who are more practical about it saying there are waking, dreaming and deep sleep states.// Sir, there are no master dreams and sub-dreams. The example of sub-dream is given to demonstrate that waking is nothing but dream. We have dream1, dream 2, dream 3... etc. Dream-2 is not within dream-1 etc. You just feel that dream-2 is within dream-1. They are independent. None is sleeping inside dream-1 to dream dream-2 and so on. These are all mental fluctuations. Just as dream is nothing but instantaneous mental vibration, this waking is also instantaneous mental vibration. That is all. That is what is meant by equating dream with deep sleep and waking. //Holding that particular state where we are in and taking about other two states, so it is nothing but 'aLiya alla magala ganda' (he is Not my son-in-law but he is my daughter's husband) type of assertions both from wakers and dreamers ? For example your last statement :// Irrelavant conclusion due to non-understanding of equality of waking and dream. //Waking X very well prove his waking hood of waking state to waking Y by taking the help of waking YV in waking state. And he also can talk about some other state like dream, dream-X and dream Y who are talking about dream- YV like sudhAnshu and bhAskar talking here in waking/dream ? There is no illogicality here.// Meaningless. There is no need to prove waking-hood to anyone as everyone is convinced of their waking-hood. Everyone by default presume themselves to be in non-dream. Effort can be meaningful only if the objective is prove dream-hood of their so called "waking". From agnimile at gmail.com Wed Dec 27 12:03:17 2023 From: agnimile at gmail.com (Venkatraghavan S) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 09:03:17 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Chandramouli ji, On Wed, 27 Dec 2023, 01:46 H S Chandramouli, wrote: > > In my understanding, the phrase buddhiparikalpitena does not apply to > snake per se. It refers to bheda buddhi amongst different forms the > appearance could take place instead of the rope (vivarta as in > ?????????????? illustration), namely snake, stick, garland, crack on the > ground etc. In case of clay (pariNAma as in ???????????????? > illustration), the forms could be pot, lump of clay etc. While all of them > are rope (or clay) only, buddhi distinguishes them as different entities. > This bheda buddhi amongst the forms instead of unity is addressed by the > phrase buddhiparikalpitena. > I think the above explanation is also possible. Even so, in the above explanation, the focus of the meaning of the phrase lies in the bheda buddhi being buddhyA parikalpitena rather than buddhau parikalpitena - Shankaracharya wishes to convey that they are viewed as different *by* the mind - there is no reason to take away from that phrase that these are viewed differently *in* the mind. In my explanation, the meaning of the phrase buddhiparikalpitena, is slightly different when there is anvaya with mRtghaTa than when there is anvaya with rajjusarpa, because they represent two types of bheda buddhi with respect to multiplicity. That is why Shankaracharya mentions the mRtghaTa and the rajjusarpa examples in the same sentence (because there is something additional he wishes to convey with the second example). To explain, the former represents the bheda buddhi between the kArya and kAraNa and the latter represents the bheda buddhi of the adhyasta with respect to the adhiShThAna. In the former, the anvaya of the mRt happens during the perception of the ghaTa (ie one continues to see the clay when seeing the pot, leading to the buddhi mRt-ghaTa) and in the latter, one only sees the sarpa and not the rajju during the time of the adhyAsa (ie no one sees it as rajju-sarpa, one sees it only as sarpa). In both cases, the bahutva is buddhyA parikalpitena - the multiplicity is seen by the mind and not a truth in reality. Regards, Venkatraghavan From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com Wed Dec 27 04:09:23 2023 From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 09:09:23 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: praNAms Hare Krishna (1) Neither the snake was real (2) nor the rope was real (3) nor was the jumping real (4) nor was the subsequent peace real. It is the unreal causing unreal as waking is identical to dream. The unreal shAstra removes unreal avidyA. The unreal dream-tiger removes unreal-dream. > keeping this in mind (waking mind or dreaming mind...god only knows....) The reality is aloof from all this. It remains situated in its own glory. > the above statement is itself unreal, the reality is unreal, its aloofness is unreal, its own glory is unreal, its socalled situated place is unreal!! One may refer to Yoga VAsisTha 3.101 for more elaboration on this. > what is yOga vAshishTa, when shAstra itself is unreal (atra veda aveda so says shruti) so, what is yOga vAshishta here !!?? , just a dream character and my dream's own creation without any substantiality outside ? No questioner here and nor any responder here... so, don?t go by all these unreal things as valid reference to prove something else is unreal, this is the ultimate teaching of vedAnta, no mOksha nor any mumukshu because at the first place no srushti. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From hschandramouli at gmail.com Thu Dec 28 04:36:30 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 15:06:30 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Venkat Ji, Reg // buddhyA parikalpitena rather than buddhau parikalpitena //, They need not be understood as being mutually exclusive. buddhyA parikalpitena can be understood as the manifestation of deep rooted conviction *in* the mind, buddhau parikalpitena. In fact, deep rooted conviction *in* the mind, buddhau parikalpitena, would be more appropriate in the current context, it being svAbhAvika, naisargika. Reg // That is why Shankaracharya mentions the mRtghaTa and the rajjusarpa examples in the same sentence (because there is something additional he wishes to convey with the second example) //, Notice the use of the word ???(Adi)(etcetera) in ????????? ?????????????? in respect of vivarta vikAra as against ???????????????? in respect of pariNAma vikAra. It is used in respect of both ????? (rajju) and ????(sarpa) in one while it is used only in respect of ??(ghata) but not in respect of ???? (mRRit) in the other. Multiplicity is seen simultaneously in the case of mRtghaTAdi (such as pot, lump etc), and hence difference between them can be perceived by the mind. But multiplicity is not seen simulataneously if only the standard rajjusarpa illustration is considered for vivarta vikAra even if ???(Adi)(etcetera) word is used in respect of sarpa. Rope is perceived either as snake or as garland or as stick or as crack in the wall, only one at a time. Difference cannot be perceived. Hence ????????? in ????????? ?????????????? is intended to be the equivalent for ????? of ????????????????. ????????? represents all objects simultaneously perceived at any given time, all of which are vivarta vikAra. ?????????????? is to convey vivarta vikAra. They are all conceived as different from each other by the mind though in reality they are all ???(sat) only. That in my understanding is what Sri Bhagavatpada intends to convey by mentioning the mRtghaTa and the rajjusarpa examples in the same sentence. Regards On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 10:33?PM Venkatraghavan S wrote: > Namaste Chandramouli ji, > > On Wed, 27 Dec 2023, 01:46 H S Chandramouli, > wrote: > >> >> In my understanding, the phrase buddhiparikalpitena does not apply to >> snake per se. It refers to bheda buddhi amongst different forms the >> appearance could take place instead of the rope (vivarta as in >> ?????????????? illustration), namely snake, stick, garland, crack on the >> ground etc. In case of clay (pariNAma as in ???????????????? >> illustration), the forms could be pot, lump of clay etc. While all of them >> are rope (or clay) only, buddhi distinguishes them as different entities. >> This bheda buddhi amongst the forms instead of unity is addressed by the >> phrase buddhiparikalpitena. >> > I think the above explanation is also possible. Even so, in the above > explanation, the focus of the meaning of the phrase lies in the bheda > buddhi being buddhyA parikalpitena rather than buddhau parikalpitena - > Shankaracharya wishes to convey that they are viewed as different *by* > the mind - there is no reason to take away from that phrase that these are > viewed differently *in* the mind. > > In my explanation, the meaning of the phrase buddhiparikalpitena, is > slightly different when there is anvaya with mRtghaTa than when there is > anvaya with rajjusarpa, because they represent two types of bheda buddhi > with respect to multiplicity. That is why Shankaracharya mentions the > mRtghaTa and the rajjusarpa examples in the same sentence (because there is > something additional he wishes to convey with the second example). > > To explain, the former represents the bheda buddhi between the kArya and > kAraNa and the latter represents the bheda buddhi of the adhyasta with > respect to the adhiShThAna. In the former, the anvaya of the mRt happens > during the perception of the ghaTa (ie one continues to see the clay when > seeing the pot, leading to the buddhi mRt-ghaTa) and in the latter, one > only sees the sarpa and not the rajju during the time of the adhyAsa (ie no > one sees it as rajju-sarpa, one sees it only as sarpa). In both cases, the > bahutva is buddhyA parikalpitena - the multiplicity is seen by the mind and > not a truth in reality. > > Regards, > Venkatraghavan > From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Thu Dec 28 05:05:13 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 15:35:13 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] =?utf-8?b?VmFreWEgVnJpdHRpIC0g4KS14KS+4KSV4KWN4KSv?= =?utf-8?b?4KS14KWD4KSk4KWN4KSk4KS/4KSDIC1JbiBzaW1wbGUgSGluZGkgYnkg?= =?utf-8?q?Vid=2EMM=2EDr=2EManidravid_sastri?= Message-ID: https://youtu.be/ZEvSwHdXvXo From hschandramouli at gmail.com Thu Dec 28 06:08:41 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 16:38:41 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste. Just a clarification. // though in reality they are all ???(sat) only // in the last sentence to be understood in the vivarta sense. Regards On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 3:06?PM H S Chandramouli wrote: > Namaste Venkat Ji, > > Reg // buddhyA parikalpitena rather than buddhau parikalpitena //, > > They need not be understood as being mutually exclusive. buddhyA > parikalpitena can be understood as the manifestation of deep rooted > conviction *in* the mind, buddhau parikalpitena. In fact, deep rooted > conviction *in* the mind, buddhau parikalpitena, would be more > appropriate in the current context, it being svAbhAvika, naisargika. > > Reg // That is why Shankaracharya mentions the mRtghaTa and the > rajjusarpa examples in the same sentence (because there is something > additional he wishes to convey with the second example) //, > > Notice the use of the word ???(Adi)(etcetera) in ????????? ?????????????? > in respect of vivarta vikAra as against ???????????????? in respect of > pariNAma vikAra. It is used in respect of both ????? (rajju) and ????(sarpa) > in one while it is used only in respect of ??(ghata) but not in respect > of ???? (mRRit) in the other. Multiplicity is seen simultaneously in the > case of mRtghaTAdi (such as pot, lump etc), and hence difference between > them can be perceived by the mind. But multiplicity is not seen > simulataneously if only the standard rajjusarpa illustration is considered > for vivarta vikAra even if ???(Adi)(etcetera) word is used in respect of > sarpa. Rope is perceived either as snake or as garland or as stick or as > crack in the wall, only one at a time. Difference cannot be perceived. > Hence ????????? in ????????? ?????????????? is intended to be the > equivalent for ????? of ????????????????. ????????? represents all > objects simultaneously perceived at any given time, all of which are > vivarta vikAra. ?????????????? is to convey vivarta vikAra. They are all > conceived as different from each other by the mind though in reality they > are all ???(sat) only. That in my understanding is what Sri Bhagavatpada > intends to convey by mentioning the mRtghaTa and the rajjusarpa examples > in the same sentence. > > Regards > > On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 10:33?PM Venkatraghavan S > wrote: > >> Namaste Chandramouli ji, >> >> On Wed, 27 Dec 2023, 01:46 H S Chandramouli, >> wrote: >> >>> >>> In my understanding, the phrase buddhiparikalpitena does not apply to >>> snake per se. It refers to bheda buddhi amongst different forms the >>> appearance could take place instead of the rope (vivarta as in >>> ?????????????? illustration), namely snake, stick, garland, crack on >>> the ground etc. In case of clay (pariNAma as in ???????????????? >>> illustration), the forms could be pot, lump of clay etc. While all of them >>> are rope (or clay) only, buddhi distinguishes them as different entities. >>> This bheda buddhi amongst the forms instead of unity is addressed by the >>> phrase buddhiparikalpitena. >>> >> I think the above explanation is also possible. Even so, in the above >> explanation, the focus of the meaning of the phrase lies in the bheda >> buddhi being buddhyA parikalpitena rather than buddhau parikalpitena - >> Shankaracharya wishes to convey that they are viewed as different *by* >> the mind - there is no reason to take away from that phrase that these are >> viewed differently *in* the mind. >> >> In my explanation, the meaning of the phrase buddhiparikalpitena, is >> slightly different when there is anvaya with mRtghaTa than when there is >> anvaya with rajjusarpa, because they represent two types of bheda buddhi >> with respect to multiplicity. That is why Shankaracharya mentions the >> mRtghaTa and the rajjusarpa examples in the same sentence (because there is >> something additional he wishes to convey with the second example). >> >> To explain, the former represents the bheda buddhi between the kArya and >> kAraNa and the latter represents the bheda buddhi of the adhyasta with >> respect to the adhiShThAna. In the former, the anvaya of the mRt happens >> during the perception of the ghaTa (ie one continues to see the clay when >> seeing the pot, leading to the buddhi mRt-ghaTa) and in the latter, one >> only sees the sarpa and not the rajju during the time of the adhyAsa (ie no >> one sees it as rajju-sarpa, one sees it only as sarpa). In both cases, the >> bahutva is buddhyA parikalpitena - the multiplicity is seen by the mind and >> not a truth in reality. >> >> Regards, >> Venkatraghavan >> > From agnimile at gmail.com Thu Dec 28 08:01:53 2023 From: agnimile at gmail.com (Venkatraghavan S) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 05:01:53 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Chandramouli ji, I agree with statements in general in your email. Some points where I had a slightly different view: On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 01:36 H S Chandramouli, wrote: > Namaste Venkat Ji, > > Reg // buddhyA parikalpitena rather than buddhau parikalpitena //, > > They need not be understood as being mutually exclusive. > True. buddhyA parikalpitena can be understood as the manifestation of deep rooted > conviction *in* the mind, buddhau parikalpitena. > I had meant buddhau in the sense of the adhyAsa being exclusively located in the mind, ie jnAna adhyAsa, with no corresponding artha adhyAsa, which I took to be the meaning ascribed to the phrase buddhiparikalpita by Sri Bhaskar ji. If you recall, I had mentioned that in artha adhyAsa, the superimposition of the snake takes place at the location of the rope, rather than it purely located in the mind. To which, Sri Bhaskar had cited this bhAShya to say that the snake is only located in the mind. He had said and I quote: "The rajju-sarpa example has been given to drive home the point that there is no sarpa in rajju and sarpaavayava are mere imagination." I had offered an alternative explanation for the phrase - whether you agree with that explanation or not, the more important question is whether you agree with Bhaskar ji with respect to this bhAshya being evidence of the rope snake being purely located in the mind ie refuting anirvachanIya khyAti or, alternatively, whether you accept that an anirvachanIya snake is created in the location of the snake at the time of adhyAsa. In fact, deep rooted conviction *in* the mind, buddhau parikalpitena, > would be more appropriate in the current context, it being svAbhAvika, > naisargika. > Maybe, but my point is that this bhAShya is not a proof of the untenability of anirvachanIya khyAti - ie the creation of an anirvachanIya snake at the location of the rope (arthAdhyAsa) and the creation of a corresponding cognition of the snake in the mind (jnAnAdhyAsa). There are several possible interpretations of the phrase buddhiparikalpita that are possible and to reduce it to merely one and use it as evidence against anirvachanIya khyAti is untenable in my opinion. Reg // That is why Shankaracharya mentions the mRtghaTa and the rajjusarpa > examples in the same sentence (because there is something additional he > wishes to convey with the second example) //, > > Notice the use of the word ???(Adi)(etcetera) in ????????? ?????????????? > in respect of vivarta vikAra as against ???????????????? in respect of > pariNAma vikAra. It is used in respect of both ????? (rajju) and ????(sarpa) > in one while it is used only in respect of ??(ghata) but not in respect > of ???? (mRRit) in the other. Multiplicity is seen simultaneously in the > case of mRtghaTAdi (such as pot, lump etc), and hence difference between > them can be perceived by the mind. But multiplicity is not seen > simulataneously if only the standard rajjusarpa illustration is considered > for vivarta vikAra even if ???(Adi)(etcetera) word is used in respect of > sarpa. Rope is perceived either as snake or as garland or as stick or as > crack in the wall, only one at a time. Difference cannot be perceived. > Hence ????????? in ????????? ?????????????? is intended to be the > equivalent for ????? of ????????????????. ????????? represents all > objects simultaneously perceived at any given time, all of which are > vivarta vikAra. ?????????????? is to convey vivarta vikAra. They are all > conceived as different from each other by the mind though in reality they > are all ???(sat) only. That in my understanding is what Sri Bhagavatpada > intends to convey by mentioning the mRtghaTa and the rajjusarpa examples > in the same sentence. > I have a different understanding to the above to what you have provided, but that is not relevant to the point under discussion, so will not go into the reasons for that now. Regards, Venkatraghavan > From raghavkumar00 at gmail.com Thu Dec 28 08:12:52 2023 From: raghavkumar00 at gmail.com (Raghav Kumar Dwivedula) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 18:42:52 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Venkataraghavan ji Can there be example of jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa? Can we say a visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's unconstitutional as in schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)? Om > > I had meant buddhau in the sense of the adhyAsa being exclusively located > in the mind, ie jnAna adhyAsa, with no corresponding artha adhyAsa, which I > took to be the meaning ascribed to the phrase buddhiparikalpita by Sri > Bhaskar ji. > > If you recall, I had mentioned that in artha adhyAsa, the superimposition > of the snake takes place at the location of the rope, rather than it purely > located in the mind. To which, Sri Bhaskar had cited this bhAShya to say > that the snake is only located in the mind. He had said and I quote: > > "The rajju-sarpa example has been given to drive home the point that there > is no sarpa in rajju and sarpaavayava are mere imagination." > > I had offered an alternative explanation for the phrase - whether you agree > with that explanation or not, the more important question is whether you > agree with Bhaskar ji with respect to this bhAshya being evidence of the > rope snake being purely located in the mind ie refuting anirvachanIya > khyAti or, alternatively, whether you accept that an anirvachanIya snake is > created in the location of the snake at the time of adhyAsa. > > In fact, deep rooted conviction *in* the mind, buddhau parikalpitena, > > would be more appropriate in the current context, it being svAbhAvika, > > naisargika. > > > Maybe, but my point is that this bhAShya is not a proof of the untenability > of anirvachanIya khyAti - ie the creation of an anirvachanIya snake at the > location of the rope (arthAdhyAsa) and the creation of a corresponding > cognition of the snake in the mind (jnAnAdhyAsa). There are several > possible interpretations of the phrase buddhiparikalpita that are possible > and to reduce it to merely one and use it as evidence against anirvachanIya > khyAti is untenable in my opinion. > > > Reg // That is why Shankaracharya mentions the mRtghaTa and the rajjusarpa > > examples in the same sentence (because there is something additional he > > wishes to convey with the second example) //, > > > > Notice the use of the word ???(Adi)(etcetera) in ????????? > ?????????????? > > in respect of vivarta vikAra as against ???????????????? in respect of > > pariNAma vikAra. It is used in respect of both ????? (rajju) and > ????(sarpa) > > in one while it is used only in respect of ??(ghata) but not in respect > > of ???? (mRRit) in the other. Multiplicity is seen simultaneously in the > > case of mRtghaTAdi (such as pot, lump etc), and hence difference between > > them can be perceived by the mind. But multiplicity is not seen > > simulataneously if only the standard rajjusarpa illustration is > considered > > for vivarta vikAra even if ???(Adi)(etcetera) word is used in respect of > > sarpa. Rope is perceived either as snake or as garland or as stick or as > > crack in the wall, only one at a time. Difference cannot be perceived. > > Hence ????????? in ????????? ?????????????? is intended to be the > > equivalent for ????? of ????????????????. ????????? represents all > > objects simultaneously perceived at any given time, all of which are > > vivarta vikAra. ?????????????? is to convey vivarta vikAra. They are all > > conceived as different from each other by the mind though in reality they > > are all ???(sat) only. That in my understanding is what Sri Bhagavatpada > > intends to convey by mentioning the mRtghaTa and the rajjusarpa examples > > in the same sentence. > > > > I have a different understanding to the above to what you have provided, > but that is not relevant to the point under discussion, so will not go into > the reasons for that now. > > Regards, > Venkatraghavan > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From raghavkumar00 at gmail.com Thu Dec 28 08:15:24 2023 From: raghavkumar00 at gmail.com (Raghav Kumar Dwivedula) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 18:45:24 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Kindly read unconstitutional as "unconditional" in my last message. Om On Thu, 28 Dec, 2023, 6:42 pm Raghav Kumar Dwivedula, < raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote: > Namaste Venkataraghavan ji > > Can there be example of jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa? Can we say a > visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's unconstitutional as in > schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)? > > Om > > > > >> >> I had meant buddhau in the sense of the adhyAsa being exclusively located >> in the mind, ie jnAna adhyAsa, with no corresponding artha adhyAsa, which >> I >> took to be the meaning ascribed to the phrase buddhiparikalpita by Sri >> Bhaskar ji. >> >> If you recall, I had mentioned that in artha adhyAsa, the superimposition >> of the snake takes place at the location of the rope, rather than it >> purely >> located in the mind. To which, Sri Bhaskar had cited this bhAShya to say >> that the snake is only located in the mind. He had said and I quote: >> >> "The rajju-sarpa example has been given to drive home the point that there >> is no sarpa in rajju and sarpaavayava are mere imagination." >> >> I had offered an alternative explanation for the phrase - whether you >> agree >> with that explanation or not, the more important question is whether you >> agree with Bhaskar ji with respect to this bhAshya being evidence of the >> rope snake being purely located in the mind ie refuting anirvachanIya >> khyAti or, alternatively, whether you accept that an anirvachanIya snake >> is >> created in the location of the snake at the time of adhyAsa. >> >> In fact, deep rooted conviction *in* the mind, buddhau parikalpitena, >> > would be more appropriate in the current context, it being svAbhAvika, >> > naisargika. >> > >> Maybe, but my point is that this bhAShya is not a proof of the >> untenability >> of anirvachanIya khyAti - ie the creation of an anirvachanIya snake at the >> location of the rope (arthAdhyAsa) and the creation of a corresponding >> cognition of the snake in the mind (jnAnAdhyAsa). There are several >> possible interpretations of the phrase buddhiparikalpita that are possible >> and to reduce it to merely one and use it as evidence against >> anirvachanIya >> khyAti is untenable in my opinion. >> >> >> Reg // That is why Shankaracharya mentions the mRtghaTa and the >> rajjusarpa >> > examples in the same sentence (because there is something additional he >> > wishes to convey with the second example) //, >> > >> > Notice the use of the word ???(Adi)(etcetera) in ????????? >> ?????????????? >> > in respect of vivarta vikAra as against ???????????????? in respect of >> > pariNAma vikAra. It is used in respect of both ????? (rajju) and >> ????(sarpa) >> > in one while it is used only in respect of ??(ghata) but not in respect >> > of ???? (mRRit) in the other. Multiplicity is seen simultaneously in >> the >> > case of mRtghaTAdi (such as pot, lump etc), and hence difference >> between >> > them can be perceived by the mind. But multiplicity is not seen >> > simulataneously if only the standard rajjusarpa illustration is >> considered >> > for vivarta vikAra even if ???(Adi)(etcetera) word is used in respect of >> > sarpa. Rope is perceived either as snake or as garland or as stick or as >> > crack in the wall, only one at a time. Difference cannot be perceived. >> > Hence ????????? in ????????? ?????????????? is intended to be the >> > equivalent for ????? of ????????????????. ????????? represents all >> > objects simultaneously perceived at any given time, all of which are >> > vivarta vikAra. ?????????????? is to convey vivarta vikAra. They are all >> > conceived as different from each other by the mind though in reality >> they >> > are all ???