Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 Namaste SrI Chittaranjan-ji, As said earlier, I may not be able to reply to your entire post here. > > No Sir. brahman and brahman alone is the ultimate satya. > > > When you say Brahman alone is the ultimate sathya, the question that > is to be resolved in our discussion is: What does Brahman include and > what does it not include? Inclusion and exclusion do not apply to brahman. >I am of the opinion that we should > interpret Advaita in a manner whereby the two statements (1) The > world is unreal and (2) Brahman is the world, should be reconciled, > whereas you seem to exclude the latter statement. I already explained this in one of my previous mails. brahman is the world as both brahman and the world are denoted by the same "that", just as the snake and the rope are denoted by the same "that". "This world is not actually what you see, but it is brahman." In this way brahman is the world. Neither is that going to make the world real nor is that going to make brahman unreal. It is also to be noted that you are giving undue importance to statements claiming brahman is the world, when there are also statements claiming that brahman is different from the world. brahman is different from the world in the same way as the rope can never be the snake. > Before one can say > that something is an illusion, it is necessary to flesh out the > meaning of illusion >itself. Definitely. Mithyatva/illusion is that which can be eternally negated in its own locus. > > >In what way does Advaita include both standpoints? > > > > ajAti vAda is the paramArthik standpoint while vivarta vAda > > is the vyavahArik standpoint. > > > Incorrect. What is the standpoint of the Acharya in the Brahma Sutra > Bhashya? Please note that the correct term for what Adi Shankara uses > in the Brahma Sutra Bhashya is vivartavada. Vivartavada is the > doctrine that there is no creation and destruction, that all change > (as pertaining to objects) is false and apparent only. There is > nothing created because the effect is pre-existent in the cause. The effect being pre-existent in the cause and both being of the same reality is not vivarta-vAda as such, but it is sat-kArya-vAda. In the latter case, what sense does it make to use the words cause and effect when the latter is pre-existent in the former? In case you say that it does make sense, because of cause or effect coming into or going out of manifestation, then what sense does it make to attribute the same reality to them at all points of time? In vivarta-vAda, the cause and effect are not attributed the same reality. Even though there may not be creation and destruction, where do manifestation and unmanifestation come from? You cannot deny them even if you deny the former duo. For if you deny them, then the very words cause and effect have no meaning. And when once you accept them, you do have many truths other than brahman. Moreover, if the manifestation of an effect is real, then brahman really changes while manifesting itself as the world. Change need not pertain only to a change of substance, it can also pertain to a change in manifestaion. The example for the latter is pot formation from clay. The example for the former is milk turning into curd. (Chemical and Physical changes in Science.) If the effect is really pre-existent in the cause, is the cause too post-existent in the effect? Can you turn curd back into milk? Are there manifestation and unmanifestation in vivarta-vAda? Is the effect pre-existent only in the material cause or even in the instrumental cause? In cause of multiple material causes, is the effect partly pre-existent in all of them? If you consider the world as the effect and brahman as the cause, and if the world is pre-existent in brahman, does brahman spontaneously manifest itself as the world or does it do it intentionally? Does this process happen at a particular point of time or was it always there? >Your > statement that vivartavada is the standpoint of >vyavaharika "sathya" > is incorrect. To assume that vivarta-vAda is paramArthika, you must show that it is synonymous with brahman. > Vivartavada is the standpoint of paramarthika sathya - > that there is no creation, no destruction, no birth, no death. That should be "no real creation etc.", with real standing for "as real as brahman". > Ajativada has its origin in Abhidharma Buddhism and was taken over by > Gaudapada to show how ajativada did not lead to nihilism or > momentariness because Brahman remains in all the negations as the > ground of negations. Like vivartavada, ajativada also holds that > there is no creation or destruction, but its semantic meaning > indicates the absence of essence. I have no idea of the semantic meaning of ajAti-vAda. I was using ajAti vAda as was used by GauDapAda. Even if ajAti-vAda really means the absence of essence, that is not going to enter into our discussion, nor is it going to really harm GauDapAda's or Sankara's positions in any way. For it is incorrect to understand brahman as the merely essence of the world. It is also incorrect to understand brahman as just "consciousness", jNAnam, etc. That is the reason why I generally avoid using the "consciousness" for brahman. The rest of the reply would be given later. Sorry for any inconvenience. Thanks for your understanding. Regards Raghavendra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 - "Raghavendra N Kalyan" <kalyan7429 > It is also incorrect to understand > brahman as just "consciousness", jNAnam, etc. That is the reason why > I generally avoid using the "consciousness" for brahman. Namaste Kalyanji, This was something which I always felt like saying here in this list !! It will resolve many confusions ;-) Hari Om Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 Namaste Ranjeetji and Kalyanji, What would a good translation of the Mahavakyas? prajnAnaM brahma | ayam AtmA brahma | ahaM brahmAsmi | tat tvam asi | Regards, Sunder advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar" <thefinalsearch> wrote: > > - > "Raghavendra N Kalyan" <kalyan7429> > > > It is also incorrect to understand > > brahman as just "consciousness", jNAnam, etc. That is the reason why > > I generally avoid using the "consciousness" for brahman. > > > Namaste Kalyanji, > > This was something which I always felt like saying here in this list !! > It will resolve many confusions ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 Namaste Sunderji, So what's the other running thread? Multiple Brahman-s (consciousness) ?? Please take this message lightly :-) Hari Om - "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh <advaitin> Thursday, March 11, 2004 06:53 PM Re: Advaita and adhyasa - 1 > Namaste Ranjeetji and Kalyanji, > > What would a good translation of the Mahavakyas? > > prajnAnaM brahma | > > > Regards, > > Sunder > > advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar" > <thefinalsearch> wrote: > > > > - > > "Raghavendra N Kalyan" <kalyan7429> > > > > > It is also incorrect to understand > > > brahman as just "consciousness", jNAnam, etc. That is the reason > why > > > I generally avoid using the "consciousness" for brahman. > > > > > > Namaste Kalyanji, > > > > This was something which I always felt like saying here in this > list !! > > It will resolve many confusions ;-) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 Namaste SrI Sunder-ji, I presume that you know the meanings of all these vAkya-s much better than me and so I am leaving the stuff of explaining their meaning to you. However, to justify the stand that brahman cannot be just called as consciousness etc., I bring your attention to "neti neti" of the bRhadAraNyaka. The text says that it is the best "description" of brahman. Also, please refer to Sankara's commentary on that. What you think of as my stand is not really my own stand. I was just trying to follow the AchArya. Please feel free to share your thoughts. Thanks. Regards Raghavendra advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh> wrote: > Namaste Ranjeetji and Kalyanji, > > What would a good translation of the Mahavakyas? > > prajnAnaM brahma | > > ayam AtmA brahma | > > ahaM brahmAsmi | > > tat tvam asi | > > > Regards, > > Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 advaitin, "Raghavendra N Kalyan" <kalyan7429> wrote: > Namaste SrI Sunder-ji, > > > I presume that you know the meanings of all these vAkya-s much better > than me and so I am leaving the stuff of explaining their meaning to > you. Namaste Raghavendraji, My question pertained just to a translation rather than explanation. Anyway, I shall take Sri Ranjeetji's hint and quietly enjoy the dialogue. [ "Ranjeet Sankar" <thefinalsearch Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:26 am Re: Re: Advaita and adhyasa - 1 So what's the other running thread? Multiple Brahman-s (consciousness) ?? Please take this message lightly :-) ] Regards, Sunder 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.