pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... revisited (April 04 topic)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chitteranjanji, Balaji and Bhaskar-ji,

 

Just a scribble in the margins of your debate. From

one point of view avidya/adhyasa is not so how can what

is not i.e. essentially non-being, be the cause of

anything? Say the others 'just so, we have made

nothing to be the cause of something, it is we who do

it for Brahman is aloof. Seeing that is the first step

to apavada.'

 

The texts that C.N. was promoting B.S.B.I.i.2 eg. That

from which these things take birth (Tai.III.i)

represent Shankara coming from a realistic accepatance

of the world as a given and taking his cosmogeny from

the Vedas. Outside of the scripture he would not

accept a proof by reason of the existence of

God/Brahman. This would line up with other traditions.

Agnosticism is the only rational position, atheism is

as much a position of belief as belief in God. However

once the knowledge of the Absolute(by whatever name the

sages call it) is got then reason can come into play.

'then even inference ..., is not ruled out in so far as

it is adopted as a valid means of knowledge reinforcing

these texts; for the Upanisads themselves accept

reasoning as a help.....the Vedic texts rely on the

intelligence of man." If ideas which occur in the

Vedas occur elsewhere does that mean that they must

have come from the Vedas? Maybe Balaji's suggestion

about apoureshya might have empirical validity.

 

He says:

If the text is apourusheya, then why is it in a human

language and that too understandable by a human. The

meaning of apourusheya should not be confused. It only

means that the knowledge of the self is apourusheya and

not created by anyone else. It is already within a

person. The very nature of the person is the veda and

he requires no

other means to know this. He just needs to know

Himself. Apourusheya does not mean written by God or

some supernatural phenomena. Such things don't exist.

The knowledge of the self is supreme and is already

within a person. This knowledge is apourusheya veda.

ShravaNa

alone of this knowledge will surely lead to liberation

as pointed out. Only apourusheya veda can lead to

liberation. Hence the knowledge of the self alone can

lead to liberation. This is the meaning of the

statement 'SharvaNa alone can lead to liberation.'

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

my own chit-ranjan-ji !

 

can i kindly ask you guys a favor please please!!!

 

I understand all about Vaishnnava humility !!!

 

i think "ji " is Good Enough!

 

and this "prabhuji" salutation is driving me "nuts" ...

 

this reminds me too much of My Hare Krishna DAYS ...

 

i am trying hard to get into an advaitic' frame of mind ...

 

 

CAN WE JUST STICK TO "JI" ... please?

 

thank you for understanding ....

 

regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- In advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji,

>

>

> advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> >

> > On 29th of April 2004 Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji wrote:

> >

> > CN:

> >

> > If avidya is the cause of the world, then the Acharya's arguments

> > against the doctrine of the Samkhyas showing that pradhana can't

> > be the cause of the universe breaks down. Your argument that

> > avidya (and not intelligence) is the cause of the world is

> > (essentially) the same as the Samkhya argument in so far as it

> > places the cause elsewhere than in the intelligence of Brahman.

> > How does the Acharya refute the claim of the Samkhyas? Isn't it

> > by showing that a sentient Being is necessarily required as the

> > source of action?

> >

> > Bhaskar prabhuji:

> >

> > prabhuji, I donot know why you are bringing in sAnkhya theory

> > of creation here. I am neither talking about sAnkhya's prAdhAna

> > nor vaiSESika's paramANu vAda, as we know both have been refuted

> > by shankara in sUtra bhAshya.

>

> CN:

>

> I am bringing in Samkhya theory here because you have postulated

> avidya as the efficient cause of the universe which is essentially

> the same as pradhana being postulated as the efficient cause in so

> far as both avidya and pradhana are not sentient (Brahman). The

> Acharya has argued (at considerable length) that the efficient

cause

> has to be sentient, and that it is Brahman and Brahman only. Please

> see BSB 1.1.2 and 1.1.3. Again, in BSB 1.1.5 it is clearly argued

> that the first cause is possessed of consciousness. How do you

> reconcile the fact that the efficient cause has to be conscious

with

> your postulate that avidya is the cause? I have asked this earlier,

> but you simply ignore the question. Despite it being clearly stated

> and emphasised in the Bhashya, you ignore the assertion that the

> efficient cause has to be conscious and you continue to repeat that

> avidya is the cause. If you are saying that the Acharya's position

is

> that avidya is the efficient cause of the universe, then you are

> implying that the Acharya has contradicted himself by saying that

the

> first cause is possessed of consciousness. Prabhuji, you need to

find

> a reconciliation in these statements, and not merely repeat

something

> with a high and mighty air of confidence. No answer that you give

> will be satisfactory unless you can point out how the efficient

cause

> steps aside in favour of avidya as the efficient cause. So, an

> explanation is necessary before repeating that avidya is the cause

of

> the universe.

