Guest guest Posted August 11, 2004 Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 To all Advaitins, I would like to thank all Advaitins for giving me the opportunity to present the series on the Real and Unreal, which has been for me a very educational experience, and a means to clarify my own understanding of Advaita. If I have offended anyone during these discussions, my apologies for the same. _______________ To Dear AdiMa, First of all, I would like to thank you dear AdiMa, for without you I wouldn't have been able to go through the discussion on the real and unreal. And I see that you have been guarding me like a mother during my absence! There are of course no words to thank a mother, except through love! _______________ To Shri Michaelji, I wish, Michaelji, that we had more realists like you on the list. We could certainly do with less of 'illusion' on our way to the Real! :-) > What is the chief source of distortion? It is no more > and no less than an unsteady grasp of the principle of > analogy. Take for instance what has loosely come to be > called illusion in relation to adhyasa/superimposition. > For a start it's not illusion it's confusion. I agree with you Michaelji. The meaning conveyed by 'adhyasa' is indeed confusion – the fusion of contrary things. > Let us just stay with the world of perception and avoid > loaded words like 'appearance' which lead us by the > nose. What do you see? This fountain pen. What you > see is what it is. How much truth lies in such simple statements! While the word 'appearance' has been mostly used to mean 'illusion', it also has another connotation which I feel many Advaitins often miss out on – as indicative of something 'appearing' to our sight from its concealment, as when a shark 'appears' on the surface of the sea. There is no illusion here, only the appearance of reality surfacing from its hidden-ness into the range of our vision. This, I believe, is the gist of Shankara's commentary on the Brhdaranyaka Upanishad which I had quoted in Part VII. > PS. C.N. made no reference to Upadhi the positive hand > of Advaita, Adhyasa being the other. There is very > little talk of it on the list but Dharmaraja > Adhvarindra and Sankara often use the concept, the > former in relation to the Saksin. When you have time > your thoughts on this theme would be interesting. I will try to include a paragraph on upadhi when I sum up. _______________ To Shri Bhaskarji, > Now you are telling superiority & inferiority are > features of creation & announcing that these *features > are also eternal notions in reality*. You mean to say > in pUrNa jnAni also this notion of inferiority & > superiority complexes will be there for ever?? Superiority and inferiority are meanings that are eternally present in Brahman. It is the jiva in samsara that is 'possessed' by notions of superiority and inferiority, and thinks itself now as superior and now as inferior – but when it sacrifices its notions of superiority and inferiority into the altar of Eternity, it is reborn into the Eternal. The Eternal is transcendent and is not attached. > After the final realisation he attains that sarvAtma > bhAva. Krishna tells us the same thing in gIta also > vidyA vinaya sampanne brahmaNe gavi hastini shunischaiva > shvapAkEcha panditAh sama darshinaha...such is the > state of a jnAni...prabhuji, now you tell me where is > the eternal notion of supreriority & inferiority here?? What you've quoted above is the vision known as 'samarasa'. It is the state of sahaja samadhi in which the jnyani is said to reside. It is not possible to understand the mystical vision of the jnyani with the mind. The all-pervasive Light is behind the mind and the mind cannot understand what is behind it, for it casts its own prismatic colours on what it sees, and yet what it sees is nothing but the shimmer of the self-same all-pervading Light. It is better to leave the truth of realisation as a mystical expression rather than try to define it. _____________ To Shri Sridharji, > As one of the 'guilty' silent majority, let me join > the moderators in thanking you for the wonderful > fragrances that wafted through the list in the > discussions on the 'real and unreal'. > Ahhh! how much effort, dedication and titiksha being a > chief discussant takes. hope you enjoy your chennai > stint and look forward to more and more of your poetic, > relentlessly logical and mellifluous expressions. Thank you, Sridharji, your words are indeed sweet to my ears, and I pray that all of us Advaitins may learn to tune in to the more mellifluent flute of that most seductive blue-complexioned God – Lord Sridhara Himself! ______________ To Shri Murthy-ji, > In his last essay, shri CN said that the cloth is as > real as the yarn. I still claim that is not what shri > shankara said. If that argument (that cloth is as real > as the yarn) were accepted, then the pot is as real as > the clay. [My understanding: pot is real as clay but pot > is not *as* real as clay). If cloth is as real as the yarn, > then that would certainly negate Uddalaka's teaching to > Svetaketu. I think there is a difference in what I > understand as shri shankara is teaching and what shri > CN-ji presented in the essays. The cloth is as real as the yarn because it is nothing but the yarn itself. Nobody has ever seen a cloth removed from the yarn of which it is made. The yarn is real and the differentiation of cloth from the yarn is false. What is false is the DIFFERENTIATION by name and not the cloth that is in reality not different than the yarn. Differentiation implies difference. In Advaita, there is no difference between the cloth and yarn, the cloth being only a vishesha of the yarn. The yarn is real and the origination of cloth is false because the cloth has its origin by name only. It is the ORIGINATION of the cloth that is FALSE and not the cloth itself. That is the doctrine of vivartavada of Advaita. The cloth is true as the cloth that is eternally pre-existent in the yarn. None of this negates Uddalaka's teaching to Svetaketu. And I do not see how Shankara may be interpreted otherwise without involving a contradiction (that what is non-different form the true is false). It makes no sense to me to say unconditionally that the cloth is false. > My understanding: pot is real as clay but pot is not > *as* real as clay. What does partial reality mean? Can I, for example, be partially I? Can a cow be partially a cow? Can something exist only partially? Partial reality is reality itself because the partiality belongs to the partiality-ness seen as an attribute of the real. ________________ To Shri Nairji, Welcome back, Nairji, I missed you acutely during the discussion. I will try to respond to your mail tomorrow, and if that is not possible, then after 3 days (as I will be out for two days in between). _______________ Warm regards, Chittaranjan PS. My PC (at home) has gone into deep susupti, and I now find myself doubly handicapped.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2004 Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 Namaste, would like to thank you for this nice messages about "Brahman, Maya...body,mind,intellect...and..." i have a question coming up in my mind .... if we percieve this "world" because of our "body mind intellect.."...and feel free without Maya and illusion when we enter in Brahman...without forms.......why we read and write messages from and to people who are visible (by words...), to people who can be percieved only when we leave Brahman so.….in Maya if everybodys perception of the world is only a construction of the mind body intellect....we are all "unreal"...or included in Maya....of who?.... or maybe there are not many people existing....we are all One person..... whatever..... this search is interesting...and it's nice to read your messages.... even if it's not clear to "whom" belong the words.... as long we are focused on Brahman...we can't be lost.... Brahman is there....forever and since ever...and everywhere....at same time.... with love Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2004 Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 Namaste Sri Dennis: The question that you have raised arises to the mind of everyone (all living persons of this universe - jiva) of us some time or other. Honestly, this is not a question but it is a puzzle or riddle! With contemplation, it is possible for us to agree that any answer that come from the 'intellect' will be unlikely satisfactory! The understanding that 'Brahman can't be perceived through intellectual means' implies that we need to explore for the answer deep inside. That is why Sri Ramana Maharishi asks to enquire within (Self-enquiry.) This has already been stated in various alternative expressions in the Vedas, the upanishads and Gita. Intellect is the most valuable instrument provided by the Lord or SELF for the self-enquiry. In the beginning, the intellect will likely wander without a goal or direction. The subtle messages of the sages of Upanishads and the realized souls indicate that the same intellect can be trained and be used to go 'beyond the intellect.' This is the stopping point and no description of the state of the mind can be described with words using the intellect. That is the difficulty and that is why Ramana Maharishi declares, that no one (including Sri Ramana) can show or describe the 'SELF' to others. Warmest regards, Ram Chandran Note: We are hoping that by reading, writing and discussing with words, we may be able to cross the boundary of words and reach the destination that is beyond words! Please note that this is my understanding and unfortunately I have to explain it using words with the limitations articulated by you! advaitin, "dennis_travis33" <dennis_travis33> wrote: > Namaste, > > i have a question coming up in my mind .... > if we percieve this "world" because of our "body mind > intellect.."...and feel free without Maya and illusion when we enter > in Brahman...without forms.......why we read and write messages from > and to people who are visible (by words...), to people who can be > percieved only when we leave Brahman so.