Guest guest Posted August 29, 2000 Report Share Posted August 29, 2000 Dear Sir, 1) Thanks for this great series. You have excellent talent of explaining very well. I am indeed fortunate to study this with you. 2) I just went through your article once. I would prefer them being posted in smaller segments. Otherwise it is difficult to read it on screen and one has to print. Danger in that is it may go to shelf for later reading and may not be read at all. I have some questions and comments in the prelimnary part. --- "K. Sadananda" <sada wrote: As with all bhaashhyam-s, every bhaashhyakaara or > author of > bhaashhyam claims that his interpretation is close to the meaning of > what > was intended by Shree Baadaraayana. We should recognize at the > outset that > the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta does not depend on the validation of > its > concepts by Brahmasuutra-s. It rests squarely on the mahaavaakya-s, > the > four aphoristic statements, one in each of the four Veda-s; > praJNaanam > brahma (consciousness is Brahman), tat tvam asi (that thou art), aham > brahmaasmi ( I am Brahman) and ayam aatma brahma (this self is > Brahman I was under the impression that shruti has many (apparently) contradicting statements and brahma suutra reconciles those seeming contradictions. This gives importance to the work and to show that brahma suutra-s indeed is in-line with advaita-vedanta. > > only when the knowledge comes. In support of this we have > declarations: 'na > anyaH panthaaH ayanaaya vidyate', 'gataasuuana gataasuumscha na > anusochanti > paNDitaaH' - those who have gained the knowledge do not grieve for > those who > have gone and for those in the process of going'. Can you explain na anyaH panthaH vidyate ayaNaaya and the context in which it quoted. ayaNaaya - for moxa na vidyate - I do not know anya panthaH - any other path You quote this later in the text also. Unless you give the context of this, it does not mean that "no other path other than knowledge removes the samsaara" as you say. Also the paNDitaaH may not grieve for those who have died and who are in the process of dying for a different reason. That reason need not be identity of atmaa and brahman. > When does the error takes place? If the rope is completely not seen > when it > is pitch dark, then no error takes place, and there is no fear of a > snake. > Hence it is said that 'ignorance is a bliss', as in deep sleep. In > total > ignorance, there is no error. Similarly in total knowledge also To quote your words (from past), there may no error of misapprehension in deep sleep, but there is an error of non-apprehension. So it is not free from error. More than that, in your other example a person may be afraid of pitch dark, even though he does not see a snake. He can still suspect snakes, scorpions, and what not in that pitch dark. Even if he does not know that such a thing like snake exists, it may be after all there and still bite him. Deep sleep is more blissful because it suffers from fewer errors than jaagrata and svapna states. Hence one may not say that deep sleep is a more ignorant state than waking one. I think the opposite is true. Please correct me. I hope I did not offend you by these questions. Once again thanks a lot for the series. Ravi Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2000 Report Share Posted August 30, 2000 >Dear Sir, > >1) Thanks for this great series. You have excellent talent of >explaining very well. I am indeed fortunate to study this with you. > >2) I just went through your article once. I would prefer them being >posted in smaller segments. Otherwise it is difficult to read it on >screen and one has to print. Danger in that is it may go to shelf for >later reading and may not be read at all. > >I have some questions and comments in the prelimnary part. > >--- "K. Sadananda" <sada wrote: > > As with all bhaashhyam-s, every bhaashhyakaara or >>author of >>bhaashhyam claims that his interpretation is close to the meaning of >>what >>was intended by Shree Baadaraayana. We should recognize at the >>outset that >>the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta does not depend on the validation of >>its >>concepts by Brahmasuutra-s. It rests squarely on the mahaavaakya-s, >>the >>four aphoristic statements, one in each of the four Veda-s; >>praJNaanam >>brahma (consciousness is Brahman), tat tvam asi (that thou art), aham >>brahmaasmi ( I am Brahman) and ayam aatma brahma (this self is >>Brahman > >I was under the impression that shruti has many (apparently) >contradicting statements and brahma suutra reconciles those seeming >contradictions. This gives importance to the work and to show that >brahma suutra-s indeed is in-line with advaita-vedanta. Ravi - greetings and thanks for your kind words. What you say is right. But if you read Sribhaashhya and Anuvyaakhyaana, each bhaashhyakaara claims their interpretation is more compatible with Brahmasuutra than Shankara's. There are several so-called independent evaluators who seem to agree with their contention, just based on shruti's. There are some suutra-s which they quote are more directly endorse nimitta kaaraNa being different from upaadana kaaraNa, exemplifying the personified God, say Shreeman NaarayaNa. Dwaita and VishishhTaadvaita give more importance to Brahmasuutra because of this fact. It is