> _______________

>

> Bhaskar prabhuji:

>

> > Now let us take the term avidyA which shankara saying is the

> > main cause of vyAkrutAvyAkruta jagat. First of all, what is

> > the meaning of avidyA/adhyAsa?? shankara in adhyAsa bhAshya

> > makes it very clear what avidyA is. When shankara say avidyA

> > is the cause of the world, it does not mean avidyA has the

> > causal potentiality parallel to brahman & running a

> > separate established office to do srushti kriyA:-))

>

> CN:

>

> If avidya has any kind of causal potentiality (which is your

> position), and if it is not parallel to Brahman, then its office

> (established or otherwise) has to be Brahman. That would make

Brahman

> the seat of ignorance. Is that your position? If you deny it,

please

> provide the reasons why it is not so.

>

> ________________

>

> Bhaskar prabhuji:

>

> > Since we have dealt with the concept *avidyA* several time

> > before, I don't think we should start this once again afresh.

>

> CN:

>

> Merely having dealt with something several times is not meaningful

> unless the questions are resolved.

> ________________

>

>

> Bhaskar prabhuji:

>

> > I once again would like to reiterate that avidyA is not a

> > positive entity which others claim that it has AvaraNa &

> > vikShEpa Sakti. In reality avidyA is NOT there.

>

> CN:

>

> You are right Prabhuji, avidya is not there. But how do you

> understand this? I hope you don't point to something and say it is

> not there. :-)

> ________________

>

> Bhaskar prabhuji:

>

> > Please see shankara's bhAshya on the 13th chapter of gIta for

> > further details. Also refer sUtra bhAshya where shankara say:

> > avidyA kalpitEna cha nAmarUpa lakShaNEna rUpabhEdhEna

> > vyAkrutAvyAkrutAtmakEna tattvAnyatvAbhyAm anirvachanIyEna

> > brahma pariNAmAdhi *sarva vyavahArAspadatvam* pratipadyate!

> > paramAthikEna cha rUpENa *sarva vyavahArAtItam apariNataM

> > avathisTatE.

>

>

> CN:

>

> So, you are saying that the Acharya has contradicted himself by

> saying elsewhere that the efficient cause is conscious (Brahman)?

> _________________

>

>

> > CN:

> >

> > Again, if the entire universe is only constituted by Maya (which

you

> > equate to avidya),

> >

> > bhaskar prabhuji:

> >

> > small correction here prabhuji, I am not equating avidyA with

> > mAya prabhuji. mAya is avidyA kalpita or avidyA lakShaNa.

> > *avidyA lakShaNA prakrutiH mAyA* pravartate" (pls. see gItA

> > bhAshya) The important point to be noted here is shankara

> > here clearly stating that *avidyA lakShaNa prakrutiH mAyA* So,

> > prabhuji mAyA cannot be equated here with avidyA, mAyA

> > is avidyA lakshaNa.

>

>

> CN:

>

> Yes Prabhuji, Maya is not avidya, but if you understand it

correctly,

> Maya is Reality seen through avidya. Maya is Brahman itself. The

> efficient cause is Brahman creating the world in accordance with

the

> jivas' avidya. If you don't see the razor's edge, you will make the

> Acharya seem to contradict himself.

> ________________

>

> Bhaskar prabhuji:

>

> > It is evident that there is no such thing called mAya

> > since it stems out of avidyA.

>

> CN:

>

> Nothing of this sort is evident! You said that avidya is not there,

> so how can there be a "stemming out" of what is not there? Maya is

> not non-existent -- it is the power of the Lord. Maya does not stem

> out of avidya.

>

> The active side of Brahman, called Maya, is seen by a jiva

> characterised by avidya.

> ________________

>

> Bhaskar prabhuji:

>

> > Prabhuji, for our convenience we can say avidyA is subjective

> > defect whereas mAya is objective false appearance due

> > to subjective defect in jIva bhAva.

>

> CN:

>

> It is not a matter of convenience Prabhuji. :-)

> ________________

>

> Bhaskar prabhuji:

>

> > avidyA is the dOsha of pramAtru's antaH karaNa, through this

> > avidyAkruta antah karaNa dOsha he perceives something outside

> > which is really not there.

>

>

> CN:

>

> No, he perceives something outside which is really not outside of

> Self. That doesn't mean that the object is not really there at all!

> The effect is pre-existent in the cause. Bt according to you, the

> effect is totally false even though it is stated that it is pre-

> existent in the cause. Advaita is full of riddles, and this is

> another riddle that you wan't to leave unresolved when asking us to

> accept your interpretation.

