Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 Namaste Jay-ji I strongly believe that you are in the wrong place (meaning in the Advaitin List). The Advaitin list has made itself very clear that Vedanta as taught by Adi Shankaracharya and his tradition ALONE is the siddhanta or conclusion. We (at least most of the members) have accepted the 'theory' of Adhyasa and see no problem in it, for the reason to be seen in the next paragraph. I reiterate that this is a list for sadhakas who have accepted Advaita Vedanta as the conclusion and the purport of the Shruti. If you think otherwise, then I believe you have missed the list objectives. We know that the shruti pramana is for knowing Brahman alone. Or in other words, for knowing that which is not accessible to the other pramanas (pratyaksha, anumana, upamana, anupalabdhi, arthapatti). Therefore, there is no necessity to expect the Shruti to reveal what is evident to us. In this case, Adhyasa is something which is evident to every human being. Therefore, shruti need not reveal it to us. My fundamental problem as a human being is that I think that I am inadequate. Every other problem is an extension of this flawed conclusion. I know this problem very well indeed for all my struggles (purusharthas) in life is to remove this inadequacy. But the Veda reveals that I am Brahman (Aham Brahmasmi) and it is totally contradicting the notion that I am inadequate. And the reason attributed to this contradiction is that I am taking myself to be something I am not (Adhyasa) due to the absence of Brahmavidya. Therefore, we don't need the Veda to reveal Adhyasa as it is a common experience for every human being to identify oneself with the Body-sense-mind complex in our daily transactions with the objective world. Here is what Shankara says on the Bhagavad Gita verse 17:66 : "Not even if a hundred Shrutis proclaim that fire is cold or without brightness will (such a statement) be regarded as authoritative. " Adhyasa need not be validated or revealed by shruti. Our daily experience is sufficient to reveal this fact when analyzed with the revelations of the Veda. Shankara only makes this point very clear in the Adhyasa Bhashya. We accept Shankara and the tradition he belongs to to be the right tradition of teachers who teach the purport of the Shruti. NOT any other tradition. If you feel otherwise, you are definitely in the wrong place but of course you are welcome to stay and learn from the discussions among the many scholars here (excepting myself). best regards, K Kathirasan > > Jay Nelamangala [sMTP:jay] > Wednesday, April 16, 2003 2:53 PM > advaitin > Re: Re: Beethoven and Advaita > > Dear Guru Venkat, > > >Firstly, to clarify my earlier point : Jada is Brahman. > >In the Suddhatvaita of Vallabacharya; He says that Jada is created > >from Sat part of Brahman. The Jiva under Avidya views it in illusory > >forms. It is quite real since it is from Brahman. > > upanishats present brahman as : > "sAkshI chEtaa kEvalO" etc. Brahman is chEtana. > > Jada coming out of Brahman, does not make Brahman Himself 'jada' > Just as cob-web ( jada) coming out of a spider (chEtana). Does it make > spider a 'jada' ? > > The shuddhAdvaita of Sri VallabhAchArya says that this world is created > by Brahman. It is real and it is different from Brahman. The world is > jada. It is Brahman's adhi-bhoutika-form. > Brahman is sat-chit-Ananda-swaroopa. The relationship between this world > and Brahman is the same relationship that exists between cob-web and the > spider. > > Brahman creates the world with 28 principles (5 gross elements,5 motor > organs, 5 subtle elements, 5 sensory organs, sattva,rajas, > tamas, purusha, prakrti, mahat, ahamkAra,and mind). > That my friend, in a nutshell is shuddhAdvaita ontology. > > Brahman is sat-chit-Ananda-swaroopa. The fact that Brahman is 'chit' tells > us that Brahman is not jada even in shuddhAdvaita. > > Please correct me if I am wrong. > - > v_vedanti > advaitin > Tuesday, April 15, 2003 9:38 PM > Re: Beethoven and Advaita > > > Dear Jay, > > > > > I did not mean it in a condescending way. Every one has to start > somewhere. > > But the fact remains that Veda is apourushEya and any translation > of it is pourushEya > > and therefore is not Veda. > > > > As long as we realize the fact that there are no alternatives to > Veda, it is ok to start > > with any coloquial translation. > > > > I hope you understand my point. > > I'll just say that I cannot learn to bicycle without falling down a > few times. > > Firstly, to clarify my earlier point : Jada is Brahman. > In the Suddhatvaita of Vallabacharya; He says that Jada is created > from Sat part of Brahman. The Jiva under Avidya views it in illusory > forms. It is quite real since it is from Brahman. > > I understand this is not Sri Shankara's view. This is just something > that makes