true some of the apparent contradictions in the Vedic statements are resolved by Brahmasuutra. But Suutra-s themselves because of its brevity led to ambiguity too. In that sense Advaita Vedanta has a stronger base than Brahmasuutra which is paurushheyam. It is my intention that one day to do comparative analysis of the three bhaashyyaas from my perspective. But your statement in one of your mails is right; first we need to study the suutra-s from one perspective. The rest may be more of academic interest. > >>only when the knowledge comes. In support of this we have >>declarations: 'na >>anyaH panthaaH ayanaaya vidyate', 'gataasuuana gataasuumscha na >>anusochanti >>paNDitaaH' - those who have gained the knowledge do not grieve for >>those who >>have gone and for those in the process of going'. > >Can you explain na anyaH panthaH vidyate ayaNaaya and the context in >which it quoted. > This occurs in both Purushasuukta and also in Swe.U. (I think). vedaaha metam purusham maahaantam aadityavarNam tamasaH parastaat twameva viditva amR^itatvameti naanyaH panthaa vidyate~yanaaya 'na' has to go with panthaa rather than vidyate - no other path than knowledge. >ayaNaaya - for moxa >na vidyate - I do not know >anya panthaH - any other path > >You quote this later in the text also. Unless you give the context of >this, it does not mean that "no other path other than knowledge removes >the samsaara" as you say. > >Also the paNDitaaH may not grieve for those who have died and who are >in the process of dying for a different reason. That reason need not >be identity of atmaa and brahman. panDita implies one who has the knowledge. It does not specify what knowledge it is , but must be that knowledge because of which they are able to see the truth beyond the temporal samsaara and hence they know that there is absolutely no reason to cry over things that are incidental. Thus emphasis is only that knowledge is the solution to the problem than anything else. >>When does the error takes place? If the rope is completely not seen >>when it >>is pitch dark, then no error takes place, and there is no fear of a >>snake. >>Hence it is said that 'ignorance is a bliss', as in deep sleep. In >>total >>ignorance, there is no error. Similarly in total knowledge also > > >To quote your words (from past), there may no error of misapprehension >in deep sleep, but there is an error of non-apprehension. So it is >not free from error. You caught me! You are not supposed to remember what I wrote in the past! Just kidding! It is true from the fellow in the deep sleep - he has nothing to worry. There is no error of mistaken identity. But remember the fellow who does not see the snake because it is pitch dark is not immune from its bite. Rope may not cause a problem but snake will. Hence that 'ignorance based bliss' is only short lived. There is no bhrama in non-apprehension, but there is a false security. It is said that in deep sleep one identifies with causal body. But in that state one does not have any awareness of any identification - other than "I donot know" but there too, one does not know that he does not know - that is non- apprehension is also not apprehended in that state. He has ignorance of that state. Hence he does not undergo any samsaara or suffering because of that. In the waking state, ignorance is a problem and is not only a limitation but also one is aware of that limitations and hence he suffers. Hence one makes a distinction between ignorance and having awareness of that ignorance which automatically makes one to misapprehend things. In contrast to this there is an ignorance of which one is not even aware off. In adhyaasa for which we seek solutions has to be addressed mainly to the ignorance that we are conscious off which makes us feel that we are limited and suffer as a consequence of that. >More than that, in your other example a person may be afraid of pitch >dark, even though he does not see a snake. He can still suspect snakes, >scorpions, and what not in that pitch dark. Even if he does not know >that such a thing like snake exists, it may be after all there and >still bite him. True - I addressed this above before I read your statement. > >Deep sleep is more blissful because it suffers from fewer errors than >jaagrata and svapna states. Hence one may not say that deep sleep is a >more ignorant state than waking one. I think the opposite is true. More than that in the deep sleep - not only I am ignorant but not even aware that I am ignorent so there is no question of seeking a solution to a problem that I am not even aware off. Not that I do not have a problem but I am not even aware of the problem - hence no attempt is made to solve a problem. Now - what is better - having a problem is common in both - in one case one is aware of it and the other case one is not even aware of it. One who is aware of the problem has already solved the problem half. He now has to use proper intelligence to find a solution to the problem - Hence Vedanta teaches him not the fellow who is not even aware that there is a problem. >Please correct me. I hope I did not offend you by these questions. Once >again thanks a lot for the series. > >Ravi Thanks Ravi - you made me to think. Hari Om! Sadananda _______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. 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.