….in Maya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 Namaste Sri Ram Chandran, thank you for your reply...and also many thanks to all messages written concerning The Real and the Unreal i agree that the truth can't be described by words....the intellect is not enough to find out the truth...Brahman meditation is sometimes needed to cross the "ocean of illusions"...and enter in Oneness...Brahman i believe that only Brahman is existing....nothing else by Brahman we can percieve the world....or "little part" of Brahman Itself....which become Maya if our consciences make the mistake (illusion) and think this all our limited wordly perception is whole Brahman so our "real" nature is Brahman....everything must be Brahman if there is nothing else existing i believe that a realized person can percieve Brahman in everything and everyone ....this explain also why a realized person has often respect to everybody...and even feel deep love for everybody....and everything so...as long we can't feel this Love....which is the Love for Brahman....which IS Brahman maybe......our body mind intellect reflect only little part of Brahman.....and can percieve only "part of" the truth Brahman ....now the words become difficult......all i wish to all is endless Love for Brahman..... wish endless Love to the friends of...the truth Brahman Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 Superiority and inferiority are meanings that are eternally present in Brahman. praNAm CN prabhuji Hare Krishna shankara in sUtra bhAshya says * rUpAdhi abhAvat hi *nAyamarthaH* pratyaksha agOcharaH, lingAdi abhAvascha, na anumAnAdInAM iti! here shankara clearly telling paramArtha tattva is formless hence it cannot be proved through pratyakshAdi pramANa & it does not have any symbols so, it cannot be either proved through anumAna. prabhuji can you pls. tell me how do you interpret rUpAdhi abhAvat hi nAyamarthaH. anyadEva tadviditAdathO avidhitAdadhi says shruti how can we say *this is brahman & eternal presense of meanings also in it prabhuji?? without objectifying the apramEya can we say all this prabhuji ?? pls. clarify. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 Namaste Shri Bhaskarji, advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: > shankara in sUtra bhAshya says * rUpAdhi abhAvat hi > *nAyamarthaH* pratyaksha agOcharaH, lingAdi abhAvascha, > na anumAnAdInAM iti! here shankara clearly telling > paramArtha tattva is formless hence it cannot be > proved through pratyakshAdi pramANa & it does not have > any symbols so, it cannot be either proved through > anumAna. prabhuji can you pls. tell me how > do you interpret rUpAdhi abhAvat hi nAyamarthaH. > anyadEva tadviditAdathO avidhitAdadhi says shruti how > can we say *this is brahman & eternal presense of > meanings also in it prabhuji?? without objectifying the > apramEya can we say all this prabhuji ?? pls. clarify. Can you tell me what is the difference between a jiva in deep sleep and Brahman? Please check Shankara's commentary in the BSB. The formless Brahman is omniscient, and the eternal presence of meanings in Brahman is His omniscience. There is no contradiction between the formlessness of Brahman and His omniscience. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 Thank you Dennis-ji! what a heart-warming message to read early in the morning... All you hear now-a-days on news channels or read in leading newspapers is about the 'threat' to the Financial institutions or our subway system etc ... by a 'real or an imaginary enemy... creating a fear psychosis or phobias so much so, the beautiful emotion of Love has been replaced by Fear, anxiety, hatred and paranoia....guess what? i only see the Discovery channel and Animal planet !!! Nature and its beauty!! "i believe that only Brahman is existing....nothing else and everything so...as long we can't feel this Love....which is the Love for Brahman....which IS Brahman maybe......our body mind intellect reflect only little part of Brahman.....and can percieve only "part > of" the truth Brahman" Wow!! Dennis-ji!!! Who said 'BrAhMan' CANNOT BE DESCRIBED? yes!! it is this all permeating Love ... for the Self and the Love for the self in others!!! THat is the key - Love for Humanity, mankind - that is the Goal of Vedanta- realize the Self and then realize that the same self resides in others!!!Once you know this , then you know all is Brahman !!! AS our most respected Mahatma Gandhiji said "What is faith worth if it is not translated into action? and Gandhiji also said ... "To a true artist only that face is beautiful which, quite apart from its exterior, shines with the truth within the soul." and Dennis-ji ! i see the beauty of your soul shining in your post ... tRuly beautiful! love and regards > > ...now the words become difficult......all i wish to all is endless > Love for Brahman..... > > wish endless Love to the friends of...the truth Brahman > > > Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 Thank you "adi_shakti16" ..... great hearts in here ... advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16> wrote: > Thank you Dennis-ji! > > what a heart-warming message to read early in the morning... > > All you hear now-a-days on news channels or read in leading > newspapers is about the 'threat' to the Financial institutions or our > subway system etc ... by a 'real or an imaginary enemy... creating a > fear psychosis or phobias so much so, the beautiful emotion of Love > has been replaced by Fear, anxiety, hatred and paranoia....guess > what? i only see the Discovery channel and Animal planet !!! Nature > and its beauty!! > > "i believe that only Brahman is existing....nothing else > and everything so...as long we can't feel this Love....which is the > Love for Brahman....which IS Brahman maybe......our body mind > intellect reflect only little part of Brahman.....and can percieve > only "part > of" the truth Brahman" > > Wow!! Dennis-ji!!! Who said 'BrAhMan' CANNOT BE DESCRIBED? > > yes!! it is this all permeating Love ... for the Self and the Love > for the self in others!!! > > THat is the key - Love for Humanity, mankind - that is the Goal of > Vedanta- realize the Self and then realize that the same self > resides in others!!!Once you know this , then you know all is > Brahman !!! > > AS our most respected Mahatma Gandhiji said "What is faith worth if > it is not translated into action? > > and Gandhiji also said ... > > "To a true artist only that face is beautiful which, quite apart from > its exterior, shines with the truth within the soul." > > and Dennis-ji ! i see the beauty of your soul shining in your > post ... tRuly beautiful! > > love and regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...now the words become difficult......all i wish to all is endless > > Love for Brahman..... > > > > wish endless Love to the friends of...the truth Brahman > > > > > > Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2004 Report Share Posted August 12, 2004 praNAm CN prabhuji Hare Krishna CN prabhuji: Can you tell me what is the difference between a jiva in deep sleep and Brahman? Please check Shankara's commentary in the BSB. bhaskar : the notion of jIva comes only in the vishva & taijasa states due to wrong identification with upAdhi-s, so strictly speaking there is no second chaitanya in any of the three states. (trikAlEpi paramAtmaiva satyam says shankara in kArika bhAshya). Kindly let me know where shankara mention the *difference* between Jiva & brahma in deep sleep. CN prabhuji: The formless Brahman is omniscient, and the eternal presence of meanings in Brahman is His omniscience. There is no contradiction between the formlessness of Brahman and His omniscience. bhaskar : This is where I am finding it difficult to reconcile the difference of opinion between shankara's & your observation. Shankara explicitly mentions omniscience (sarvajnatva) & omnipotence (sarvashaktitva) qualities pertain to apara brahma who has been described as bhArUpa, manOmaya etc. in shruti-s for upAsana. But the parabrahman is devoid of all these qualities & is kEvala nirguNa,nirvishEsha. This classification of brahmatva anyway does not going to affect yEkamEvAdvitiya parabrahman, since whatever said about apara brahman is avidyOpAdhikruta & is upasanAdhIna saguNa brahman. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Hari hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 Namaste Shri Bhaskarji, advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: > the notion of jIva comes only in the vishva & taijasa states > due to wrong identification with upAdhi-s, so strictly > speaking there is no second chaitanya in any of the three > states. (trikAlEpi paramAtmaiva satyam says shankara in > kArika bhAshya). Kindly let me know where shankara mention > the *difference* between Jiva & brahma in deep sleep. Bhaskarji, you are here equating the existence of a thing to its manifestation, but according to Shankara, the existence of a thing also pertains to the unmanifest quiescent state of the thing. While the notion of jiva may not be manifest in deep sleep, the jiva still comes back to the state of vishva and taijasa when the sleep is over. There is a causal seed in deep sleep which prevents it from remaining in quiescence. It is this causal seed, or primal nescience, which makes one say after waking up that one knew nothing in deep- sleep. The state of a jnyani on the other hand is that Knowledge by knowing which all this is known. Shankara makes a clear difference between the omniscience of Brahman and the limited knowledge of a jiva (as covered by nescience) in the first chapter of the BSB. > This is where I am finding it difficult to reconcile the > difference of opinion between shankara's & your observation. > Shankara explicitly mentions omniscience (sarvajnatva) & > omnipotence (sarvashaktitva) qualities pertain to apara > brahma who has been described as bhArUpa, manOmaya etc. in > shruti-s for upAsana. In Shankara Advaita, there are two contexts in which the world is spoken of - first, the context of superimposition in which the world is spoken of as a limiting adjunct, and second, the context of non- duality where the world is spoken of as identical to Brahman. The latter is the state wherein the jnyani realises that he himself is all. Meditation arises in the context of superimposition wherein the world is seemingly separated from the Self, and it is in this context that qualities are spoken of as upadhis. But for a jnyani, there is no upadhi, there is only the continuum of a non-dual Reality. Bhaskarji, as I see it, you are interpreting Shankara by removing the mystical element in Advaita, while I am inclined to interpret Shankara by retaining the mystical element. Shall we agree to disagree here? Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 Nameste Ramchandran-Ji: > artho vaacaa puShpa-phalam > Meaning - artha (meaning) is the flower and the fruit of vaacaa (words). Meaning of the word "artha (as meaning)" is defined as follows: > j~naatataartho j~naata saMbnadhaH, shrotu-shrotaa pravrtate > "artha" is the that which establishes and conveys the knowledge based relationship between the speaker and the listener and helps us understand what the speaker is saying. Hope this is helpful Regards, Yadunath ============================================= Ram Chandran <ramchandran wrote: Namaste Yaduji: Please post this to the list and also provide the meaning of the Sanskrit Quote to the benefit of the general membership. regards, Ram Chandran --- ymoharir wrote: > Namast Ramchandran Ji: > > >>>>>>> > Note: We are hoping that by reading, writing and discussing > with > words, we may be able to cross the boundary of words and reach > the > destination that is beyond words! Please note that this is my > understanding and unfortunately I have to explain it using > words > with the limitations articulated by you! > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > That is why it is said: > > artho vaacaa puShpa-phalam > > j~naatataartho j~naata saMbnadhaH, shrotu-shrotaa pravrtate > > Regards, > > Yadunath > > > advaitin, "Ram Chandran" > > wrote: > > Namaste Sri Dennis: > > > > > > Ram Chandran > > > > Note: We are hoping that by reading, writing and discussing > with > > words, we may be able to cross the boundary of words and > reach the > > destination that is beyond words! Please note that this is > my > > understanding and unfortunately I have to explain it using > words > > with the limitations articulated by you! > > > > Read only the mail you want - Mail SpamGuard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 Namaste Shri Bhaskarji, praNAm Sri CN prabhuji Hare Krishna CN prabhuji Bhaskarji, you are here equating the existence of a thing to its manifestation, but according to Shankara, the existence of a thing also pertains to the unmanifest quiescent state of the thing. bhaskar : the unmanifest quiescent state of the thing, in otherwords avyAkruta bIja rUpa of mAya in parabrahman or pre-existence of effect in cause has been described by shankara as avidyA. CN prabhuji: While the notion of jiva may not be manifest in deep sleep, the jiva still comes back to the state of vishva and taijasa when the sleep is over. There is a causal seed in deep sleep which prevents it from remaining in quiescence. It is this causal seed, or primal nescience, which makes one say after waking up that one knew nothing in deep- sleep. bhaskar : prabhuji you mean here avidyA bIja rUpa or bhAva rUpa avidyA in shshupti?? again, this mulAvidyA is the later invention by post shankara vyAkhyAnakAra-s. I donot want to go into the details of it, if possible kindly refer Sri Atmachaitanya prabhuji's mails on the subject heading *whence adhyAsa*. Further, kindly refer bruhadAraNyaka shruti *tadvA asyaitadaticchandA apahatapApmA abhayaM rUpam...tadvA asyaitadAptakAmaM AtmakAmaM akAmaM rUpam shOkAntaram* & subsequent mantra-s. Here shruti is very clear *how we should see sushupti from prAgnA view point. CN prabhuji: The state of a jnyani on the other hand is that Knowledge by knowing which all this is known. Shankara makes a clear difference between the omniscience of Brahman and the limited knowledge of a jiva (as covered by nescience) in the first chapter of the BSB. bhaskar : both jIva & omniscience of brahman are holds validity only in vyavahAra that is what shankara says in ArabhaNAdhikaraNa bhAshya. Kindly check shankara's commentary on tadananyatvam ArabhaNa shabdAdhibhyaH. Here shankara makes it amply clear that Ishavaratva, sarvajnatva & sarvashaktitva are avidyOpAdhi paricchEdam. CN prabhuji: In Shankara Advaita, there are two contexts in which the world is spoken of - first, the context of superimposition in which the world is spoken of as a limiting adjunct, and second, the context of non- duality where the world is spoken of as identical to Brahman. The latter is the state wherein the jnyani realises that he himself is all. Meditation arises in the context of superimposition wherein the world is seemingly separated from the Self, and it is in this context that qualities are spoken of as upadhis. But for a jnyani, there is no upadhi, there is only the continuum of a non-dual Reality. bhaskar : yes, when a jnAni realises THAT, he'll come to know that world *as such* was not at all there!! when he is ONE & all without second why still the word world, its pre-existence in cause etc. etc. prabhuji?? the last word remains after the dawn of ultimate knowledge is *brahman* brahman alone nothing else. CN prabhuji: Bhaskarji, as I see it, you are interpreting Shankara by removing the mystical element in Advaita, while I am inclined to interpret Shankara by retaining the mystical element. Shall we agree to disagree here? bhaskar: prabhuji, I onceagain reiterate that shankara's siddhAnta based on shruti pratipAdita sArvatrika pUrNAnubhava (shruti based universal experience), nothing mysterious about it. If you accept mysticism in ultimate reality, then we are heading towards inferring the reality like svarga, naraka & lokAntara jnAna & more importantly we'll be maintaining Ishvaratva & jIvatva bhEda eternally. nirAkAra, nirguNa & nirvishEsha parabrahman is the highest reality according to shruti-s & shankara siddhAnta. Anything less than that we are just settling down for the second best !! See shankara's sUtra bhAshya on ubhaya lingAdhikaraNa, especially the sUtra *arUpavadEva hi tatpradhAnatvAt* prabhuji, kindly note its not *my* personal opinion that shankara's ultimatum is propagating nirAkAra, nirguNa brahman, you can just see how he is unambiguously clear in his stand. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 Namaste Shri Bhaskarji, advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: CN: > Bhaskarji, you are here equating the existence of a thing to its > manifestation, but according to Shankara, the existence of a thing > also pertains to the unmanifest quiescent state of the thing. > > bhaskar : > > the unmanifest quiescent state of the thing, in otherwords > avyAkruta bIja rUpa of mAya in parabrahman or pre-existence > of effect in cause has been described by shankara as avidyA. CN: What is the difference between the object in its avyakruta bija rupa state and in its state as 'full-bodied' rupa? Will nobody ever touch upon the subject of words and objects? Is one part of Shankara's bhashya fully to be neglected? _____________ > CN: > > While the notion of jiva may not be manifest in deep sleep, > the jiva still comes back to the state of vishva and taijasa > when the sleep is over. There is a causal seed in deep sleep > which prevents it from remaining in quiescence. It is this > causal seed, or primal nescience, which makes one say after > waking up that one knew nothing in deep- > sleep. > > bhaskar : > > prabhuji you mean here avidyA bIja rUpa or bhAva rUpa avidyA > in shshupti?? again, this mulAvidyA is the later invention > by post shankara vyAkhyAnakAra-s. CN: These are Shankara's words in the BSB (I.II.1.8): "On the contrary, so long as the aspirant has not understood the oneness of the embodied Self with Brahman, the experience of happiness and sorrow by the embodied being is a result of false ignorance, and Brahman, the highest Reality, cannot be touched by it." Please note that the words "so long as the aspirant has not understood the oneness of the embodied Self with Brahman" means right until knowledge dawns, and that includes all the three states of waking, dream and deep sleep. Shankara does not say that avidya vanishes every night in deep sleep to appear again in the waking state. :-) _____________ Bhaskarji: > I donot want to go into the details of it, CN: Unfortunately, people nowadays don't want to go into the details about a number of aspects of Shankara Advaita. _______________ Bhaskarji: > if possible kindly refer Sri Atmachaitanya prabhuji's mails > on the subject heading *whence adhyAsa*. CN: I have already read it. _______________ Bhaskarji: > Further, kindly refer bruhadAraNyaka shruti *tadvA > asyaitadaticchandA apahatapApmA abhayaM rUpam...tadvA > asyaitadAptakAmaM AtmakAmaM akAmaM rUpam shOkAntaram* > & subsequent mantra-s. Here shruti is very clear > *how we should see sushupti from prAgnA view point. CN: I am sorry I can't reply to that if you don't translate it into English. Bhaskarji, you know my limitations with Sanskrit language, and I have pointed this out twice before. _______________ > CN: > The state of a jnyani on the other hand is that Knowledge by > knowing which all this is known. Shankara makes a clear difference > between the omniscience of Brahman and the limited knowledge of a > jiva (as covered by nescience) in the first chapter of the BSB. > > bhaskar : > > both jIva & omniscience of brahman are holds validity only > in vyavahAra that is what shankara says in ArabhaNAdhikaraNa > bhAshya. Kindly check shankara's commentary on tadananyatvam > ArabhaNa shabdAdhibhyaH. Here shankara makes it amply clear > that Ishavaratva, sarvajnatva & sarvashaktitva are avidyOpAdhi > paricchEdam. CN: Not only have I read it, but I have also provided my explanation of it in Part IX. Shankara certainly does not recommend that word- meanings should be overturned when we speak. Equating Maya and nescience is a later development of Advaita. In Shankara, avidya is equated to maya as one attribute of Maya like when we say that an apple is round whereby we don't mean that 'appleness' and 'roundness' are the same, but that 'roundness' has existential identity with 'apple'. Similarly, when it is said that Maya is avidya, avidya is certainly not other than Maya, but then vikshepa shakti is also not other than Maya. Creation proceeds out of vikhsepa shakti, but it is to be noted that there is nothing created that is not non-existent in vivartavada. In the ultimate analysis, Maya is not other than Brahman, and hence there is only Brahman. ______________ > CN: > > In Shankara Advaita, there are two contexts in which the > world is spoken of - first, the context of superimposition > in which the world is spoken of as a limiting adjunct, > and second, the context of non-duality where the world > is spoken of as identical to Brahman. The latter is the > state wherein the jnyani realises that he himself is > all. Meditation arises in the context of superimposition > wherein the world is seemingly separated from the Self, > and it is in this context that qualities are spoken of > as upadhis. But for a jnyani, there is no upadhi, there > is only the continuum of a non-dual Reality. > > bhaskar : > > yes, when a jnAni realises THAT, he'll come to know that > world *as such* was not at all there!! CN: When a jnyani realises THAT, he knows that he was NEVER bound; he doesn't 'know' that something wasn't there for such a 'knowing' is a contradiction in terms - to know that something was not there at all is to know something! _______________ Bhaskarji: > when he is ONE & all without second why still the > word world, its pre-existence in cause etc. etc. prabhuji?? CN: Did you say ONE and ALL? :-) Then we have no disagreement because it is you that have to now answer about the word 'world' which is nothing but what you call 'all'. :-) _____________ Bhaskarji: > the last word remains after the dawn of ultimate knowledge > is *brahman* brahman alone nothing else. CN: Of course, there can't be anything ELSE from Brahman that is purnam, but there CAN be something else from a Brahman that is not purnam! Simple logic. :-) _______________ > CN: > > Bhaskarji, as I see it, you are interpreting Shankara by > removing the mystical element in Advaita, while I am > inclined to interpret Shankara by retaining the mystical > element. Shall we agree to disagree here? > > bhaskar: > > prabhuji, I onceagain reiterate that shankara's siddhAnta > based on shruti pratipAdita sArvatrika pUrNAnubhava (shruti > based universal experience), nothing mysterious about it. CN: What is this 'purnabhava' in nirguna Brahman? What does the qualification 'purna' qualify when all has been negated? Bhaskarji, you are presenting mysteries to me in the same breath where you are saying there is nothing mystical in It! :-) ________________ Bhaskarji: > If you accept mysticism in ultimate reality, then we are > heading towards inferring the reality like svarga, naraka & > lokAntara jnAna & more importantly we'll be maintaining > Ishvaratva & jIvatva bhEda eternally. CN: If we don't accept mysticism when we are still in vyavahara, we are merely befooling ourselves that we know the Truth when we are still in vyavahara. That would be a contradiction in terms - 'vyavaharika' and 'the Truth'. Have you read the arguments I presented against 'difference' in Part VIII? Have you read what I presented about samanya and vishesha? I have not presented anything other than the Advaitic arguments. ________________ Bhaskarji: > nirAkAra, nirguNa & nirvishEsha parabrahman is > the highest reality according to shruti-s & shankara > siddhAnta. Anything less than that we are just settling > down for the second best !! CN: Bhaskarji, a nirguna Brahman in which everything is negated is not second best, it is " "! It is nothing short of sunya-Brahman. But Nirguna Brahman that is indescribable and formless has everything within it, and is still akhanda. Unthinkable, isn't it? That is what is mystical. Please reconcile Shankara bhashya fully not limiting it to only a few statements. _________________ Bhaskarji: > See shankara's sUtra bhAshya on ubhaya lingAdhikaraNa, > especially the sUtra *arUpavadEva hi tatpradhAnatvAt* > prabhuji, kindly note its not *my* personal opinion > that shankara's ultimatum is propagating nirAkAra, > nirguNa brahman, you can just see how he is unambiguously > clear in his stand. CN: I have read it. Have you also noticed that it has this quotation: "That which is known as Space is the accomplisher of name and form; That in which they are INCLUDED is Brahman" (Ch.VIII.xiv.1) Do you think I am speaking about Brahman having forms? Brahman with forms is Vishistadvaita. That both Brahman and the world are true is Bhrtraprapancha. That Brahman is Nirguna and omniscient, in which omniscience is included everything is Advaita Vedanta. No, dear Bhaskarji, I am not speaking about Brahman with forms, I am speaking of Nirguna Brahman in which nothing is negated. That is the way one understands it when one reconciles Shankara without throwing out large parts of the bhashya overboard. What to do? How can I go back to the explanation you give me when ALL is reconciled in Brahman that is nirguna -- and it comes from no other source than the Advaitic doctrine that words point to universals? Please note, this is NOT Western Philosophy; it is Indian Vedanta Philsophy. Have you tried to reconcile the 'relationship' between samanya and vishesha? It is related to words pointing to universals only. Please try it. Shankara has said something, and let us atleast try to understand what he has said, instead of repeating select statements over and over again. Or let us agree to disagree. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 Namaste Shri Bhaskarji, praNAms Sri CN prabhuji Hare Krishna CN prabhuji: What is the difference between the object in its avyakruta bija rupa state and in its state as 'full-bodied' rupa? bhaskar : At the first place, both are avidyAkruta *sa yEsha bijAnkuravat avidyAkrutah samsAraH* (ref. vide shankara bhAshya on bruhadAraNyaka shruti) CN prabhuji: Will nobody ever touch upon the subject of words and objects? Is one part of Shankara's bhashya fully to be neglected? bhaskar: who said so prabhuji?? problem here is doing the samanvaya according to shankara sampradAya. CN prabhuji: These are Shankara's words in the BSB (I.II.1.8): "On the contrary, so long as the aspirant has not understood the oneness of the embodied Self with Brahman, the experience of happiness and sorrow by the embodied being is a result of false ignorance, and Brahman, the highest Reality, cannot be touched by it." bhaskar : but somewhere you said happiness & sorrow, the inferiority & superiority etc. etc. are all eternal in brahman. So according to you prabhuji *the false ignorance* or avidyA is also eternal in brahman?? nAma rUpa are eternal, shankara says nAma & rUpa are avidyAkruta, so avidyA also has the permanent place in brahman. CN prabhuji: Please note that the words "so long as the aspirant has not understood the oneness of the embodied Self with Brahman" means right until knowledge dawns, and that includes all the three states of waking, dream and deep sleep. Shankara does not say that avidya vanishes every night in deep sleep to appear again in the waking state. :-) bhaskar : prabhuji please note shankara never ever admitted the positive existence of avidyA in any of the state from the pAramArtika view point. sushupti is the state where neither waker nor his world present. So, in that state avidyAkruta pramAtrutvAdi vyavahAra will not be there. Hence yAjnAvalkya taken sushupti as drushtAnta for mOksha state to explain it to janaka. While commenting on this upanishad shankara says * idAnim yOsau sarvAtmabhAvO vidyAphalaM kriyAkAraka phala shUnyaM sa pratyakshatO nirdishyatE, *yatra avidyAkAmakarmANi na saNti* shankara talks about our svarUpa in clear terms which is devoid of avidyA, kAma & karma. So, prabhuji, kindly donot hasten to conclude in waking state avidyA is there & in sleep no avidyA. From the absolute point of view no place for avidyA in any of the state. CN prabhuji: Bhaskarji: > I donot want to go into the details of it, CN: Unfortunately, people nowadays don't want to go into the details about a number of aspects of Shankara Advaita. bhaskar : Since our Atmachaitanya prabhuji has dealt with this topic elaborately, I thought again repeating the same thing causes duplication. That is the reason I said like that. mUlAvidyA or bhAvarUpa avidyA is one of the subjects my guruji discussed in length in all his works. In short, this mulAvidyA is an alien concept to shankara's mUla siddhAnta. CN prabhuji: Bhaskarji: > if possible kindly refer Sri Atmachaitanya prabhuji's mails > on the subject heading *whence adhyAsa*. CN: I have already read it. bhaskar : Since you've already read it, you must be knowing what is our stand on mulAvidyA, if you've any problem in acceptance of non-existence of bhAva rUpa avidyA, kindly bring it to the forum, we can discuss it together based on shankara bhAshya. _______________ CN prabhuji: I am sorry I can't reply to that if you don't translate it into English. Bhaskarji, you know my limitations with Sanskrit language, and I have pointed this out twice before. bhaskar : I humbly request you to avoid excessive dependence on translation works. Atleast you can refer to the shankara's bhAshya which has been transliterated in english & keep a sanskrit-english dictionary beside you & try to understand its meaning before entirely depending on english translation. This would help us to avoid unnecessary confusions. CN prabhuji: Not only have I read it, but I have also provided my explanation of it in Part IX. Shankara certainly does not recommend that word- meanings should be overturned when we speak. bhaskar : No need to overturn it when shankara clearly said pada & padArtha both are avidyA nirmita. CN prabhuji: Equating Maya and nescience is a later development of Advaita. bhaskar : here nescience means avidyA prabhuji?? CN prabhuji: In Shankara, avidya is equated to maya as one attribute of Maya bhaskar : It should be other way round prabhuji, shankara says mAya is avidyAkruta, avidyA paryupasthApita, avidyA lakshaNa etc. etc. From avidyA (antahkaraNa dOsha) it appears mAya (objective false appearance) it is not mAya causing avidyA. CN prabhuji: Similarly, when it is said that Maya is avidya, avidya is certainly not other than Maya, but then vikshepa shakti is also not other than Maya. Creation proceeds out of vikhsepa shakti, but it is to be noted that there is nothing created that is not non-existent in vivartavada. In the ultimate analysis, Maya is not other than Brahman, and hence there is only Brahman. bhaskar : could you guide me to shankara bhAshya where shankara says mAya = brahman...I've given the shankara's definition of mAya in kArika bhAshya. CN prabhuji: When a jnyani realises THAT, he knows that he was NEVER bound; he doesn't 'know' that something wasn't there for such a 'knowing' is a contradiction in terms - to know that something was not there at all is to know something! bhaskar : yes to know something he should be in the seat of knower & needs means (pramANa) to know something apart from knower, his real svarUpa is something beyond knower & known (jnAtru & jnEya) See kEnOpanishat. CN prabhuji: Did you say ONE and ALL? :-) Then we have no disagreement because it is you that have to now answer about the word 'world' which is nothing but what you call 'all'. :-) bhaskar : I didnot know you are so particular about *pickings* :-)) I'd be bit careful in chosing words in future :-)) CN prabhuji: Bhaskarji: > the last word remains after the dawn of ultimate knowledge > is *brahman* brahman alone nothing else. CN: Of course, there can't be anything ELSE from Brahman that is purnam, but there CAN be something else from a Brahman that is not purnam! Simple logic. :-) bhaskar : this simple logic you make it complicated by saying eternal existence of bhEda in brahman, mAyA shakti, nAma rUpa etc. :-)) CN prabhuji: What is this 'purnabhava' in nirguna Brahman? What does the qualification 'purna' qualify when all has been negated? bhaskar : see tattusamnvayAt sUtra bhAshya & try to understand what is sAkshi's view point that shankara talking here. *na hi ahaMpratyayavishaya kartavyatirEkENa tat sAkshi sarvabhUtasthaH, samaH, yEkah, kUtasthA nityaH* CN prabhuji: Bhaskarji, you are presenting mysteries to me in the same breath where you are saying there is nothing mystical in It! :-) bhaskar: take the help of shankara sampradAyavidA to understand shankara siddhAta prabhuji, your mysteries will go for a six!! :-)) CN prabhuji: If we don't accept mysticism when we are still in vyavahara, we are merely befooling ourselves that we know the Truth when we are still in vyavahara. That would be a contradiction in terms - 'vyavaharika' and 'the Truth'. bhaskar: but what you are telling about mysticism is vyavahArAtIta in advaita is it not?? CN prabhuji: Have you read the arguments I presented against 'difference' in Part VIII? Have you read what I presented about samanya and vishesha? I have not presented anything other than the Advaitic arguments. bhaskar : yes I read it but failed to understand your justification of your stand that nAma & rUpa eternal, notion of inferiority & superiority between Ishvara & jIva eternal etc. etc. in brahman. CN prabhuji: Bhaskarji, a nirguna Brahman in which everything is negated is not second best, it is " "! bhaskar : Yes " " (silence) is the best way of *teaching* brahma tattva. gurOstu *mouna* vyAkhyAnAm shishyAstu chinna saMshayaH (dakshiNa mUrthy stotra) or *na iti na iti* as we find in bruhadAraNyaka. CN prabhuji: It is nothing short of sunya-Brahman. bhaskar : no... since it is our svarUpa you cannot say you are shUnya :-)) CN prabhuji: But Nirguna Brahman that is indescribable and formless has everything within it, and is still akhanda. bhaskar : Yes our sAkshi is akhanda which is indesribable & formless & it appears it has everything within in waking & dream states but it will be there in its