> _________________

>

> Bhaskar prabhuji:

>

> > This false appearance is called mAyA which is in turn

> > avidyAkruta or avidyAkalpita or mithyAbhAsa.

>

> CN:

>

> What is it that appears falsely? Or is it nothing that appears

> thusly?

> ________________

>

>

> Bhaskar prabhuji:

>

> > To substantiate this we can see shankara's sUtra bhAshya on

> > ArabhaNAdhikaraNa's sUtra tadanyanyatvamArambhaNashabdAdhibhyaH

> > also prabhuji, here shankara's distinction between avidyA &

> > mAyA is very clear. He says, this mAya/prakruti is fictiously

> > imagined by avidyA.

>

> CN:

>

> The Acharya doesn't say that. What is the translation of this

sutra?

> It is: "There is non-difference of (those) cause and effect on

> account of the text about origin etc."

>

> Why should the universe be asserted to be non-different from

Brahman,

> and then explained away as a fiction? Why can't it be simply

asserted

> to be a fiction? Can you please explain this seeming superfluity?

>

> The bhashya on this sutra states that creation by name and form,

and

> omniscience etc are contingent upon nescience. The

word "contingent"

> is important. When something is contingent on another thing, it

does

> not mean that it is the cause of that something. If I pull the

> curtains on my window and the sunlight streams into the room, what

is

> the cause of the light in my room? Is it my pulling the curtain, or

> is it the nature of the sun and sunlight? Or do you think this

> example is not good because it from the material world? :-)

>

> The Acharya states in the context of the same sutra that "the

origin,

> continuance, and dissolution of the world result not from the

> insentient Pradhana or anything else, but from God who is by nature

> eternal, pure, intelligent, and free, as also omniscient and

> omnipotent. That assertion remains intact. Nothing contradictory to

> that is stated here again."

>

> How is contradiction avoided when the efficient cause is conscious

> and yet it is said that the creation of the world is contingent

upon

> avidya? Can you please explain this? Please remember that avidya

even

> in the presence of Brahman does not make it a cause just as

pradhana

> in the presence of Purusha does not make pradhana a cause (see the

> Acharya's arguments against Samkhya).

>

> _______________

>

> Bhaskar prabhuji:

>

> > Here mAyA described as the figment of avidyA & identified with

> > prakruti.

>

> CN:

>

> No, that is your interpretation (or figment of imagination :-)).

> __________________

>

>

> Bhaskar prabhuji:

>

> > So, prabhuji root cause for false appearance (mAyA/prakruti)

> > is avidyA.

>

> CN:

>

> If you had left out the contents within the paranthesis, I would

have

> agreed with you, but .....

> _________________

>

>

> > CN:

> >

> > then the words that we speak are also constituted

> > by avidya and hence the statement that "avidya is the cause of the

> > universe" would also be constituted by avidya and would make the

> > entire argument self-refuting. The proposition reduces to what is

> > called the liars-paradox -- one which is false if it is true, and

> > true if it is false.

> >

> > bhaskar prabhuji:

> >

> > prabhuji, your argument reminds me Sri rAmAnuja's objections

> > on advaita in SribhAShyaM. While commenting on shankara's

> > concept of avidyA he raises the same objection.

>

> CN:

>

> Sri Ramanauja's objection is not on the Advaita of Sri

> Shankaracahrya, but on the kind of interpretation that you have

been

> giving to Advaita.

> __________________

>

>

> Bhaskar prabhuji:

>

> > Anyway, if the statement itself which says *avidyA is the

> > cause of the universe* is also avidyA, let it be prabhuji.

>

> CN:

>

> There is no "let it be" here, we are discussing about the truth. It

> is not a matter of letting uncomfortable things be just because we

> find ourselves unequal to the task.

> _________________

>

> Bhaskar prabhuji:

>

> > Afterall that is what we are trying to say here is it not??

> > when shankara says sarva loukika, vaidika vyavahAra is avidyA

> > let that statement also be a product of avidyA only.

>

> CN:

>

> You are mixing up what the Acharya says with your own

interpretation

> to derive absurd statements. Do you realise what you are asserting?

> It is like saying "All of this world, including all the sentences I

> speak, are false, but this statement is true!". It is this kind of

> interpretation that has made Advaita vulnerable to attacks by the

> purva paksha! Prabhuji, you have your interpretation, but don't you

> think you should desist from making such confident assertions while

> standing on such a shaky foundation?

>

>

> Regards,

> Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Adiji,

 

 

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

> my own chit-ranjan-ji !

> and this "prabhuji" salutation is driving me "nuts" ...

>

> CAN WE JUST STICK TO "JI" ... please?