(sat) only. That in my understanding is what Sri Bhagavatpada >> > intends to convey by mentioning the mRtghaTa and the rajjusarpa >> examples >> > in the same sentence. >> > >> >> I have a different understanding to the above to what you have provided, >> but that is not relevant to the point under discussion, so will not go >> into >> the reasons for that now. >> >> Regards, >> Venkatraghavan >> >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >> >> To unsubscribe or change your options: >> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >> >> For assistance, contact: >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >> > From hschandramouli at gmail.com Thu Dec 28 08:44:40 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 19:14:40 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Venkat Ji, I have absolutely no doubts about the presence, as per the Bhashya, of a prAtibhAsika, anirvachanIya snake existing at the location of the rope. During several discussions earlier with Bhaskar Ji , this has been a point of disagreement with him and we agreed to disagree. Regards On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 6:32?PM Venkatraghavan S wrote: > Namaste Chandramouli ji, > > I agree with statements in general in your email. Some points where I had > a slightly different view: > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 01:36 H S Chandramouli, > wrote: > >> Namaste Venkat Ji, >> >> Reg // buddhyA parikalpitena rather than buddhau parikalpitena //, >> >> They need not be understood as being mutually exclusive. >> > True. > > buddhyA parikalpitena can be understood as the manifestation of deep >> rooted conviction *in* the mind, buddhau parikalpitena. >> > I had meant buddhau in the sense of the adhyAsa being exclusively located > in the mind, ie jnAna adhyAsa, with no corresponding artha adhyAsa, which I > took to be the meaning ascribed to the phrase buddhiparikalpita by Sri > Bhaskar ji. > > If you recall, I had mentioned that in artha adhyAsa, the superimposition > of the snake takes place at the location of the rope, rather than it purely > located in the mind. To which, Sri Bhaskar had cited this bhAShya to say > that the snake is only located in the mind. He had said and I quote: > > "The rajju-sarpa example has been given to drive home the point that there > is no sarpa in rajju and sarpaavayava are mere imagination." > > I had offered an alternative explanation for the phrase - whether you > agree with that explanation or not, the more important question is whether > you agree with Bhaskar ji with respect to this bhAshya being evidence of > the rope snake being purely located in the mind ie refuting anirvachanIya > khyAti or, alternatively, whether you accept that an anirvachanIya snake is > created in the location of the snake at the time of adhyAsa. > > In fact, deep rooted conviction *in* the mind, buddhau parikalpitena, >> would be more appropriate in the current context, it being svAbhAvika, >> naisargika. >> > Maybe, but my point is that this bhAShya is not a proof of the > untenability of anirvachanIya khyAti - ie the creation of an anirvachanIya > snake at the location of the rope (arthAdhyAsa) and the creation of a > corresponding cognition of the snake in the mind (jnAnAdhyAsa). There are > several possible interpretations of the phrase buddhiparikalpita that are > possible and to reduce it to merely one and use it as evidence against > anirvachanIya khyAti is untenable in my opinion. > > > Reg // That is why Shankaracharya mentions the mRtghaTa and the >> rajjusarpa examples in the same sentence (because there is something >> additional he wishes to convey with the second example) //, >> >> Notice the use of the word ???(Adi)(etcetera) in ????????? >> ?????????????? in respect of vivarta vikAra as against ???????????????? >> in respect of pariNAma vikAra. It is used in respect of both ????? >> (rajju) and ????(sarpa) in one while it is used only in respect of ??(ghata) >> but not in respect of ???? (mRRit) in the other. Multiplicity is seen >> simultaneously in the case of mRtghaTAdi (such as pot, lump etc), and >> hence difference between them can be perceived by the mind. But >> multiplicity is not seen simulataneously if only the standard rajjusarpa >> illustration is considered for vivarta vikAra even if ???(Adi)(etcetera) >> word is used in respect of sarpa. Rope is perceived either as snake or as >> garland or as stick or as crack in the wall, only one at a time. Difference >> cannot be perceived. Hence ????????? in ????????? ?????????????? is >> intended to be the equivalent for ????? of ????????????????. ????????? >> represents all objects simultaneously perceived at any given time, all of >> which are vivarta vikAra. ?????????????? is to convey vivarta vikAra. >> They are all conceived as different from each other by the mind though in >> reality they are all ???(sat) only. That in my understanding is what Sri >> Bhagavatpada intends to convey by mentioning the mRtghaTa and the >> rajjusarpa examples in the same sentence. >> > > I have a different understanding to the above to what you have provided, > but that is not relevant to the point under discussion, so will not go into > the reasons for that now. > > Regards, > Venkatraghavan > >> From agnimile at gmail.com Thu Dec 28 09:11:59 2023 From: agnimile at gmail.com (Venkatraghavan S) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 06:11:59 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Raghav ji, On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 05:13 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaste Venkataraghavan ji > > Can there be example of jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa? Yes, there can in my opinion, like in the case of the redness of a crystal, where no new redness is created, it is simply the transference of the perceived redness of the flower onto the crystal. The doctrine of anirvachanIya khyAti postulates the utpatti of an artha only where such an artha does not exist there to make perceptual contact with the senses. When the artha exists there in perceptual contact (like the flower's redness), there is no need to postulate the creation of a new redness. Please see the archives, Sri Chandramouli and I discussed this a few months ago. Can we say a > visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's unconstitutional as in > schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)? > I can't say for sure because I don't know how auditory hallucination or schizophrenia manifest, but to the extent that there is perception involved (even illusory) and the object of perception is not present, one can assume the creation of an illusory object. Regards, Venkatraghavan From vikkyjagan at gmail.com Thu Dec 28 12:04:30 2023 From: vikkyjagan at gmail.com (Vikram Jagannathan) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 11:04:30 -0600 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaskaram Shri Venkataraghavan ji, In my understanding, there is always artha-dhyasa and jnana-adhyasa in every instance of adhyasa. Adhyasa is not a falsified (badhita) perception, but it is the prior misunderstanding. The misunderstanding implies an object and the corresponding knowledge. In the case of the perception of red-crystal, the red-crystal (as opposed to the transparent crystal) is itself the artha-adhyasa. The knowledge of redness as a standalone property, as superimposed on the crystal, is only the badhita knowledge and hence at this point, the continued perception is no longer an adhyasa. On a different note, in general to this thread, there have been other discussions questioning how an unreal snake gives rise to real fear and subsequent responses that snake is unreal and fear too is unreal. I would like to call out that 1) the unreality of snake (as pratibhasika) is known only after the dawn of knowledge of the rope. But the real fear (vyavaharika) is produced prior to this knowledge; wherein snake was still considered as a real (vyavaharika) entity. Thus only a real snake (misunderstood as vyavaharika) caused a real fear (vyavaharika) 2) While using the word 'real' & 'unreal', it is important to call out the level of reality / unreality (paramarthika / vyavaharika / pratibhasika) in case of ambiguity. It seems to me the questions and responses are in different standpoints like apples & oranges. with humble prostrations, Vikram On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 8:12?AM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaste Raghav ji, > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 05:13 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > Namaste Venkataraghavan ji > > > > Can there be example of jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa? > > > Yes, there can in my opinion, like in the case of the redness of a crystal, > where no new redness is created, it is simply the transference of the > perceived redness of the flower onto the crystal. The doctrine of > anirvachanIya khyAti postulates the utpatti of an artha only where such an > artha does not exist there to make perceptual contact with the senses. When > the artha exists there in perceptual contact (like the flower's redness), > there is no need to postulate the creation of a new redness. Please see the > archives, Sri Chandramouli and I discussed this a few months ago. > > > Can we say a > > visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's unconstitutional as > in > > schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)? > > > I can't say for sure because I don't know how auditory hallucination or > schizophrenia manifest, but to the extent that there is perception involved > (even illusory) and the object of perception is not present, one can assume > the creation of an illusory object. > > Regards, > Venkatraghavan > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Thu Dec 28 12:23:45 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 22:53:45 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 7:42?PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaste Raghav ji, > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 05:13 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > > > visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's unconstitutional as > in > > schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)? > > > I can't say for sure because I don't know how auditory hallucination or > schizophrenia manifest, but to the extent that there is perception involved > (even illusory) and the object of perception is not present, one can assume > the creation of an illusory object. > Venkat ji, This prompts me to say that the situation where a sagunopasaka getting the upasya devata sakshatkara to be of this nature. This is private to him and also it disappears in time. Of course there is no bAdhaka jnanam here as this is not a case of atasmin tad buddhih. Yet the darshanam/perception is had by him for a brief period. It is a result of his long practice of the upasana where the samskaras generated by the upasana solidify and the devata appears before him. regards subbu > > Regards, > Venkatraghavan > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From agnimile at gmail.com Thu Dec 28 14:54:06 2023 From: agnimile at gmail.com (Venkatraghavan S) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 11:54:06 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Subbuji, Indeed, such an AvirbhAva of the upAsya devatA's body to the upAsaka will fall into this category. Regards Venkatraghavan On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 09:23 V Subrahmanian, wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 7:42?PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > >> Namaste Raghav ji, >> >> On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 05:13 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, < >> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> > visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's unconstitutional >> as in >> > schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)? >> > >> I can't say for sure because I don't know how auditory hallucination or >> schizophrenia manifest, but to the extent that there is perception >> involved >> (even illusory) and the object of perception is not present, one can >> assume >> the creation of an illusory object. >> > > Venkat ji, > > This prompts me to say that the situation where a sagunopasaka getting > the upasya devata sakshatkara to be of this nature. This is private to him > and also it disappears in time. Of course there is no bAdhaka jnanam here > as this is not a case of atasmin tad buddhih. Yet the darshanam/perception > is had by him for a brief period. It is a result of his long practice of > the upasana where the samskaras generated by the upasana solidify and the > devata appears before him. > > regards > subbu > >> >> Regards, >> Venkatraghavan >> _______________________________________________ >> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >> >> To unsubscribe or change your options: >> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >> >> For assistance, contact: >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >> > From agnimile at gmail.com Thu Dec 28 16:14:22 2023 From: agnimile at gmail.com (Venkatraghavan S) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 13:14:22 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Vikram ji Re "In my understanding, there is always artha-dhyasa and jnana-adhyasa in every instance of adhyasa." There is a passage in the Vedanta Paribhasha which says that the creation of a prAtibhAsika object is only admitted in certain circumstances. ?????????????????????? ?????? ?????????????????????????????????? ? Where the Aropya, the superimposed object is not in contact with senses, only there is it accepted that a prAtibhAsika object is created. i.e where there is contact with the superimposed, we accept that there is no anirvachanIya object created. Where it is not in contact, we accept there is an anirvachanIya object created. ?? ?? ????????????????????? ???????????????????? ??????? ??????????? ? ????????????????????????????????? ? That is why, as there is contact with the senses in the case of the red crystal, it is possible for the redness present in the hibiscus to appear in the crystal, and the creation of an anirvachanIya redness in the crystal is not accepted. This led me to conclude that in the case of the red crystal, ie a samsarga adhyAsa, the adhyAsa is of a real attribute, but in a different locus - there is a jnAna adhyAsa without a corresponding artha adhyAsa. Happy to revisit this conclusion if evidence is presented to the contrary. Regards, Venkatraghavan On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 09:04 Vikram Jagannathan, wrote: > Namaskaram Shri Venkataraghavan ji, > > In my understanding, there is always artha-dhyasa and jnana-adhyasa in > every instance of adhyasa. Adhyasa is not a falsified (badhita) perception, > but it is the prior misunderstanding. The misunderstanding implies an > object and the corresponding knowledge. In the case of the perception of > red-crystal, the red-crystal (as opposed to the transparent crystal) is > itself the artha-adhyasa. The knowledge of redness as a standalone > property, as superimposed on the crystal, is only the badhita knowledge and > hence at this point, the continued perception is no longer an adhyasa. > > On a different note, in general to this thread, there have been other > discussions questioning how an unreal snake gives rise to real fear and > subsequent responses that snake is unreal and fear too is unreal. I would > like to call out that 1) the unreality of snake (as pratibhasika) is known > only after the dawn of knowledge of the rope. But the real fear > (vyavaharika) is produced prior to this knowledge; wherein snake was still > considered as a real (vyavaharika) entity. Thus only a real snake > (misunderstood as vyavaharika) caused a real fear (vyavaharika) 2) While > using the word 'real' & 'unreal', it is important to call out the level of > reality / unreality (paramarthika / vyavaharika / pratibhasika) in case of > ambiguity. It seems to me the questions and responses are in different > standpoints like apples & oranges. > > with humble prostrations, > Vikram > > > > On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 8:12?AM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > >> Namaste Raghav ji, >> >> On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 05:13 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, < >> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: >> >> > Namaste Venkataraghavan ji >> > >> > Can there be example of jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa? >> >> >> Yes, there can in my opinion, like in the case of the redness of a >> crystal, >> where no new redness is created, it is simply the transference of the >> perceived redness of the flower onto the crystal. The doctrine of >> anirvachanIya khyAti postulates the utpatti of an artha only where such an >> artha does not exist there to make perceptual contact with the senses. >> When >> the artha exists there in perceptual contact (like the flower's redness), >> there is no need to postulate the creation of a new redness. Please see >> the >> archives, Sri Chandramouli and I discussed this a few months ago. >> >> >> Can we say a >> > visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's unconstitutional >> as in >> > schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)? >> > >> I can't say for sure because I don't know how auditory hallucination or >> schizophrenia manifest, but to the extent that there is perception >> involved >> (even illusory) and the object of perception is not present, one can >> assume >> the creation of an illusory object. >> >> Regards, >> Venkatraghavan >> _______________________________________________ >> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >> >> To unsubscribe or change your options: >> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >> >> For assistance, contact: >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >> > From sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com Thu Dec 28 22:34:46 2023 From: sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com (Sudhanshu Shekhar) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 09:04:46 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Vikram ji. //On a different note, in general to this thread, there have been other discussions questioning how an unreal snake gives rise to real fear and subsequent responses that snake is unreal and fear too is unreal. I would like to call out that 1) the unreality of snake (as pratibha) is known only after the dawn of knowledge of the rope. But the real fear (vyavaharika) is produced prior to this knowledge; wherein snake was still considered as a real (vyavaharika) entity. Thus only a real snake (misunderstood as vyavaharika) caused a real fear (vyavaharika) 2) While using the word 'real' & 'unreal', it is important to call out the level of reality / unreality (paramarthika / vyavaharika / pratibhasika) in case of ambiguity. It seems to me the questions and responses are in different standpoints like apples & oranges.// My responses were within the framework of drishTi-srishTi-vAda which is the mukhya vedAnta siddhAnta. Pratikarma vyavasthA is inapplicable there. The distinction of prAtibhAsika and vyAvahArika is inadmissible there. The ajnAta-sattA of objects is not accepted either. So, the distinction of unreal snake and real fear is not maintainable. Just as the illusory snake seen in the dream and the "real" fear within the dream were both unreal being part of dream. If you have chosen to restrict the discussion within the framework of srishTi-drishTi-vAda only, then my responses may be ignored. Regards. On Thu, 28 Dec, 2023, 10:38 pm Vikram Jagannathan via Advaita-l, < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaskaram Shri Venkataraghavan ji, > > In my understanding, there is always artha-dhyasa and jnana-adhyasa in > every instance of adhyasa. Adhyasa is not a falsified (badhita) perception, > but it is the prior misunderstanding. The misunderstanding implies an > object and the corresponding knowledge. In the case of the perception of > red-crystal, the red-crystal (as opposed to the transparent crystal) is > itself the artha-adhyasa. The knowledge of redness as a standalone > property, as superimposed on the crystal, is only the badhita knowledge and > hence at this point, the continued perception is no longer an adhyasa. > > On a different note, in general to this thread, there have been other > discussions questioning how an unreal snake gives rise to real fear and > subsequent responses that snake is unreal and fear too is unreal. I would > like to call out that 1) the unreality of snake (as pratibhasika) is known > only after the dawn of knowledge of the rope. But the real fear > (vyavaharika) is produced prior to this knowledge; wherein snake was still > considered as a real (vyavaharika) entity. Thus only a real snake > (misunderstood as vyavaharika) caused a real fear (vyavaharika) 2) While > using the word 'real' & 'unreal', it is important to call out the level of > reality / unreality (paramarthika / vyavaharika / pratibhasika) in case of > ambiguity. It seems to me the questions and responses are in different > standpoints like apples & oranges. > > with humble prostrations, > Vikram > > > > On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 8:12?AM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > Namaste Raghav ji, > > > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 05:13 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, < > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > > > Namaste Venkataraghavan ji > > > > > > Can there be example of jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa? > > > > > > Yes, there can in my opinion, like in the case of the redness of a > crystal, > > where no new redness is created, it is simply the transference of the > > perceived redness of the flower onto the crystal. The doctrine of > > anirvachanIya khyAti postulates the utpatti of an artha only where such > an > > artha does not exist there to make perceptual contact with the senses. > When > > the artha exists there in perceptual contact (like the flower's redness), > > there is no need to postulate the creation of a new redness. Please see > the > > archives, Sri Chandramouli and I discussed this a few months ago. > > > > > > Can we say a > > > visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's unconstitutional > as > > in > > > schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)? > > > > > I can't say for sure because I don't know how auditory hallucination or > > schizophrenia manifest, but to the extent that there is perception > involved > > (even illusory) and the object of perception is not present, one can > assume > > the creation of an illusory object. > > > > Regards, > > Venkatraghavan > > _______________________________________________ > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > > > For assistance, contact: > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From raghavkumar00 at gmail.com Thu Dec 28 22:49:38 2023 From: raghavkumar00 at gmail.com (Raghav Kumar Dwivedula) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 09:19:38 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes ji The genuine case of upAsya devatA pratyaxa could possibly be classified as jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. And we could argue that such experiences are not categorizable as purely sAxI pratyaxa like icchA, dveSha etc because their (ie upAsya devatA's) locus is perceived as being outside oneself. Again these experiences of genuine devatA pratyaxa do not suffer bAdha unlike schizophrenia etc which might produce similar experiences which are recognised as delusional, upon taking appropriate medicines. Regarding the sopAdhika bhrama (like a crystal appearing yellow due to the flower kept next to it), it was pointed out by Venkataraghavan ji (in agreement with Chandramouliji as per older discussion ) that it's an example of jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. Om On Thu, 28 Dec, 2023, 10:54 pm V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l, < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 7:42?PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > Namaste Raghav ji, > > > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 05:13 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, < > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's unconstitutional > as > > in > > > schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)? > > > > > I can't say for sure because I don't know how auditory hallucination or > > schizophrenia manifest, but to the extent that there is perception > involved > > (even illusory) and the object of perception is not present, one can > assume > > the creation of an illusory object. > > > > Venkat ji, > > This prompts me to say that the situation where a sagunopasaka getting the > upasya devata sakshatkara to be of this nature. This is private to him and > also it disappears in time. Of course there is no bAdhaka jnanam here as > this is not a case of atasmin tad buddhih. Yet the darshanam/perception is > had by him for a brief period. It is a result of his long practice of the > upasana where the samskaras generated by the upasana solidify and the > devata appears before him. > > regards > subbu > > > > > Regards, > > Venkatraghavan > > _______________________________________________ > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > > > For assistance, contact: > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com Fri Dec 29 00:37:08 2023 From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 05:37:08 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: praNAms Hare Krishna I am really sorry to say some statements ldrafted out of dry tarka (dry logic) would definitely give lot of pain to parAbhakti sAdhaka-s in Advaita mArga !! Our prayers/Tapasya/dhyAna/ archana etc. is just to see what is there in our jnAnAdhyAsa !!?? IshwarAnugraha, his kAruNya, his blessings etc. just pouring out of that mere jnAnAdhyAsa?? Where we are the advaitins going?? who follow the great tradition of great Krishna bhakta Sri Madhusudana Saraswati?? We are forgetting the simple fact that even to think on these lines (jnAnAdhyAsa, arthAdhyAsa etc. within the scope of Advaita) we need the Ishwara kAruNya and the jnana we obtain from this jignAsa is IshwarAnugraha. Ishwaraanugraha hetukenaiva cha vijnAnena mOksha siddhiH bhavituM arhati says bhAshyakAra. IMHO, one simple thing we should always keep in mind that we the advaitins are not mere dry logicians (dry philosophers/ tarkikaa-s ) but we are followers of saNta/saints like shankara bhagavatpAda. No intention of hurting anyone's sentiments here, just my observation. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Yes ji The genuine case of upAsya devatA pratyaxa could possibly be classified as jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. And we could argue that such experiences are not categorizable as purely sAxI pratyaxa like icchA, dveSha etc because their (ie upAsya devatA's) locus is perceived as being outside oneself. Again these experiences of genuine devatA pratyaxa do not suffer bAdha unlike schizophrenia etc which might produce similar experiences which are recognised as delusional, upon taking appropriate medicines. Regarding the sopAdhika bhrama (like a crystal appearing yellow due to the flower kept next to it), it was pointed out by Venkataraghavan ji (in agreement with Chandramouliji as per older discussion ) that it's an example of jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's > > > unconstitutional > as > > in > > > schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)? > > > > > I can't say for sure because I don't know how auditory hallucination > > or schizophrenia manifest, but to the extent that there is > > perception > involved > > (even illusory) and the object of perception is not present, one can > assume > > the creation of an illusory object. > > > > Venkat ji, > > This prompts me to say that the situation where a sagunopasaka > getting the upasya devata sakshatkara to be of this nature. This is > private to him and also it disappears in time. Of course there is no > bAdhaka jnanam here as this is not a case of atasmin tad buddhih. Yet > the darshanam/perception is had by him for a brief period. It is a > result of his long practice of the upasana where the samskaras > generated by the upasana solidify and the devata appears before him. > > regards > subbu > > > > > Regards, > > Venkatraghavan > > _______________________________________________ > > Archives: > > https://li/ > > sts.advaita-vedanta.org%2Farchives%2Fadvaita-l%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cbha > > skar.yr%40hitachienergy.com%7Ca45a8bbfb75c49b8dedd08dc08213a54%7C783 > > 1e6d9dc6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638394186017887884%7CUnknown > > %7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiL > > CJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FLPfgbXrm7eC%2FEO9Jbl9OXyoraGMyj > > 6%2BlgvYEUnzP7Y%3D&reserved=0 > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > https://li/ > > sts.advaita-vedanta.