[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Clarifications sought, respectfully, on some Basic Advaitic concepts

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

Reg  //  so what true benefit we get by simply just recognizing that at a
pAramArthika level it is clay but vyAvahArika level it is pot etc.? So
what? How does such a superficial knowledge benefit? How does painting it
everything with one big broad brush help? //,

Clay-Pot is an illustration (दृष्टान्त dRRiShTAnta) only. Any in-depth
analysis like benefits etc is appropriate only in respect of the
illustrated (दार्ष्टान्त dArShTAnta). Not in respect of the (दृष्टान्त
dRRiShTAnta)
itself. The illustrated (दार्ष्टान्त dArShTAnta)  for Clay-Pot illustration
is the Declaration (प्रतिज्ञा pratij~nA), in Ch Up for example, that by
knowing ONE everything else becomes known. So your question would thus be
appropriate in respect of this Declaration in the Shruti. I am sure you are
yourself well aware of the answer to this.
Regards

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 6:06 AM रवि: Ravi <araryes1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Respectful Namaskarams. Amidst all the scholarly musings in this forum, I
> feel shy and ashamed to pose my primitive / childish questions, but I am
> truly a novice in this area, and seek the help of this forum to get through
> some basics.
>
> Even though I have been hearing all these advaita vedantic lectures for
> many years, many concepts are still esoteric to me. I am taking the liberty
> of sharing some of my questions here.
>
> Let me also state upfront that I definitely understand that the fault is
> in *my understanding / assimilation only*, and hence seek clarity from this
> scholarly group. Tone and Bhava can sometimes be misconstrued in written
> communications, so if it seems like am coming across strongly, kindly note
> that I am not challenging any position but merely trying to desperately
> articulate my confusion sub-optimally and gain understanding.
>
> Our scriptures are replete with examples around Clay / Pot, Ornaments /
> Gold, Waves vs. Ocean etc. Based on these and others, I have following
> questions:
>
> (1) Yes, we definitely understand that pot is clay as well as a ladle is
> clay as well and also a mud vessel is clay as well. But how can we just
> belittle / ignore the practical reality of Name-Form-Function. In a
> real-life situation where we need to use a pot, we can obviously use that
> only and not a spoon or ladle. So, in all practical interactions,
> Name-Form-Function is so important, so what true benefit we get by simply
> just recognizing that at a pAramArthika level it is clay but vyAvahArika
> level it is pot etc.? So what? How does such a superficial knowledge
> benefit? How does painting it everything with one big broad brush help?
>
> (2) Extending this same example, yes pot is not different from clay,
> similarly earring is not different from gold, etc. Agreed, but still,
> earring is not pot, neither clay is gold.. so ultimately, at that level,
> they are then different, so on and so forth.. So, am back to same dilemma
> that posed in my earlier point. How can we say that knowing ONE root cause
> means you know all the EFFECTS.
>
> (3) What about cases where a pot is not purely made of clay alone. It has
> some engravings and some embellishments. so how does point (i) above hold
> good.
>
> (4)  In Bhagavata puranam, in Jada Bharathar – Ragooganan interaction,
> Ragooganan retorts to Jada Bharathar asking how does he say that body does
> not affect atman and quotes that fire heats the pot which heats the water
> which heats the rice.. but then Jada Bharathar scorns at him and says he is
> trying to compare the great brahma tattvam with such simplistic examples.
> But does not our own Vedantic scriptures use similar such simplistic
> examples time and again – like snake and rope, clay and pot etc.. So what
> was his fault in above question.
>
> (5) scriptures always give this analogy of how we construct our own dreams
> and how we are the creator/author.. but ARE WE truly... I dont have any
> control even in my own dreams, even though we can argue that the content of
> our mind/vasanas drive it, but still its very subtle.. if am the
> creator/author i should be able to create specific happy dreams that i want
> but mostly we have unpleasant ones... so how can i be convinced that i am
> the architect of my dreams
>
> Humble Namaskarangal
> Ravi
> +1 925 999 0867 (can be reached on Whatsapp too)
> Plano, TX, USA
>
> --
> 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/4c17890b-07ee-472e-986e-5b5f79eb0bdcn%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/4c17890b-07ee-472e-986e-5b5f79eb0bdcn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>