 

>From now on I'll stick to the "ji" salutation as I don't want to

drive our dear AdiMa nuts! :-)

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

You have again picked the convenient first line (single sentence)

and are then building on it. The rest of Sankara's text, where he

is emphatic about the fullness of idam, is sadly ignored.

 

My point of view in a nutshell is, as I have mentioned before, 'A'

is in front of me disguised as 'B'. I see through the game and know

that the fellow before me is 'A'. I am not fooled. In a similar

manner, I don't want to be fooled by what I perceive. I am in

fact 'looking at' myself - Brahman, and, when I write this to you,

these letters are Brahman and my knowledge that you are somewhere

there in beautiful Bangalore is also Brahman. You are thus Brahman

Prabhuji. I only have to see through the argumentative attribute

that you wear to disguise yourself!

 

You are trying to corner me on that particular Sanskrit sentence

which I said resonates well with my point of view. I still maintain

that opinion, although, on rethinking, I now see a bit of dvaita

in 'udrichyate', a verb I thought conveys the same meaning

as 'udacyate' in the verse under discussion. I looked up the

dictionary but couldn't locate it. Perhaps, our Sunderji can help.

Whether udrichyate or udacyate, please understand that my

understanding does not involve the creation of a new thing. In that

sense, the quoted sentence reflects my understanding but for the

ambiguity in udrichyate, if at all any.

 

I see that Chittranjanji has built a formidable fort based on

scriptural texts and logic to support the pUrNatwam of idam. Maniji

has ably helped. It is now up to you to refute them by presenting a

better understanding.

 

In conclusion, I quote Sankara from AnnapUrNA Stotram:

 

drishyAdrishyAvibhUtivAhanakarI brahmANdabhANdOdarI

lIlAnAtaka sUtrabhEdanakarI vijnAna dIpamkurI

srivishwEshamanah prasadanakarI kAshIpurAdhIshwarI

bhiksham dEhi kriAvalambanakarI mAtAnnapUrNEshwarI

 

The disguise I mentioned above is the sUtra in the above stanza

(meaning a string, also the string which controls the movements of

puppets in a puppet-show and, therefore, the secret of a trick).

She is the one who severs that sUtra to give us knowledge about what

all this show (lIlAnAtaka) is all about. Let us call out to Her so

that She whispers in our ears we are all full and therefore does not

exclude anything.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

> Please take special note of very first sentence here. Shankara

clearly

> stating here *idaM* refers to sopAdhikaM nAmarUpasthaM,

> upAdhiparichchhinnena *conditioned brahman* etc. What is

sopAdhikAm & has

> limited adjuncts is avidyAkruta. Please see sUtra bhAshya where

shankara

> says yathAhi avibhAgEpi paramAtmani *mithAjnAna pratibhaddo*

vibhAga

> vyavahAraH *svapnavat* avyAhataH sthita drushyate, yevaM apItAvapi

> mithyAjnAna pratibhaddaiva vibhAga shanktiH anumAnyate.

>

> It is through mithyAjnAna we are seeing the sOpAdhika brahman in

*idam* in

> vyavahAra, but in paramArthika ONLY nirguNa nirviShEsha

parabrahman is

> satyasya satyam.

>

> Further, I would like to know how your stand on pUrNamidam differs

from

> that of dvaitAdvaita vAdins i.e. pUrNAt kAraNAt pUrNam kAryaM

udrichyate!

> udriktam kAryaM vartamAna kAlEpi pUrNamEva paramArtha vastu bhutam

dvaita

> rUpENa!. You may remember, you said your stand is similar to this

&

> subsequently it has been clarified it is not advaita it is

dvaitAdvaita of

> bhartruhari.

>

[Guest guest]

First to Sri Adi shakthi mAtAji,

 

kindly pardon me for not obliging your request mAtAji, I am not able to

call any of the list members name without suffixing prabhuji. They are

all very kind to me & helping me in my spiritual quest. Yes, you are right

mAtAji, The Hare Krishna mahA mantra & acknowledging the indwelled ONE of

everyone by calling their names with prabhuji & mAtAji are two things I

brought finally from my association with ISKCON.

 

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

Humble praNAms Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

At the outset, please accept my heartfelt praNAms for taking pain to

clarify my doubts prabhuji. By interacting with scholars like you

prabhuji, it would be always knowledge enriching experience for me.

 

CN Prabhuji:

 

I am bringing in Samkhya theory here because you have postulated

avidya as the efficient cause of the universe which is essentially

the same as pradhana being postulated as the efficient cause in so

far as both avidya and pradhana are not sentient (Brahman).

