Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 manji says... "Vandhya Putra is not even Mithya; it is Tucham. I think world is not like Vandhya Putra." sadaji writes "No one is afraid of vandya purtraH. The problem lies is taking what is real as unreal and what is unreal is taken as real. " Please solve this 'paradox' for me! vandya means - one who is 'revered' or 'worshippable' putrah- means 'son' or born of now, how can this be 'tucham' - something that is to be 'revered' ? tucham means "lowly" also why should one be of fraid of vandya putrah! something that is worshippable is to be exalted ! please explain! thank you ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Here is my Understanding. Vandyaa putraH is classical example of non-existent thing. It means son of a barren women. Such a putra causes self-contradition. Tuchham is also used for non-existent thing - asat sometimes is used in the sense of not-real. Not-real need not be non-existent. Things can be apparently existing in the minds of the seers but they are not-real upon further inquiry. Here is where an experience of a thing need not be existence of a thing - like apparent bending of a pencil through a half-filled glass of water. I am sure Shree Chittaranjanji is going to present us all these facets in his presentation. Hari OM! Sadananda --- adi_shakthi16 <adi_shakthi16 wrote: > manji says... > > "Vandhya Putra is not even Mithya; it is Tucham. I think world is not > like Vandhya Putra." > > sadaji writes > > "No one is afraid of vandya purtraH. The problem lies is taking what > is real as unreal and what is unreal is taken as real. " ===== What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort. Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 thank you Sadaji! Your understanding is always perfect. Now, i understand too! How can a barren woman have a son? How can the hare have a horn? how can there be a Lotus flower in the sky? Sadaji, can you kindly quote the sanskrit sloka that uses these metaphors. pl? sadaji writes Not-real need not be non-existent. Yes like images on the TV screen. You see pictures of fire on TV and it does not burn your TV the 'fire' is burning somewhere. OF course! Chiita-ji is very 'thorough' in his approach to any subject , I am 100% confident he will cover all aspects of this 'intriguing' Subject ! i guess, some of us trying to put the cart before the horse... but it will be nice if terms such as vandya putrah are explained because there are beginners as well as advanced scholars in this forum! sorry! love and regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Namaste, O! the Maya of pronunciation and transliteration!! vandhyA = barren [vandya/vandyA = praiseworthy] It occurs in the following texts: Tejobindu upan. 6:73 matto.anyadasti chenmithyaa yathaa marumariichikaa . vandhyaakumaaravachane bhiitishchedasti ki~nchana .. 73-75. If anything is other than myself, then it is as unreal as the mirage in an oasis. If one should be afraid of the son of a barren woman, or if a powerful elephant be killed by means of the horns of a hare, then the world (really is). If one (person) can quench his thirst by drinking the waters of the mirage, or if one should be killed by the horns of a man, then the universe really is. The universe exists always in the true Gandharva city (merely unreal). ======================================================= Maitri upn. 7:9 ......athaiShA vandhyevaiShA....... ........it is false like a barren woman...... ==================================================== Gaudapada Karika 3:28 asato maayayaa janma tattvato naiva yujyate | vandhyaaputro na tattvena maayayaa vaa.api jaayate || 28|| III-28. The birth of that which is non-existent cannot occur either through Maya or in reality, for a son of a barren woman cannot be born either through Maya or in reality. ====================================================================== Regards, Sunder advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16> wrote: > thank you Sadaji! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 --- Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote: > Namaste, > > O! the Maya of pronunciation and transliteration!! > > vandhyA = barren [vandya/vandyA = praiseworthy] Hats off Sunder! - We do not know what we can do without you. I think we sould change the by-laws of the advaitin list (if there is such a thing like that) to make you a permanent chairman of list of moderators. God bless you. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort. Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > we sould change the by-laws of the advaitin list (if there is such a > thing like that) to make you a permanent chairman of list of moderators. > God bless you. Namaste, In a game of chess (here dialectics), by-standers (as long as they remain that!) do better than the players!!!!! So,please do not tinker with the by-laws! Thank you. Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Namaste Sunderji and Sadaji: The rule of chess also applies to the moderators of the list and we are all by-standers and we try our level best to remain as by- standers. Since Sunderji understands this concept better than all of us, I second Sadaji's proposal to make him the permanant chairman of the list of moderators. As Sadaji rightly pointed out, we do count on his life-time service to this list! Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh> wrote: > advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda > <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > > > > we sould change the by-laws of the advaitin list (if there is such a > > thing like that) to make you a permanent chairman of list of moderators. > > God bless you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 Namaste Adi-ji, advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16> wrote: > but it will be nice if terms such as vandya putrah are explained > because there are beginners as well as advanced scholars in this > forum! sorry! Here is a beginner's attempt at explanation: A word has meaning. A word is a unity, and therefore the meaning of the word is a unity. A sentence or an expression has meaning. A sentence or an expression is a unity. Therefore the meaning of the sentence or expression is a unity. The meaning of a sentence or expression is not simply the meanings of the various words in the sentence or expression put together, but it is one meaning - the unity denoted by the sentence or expression as one thing. According to Nyaya, the unity of meaning of a sentence derives from the words that are constituted in it and which coalesce into a unity. According to the Grammarians, the meaning of a sentence is primary and the meaning of words are derived by abstraction of the sentence into words. In their sphota theory, it is the unitary meaning that explodes into the light of consciousness. Whatever be the case, there is one thing certain, and that is that the meaning of a sentence or an expression is a unity. If the unity of meaning is absent, then it is not fit to be called a meaningful sentence or an expression. It has no denotation. There is nothing that it has as an object. Such is the expression "the son of a barren woman". The expression has no meaning even though the individual words have meanings; because there is no unity denoted by the unity that is the expression. Likewise is the expression "square circle". The expression "horns of a hare" has no meaning because it has no unity of meaning. The hare is an animal that has no horns. The discord between the animal 'hare' and the attribute 'horn' prevents a unitary meaning from arising. Yet, the horns of a hare is a formal possibility - it is possible as a form, unlike the "square circle" or "son of a barren woman". If we do indeed see a hare with horns, we do not stop calling it a hare, but we call it a strange kind of hare. I have seen a human with two heads, and it was a strange human. The snake that is seen in the rope has no innate discord of meanings in respect of the words 'snake' and 'rope'. They are both meaningful words. They are simply misplaced in the experience that we call an error. But in the case of "son of a barren woman" there is never any meaning in the expression. The world is unreal like the snake in the rope. It is not unreal like the "son of a barren woman". The world has meaning - the world is meaning - and when there is misplacement of meanings, or misdirection of a word to its object, then there is unreality. This is one nuance of unreality. Regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 Thank you Chitta-ji! As you know, i am always attracted to poetic expressions ... and similies and metaphors which are used freely in Shankara's works are always a source of wonder and cosmic mystery - i find them fascinating. When SADAJI mentioned Vandya Putra and Masni-ji mentioned it again in his post, i immediately did a google search and wanted to find out what *VANDYA PUTRA' is. I know enough Sanskrit to know 'putra' means Son. and when i looked up the word 'vandya' , the meaning was 'someone worthy of Praise or adorable' !! viewed in this context, maniji's statement 'Vandya putra is Tucham' did not convey any meaning!!! Then our Sadaji came up with an explanation... Vandyaa putraH is classical example of non-existent thing. It means son a barren women. Such a putra causes self-contradition. Tuchham is also used for non-existent thing - but i was still not satisfied for i thought how can Vandya putrah be non-existent or Tuccham ! This is because Google search told me Vandya means Praiseworthy ! (son of a praiseworthy ) Then our Sunderji issued a clarification- I thank him for that!!!! Yes, folks! It was all about Pronounciation, spelling and transliteration. Sunderji says... O! the Maya of pronunciation and transliteration!! vandhyA = barren [vandya/vandyA = praiseworthy] SO, THE LETTER *H* MADE ALL THE DIFFERENCE ! this is the Maya of the Sanskrit language. OUR chittaji says 'a word has a meaning.' BUT SANSKRIT WORDS HAVE MORE THAN ONE MEANING - IN WHAT CONTEXT THEY ARE USED , HOW THEY ARE SPELLED , HOW THEY ARE PRONOUNCED etc... Take mAyA for instance. One Word Many Meanings. How the word is used ! whether a prefix or a suffix ! 