sense to me right now, given my frame of mind. > Now wait a minute! before you pull your boxing gloves again!! I do > not intend to get into a debate with you about this. > > Just wanted to get this cleared since I knew I've read this > somewhere. > > Regarding 'Nada Brahman' , I found a very interesting link. Actually > Sri Benjamin might like it very much. It has a good article about > this. I've asked the list moderators if it would be ok to post this > article. > > Om Tat Sat > Guru Venkat > > > Sponsor > > > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of > Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: > http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > > > > > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of > Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: > http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 Namaste Jayji ranjeet :"But what do you believe? And where did your belief come from? Please dont tell >me that your belief is solely rooted in the Scriptures and your academic >knowledge and that it has no other grounds. " your reply: "Belief or faith comes from religion, and the job of religion is to introduce concepts such as God, dharma, etc. It is through the study of Philosophy(brahma-vidyA) that one gets the knowledge of those concepts that were introduced by religion." Some wise man once said..you cant satisfy your hunger by just reading the menu in the restaurant !! However in my case, I humbly admit that I dont even know where the restaurant is :-) Jajji: "I may disagree with adhyAsa-theory because I think adhyAsa-theory is not what one gets out of shruti when understood in the light of brahma-sootras, and of course it is not what one gets out of geetha either.It is not about 'my belief' vs 'your belief'.We are talking of vEda as pramANa here, and not vEda as some authority text.I hope I have answered your question." I got your point here...thank you Om ranjeet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 Dear Kathirasan, >We know that the shruti pramana is for knowing Brahman alone. Yes, agree 110% with you. >Or in other words, for knowing that which is not accessible to the other >pramanas (pratyaksha, anumana, upamana, anupalabdhi, arthapatti). Many centuries ago, it was shown that upamAna, anupalabdhi, arthApatti all fall under either pratyaksha or anumAna based on pratyaksha. Therefore, later thinkers ignored them. Philosophy has been reduced to a "belief" system. So everyone still "believes" that there are six pramANas - even in the year 2003 !!. If it were science, people would have moved on and corrected themselves. There is no such thing as "calculus for chemists" and a different "calculus for physicists" We are talking of pramANas here, not metaphysics. Why should each school have a different set of pramANas?. It still happens because, we have reduced philosophy to a bunch of "beliefs" - K Kathirasan NCS advaitin Wednesday, April 16, 2003 4:50 AM Adhyasa Namaste Jay-ji I strongly believe that you are in the wrong place (meaning in the Advaitin List). The Advaitin list has made itself very clear that Vedanta as taught by Adi Shankaracharya and his tradition ALONE is the siddhanta or conclusion. We (at least most of the members) have accepted the 'theory' of Adhyasa and see no problem in it, for the reason to be seen in the next paragraph. I reiterate that this is a list for sadhakas who have accepted Advaita Vedanta as the conclusion and the purport of the Shruti. If you think otherwise, then I believe you have missed the list objectives. We know that the shruti pramana is for knowing Brahman alone. Or in other words, for knowing that which is not accessible to the other pramanas (pratyaksha, anumana, upamana, anupalabdhi, arthapatti). Therefore, there is no necessity to expect the Shruti to reveal what is evident to us. In this case, Adhyasa is something which is evident to every human being. Therefore, shruti need not reveal it to us. My fundamental problem as a human being is that I think that I am inadequate. Every other problem is an extension of this flawed conclusion. I know this problem very well indeed for all my struggles (purusharthas) in life is to remove this inadequacy. But the Veda reveals that I am Brahman (Aham Brahmasmi) and it is totally contradicting the notion that I am inadequate. And the reason attributed to this contradiction is that I am taking myself to be something I am not (Adhyasa) due to the absence of Brahmavidya. Therefore, we don't need the Veda to reveal Adhyasa as it is a common experience for every human being to identify oneself with the Body-sense-mind complex in our daily transactions with the objective world. Here is what Shankara says on the Bhagavad Gita verse 17:66 : "Not even if a hundred Shrutis proclaim that fire is cold or without brightness will (such a