 

bhaskar:

 

Oh no prabhuji!! you are taking my position on avidyA entirely in a

different stride. I am really unable to understand inspite of giving my

understanding of the term *avidyA* repeatedly in the mails you are always

taking a different view of it & coming out with some new theories & saying

it is my position. I think, there must be some serious problem in my

communication. OK, let me give one more try. AVIDYA according to my

understanding :

 

(1) avidyA is not a shakti & it does not have its own existence so, no

question of its efficient & material cause in srushti prakriya.

 

(2) Whenever I mention the word *avidyA* it is to be understood that it is

natural (naisargikaH) to human mind.

 

(3) The basic 3 natures of avidyA are firstly, non-perception or

non-apprehension also called in sanskrit agrahaNa (tattvAgrahaNa),

secondly, misconception or misunderstanding also famously called

adhyAsa/anyatha grahaNa/ anyatha jnAna/viparIta grahaNa/mithyA pratyaya

etc.etc. & finally doubting also called samShaya.

 

(4) This avidyA which is quite natural to *human mind* & it has neither

avaraNa nor vikShEpa shakti as mUlAvidyAvAdins say. So, no question of

efficient & material cause either!!

 

Please dont think that these are all my *own* interpretation of *avidyA*.

Please see gItA bhAshya 13th chapter as well as br.up. bhAshya of shankara.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

The Acharya has argued (at considerable length) that the efficient cause

has to be sentient, and that it is Brahman and Brahman only. Please

see BSB 1.1.2 and 1.1.3. Again, in BSB 1.1.5 it is clearly argued

that the first cause is possessed of consciousness. How do you

reconcile the fact that the efficient cause has to be conscious with

your postulate that avidya is the cause? I have asked this earlier,

but you simply ignore the question.

 

bhaskar:

 

Why I've ignored this question?? the reason has already been conveyed to

you. You may remember what I said to your BSB quotes as regards to the

jagat kAraNatva of parabrahman. I said this can be taken for detailed

discussion based on sUtra, mAndukya, kArikA bhAshya of shankara &

sureshwara's vArtika on br.up. when your topic comes for month long

discussion. If you want to discuss this right away, we can start it under a

separate thread *jagat kAraNatva of parabrahman*. What would you suggest

prabhuji??

 

In short, kAraNatva of parabrahman or intelligent cause of parabraman comes

into picture only & only if you accept the kArya /srushti from kAraNa.

Shankara says in sUtra bhAshya itself that kAryasya taddharmANAm cha

avidyAvidhArOpitatvAt *nataiH kAraNaM saMsrujyate* iti, kAraNa & kArya

superimposed on brahman form adhyArOpa drushti to drive home the point that

EkAmEvAdviytIya brahman is beyond these causes.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

Despite it being clearly stated and emphasised in the Bhashya, you ignore

the assertion that the efficient cause has to be conscious and you continue

to repeat that

avidya is the cause. If you are saying that the Acharya's position is

that avidya is the efficient cause of the universe, then you are

implying that the Acharya has contradicted himself by saying that the

first cause is possessed of consciousness.

 

bhaskar:

 

Since my position on *avidyA* has already been explained above, I need have

to comment on this.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

Prabhuji, you need to find a reconciliation in these statements, and not

merely repeat something with a high and mighty air of confidence. No answer

that you give

will be satisfactory unless you can point out how the efficient cause

steps aside in favour of avidya as the efficient cause. So, an

explanation is necessary before repeating that avidya is the cause of

the universe.

 

bhaskar:

 

prabhuji, reconciliation can easily be done if we know the shankara

sampradAya, the scope of adhyArOpApavAda & the methodology adopted by vedic

seers to advocate paramArtha satya in shruti-s. If we ignore this basic

tool, as you said, we'll find ONLY contradictions & self-refuting

statements in shankara bhAshya.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

If avidya has any kind of causal potentiality (which is your

position), and if it is not parallel to Brahman, then its office

(established or otherwise) has to be Brahman. That would make Brahman

the seat of ignorance. Is that your position? If you deny it, please

provide the reasons why it is not so.

 

bhaskar:

 

there comes the age old question locus of avidyA!! Again good enough for a

separate thread. Anyway, since you are asking the *seat* of avidyA...I've

to say rather shankara says The seat of avidyA is the person who is asking

this question. If you want more details on this interesting conversation

between pUrvapakshi & vedAntin pls. refer sUtra bhAshya. BTW, you can also

read Sri Atmachaitanya prabhuji's mail on mUlAvidyA in archieves.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

You are right Prabhuji, avidya is not there. But how do you

understand this? I hope you don't point to something and say it is

not there. :-)

 

bhaskar:

 

In reality avidyA is not there but it is naisargika so says shankara. But,

still you are asking a person to understand the *second chandra* (moon)

which you are the only person seeing due to cataract problem in your eyes.