1) yoga-maya 2) vIsnu-Maya 3) maya-shakti 4) Maya Bheda 5) Maya ABheda 6) Tan-Maya So on and so forth! Ii will be a good idea to use Monier-williams English Sanskrit dictionary as Kenji repeatedly suggested in his posts. This is a healthy exrecise - it tells us how words originate ; their roots; their meanings in other languages etc... Belive me , folks! many sanskrit words have something in common with Greek, Latin words.and Even French ! so, our chittaji was quite right in approaching this subject of 'Real and Unreal' by tracing the history of Western Philosophy and its relevance to Eastern thought(vedanta) ! As Swami Krishnananda says... "Now, this comparative study of Eastern conclusions with Western discoveries seems to make us feel that all great men are thinking alike - whether Plato or Aristotle, Kant or Hegel, Acharya Sankara or Vidyaranya Swami" Yes, chitta-ji- Thank you ! for that great introduction! From Idealism one proceeds to Realism- a logical step ! So WORDS are not to taken Lightly. ASK MY 4 YEAR OLD GRANDSON! he knows the distinction between - Mother and my mother ! He also knows the names of all the Disney characters. Tigger is not the same as winnie-the pooh! and he also knows that 'Betsy IS A DOG AND IT IS A BASSET HOUND.' and he alsi knows the neighbor's dog has a differnt name and it is not a dog but a puppy and a pomeranian! so, you see folks! even a four year old child knows behind names and forms, there is realityv and here is where we use 'discrimination' (viveka) ! ALL DOGS ARE NOT BASSET HOUNDS! all basset hounds are not named'betsy' AND 'BETSY' CAN BE THE NAME FOR AN ACTRESS TOO ! Master words but as kenji would say do not let words master or manipulate you! Take 'sublation' for instance . in sanskrit, it means 'badha' ! and i don't think negate means 'badha' ! and in any case , once someone says something , there is no going back!!! so, adi shankara uttered the famous words " jagat mithya" World is Unreal! BUT NOW THE QUESTION ARISES , WHAT IS THIS WORLD? what is Mithya? and this is the inquiry that leads us into the Oceaniic thought of vedanta. What is real ? what is unreal? How can be something that is real in a dream be unreal in the waking state? who is the dreamer and what is being dreamt? so on and so forth ... Words are very powerful. They have strong connotations. RUDRA STANDS fOr an angry god of the vedas . Siva stands for the all compassionate god. The names of a God are God himself. ( anyone who knows mantra shastra knows this- Aum Namaha Shivaye- read adi shankara's beautiful explanation on this panchakshri mantra) so, to cut a long story short " One word may suggest an entirely different one by its spelling, but more often by its sound, and thus break the usual connection between ideas." Aum Tat Sat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 Dear Adiji, One minor clarification.... > OUR chittaji says 'a word has a meaning.' > > BUT SANSKRIT WORDS HAVE MORE THAN ONE MEANING - IN WHAT > CONTEXT THEY ARE USED , HOW THEY ARE SPELLED , HOW THEY > ARE PRONOUNCED etc... No, Adiji, I didn't say "a word has a meaning", meaning that it has only one meaning. I said that "a word has meaning" and that "the meaning of a word is a unity". What this means is that when a word denotes something, that something is a unity - it is one and not a plurality. And this is true even in the case of a sentence - what the sentence denotes is not a plurality, but a unity. Words can of course have multiple meanings, but when used in a specific case, or sentence, it obtains a specific meaning in the context of the sentence. Wittgenstein had said that words have meaning only in the nexus of a sentence. I would like to modify this slightly, and say that a word has many meanings, but it gets its specific meaning through the context of the sentence. Then there is also the expectation of the listener - the akanksha - that determines what meaning is attributed to the sentence that is heard. Warm regards, Chittaranjan advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16> wrote: > Thank you Chitta-ji! > > As you know, i am always attracted to poetic expressions ... and > similies and metaphors which are used freely in Shankara's works are > always a source of wonder and cosmic mystery - i find them > fascinating. > > When SADAJI mentioned Vandya Putra and Masni-ji mentioned it again in > his post, i immediately did a google search and wanted to find out > what *VANDYA PUTRA' is. > 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.