statement) be regarded as authoritative. " Adhyasa need not be validated or revealed by shruti. Our daily experience is sufficient to reveal this fact when analyzed with the revelations of the Veda. Shankara only makes this point very clear in the Adhyasa Bhashya. We accept Shankara and the tradition he belongs to to be the right tradition of teachers who teach the purport of the Shruti. NOT any other tradition. If you feel otherwise, you are definitely in the wrong place but of course you are welcome to stay and learn from the discussions among the many scholars here (excepting myself). best regards, K Kathirasan > > Jay Nelamangala [sMTP:jay] > Wednesday, April 16, 2003 2:53 PM > advaitin > Re: Re: Beethoven and Advaita > > Dear Guru Venkat, > > >Firstly, to clarify my earlier point : Jada is Brahman. > >In the Suddhatvaita of Vallabacharya; He says that Jada is created > >from Sat part of Brahman. The Jiva under Avidya views it in illusory > >forms. It is quite real since it is from Brahman. > > upanishats present brahman as : > "sAkshI chEtaa kEvalO" etc. Brahman is chEtana. > > Jada coming out of Brahman, does not make Brahman Himself 'jada' > Just as cob-web ( jada) coming out of a spider (chEtana). Does it make > spider a 'jada' ? > > The shuddhAdvaita of Sri VallabhAchArya says that this world is created > by Brahman. It is real and it is different from Brahman. The world is > jada. It is Brahman's adhi-bhoutika-form. > Brahman is sat-chit-Ananda-swaroopa. The relationship between this world > and Brahman is the same relationship that exists between cob-web and the > spider. > > Brahman creates the world with 28 principles (5 gross elements,5 motor > organs, 5 subtle elements, 5 sensory organs, sattva,rajas, > tamas, purusha, prakrti, mahat, ahamkAra,and mind). > That my friend, in a nutshell is shuddhAdvaita ontology. > > Brahman is sat-chit-Ananda-swaroopa. The fact that Brahman is 'chit' tells > us that Brahman is not jada even in shuddhAdvaita. > > Please correct me if I am wrong. > - > v_vedanti > advaitin > Tuesday, April 15, 2003 9:38 PM > Re: Beethoven and Advaita > > > Dear Jay, > > > > > I did not mean it in a condescending way. Every one has to start > somewhere. > > But the fact remains that Veda is apourushEya and any translation > of it is pourushEya > > and therefore is not Veda. > > > > As long as we realize the fact that there are no alternatives to > Veda, it is ok to start > > with any coloquial translation. > > > > I hope you understand my point. > > I'll just say that I cannot learn to bicycle without falling down a > few times. > > Firstly, to clarify my earlier point : Jada is Brahman. > In the Suddhatvaita of Vallabacharya; He says that Jada is created > from Sat part of Brahman. The Jiva under Avidya views it in illusory > forms. It is quite real since it is from Brahman. > > I understand this is not Sri Shankara's view. This is just something > that makes sense to me right now, given my frame of mind. > Now wait a minute! before you pull your boxing gloves again!! I do > not intend to get into a debate with you about this. > > Just wanted to get this cleared since I knew I've read this > somewhere. > > Regarding 'Nada Brahman' , I found a very interesting link. Actually > Sri Benjamin might like it very much. It has a good article about > this. I've asked the list moderators if it would be ok to post this > article. > > Om Tat Sat > Guru Venkat > > > Sponsor > > > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of > Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: > http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > > > > > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of > Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: > http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > Sponsor Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 Dear Kathirasan, >for knowing that which is not accessible to the other pramanas So you are saying Agama is necessary >Therefore, there is no necessity to expect the Shruti to reveal what is >evident to us. Now you are saying Agama is not necessary. Will you please make up your mind, and say only one of these two. >In this case, Adhyasa is something which is evident to every >human being. >Therefore, shruti need not reveal it to us. Then how come Sri Shankara had to tell it to us? Why is it not so evident to other thinkers? - K Kathirasan NCS advaitin Wednesday, April 16, 2003 4:50 AM Adhyasa Namaste Jay-ji I strongly believe that you are in the wrong place (meaning in the Advaitin List). The Advaitin list has made itself very clear that Vedanta as taught by Adi Shankaracharya and his tradition ALONE is the siddhanta or conclusion. We (at least most of the members) have accepted the 'theory' of Adhyasa and see no problem in it, for the reason to be seen in the next paragraph. I reiterate that