Under these circumstances, where, the other person who does not have the

cataract problem should pin the second moon on the board for clear

understanding you tell me prabhuji:-)) (here I hope you get the sound

behind the word *you* prabhuji.)

 

CN:

 

So, you are saying that the Acharya has contradicted himself by

saying elsewhere that the efficient cause is conscious (Brahman)?

 

bhaskar:

 

No prabhuji, I can say it is due to lack of understanding of methodology

adopted by shruti-s, shankara & his true sampradAya followers. Question

here is who is lacking this understanding?? it should be either one of

us...I'll be the happiest person to correct my understanding if it is

proved wrong & contradictory to shankara sampradAya.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

Yes Prabhuji, Maya is not avidya, but if you understand it correctly,

Maya is Reality seen through avidya. Maya is Brahman itself.

 

bhaskar:

 

mAyA is brahman?? it is really very strange to see this statement from an

advaitin. Can you please guide me to shankara bhAshya where shankara says

mAya = brahman prabhuji. prabhuji kindly refer what shankara says on mAya

in kArikA bhAshya?? mAyA nAma vastu tarhi?? maivaM sA cha mAyA na vidyatE!

mAyEtyavidyamAnasyAkhyA ityabhiprAyaH...

 

Further, I am seeing one more strange statement that *mAyA is reality*. If

the mAyA is a hard core reality, shankara would have definitely not made

the above comment on mAya. Moreover, shankara would have not called mAya

as avidyAkalpita, avidyApratyupasthApita, avdiyAtmaka in several places in

sUtra bhAshya. Oflate, I am realising that I've to still learn lot of

*new* things in advaita.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

The efficient cause is Brahman creating the world in accordance with the

jivas' avidya. If you don't see the razor's edge, you will make the

Acharya seem to contradict himself.

 

bhaskar:

 

which one is in accordance with the jivA's avidyA here?? whether it is

efficient cause of brahman or creation of the world?? pls. be specific

prabhuji.

 

 

CN prabhuji:

 

Nothing of this sort is evident! You said that avidya is not there,

so how can there be a "stemming out" of what is not there? Maya is

not non-existent -- it is the power of the Lord. Maya does not stem

out of avidya.

 

bhaskar:

 

I once again would like to mention that avidyA is naisargika & due to this

root avidyA (not bhAva rUpa avidyA pls.) objective false appearance stems

out.

 

Further, just above you said parabrahman is mAya itself, it is a reality

seen through avidyA etc. & now you are telling it is the power of the Lord

& it is not stemming out of avidyA etc. etc. Please dont think me I am

picking you. Kindly clarify your position first prabhuji. Otherwise I'll

get confused.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

The active side of Brahman, called Maya, is seen by a jiva characterised by

avidya.

 

bhaskar:

 

Again, here you are reversing the order & saying first mAya & then jIvA's

avidyA. And from the last two paras I've been given 3 different

interpretation of mAyA. i.e.

 

(a) mAya is brahman itself.

(b) mAya is power of brahman

© mAya is active side of brahman

 

which one of the above is your position prabhuji. & also kindly guide me

which part of bhAshya you are holding in arriving these conclusions.

 

 

Bhaskar prabhuji:

> Prabhuji, for our convenience we can say avidyA is subjective

> defect whereas mAya is objective false appearance due

> to subjective defect in jIva bhAva.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

It is not a matter of convenience Prabhuji. :-)

 

bhaskar :

 

When the going gets tough sometimes we have to do this prabhuji:-)) But

it's been justified based on shankara's own words. According to shankara

mAya means false appearance (sorry, not brahman please!!) which appears as

if it is really there due to ignorance of the truth. Let us take once

again famous example of rajju-sarpa nyAya. When one does not know the real

nature of the rope, due to this ignorance he misconceive (avidyA No.2 as

mentioned above) this rope as a snake, water flow, garland whatever similar

to curved nature of rope. Due to this misconception he feels that there is

really a snake. For him the snake appears as if it is there really. This

false appearance of snake is called as MAYA. Hence, AVIDYA (ignorance) is

subjective defect (antahkaraNa dOsha) and MAYA is an objective false

appearance due to this ignorance. In short, ignorance gives the existence

for the false appearance. For this purpose only shankara umpteen times

calls this mAya as avidyAkalpita, avidyAkruta, avidyAkArya, avdidyAtmaka

etc. etc. Please see sUtra bhAshya for further details on this. In gIta

bhAshya shankara calls this avidyA lakshaNa as quoted in my earlier mail.

So, my convenience is very much within the boundaries of shankara

sampradAya prabhuji.

 

Bhaskar prabhuji:

> avidyA is the dOsha of pramAtru's antaH karaNa, through this

> avidyAkruta antah karaNa dOsha he perceives something outside

> which is really not there.