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Flistinfo%2Fadvaita-l&data=05%7C0 > > 2%7Cbhaskar.yr%40hitachienergy.com%7Ca45a8bbfb75c49b8dedd08dc08213a5 > > 4%7C7831e6d9dc6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638394186017887884%7C > > Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik > > 1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=izeOhs8KdlsdYM38q816RmFf9 > > J%2FKFuD6gogVJxdf358%3D&reserved=0 > > > > For assistance, contact: > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: > https://list/ > s.advaita-vedanta.org%2Farchives%2Fadvaita-l%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cbhaskar > .yr%40hitachienergy.com%7Ca45a8bbfb75c49b8dedd08dc08213a54%7C7831e6d9d > c6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638394186017887884%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb > GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0 > %3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FLPfgbXrm7eC%2FEO9Jbl9OXyoraGMyj6%2BlgvYEUnz > P7Y%3D&reserved=0 > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://list/ > s.advaita-vedanta.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Flistinfo%2Fadvaita-l&data=05%7C02%7C > bhaskar.yr%40hitachienergy.com%7Ca45a8bbfb75c49b8dedd08dc08213a54%7C78 > 31e6d9dc6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638394186017887884%7CUnknown% > 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJX > VCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=izeOhs8KdlsdYM38q816RmFf9J%2FKFuD6gog > VJxdf358%3D&reserved=0 > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > _______________________________________________ Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ To unsubscribe or change your options: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 01:05:43 2023 From: sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com (Sudhanshu Shekhar) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 11:35:43 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Venkataraghavan ji. //There is a passage in the Vedanta Paribhasha which says that the creation of a prAtibhAsika object is only admitted in certain circumstances. ?????????????????????? ?????? ?????????????????????????????????? ? Where the Aropya, the superimposed object is not in contact with senses,only there is it accepted that a prAtibhAsika object is created. i.e where there is contact with the superimposed, we accept that there is no anirvachanIya object created. Where it is not in contact, we accept there is an anirvachanIya object created. ?? ?? ????????????????????? ???????????????????? ??????? ??????????? ? ????????????????????????????????? ? That is why, as there is contact with the senses in the case of the red crystal, it is possible for the redness present in the hibiscus to appear in the crystal, and the creation of an anirvachanIya redness in the crystal is not accepted.// Isn't this conclusion of VedAnta ParibhAshA in contradiction with siddhAnta as propounded inAdvaita SIddhi wherein the redness-of-crystal is accepted to be mithyA (and not laukika-pAramArtika) following VivaraNa. Advaita Siddhi says - ? ? ???????? ??????? ? ??????, ????? ??????????????????? ??? ? ?????????????? ??????? ? ?????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????? , ???????????????????????????????????? ?????????? ??????? ???????????????????????????? ? ???????? ????????? ???????? ???? ??????????????? , ??????? ???????????? ?? ???? ????????????? ?????? ? Redness-of-crystal is not pratibimba of redness-of-flower as pratibimba situates always as avyApya-vritti i.e. localized in a particular place within upAdhi. And that is not how redness-of-crystal situates. It pervades entire crystal as vyApya-vritti. Thus, redness-of-crystal is not pratibimba, which is as satya (laukika pAramArtika) as bimba. Redness-of-crystal is rather AbhAsa and is therefore mithyA. Now, this logic has no connection as to whether red-flower is in contact with eyes or not. The redness-of-crystal is pervaded and hence it is AbhAsa and is hence mithyA. It could have been averred as redness-of-flower if it were to be a pratibimba. The redness-of-crystal is mithyA i.e. anirvachanIya whereas redness-of-flower is laukika pAramArtika. Had the redness-of-crystal been redness-of-crystal as suggested by VP, the redness-of-crystal could never have been averred by both AS and VivaraNa as mithyA. PanchapAdikA says- ??? ????????????????????? ??????????????????????????, ????????????????????????? ???????? ? VivaraNa says - ?????????? ???????????????? ????????????????????? ??????????? . This point is well-explained in the commentary on VedAnta ParibhAshA by Panchanana Bhattacharya Shastri. Also, in Advaita Siddhi, while explaining that pratibimba does not require the reflecting medium to be of same ontological status, the example is given of pratibimba of redness-of-crystal in a vyAvahArika mirror. AchArya says - the mirror is vyAvahArika but the redness-of-crystal is prAtibhAsika and yet there is a reflection of redness-of-crystal. Hence, equal ontonlogical level is not required. (So, there can be pratibimba of Brahman even if the reflecting medium is of different level of reality). This illustration also implies that redness-of-crystal is not laukika-pAramArtika but prAtibhAsika, anirvachanIya and mithyA. ????????? ?????????? ???????????????????????? ??????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????? ? ????; ?????????? ???????????????? ?????? ?????????????????? ? Therefore, we need to accept that irrespective of the fact as to whether there is contact of eyes with red-flower or not, the redness-of-crystal is mithyA and anirvachanIya only. On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 11:07?AM Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > praNAms > Hare Krishna > > I am really sorry to say some statements ldrafted out of dry tarka (dry > logic) would definitely give lot of pain to parAbhakti sAdhaka-s in Advaita > mArga !! Our prayers/Tapasya/dhyAna/ archana etc. is just to see what is > there in our jnAnAdhyAsa !!?? IshwarAnugraha, his kAruNya, his blessings > etc. just pouring out of that mere jnAnAdhyAsa?? Where we are the > advaitins going?? who follow the great tradition of great Krishna bhakta > Sri Madhusudana Saraswati?? We are forgetting the simple fact that even to > think on these lines (jnAnAdhyAsa, arthAdhyAsa etc. within the scope of > Advaita) we need the Ishwara kAruNya and the jnana we obtain from this > jignAsa is IshwarAnugraha. Ishwaraanugraha hetukenaiva cha vijnAnena > mOksha siddhiH bhavituM arhati says bhAshyakAra. IMHO, one simple thing we > should always keep in mind that we the advaitins are not mere dry logicians > (dry philosophers/ tarkikaa-s ) but we are followers of saNta/saints like > shankara bhagavatpAda. > > No intention of hurting anyone's sentiments here, just my observation. > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > bhaskar > > > Yes ji > The genuine case of upAsya devatA pratyaxa could possibly be classified as > jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. And we could argue that such experiences > are not categorizable as purely sAxI pratyaxa like icchA, dveSha etc > because their (ie upAsya devatA's) locus is perceived as being outside > oneself. > > Again these experiences of genuine devatA pratyaxa do not suffer bAdha > unlike schizophrenia etc which might produce similar experiences which are > recognised as delusional, upon taking appropriate medicines. > > Regarding the sopAdhika bhrama (like a crystal appearing yellow due to the > flower kept next to it), it was pointed out by Venkataraghavan ji (in > agreement with Chandramouliji as per older discussion ) that it's an > example of jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. > > > > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's > > > > unconstitutional > > as > > > in > > > > schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)? > > > > > > > I can't say for sure because I don't know how auditory hallucination > > > or schizophrenia manifest, but to the extent that there is > > > perception > > involved > > > (even illusory) and the object of perception is not present, one can > > assume > > > the creation of an illusory object. > > > > > > > Venkat ji, > > > > This prompts me to say that the situation where a sagunopasaka > > getting the upasya devata sakshatkara to be of this nature. This is > > private to him and also it disappears in time. Of course there is no > > bAdhaka jnanam here as this is not a case of atasmin tad buddhih. Yet > > the darshanam/perception is had by him for a brief period. It is a > > result of his long practice of the upasana where the samskaras > > generated by the upasana solidify and the devata appears before him. > > > > regards > > subbu > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Venkatraghavan > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Archives: > > > https://li/ > > > sts.advaita-vedanta.org%2Farchives%2Fadvaita-l%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cbha > > > skar.yr%40hitachienergy.com%7Ca45a8bbfb75c49b8dedd08dc08213a54%7C783 > > > 1e6d9dc6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638394186017887884%7CUnknown > > > %7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiL > > > CJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FLPfgbXrm7eC%2FEO9Jbl9OXyoraGMyj > > > 6%2BlgvYEUnzP7Y%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > > https://li/ > > > sts.advaita-vedanta.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Flistinfo%2Fadvaita-l&data=05%7C0 > > > 2%7Cbhaskar.yr%40hitachienergy.com%7Ca45a8bbfb75c49b8dedd08dc08213a5 > > > 4%7C7831e6d9dc6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638394186017887884%7C > > > Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik > > > 1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=izeOhs8KdlsdYM38q816RmFf9 > > > J%2FKFuD6gogVJxdf358%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > For assistance, contact: > > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Archives: > > https://list/ > > s.advaita-vedanta.org%2Farchives%2Fadvaita-l%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cbhaskar > > .yr%40hitachienergy.com%7Ca45a8bbfb75c49b8dedd08dc08213a54%7C7831e6d9d > > c6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638394186017887884%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb > > GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0 > > %3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FLPfgbXrm7eC%2FEO9Jbl9OXyoraGMyj6%2BlgvYEUnz > > P7Y%3D&reserved=0 > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > https://list/ > > s.advaita-vedanta.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Flistinfo%2Fadvaita-l&data=05%7C02%7C > > bhaskar.yr%40hitachienergy.com%7Ca45a8bbfb75c49b8dedd08dc08213a54%7C78 > > 31e6d9dc6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638394186017887884%7CUnknown% > > 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJX > > VCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=izeOhs8KdlsdYM38q816RmFf9J%2FKFuD6gog > > VJxdf358%3D&reserved=0 > > > > For assistance, contact: > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > -- Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Pune sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com From agnimile at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 01:25:02 2023 From: agnimile at gmail.com (Venkatraghavan S) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 22:25:02 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Raghav ji, This is not what I had in mind. To clarify what I wanted to say, in the case of the upAsya devatA mUrti appearing to the upAsaka, it is not jnAna alone in the absence of artha. Ishvara does take on the form of the upAsya devatA as a result of the upAsana phala. The perception actually takes place in this case, the artha is not physically present, so it must be admitted that an artha is created. As I had said, to the extent that there is perception involved and the object of perception is not present, one can assume the creation of the illusory object. The upAsya devatA's body is a mAyika sharIra created on the spot so that the upAsaka has the perception of his upAsya. There is a vision and the object of the vision. Regards, Venkatraghavan On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 19:49 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Yes ji > The genuine case of upAsya devatA pratyaxa could possibly be classified as > jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. And we could argue that such experiences > are not categorizable as purely sAxI pratyaxa like icchA, dveSha etc > because their (ie upAsya devatA's) locus is perceived as being outside > oneself. > > Again these experiences of genuine devatA pratyaxa do not suffer bAdha > unlike schizophrenia etc which might produce similar experiences which are > recognised as delusional, upon taking appropriate medicines. > > Regarding the sopAdhika bhrama (like a crystal appearing yellow due to the > flower kept next to it), it was pointed out by Venkataraghavan ji (in > agreement with Chandramouliji as per older discussion ) that it's an > example of jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. > > > Om > > On Thu, 28 Dec, 2023, 10:54 pm V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l, < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 7:42?PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l < > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > > > Namaste Raghav ji, > > > > > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 05:13 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, < > > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's unconstitutional > > as > > > in > > > > schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)? > > > > > > > I can't say for sure because I don't know how auditory hallucination or > > > schizophrenia manifest, but to the extent that there is perception > > involved > > > (even illusory) and the object of perception is not present, one can > > assume > > > the creation of an illusory object. > > > > > > > Venkat ji, > > > > This prompts me to say that the situation where a sagunopasaka getting > the > > upasya devata sakshatkara to be of this nature. This is private to him > and > > also it disappears in time. Of course there is no bAdhaka jnanam here as > > this is not a case of atasmin tad buddhih. Yet the darshanam/perception > is > > had by him for a brief period. It is a result of his long practice of the > > upasana where the samskaras generated by the upasana solidify and the > > devata appears before him. > > > > regards > > subbu > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Venkatraghavan > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > > > > > For assistance, contact: > > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > > > For assistance, contact: > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com Fri Dec 29 01:36:42 2023 From: bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 06:36:42 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The upAsya devatA's body is a mAyika sharIra created on the spot so that the upAsaka has the perception of his upAsya. There is a vision and the object of the vision. praNAms Hare Krishna And it will not stop just seeing the mAyika shareera out there!! The upAsya devata's body would interact with the upAsaka, guide him in dharma mArga / jnana mArga, distribute the karma phala, clears the doubt if any on his physical presence etc. Though it is purely individual experience as a result of purusha tAntra sAdhana one should agree that upAsya devata sAkshAtkAra is the result of karma / ananya bhakti / dhyAna sAdhana and it is not as easy as seeing the snake in place of rajju in dim light!! ? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From hschandramouli at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 03:16:29 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 13:46:29 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste. Vedanta paribhasha which is almost exclusively concerned with epistemology of Advaita Siddhanta is currently considered to be the authority as far as advaita epistemology is concerned. It is much later to texts like Advaita Siddhi, Siddhanta Bindu etc wherein also advaitic epistemological issues are addressed in part. The postulates expressed in VP are considered to supercede views expressed in all earlier advaitic texts as far as advaitic epistemological issues are concerned. Regards On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 12:06?PM Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > The upAsya devatA's body is a mAyika sharIra created on the spot so that > the upAsaka has the perception of his upAsya. There is a vision and the > object of the vision. > > praNAms > Hare Krishna > > And it will not stop just seeing the mAyika shareera out there!! The > upAsya devata's body would interact with the upAsaka, guide him in dharma > mArga / jnana mArga, distribute the karma phala, clears the doubt if any > on his physical presence etc. Though it is purely individual experience as > a result of purusha tAntra sAdhana one should agree that upAsya devata > sAkshAtkAra is the result of karma / ananya bhakti / dhyAna sAdhana and it > is not as easy as seeing the snake in place of rajju in dim light!! ? > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > bhaskar > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From raghavkumar00 at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 05:20:59 2023 From: raghavkumar00 at gmail.com (Raghav Kumar Dwivedula) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 15:50:59 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Namaste ji > I misunderstood what you said. You were distinguishing between sopAdhika > bhrama and upAsya devatA case. > > Actually the question was of the apparent absence of locus in certain > experiences, which I was looking at in certain cases. > > The mAyika sharIra idea would sound more compelling if it were to be > available for common experience for others like in the case of avatAras > etc. > > Otherwise I see no particular problem in assuming the pratyaxa devatA form > as a yogaja pratyaxa. The experience remains a valid manifestation of > Ishvara and confers blessings and guidance etc even if it's not seen by > others. That's why I said the vRtti may occur and the form may be seen > 'outside' by not by others; so there need not be any physical object > corresponding to it else it would be experienced by others as well. In that > sense, this is like jnAnAdhyAsa, or so I thought. > > In the case of avatAras, the 'mAyika' sharIra is seen by all. So although > both experiences are valid vyAvahArika experiences, is not there a > difference between them? > > Om > Raghav > > > > > > > > On Fri, 29 Dec, 2023, 11:55 am Venkatraghavan S, > wrote: > >> Namaste Raghav ji, >> >> This is not what I had in mind. To clarify what I wanted to say, in the >> case of the upAsya devatA mUrti appearing to the upAsaka, it is not jnAna >> alone in the absence of artha. Ishvara does take on the form of the upAsya >> devatA as a result of the upAsana phala. The perception actually takes >> place in this case, the artha is not physically present, so it must be >> admitted that an artha is created. >> >> As I had said, to the extent that there is perception involved and the >> object of perception is not present, one can assume the creation of the >> illusory object. The upAsya devatA's body is a mAyika sharIra created on >> the spot so that the upAsaka has the perception of his upAsya. There is a >> vision and the object of the vision. >> >> Regards, >> Venkatraghavan >> >> >> >> On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 19:49 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, < >> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: >> >>> Yes ji >>> The genuine case of upAsya devatA pratyaxa could possibly be classified >>> as >>> jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. And we could argue that such experiences >>> are not categorizable as purely sAxI pratyaxa like icchA, dveSha etc >>> because their (ie upAsya devatA's) locus is perceived as being outside >>> oneself. >>> >>> Again these experiences of genuine devatA pratyaxa do not suffer bAdha >>> unlike schizophrenia etc which might produce similar experiences which >>> are >>> recognised as delusional, upon taking appropriate medicines. >>> >>> Regarding the sopAdhika bhrama (like a crystal appearing yellow due to >>> the >>> flower kept next to it), it was pointed out by Venkataraghavan ji (in >>> agreement with Chandramouliji as per older discussion ) that it's an >>> example of jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. >>> >>> >>> Om >>> >>> On Thu, 28 Dec, 2023, 10:54 pm V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l, < >>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: >>> >>> > On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 7:42?PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l < >>> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Namaste Raghav ji, >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 05:13 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, < >>> > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's >>> unconstitutional >>> > as >>> > > in >>> > > > schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)? >>> > > > >>> > > I can't say for sure because I don't know how auditory hallucination >>> or >>> > > schizophrenia manifest, but to the extent that there is perception >>> > involved >>> > > (even illusory) and the object of perception is not present, one can >>> > assume >>> > > the creation of an illusory object. >>> > > >>> > >>> > Venkat ji, >>> > >>> > This prompts me to say that the situation where a sagunopasaka >>> getting the >>> > upasya devata sakshatkara to be of this nature. This is private to >>> him and >>> > also it disappears in time. Of course there is no bAdhaka jnanam here >>> as >>> > this is not a case of atasmin tad buddhih. Yet the >>> darshanam/perception is >>> > had by him for a brief period. It is a result of his long practice of >>> the >>> > upasana where the samskaras generated by the upasana solidify and the >>> > devata appears before him. >>> > >>> > regards >>> > subbu >>> > >>> > > >>> > > Regards, >>> > > Venkatraghavan >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >>> > > >>> > > To unsubscribe or change your options: >>> > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >>> > > >>> > > For assistance, contact: >>> > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >>> > > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >>> > >>> > To unsubscribe or change your options: >>> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >>> > >>> > For assistance, contact: >>> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >>> >>> To unsubscribe or change your options: >>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >>> >>> For assistance, contact: >>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >>> >> From raghavkumar00 at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 05:46:02 2023 From: raghavkumar00 at gmail.com (Raghav Kumar Dwivedula) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 16:16:02 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Venkataraghavan ji I also noted what you wrote that the creation of a mAyika form (vyAvahArika) which is subjectively experienced is a possibility. I wanted to distinguish such a form from hallucinations etc. In these well documented cases, "forms are seen outside without locii" (even if we take this as a given...), yet as you said, as per vedAnta, the creation of the object experienced is accepted even in schizophrenia etc. ( like the snake is said to have been created by avidyA although here a locus of rope is present). But since there is subsequent bAdha of hallucinations, that renders such forms bhrama jnAnam, unlike in the mAyika forms although both are subjectively experienced. What set me thinking about jnAnAdhyAsa in such cases is that there is no external locus like a rope. It's only the past impressions and memories of the schizophrenic that present these forms externally. Thank you. Om On Fri, 29 Dec, 2023, 3:50 pm Raghav Kumar Dwivedula, < raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Namaste ji >> I misunderstood what you said. You were distinguishing between sopAdhika >> bhrama and upAsya devatA case. >> >> Actually the question was of the apparent absence of locus in certain >> experiences, which I was looking at in certain cases. >> >> The mAyika sharIra idea would sound more compelling if it were to be >> available for common experience for others like in the case of avatAras >> etc. >> >> Otherwise I see no particular problem in assuming the pratyaxa devatA >> form as a yogaja pratyaxa. The experience remains a valid manifestation of >> Ishvara and confers blessings and guidance etc even if it's not seen by >> others. That's why I said the vRtti may occur and the form may be seen >> 'outside' by not by others; so there need not be any physical object >> corresponding to it else it would be experienced by others as well. In that >> sense, this is like jnAnAdhyAsa, or so I thought. >> >> In the case of avatAras, the 'mAyika' sharIra is seen by all. So although >> both experiences are valid vyAvahArika experiences, is not there a >> difference between them? >> >> Om >> Raghav >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Dec, 2023, 11:55 am Venkatraghavan S, >> wrote: >> >>> Namaste Raghav ji, >>> >>> This is not what I had in mind. To clarify what I wanted to say, in the >>> case of the upAsya devatA mUrti appearing to the upAsaka, it is not jnAna >>> alone in the absence of artha. Ishvara does take on the form of the upAsya >>> devatA as a result of the upAsana phala. The perception actually takes >>> place in this case, the artha is not physically present, so it must be >>> admitted that an artha is created. >>> >>> As I had said, to the extent that there is perception involved and the >>> object of perception is not present, one can assume the creation of the >>> illusory object. The upAsya devatA's body is a mAyika sharIra created on >>> the spot so that the upAsaka has the perception of his upAsya. There is a >>> vision and the object of the vision. