A Note on Nonduality

[Guest guest]

Hello Concordance 909,

 

My reference on the locus of pain is to the 1st. chapter of Upadesasahasri. I

use the same edition and it's on pages 21/22.(pub.Ramakrishna Math,

Sw.Jagadananda trans.)

 

 

 

The third variety of Bauddha doctrine, viz. that everything is empty

(i.e. that absolutely nothing exists), is contradicted by all means

of right knowledge, and therefore requires no special refutation.

For this apparent world, whose existence is guaranteed by all means

of knowledge, cannot be denied, unless some one should find out some

new truth (based on which he could impugn its existence) - for a

general principle is proved by the absence of contrary instances.

- Brahma Sutra Bhasya

 

There's one I would like to know chapter and verse on. It seems to accept the

principle of induction a position which Hume would impugn. Monkish subtility

no doubt.

 

Your quote on dreams is from B.S.B. II.ii.29 (pg.423 Adaita Ashrama ed.trans.

Sw.Gambhirananda) not II.ii.19. Tutt, tutt.

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...>

wrote:

> Hello Concordance 909,

>

> My reference on the locus of pain is to the 1st. chapter of

Upadesasahasri. I

> use the same edition and it's on pages 21/22.(pub.Ramakrishna

Math,

> Sw.Jagadananda trans.)

>

>

 

 

Thankyou.

 

> The third variety of Bauddha doctrine, viz. that everything is

empty

> (i.e. that absolutely nothing exists), is contradicted by all means

> of right knowledge, and therefore requires no special refutation.

> For this apparent world, whose existence is guaranteed by all means

> of knowledge, cannot be denied, unless some one should find out

some

> new truth (based on which he could impugn its existence) - for a

> general principle is proved by the absence of contrary instances.

> - Brahma Sutra Bhasya

>

> There's one I would like to know chapter and verse on. It seems

to accept the

> principle of induction a position which Hume would impugn.

Monkish subtility

> no doubt.

>

 

 

I am using Thibaut's translation, so I will type out his translation

of the Brahma Sutra verse as well, just in case his edition is using

a different numbering system:

 

II.ii.31 - An on account of the momentariness (of the Alayavignana,

it cannot be the abode of mental impressions).

 

In my edition, this is found in the second paragraph, near the end.

 

> Your quote on dreams is from B.S.B. II.ii.29 (pg.423 Adaita

Ashrama ed.trans.

> Sw.Gambhirananda) not II.ii.19. Tutt, tutt.

>

> Best Wishes, Michael.

 

 

Yes, well, I'm using a hundred-year old (or more) translation, and

in my edition it does indeed occur at II.ii.29 - the Brahma Sutra

verse given is:

 

29. And on account of their difference of nature (the ideas of the

waking state) are not like those of a dream.

 

I wonder, are there different numbering systems in different

editions of the Brahma Sutras, or did they originally not include a

numbering system or, how does one account for this?