sva-svarUpa in prAjnA & turIya state. Then what is the difference between sushupti & turiya?? shankara answers this also in mAndukya Up & kArika bhAshya. CN prabhuji: Unthinkable, isn't it? That is what is mystical. Please reconcile Shankara bhashya fully not limiting it to only a few statements. bhaskar : Again, nothing mystical about it...do you think our *experience of three states* is lokAntara, aloukika jnAna?? This reconciliation of shankara bhAshya has been wonderfully done by bhagavadpAda himself by highlighting the traditional methodology of adhyArOpa apavAda. It only requires careful study of it under the able guidance of shrotrIya brahmanishta bonafide sampradAya guru. _________________ CN prabhuji: I have read it. Have you also noticed that it has this quotation: "That which is known as Space is the accomplisher of name and form; That in which they are INCLUDED is Brahman" (Ch.VIII.xiv.1) bhaskar : this famous up. do say the name & form which have been included in brahman is only for name sake..vAchArabhaNam vikAro nAmadhEyaM. CN prabhuji: Do you think I am speaking about Brahman having forms? Brahman with forms is Vishistadvaita. That both Brahman and the world are true is Bhrtraprapancha. bhaskar : in what way your stand is different from dvaitAdvaita school?? They also say brahman IS the world!! See khila kAnda bhAshya & shankara's refutation of bhatruprapancha's views. CN prabhuji: That Brahman is Nirguna and omniscient, in which omniscience is included everything is Advaita Vedanta. bhaskar : Then shankara would have not made clear distinction between saguNa & nirguna brahman & told one is apara & another is para & one is for upAsana & another is jnEya. Have you checked this sUtra commentary fully prabhuji?? especially *rupAdyAkArarahita *yEva* brahma avadhArayitavyaM, na rUpAdimat..........anAkAraM *yEva* brahma avadhAryate. Can you tell me why shankara wasted his time by saying all this if his view is alltruism!! CN prabhuji: No, dear Bhaskarji, I am not speaking about Brahman with forms, I am speaking of Nirguna Brahman in which nothing is negated. That is the way one understands it when one reconciles Shankara without throwing out large parts of the bhashya overboard. bhaskar : No prabhuji, nothing can be thrown from shankara bhAshya (not even a single word!!) but we should understand his commentaries within the traditional frame work & reconcile it through the method which shankara himself shown to his followers. CN prabhuji: What to do? How can I go back to the explanation you give me when ALL is reconciled in Brahman that is nirguna -- and it comes from no other source than the Advaitic doctrine that words point to universals? Please note, this is NOT Western Philosophy; it is Indian Vedanta Philsophy. Have you tried to reconcile the 'relationship' between samanya and vishesha? It is related to words pointing to universals only. Please try it. bhaskar : you want me to quote whole janmAdhikaraNa, shAstrayonitvAdhikaraNa & samavayAdhi karaNa bhAshya prabhuji?? CN prabhuji: Shankara has said something, and let us atleast try to understand what he has said, bhaskar : Yes this endeavor of understanding *should be* accomplished by sitting at the lotus feet of our guru who is the true representative of shankara sampradAya. Instead of that we are finding ourselves very comfortable by holding some traslation works & thinking we are understanding shankara siddhAnta *on our own*. Kindly pardon me prabhuji, it is not directed to you, just I am passing my general observation on this. The atmosphere & socalled *our* understanding will be entirely different when our guru showers his anubhAva *amruta vAni* of paramArtha tattva. CN prabhuji: instead of repeating select statements over and over again. Or let us agree to disagree. bhaskar : inspite of repeating the same thing again & again, these repetitive statements have not been countered by cross quoting the shankara bhAshya (I'd be happy atleast if you do it in future :-)...what I've all these days is your fluent & unstoppable assertions of your intellectual conclusions greatly influenced by your extensive studies in western philosophy :-)) Warm regards, Chittaranjan Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 Namaste Shri Bhaskarji, advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: CN: > What is the difference between the object in its avyakruta bija rupa > state and in its state as 'full-bodied' rupa? > > bhaskar : > > At the first place, both are avidyAkruta *sa yEsha bijAnkuravat > avidyAkrutah samsAraH* (ref. vide shankara bhAshya on bruhadAraNyaka > shruti) CN: How can they be 'both' when the word that denotes them is the same? Shankara has answered the question of sameness of objects in its different conditions through the doctrine that words point to universals only. BUT YOUR ANSWER IS THAT IT IS AVIDYAKRUTA AND HENCE WE NEED NOT STUDY AND CONTEMPLATE ON THIS ASPECT OF SHANKARA BHASHYA! ________________ > CN prabhuji: > > Will nobody ever touch upon the subject of words and objects? > Is one part of Shankara's bhashya fully to be neglected? > > bhaskar: > > who said so prabhuji?? problem here is doing the samanvaya > according to shankara sampradAya. CN: One can't do samanvaya when you ignore parts of Shankara bhashya. What sampradaya are you talking about - the one that says that Veda Vyasa is different than Badarayana? _________________ > CN prabhuji: > > These are Shankara's words in the BSB (I.II.1.8): "On the > contrary, so long as the aspirant has not understood the > oneness of the embodied Self with Brahman, the experience > of happiness and sorrow by the embodied being is a result > of false ignorance, and Brahman, the highest Reality, > cannot be touched by it." > > bhaskar : > > but somewhere you said happiness & sorrow, the inferiority > & superiority etc. etc. are all eternal in brahman. > So according to you prabhuji *the false ignorance* or > avidyA is also eternal in brahman?? CN: > Happiness & sorrow, inferiority & superiority, as well as > all qualifications are eternal. What is real is eternal, > and what is not real is not eternal. Avidya is unreal > and is hence not eternal. _______________ Bhaskarji: > nAma rUpa are eternal, shankara says nAma & rUpa are > avidyAkruta, so avidyA also has the permanent place > in brahman. CN: Shankara does not say that nama-rupa are avidyakrupa, but that the differentiation of nama-rupa is due to avidya. Therefore, dear Bhaskarji, duality which arises from avidya is unreal. _______________ > CN: > > Please note that the words "so long as the aspirant has > not understood the oneness of the embodied Self with > Brahman" means right until knowledge dawns, and that > includes all the three states of waking, dream and > deep sleep. Shankara does not say that avidya vanishes > every night in deep sleep to appear again in the waking > state. :-) > > bhaskar : > > prabhuji please note shankara never ever admitted the > positive existence of avidyA in any of the state from > the pAramArtika view point. CN: Of course not. Whoever said that avidya is there in the knowledge of paramarthika sathya? But that is not a license for us in vyavaharika state to ignore Adi Shankara's words that one who sees the world as real should not deny it even when one is seeing it, for it is just like a man who even while eating is saying that he is not eating. Why has Shankara written these words. To whom are those words directed? IT IS FOR THOSE WHO ARE LIABLE TO SAY THAT EVERYTHING THAT WE SEE IS AVIDYAKRUTA AND HENCE WE NEED NOT STUDY AND CONTEMPLATE ON KEY ASPECTS OF SHANKARA BHASHYA! ______________ Bhaskarji: > sushupti is the state where neither waker nor his > world present. So, in that state avidyAkruta > pramAtrutvAdi vyavahAra will not be there. CN: Please answer Shankara. In his commentary on the Gaudapada Karika (Agama Prakarana, verse 2), when explaining the vital force that is merged in Brahman and remains undifferentiated, Shankara says: "If Brahman in Its seedless (non-causal) state be meant there, then the individuals that merge in It in deep-sleep and during dissolution cannot be reasonably re-emerge, and there will be the possibility of the freed souls returning to take birth again, for in either case, the absence of cause is a common factor. Besides, in the absence of any seed (of the worldly state) to be burnt by the knowledge (of Brahman), knowledge itself becomes useless." So much for your assertion that the atate of deep-sleep is identical to the state of a jnyani! Please read Shankara carefully and fully, and please do some samanvaya. ______________ Bhaskarji: > Hence yAjnAvalkya taken sushupti as drushtAnta for > mOksha state to explain it to janaka. CN: Yes, as a teaching aid. The blissful formless state of susupti is comparable to the state of moksha, but it is not moksha itself. Why does the Mandukya Upanishad differentiate between susupti and turiya? _______________ Bhaskarji: > While commenting on this upanishad shankara says * idAnim > yOsau sarvAtmabhAvO vidyAphalaM kriyAkAraka phala shUnyaM > sa pratyakshatO nirdishyatE, *yatra avidyAkAmakarmANi na > saNti* shankara talks about our svarUpa in clear terms > which is devoid of avidyA, kAma & karma. CN: The svarupa of our Self is devoid of avidya, kama and karma, and that is why Shankara talks about it. :-) ________________ Bhaskarji: > So, prabhuji, kindly donot hasten to conclude in waking > state avidyA is there & in sleep no avidyA. CN: No, I will not conclude like that. I will conclude that avidya is there in both waking and sleep states. :-) Why? Because deep-sleep is only one of the three states and not the Turiya that transcends the three states including prajna. There is a subtlety here that one needs to recognise. The three states are overlaid one on another - taijasa within vishva, and prajna within taijasa - and Turiya transcends all three. Commenting on the Karika, Shankara says (verse 2): "This verse aims at discovering how all three, starting with vishva, are experienced in the waking state itself." Again Shankara says: "The causal state, too, is verily experienced in the body, inasmuch as an awakened man is seen to have such a recollection as 'I did not know anything (in my deep sleep)'. Hence it is said, 'tridha dehe vyavastuthah - existing in three ways in the body". My dear friend, do not be too hasty in making judgments. Come of this 'world is avudyakruta' fix when you see Shankara spending so much of efforts to convey something. _____________ Bhaskarji: > From the absolute point of view no place for avidyA in > any of the state. CN: We both agree that there is no avidya in paramarthika. (Why do you add 'in any of the state' when talking about paramarthika? ) ____________ > Bhaskarji: > > I donot want to go into the details of it, > > CN: > > Unfortunately, people nowadays don't want to go into the > details about a number of aspects of Shankara Advaita. > > bhaskar : > > Since our Atmachaitanya prabhuji has dealt with this topic > elaborately, I thought again repeating the same thing causes > duplication. CN: Repetition is okay if it helps us to understand things better, but to leave