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Venkatraghavan >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 19:49 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, < >>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes ji >>>> The genuine case of upAsya devatA pratyaxa could possibly be classified >>>> as >>>> jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. And we could argue that such >>>> experiences >>>> are not categorizable as purely sAxI pratyaxa like icchA, dveSha etc >>>> because their (ie upAsya devatA's) locus is perceived as being outside >>>> oneself. >>>> >>>> Again these experiences of genuine devatA pratyaxa do not suffer bAdha >>>> unlike schizophrenia etc which might produce similar experiences which >>>> are >>>> recognised as delusional, upon taking appropriate medicines. >>>> >>>> Regarding the sopAdhika bhrama (like a crystal appearing yellow due to >>>> the >>>> flower kept next to it), it was pointed out by Venkataraghavan ji (in >>>> agreement with Chandramouliji as per older discussion ) that it's an >>>> example of jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. >>>> >>>> >>>> Om >>>> >>>> On Thu, 28 Dec, 2023, 10:54 pm V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l, < >>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> > On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 7:42?PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l < >>>> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > Namaste Raghav ji, >>>> > > >>>> > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 05:13 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, < >>>> > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's >>>> unconstitutional >>>> > as >>>> > > in >>>> > > > schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)? >>>> > > > >>>> > > I can't say for sure because I don't know how auditory >>>> hallucination or >>>> > > schizophrenia manifest, but to the extent that there is perception >>>> > involved >>>> > > (even illusory) and the object of perception is not present, one can >>>> > assume >>>> > > the creation of an illusory object. >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> > Venkat ji, >>>> > >>>> > This prompts me to say that the situation where a sagunopasaka >>>> getting the >>>> > upasya devata sakshatkara to be of this nature. This is private to >>>> him and >>>> > also it disappears in time. Of course there is no bAdhaka jnanam >>>> here as >>>> > this is not a case of atasmin tad buddhih. Yet the >>>> darshanam/perception is >>>> > had by him for a brief period. It is a result of his long practice of >>>> the >>>> > upasana where the samskaras generated by the upasana solidify and the >>>> > devata appears before him. >>>> > >>>> > regards >>>> > subbu >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> > > Regards, >>>> > > Venkatraghavan >>>> > > _______________________________________________ >>>> > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >>>> > > >>>> > > To unsubscribe or change your options: >>>> > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >>>> > > >>>> > > For assistance, contact: >>>> > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >>>> > > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >>>> > >>>> > To unsubscribe or change your options: >>>> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >>>> > >>>> > For assistance, contact: >>>> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe or change your options: >>>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >>>> >>>> For assistance, contact: >>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >>>> >>> From agnimile at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 08:59:29 2023 From: agnimile at gmail.com (Venkatraghavan S) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 05:59:29 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Sudhanshu ji, On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 22:06 Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l, < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > Isn't this conclusion of VedAnta ParibhAshA in contradiction with siddhAnta > as propounded inAdvaita SIddhi wherein the redness-of-crystal is accepted > to be mithyA (and not laukika-pAramArtika) following VivaraNa. > I don't think there is a contradiction. The VP is admitting that the red crystal is mithyA. All it is saying is that the redness observed is not created at the time of perception. If an attribute existing elsewhere is falsely assumed to be present somewhere else (atasmin tadbiddhih), then the superimposition of the former onto the latter is mithyA. > ???????? ????????? > ???????? ???? ??????????????? , ??????? ???????????? ?? ???? ????????????? > ?????? ? > Please note the SiddhikAra is talking of the Aropa (superimposition) of redness being mithyA, not whether the redness is created or not - the pronoun 'tasya' refers to the Aropa and not sphaTika or the lauhitya. That the VP will have no qualms with. I had said this in my previous (last year's) discussion with Chandramouli ji. And regarding this, > > ????????? ?????????? ???????????????????????? ??????????????????? > ??????????????????????? ??????????? ? ????; ?????????? ???????????????? > ?????? ?????????????????? ? > With respect to the above too while the VP states that where there is indriya sannikarSha there is no need to postulate the creation of a sphaTikalauhitya, the text also admits the creation of a prAtibhAsika sphaTikalauhitya when there is no indriya sannikarSha. See below from the VP " *??????? ???? ????????? ??????????????????????????????? ???? ???????????????? ???????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????, ?, ?????????? ?* *The opponent says - If that is the case, where the hibiscus is not in contact with the senses because of obstruction by some other object, there the redness that appears must be admitted to be a prAtibhAsika redness. The paribhAShAkAra says - that is not a problem, for that is desirable.*" Now, such a prAtibhAsika redness is also reflected in the mirror in the siddhikAra's example and the pUrvapakshi's contention that in all cases, the bimba and the darpaNa must be of the same order of reality, still stands refuted. One can see a path to avoid contradiction if one so chooses. Kind regards, Venkatraghvan On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 11:07?AM Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > praNAms > > Hare Krishna > > > > I am really sorry to say some statements ldrafted out of dry tarka (dry > > logic) would definitely give lot of pain to parAbhakti sAdhaka-s in > Advaita > > mArga !! Our prayers/Tapasya/dhyAna/ archana etc. is just to see what is > > there in our jnAnAdhyAsa !!?? IshwarAnugraha, his kAruNya, his > blessings > > etc. just pouring out of that mere jnAnAdhyAsa?? Where we are the > > advaitins going?? who follow the great tradition of great Krishna bhakta > > Sri Madhusudana Saraswati?? We are forgetting the simple fact that even > to > > think on these lines (jnAnAdhyAsa, arthAdhyAsa etc. within the scope of > > Advaita) we need the Ishwara kAruNya and the jnana we obtain from this > > jignAsa is IshwarAnugraha. Ishwaraanugraha hetukenaiva cha vijnAnena > > mOksha siddhiH bhavituM arhati says bhAshyakAra. IMHO, one simple thing > we > > should always keep in mind that we the advaitins are not mere dry > logicians > > (dry philosophers/ tarkikaa-s ) but we are followers of saNta/saints like > > shankara bhagavatpAda. > > > > No intention of hurting anyone's sentiments here, just my observation. > > > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > bhaskar > > > > > > Yes ji > > The genuine case of upAsya devatA pratyaxa could possibly be classified > as > > jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. And we could argue that such experiences > > are not categorizable as purely sAxI pratyaxa like icchA, dveSha etc > > because their (ie upAsya devatA's) locus is perceived as being outside > > oneself. > > > > Again these experiences of genuine devatA pratyaxa do not suffer bAdha > > unlike schizophrenia etc which might produce similar experiences which > are > > recognised as delusional, upon taking appropriate medicines. > > > > Regarding the sopAdhika bhrama (like a crystal appearing yellow due to > the > > flower kept next to it), it was pointed out by Venkataraghavan ji (in > > agreement with Chandramouliji as per older discussion ) that it's an > > example of jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. > > > > > > > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's > > > > > unconstitutional > > > as > > > > in > > > > > schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)? > > > > > > > > > I can't say for sure because I don't know how auditory hallucination > > > > or schizophrenia manifest, but to the extent that there is > > > > perception > > > involved > > > > (even illusory) and the object of perception is not present, one can > > > assume > > > > the creation of an illusory object. > > > > > > > > > > Venkat ji, > > > > > > This prompts me to say that the situation where a sagunopasaka > > > getting the upasya devata sakshatkara to be of this nature. This is > > > private to him and also it disappears in time. Of course there is no > > > bAdhaka jnanam here as this is not a case of atasmin tad buddhih. Yet > > > the darshanam/perception is had by him for a brief period. It is a > > > result of his long practice of the upasana where the samskaras > > > generated by the upasana solidify and the devata appears before him. > > > > > > regards > > > subbu > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Venkatraghavan > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Archives: > > > > https://li/ > > > > sts.advaita-vedanta.org%2Farchives%2Fadvaita-l%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cbha > > > > skar.yr%40hitachienergy.com%7Ca45a8bbfb75c49b8dedd08dc08213a54%7C783 > > > > 1e6d9dc6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638394186017887884%7CUnknown > > > > %7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiL > > > > CJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FLPfgbXrm7eC%2FEO9Jbl9OXyoraGMyj > > > > 6%2BlgvYEUnzP7Y%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > > > https://li/ > > > > sts.advaita-vedanta.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Flistinfo%2Fadvaita-l&data=05%7C0 > > > > 2%7Cbhaskar.yr%40hitachienergy.com%7Ca45a8bbfb75c49b8dedd08dc08213a5 > > > > 4%7C7831e6d9dc6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638394186017887884%7C > > > > Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik > > > > 1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=izeOhs8KdlsdYM38q816RmFf9 > > > > J%2FKFuD6gogVJxdf358%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > For assistance, contact: > > > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Archives: > > > https://list/ > > > s.advaita-vedanta.org%2Farchives%2Fadvaita-l%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cbhaskar > > > .yr%40hitachienergy.com%7Ca45a8bbfb75c49b8dedd08dc08213a54%7C7831e6d9d > > > c6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638394186017887884%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb > > > GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0 > > > %3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FLPfgbXrm7eC%2FEO9Jbl9OXyoraGMyj6%2BlgvYEUnz > > > P7Y%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > > https://list/ > > > s.advaita-vedanta.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Flistinfo%2Fadvaita-l&data=05%7C02%7C > > > bhaskar.yr%40hitachienergy.com%7Ca45a8bbfb75c49b8dedd08dc08213a54%7C78 > > > 31e6d9dc6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638394186017887884%7CUnknown% > > > 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJX > > > VCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=izeOhs8KdlsdYM38q816RmFf9J%2FKFuD6gog > > > VJxdf358%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > For assistance, contact: > > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > > > For assistance, contact: > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > _______________________________________________ > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > > > For assistance, contact: > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > > > -- > Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, > Pune > > sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From agnimile at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 10:04:25 2023 From: agnimile at gmail.com (Venkatraghavan S) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 07:04:25 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Raghav ji, The mAyika sharIra is taken by Ishvara as an upAsana phala of the upAsaka. Therefore, it is visible to only the upAsaka(s) who ha-s(ve) earned the adRshya phala of Ishvara darshana. By mAyika, I mean that the body is not a pancha bhUta pariNAma but mAyA pariNAma. Such a sharIra taken up by Ishvara is vyAvahArika, but again because it is not pAncabhautika, it is not subject to the same rules as vyAvahArika jIva sharIra - it will be only visible to those jIvas who have earned the spiritual merit to be able to see it. The duration that the body is present and visible is a function of jIvas' karma phala also. Now, if it so happens that society as a collective whole has earned that adRshya phala, bhagavAn takes an avatAra sharIra (again which is mAyika, not bhautika like jIva bodies) which is visible to many / all. It all depends on the extent of jIvas' karma phala. Such a darshana is not doShajanya like in the case of adhyAsa, but upAsanA-janita-puNya-janya. There is no bAdha of Ishvara sharIra jnAna - when the puNyaphala has been used up, Ishvara withdraws the mAyika sharIra (that is not bAdha). The commonality between adhyAsa and this is simply that there is both jnAna and artha in both cases - because there is pratyaksha in both cases. Coming to the case of hallucinations etc, my view is that there is always some adhiShThAna outside on which the seer perceives his / her hallucination. On balance, I think there is both jnAna and artha adhyAsa, like in the case of rajju-sarpa, for hallucinations also. The difference here is that the doSha that causes these is some deep psychological issues present in the seer, whereas the snake samskAra, fear of the dark etc may be the defects that give rise to sarpa bhrama. In both cases, there is some locus on which the seer sees the illusory object. Hope that clarifies. Kind regards, Venkatraghavan On Fri, 29 Dec 2023, 02:46 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaste Venkataraghavan ji > I also noted what you wrote that the creation of a mAyika form > (vyAvahArika) which is subjectively experienced is a possibility. > > I wanted to distinguish such a form from hallucinations etc. In these well > documented cases, "forms are seen outside without locii" (even if we take > this as a given...), yet as you said, as per vedAnta, the creation of the > object experienced is accepted even in schizophrenia etc. ( like the snake > is said to have been created by avidyA although here a locus of rope is > present). But since there is subsequent bAdha of hallucinations, that > renders such forms bhrama jnAnam, unlike in the mAyika forms although both > are subjectively experienced. What set me thinking about jnAnAdhyAsa in > such cases is that there is no external locus like a rope. It's only the > past impressions and memories of the schizophrenic that present these forms > externally. > > Thank you. > Om > > > On Fri, 29 Dec, 2023, 3:50 pm Raghav Kumar Dwivedula, < > raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Namaste ji > >> I misunderstood what you said. You were distinguishing between sopAdhika > >> bhrama and upAsya devatA case. > >> > >> Actually the question was of the apparent absence of locus in certain > >> experiences, which I was looking at in certain cases. > >> > >> The mAyika sharIra idea would sound more compelling if it were to be > >> available for common experience for others like in the case of avatAras > >> etc. > >> > >> Otherwise I see no particular problem in assuming the pratyaxa devatA > >> form as a yogaja pratyaxa. The experience remains a valid manifestation > of > >> Ishvara and confers blessings and guidance etc even if it's not seen by > >> others. That's why I said the vRtti may occur and the form may be seen > >> 'outside' by not by others; so there need not be any physical object > >> corresponding to it else it would be experienced by others as well. In > that > >> sense, this is like jnAnAdhyAsa, or so I thought. > >> > >> In the case of avatAras, the 'mAyika' sharIra is seen by all. So > although > >> both experiences are valid vyAvahArika experiences, is not there a > >> difference between them? > >> > >> Om > >> Raghav > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, 29 Dec, 2023, 11:55 am Venkatraghavan S, > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Namaste Raghav ji, > >>> > >>> This is not what I had in mind. To clarify what I wanted to say, in the > >>> case of the upAsya devatA mUrti appearing to the upAsaka, it is not > jnAna > >>> alone in the absence of artha. Ishvara does take on the form of the > upAsya > >>> devatA as a result of the upAsana phala. The perception actually takes > >>> place in this case, the artha is not physically present, so it must be > >>> admitted that an artha is created. > >>> > >>> As I had said, to the extent that there is perception involved and the > >>> object of perception is not present, one can assume the creation of the > >>> illusory object. The upAsya devatA's body is a mAyika sharIra created > on > >>> the spot so that the upAsaka has the perception of his upAsya. There > is a > >>> vision and the object of the vision. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Venkatraghavan > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 19:49 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, < > >>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Yes ji > >>>> The genuine case of upAsya devatA pratyaxa could possibly be > classified > >>>> as > >>>> jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. And we could argue that such > >>>> experiences > >>>> are not categorizable as purely sAxI pratyaxa like icchA, dveSha etc > >>>> because their (ie upAsya devatA's) locus is perceived as being > outside > >>>> oneself. > >>>> > >>>> Again these experiences of genuine devatA pratyaxa do not suffer bAdha > >>>> unlike schizophrenia etc which might produce similar experiences which > >>>> are > >>>> recognised as delusional, upon taking appropriate medicines. > >>>> > >>>> Regarding the sopAdhika bhrama (like a crystal appearing yellow due to > >>>> the > >>>> flower kept next to it), it was pointed out by Venkataraghavan ji (in > >>>> agreement with Chandramouliji as per older discussion ) that it's an > >>>> example of jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Om > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, 28 Dec, 2023, 10:54 pm V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l, < > >>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 7:42?PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l < > >>>> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> > > Namaste Raghav ji, > >>>> > > > >>>> > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 05:13 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, < > >>>> > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's > >>>> unconstitutional > >>>> > as > >>>> > > in > >>>> > > > schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)? > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > I can't say for sure because I don't know how auditory > >>>> hallucination or > >>>> > > schizophrenia manifest, but to the extent that there is perception > >>>> > involved > >>>> > > (even illusory) and the object of perception is not present, one > can > >>>> > assume > >>>> > > the creation of an illusory object. > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > Venkat ji, > >>>> > > >>>> > This prompts me to say that the situation where a sagunopasaka > >>>> getting the > >>>> > upasya devata sakshatkara to be of this nature. This is private to > >>>> him and > >>>> > also it disappears in time. Of course there is no bAdhaka jnanam > >>>> here as > >>>> > this is not a case of atasmin tad buddhih. Yet the > >>>> darshanam/perception is > >>>> > had by him for a brief period. It is a result of his long practice > of > >>>> the > >>>> > upasana where the samskaras generated by the upasana solidify and > the > >>>> > devata appears before him. > >>>> > > >>>> > regards > >>>> > subbu > >>>> > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > Regards, > >>>> > > Venkatraghavan > >>>> > > _______________________________________________ > >>>> > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > >>>> > > > >>>> > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > >>>> > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > >>>> > > > >>>> > > For assistance, contact: > >>>> > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > >>>> > > > >>>> > _______________________________________________ > >>>> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > >>>> > > >>>> > To unsubscribe or change your options: > >>>> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > >>>> > > >>>> > For assistance, contact: > >>>> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > >>>> > >>>> To unsubscribe or change your options: > >>>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > >>>> > >>>> For assistance, contact: > >>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > >>>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From agnimile at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 10:19:05 2023 From: agnimile at gmail.com (Venkatraghavan S) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 07:19:05 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Sudhanshu ji, One further point, in the Siddhi chapter in question (the first siddhi quote in your email), the siddhikAra says "?????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????", indicating that the siddhikAra is talking of a situation where the dharmI, the japAkusuma, is not observed (ie there is no sannikarSha with its lauhitya also), whereas the dharma, the sphaTika's lauhitya is observed. In such a situation, the utpatti of a prAtibhAsika lauhitya is admitted by the paribhAShAkAra, as shown in my email below, pasting here for easy reference - ???? ????????? ??????????????????????????????? ???? ???????????????? ???????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????, ?, ?????????? . Regards, Venkatraghavan On Fri, 29 Dec 2023, 05:59 Venkatraghavan S, wrote: > Namaste Sudhanshu ji, > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 22:06 Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l, < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > >> >> >> Isn't this conclusion of VedAnta ParibhAshA in contradiction with >> siddhAnta >> as propounded inAdvaita SIddhi wherein the redness-of-crystal is accepted >> to be mithyA (and not laukika-pAramArtika) following VivaraNa. >> > > I don't think there is a contradiction. The VP is admitting that the red > crystal is mithyA. All it is saying is that the redness observed is not > created at the time of perception. If an attribute existing elsewhere is > falsely assumed to be present somewhere else (atasmin tadbiddhih), then the > superimposition of the former onto the latter is mithyA. > > >> ???????? ????????? >> ???????? ???? ??????????????? , ??????? ???????????? ?? ???? ????????????? >> ?????? ? >> > > Please note the SiddhikAra is talking of the Aropa (superimposition) of > redness being mithyA, not whether the redness is created or not - the > pronoun 'tasya' refers to the Aropa and not sphaTika or the lauhitya. That > the VP will have no qualms with. I had said this in my previous (last > year's) discussion with Chandramouli ji. > > And regarding this, > >> >> ????????? ?????????? ???????????????????????? ??????????????????? >> ??????????????????????? ??????????? ? ????; ?????????? ???????????????? >> ?????? ?????????????????? ? >> > With respect to the above too while the VP states that where there is > indriya sannikarSha there is no need to postulate the creation of a > sphaTikalauhitya, the text also admits the creation of a prAtibhAsika > sphaTikalauhitya when there is no indriya sannikarSha. See below from the > VP > " > *??????? ???? ????????? ??????????????????????????????? ???? > ???????????????? ???????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????, ?, ?????????? > ?* > *The opponent says - If that is the case, where the hibiscus is not in > contact with the senses because of obstruction by some other object, there > the redness that appears must be admitted to be a prAtibhAsika redness. The > paribhAShAkAra says - that is not a problem, for that is desirable.*" > > Now, such a prAtibhAsika redness is also reflected in the mirror in the > siddhikAra's example and the pUrvapakshi's contention that in all cases, > the bimba and the darpaNa must be of the same order of reality, still > stands refuted. > > One can see a path to avoid contradiction if one so chooses. > > Kind regards, > Venkatraghvan > > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 11:07?AM Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l < >> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: >> >> > praNAms >> > Hare Krishna >> > >> > I am really sorry to say some statements ldrafted out of dry tarka (dry >> > logic) would definitely give lot of pain to parAbhakti sAdhaka-s in >> Advaita >> > mArga !! Our prayers/Tapasya/dhyAna/ archana etc. is just to see what is >> > there in our jnAnAdhyAsa !!?? IshwarAnugraha, his kAruNya, his >> blessings >> > etc. just pouring out of that mere jnAnAdhyAsa?? Where we are the >> > advaitins going?? who follow the great tradition of great Krishna >> bhakta >> > Sri Madhusudana Saraswati?? We are forgetting the simple fact that >> even to >> > think on these lines (jnAnAdhyAsa, arthAdhyAsa etc. within the scope of >> > Advaita) we need the Ishwara kAruNya and the jnana we obtain from this >> > jignAsa is IshwarAnugraha. Ishwaraanugraha hetukenaiva cha vijnAnena >> > mOksha siddhiH bhavituM arhati says bhAshyakAra. IMHO, one simple >> thing we >> > should always keep in mind that we the advaitins are not mere dry >> logicians >> > (dry philosophers/ tarkikaa-s ) but we are followers of saNta/saints >> like >> > shankara bhagavatpAda. >> > >> > No intention of hurting anyone's sentiments here, just my observation. >> > >> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! >> > bhaskar >> > >> > >> > Yes ji >> > The genuine case of upAsya devatA pratyaxa could possibly be classified >> as >> > jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. And we could argue that such >> experiences >> > are not categorizable as purely sAxI pratyaxa like icchA, dveSha etc >> > because their (ie upAsya devatA's) locus is perceived as being outside >> > oneself. >> > >> > Again these experiences of genuine devatA pratyaxa do not suffer bAdha >> > unlike schizophrenia etc which might produce similar experiences which >> are >> > recognised as delusional, upon taking appropriate medicines. >> > >> > Regarding the sopAdhika bhrama (like a crystal appearing yellow due to >> the >> > flower kept next to it), it was pointed out by Venkataraghavan ji (in >> > agreement with Chandramouliji as per older discussion ) that it's an >> > example of jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. >> > >> > >> > > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's >> > > > > unconstitutional >> > > as >> > > > in >> > > > > schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)? >> > > > > >> > > > I can't say for sure because I don't know how auditory hallucination >> > > > or schizophrenia manifest, but to the extent that there is >> > > > perception >> > > involved >> > > > (even illusory) and the object of perception is not present, one can >> > > assume >> > > > the creation of an illusory object. >> > > > >> > > >> > > Venkat ji, >> > > >> > > This prompts me to say that the situation where a sagunopasaka >> > > getting the upasya devata sakshatkara to be of this nature. This is >> > > private to him and also it disappears in time. Of course there is no >> > > bAdhaka jnanam here as this is not a case of atasmin tad buddhih. Yet >> > > the darshanam/perception is had by him for a brief period. It is a >> > > result of his long practice of the upasana where the samskaras >> > > generated by the upasana solidify and the devata appears before him. >> > > >> > > regards >> > > subbu >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Regards, >> > > > Venkatraghavan >> > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > Archives: >> > > > https://li/ >> > > > sts.advaita-vedanta.org >> %2Farchives%2Fadvaita-l%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cbha >> > > > skar.yr%40hitachienergy.com >> %7Ca45a8bbfb75c49b8dedd08dc08213a54%7C783 >> > > > 1e6d9dc6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638394186017887884%7CUnknown >> > > > %7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiL >> > > > CJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FLPfgbXrm7eC%2FEO9Jbl9OXyoraGMyj >> > > > 6%2BlgvYEUnzP7Y%3D&reserved=0 >> > > > >> > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: >> > > > https://li/ >> > > > sts.advaita-vedanta.org >> %2Fcgi-bin%2Flistinfo%2Fadvaita-l&data=05%7C0 >> > > > 2%7Cbhaskar.yr%40hitachienergy.com >> %7Ca45a8bbfb75c49b8dedd08dc08213a5 >> > > > 4%7C7831e6d9dc6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638394186017887884%7C >> > > > Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik >> > > > 1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=izeOhs8KdlsdYM38q816RmFf9 >> > > > J%2FKFuD6gogVJxdf358%3D&reserved=0 >> > > > >> > > > For assistance, contact: >> > > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Archives: >> > > https://list/ >> > > s.advaita-vedanta.org >> %2Farchives%2Fadvaita-l%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cbhaskar >> > > .yr%40hitachienergy.com >> %7Ca45a8bbfb75c49b8dedd08dc08213a54%7C7831e6d9d >> > > c6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638394186017887884%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb >> > > GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0 >> > > %3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FLPfgbXrm7eC%2FEO9Jbl9OXyoraGMyj6%2BlgvYEUnz >> > > P7Y%3D&reserved=0 >> > > >> > > To unsubscribe or change your options: >> > > https://list/ >> > > s.advaita-vedanta.org >> %2Fcgi-bin%2Flistinfo%2Fadvaita-l&data=05%7C02%7C >> > > bhaskar.yr%40hitachienergy.com >> %7Ca45a8bbfb75c49b8dedd08dc08213a54%7C78 >> > > 31e6d9dc6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638394186017887884%7CUnknown% >> > > 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJX >> > > VCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=izeOhs8KdlsdYM38q816RmFf9J%2FKFuD6gog >> > > VJxdf358%3D&reserved=0 >> > > >> > > For assistance, contact: >> > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >> > >> > To unsubscribe or change your options: >> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >> > >> > For assistance, contact: >> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >> > >> > To unsubscribe or change your options: >> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >> > >> > For assistance, contact: >> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >> > >> >> >> -- >> Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, >> Pune >> >> sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >> >> To unsubscribe or change your options: >> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >> >> For assistance, contact: >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >> > From raghavkumar00 at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 10:25:00 2023 From: raghavkumar00 at gmail.com (Raghav Kumar Dwivedula) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 20:55:00 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste ji Thanks for the detailed explanation. On Fri, 29 Dec, 2023, 8:34 pm Venkatraghavan S, wrote: > Namaste Raghav ji, > > The mAyika sharIra is taken by Ishvara as an upAsana phala of the upAsaka. > Therefore, it is visible to only the upAsaka(s) who ha-s(ve) earned the > adRshya phala of Ishvara darshana. > > By mAyika, I mean that the body is not a pancha bhUta pariNAma but mAyA > pariNAma. > > Such a sharIra taken up by Ishvara is vyAvahArika, but again because it is > not pAncabhautika, it is not subject to the same rules as vyAvahArika jIva > sharIra - it will be only visible to those jIvas who have earned the > spiritual merit to be able to see it. The duration that the body is present > and visible is a function of jIvas' karma phala also. Now, if it so happens > that society as a collective whole has earned that adRshya phala, bhagavAn > takes an avatAra sharIra (again which is mAyika, not bhautika like jIva > bodies) which is visible to many / all. It all depends on the extent of > jIvas' karma phala. > > Such a darshana is not doShajanya like in the case of adhyAsa, but > upAsanA-janita-puNya-janya. There is no bAdha of Ishvara sharIra jnAna - > when the puNyaphala has been used up, Ishvara withdraws the mAyika sharIra > (that is not bAdha). The commonality between adhyAsa and this is simply > that there is both jnAna and artha in both cases - because there is > pratyaksha in both cases. > > Coming to the case of hallucinations etc, my view is that there is always > some adhiShThAna outside on which the seer perceives his / her > hallucination. On balance, I think there is both jnAna and artha adhyAsa, > like in the case of rajju-sarpa, for hallucinations also. The difference > here is that the doSha that causes these is some deep psychological issues > present in the seer, whereas the snake samskAra, fear of the dark etc may > be the defects that give rise to sarpa bhrama. In both cases, there is some > locus on which the seer sees the illusory object. > > Hope that clarifies. > > Kind regards, > Venkatraghavan > > On Fri, 29 Dec 2023, 02:46 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > >> Namaste Venkataraghavan ji >> I also noted what you wrote that the creation of a mAyika form >> (vyAvahArika) which is subjectively experienced is a possibility. >> >> I wanted to distinguish such a form from hallucinations etc. In these well >> documented cases, "forms are seen outside without locii" (even if we take >> this as a given...), yet as you said, as per vedAnta, the creation of the >> object experienced is accepted even in schizophrenia etc. ( like the snake >> is said to have been created by avidyA although here a locus of rope is >> present). But since there is subsequent bAdha of hallucinations, that >> renders such forms bhrama jnAnam, unlike in the mAyika forms although both >> are subjectively experienced. What set me thinking about jnAnAdhyAsa in >> such cases is that there is no external locus like a rope. It's only the >> past impressions and memories of the schizophrenic that present these >> forms >> externally. >> >> Thank you. >> Om >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Dec, 2023, 3:50 pm Raghav Kumar Dwivedula, < >> raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > Namaste ji >> >> I misunderstood what you said. You were distinguishing between >> sopAdhika >> >> bhrama and upAsya devatA case. >> >> >> >> Actually the question was of the apparent absence of locus in certain >> >> experiences, which I was looking at in certain cases. >> >> >> >> The mAyika sharIra idea would sound more compelling if it were to be >> >> available for common experience for others like in the case of avatAras >> >> etc. >> >> >> >> Otherwise I see no particular problem in assuming the pratyaxa devatA >> >> form as a yogaja pratyaxa. The experience remains a valid >> manifestation of >> >> Ishvara and confers blessings and guidance etc even if it's not seen by >> >> others. That's why I said the vRtti may occur and the form may be seen >> >> 'outside' by not by others; so there need not be any physical object >> >> corresponding to it else it would be experienced by others as well. In >> that >> >> sense, this is like jnAnAdhyAsa, or so I thought. >> >> >> >> In the case of avatAras, the 'mAyika' sharIra is seen by all. So >> although >> >> both experiences are valid vyAvahArika experiences, is not there a >> >> difference between them? >> >> >> >> Om >> >> Raghav >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Dec, 2023, 11:55 am Venkatraghavan S, >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Namaste Raghav ji, >> >>> >> >>> This is not what I had in mind. To clarify what I wanted to say, in >> the >> >>> case of the upAsya devatA mUrti appearing to the upAsaka, it is not >> jnAna >> >>> alone in the absence of artha. Ishvara does take on the form of the >> upAsya >> >>> devatA as a result of the upAsana phala. The perception actually takes >> >>> place in this case, the artha is not physically present, so it must be >> >>> admitted that an artha is created. >> >>> >> >>> As I had said, to the extent that there is perception involved and the >> >>> object of perception is not present, one can assume the creation of >> the >> >>> illusory object. The upAsya devatA's body is a mAyika sharIra created >> on >> >>> the spot so that the upAsaka has the perception of his upAsya. There >> is a >> >>> vision and the object of the vision. >> >>> >> >>> Regards, >> >>> Venkatraghavan >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 19:49 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, < >> >>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Yes ji >> >>>> The genuine case of upAsya devatA pratyaxa could possibly be >> classified >> >>>> as >> >>>> jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. And we could argue that such >> >>>> experiences >> >>>> are not categorizable as purely sAxI pratyaxa like icchA, dveSha etc >> >>>> because their (ie upAsya devatA's) locus is perceived as being >> outside >> >>>> oneself. >> >>>> >> >>>> Again these experiences of genuine devatA pratyaxa do not suffer >> bAdha >> >>>> unlike schizophrenia etc which might produce similar experiences >> which >> >>>> are >> >>>> recognised as delusional, upon taking appropriate medicines. >> >>>> >> >>>> Regarding the sopAdhika bhrama (like a crystal appearing yellow due >> to >> >>>> the >> >>>> flower kept next to it), it was pointed out by Venkataraghavan ji (in >> >>>> agreement with Chandramouliji as per older discussion ) that it's an >> >>>> example of jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Om >> >>>> >> >>>> On Thu, 28 Dec, 2023, 10:54 pm V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l, < >> >>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> > On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 7:42?PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l < >> >>>> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: >> >>>> > >> >>>> > > Namaste Raghav ji, >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 05:13 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, >> < >> >>>> > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > > visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's >> >>>> unconstitutional >> >>>> > as >> >>>> > > in >> >>>> > > > schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)? >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > I can't say for sure because I don't know how auditory >> >>>> hallucination or >> >>>> > > schizophrenia manifest, but to the extent that there is >> perception >> >>>> > involved >> >>>> > > (even illusory) and the object of perception is not present, one >> can >> >>>> > assume >> >>>> > > the creation of an illusory object. >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Venkat ji, >> >>>> > >> >>>> > This prompts me to say that the situation where a sagunopasaka >> >>>> getting the >> >>>> > upasya devata sakshatkara to be of this nature. This is private to >> >>>> him and >> >>>> > also it disappears in time. Of course there is no bAdhaka jnanam >> >>>> here as >> >>>> > this is not a case of atasmin tad buddhih. Yet the >> >>>> darshanam/perception is >> >>>> > had by him for a brief period. It is a result of his long practice >> of >> >>>> the >> >>>> > upasana where the samskaras generated by the upasana solidify and >> the >> >>>> > devata appears before him. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > regards >> >>>> > subbu >> >>>> > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > Regards, >> >>>> > > Venkatraghavan >> >>>> > > _______________________________________________ >> >>>> > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > To unsubscribe or change your options: >> >>>> > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > For assistance, contact: >> >>>> > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > _______________________________________________ >> >>>> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >> >>>> > >> >>>> > To unsubscribe or change your options: >> >>>> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >> >>>> > >> >>>> > For assistance, contact: >> >>>> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >> >>>> > >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >> >>>> >> >>>> To unsubscribe or change your options: >> >>>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >> >>>> >> >>>> For assistance, contact: >> >>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >> >>>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >> >> To unsubscribe or change your options: >> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >> >> For assistance, contact: >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >> > From sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 10:30:15 2023 From: sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com (Sudhanshu Shekhar) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 21:00:15 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Venkataraghavan ji. Well, the difference between VP and AS is quite evident. Even in case of negation of illusory silver, VP holds it to be vyadhikaraNa-dharma-avachchinna-pratiyogitA-nirUpita-abhAva whereas AS quite clearly holds the negation to be by swarUpa. So, the pratiyogitA-avachchhedaka as per VP is laukika-pAramArthikatva whereas as per AS, it is rajata-tva. Except for VP, I have never seen anywhere this idea of anyathA-khyAti within anirvachanIya khyAti. If we check the explanations of AS (I have Dakshinamurthy Math explanation), it is the sphatika-lauhitya alone which is stated as mithyA and not merely the aropa of lauhitya in sphatika. VivaraNa also says the same. PanchapAdikA also holds the lauhitya to be mithyA (pl check Gauda Brahmananda on this issue in asatah sAdhakatva abhAve) Your translation also says the same -- //??? ???????????????? ????????????????????? ? | Similarly, the redness of the crystal establishes that there is an upAdhi (an adjunct, ie a red flower) close-by. ?? - ???????? ??????? ? ??????, ?????? ??????????????????? ??? ? ?????????????? - ??????? | It cannot be argued that - The redness of a crystal is not mithyA (ie, is real). It is the reflection of the attribute of the upAdhi in the crystal. Thus, it is not a different example to the one of reflection provided earlier. Because: ?????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????, One never observes the reflection of the attribute (form) alone, without the substance (the face) that has the form. Thus, the redness of the crystal is not a case of reflection. ???????????????????????????????????? ?????????? ??????? ???????????????????????????? | Moreover, there is a difference in the two examples. The reflection occupies only a part of the mirror (avyApya vRtti), whereas the redness observed in the crystal pervades the crystal in its entirety (vyApya vRtti). ???????? ????????? ???????? ???? ???????????????, ??????? ???????????? ?? ???? ????????????? ?????: | If the crystal had been superimposed on the redness, then that can be classified as a reflection. Whereas here, the redness is superimposed on the crystal (it appears to belong to the crystal). Thus, such a redness must be mithyA. That is the difference. ????????????????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? ??????? ???????????????????????: ????????????????: | Even the author of the panchapAdika (padmapAdAchArya) who considers reflections to be real (because they are identical with the original), shows that the redness of the crystal is unreal with the words - ?Like the crystal whose redness is on account of the proximate object?.// It is absolutely unambiguous that it is the redness-of-crystal that is held by AS and VivaraNa to be mithyA. In such a situation, one is bound to hold that VP's view is in contradiction with AS and VivaraNa as on many other occasions. I am rather surprised to see your defence of VP and desire to find a mid-way while there is clear difference. Regards. On Fri, 29 Dec 2023, 19:29 Venkatraghavan S, wrote: > Namaste Sudhanshu ji, > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2023, 22:06 Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l, < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > >> >> >> Isn't this conclusion of VedAnta ParibhAshA in contradiction with >> siddhAnta >> as propounded inAdvaita SIddhi wherein the redness-of-crystal is accepted >> to be mithyA (and not laukika-pAramArtika) following VivaraNa. >> > > I don't think there is a contradiction. The VP is admitting that the red > crystal is mithyA. All it is saying is that the redness observed is not > created at the time of perception. If an attribute existing elsewhere is > falsely assumed to be present somewhere else (atasmin tadbiddhih), then the > superimposition of the former onto the latter is mithyA. > > >> ???????? ????????? >> ???????? ???? ??????????????? , ??????? ???????????? ?? ???? ????????????? >> ?????? ? >> > > Please note the SiddhikAra is talking of the Aropa (superimposition) of > redness being mithyA, not whether the redness is created or not - the > pronoun 'tasya' refers to the Aropa and not sphaTika or the lauhitya. That > the VP will have no qualms with. I had said this in my previous (last > year's) discussion with Chandramouli ji. > > And regarding this, > >> >> ????????? ?????????? ???????????????????????? ??????????????????? >> ??????????????????????? ??????????? ? ????; ?????????? ???????????????? >> ?????? ?????????????????? ? >> > With respect to the above too while the VP states that where there is > indriya sannikarSha there is no need to postulate the creation of a > sphaTikalauhitya, the text also admits the creation of a prAtibhAsika > sphaTikalauhitya when there is no indriya sannikarSha. See below from the > VP > " > *??????? ???? ????????? ??????????????????????????????? ???? > ???????????????? ???????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????, ?, ?????????? > ?* > *The opponent says - If that is the case, where the hibiscus is not in > contact with the senses because of obstruction by some other object, there > the redness that appears must be admitted to be a prAtibhAsika redness. The > paribhAShAkAra says - that is not a problem, for that is desirable.*" > > Now, such a prAtibhAsika redness is also reflected in the mirror in the > siddhikAra's example and the pUrvapakshi's contention that in all cases, > the bimba and the darpaNa must be of the same order of reality, still > stands refuted. > > One can see a path to avoid contradiction if one so chooses. > > Kind regards, > Venkatraghvan > > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 11:07?AM Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l < >> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: >> >> > praNAms >> > Hare Krishna >> > >> > I am really sorry to say some statements ldrafted out of dry tarka (dry >> > logic) would definitely give lot of pain to parAbhakti sAdhaka-s in >> Advaita >> > mArga !! Our prayers/Tapasya/dhyAna/ archana etc. is just to see what is >> > there in our jnAnAdhyAsa !!?? IshwarAnugraha, his kAruNya, his >> blessings >> > etc. just pouring out of that mere jnAnAdhyAsa?? Where we are the >> > advaitins going?? who follow the great tradition of great Krishna >> bhakta >> > Sri Madhusudana Saraswati?? We are forgetting the simple fact that >> even to >> > think on these lines (jnAnAdhyAsa, arthAdhyAsa etc. within the scope of >> > Advaita) we need the Ishwara kAruNya and the jnana we obtain from this >> > jignAsa is IshwarAnugraha. Ishwaraanugraha hetukenaiva cha vijnAnena >> > mOksha siddhiH bhavituM arhati says bhAshyakAra. IMHO, one simple >> thing we >> > should always keep in mind that we the advaitins are not mere dry >> logicians >> > (dry philosophers/ tarkikaa-s ) but we are followers of saNta/saints >> like >> > shankara bhagavatpAda. >> > >> > No intention of hurting anyone's sentiments here, just my observation. >> > >> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! >> > bhaskar >> > >> > >> > Yes ji >> > The genuine case of upAsya devatA pratyaxa could possibly be classified >> as >> > jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. And we could argue that such >> experiences >> > are not categorizable as purely sAxI pratyaxa like icchA, dveSha etc >> > because their (ie upAsya devatA's) locus is perceived as being outside >> > oneself. >> > >> > Again these experiences of genuine devatA pratyaxa do not suffer bAdha >> > unlike schizophrenia etc which might produce similar experiences which >> are >> > recognised as delusional, upon taking appropriate medicines. >> > >> > Regarding the sopAdhika bhrama (like a crystal appearing yellow due to >> the >> > flower kept next to it), it was pointed out by Venkataraghavan ji (in >> > agreement with Chandramouliji as per older discussion ) that it's an >> > example of jnAnAdhyAsa without arthAdhyAsa. >> > >> > >> > > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > visual or auditory hallucination (of the type that's >> > > > > unconstitutional >> > > as >> > > > in >> > > > > schizophrenia a la "The Beautiful Mind" for example)? >> > > > > >> > > > I can't say for sure because I don't know how auditory hallucination >> > > > or schizophrenia manifest, but to the extent that there is >> > > > perception >> > > involved >> > > > (even illusory) and the object of perception is not present, one can >> > > assume >> > > > the creation of an illusory object. >> > > > >> > > >> > > Venkat ji, >> > > >> > > This prompts me to say that the situation where a sagunopasaka >> > > getting the upasya devata sakshatkara to be of this nature. This is >> > > private to him and also it disappears in time. Of course there is no >> > > bAdhaka jnanam here as this is not a case of atasmin tad buddhih. Yet >> > > the darshanam/perception is had by him for a brief period. It is a >> > > result of his long practice of the upasana where the samskaras >> > > generated by the upasana solidify and the devata appears before him. >> > > >> > > regards >> > > subbu >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Regards, >> > > > Venkatraghavan >> > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > Archives: >> > > > https://li/ >> > > > sts.advaita-vedanta.org >> %2Farchives%2Fadvaita-l%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cbha >> > > > skar.yr%40hitachienergy.com >> %7Ca45a8bbfb75c49b8dedd08dc08213a54%7C783 >> > > > 1e6d9dc6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638394186017887884%7CUnknown >> > > > %7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiL >> > > > CJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FLPfgbXrm7eC%2FEO9Jbl9OXyoraGMyj >> > > > 6%2BlgvYEUnzP7Y%3D&reserved=0 >> > > > >> > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: >> > > > https://li/ >> > > > sts.advaita-vedanta.org >> %2Fcgi-bin%2Flistinfo%2Fadvaita-l&data=05%7C0 >> > > > 2%7Cbhaskar.yr%40hitachienergy.com >> %7Ca45a8bbfb75c49b8dedd08dc08213a5 >> > > > 4%7C7831e6d9dc6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638394186017887884%7C >> > > > Unknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik >> > > > 1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=izeOhs8KdlsdYM38q816RmFf9 >> > > > J%2FKFuD6gogVJxdf358%3D&reserved=0 >> > > > >> > > > For assistance, contact: >> > > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Archives: >> > > https://list/ >> > > s.advaita-vedanta.org >> %2Farchives%2Fadvaita-l%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cbhaskar >> > > .yr%40hitachienergy.com >> %7Ca45a8bbfb75c49b8dedd08dc08213a54%7C7831e6d9d >> > > c6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638394186017887884%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb >> > > GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0 >> > > %3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FLPfgbXrm7eC%2FEO9Jbl9OXyoraGMyj6%2BlgvYEUnz >> > > P7Y%3D&reserved=0 >> > > >> > > To unsubscribe or change your options: >> > > https://list/ >> > > s.advaita-vedanta.org >> %2Fcgi-bin%2Flistinfo%2Fadvaita-l&data=05%7C02%7C >> > > bhaskar.yr%40hitachienergy.com >> %7Ca45a8bbfb75c49b8dedd08dc08213a54%7C78 >> > > 31e6d9dc6c4cd19ec61dc2b4133195%7C0%7C0%7C638394186017887884%7CUnknown% >> > > 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJX >> > > VCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=izeOhs8KdlsdYM38q816RmFf9J%2FKFuD6gog >> > > VJxdf358%3D&reserved=0 >> > > >> > > For assistance, contact: >> > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >> > >> > To unsubscribe or change your options: >> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >> > >> > For assistance, contact: >> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >> > >> > To unsubscribe or change your options: >> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >> > >> > For assistance, contact: >> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >> > >> >> >> -- >> Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, >> Pune >> >> sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >> >> To unsubscribe or change your options: >> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >> >> For assistance, contact: >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >> > From sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 10:55:43 2023 From: sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com (Sudhanshu Shekhar) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 21:25:43 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Venkat ji, (2/2) with respect to your additional point //One further point, in the Siddhi chapter in question (the first siddhi quote in your email), the siddhikAra says "?????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????", indicating that the siddhikAra is talking of a situation where the dharmI, the japAkusuma, is not observed (ie there is no sannikarSha with its lauhitya also), whereas the dharma, the sphaTika's lauhitya is observed. In such a situation, the utpatti of a prAtibhAsika lauhitya is admitted by the paribhAShAkAra, as shown in my email below, pasting here for easy reference - ???? ????????? ??????????????????????????????? ???? ???????????????? ???????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????, ?, ?????????? .// Well, whether or not there is eye-contact with red-flower, it is only the redness that appears within crystal. In case of pratibimba, it is never so. It never happens in pratibimba that only Dharma is reflected but not the dharmI. SiddhikAra is basically refuting that redness-of-flower is reflected in crystal. In that context, the statement dharmI-bhUta-mukha-Adi-... Is made. The statement does not indicate that siddhikAra is talking about situation where there is no eye-contact with red-flower. Whether red-flower is indriya-sannikrishTa or not, it is only redness that appears in crystal. This rules out the pratibimbatva if redness-of-crystal. That is what siddhikAra means. PanchapAdikA makes it quite clear: ??? ???? ??????? ?????????? ???????????....Pl check from here on in PanchapAdikA Regards From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 11:15:39 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 21:45:39 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiB74KSt4KS+4KSw4KSk4KWA4KSv4KS14KS/?= =?utf-8?b?4KSm4KWN4KS14KSk4KWN4KSq4KSw4KS/4KS34KSk4KWNfSBBIGxpc3Qg?= =?utf-8?q?of_Sanskrit_works_from_the_last_170_years_until_present?= In-Reply-To: <81688035.2982963.1703863770841@mail.yahoo.com> References: <35784913-42c9-4404-9530-3af109e7583cn@googlegroups.com> <81688035.2982963.1703863770841@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: 'shankara' via ??????????????????? Date: Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 8:59?PM Subject: Re: {???????????????????} A list of Sanskrit works from the last 170 years until present To: ??????????????????? Namaste! Thank you for sharing this. You have done a great service to Sanskrit scholars & researchers by compiling an exhaustive list of the Sanskrit works published in more than a hundred Sanskrit series. regards shankara On Thursday, 28 December, 2023 at 10:41:57 pm IST, Abhay Rathore < abhaysinghrathoreoneandonly at gmail.com> wrote: Namova?, I would like to present to everyone on this forum, a list of Sanskrit series, compiled from various sources. This comprises the most significant Sanskrit series from the last 170 years, and includes works published until present, which were included in the book series which are still publishing. The link for the same is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15vgX6TkgbHftyVI-MeqvWbJeJ4Wf8ALg/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=100719023497913772999&rtpof=true&sd=true This will be updated in the future, when more series and volumes are accounted for. Feedback for the same is appreciated. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "???????????????????" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/35784913-42c9-4404-9530-3af109e7583cn%40googlegroups.com . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "???????????????????" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/81688035.2982963.1703863770841%40mail.yahoo.com . From agnimile at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 13:07:36 2023 From: agnimile at gmail.com (Venkatraghavan S) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 10:07:36 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Dec 2023, 09:34 Venkatraghavan S, wrote: > Namaste Sudhanshu ji, > > I would differ from your view - as I have said, the force of the > siddhikAra's rebuttal is in establishing this is not a reflection, but a > superimposition. > Therefore, he draws a distinction between the reflection where both the > substrate and the attribute are reflected as a rule. > > Here he says that this is not a reflection because the substrate is not > reflected in the crystal, only its redness is. It is not a rule that only > the redness should appear (in the crystal) and not the flower - if one > observes the Chandramoulishvara pUja at Sringeri, there are many times when > both the flower and its colour are visible through the crystal Shivalinga. > Sometimes only the colour appears and not the flower. > > From that it follows that the case being discussed is where the substrate, > the flower is not visible and only the redness that appears. That being the > case, it is not surprising that a prAtibhAsika redness is created here. > > Regards, > Venkatraghavan > > > On Fri, 29 Dec 2023, 07:53 Sudhanshu Shekhar, > wrote: > >> Namaste Venkat ji, >> >> (2/2) >> >> with respect to your additional point >> >> //One further point, in the Siddhi chapter in question (the first siddhi >> quote in your email), the siddhikAra says "?????????????????????????? >> ???????????????????????????????????", indicating that the siddhikAra is >> talking of a situation where the dharmI, the japAkusuma, is not observed >> (ie there is no sannikarSha with its lauhitya also), whereas the dharma, >> the sphaTika's lauhitya is observed. In such a situation, the utpatti of a >> prAtibhAsika lauhitya is admitted by the paribhAShAkAra, as shown in my >> email below, pasting here for easy reference - >> ???? ????????? ??????????????????????????????? ???? ???????????????? >> ???????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????, ?, ?????????? .// >> >> Well, whether or not there is eye-contact with red-flower, it is only the >> redness that appears within crystal. In case of pratibimba, it is never so. >> It never happens in pratibimba that only Dharma is reflected but not the >> dharmI. SiddhikAra is basically refuting that redness-of-flower is >> reflected in crystal. In that context, the statement >> dharmI-bhUta-mukha-Adi-... Is made. >> >> The statement does not indicate that siddhikAra is talking about >> situation where there is no eye-contact with red-flower. >> >> Whether red-flower is indriya-sannikrishTa or not, it is only redness >> that appears in crystal. This rules out the pratibimbatva if >> redness-of-crystal. That is what siddhikAra means. >> >> PanchapAdikA makes it quite clear: >> >> ??? ???? ??????? ?????????? ???????????....Pl check from here on in >> PanchapAdikA >> >> Regards. >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> From sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 13:12:47 2023 From: sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com (Sudhanshu Shekhar) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 23:42:47 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Venkat ji. 1. Please also share your view on PanchapAdikA reference mentioned by me. 2. In reflection of redness-of-crystal in mirror, as quoted in AS, as a proof of reflection in medium having different order of reality --- there also, you would limit the example to only those cases where red flower is not visible? Even though AS does not mention anything of that sort anywhere. AS just plainly quotes that look, the reflection of mithyA redness-of-crystal happens in vyAvahArika mirror. So, there you would add this condition that red flower is not visible? 3. Is there any place other than VP where this idea is mentioned of non-anirvachanIya-khyAti in case there is indriya-sannikarsha? ---------------- I will quote the commentary on VP by Panchanan Shastri ji:- ?????????? ??????????????????????????????? ?????????? ??????? ??????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ? ? ??????? ?????????????????????????????, ????????????????????? ???????, ??? ??? ??????????????????????? ??????? ????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????, #??????????????????????????????????, ??? #???????????????? #???????????????????? ? ??? ?????? ?????????????? --????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ????????????????????????? ??????????? ? ?????? ? ? ? #?????????? #???????????????? ????????????????????? ?????????????? ? ????? ?????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ??? ????????????????? ??????????????? ???? ? ? ???????? ???????????????????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ?????? ????????????, ??????? ???-?????- ??????? ???? ? ? ?? ???????? ??????? ??????????????? ? ??? ?????????????????? ??????? ??????????? ?????????? ????? ????????? ?????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? ? ??? ?????? ???????????????? ? ??????? ? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ? ???????????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????????" || ??? ? #????????????????????????????? ??????? #????????????? #???????????????????????? ? Regards. From agnimile at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 17:48:29 2023 From: agnimile at gmail.com (Venkatraghavan S) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 14:48:29 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Sudhanshu ji On Fri, 29 Dec 2023, 10:13 Sudhanshu Shekhar, wrote: > > 1. Please also share your view on PanchapAdikA reference mentioned by me. > In my view, the panchapAdika quote is saying that the mithyAtva of the redness of the crystal is because that redness of the crystal (?????????? ????????) is a result of the association with the crystal (?????????????), ie it is not a property that the crystal possesses intrinsically, a property belonging to the upAdhi appears in the crystal - atasmin tadbuddhih. > 2. In reflection of redness-of-crystal in mirror, as quoted in AS, as a > proof of reflection in medium having different order of reality --- there > also, you would limit the example to only those cases where red flower is > not visible? Even though AS does not mention anything of that sort > anywhere. AS just plainly quotes that look, the reflection of mithyA > redness-of-crystal happens in vyAvahArika mirror. So, there you would add > this condition that red flower is not visible? > I think I may have already said just that in my previous email. In my view, the important thing there is that a prAtibhAsika redness is reflected in the mirror, the circumstances for the rise of the prAtibhAsika redness are not addressed by the siddhikAra. The VP kAra has also said when the prAtibhAsika redness arises. > 3. Is there any place other than VP where this idea is mentioned of > non-anirvachanIya-khyAti in case there is indriya-sannikarsha? > I don't know of any others, but that does not mean they don't exist. > I will quote the commentary on VP by Panchanan Shastri ji:- > > ?????????? ??????????????????????????????? ?????????? ??????? > ??????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ? ? ??????? > ?????????????????????????????, ????????????????????? ???????, ??? ??? > ??????????????????????? ??????? ????????????????????????????????????????? > ?????????????????????, #??????????????????????????????????, ??? > #???????????????? #???????????????????? ? > It appears that Sri Panchanan Shastri ji seems to hold the view that where there is anyathAkhyAti, the adhyAsa of the object is impossible, which I do not agree with. We (advaitins) have an issue with anyathAkhyAti because we do not accept the possibility of alaukika sannikarSha, not because it negates mithyAtva or precludes adhyAsa. mithyAtva is possible so long as the object / property is absent in all three periods of time in the locus of its appearance - that is true even for the redness of the flower superimposed on the crystal, because that redness is never present in reality in the crystal, it is present in the flower. Even when the perceived redness of flower is transferred onto the crystal, that is still an adhyAsa. > ??? ?????? ?????????????? --????????????????????????? > ???????????????????????????? ????????????????????????? ??????????? ? ?????? > ? ? ? #?????????? #???????????????? ????????????????????? ?????????????? ? > ????? ?????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ??? ????????????????? ??????????????? > ???? ? ? ???????? ???????????????????? ????????? ???????? ?????????? > ???????????????? ?????????? ?????????????? ?????? ????????????, ??????? > ???-?????- ??????? ???? ? > The objection above is that if contact is made with one object its attributes must only appear there and not elsewhere. However that is the property of an upAdhi, its presence ensures the transfer of its attribute to another substance in proximity to it. That is why when an object appears in front of a mirror, it transfers its form to the mirror and it appears on the mirror as a reflection. An external observer sees the form of both the original and reflection and does not question the tenability of the form of the original appearing in the reflection. Regards, Venkatraghavan ? ?? ???????? ??????? ??????????????? ? ??? ?????????????????? ??????? ??????????? ?????????? ????? ????????? ?????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? ? ??? ?????? ???????????????? ? ??????? ? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ? ???????????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????????" || ??? ?#????????????????????????????? ??????? #????????????? #???????????????????????? ? From vikkyjagan at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 22:43:47 2023 From: vikkyjagan at gmail.com (Vikram Jagannathan) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 21:43:47 -0600 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaskaram Shri Venkatraghavan ji, First of all, my apologies for having misspelled your name a few times in the past. I agree with you on the status of origination of the redness that is perceived. When the red-flower is connected with the sense organ, the redness perceived is not anirvachaniya. But when the flower is not connected with the organ, then the redness can be called pratibhasika. However, my understanding of this passage is that this refers to the superimposed redness itself and not to the resulting superimposed entity. The resulting superimposed entity is the "red-crystal", which is different and actually non-existent in the perceived locus - transparent-crystal. In this example, with a visible red-flower, the flower, the redness and the crystal-object are all relatively real (vyavaharika). Only the "red-crystal" is pratibhasika. Thus, per my understanding, the appearance of the "red-crystal" is artha-adhyasa and the corresponding subjective experience is jnana-adhyasa. Seeking to stand corrected. with humble prostrations, Vikram On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 3:14?PM Venkatraghavan S wrote: > Namaste Vikram ji > Re "In my understanding, there is always artha-dhyasa and jnana-adhyasa in > every instance of adhyasa." > > There is a passage in the Vedanta Paribhasha which says that the creation > of a prAtibhAsika object is only admitted in certain circumstances. > > ?????????????????????? ?????? ?????????????????????????????????? ? > Where the Aropya, the superimposed object is not in contact with senses, > only there is it accepted that a prAtibhAsika object is created. > i.e where there is contact with the superimposed, we accept that there is > no anirvachanIya object created. Where it is not in contact, we accept > there is an anirvachanIya object created. > > ?? ?? ????????????????????? ???????????????????? ??????? ??????????? ? > ????????????????????????????????? ? > That is why, as there is contact with the senses in the case of the red > crystal, it is possible for the redness present in the hibiscus to appear > in the crystal, and the creation of an anirvachanIya redness in the crystal > is not accepted. > > This led me to conclude that in the case of the red crystal, ie a samsarga > adhyAsa, the adhyAsa is of a real attribute, but in a different locus - > there is a jnAna adhyAsa without a corresponding artha adhyAsa. Happy to > revisit this conclusion if evidence is presented to the contrary. > > Regards, > Venkatraghavan > >> >>> From vikkyjagan at gmail.com Sat Dec 30 01:05:16 2023 From: vikkyjagan at gmail.com (Vikram Jagannathan) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2023 00:05:16 -0600 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaskaram Shri Bhaskar ji, While there are ongoing deeper discussions, I would like to get your kind attention to your earlier response. // I reckon first we have to take a deeper look at Sri Venktaraghavan prabhuji's observation i.e. snake is not 'mental imagination' but has a locus outside rope. Because this is what exactly I was having in mind when I was talking about rope is having some problem in -rope-snake' analogy. // If I understand your position correctly, the perceived snake is purely a "mental imagination" and doesn't have any reality whatsoever (paramarthika / vyavaharika / pratibhasika) outside the mind. Thus the locus of the snake, even while being perceived as such, is the mind alone. If so, I have some detailed follow-up questions for you (and others interested in this exercise), to flush out all ambiguity, and earnestly solicit your response: Let's consider the following scenario - Part 1: Ram and Shyam are walking in Ram's house. In a dimly-lit corridor they perceive a long thin curled "object" lying on the floor, which actually is a rope. Ram cognizes it as a rope and is indifferent to it. Shyam cognizes it as a snake, becomes fearful and starts shivering. >From Ram's current perspective: Q1: What, per his understanding, is the locus of the object of his cognition - rope? Object on the floor / mind? Q2: What is the relative ontological status of the rope as the object? Sat (vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat? Q3: What is the relative ontological status of the snake as the object? Sat (vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat? >From Shyam's current perspective: Q4: What, per his understanding, is the locus of the object of his cognition - snake? Object on the floor / mind? Q5: What is the relative ontological status of the snake as the object? Sat (vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat? Q6: What is the level of reality of his experience of his body shivering from the cognition of the snake? Vyavaharika / pratibhasika? >From the rope's current perspective: Q7: Hypothetically, if the rope has cognitive awareness, does it cognize itself as possessing the nature & attributes of a rope or a snake? Rope / snake? Next, let's continue with the scenario - Part 2: Seeing Shyam fearful, Ram clarifies that "it is just a rope". On hearing these words, Shyam recognizes the object as a rope. His fear is gone but his body is still shivering >From Ram's new perspective: Q8: Has there been any change in his cognition of the object? Yes/ no? >From Shyam's new perspective: Q9: What now, per his current understanding, is the locus of the object of his current cognition - rope? Object on the floor / mind? Q10: What now, per his current understanding, is the locus of the object of his earlier cognition - snake? Object on the floor / mind? Q11: What is the relative ontological status of the rope as the object? Sat (vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat? Q12: What is the relative ontological status of the snake as the object? Sat (vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat? Q13: What now is the level of reality of his experience of his body shivering from the cognition of the snake? Vyavaharika / pratibhasika? >From the rope's new perspective: Q14: Hypothetically, if the rope has cognitive awareness, has there been any change in its cognition of its nature & attributes? Yes / no? Furthermore, Q15: When did Shyam realize that his experience was an adhyasa (error / avidya / ignorance) of "rope misunderstood as a snake"? End of part 1 or end of part 2? As an additional request, as it would help streamline deeper discussion, I would like you to please indulge in reviewing alignment of the 50 points I shared in the link -> https://archive.org/details/reflections-on-fundamentals-of-advaita with humble prostrations, Vikram From sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 22:45:43 2023 From: sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com (Sudhanshu Shekhar) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2023 09:15:43 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Venkat ji. //In my view, the panchapAdika quote is saying that the mithyAtva of the redness of the crystal is because that redness of the crystal (?????????? ????????) is a result of the association with the crystal (?????????????), ie it is not a property that the crystal possesses intrinsically, a property belonging to the upAdhi appears in the crystal - atasmin tadbuddhih// PanchapAdikA uses the drishTAnta of crystal and red flower for AtmA and ahamkAra for the appearance of Dharma of ahamkAra, kartritva, in AtmA. Just as redness, a property of red flower, appears in crystal. PanchapAdikA goes in detail just immediately afterwards and rejects both akhyati and anyath. Here VivaraNa says -- ? ??? ??????????????????????????????? ??????? ? ??? ?? ??????? ?????????????????? ??? ? (1) Whether only superimposition of Dharma of ahamkAra is done in Atman OR (2) dharmAntara is produced (mithyA kartritva) in Atman. ??????????? ???? ??????????, ??????????????? ?????? ? If we hold the first option, then the drishTAnta (of red flower) will become inapplicable and it will be anyathA-khyAti. ??????????? ????-???????????????????????? ?????? ? In case of later, (the drishTAnta will be applicable) and there will be perception of two kartritva, one Satya (belonging to ahamkAra) and other mithyA (appearing in Atman) (just as it happens in red crystal) ??????-?????????? ??????? ????????????????????????? ????????????????????????? ????????, ?????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ? Here it is said - since ahamkAra is superimposed in AtmA along with its Dharma (kartritva) and is hence mithyA, there is no occasion of anyathA-khyAti. And the drishTAnta is meant for perception of mithyA-dharmA somewhere else due to sannidhAna of other. ???? - ???????????????? ????????????????????? ????????????? ?????????? ? Or else, there are two kartritva -- but since the dharmI are one, there is perception of non-difference of both. (Here the drishTAnta applies in full force. MithyA kartritva is produced in AtmA wherein Satya kartritva is superimposed on account of swarUpa adhyAsa of ahamkAra). ================ Pl see Tattva Deepana ????????????????? - ??????? ? ?????????? ????????????????????????????? ????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????????? ? (Pl note, the drishTAnta holds the production of mithyA lauhitya). In the first option, where only superimposition of kartritva is done and no production of mithyA kartritva is considered, there is drishTAnta dArshTAntika vaishamya on this count. ?????? ?????? ??????????????????; ?????? ???????? ????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ???????????? - ???????? ? ???????? ??????- ??????????????? ? ??????- ???????????????????????????????????? ???? ??????????????????????????? ???????? ? (As per drishTAnta) ????????????????????? ???????? ??????-????? ??? ? ????????????????????????? ???????? - ???????????? ? ?????????????????????? ????????????? ?????????????????????????, ???? ?? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ? (Had there been no swarUpa adhyAsa of ahamkAra, it would have been a case of anyathA-khyAti. But here since superimposition of Dharma along with dharmI, hence no anyathA-khyAti) So would there be drishTAnta asiddhi as no mithyA kartritva is accepted to be produced? ????? ?????????????????, ???? ???? - ??????????????????????????- ?????????????- ????????????????? ? As above-- ????????????????????? ? ?????????? ??????- ?????? ? ??????????????????????? ????? ? As above ================================== It is clear from these discussions that (1) the drishTAnta accepts production of mithyA redness of crystal. (2) There is no mention of eye-contact with red flower. (3) There is non-productiom of mithyA kartritva in Atman only because ahamkAra is swarUpa adhyasta in AtmA . Had this not been so, by the very force of drishTAnta, one has to accept production of mithyA kartritva in Atman. (4) Even production of mithyA kartritva is accepted by the very force of drishTAnta. Note that no eye contact etc is even imaginable in case of ahamkAra. This whole discussion of eye-contact with red flower is a non-issue in the given discussion and everywhere else. It is accepted everywhere that redness-of-crystal is mithyA. By the force thereof, VivaraNa accepts two kartritva also. Only because there is swarUpa adhyAsa of ahamkAra, that it is not needed. Just a little before, it has been clarified by PanchapAdikA as to how redness-of-crystal cannot be redness-of-flower. =========== Regards. From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Sat Dec 30 02:58:48 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2023 13:28:48 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Fwd: Two Vedanta books in Sanskrit - New release In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Pl. see image of the books here: https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/dvb_ewhTTfs These two books, fully Sanskrit, are available in Bangalore. Pl. contact Sri K.Srinivasan 94488 10668 for all details about price, packing, etc. costs. From agnimile at gmail.com Sat Dec 30 07:22:19 2023 From: agnimile at gmail.com (Venkatraghavan S) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2023 04:22:19 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Sudhanshu ji, Thanks for the references. From your quotes, it appears that the vivaraNakAra is providing two possible options for the superimposition of ahamkAra onto the self. In the first alternative, ahamkAra is superimposed onto the self, and in the second, there is a second, mithyA ahamkAra created in the self. The opponent alleges two defects in the first alternative - there is no consonance between the example and exemplified and that this is tantamount to anyathAkhyAti. The siddhAntin responds by saying that the mind along with the ego is superimposed onto the self and therefore it is anyathAkhyAti. However, more importantly to our discussion, he goes on to say ?????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? ?????????? - where an attribute present in one locus falsely appears in another due to the proximity of the former object, and that is the limit to which the example and exemplified are linked. In the tattva deepana commentary to the vivaraNa, there is the first reference to the creation of a mithyA redness in the crystal in describing the opponent's objection. However interestingly, this sentence occurs in the commentary - ?????? ?????? ??????????????????; ?????? ???????? ????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ???????????? - ???????? - seems to say that the creation of a new mithyA attribute is the opponent's view (manmatam, as the opponent is speaking) whereas only the false association is admitted in both the example and exemplified (sarvatra AropamAtra upagamAt) by the siddhAntin's. It is difficult to be 100% certain of who represents "manmatam" and "tvanmatam" from some quotes without the context of where they occur in the overall text, but because the word anyathA occurs in the opponent's statement in the original, it appears that the commentary is explaining the thinking of the opponent - and it is the opponent who holds the creation of a new dharma, not the siddhAntin. With that as a general understanding, this is how I understand the text. 1) On the face of it, it appears the opponent holds the creation of a new mithyA redness in the crystal. The siddhAntin holds to the false appearance redness in the crystal due to the proximity of the flower (ie a transposing of the flower's redness). 2) This leads him to allege a non-consonance between the example and the exemplified, because the siddhAntin holds that a new mithyA ego is not created in the self. Hence, ???? ?????????? - the crystal where a new redness is created ( according to the opponent) cannot be an example for the self and the ego because a new ego is not created (in the first example). 3) Then , he argues from the siddhAntin's position of where no new redness is created in the crystal, but a redness from the flower is merely transferred erroneously onto the crystal. Here he alleges anyathAkhyAti. Hence, ??????????????????????? ???????????? - ????????. The response from the siddhAntin to these two charges is ?????????? ??????? ????????????????????????? ????????????????????????? ???????? - this is not anyathAkhyAti where superimposition is not admitted. There is a superimposition of the mind along with its attribute, hence it is mithyA and not anyathAkhyAti, which alleges that an attribute elsewhere appears somewhere else because of alaukika sannikarSha. As Chandramouli ji says in the other email, even where there is no new redness created in the crystal, there is anirvachanIya khyAti to the sambandha of the redness and the crystal - the sambandha is not asat, because the crystal appears red. It is not sat, because the sambandha is sublated when the flower is removed. The appearance is sadasat vilakshaNam. The consonance between the example and exemplified is limited to ?????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? ?????????? (sic) - the false appearance of an attribute in an object due to the proximity of another object is the extent to which there is consonance between the example and exemplified. In the case of the ego, mind and the self, there is a svarUpa adhyAsa between the mind and the self which leads to the appearance of the ego that belongs to the mind to appear in the self. In the case of the crystal, there is a samsargAdhyAsa leading to the false appearance of the redness of the flower onto the crystal, without there being a tAdAtmyAdhyAsa between the crystal and the flower. So in general, the example and the exemplified are different because there are two different adhyAsa-s taking place. However, the vivaraNakAra says that the utility of the example is limited to saying that an attribute of one object falsely appears elsewhere, and to that extent the example applies. In my view, that is not in contradiction with the VP. Now, this response is entirely based on the passages quoted by you. I may have misunderstood the intent of the authors, but without knowing the context of where exactly in the book this appears, it is difficult to do much more than that at this stage. If you want me to review further, please provide page numbers / editions of the books where these passages occur. I would be happy to review them in detail and get back to you. Kind regards, Venkatraghavan On Fri, 29 Dec 2023, 19:45 Sudhanshu Shekhar, wrote: > Namaste Venkat ji. > > //In my view, the panchapAdika quote is saying that the mithyAtva of the > redness of the crystal is because that redness of the crystal (?????????? > ????????) is a result of the association with the crystal (?????????????), > ie it is not a property that the crystal possesses intrinsically, a > property belonging to the upAdhi appears in the crystal - atasmin > tadbuddhih// > > PanchapAdikA uses the drishTAnta of crystal and red flower for AtmA and > ahamkAra for the appearance of Dharma of ahamkAra, kartritva, in AtmA. Just > as redness, a property of red flower, appears in crystal. PanchapAdikA goes > in detail just immediately afterwards and rejects both akhyati and anyath. > > Here VivaraNa says -- ? > ??? ??????????????????????????????? ??????? ? ??? ?? ??????? > ?????????????????? ??? ? > (1) Whether only superimposition of Dharma of ahamkAra is done in Atman OR > (2) dharmAntara is produced (mithyA kartritva) in Atman. > > ??????????? ???? ??????????, ??????????????? ?????? ? > > If we hold the first option, then the drishTAnta (of red flower) will > become inapplicable and it will be anyathA-khyAti. > > ??????????? ????