this is a list for sadhakas who have accepted Advaita Vedanta as the conclusion and the purport of the Shruti. If you think otherwise, then I believe you have missed the list objectives. We know that the shruti pramana is for knowing Brahman alone. Or in other words, for knowing that which is not accessible to the other pramanas (pratyaksha, anumana, upamana, anupalabdhi, arthapatti). Therefore, there is no necessity to expect the Shruti to reveal what is evident to us. In this case, Adhyasa is something which is evident to every human being. Therefore, shruti need not reveal it to us. My fundamental problem as a human being is that I think that I am inadequate. Every other problem is an extension of this flawed conclusion. I know this problem very well indeed for all my struggles (purusharthas) in life is to remove this inadequacy. But the Veda reveals that I am Brahman (Aham Brahmasmi) and it is totally contradicting the notion that I am inadequate. And the reason attributed to this contradiction is that I am taking myself to be something I am not (Adhyasa) due to the absence of Brahmavidya. Therefore, we don't need the Veda to reveal Adhyasa as it is a common experience for every human being to identify oneself with the Body-sense-mind complex in our daily transactions with the objective world. Here is what Shankara says on the Bhagavad Gita verse 17:66 : "Not even if a hundred Shrutis proclaim that fire is cold or without brightness will (such a statement) be regarded as authoritative. " Adhyasa need not be validated or revealed by shruti. Our daily experience is sufficient to reveal this fact when analyzed with the revelations of the Veda. Shankara only makes this point very clear in the Adhyasa Bhashya. We accept Shankara and the tradition he belongs to to be the right tradition of teachers who teach the purport of the Shruti. NOT any other tradition. If you feel otherwise, you are definitely in the wrong place but of course you are welcome to stay and learn from the discussions among the many scholars here (excepting myself). best regards, K Kathirasan > > Jay Nelamangala [sMTP:jay] > Wednesday, April 16, 2003 2:53 PM > advaitin > Re: Re: Beethoven and Advaita > > Dear Guru Venkat, > > >Firstly, to clarify my earlier point : Jada is Brahman. > >In the Suddhatvaita of Vallabacharya; He says that Jada is created > >from Sat part of Brahman. The Jiva under Avidya views it in illusory > >forms. It is quite real since it is from Brahman. > > upanishats present brahman as : > "sAkshI chEtaa kEvalO" etc. Brahman is chEtana. > > Jada coming out of Brahman, does not make Brahman Himself 'jada' > Just as cob-web ( jada) coming out of a spider (chEtana). Does it make > spider a 'jada' ? > > The shuddhAdvaita of Sri VallabhAchArya says that this world is created > by Brahman. It is real and it is different from Brahman. The world is > jada. It is Brahman's adhi-bhoutika-form. > Brahman is sat-chit-Ananda-swaroopa. The relationship between this world > and Brahman is the same relationship that exists between cob-web and the > spider. > > Brahman creates the world with 28 principles (5 gross elements,5 motor > organs, 5 subtle elements, 5 sensory organs, sattva,rajas, > tamas, purusha, prakrti, mahat, ahamkAra,and mind). > That my friend, in a nutshell is shuddhAdvaita ontology. > > Brahman is sat-chit-Ananda-swaroopa. The fact that Brahman is 'chit' tells > us that Brahman is not jada even in shuddhAdvaita. > > Please correct me if I am wrong. > - > v_vedanti > advaitin > Tuesday, April 15, 2003 9:38 PM > Re: Beethoven and Advaita > > > Dear Jay, > > > > > I did not mean it in a condescending way. Every one has to start > somewhere. > > But the fact remains that Veda is apourushEya and any translation > of it is pourushEya > > and therefore is not Veda. > > > > As long as we realize the fact that there are no alternatives to > Veda, it is ok to start > > with any coloquial translation. > > > > I hope you understand my point. > > I'll just say that I cannot learn to bicycle without falling down a > few times. > > Firstly, to clarify my earlier point : Jada is Brahman. > In the Suddhatvaita of Vallabacharya; He says that Jada is created > from Sat part of Brahman. The Jiva under Avidya views it in illusory > forms. It is quite real since it is from Brahman. > > I understand this is not Sri Shankara's view. This is just something > that makes sense to me right now, given my frame of mind. > Now wait a minute! before you pull your boxing gloves again!! I do > not intend to get into a debate with you about this. > > Just wanted to get this cleared since I knew I've read this > somewhere. > > Regarding 'Nada Brahman' , I found a very interesting link. Actually > Sri Benjamin might like it very much. It has a good article about > this. I've asked the list moderators if it would be ok to post this > article. > > Om Tat Sat > Guru Venkat > > > Sponsor > > > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of > Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: > http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > > > > > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of > Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: > http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > Sponsor Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 namaste shri Nelamangala-ji, I was intrigued by your postings in the various threads. I am not able to decipher the point(s) you were trying to put across and what your main point(s) of contention is. As much as I gather, you are saying 1. adhyAsa is not part of the vedA-s and that it was never mentioned in the vedA-s. 2. After Knowledge, the substratum and the superimposed both continue to exist. 3. avidyA is not the origin of the world, but parabrahman is. 4. As gathered also by other members, the parabrahman which you refer is saguNa brahman. 5. You are against adhyAsa as an explanation. May be, I did not understand correctly some of the points you are making. It seems to me that it would be best that you present your understanding in the form of one or two posts and also state explicitly (i) whether your thinking is close to any of our AcAryA-s, shri shankara, shri rAmAnuja, shri mAdhwa or any other AcAryA-s who commented on the vedA-s over the years, (ii) any school of thought you to in terms of teachers, books, maThA-s, etc. When you introduced yourself as a scholar of prasthAnatraya, I was hoping you would explain the contents (of the prasthAnatraya) in a coherent way rather than one-line interventions. My feeling is: it would be best if you put your understanding in one or two coherent posts rather than putting one-line comments on the posts by various persons. That sort of one-line interventions without fully stating your understanding and without laying a solid foundation, looks like a sniper attack to me. I do not agree with some of the points you have made, but your one-line interventions do not give anyone opportunity to fully understand what you are trying to say and the basis for it. The purpose of this post is to know more fully your line of thought rather than a criticism. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 Dear Kathirasan-jI, >My fundamental problem as a human being is >that I think that I am inadequate. Every other problem is an extension of >this flawed conclusion. I know this problem very well indeed for all my >struggles (purusharthas) in life is to remove this inadequacy. The very fact that we can't see our own back, should tell us that after all our abilities are limited in terms of our knowledge, our power etc is not a flawed conclusion. Again, vEdAnta coming from prasthAna-traya does not negate that conclusion either. That is why shrutis make the clear distinction between the 'jeeva with limited faculties' and the 'limitless Parabrahman'. "tadEva brahma tvam viddhi nEdam yadidam upAsate" etc. But if we start out with a certain already predrawn belief that such a parabrahman is 'somehow' self-evident and that 'this limited jeeva is 'somehow' already that limitelss parabrahman" then we need to come up with a theory that not only negates own experience of being limited but also ignores all the shrutis which stress on that fact, and give undue importance to only those lines of text whose literally translated apparent meaning provides exactly what our 'belief' says. Bang !! we got the adhyAsa-theory, the mahAvakya theory, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 Dear Kathirasan-jI >My fundamental problem as a human being is that I think that I am inadequate. >But the Veda reveals that I am Brahman (Aham Brahmasmi) and it is totally >contradicting the notion that I am inadequate. Precisely. So what should you do at that point?. Look at the possible meanings of "Aham brahmAsmi" and go with that one which does not contradict any other part of shruti, which does not contradict our experience, and which is in line with prasthAna-traya. You may ask how can there be many meanings for "Aham brahmAsmi" ? Answer is simple, look at any usage which talk about "identity". I will give you some examples to make this concept clear. When I say, "He is a man, he is not a bear" - there is nothing more to interpret. Thus sentences which talk of "non-identity" do not need any further interpretation. However, when I say, "He is a bear" - now it needs interpretation why I think he is a bear. Possibilities could be 1) He sleeps too much therefore "He is a bear" or 2) He likes honey too much therefore "He is a bear" or 3) He is a very hairy person and therfore "He is a bear" etc etc. So there is some common property between the him and bear which is to be known by the context in which the "He is a bear" appears. That is why "Identity" statements are known as "sAvakAsha shruti" (shruti which lends itself for interpretations). This "sAvakAshatva" comes in different varieties, I will give one example for each so we can understand it better. 