 

 

CN prabhuji:

 

No, he perceives something outside which is really not outside of

Self. That doesn't mean that the object is not really there at all!

The effect is pre-existent in the cause. Bt according to you, the

effect is totally false even though it is stated that it is pre-

existent in the cause. Advaita is full of riddles, and this is

another riddle that you wan't to leave unresolved when asking us to

accept your interpretation.

 

bhaskar:

 

prabhuji kindly pardon me, I am not enforcing anything on anyone. Just I

am sharing my understanding with the learned members like you for want of

learning more. You have all powers to correct me if you find my

understanding of advaita flawed.

 

The pre existence of effect in avyAkruta rUpa in parabrahman i.e. cause has

been stated from adhyArOpa point of view. In reality this is avidyAkruta.

Please see my above sUtra bhAshya quote : kAryasya taddharmANAm cha

avidyAvidhArOpitatvAt *nataiH kAraNaM saMsrujyate. More on this later.....

 

 

Bhaskar prabhuji:

> This false appearance is called mAyA which is in turn

> avidyAkruta or avidyAkalpita or mithyAbhAsa.

 

CN:

 

What is it that appears falsely? Or is it nothing that appears

thusly?

 

bhaskar:

 

snake on the rope, silver in nacre, mirage on desert land. Do you want to

say these things are really there on adhishtAna??

 

Bhaskar prabhuji:

> To substantiate this we can see shankara's sUtra bhAshya on

> ArabhaNAdhikaraNa's sUtra tadanyanyatvamArambhaNashabdAdhibhyaH

> also prabhuji, here shankara's distinction between avidyA &

> mAyA is very clear. He says, this mAya/prakruti is fictiously

> imagined by avidyA.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

The Acharya doesn't say that. What is the translation of this sutra?

It is: "There is non-difference of (those) cause and effect on

account of the text about origin etc."

 

bhaskar:

 

Please note I am not giving the translation of this sUtra,

I_am_giving_shankara's_commentary on this sUtra. Have you checked what

shankara says here in original text?? particularly *sarvagnasyOshvarasya

AtmabhutO iva*avidyA kalpitO nAmarUpe tattvabhyAtattvbhyAm anivachanIyO*

how do you translate this english prabhuji?? please clarify.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

Why should the universe be asserted to be non-different from Brahman,

and then explained away as a fiction? Why can't it be simply asserted

to be a fiction? Can you please explain this seeming superfluity?

 

The bhashya on this sutra states that creation by name and form, and

omniscience etc are contingent upon nescience. The word "contingent"

is important. When something is contingent on another thing, it does

not mean that it is the cause of that something. If I pull the

curtains on my window and the sunlight streams into the room, what is

the cause of the light in my room? Is it my pulling the curtain, or

is it the nature of the sun and sunlight? Or do you think this

example is not good because it from the material world? :-)

 

The Acharya states in the context of the same sutra that "the origin,

continuance, and dissolution of the world result not from the

insentient Pradhana or anything else, but from God who is by nature

eternal, pure, intelligent, and free, as also omniscient and

omnipotent. That assertion remains intact. Nothing contradictory to

that is stated here again."

 

How is contradiction avoided when the efficient cause is conscious

and yet it is said that the creation of the world is contingent upon

avidya? Can you please explain this? Please remember that avidya even

in the presence of Brahman does not make it a cause just as pradhana

in the presence of Purusha does not make pradhana a cause (see the

Acharya's arguments against Samkhya).

 

bhaskar:

 

In shruti-s, parabrahman asserted as universe, object of realisation (jnEya

vastu) & parichinnatva of parabrahman i.e sOpAdhika, nAmarUpAtmaka brahman

etc.etc. is from adhyArOpa drushti for manda & madhya adhikAri-s those who

do not rise to level of uttama adhikAri & realise the attributeless

parabrahman. Most of these problems & seeming contradictions etc. etc. is

coz. of lack of understanding of adhyArOpa apavAda nyAya. I think it is

high time for us to understand what is the method adopted by shruti-s in

teaching ultimate reality of our true nature. prabhuji, kindly clarify,

what is your understanding of adhyArOpa apavAda?? If you understand this

method of teaching properly, your above questions about contradictions,

superfluity etc. will blown up in a thin air.

 

 

Bhaskar prabhuji:

> Here mAyA described as the figment of avidyA & identified with

> prakruti.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

No, that is your interpretation (or figment of imagination :-)).

 

bhaskar :

 

I showed above it is not my interpretation. Anyway, thanks for your kind

compliments:-))

 

Bhaskar prabhuji:

> So, prabhuji root cause for false appearance (mAyA/prakruti)

> is avidyA.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

If you had left out the contents within the paranthesis, I would have

agreed with you, but .....