-???????????????????????? ?????? ? > > In case of later, (the drishTAnta will be applicable) and there will be > perception of two kartritva, one Satya (belonging to ahamkAra) and other > mithyA (appearing in Atman) (just as it happens in red crystal) > > ??????-?????????? ??????? ????????????????????????? > ????????????????????????? ????????, ?????????????????????????????????????? > ?????????? ?????????? ? > > Here it is said - since ahamkAra is superimposed in AtmA along with its > Dharma (kartritva) and is hence mithyA, there is no occasion of > anyathA-khyAti. And the drishTAnta is meant for perception of mithyA-dharmA > somewhere else due to sannidhAna of other. > > > ???? - ???????????????? ????????????????????? ????????????? ?????????? ? > > Or else, there are two kartritva -- but since the dharmI are one, there is > perception of non-difference of both. (Here the drishTAnta applies in full > force. MithyA kartritva is produced in AtmA wherein Satya kartritva is > superimposed on account of swarUpa adhyAsa of ahamkAra). > > ================ > > Pl see Tattva Deepana > > ????????????????? - ??????? ? > > ?????????? ????????????????????????????? ????????? > ??????????????????????? ??????????????? ? (Pl note, the drishTAnta holds > the production of mithyA lauhitya). In the first option, where only > superimposition of kartritva is done and no production of mithyA kartritva > is considered, there is drishTAnta dArshTAntika vaishamya on this count. > > ?????? ?????? ??????????????????; ?????? ???????? > ????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ???????????? - ???????? ? > > ???????? ??????- ??????????????? ? ??????- > ???????????????????????????????????? ???? ??????????????????????????? > ???????? ? (As per drishTAnta) > > ????????????????????? ???????? ??????-????? ??? ? > ????????????????????????? ???????? - ???????????? ? ?????????????????????? > ????????????? ?????????????????????????, ???? ?? > ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ? (Had there been > no swarUpa adhyAsa of ahamkAra, it would have been a case of > anyathA-khyAti. But here since superimposition of Dharma along with dharmI, > hence no anyathA-khyAti) > > So would there be drishTAnta asiddhi as no mithyA kartritva is accepted to > be produced? > > ????? ?????????????????, > > ???? ???? - ??????????????????????????- ?????????????- ????????????????? ? > As above-- > > ????????????????????? ? ?????????? ??????- ?????? ? > ??????????????????????? ????? ? > As above > ================================== > > It is clear from these discussions that > > (1) the drishTAnta accepts production of mithyA redness of crystal. > > (2) There is no mention of eye-contact with red flower. > > (3) There is non-productiom of mithyA kartritva in Atman only because > ahamkAra is swarUpa adhyasta in AtmA . Had this not been so, by the very > force of drishTAnta, one has to accept production of mithyA kartritva in > Atman. > > (4) Even production of mithyA kartritva is accepted by the very force of > drishTAnta. Note that no eye contact etc is even imaginable in case of > ahamkAra. > > This whole discussion of eye-contact with red flower is a non-issue in the > given discussion and everywhere else. It is accepted everywhere that > redness-of-crystal is mithyA. By the force thereof, VivaraNa accepts two > kartritva also. Only because there is swarUpa adhyAsa of ahamkAra, that it > is not needed. > > Just a little before, it has been clarified by PanchapAdikA as to how > redness-of-crystal cannot be redness-of-flower. > > =========== > > Regards. > > > From agnimile at gmail.com Sat Dec 30 07:33:39 2023 From: agnimile at gmail.com (Venkatraghavan S) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2023 04:33:39 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry pls read the below sentence: "The siddhAntin responds by saying that the mind along with the ego is superimposed onto the self and therefore it is anyathAkhyAti." as "The siddhAntin responds by saying that the mind along with the ego is superimposed onto the self and therefore it is *not* anyathAkhyAti." On Sat, 30 Dec 2023, 04:22 Venkatraghavan S, wrote: > > The siddhAntin responds by saying that the mind along with the ego is > superimposed onto the self and therefore it is anyathAkhyAti. > > >> From raghavkumar00 at gmail.com Sat Dec 30 08:42:01 2023 From: raghavkumar00 at gmail.com (Raghav Kumar Dwivedula) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2023 19:12:01 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Pratyabhijna and avidyA vRttis of suShupti Message-ID: Namaste The experience of deep sleep of "I slept happily and did not know anything" is explained by Sri MS as being experience of three 'avidyA vRttis' and not antaHkaraNa vRtti, since the antaHkaraNam is in a bIja avasthA. I had a doubt about how if these vRttis are not somehow registered by sUxma antaHkaraNa vRttis, how is their experience recollected on waking? Can we say antaHkaraNa is also rudimentarily active in sleep for it to register the experience of these *avidyA vRttis*. Because the sAxI merely illuminates the vRttis but cannot carry impressions and "record" what is experienced - a function usually assigned to antaHkaraNa. A similar situation exists in rope-snake example, with the absence of indriya sannikarsha of snake, necessitating the postulate of the avidyA-created snake (arthAdhyAsa) and it's corresponding experience through the avidyA vRtti of that snake (jnAnAdhyAsa). Here too, I presume the antaHkaraNam (since it's active in waking) immediately registers these avidyA vRttis and so we can recollect having seen the snake even the next day. Can we thus assume some mechanism whereby the antaHkaraNa too registers/records the avidyA vRttis seamlessly? Om From sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com Sat Dec 30 08:32:13 2023 From: sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com (Sudhanshu Shekhar) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2023 19:02:13 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Venkat ji. Thanks for the detailed answer. I follow the PanchapAdikA with commentaries edition of Dakshinamurthy Math which is edited by A Subramanya Shastri ji. Page no is 178. You may also like to hear the lecture thereupon by Swami Haribrahmendrananda Tirth ji here. https://www.youtube.com/live/F9rOnl0Demk?si=eRHDCul7jZClQvOg (From 35 minutes onwards spanning to next lecture also) I asked the question to Lalitalalitah ji also. His answer was -- ??????????? ??? ??????????? > From your quotes, it appears that the vivaraNakAra is providing two > possible options for the superimposition of ahamkAra onto the self. In the > first alternative, ahamkAra is superimposed onto the self, and in the > second, there is a second, mithyA ahamkAra created in the self. > Actually, to me it appears, the two scenarios are : 1. There is only superimposition of ahamkAra-dharma (kartritva) 2. MithyA kartritva gets produced. So, the discussion is about ahamkAra-dharma and not about ahamkAra as such. {AhamkAra is like red-flower and kartritva which is ahamkAra-dharma is like redness-of-flower. However, what we see is redness-of-crystal. The discussion is -- whether this kartritva is produced at the site of Atman (crystal) or does it belong to Atman and merely superimposition is done. > The siddhAntin responds by saying that the mind along with the ego is > superimposed onto the self and therefore it is anyathAkhyAti. > I think it says -- ahamkAra along with its Dharma (kartritva) is superimposed in Atman and hence there is NO anyathA-khyAti. > However, more importantly to our discussion, he goes on to say > ?????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? ?????????? - where an > attribute present in one locus falsely appears in another due to the > proximity of the former object, and that is the limit to which the example > and exemplified are linked. > This is true Venkat ji. But what is the mechanics of avabhAsa of mithyA-dharmA at the site of anyasmin? drishTAnta says -- due to proximity of A, there is perception of mithyA-dharmA in B. The text just before that explained in detail (pl check from the reference) that mithyA-dharmA is created. In case of swarUpa-adhyAsa, that is not needed. That is where option 1 stops. > In the tattva deepana commentary to the vivaraNa, there is the first > reference to the creation of a mithyA redness in the crystal in describing > the opponent's objection. > > However interestingly, this sentence occurs in the commentary - ?????? > ?????? ??????????????????; ?????? ???????? ????????????????????????? > ??????????????????????? ???????????? - ???????? - seems to say that the > creation of a new mithyA attribute is the opponent's view (manmatam, as the > opponent is speaking) whereas only the false association is admitted in > both the example and exemplified (sarvatra AropamAtra upagamAt) by the > siddhAntin's. > > It is difficult to be 100% certain of who represents "manmatam" and > "tvanmatam" from some quotes without the context of where they occur in the > overall text, but because the word anyathA occurs in the opponent's > statement in the original, it appears that the commentary is explaining the > thinking of the opponent - and it is the opponent who holds the creation of > a new dharma, not the siddhAntin. > Pl go through the lecture once at your leisure and share your views. > With that as a general understanding, this is how I understand the text. > > 1) On the face of it, it appears the opponent holds the creation of a new > mithyA redness in the crystal. The siddhAntin holds to the false appearance > redness in the crystal due to the proximity of the flower (ie a transposing > of the flower's redness). > Just before that the text has already explained that mithyA lauhitya is created. That is the position of siddhAntI. > 2) This leads him to allege a non-consonance between the example and the > exemplified, because the siddhAntin holds that a new mithyA ego is not > created in the self. Hence, ???? ?????????? - the crystal where a new > redness is created ( according to the opponent) cannot be an example for > the self and the ego because a new ego is not created (in the first > example). > Non-consonance in so far as non-creatiom of mithyA kartritva is concerned is admitted by both. However, there is no vaishamya with analogy was explained on account of swarUpa adhyAsa. See, PanchapAdikA had demonstrated that mithyA redness gets produced. > 3) Then , he argues from the siddhAntin's position of where no new redness > is created in the crystal, but a redness from the flower is merely > transferred erroneously onto the crystal. Here he alleges anyathAkhyAti. > Hence, ??????????????????????? ???????????? - ????????. > > The response from the siddhAntin to these two charges is ?????????? > ??????? ????????????????????????? ????????????????????????? ???????? - this > is not anyathAkhyAti where superimposition is not admitted. There is a > superimposition of the mind along with its attribute, hence it is mithyA > and not anyathAkhyAti, which alleges that an attribute elsewhere appears > somewhere else because of alaukika sannikarSha. > > As Chandramouli ji says in the other email, even where there is no new > redness created in the crystal, there is anirvachanIya khyAti to the > sambandha of the redness and the crystal - the sambandha is not asat, > because the crystal appears red. It is not sat, because the sambandha is > sublated when the flower is removed. The appearance is sadasat vilakshaNam. > > The consonance between the example and exemplified is limited to > ?????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? ?????????? (sic) - the > false appearance of an attribute in an object due to the proximity of > another object is the extent to which there is consonance between the > example and exemplified. > > In the case of the ego, mind and the self, there is a svarUpa adhyAsa > between the mind and the self which leads to the appearance of the ego that > belongs to the mind to appear in the self. In the case of the crystal, > there is a samsargAdhyAsa leading to the false appearance of the redness of > the flower onto the crystal, without there being a tAdAtmyAdhyAsa between > the crystal and the flower. > > So in general, the example and the exemplified are different because there > are two different adhyAsa-s taking place. However, the vivaraNakAra says > that the utility of the example is limited to saying that an attribute of > one object falsely appears elsewhere, and to that extent the example > applies. > > In my view, that is not in contradiction with the VP. > > Now, this response is entirely based on the passages quoted by you. I may > have misunderstood the intent of the authors, but without knowing the > context of where exactly in the book this appears, it is difficult to do > much more than that at this stage. > > If you want me to review further, please provide page numbers / editions > of the books where these passages occur. I would be happy to review them in > detail and get back to you. > > Kind regards, > Venkatraghavan > I will go through it carefully and get back. While PanchapAdikA appears to me to clearly state that mithyA redness-of-crystal is created, there is another view that mithyA sambandha-of-redness-of-flower is created. In the SAra Sangraha TIkA of Samkshepa ShArIraka 1.32, MS says that mithyA idam is not created in shell silver illusion. Rather anirvachanIya idantA-samsarg is created. He quotes Chitsukhacharya there. I seek greater clarity on this issue. The flow of VP itself appeared problematic to me. This instant discussion arose in VP while he was defending the vyadhikaraNa-dharma-avachchinna-pratiyogitA-nirUpita-abhAva of silver which is clearly contradicted in great detail in AS. Regards. From hschandramouli at gmail.com Sat Dec 30 03:02:26 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2023 13:32:26 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Venkat Ji, I am not sure if the following has already been pointed out and discussed in the thread. If yes, my apologies for the repetition. In case of redness in the crystal, what is anirvachanIya, and hence mithyA, is the ??????? (sambandha) (relationship) between the redness and the crystal. AnirvachanIyatva is in respect of the *in*ness in **redness *in* the crystal**. The ??????? (sambandha) (relationship), redness is **inside** the crystal, is anirvchanIya. That is the distinction between anyathAkhyAti and the advaitic view in this case. Redness per se is akin to anyathAkhyAthi, but it does not stop with that in the advaitic view. There is an element of anirvachanIyatva also. Regards On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 11:49?PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Dec 2023, 09:34 Venkatraghavan S, wrote: > > > Namaste Sudhanshu ji, > > > > I would differ from your view - as I have said, the force of the > > siddhikAra's rebuttal is in establishing this is not a reflection, but a > > superimposition. > > Therefore, he draws a distinction between the reflection where both the > > substrate and the attribute are reflected as a rule. > > > > Here he says that this is not a reflection because the substrate is not > > reflected in the crystal, only its redness is. It is not a rule that only > > the redness should appear (in the crystal) and not the flower - if one > > observes the Chandramoulishvara pUja at Sringeri, there are many times > when > > both the flower and its colour are visible through the crystal > Shivalinga. > > Sometimes only the colour appears and not the flower. > > > > From that it follows that the case being discussed is where the > substrate, > > the flower is not visible and only the redness that appears. That being > the > > case, it is not surprising that a prAtibhAsika redness is created here. > > > > Regards, > > Venkatraghavan > > > > > > On Fri, 29 Dec 2023, 07:53 Sudhanshu Shekhar, > > wrote: > > > >> Namaste Venkat ji, > >> > >> (2/2) > >> > >> with respect to your additional point > >> > >> //One further point, in the Siddhi chapter in question (the first siddhi > >> quote in your email), the siddhikAra says "?????????????????????????? > >> ???????????????????????????????????", indicating that the siddhikAra is > >> talking of a situation where the dharmI, the japAkusuma, is not observed > >> (ie there is no sannikarSha with its lauhitya also), whereas the dharma, > >> the sphaTika's lauhitya is observed. In such a situation, the utpatti > of a > >> prAtibhAsika lauhitya is admitted by the paribhAShAkAra, as shown in my > >> email below, pasting here for easy reference - > >> ???? ????????? ??????????????????????????????? ???? ???????????????? > >> ???????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????, ?, ?????????? .// > >> > >> Well, whether or not there is eye-contact with red-flower, it is only > the > >> redness that appears within crystal. In case of pratibimba, it is never > so. > >> It never happens in pratibimba that only Dharma is reflected but not the > >> dharmI. SiddhikAra is basically refuting that redness-of-flower is > >> reflected in crystal. In that context, the statement > >> dharmI-bhUta-mukha-Adi-... Is made. > >> > >> The statement does not indicate that siddhikAra is talking about > >> situation where there is no eye-contact with red-flower. > >> > >> Whether red-flower is indriya-sannikrishTa or not, it is only redness > >> that appears in crystal. This rules out the pratibimbatva if > >> redness-of-crystal. That is what siddhikAra means. > >> > >> PanchapAdikA makes it quite clear: > >> > >> ??? ???? ??????? ?????????? ???????????....Pl check from here on in > >> PanchapAdikA > >> > >> Regards. > >> > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Sat Dec 30 03:33:46 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2023 14:03:46 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] About jnanadhyasa and arthadhyasa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 11:41?AM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin < advaitin at googlegroups.com> wrote: > praNAms > > Hare Krishna > > > > True. The idea that the snake is out there is in the mind alone and more > importantly, the correction that - there is no snake but the rope alone is > - also has to happen in the mind alone. The locus of the error is the mind > and the correction has to happen there alone. > > > > - Yes that is as simple as that, even at the bhrAnti time we don?t say > snake which we ?are? seeing is anirvachaneeya and after realizing the > ?rope? knowledge also we don?t say we ?were? seeing some anirvachaneeya > snake but OTOH we conclude that we were seeing snake due to our mistake of > rope or absence of rope knowledge. Atasmin tadbuddhiH lakshaNa vAkya of > adhyAsa too saying the same thing i.e. jnAnAdhyAsa but I don?t know how > theories like anivachaneeya khyAti vAda, arthAdhyAsa, akhyAti vAdi, khyAti > vAda etc. intruded in shankara?s adhyAsa bhAshya. adhyAsa is not pramANa > siddha but anubhava siddha that is the reason why bhAshyakAra has not given > any pramANa vAkya to establish adhyAsa if the adhyAsa is pramANeekruta > prama only then it is not bhrama it is something really existing and that > which really existing cannot be eradicated by amount of jnana. > > Dear Bhaskar, After hearing about the 'arthaadhyasa' not having hinted or stated by Bhagavatpada, I recalled these two passages from the Bhashya which, in my opinion, is about arthAdyAsa. The idea is: in atasmin tad buddhi definition of adhyasa, we have the jnanadhyasa articulated well. In the following passages, the bhashya says that 'what is not there really, is appearing to be there'. This expression, I think, is about 'some *thing*' (artha = object) that appears real to an uninformed person, but upon exposure to the bhashya, will be realized as not really existing: What appears does not exist - Shankara observes in the Gita Bhashya In the Bhagavadgita Bhashya, in two places, we come across this pithy observation by Bhagavatpada: That which appears does not really exist'. The actual passages are given below. At the end of the commentary for 2.16, Shankara summarizes the Vedantic teaching of Bhagavan to Arjuna: You too, just as the Jnanis, look upon the transformations, the dualities such as cold and heat, as mere appearances analogous to the mirage water'. In the commentary to 13.26, he makes a similar observation: The kshetram, world, like the elephant conjured up by a magician, an object seen in a dream, a phantom city, etc, are actually non-existent but appear as though they exist. The one with such a conviction, owing to his direct vision of the Truth, transcends delusion. 1. BGB 2.16 ?????? ?????????????? ??????????????? ???? ???? ? ?????? ???????????? ??????????????? ??????????? *???????????????? ???????????????????????* ??? ???? ????????? ?????????? ???????????? ? ?? ? For him to say 'the transformations are mithya', the basis is the Chandogya 6th ch. passage: ?????????? ?????? ??????? ????????????? ?????? the transformations (such as pot, saucer..) are mere names while the substance in them, clay, alone is real. 2. BGB 13.26 ????????????????????? ?????? ?????????????? ?? ??????, ???????? ? ???????????????????????????????????????????????? *?* *????? ???? ???????**?* ??? ??? ??????????????? ??, ???? ????????????????????????? ???????? ????????????? ? regards subbu > > - > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > bhaskar > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "advaitin" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB659244A57C92444D67BFB969849CA%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com > > . > From rajakrishnamurti at yahoo.com Sat Dec 30 12:17:33 2023 From: rajakrishnamurti at yahoo.com (rajakrishnamurti at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2023 17:17:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Advaita-l] =?utf-8?q?***UNCHECKED***_Re=3A__Re=3A_=5Badvaitin?= =?utf-8?q?=5D_rope_has_some_problem=09in_rope_snake_analogy_=3A-=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2085506284.3773108.1703956653850@mail.yahoo.com> Hari Om, Vrnkatarahavanji, I am responding to your conversation about the redness and flower appearing through the crystal in Chandramouleeswara Puja in Sringeri. While it is vyaavahaarically correct, while looking from Paramaarthic vision, neither the redness nor the flower seen through the crystal are SAT. What we see through the mind or sense organs is what is termed chitaabhaasa or reflection of the REAL, but is not ASAT; the reason being ASAT never existed or exist or going to exist, but we see with our mind and organs, the Chitaabaasa,; to see through this, one has to go beyond Maayaa, the infinite power of the Lord. With Om and Prem, Raja Krishnamurti On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 12:21:03 PM PST, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l wrote: On Fri, 29 Dec 2023, 09:34 Venkatraghavan S, wrote: > Namaste Sudhanshu ji, > > I would differ from your view - as I have said, the force of the > siddhikAra's rebuttal is in establishing this is not a reflection, but a > superimposition. > Therefore, he draws a distinction between the reflection where both the > substrate and the attribute are reflected as a rule. > > Here he says that this is not a reflection because the substrate is not > reflected in the crystal, only its redness is. It is not a rule that only > the redness should appear (in the crystal) and not the flower - if one > observes the Chandramoulishvara pUja at Sringeri, there are many times when > both the flower and its colour are visible through the crystal Shivalinga. > Sometimes only the colour appears and not the flower. > > From that it follows that the case being discussed is where the substrate, > the flower is not visible and only the redness that appears. That being the > case, it is not surprising that a prAtibhAsika redness is created here. > > Regards, > Venkatraghavan > > > On Fri, 29 Dec 2023, 07:53 Sudhanshu Shekhar, > wrote: > >> Namaste Venkat ji, >> >> (2/2) >> >> with respect to your additional point >> >> //One further point, in the Siddhi chapter in question (the first siddhi >> quote in your email), the siddhikAra says "?????????????????????????? >> ???????????????????????????????????", indicating that the siddhikAra is >> talking of a situation where the dharmI, the japAkusuma, is not observed >> (ie there is no sannikarSha with its lauhitya also), whereas the dharma, >> the sphaTika's lauhitya is observed. In such a situation, the utpatti of a >> prAtibhAsika lauhitya is admitted by the paribhAShAkAra, as shown in my >> email below, pasting here for easy reference - >> ???? ????????? ??????????????????????????????? ???? ???????????????? >> ???????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????, ?,? ?????????? .