1. Common properties - He is a lion. He is a bear. I am God. Shruti is trying to say that there are some common properties such as being a chEtana, having a will etc which are kind of common to both humans and God. 2. Power - Microsoft is all Bill Gates Microsoft is a corporation and therefore is a entity on paper, and Bill Gates is not. This usage is to show that all power in Microsoft rests in Bill Gates. 3. Thinking: mati-Aikya (All senators should become one and pass this bill) does it mean all senators should combine, and become one huge senator? 4. Region-sthAna-Aikya(All of you assemble in the library ) - You do expect all of them to occupy seperate chairs in the library, don't you? 5. Tastes/Interests -The three sisters are one and the same. ( There are still 3 sisters) .. Closeness - Husband and wife became one again. .. Inseperable - Sugar is sweet. Sugar is white. Thus, "abhEda" (Aikya or identity ) is always sAvakAsha. It lends itself to several interpretations, where as "bhEda" can be interpreted only in one way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 Dear Kathirasan-jI, >And the reason attributed to this contradiction is that I am taking myself to >be something I am not (Adhyasa) due to the absence of Brahmavidya. >Therefore, we don't need the Veda to >reveal Adhyasa as it is a common experience for every human being to >identify oneself with the Body-sense-mind complex in our daily transactions >with the objective world. So when we encounter a shruti-vAksya such as "aham brahmAsmi", we should look at the several possible interpretations and go with that one which does not contradict rest of the Veda, Geetha, and brahma-sootras. Instead, what has happened is, we made a new theory called "adhyAsa" and declared we don't need Veda to reveal adhyAsa. It is like saying "I don't need my eyes to reveal smell". Veda in its entirity ( all of karma-kAnda and all of jnAna-kAnda included) reveals only Parabrahman. This is why you need the principles laid out in brahma-sootras to understand Veda. If this step is ignored, of course Veda also says "asat vA idam agra Aseet" ( In the beginning there was only asat ). Parabrahman should be called asat-chit-Ananda?. This part of vEda is very inconvenient for us because everyone believes that parabrahman is sat-chit-Ananda. What do we do now? Conveniently ignore that part of vEda, and give prominence to those sentences which are convenient for our "beliefs" and call them mahA-vAkya. That is exactly what has happened here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 Hi Kathirasan-jI, >Here is what Shankara says on the Bhagavad Gita verse 17:66 : 17th chapter has only 28 shlOkas in it. SO it must be either 18th or the second chapter. >"Not even if a hundred Shrutis proclaim that fire is cold or without >brightness will (such a statement) be regarded as authoritative. " Precisely. why? because fire that is cold is "not given". Similarly, a jeeva one fine day becoming brahman (sarva-vyApta, sarvajnya, sarva-shakta) is also "not given" "Not even if a hundred shrutis proclaim that this jeeva is Brahman will (such a statement) be regarded as authoritative." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 Dear Kathirasan-jI, >We accept Shankara and the tradition he belongs to to be the >right tradition of >teachers who teach the purport of the Shruti. NOT any other tradition. I do understand that that is the same feeling with most of the others in this group. People like me may show up once in a while, and make you re-visit your beliefs by making some noise. It is okay to accept one school of thought and its teachings. Each of our Acharyas had a set of reasons and circumstances under which they formulated their philosophies. But when a noise such as "anuaplabdhi comes under pratyaksha and anumAna and therefore need not be an indendent pramANa" is made, it should make people who had hitherto accepted it as an independent pramANa to go back to their drawing boards. Only then all these discussions have a meaning. If it is not done, philosophy becomes a set of "beliefs". These discussions hopefully result making one's knowledge more solid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 praNAm Jay Prabhuji, Hare Krishna You wrote : Precisely. why? because fire that is cold is "not given". Similarly, a jeeva one fine day becoming brahman (sarva-vyApta, sarvajnya, sarva-shakta) is also "not given" > Then what is the meaning of brahmavit bramhaiva bhavati prabhuji?? which brahma shruti mentioning here ?? In mundaka upaniShad (3.2.8) also there is a mention about merging of jivAtma in paramAtman beyond any names & forms. The mantra goes like: yathA nadya: syandamAnA: samudrEstam gachhanti nAma rUpE vihAya, tathA vidhvAnAmarUpAdvimukta: parAt param puruShamupaite divyam...As the rivers flowing into the ocean & therein losing name * form become one with the supreme being, who is the transcendental reality. BTW how do you define avidya (ignorance) prabhuji?? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2003 Report Share Posted April 16, 2003 Hari OM! Blessed Jayji, With all due respect and reverence to your learning and knowledge, please follow the moderators Jayji You can say your opinion, Yes, everything is a belief can you say it is not. And Your discussion will not help for anything solid. it is all vague arguments which does not have any backing Please follow Ramachadraji's directions and do needful, I think everybody in this forum will agree with me, There is no use discussing like this, which does not have any continuity, Please read the Brahmasutras as suggested by Moderators. And this month's topic is Fate and Freewill, not Adhyasa, when Adhyasa comes we can discuss that elaborately! Believing in one school of thought only gives you full liberation, but of course you can respect and admire some other view point also,and respect all Mahatmas, there is no use of wasting time discussing un-necessarily to argue and counter arguing without touching anywhere. This is not a forum to do that. Advaita vedanta accepts only Tarka not Kutarka! And this forum is to discuss Exclusively Shankaracharya's Advaita Vedanta. Please keep in mind. Please do needful Jayaji. Discuss about Fate & Freewill. With Love & OM! Krishna Prasad --- Jay Nelamangala <jay wrote: > > I do understand that that is the same feeling with most of the > others in this group. People like me may show up once in a while, > and make you re-visit your > beliefs by making some noise. > > It is okay to accept one school of thought and its teachings. Each > of > our Acharyas had a set of reasons and circumstances under which > they > formulated their philosophies. But when a noise such as > "anuaplabdhi comes under pratyaksha and anumAna and therefore need > not be an indendent pramANa" is made, it should make people who > had hitherto accepted it as an independent pramANa to go back to > their drawing boards. Only then all these discussions have a > meaning. If it is not done, philosophy becomes a set of "beliefs". > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 Namaste Shri Jay. I disagree. Advaita provides a logical, universal vision that fully explains our situation. Our empirical sciences cannot do that. Any one who tries advaitic methodology will know for himself that the vision blossoms into self-evidence when scriptural statements are continuously contemplated upon. PranAms. Madathil Nair ___________________________ advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote: > But if we start out with a certain already predrawn belief that > such a parabrahman is 'somehow' self-evident and that 'this limited jeeva > is 'somehow' already that limitelss parabrahman" then we need to come up with a theory that not only negates own experience of being limited but also ignores all the shrutis which stress on that fact, and give undue importance to only those lines of text whose literally translated apparent meaning provides exactly what our 'belief' says. Bang !! we got the adhyAsa-theory, > the mahAvakya theory, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 Namaste Shri Jay. Sorry for asking so many questions. These are genuine doubts. Who is to do this? The limited, deluded me whose current level of knowledge is external to prastAnathraya (even with the help of a guru who, in all certainty, is also similarly placed although he is comparatively better off in mundane terms!). Why not then call out to Sankara for help? PranAms. Madathil Nair ____________ advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote: > Look at the possible meanings of "Aham brahmAsmi" and go with that one > which does not contradict any other part of shruti, which does not contradict > our experience, and which is in line with prasthAna-traya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 Namaste. Tat is like "sambhavAmi yuge yuge" of the prastAnatraya. Madathil Nair advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote: People like me may show up once in a while, and make you re-visit your beliefs by making some noise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 Dear Sri Nair, That is why you should let prasthAna-traya to lead you to conclusions, and not start out with conclusions such as "advaita" or "dvaita" and then look at prasthAna-traya for supporting your already drawn conclusion. That process is what is called shAstra 'samanvaya'. By splitting Veda into jnAna and karma kAnda, and rejecting