re: mithyAjagadadhiShTAnA

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Could someone clarify what bhaskararaya says about the nAma

mithyAjagadadhiShTAnA.There seems to be a reference to a kalpalatika of

shAmbhavAnanda.Any information on this work ?

 

Are there any other interpretations of this line.

 

 

 

Vidya

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New! SBC Dial - 1st Month Free & unlimited access

 

 

[Guest guest]

bhAskararAya gives 2 distinct interpretations for this nAma and your

question revolves around the last one. I will be briefly summarize what

I understand.

 

1) SHE is the basis or support for this illusory universe. mithyaa is

false of illusory, and adhishhTaana is support or basis. In this

context commentator quotes from maaNDukya kArikA, devii bhaagavatam,

vaishhNava bhaagavatam, bR^ihadaaraNayakopaniShad. He also gives the

example of shell (mother of pearl) forming the basis for the illusory

silver. HE also gives two minor variants of this idea. Essentially, SHE

is brahman and SHE is the basis of what we see as universe. And the

universe is illusory.

 

2) Second one he gives from a tantric view point. Right of the bat he

says tantra holds Universe as real and what is mithyaa is the

differences we see in the universe. He gives an example of clay and

pot. But it is easier for me explain using gold. You can make ear ring,

chain and bangle out gold. All are gold only and in an absolute sense

the differences between bangle, ear-ring and chain is mithyA or false.

By itself bangle, ear-ring and chain are not mithyaa, they do exist.

Not only the differences are mithya, because of that the idea of

supported and supported is also a mithyaa. And he asks people to look

at the work you mention in your mail. He also asks a question, how can

one call the bangle or ear-ring (in the text, a pot) as mithyaa.

 

I am writing this based on English translation I have in my office (as

I often write while eating my lunch). My sanskrit text is at home, I

will refer to that to verify the consistency.

 

---

 

a) IMO the way it is translated, commentator seems to support 2 and

even dismisses the position of those who consider the whole universe as

illusory as absurd. But you see, "you are only as good as your

example". His first interpretation squarely contradicts the second. In

the case snake superimposed on a rope or silver superimposed on a

shell, the moment you realize the snake of silver completely cease to

exist and they are illusory. Not so with the gold and bangle, you can

continue enjoying your golden bangle and ear rings even after realizing

they are all gold only.

 

b) I will not waste my time looking at this tantra reference.

Considering that underlying material is non-dual, but the shapes and

forms arise out that is real is NOT acceptable to advaita-vedanta. It

is some kind of bheda-abhedha stuff. The correct way to treat this name

is as he has done in interpretation 1. I am not good at these complex

arguments -- you should refer to the series written by Anand on

advaita-siddhi.

 

 

---

I will leave the rest of the discussion to others and continue enjoying

my lunch (whether is real or illusory, for a Tamilian curd rice with

mango pickle is devAmritam :-)) )

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- vidya jayaram <vidyajayaram wrote:

>

> Namaste.

>

> Could someone clarify what bhaskararaya says about the nAma

> mithyAjagadadhiShTAnA.There seems to be a reference to a kalpalatika

> of shAmbhavAnanda.Any information on this work ?

>

> Are there any other interpretations of this line.

>

>

>

> Vidya

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> New! SBC Dial - 1st Month Free & unlimited access

 

 

=====

ambaaL daasan

 

Ravi

 

sharaNAgata raxakI nivEyani sadA ninnu nammiti mInAxI

 

http://www.ambaa.org/ http://www.advaita-vedanta.org

 

 

 

Sign up for SBC Dial - First Month Free

http://sbc.