out large parts of Shankara bhashya is not okay. ______________ Bhaskarji: > That is the reason I said like that. mUlAvidyA or bhAvarUpa > avidyA is one of the subjects my guruji discussed in length > in all his works. In short, this mulAvidyA is an alien > concept to shankara's mUla siddhAnta. CN: Is it still after the quote from Shankara given above? It is an alien concept to those who haven't read Shankara's commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad. _______________ > Bhaskarji: > > > if possible kindly refer Sri Atmachaitanya prabhuji's mails > > on the subject heading *whence adhyAsa*. > > CN: > > I have already read it. > > bhaskar : > > Since you've already read it, you must be knowing what is > our stand on mulAvidyA, if you've any problem in acceptance > of non-existence of bhAva rUpa avidyA, kindly bring it to > the forum, we can discuss it together based on shankara > bhAshya. CN: Please request the moderators to include this as a discussion topic for a future month. _______________ > CN: > > I am sorry I can't reply to that if you don't translate > it into English. Bhaskarji, you know my limitations > with Sanskrit language, and I have pointed this out > twice before. > > bhaskar : > > I humbly request you to avoid excessive dependence on > translation works. Atleast you can refer to the > shankara's bhAshya which has been transliterated in > english & keep a sanskrit-english dictionary beside > you & try to understand its meaning before entirely > depending on english translation. CN: Thank you for your advice (it is good advice), and I will follow it when the situation permits. ____________ Bhaskarji: This would help us to avoid unnecessary confusions. CN: Confusion can be avoided by understanding the meanings and not merely by keeping Sanksrit-English dictionaries besides oneself. What is important is that one realises the meaning of Advaita Vedanta, and then the meaning of statements, whether they are in English or Sanskrit, will strike through the light of pratyabhijna. Once the truth is grasped, it is recognised from whichever source it comes. ____________ > CN prabhuji: > Not only have I read it, but I have also provided my > explanation of it in Part IX. Shankara certainly does > not recommend that word-meanings should be overturned > when we speak. > > bhaskar : > > No need to overturn it when shankara clearly said pada > & padArtha both are avidyA nirmita. CN: Why is there so much vada on whether words are eternal or not? Why can't the Advaita argument simply state that words are not eternal as they are only in the temporal vyavaharika world? But every text of Advaitavada goes to great extents to establish that words are eternal. Why? WHY? YOUR ANSWER THAT NAMA-RUPA IS ALL AVIDYAKRUTA AND HENCE WE NEED NOT STUDY AND CONTEMPLATE ON SHANKARA BHASHYA IS FALSE AND MISLEADING! _______________ > CN: > > Equating Maya and nescience is a later development of Advaita. > bhaskar : > > here nescience means avidyA prabhuji?? CN: Yes Bhaskarji. ________________ > CN prabhuji: > > In Shankara, avidya is equated to maya as one attribute > of Maya > > bhaskar : > > It should be other way round prabhuji, shankara says > mAya is avidyAkruta, avidyA paryupasthApita, avidyA > lakshaNa etc. etc. From avidyA (antahkaraNa > dOsha) it appears mAya (objective false appearance) it > is not mAya causing avidyA. CN: Shankara also says Maya is the power of the Lord. The power of the lord cannot be avidya! Avidya arises in the context of the concealing power of Maya (avarana) and not in its projecting power (vikshepa). Maya is the wonderful inconceivable power of the Lord. IF YOU READ SHANKARA BHASHYA IN TOTALITY, YOU WILL SEE THAT EVERYTHING IS NOT AVIDYAKRUTA. ________________ > bhaskar : > > could you guide me to shankara bhAshya where shankara > says mAya = brahman...I've given the shankara's > definition of mAya in kArika bhAshya. CN: Maya is said to be Brahman whenever the effect is said to be pre- existent in the cause. :-) ______________ > CN: > > When a jnyani realises THAT, he knows that he was NEVER > bound; he doesn't 'know' that something wasn't there > for such a 'knowing' is a contradiction in terms - to > know that something was not there at all is to know > something! > > bhaskar : > > yes to know something he should be in the seat of knower > & needs means (pramANa) to know something apart from > knower, his real svarUpa is something beyond knower > & known (jnAtru & jnEya) See kEnOpanishat. CN: That something beyond knower and known is the Omniscient Brahman. The knowing (seeing) of Brahman is never absent. Listen to Shankara in BSB.I.I.5: "The further objection was raised that, since Brahman has no body, etc., before creation, no seeing is possible for It. That objection can hardly be raised; for like the effulgence of the sun, Brahman has eternal consciousness by Its very nature, so that It has no dependence on the means of knowledge. Moreover, in the case of a trasmigrating soul, subject to ignorance, the rise of knowledge depends on body, etc, but not so in the case of God whose knowledge is free from obstacles." "For whenn it appears that it does not see, it is seeing even though it appears it is not seeing; for there is no cessation of the seeing of the seer, but there is no second thing apart from it that it can see." (Br.Up. IV,III,23). My dear friend, beware before you say that Brahman is not the Knower. It is not Vedanta. Those who know Brahman as deep-sleep will become deep-sleep! Do you want me to find a quote from Shankara to show you that? _______________ > CN prabhuji: > > Did you say ONE and ALL? :-) Then we have no disagreement > because it is you that have to now answer about the word > 'world' which is nothing but what you call 'all'. :-) > > bhaskar : > > I didnot know you are so particular about *pickings* :-)) > I'd be bit careful in chosing words in future :-)) CN: It is not simply a question of your being careful, but it is your inability to say that Brahman is NOT ALL. Please say it, and see how many shruti statements it contradicts. _____________ > Bhaskarji: > > > the last word remains after the dawn of ultimate knowledge > > is *brahman* brahman alone nothing else. > > CN: > > Of course, there can't be anything ELSE from Brahman that is purnam, > but there CAN be something else from a Brahman that is not purnam! > Simple logic. :-) > > bhaskar : > > this simple logic you make it complicated by saying eternal > existence of bhEda in brahman, mAyA shakti, nAma rUpa etc. :-)) CN: Please read my essay on bheda. There is no bhedha in seeing that samanya and vishesha are not different. BUT YOUR EXPECTED ANSWER IS THAT IT IS ALL AVIDYAKRUTA AND HENCE WE NEED NOT STUDY AND CONTEMPLATE ON THESE ASPECTS OF SHANKARA BHASHYA! _________________ > CN: > > What is this 'purnabhava' in nirguna Brahman? What does the > qualification 'purna' qualify when all has been negated? > > bhaskar : > > see tattusamnvayAt sUtra bhAshya & try to understand what > is sAkshi's view point that shankara talking here. *na hi > ahaMpratyayavishaya kartavyatirEkENa tat sAkshi > sarvabhUtasthaH, samaH, yEkah, kUtasthA nityaH* CN: Please explain it, and I will try to show you where you are slipping up. _______________ > CN: > you are presenting mysteries to me in the same breath where you are > saying there is nothing mystical in It! :-) > > bhaskar: > > take the help of shankara sampradAyavidA to understand > shankara siddhAta prabhuji, your mysteries will go > for a six!! :-)) CN: I am taking Shankara's help, but you seem to be focussing on cricket! ________________ > CN: > > If we don't accept mysticism when we are still in vyavahara, > we are merely befooling ourselves that we know the Truth > when we are still in vyavahara. That would be a contradiction > in terms - 'vyavaharika' and 'the Truth'. > > bhaskar: > > but what you are telling about mysticism is vyavahArAtIta > in advaita is it not?? CN: What do you think is the context in which we are discussing now? ________________ > CN: > Have you read the arguments I presented against 'difference' in Part > VIII? Have you read what I presented about samanya and vishesha? I > have not presented anything other than the Advaitic arguments. > > bhaskar : > > yes I read it but failed to understand your justification of > your stand that nAma & rUpa eternal, notion of inferiority & > superiority between Ishvara & jIva eternal etc. etc. in brahman. CN: Bhaskarji, your question was about bhedha, and I am talking of bhedha, and now you are speaking about eternality of nama and rupa. Let us not stray from the point in question. Cricket shouldn't allow us to become de-focussed. :-) __________________ > CN prabhuji: > > Bhaskarji, a nirguna Brahman in which everything is negated > is not second best, it is " "! > > bhaskar : > > Yes " " (silence) is the best way of *teaching* brahma > tattva. gurOstu *mouna* vyAkhyAnAm shishyAstu chinna saMshayaH > (dakshiNa mUrthy stotra) or *na iti na iti* as we find in > bruhadAraNyaka. CN: I agree -- I will always agree with you when I see that you are right. :-) _________________ > CN: > > It is nothing short of sunya-Brahman. > > bhaskar : > > no... since it is our svarUpa you cannot say you > are shUnya :-)) CN: But the svaroopa you are talking about is that of deep sleep wherein one knows nothing (sunya) rather than Knowing All. Do you want me to find a Shankara quote where he says that knowing Brahman this way is like knowing nothing? I recall reading it, I just have to find it. __________________ > CN prabhuji: > > But Nirguna Brahman that is indescribable and formless has > everything within it, and is still akhanda. > > bhaskar : > > Yes our sAkshi is akhanda which is indesribable & formless > & it appears it has everything within in waking & dream > states but it will be there in its sva-svarUpa in > prAjnA & turIya state. CN: We are both talking of the formless Brahman, but by saying it only 'appears it has everything', you are in effect saying that it has nothing. So what you are saying is that Brahman is sunya and what I am saying is that Brahman is purna. :-) ________________ Bhaskarji: > Then what is the difference between sushupti & turiya?? > shankara answers this also in mAndukya Up & kArika bhAshya. CN: What is the answer? I have provided the very quote from Mandukya Upanishad bhashya itself (above). Let those who have eyes see, and those who have ears hear. _________________ > CN: > > Unthinkable, isn't it? That is what is mystical. Please > reconcile Shankara bhashya fully not limiting it to > only a few statements. > > bhaskar : > > Again, nothing mystical about it...do you think our > *experience of three states* is lokAntara, aloukika jnAna?? CN: The experience of three states is not jnyana. That is what I have been saying all along, and now I have produced Shankara's words, but you seem to persist with the opinion that there is no state of ajnyana. It is nice to say 'Aham Brahmasmi', but beware of the knot. ________________ Bhaskarji: > This reconciliation of shankara bhAshya has been > wonderfully done by bhagavadpAda himself by highlighting > the traditional