karma-kAnda entirely half of Veda is already thrown out. Than selecting only 4 sentences out of the entire other half (jnAna kAnda). and selecting only one particular meaning of convenience for these 4 sentences, which happen to be identity statements therefore lend themselves for several interpretations, that too selecting one meaning which is very questionable in the context of that upanishat. If you build a philosophy like this, can you call it Vedic? Where is samanvaya here? That is why, as long as you don't call it such a philosophy Vedic we don't have an issue on hand. The moment you call it Vedic, other Acharyas who have shown how to do that samanvaya raise an issue. - Madathil Rajendran Nair advaitin Saturday, April 19, 2003 7:47 AM Re: Adhyasa Namaste Shri Jay. Sorry for asking so many questions. These are genuine doubts. Who is to do this? The limited, deluded me whose current level of knowledge is external to prastAnathraya (even with the help of a guru who, in all certainty, is also similarly placed although he is comparatively better off in mundane terms!). Why not then call out to Sankara for help? PranAms. Madathil Nair ____________ advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote: > Look at the possible meanings of "Aham brahmAsmi" and go with that one > which does not contradict any other part of shruti, which does not contradict > our experience, and which is in line with prasthAna-traya. Sponsor Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 Dear Nair, It may provide a logical, universal vision for you. Not for other Acharyas who know how to do shAstra-samanvaya. >vision blossoms into self-evidence when scriptural statements are >continuously contemplated upon You mean the 4 statements of jnAna-kAnda. Have you tried taking the other parts of jnAna-kAnda?. Have you tried including the karma-kAnda? Have you applied all the sootras? Have you made sure you don't go against the Geetha? Do all the above, and then let us talk. - Madathil Rajendran Nair advaitin Saturday, April 19, 2003 7:20 AM Re: Adhyasa Namaste Shri Jay. I disagree. Advaita provides a logical, universal vision that fully explains our situation. Our empirical sciences cannot do that. Any one who tries advaitic methodology will know for himself that the vision blossoms into self-evidence when scriptural statements are continuously contemplated upon. PranAms. Madathil Nair ___________________________ advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote: > But if we start out with a certain already predrawn belief that > such a parabrahman is 'somehow' self-evident and that 'this limited jeeva > is 'somehow' already that limitelss parabrahman" then we need to come up with a theory that not only negates own experience of being limited but also ignores all the shrutis which stress on that fact, and give undue importance to only those lines of text whose literally translated apparent meaning provides exactly what our 'belief' says. Bang !! we got the adhyAsa-theory, > the mahAvakya theory, etc. Sponsor Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 Only SriKrishna can say "sambhavAmi yugE yugE". I was only referring to this email list. What you have done is a fallacy in shAstra called "kalpanA-gourava". - Madathil Rajendran Nair advaitin Saturday, April 19, 2003 8:07 AM Re: Adhyasa Namaste. Tat is like "sambhavAmi yuge yuge" of the prastAnatraya. Madathil Nair advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote: People like me may show up once in a while, and make you re-visit your beliefs by making some noise. Sponsor Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2003 Report Share Posted April 20, 2003 Namaste Jayji, I am tempted to reply to all your comments....but let us heed the advice of the moderators. :-) Whao....my mailbox was almost full when I returned to work today.... Have a great day. best regards, K Kathirasan > > Jay Nelamangala [sMTP:jay] > Thursday, April 17, 2003 6:20 AM > advaitin > Re: Adhyasa > > Hi Kathirasan-jI, > > >Here is what Shankara says on the Bhagavad Gita verse 17:66 : > > 17th chapter has only 28 shlOkas in it. SO it must be either 18th > or the second chapter. > > >"Not even if a hundred Shrutis proclaim that fire is cold or without > >brightness will (such a statement) be regarded as authoritative. " > > Precisely. why? because fire that is cold is "not given". Similarly, > a jeeva one fine day becoming brahman (sarva-vyApta, sarvajnya, > sarva-shakta) > is also "not given" > > "Not even if a hundred shrutis proclaim that this jeeva is Brahman > will (such a statement) be regarded as authoritative." > > > > > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of > Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: > http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > 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.