 

bhaskar:

 

what else can you call as false appearance prabhuji?? pls. tell me I'll

put that in the paranthesis.....

 

CN prabhuji:

 

Sri Ramanauja's objection is not on the Advaita of Sri

Shankaracahrya, but on the kind of interpretation that you have been

giving to Advaita.

 

bhaskar:

 

Oh!! this is really a tall claim prabhuji. I dont have any comments. But

fact remains that what you've objected about avidyA is there in ramAnuja's

SribhAshyaM.

 

 

Bhaskar prabhuji:

> Anyway, if the statement itself which says *avidyA is the

> cause of the universe* is also avidyA, let it be prabhuji.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

There is no "let it be" here, we are discussing about the truth. It

is not a matter of letting uncomfortable things be just because we

find ourselves unequal to the task.

 

bhaskar:

 

Yes, I once again say that if the avidyA statement itself is avidyA, so be

it afterall it is shabda samUha. We cannot deduce paramArtha jnAna by

making some statements. It has to be realised in silence is it not??

gurOstu mouna vyAkhyAnaM shishyAstu chinna saMshayaha (dakShiNAmurthi

stotra --thanks sri Nair prabhuji, I have started reading dakshiNA murthy

stotram with Sureshwara's mAnasOllasa)

 

 

Bhaskar prabhuji:

> Afterall that is what we are trying to say here is it not??

> when shankara says sarva loukika, vaidika vyavahAra is avidyA

> let that statement also be a product of avidyA only.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

You are mixing up what the Acharya says with your own interpretation

to derive absurd statements. Do you realise what you are asserting?

It is like saying "All of this world, including all the sentences I

speak, are false, but this statement is true!".

 

bhaskar:

 

I am not telling this or that statement is true, I am tellin ONLY

parabrahman is true & which is beyond our speech & mind..yatO vAcho....

 

CN prabhuji:

 

It is this kind of interpretation that has made Advaita vulnerable to

attacks by the

purva paksha! Prabhuji, you have your interpretation, but don't you

think you should desist from making such confident assertions while

standing on such a shaky foundation?

 

bhaskar:

 

again, kindly pardon me prabhuji, if my understanding is wrong, learned

members like you always there to correct me. why should I worry??

Moreover, whatever little knowledge I have (??) is gained through my master

who is shrotriya & brahmanishta. So, my little understanding of advaia is

not merely based on some tranlation works, I've learnt it directly from my

guru & I have firm conviction that I am getting the ancient knowledge of

scriptures by strictly following the bonafide sampradAya & importantly, at

present I feel foundation provided my beloved guru is solid & firm. So,

obviously, I've more confidence in voicing my thoughts. If I myself donot

have confidence in my words!! who else prabhuji?? Moreover, I dont have

any prejudiced approach to the siddhAta, if I find something new here in

this list which is against my understanding, I'll sit with my guru & with

scholars like you & get it clarified with appropriate references from our

beloved paramaguru shankara bhagavadpAda. Why should I short of confidence

when the resources are abundantly available to strenghen it, you tell me

prabhuji.

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

 

Humble praNAms once again

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Shri Bhaskar Prabhuji !

 

Not a big deal !

 

I am sorry i even brought that up!

 

That is very trivial!

 

SO, you are from ISKCON!

 

a krishna premi! a devotee of Lord krishna!? I AM SORRY IF I

COMMITEED ANY VAISHNAVA APARADHA!

 

ANEKA KOTI DANDAWATS TO YOU !

 

 

In the Padma Purana, it is said:

 

aradhananam sarvesam

visnor aradhanam param

tasmat parataram devi

tadiyanam samarcanam

 

Once, Parvati-devi asked Lord Siva, "Of all kinds of worship, whose

worship is best?" Then, Lord Siva told her plainly, "The worship and

devotional service of Lord Narayana, Visnu, is the highest." Then

Parvati became a little mortified and disappointed, thinking, "But I

am serving Siva, so I hold a lower position." Then the next line

came, *tasmat parataram devi tadiyanam samarcanam.* "But higher than

the worship of Narayana is worship of the devotees of Lord Narayana.

That is even greater than devotion to the Lord Himself." Then,

Parvati smiled, thinking, "Then I am serving the devotee of the Lord.

Siva is a devotee: vaisnavanam yatha sambhuh. So, I am doing the best

thing."

 

This is also confirMED by LORD Krsna, in the Adi Purana :

 

 

ye me bhakta-janah partha

ne me bhaktas ca te janah

mad bhaktanam ca ye bhaktas

te me bhaktatama matah

 

"Those who worship Me directly are not real devotees; real devotees

are those who are devoted to My devotees."

 

Hari Hari BOL!!!