methodology of adhyArOpa apavAda. CN: True, but the meaning of adhyaropa has been changed by later interpretations. In Shankara, adhyaropa is nothing but avidya, but now it has become forms. Don't you see how absurd is your position when you say avidya is not bhava-rupa and still you insist that the world of forms is avidyakruta? ________________ Bhaskarji: > It only requires careful study of it under the able > guidance of shrotrIya brahmanishta bonafide sampradAya guru. CN: The Grace of the Guru is ever flowing. I pray that I may become worthy of receiving that Grace. _________________ > CN: > > I have read it. Have you also noticed that it has this > quotation: "That which is known as Space is the accomplisher > of name and form; That in which they are INCLUDED is Brahman" (Ch.VIII.xiv.1) > > bhaskar : > > this famous up. do say the name & form which have been > included in brahman is only for name sake..vAchArabhaNam > vikAro nAmadhEyaM. CN: If names and forms are not there in Brahman, then it can never create even the illusion of forms, for the son of a barren woman can never be born. Please try to understand that whenever Shankara says something doesn't exist, he means that it is not manifested. Please refer Shankara (Br.Up): "Every effect such as a jar has two kinds of obstruction. When it has become manifest from its component clay, darkness and the wall etc. are the obstructions; while before its manifestation from the clay the obstruction consists in particles of clay remaining as some other effect such as a lump. Therefore, the effect, the jar, although existent, is not perceived before its manifestation, as it is hidden. The terms and concepts 'destroyed', 'produced', 'existence' and 'non- existence' depend on this two-fold character of manifestation and disappearance." _______________ > CN: > > Do you think I am speaking about Brahman having forms? > Brahman with forms is Vishistadvaita. That both Brahman > and the world are true is Bhrtraprapancha. > > bhaskar : > > in what way your stand is different from dvaitAdvaita school?? CN: It is different because it is Advaita. There is no BOTH Brahman AND the world here. __________________ Brahman: > They also say brahman IS the world!! CN: Brahman is NOT IDENTICAL TO the world. The world is pre-existent in Brahman. When you say Brahman, you have said All. _________________ > CN prabhuji: > > That Brahman is Nirguna and omniscient, in which omniscience > is included everything is Advaita Vedanta. > > bhaskar : > > Then shankara would have not made clear distinction between > saguNa & nirguna brahman & told one is apara & another is > para & one is for upAsana & another is jnEya. Have you > checked this sUtra commentary fully prabhuji?? especially > *rupAdyAkArarahita *yEva* brahma avadhArayitavyaM, na > rUpAdimat..........anAkAraM *yEva* brahma avadhAryate. > Can you tell me why shankara wasted his time by saying all > this if his view is alltruism!! CN: Shankara did not waste his time. In the context of duality, when Brahman is concealed, the world 'becomes' a limiting adjunct. How can there be an adjunct if duality is not seen? Therefore, adjunct arises only within the context of duality. Non-duality is established by the negation of the seen to get to the substative Brahman, and when Brahman is realised then that same world which was an adjunct is no more an adjunct because there is no duality. Therefore, Shankara has not wasted his words. :-) ______________ > CN: > > No, dear Bhaskarji, I am not speaking about Brahman with forms, I am > speaking of Nirguna Brahman in which nothing is negated. That is the > way one understands it when one reconciles Shankara without throwing > out large parts of the bhashya overboard. > > bhaskar : > > No prabhuji, nothing can be thrown from shankara bhAshya > (not even a single word!!) CN: Wonderful! Then please don't throw out Shankara's words when he says that those who see the world must not deny it even when they see it! Please remember that we are in vyavaharika and we see the world. Please don't ignore Shankara words when he says that Brahman is the material and efficient cause of the universe. Please don't ignore Shankara's words in all those parts of the bhashya where he speaks about words being eternal. _______________ Bhaskarji: > but we should understand his commentaries within the > traditional frame work & reconcile it through the > method which shankara himself shown to his followers. CN: You can't reconcile the bhashya when you mask off large parts of the bhashya as pertaining to avidyakruta world and hence not important. Please recognise that Shankara has not wasted his words. And samanvyaya should preserve the Vedic sampradaya and not fracture it. ________________ > CN prabhuji: > > What to do? How can I go back to the explanation you give me > when ALL is reconciled in Brahman that is nirguna -- and it > comes from no other source than the Advaitic doctrine > that words point to universals? Please note, this is NOT > Western Philosophy; it is Indian Vedanta Philsophy. Have you > tried to reconcile the 'relationship' between samanya and > vishesha? It is related to words pointing to universals > only. Please try it. > > bhaskar : > > you want me to quote whole janmAdhikaraNa, shAstrayonitvAdhikaraNa & > samavayAdhi karaNa bhAshya prabhuji?? CN: No, please explain the doctrine of words pointing to universals only. _________________ > CN: > > Shankara has said something, and let us atleast try to > understand what he has said, > bhaskar : > > Yes this endeavor of understanding *should be* accomplished > by sitting at the lotus feet of our guru who is the true > representative of shankara sampradAya. Instead of that we > are finding ourselves very comfortable by holding some > traslation works & thinking we are understanding shankara > siddhAnta *on our own*. CN: Do you mean that this discussion should happen with some of us listening to others -- to those who have gurus from the sampradaya? :- ) I have no problem with that if that is the way discussions in the list are to be done. :-) ____________ Bhaskarji: > Kindly pardon me prabhuji, it is not directed to > you, just I am passing my general observation on this. CN: It is okay with me even if it is directed to me. Actually it appears to be very nicely directed to me. :-) _______________ Bhaskarji: > The atmosphere & socalled *our* understanding will be > entirely different when our guru showers his anubhAva > *amruta vAni* of paramArtha tattva. CN: :-) _______________ > CN: > > instead of repeating select statements over and over again. > Or let us agree to disagree. > > bhaskar : > > inspite of repeating the same thing again & again, these > repetitive statements have not been countered by cross > quoting the shankara bhAshya (I'd be happy atleast if you > do it in future :-)... CN: Are you sure that I have not quoted relevant passages from the shruti and the bhashya? Or is it that all these quotes are termed as pertaining to avidyakruta? Will you also forget what I have quoted in this post? __________________ Bhaskarji: > what I've all these days is your fluent & unstoppable > assertions of your intellectual conclusions > greatly influenced by your extensive studies in western > philosophy :-)) CN: Thank you. But it may surprise you to know that my understanding of Western philosophy, to whatever limited extent that I have it, is due to my study of Indian philosophy. I was fortunate indeed that a singular coincidence in my life brought the prasthana traya to me, almost as if it was ordained... and these were the first texts that I read about any philosophy. ________________ Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 Namaste Shri Bhaskarji, praNAms Sri CN prabhuji Hare Krishna > bhaskar : > > At the first place, both are avidyAkruta *sa yEsha bijAnkuravat > avidyAkrutah samsAraH* (ref. vide shankara bhAshya on bruhadAraNyaka > shruti) CN prabhuji: How can they be 'both' when the word that denotes them is the same? bhaskar: prabhuji, then why did you say in sushupti avidyA is in the seed form (bIja rUpa) if both ankura & bIja are the same ?? Again, even if we take both bIja & ankura (i.e. avyAkruta & vyAkruta rUpa or preexistence of effect in seedform etc. etc.) are one & the same shankara saying here both/bijAnkura are/is avidyAkruta...what is your reference in shankara bhAshya to say bijAkuara is eternal in brhman? in otherwords, avidyA is eternal in brahman !!! CN prabhuji: Shankara has answered the question of sameness of objects in its different conditions through the doctrine that words point to universals only. BUT YOUR ANSWER IS THAT IT IS AVIDYAKRUTA AND HENCE WE NEED NOT STUDY AND CONTEMPLATE ON THIS ASPECT OF SHANKARA BHASHYA! bhaskar : pls. note *avidyAkruta* is not *my* answer it is *shankara* who is paramaguru to both of us is telling here that. I didnot say we need not study & comtemplate it, it has its validity at the empirical level. It does not mean these studies & comtemplations are brahman as you are telling all these days :-)) Kindly refer shAstrayOnitvAdhikaraNa bhAshya to understand shankara's position on shAstrAdhyayana. CN prabhuji: One can't do samanvaya when you ignore parts of Shankara bhashya. bhaskar : prabhuji kindly tell me where did I ignore the bhAshya?? CN prabhuji: What sampradaya are you talking about - the one that says that Veda Vyasa is different than Badarayana? bhaskar : prabhuji I am not talking about historians who are till today struggling to equate bAdarAyaNa with krishna dvaipAyana....I_am_talking about shankara sampradAya...atleast are you aware of paramparAnugata jnAna which has its origin in dEva mUla prabhuji?? CN prabhuji: (A) > CN prabhuji: > > These are Shankara's words in the BSB (I.II.1.8): "On the > contrary, so long as the aspirant has not understood the > oneness of the embodied Self with Brahman, the experience > of happiness and sorrow by the embodied being is a result > of false ignorance, and Brahman, the highest Reality, > cannot be touched by it." > > bhaskar : > > but somewhere you said happiness & sorrow, the inferiority > & superiority etc. etc. are all eternal in brahman. > So according to you prabhuji *the false ignorance* or > avidyA is also eternal in brahman?? (B) CN: > Happiness & sorrow, inferiority & superiority, as well as > all qualifications are eternal. What is real is eternal, > and what is not real is not eternal. Avidya is unreal > and is hence not eternal. _______________ Bhaskarji: > nAma rUpa are eternal, shankara says nAma & rUpa are > avidyAkruta, so avidyA also has the permanent place > in brahman. CN prabhuji: Shankara does not say that nama-rupa are avidyakrupa, but that the differentiation of nama-rupa is due to avidya. Therefore, dear Bhaskarji, duality which arises from avidya is unreal. bhaskar : I had to retain what you have said above (A) & (B) just to show how hopelessly you are contradicting yourself in saying it is shankara advaita. Let me point out it : In (A) you are saying "the experience of happiness and sorrow by the embodied being is a result of false ignorance, and Brahman, the highest Reality, cannot be touched by