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

[H S Chandramouli]

Pranams Sadananda Ji,

It has been a long time since we discussed last. Hope everything is fine
with you and your family.

Reg  //  Whatever I do, I see His role  //,

Is this sentiment the same as  //  I am He //.

I am not quite sure if you subscribe to this  which is advaitic view. Could
be the difference between Bhakti (in a dvaitic sense)  and JnAna (in
advaitic sense) ?

Pranams and 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 Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 12:07 PM Kuntimaddi Sadananda via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> PraNAms
> >(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?
> -------------Scripture is providing some familiar example - to establish
> that 'knowing one we can know everything' eka vinjaanana sarva vijnaanama
> bhavati.
> The teacher wants the student to understand a) the existence-consciousness
> that is one without a second is the essence of eveything in the creation
> and b) you are that, implying the your essence is also pure
> existence-consciousness - and therefore not the objective world including
> your body-mind and intellect.Yes as you ascertain, the transactionally the
> difference are real and one has to deal with those differences while
> transacting. Yes your bank account is different from mine.
> However while transacting, one should not lose the underlying truth -
> Everything is nothing but pure sat-chit-ananda.
> How does this knowledge help? is a fundamental question. Hence I use two
> slokas from Geeta.1. sarva bhuutastham aatmaanam sarvabhuutani ca aatamni -
> Everything is in the SELF that I am and I am in everything. And in the next
> sloka Krishna also says2. yo maam pasyati sarvatra, sarvan cha mayi pasyati
> - one who sees Me everywhere and everything in Me.Hence from Iswara
> (Bhakti) point or from Jnanaa (SELF) point the truth is the same as Uddlaka
> established with the statement - tat tvam asi.
> I keep reminding this statement during my daily transactions. See His
> presence everywhere and Everything in Him - first thing in the morning when
> I get up and last thing before I go to sleep and in between whenever my
> mind wants to forget the daily transactions.
> For me Life is beautiful as it is His expressions everywhere. Whatever I
> do, I see His role.
> Hence the teachings of Uddlaka or Lord Krishna helps me to keep that
> mental vision as perform; in spite of body problems and other incidental
> problems. They help my mind go have to the truth pointed out by the
> teachings.
> It is like Science says everything is nothing but
> electrons-protons-neutrons - yet that understanding does not change in
> discriminating garbage vs delicious food.
> Could not resist responding although Chandramouliji responded already.
> Hari Om!Sadananda
>
>
>
>     On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 01:54:59 PM GMT+5:30, H S Chandramouli
> via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>  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
> >
> > .
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>