Guest guest Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 mithyAjagadadhisthAnA :Basis of the illusory universe. She is the basis of the illusory universe as the mother-or-pearl is the basis of silver [illusorily perceived]. For the Srutis [Gaud. KA. 1. 17] say :"This duality is mere mAyA, non-duality is the reality." [br. Up., IV. 4. 19], "Here there is no manifoldness whatever." The De. BhAg. Pr., "Indeed I am alone all this, there is never any other" [Vi. Bhag., I. 1.1 ]. "Where the three evolutions, are illusory" Or adhisthA, basis, ie in whom all are sustained, is Brahman, ana, life. Her life is the Brahman [who is the basis of the universe]. or adhisthAna, supported [ie in Her all are sustained]. Really according to the doctrine of the TAntrikas who hold that the universe is the manifestation of Brahman, the universe is real, because like the pot and clay, as the universe and Brahman are not different, when Brahman is real the universe must necessarily be real. As it is accepted that difference [along the created things] alone is illusory all the scriptures advocating the non-duality are right. As the difference is false, the relation of the supporter and supported is also false. Such being the case, the theory of the VedaAnthins that the whole universe is illusory is absurd, for further details refer to the SAmbhavAnandakalpalatA. So the appearance of difference in the universe is illusory. BhAskararAya's Commentary Translated into English by R. Ananthakrishna Sastry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 She is the basis of the illusory Universe, created just as the mind produces the illusion of a snake when one sees a rope in darkness. - Dr. C. Suryanarayana Murthy, Commentary on the Sri Lalita Sahasranama, 1962 , "NMadasamy" <nmadasamy wrote: > > > mithyAjagadadhisthAnA :Basis of the illusory universe. > > She is the basis of the illusory universe as the mother-or-pearl is > the basis of silver [illusorily perceived]. For the Srutis [Gaud. KA. > 1. 17] say :"This duality is mere mAyA, non-duality is the reality." > [br. Up., IV. 4. 19], "Here there is no manifoldness whatever." The > De. BhAg. Pr., "Indeed I am alone all this, there is never any other" > [Vi. Bhag., I. 1.1 ]. "Where the three evolutions, are illusory" > > Or adhisthA, basis, ie in whom all are sustained, is Brahman, ana, > life. Her life is the Brahman [who is the basis of the universe]. > > or adhisthAna, supported [ie in Her all are sustained]. > > Really according to the doctrine of the TAntrikas who hold that the > universe is the manifestation of Brahman, the universe is real, > because like the pot and clay, as the universe and Brahman are not > different, when Brahman is real the universe must necessarily be real. > As it is accepted that difference [along the created things] alone is > illusory all the scriptures advocating the non-duality are right. As > the difference is false, the relation of the supporter and supported > is also false. Such being the case, the theory of the VedaAnthins that > the whole universe is illusory is absurd, for further details refer to > the SAmbhavAnandakalpalatA. So the appearance of difference in the > universe is illusory. > > > BhAskararAya's Commentary > Translated into English by R. Ananthakrishna Sastry. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.