// >> >> Well, whether or not there is eye-contact with red-flower, it is only the >> redness that appears within crystal. In case of pratibimba, it is never so. >> It never happens in pratibimba that only Dharma is reflected but not the >> dharmI. SiddhikAra is basically refuting that redness-of-flower is >> reflected in crystal. In that context, the statement >> dharmI-bhUta-mukha-Adi-... Is made. >> >> The statement does not indicate that siddhikAra is talking about >> situation where there is no eye-contact with red-flower. >> >> Whether red-flower is indriya-sannikrishTa or not, it is only redness >> that appears in crystal. This rules out the pratibimbatva if >> redness-of-crystal. That is what siddhikAra means. >> >> PanchapAdikA makes it quite clear: >> >> ??? ???? ??????? ?????????? ???????????....Pl check from here on in >> PanchapAdikA >> >> Regards. >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ To unsubscribe or change your options: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From hschandramouli at gmail.com Sun Dec 31 04:47:26 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 15:17:26 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Pratyabhijna and avidyA vRttis of suShupti In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste. Reg // Because the sAxI merely illuminates the vRttis but cannot carry impressions and "record" what is experienced - a function usually assigned to antaHkaraNa //, Illumination by sAkshi leads to registering the contents of the vritti, whether avidyA vritti or antahkaraNa vritti, either in antahkaraNa if it is active or in avidyA itself if antahkaraNa is in bIja avasthA. However, since avidyA is the kAraNAvastha for the antahkaraNa, whatever contents of the vritti were registered in avidyA during the bIja avasthA of the antahkaraNa is available for the antahkaraNa when it becomes active again. Regards On Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 10:42?AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaste > The experience of deep sleep of "I slept happily and did not know anything" > is explained by Sri MS as being experience of three 'avidyA vRttis' and not > antaHkaraNa vRtti, since the antaHkaraNam is in a bIja avasthA. > > > I had a doubt about how if these vRttis are not somehow registered by sUxma > antaHkaraNa vRttis, how is their experience recollected on waking? Can we > say antaHkaraNa is also rudimentarily active in sleep for it to register > the experience of these *avidyA vRttis*. Because the sAxI merely > illuminates the vRttis but cannot carry impressions and "record" what is > experienced - a function usually assigned to antaHkaraNa. > > A similar situation exists in rope-snake example, with the absence of > indriya sannikarsha of snake, necessitating the postulate of the > avidyA-created snake (arthAdhyAsa) and it's corresponding experience > through the avidyA vRtti of that snake (jnAnAdhyAsa). > > Here too, I presume the antaHkaraNam (since it's active in waking) > immediately registers these avidyA vRttis and so we can recollect having > seen the snake even the next day. > > Can we thus assume some mechanism whereby the antaHkaraNa too > registers/records the avidyA vRttis seamlessly? > > > Om > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From raghavkumar00 at gmail.com Sun Dec 31 05:18:53 2023 From: raghavkumar00 at gmail.com (Raghav Kumar Dwivedula) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 15:48:53 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Pratyabhijna and avidyA vRttis of suShupti In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Namaste Chandramouli ji However, > since avidyA is the kAraNAvastha for the antahkaraNa, whatever contents of > the vritti were registered in avidyA during the bIja avasthA of the > antahkaraNa is available for the antahkaraNa when it becomes active again. > Thank you for the response. Yes that's logical and remarkable. Is there any reference along these lines? > > From raghavkumar00 at gmail.com Sun Dec 31 05:54:45 2023 From: raghavkumar00 at gmail.com (Raghav Kumar Dwivedula) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 16:24:45 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] About jnanadhyasa and arthadhyasa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Subbu ji You said that the buddhi idea in atasmin tadbuddhi is indicative of jnAnAdhyAsa, can we say similarly that the other definition viz., paratra pUrvadRShta avabhAsaH as pointing to the dRShTa avabhAsaH or an apparent *object* seen, i.e., arthAdhyAsa? I remember such an idea being mentioned but kindly correct if mistaken. On Sun, 31 Dec, 2023, 10:42 am V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l, < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 11:41?AM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin < > advaitin at googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > praNAms > > > > Hare Krishna > > > > > > > > True. The idea that the snake is out there is in the mind alone and more > > importantly, the correction that - there is no snake but the rope alone > is > > - also has to happen in the mind alone. The locus of the error is the > mind > > and the correction has to happen there alone. > > > > > > > > - Yes that is as simple as that, even at the bhrAnti time we don?t say > > snake which we ?are? seeing is anirvachaneeya and after realizing the > > ?rope? knowledge also we don?t say we ?were? seeing some > anirvachaneeya > > snake but OTOH we conclude that we were seeing snake due to our > mistake of > > rope or absence of rope knowledge. Atasmin tadbuddhiH lakshaNa vAkya > of > > adhyAsa too saying the same thing i.e. jnAnAdhyAsa but I don?t know > how > > theories like anivachaneeya khyAti vAda, arthAdhyAsa, akhyAti vAdi, > khyAti > > vAda etc. intruded in shankara?s adhyAsa bhAshya. adhyAsa is not > pramANa > > siddha but anubhava siddha that is the reason why bhAshyakAra has not > given > > any pramANa vAkya to establish adhyAsa if the adhyAsa is pramANeekruta > > prama only then it is not bhrama it is something really existing and > that > > which really existing cannot be eradicated by amount of jnana. > > > > > > Dear Bhaskar, > > After hearing about the 'arthaadhyasa' not having hinted or stated by > Bhagavatpada, I recalled these two passages from the Bhashya which, in my > opinion, is about arthAdyAsa. The idea is: in atasmin tad buddhi > definition of adhyasa, we have the jnanadhyasa articulated well. In the > following passages, the bhashya says that 'what is not there really, is > appearing to be there'. This expression, I think, is about 'some *thing*' > (artha = object) that appears real to an uninformed person, but upon > exposure to the bhashya, will be realized as not really existing: > > What appears does not exist - Shankara observes in the Gita Bhashya > > In the Bhagavadgita Bhashya, in two places, we come across this pithy > observation by Bhagavatpada: That which appears does not really exist'. > The actual passages are given below. > > At the end of the commentary for 2.16, Shankara summarizes the Vedantic > teaching of Bhagavan to Arjuna: You too, just as the Jnanis, look upon the > transformations, the dualities such as cold and heat, as mere appearances > analogous to the mirage water'. > > In the commentary to 13.26, he makes a similar observation: The kshetram, > world, like the elephant conjured up by a magician, an object seen in a > dream, a phantom city, etc, are actually non-existent but appear as though > they exist. The one with such a conviction, owing to his direct vision of > the Truth, transcends delusion. > > 1. BGB 2.16 ?????? ?????????????? ??????????????? ???? ???? ? ?????? > ???????????? ??????????????? ??????????? > *???????????????? ???????????????????????* ??? ???? ????????? ?????????? > ???????????? ? ?? ? > For him to say 'the transformations are mithya', the basis is the Chandogya > 6th ch. passage: ?????????? ?????? ??????? ????????????? ?????? the > transformations (such as pot, saucer..) are mere names while the substance > in them, clay, alone is real. > > 2. BGB 13.26 ????????????????????? ?????? ?????????????? ?? ??????, > ???????? ? ???????????????????????????????????????????????? *?* > *????? ???? ???????**?* ??? ??? ??????????????? ??, ???? > ????????????????????????? ???????? ????????????? ? > > regards > subbu > > > > > > > - > > > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > > > bhaskar > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "advaitin" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB659244A57C92444D67BFB969849CA%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com > > < > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB659244A57C92444D67BFB969849CA%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer > > > > . > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From hschandramouli at gmail.com Sun Dec 31 08:56:35 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 19:26:35 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Pratyabhijna and avidyA vRttis of suShupti In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Raghav Ji, I need to search for the references. But offhand I could recollect the following which you might refer and see if they are satisfactory. Panchapadika vivaranam english translation by Sri PS Shastri, PDF page 216 onwards Book page 198 onwards. Vivarana Prameya Samgraha english translation by Prof Suryanarayana Shastri PDF page 131 Book Page 123 onwards If I come across any other references, I will get back to you. I do remember Vichara Sagara also reflects the same. Regards On Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 3:49?PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > > Namaste Chandramouli ji > > However, > > since avidyA is the kAraNAvastha for the antahkaraNa, whatever contents > of > > the vritti were registered in avidyA during the bIja avasthA of the > > antahkaraNa is available for the antahkaraNa when it becomes active > again. > > > > Thank you for the response. Yes that's logical and remarkable. Is there any > reference along these lines? > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From raghavkumar00 at gmail.com Sun Dec 31 09:20:50 2023 From: raghavkumar00 at gmail.com (Raghav Kumar Dwivedula) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 19:50:50 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Pratyabhijna and avidyA vRttis of suShupti In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you for the detailed references. I shall look them up. Om On Sun, 31 Dec, 2023, 7:27 pm H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l, < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaste Raghav Ji, > > I need to search for the references. But offhand I could recollect the > following which you might refer and see if they are satisfactory. > > Panchapadika vivaranam english translation by Sri PS Shastri, PDF page 216 > onwards Book page 198 onwards. > > Vivarana Prameya Samgraha english translation by Prof Suryanarayana Shastri > PDF page 131 Book Page 123 onwards > > If I come across any other references, I will get back to you. I do > remember Vichara Sagara also reflects the same. > > Regards > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 3:49?PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Namaste Chandramouli ji > > > > However, > > > since avidyA is the kAraNAvastha for the antahkaraNa, whatever contents > > of > > > the vritti were registered in avidyA during the bIja avasthA of the > > > antahkaraNa is available for the antahkaraNa when it becomes active > > again. > > > > > > > Thank you for the response. Yes that's logical and remarkable. Is there > any > > reference along these lines? > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > > > For assistance, contact: > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From hschandramouli at gmail.com Sun Dec 31 11:07:34 2023 From: hschandramouli at gmail.com (H S Chandramouli) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 21:37:34 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Pratyabhijna and avidyA vRttis of suShupti In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Namaste Raghav Ji, I have copied below from Sidhanta Bindu - translation by Sri SN Shastri, PDF page 58 // When the jiva is tired after experiencing objects in the two states of waking and dream, and when the karma (fruits of past actions) which is the cause of these two states is exhausted, the inner organ which is characterized by the power to know and has vasanas in it goes into its causal state (i.e. it takes the form of nescience which is the causal body). This is the state of deep sleep which is the place of rest. Deep sleep is the state in which there is awareness of the cause (ignorance) alone, as indicated by the recollection (on waking up) in the form ?I knew nothing at all?. In that state, even though there is no knowledge of the objects of experience of the waking and dream states, three modifications of nescience, namely, the witness, happiness, and modal ignorance pertaining to that state are accepted as present. Note. In the deep sleep state the mind is dormant. On waking up one has the recollection that he knew nothing. Recollection is possible only of what has been previously experienced. It follows therefore that ignorance was experienced during sleep. In the waking state any experience or knowledge is possible only through a vritti or modification of the mind. In deep sleep no vritti of the mind is possible because the mind is dormant. So it is concluded that there is a vritti of avidya which is the causal state of the mind, through which the ignorance was known during deep sleepWhen the jiva is tired after experiencing objects in the two states of waking and dream, and when the karma (fruits of past actions) which is the cause of these two states is exhausted, the inner organ which is characterized by the power to know and has vasanas in it goes into its causal state (i.e. it takes the form of nescience which is the causal body). This is the state of deep sleep which is the place of rest. Deep sleep is the state in which there is awareness of the cause (ignorance) alone, as indicated by the recollection (on waking up) in the form ?I knew nothing at all?. In that state, even though there is no knowledge of the objects of experience of the waking and dream states, three modifications of nescience, namely, the witness, happiness, and modal ignorance pertaining to that state are accepted as present. Note. In the deep sleep state the mind is dormant. On waking up one has the recollection that he knew nothing. Recollection is possible only of what has been previously experienced. It follows therefore that ignorance was experienced during sleep. In the waking state any experience or knowledge is possible only through a vritti or modification of the mind. In deep sleep no vritti of the mind is possible because the mind is dormant. So it is concluded that there is a vritti of avidya which is the causal state of the mind, through which the ignorance was known during deep sleep When the jiva is tired after experiencing objects in the two states of waking and dream, and when the karma (fruits of past actions) which is the cause of these two states is exhausted, the inner organ which is characterized by the power to know and has vasanas in it goes into its causal state (i.e. it takes the form of nescience which is the causal body). This is the state of deep sleep which is the place of rest. Deep sleep is the state in which there is awareness of the cause (ignorance) alone, as indicated by the recollection (on waking up) in the form ?I knew nothing at all?. In that state, even though there is no knowledge of the objects of experience of the waking and dream states, three modifications of nescience, namely, the witness, happiness, and modal ignorance pertaining to that state are accepted as present. Note. In the deep sleep state the mind is dormant. On waking up one has the recollection that he knew nothing. Recollection is possible only of what has been previously experienced. It follows therefore that ignorance was experienced during sleep. In the waking state any experience or knowledge is possible only through a vritti or modification of the mind. In deep sleep no vritti of the mind is possible because the mind is dormant. So it is concluded that there is a vritti of avidya which is the causal state of the mind, through which the ignorance was known during deep sleep //. Regards On Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 7:51?PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Thank you for the detailed references. I shall look them up. > > Om > > On Sun, 31 Dec, 2023, 7:27 pm H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l, < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > Namaste Raghav Ji, > > > > I need to search for the references. But offhand I could recollect the > > following which you might refer and see if they are satisfactory. > > > > Panchapadika vivaranam english translation by Sri PS Shastri, PDF page > 216 > > onwards Book page 198 onwards. > > > > Vivarana Prameya Samgraha english translation by Prof Suryanarayana > Shastri > > PDF page 131 Book Page 123 onwards > > > > If I come across any other references, I will get back to you. I do > > remember Vichara Sagara also reflects the same. > > > > Regards > > > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 3:49?PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l < > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Chandramouli ji > > > > > > However, > > > > since avidyA is the kAraNAvastha for the antahkaraNa, whatever > contents > > > of > > > > the vritti were registered in avidyA during the bIja avasthA of the > > > > antahkaraNa is available for the antahkaraNa when it becomes active > > > again. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the response. Yes that's logical and remarkable. Is there > > any > > > reference along these lines? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > > > > > For assistance, contact: > > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > > > For assistance, contact: > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From v.subrahmanian at gmail.com Sun Dec 31 11:54:20 2023 From: v.subrahmanian at gmail.com (V Subrahmanian) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2023 22:24:20 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] About jnanadhyasa and arthadhyasa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 4:25?PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaste Subbu ji > You said that the buddhi idea in atasmin tadbuddhi is indicative of > jnAnAdhyAsa, can we say similarly that the other definition viz., paratra > pUrvadRShta avabhAsaH as pointing to the dRShTa avabhAsaH or an apparent > *object* seen, i.e., arthAdhyAsa? > > I remember such an idea being mentioned but kindly correct if mistaken. > Dear Raghav ji, Namaste. Yes, exactly, what you say is correct. In fact I recollected the other passage you cite and thought so. The example Shankara gives there: shuktikaa hi rajatavat avabhAsate... is again an example of arthAdhyasa. warm regards subbu > > On Sun, 31 Dec, 2023, 10:42 am V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l, < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 11:41?AM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin < > > advaitin at googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > > praNAms > > > > > > Hare Krishna > > > > > > > > > > > > True. The idea that the snake is out there is in the mind alone and > more > > > importantly, the correction that - there is no snake but the rope alone > > is > > > - also has to happen in the mind alone. The locus of the error is the > > mind > > > and the correction has to happen there alone. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Yes that is as simple as that, even at the bhrAnti time we don?t > say > > > snake which we ?are? seeing is anirvachaneeya and after realizing > the > > > ?rope? knowledge also we don?t say we ?were? seeing some > > anirvachaneeya > > > snake but OTOH we conclude that we were seeing snake due to our > > mistake of > > > rope or absence of rope knowledge. Atasmin tadbuddhiH lakshaNa > vAkya > > of > > > adhyAsa too saying the same thing i.e. jnAnAdhyAsa but I don?t know > > how > > > theories like anivachaneeya khyAti vAda, arthAdhyAsa, akhyAti vAdi, > > khyAti > > > vAda etc. intruded in shankara?s adhyAsa bhAshya. adhyAsa is not > > pramANa > > > siddha but anubhava siddha that is the reason why bhAshyakAra has > not > > given > > > any pramANa vAkya to establish adhyAsa if the adhyAsa is > pramANeekruta > > > prama only then it is not bhrama it is something really existing and > > that > > > which really existing cannot be eradicated by amount of jnana. > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhaskar, > > > > After hearing about the 'arthaadhyasa' not having hinted or stated by > > Bhagavatpada, I recalled these two passages from the Bhashya which, in my > > opinion, is about arthAdyAsa. The idea is: in atasmin tad buddhi > > definition of adhyasa, we have the jnanadhyasa articulated well. In the > > following passages, the bhashya says that 'what is not there really, is > > appearing to be there'. This expression, I think, is about 'some > *thing*' > > (artha = object) that appears real to an uninformed person, but upon > > exposure to the bhashya, will be realized as not really existing: > > > > What appears does not exist - Shankara observes in the Gita Bhashya > > > > In the Bhagavadgita Bhashya, in two places, we come across this pithy > > observation by Bhagavatpada: That which appears does not really exist'. > > The actual passages are given below. > > > > At the end of the commentary for 2.16, Shankara summarizes the Vedantic > > teaching of Bhagavan to Arjuna: You too, just as the Jnanis, look upon > the > > transformations, the dualities such as cold and heat, as mere appearances > > analogous to the mirage water'. > > > > In the commentary to 13.26, he makes a similar observation: The kshetram, > > world, like the elephant conjured up by a magician, an object seen in a > > dream, a phantom city, etc, are actually non-existent but appear as > though > > they exist. The one with such a conviction, owing to his direct vision of > > the Truth, transcends delusion. > > > > 1. BGB 2.16 ?????? ?????????????? ??????????????? ???? ???? ? > ?????? > > ???????????? ??????????????? ??????????? > > *???????????????? ???????????????????????* ??? ???? ????????? > ?????????? > > ???????????? ? ?? ? > > For him to say 'the transformations are mithya', the basis is the > Chandogya > > 6th ch. passage: ?????????? ?????? ??????? ????????????? ?????? the > > transformations (such as pot, saucer..) are mere names while the > substance > > in them, clay, alone is real. > > > > 2. BGB 13.26 ????????????????????? ?????? ?????????????? ?? ??????, > > ???????? ? ???????????????????????????????????????????????? *?* > > *????? ???? ???????**?* ??? ??? ??????????????? ??, ???? > > ????????????????????????? ???????? ????????????? ? > > > > regards > > subbu > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > > > > > bhaskar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > "advaitin" group. > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an > > > email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB659244A57C92444D67BFB969849CA%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com > > > < > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB659244A57C92444D67BFB969849CA%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer > > > > > > . > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > > > For assistance, contact: > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From raghavkumar00 at gmail.com Sun Dec 31 19:50:00 2023 From: raghavkumar00 at gmail.com (Raghav Kumar Dwivedula) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2024 06:20:00 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Pratyabhijna and avidyA vRttis of suShupti In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes ji. I actually had just seen the relevant material on Siddhanta Bindu by Sri SN Sastri on the net @ the Sanskrit documents site. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://sanskritdocuments.org/sites/snsastri/siddhanta.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiZ2v_X-7qDAxX3cWwGHRDKBwwQFnoECBoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3rgSAwumsGabDm_-WdcCNi Thanks. Om On Sun, 31 Dec, 2023, 9:37 pm H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l, < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Namaste Raghav Ji, > > I have copied below from Sidhanta Bindu - translation by Sri SN Shastri, > PDF page 58 > > // When the jiva is tired after experiencing objects in the two states of > waking and dream, and when the karma (fruits of past actions) which is the > cause of these two states is exhausted, the inner organ which is > characterized by the power to know and has vasanas in it goes into its > causal state (i.e. it takes the form of nescience which is the causal > body). This is the state of deep sleep which is the place of rest. Deep > sleep is the state in which there is awareness of the cause (ignorance) > alone, as indicated by the recollection (on waking up) in the form ?I knew > nothing at all?. In that state, even though there is no knowledge of the > objects of experience of the waking and dream states, > > three modifications of nescience, namely, the witness, happiness, and modal > ignorance pertaining to that state are accepted as present. > > Note. In the deep sleep state the mind is dormant. On waking up one has the > recollection that he knew nothing. Recollection is possible only of what > has been previously experienced. It follows therefore that ignorance was > experienced during sleep. In the waking state any experience or knowledge > is possible only through a vritti or modification of the mind. In deep > sleep no vritti of the mind is possible because the mind is dormant. So it > is concluded that there is a vritti of avidya which is the causal state of > the mind, through which the ignorance was known during deep sleepWhen the > jiva is tired after experiencing objects in the two states of waking and > dream, and when the karma (fruits of past actions) which is the cause of > these two states is exhausted, the inner organ which is characterized by > the power to know and has vasanas in it goes into its causal state (i.e. it > takes the form of nescience which is the causal body). This is the state of > deep sleep which is the place of rest. Deep sleep is the state in which > there is awareness of the cause (ignorance) alone, as indicated by the > recollection (on waking up) in the form ?I knew nothing at all?. In that > state, even though there is no knowledge of the objects of experience of > the waking and dream states, > > three modifications of nescience, namely, the witness, happiness, and modal > ignorance pertaining to that state are accepted as present. > > Note. In the deep sleep state the mind is dormant. On waking up one has the > recollection that he knew nothing. Recollection is possible only of what > has been previously experienced. It follows therefore that ignorance was > experienced during sleep. In the waking state any experience or knowledge > is possible only through a vritti or modification of the mind. In deep > sleep no vritti of the mind is possible because the mind is dormant. So it > is concluded that there is a vritti of avidya which is the causal state of > the mind, through which the ignorance was known during deep sleep When the > jiva is tired after experiencing objects in the two states of waking and > dream, and when the karma (fruits of past actions) which is the cause of > these two states is exhausted, the inner organ which is characterized by > the power to know and has vasanas in it goes into its causal state (i.e. it > takes the form of nescience which is the causal body). This is the state of > deep sleep which is the place of rest. Deep sleep is the state in which > there is awareness of the cause (ignorance) alone, as indicated by the > recollection (on waking up) in the form ?I knew nothing at all?. In that > state, even though there is no knowledge of the objects of experience of > the waking and dream states, > > three modifications of nescience, namely, the witness, happiness, and modal > ignorance pertaining to that state are accepted as present. > > Note. In the deep sleep state the mind is dormant. On waking up one has the > recollection that he knew nothing. Recollection is possible only of what > has been previously experienced. It follows therefore that ignorance was > experienced during sleep. In the waking state any experience or knowledge > is possible only through a vritti or modification of the mind. In deep > sleep no vritti of the mind is possible because the mind is dormant. So it > is concluded that there is a vritti of avidya which is the causal state of > the mind, through which the ignorance was known during deep sleep //. > > Regards > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 7:51?PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > Thank you for the detailed references. I shall look them up. > > > > Om > > > > On Sun, 31 Dec, 2023, 7:27 pm H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l, < > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > > > Namaste Raghav Ji, > > > > > > I need to search for the references. But offhand I could recollect the > > > following which you might refer and see if they are satisfactory. > > > > > > Panchapadika vivaranam english translation by Sri PS Shastri, PDF page > > 216 > > > onwards Book page 198 onwards. > > > > > > Vivarana Prameya Samgraha english translation by Prof Suryanarayana > > Shastri > > > PDF page 131 Book Page 123 onwards > > > > > > If I come across any other references, I will get back to you. I do > > > remember Vichara Sagara also reflects the same. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 3:49?PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l < > > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Namaste Chandramouli ji > > > > > > > > However, > > > > > since avidyA is the kAraNAvastha for the antahkaraNa, whatever > > contents > > > > of > > > > > the vritti were registered in avidyA during the bIja avasthA of > the > > > > > antahkaraNa is available for the antahkaraNa when it becomes active > > > > again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the response. Yes that's logical and remarkable. Is > there > > > any > > > > reference along these lines? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > > > > > > > For assistance, contact: > > > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > > > > > For assistance, contact: > > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > > > For assistance, contact: > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >