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

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Chandramouliji - PraNAms
Thanks for your concerns.
Slowly age is taking its toll. Lord wants me only to talk and not listen to people!
Yes, seeing Him as everything and in everything is Advaita only. Find it is easier to see Him than to see myself in everything. But not in any form since every form is His, but as pure consciousness. I see Him as the very life principle pulsating in the small ants crawling on the floor to varieties of birds in the sky and plants that are blooming. I get lost in these. 
Just for information - Indic Academy recently published my book 'How Do I know' - which covers the Pratyaksha pramaana - commentary on the Vedanta Paribhasha. It is made available online on Amazon, etc.  I have to slowly work on the rest. 
Hari Om!Sadananda



 

    On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 02:09:47 PM GMT+5:30, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 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

|  | Virus-free.www.avast.com |


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