Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 Sadananda Ji wrote: >Implication, as I understand, is the use of maaya > as sadasat > vilakshaNa is shruti based anupaladbi rather than > directly shruti > statements to that effect. I don't think that it is based on anupalabdhi, as it would be very difficult to derive something of this sort from anupalabdhi. I would rather say that it is based on arthaapatti, if we are talking about the Upanishads. However, Rig-veda states very clearly in its nAsadiya sUkta, "nAsadAsInnosadAsIt", (neither it was sat nor asat). Can there be a clearer statement for Maya's anirvacaniyatrva? Loving Regards, Siddhartha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2001 Report Share Posted July 28, 2001 advaitin, "sidha" <sidha@d...> wrote: > However, Rig-veda states very clearly in its nAsadiya sUkta, > "nAsadAsInnosadAsIt", (neither it was sat nor asat). Can there be a clearer > statement for Maya's anirvacaniyatrva? Namaste, Gita also says: amR^ita.n cha eva mR^ityuH cha sat asat cha aham arjuna .. 9:19.. yasmaat ksharam atiitaH aham aksharaat api cha uttamaH . 15:18. Regards, s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2001 Report Share Posted July 30, 2001 > > >I don't think that it is based on anupalabdhi, as it would be very difficult >to derive something of this sort from anupalabdhi. I would rather say that >it is based on arthaapatti, if we are talking about the Upanishads. >However, Rig-veda states very clearly in its nAsadiya sUkta, >"nAsadAsInnosadAsIt", (neither it was sat nor asat). Can there be a clearer >statement for Maya's anirvacaniyatrva? >Loving Regards, >Siddhartha > Siddharthaji - Thanks and you may be right about the arthaapatti. Shreeman Chari did discuss the sloka you are referring to and showed that one has to examine the whole sloka not that statement by itself and also the context the statement occurs. He showed that from that perspective the meaning does not reflect the maaya that we are familiar in advaitic tradition. There is no question of course that the statement in isolation does indeed reflect the meaning of maaya and Shreeman Chari did mention that too. As I responded to Shree Vidyasankar's similar comment, I will transcribe Shreeman Chari's lectures slowly and we should discuss objectively his comments for the benefit of us all. Hari Om! Sadananda -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 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.