it." This is anyway, shankara's words so I take it as it is & I hope you also agreed with this. But it seems you are inventing some new theory in (B) by saying following : "Happiness & sorrow, inferiority & superiority, as well as all qualifications are eternal. What is real is eternal, and what is not real is not eternal. So, according to you in brahman happiness & sorrow etc. etc. are real & eternal, but shankara saying brahman cannot be touched by it & this *experience of happiness & sorrow is only for the embodied being as a result of ajnAna/avidyA. So, it gives us the impression ajnAna/avidyA is eternal in brahman. I donot have to dig into the details to show the fallacy of the above statements. It is self explanatory. Compare shankara's statements in (A) & your own theory in (B) & let the members be enlightened with your reconciliation with proper quotes from shankara bhAshya. > bhaskar : > > prabhuji please note shankara never ever admitted the > positive existence of avidyA in any of the state from > the pAramArtika view point. CN prabhuji: Of course not. Whoever said that avidya is there in the knowledge of paramarthika sathya? bhaskar : but you know prabhuji, you are the member of mUlAvidyA party:-))..when you are agreeing bhAva rUpa of avidyA, you have to agree that in sleep also there is avidyA in bhAvarUpa like vivaraNa school. CN prabhuji: But that is not a license for us in vyavaharika state to ignore Adi Shankara's words that one who sees the world as real should not deny it even when one is seeing it, bhaskar : how many times I've to tell you I've no problems with vyavahArika jagat & its elements:-)) CN prabhuji: for it is just like a man who even while eating is saying that he is not eating. Why has Shankara written these words. To whom are those words directed? bhaskar : these words have been directed to his opponents not to his followers...you want me to quote what shankara's paramaguru says on paramArtha in kArika?? & shankara's explanation to it?? na mumukshuH na vai muktaH, na nirOdhO na cha utpattihi...so obviously no gluttons either in paramArtha :-)) CN prabhuji: IT IS FOR THOSE WHO ARE LIABLE TO SAY THAT EVERYTHING THAT WE SEE IS AVIDYAKRUTA AND HENCE WE NEED NOT STUDY AND CONTEMPLATE ON KEY ASPECTS OF SHANKARA BHASHYA! bhaskar : Yes *seeing* other than seer is the problem...our seeing may cease sometime (deep sleep), but seer as witness will be there forever. so whatever seen is obviously avidyA, as we know Atman cannot be seen. By the way, I am not able to understand why you are cooking something here unnecessarily..kindly refer shankara bhAshya to distinguish between paramArtha & vyAvahArika. CN prabhuji: Please answer Shankara. In his commentary on the Gaudapada Karika (Agama Prakarana, verse 2), when explaining the vital force that is merged in Brahman and remains undifferentiated, Shankara says: "If Brahman in Its seedless (non-causal) state be meant there, then the individuals that merge in It in deep-sleep and during dissolution cannot be reasonably re-emerge, and there will be the possibility of the freed souls returning to take birth again, for in either case, the absence of cause is a common factor. Besides, in the absence of any seed (of the worldly state) to be burnt by the knowledge (of Brahman), knowledge itself becomes useless." bhaskar : prabhuji, have I anywhere said everytime fresh jIva wakes up from sleep ?? why you are quoting this to me?? have you checked shankara's commentary further prabhuji where he says * tAm abIjAvastAm tasyaiva prjnashabda vAchasya turIyatvEna dehAhi sambandharahitAm pAramArthakIm pruthak vakshyati* Kindly refer the translation work you have & see what it says. CN prabhuji: So much for your assertion that the atate of deep-sleep is identical to the state of a jnyani! Please read Shankara carefully and fully, and please do some samanvaya. bhaskar : it is not strictly identical with the state of mOksha, but this deep sleep compared with mOksha state coz. the reason is what you yourself have quoted below. CN prabhuji: Yes, as a teaching aid. The blissful formless state of susupti is comparable to the state of moksha, but it is not moksha itself. Why does the Mandukya Upanishad differentiate between susupti and turiya? bhaskar : Kindly refer shankara's bruhadAraNyaka shruti bhAshya, he says *saMprasAdasthAnaM mOksha drushtAnta bhUtam* prabhuji I said only deep sleep is drushtAnta to mOksha. I never said sleep state is dArshtAntika mOksha itself. I hope you'll find the difference between the words drushtAnta & dArshtAnta in dictionary. Have you checked what sureshvara says about sushupti & turIya in bruhad vArtika prabhuji?? CN prabhuji: The svarupa of our Self is devoid of avidya, kama and karma, and that is why Shankara talks about it. :-) bhaskar : but kAma, karma are eternal & real according to you is it not?? how can you say it is *devoid* of kAma & karma when it is *ALL* :-)) CN prabhuji: No, I will not conclude like that. I will conclude that avidya is there in both waking and sleep states. :-) bhaskar : but above you've concluded there is no avidyA at all. prabhuji which one of these conclusions of yours is conclusively conclusion :-)) CN prabhuji: Why? Because deep-sleep is only one of the three states and not the Turiya that transcends the three states including prajna. There is a subtlety here that one needs to recognise. bhaskar : do you think there is a separate state like turIya for Atman?? have you not read kAriaka where gaudapAda says turIya is chaturthA is mere *saNkhyA vAchaka*. CN prabhuji: The three states are overlaid one on another - taijasa within vishva, and prajna within taijasa - bhaskar : can you quote me the exact verse of kArika for this..so according to you within dream there is deep sleep state :-) it is very interesting & strange. CN prabhuji: and Turiya transcends all three. Commenting on the Karika, Shankara says (verse 2): "This verse aims at discovering how all three, starting with vishva, are experienced in the waking state itself." bhaskar : pls. note here shankara included vishva (waker) also in the ever waking nature of ours which is sAkshi chEtaH to all the three states. From which stand point shankara added vishva also here?? pls. clarify. CN prabhuji: Again Shankara says: "The causal state, too, is verily experienced in the body, inasmuch as an awakened man is seen to have such a recollection as 'I did not know anything (in my deep sleep)'. Hence it is said, 'tridha dehe vyavastuthah - existing in three ways in the body". bhaskar : again see shankar how objectifying the all three states here. Definitely it is not from the mundane waker's point of view IT IS FROM THE SAKSHI SVARUPA POINT OF VIEW. CN prabhuji: My dear friend, do not be too hasty in making judgments. Come of this 'world is avudyakruta' fix when you see Shankara spending so much of efforts to convey something. bhaskar : thanks for the suggestion, thats what I've been trying to do all these days by meticulously sticking to traditional teaching :-)) CN prabhuji: We both agree that there is no avidya in paramarthika. (Why do you add 'in any of the state' when talking about paramarthika? ) bhaskar : but for you these states are paramArthikally true is it not?? :-)) CN prabhuji: Repetition is okay if it helps us to understand things better, but to leave out large parts of Shankara bhashya is not okay. bhaskar : which is that *large part* which we have ignored here prabhuji?? have I anywhere said this shankara's bhAshya vAkya is irrelevant to mUla siddhAnta & can be left aside?? prabhuji..pls. be specific. CN prabhuji: Is it still after the quote from Shankara given above? It is an alien concept to those who haven't read Shankara's commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad. Please request the moderators to include this as a discussion topic for a future month. bhaskar : No need for that, this topic has been discussed in length earlier...pls. come back to the forum if you find any problem with that. CN prabhuji: Thank you for your advice (it is good advice), and I will follow it when the situation permits. bhaskar : I think this is the high time for you to think about it seriously prabhuji :-)) CN prabhuji: Confusion can be avoided by understanding the meanings and not merely by keeping Sanksrit-English dictionaries besides oneself. What is important is that one realises the meaning of Advaita Vedanta, and then the meaning of statements, whether they are in English or Sanskrit, will strike through the light of pratyabhijna. Once the truth is grasped, it is recognised from whichever source it comes. bhaskar : what I meant here was reading shankara's sanskrit bhAshya in orginal by keeping sanskrit - english dictionary is lot more better than simply reading the translation works. Anyway, as said earlier, the best way to approach shankara bhAshya is, through guru who is shrotrIya, brahmanishta & more importantly he should be from the bonafide shankara sampradAya. You know how important it is in vedAdhyayana?? shAstra pATha should come from guru only. There is no substitute to that. CN prabhuji: Why is there so much vada on whether words are eternal or not? Why can't the Advaita argument simply state that words are not eternal as they are only in the temporal vyavaharika world? But every text of Advaitavada goes to great extents to establish that words are eternal. Why? WHY? YOUR ANSWER THAT NAMA-RUPA IS ALL AVIDYAKRUTA AND HENCE WE NEED NOT STUDY AND CONTEMPLATE ON SHANKARA BHASHYA IS FALSE AND MISLEADING! bhaskar : you are simply repeating the same thing again & again. so no need for me to comment. _______________ > CN: > > Equating Maya and nescience is a later development of Advaita. > bhaskar : > > here nescience means avidyA prabhuji?? CN prabhuji: Yes Bhaskarji. bhaskar : thanks for the clarification...I agree with you :-)) CN prabhuji: Shankara also says Maya is the power of the Lord. The power of the lord cannot be avidya! Avidya arises in the context of the concealing power of Maya (avarana) and not in its projecting power (vikshepa). Maya is the wonderful inconceivable power of the Lord. IF YOU READ SHANKARA BHASHYA IN TOTALITY, YOU WILL SEE THAT EVERYTHING IS NOT AVIDYAKRUTA. bhaskar : *shaktischa kAraNasya kAryaniyamArthA *kalpyamAnA na anyA asatI vA kAryaM niyachhEt...* shankara in sUtra bhAshya. See what shankara saying about shakti here *kalpyamAnA na anyA* For accepting mAyA shakti first you have to accept lordhood in advitIya brahman since it requires the distinction between the ruler & being ruled. But as you've seen above shankara telling shakti is kEvala *kalpana mAtra* from the absolute stand point. When the mAya is seen (objective false appearance) through avidyA (antahkaraNa dOsha) in non-dual self from empirical stand point, from that stand point this non-dual self described as mayAvi/Ishvara etc. & his creative power as mAya shakthi. But in your case no creation & it is pre-existent in cause, hence no creative shankti or Ishvara shakti or mAya shakti either. CN prabhuji: That something beyond knower and known is the Omniscient Brahman. The knowing (seeing) of Brahman is never absent. Listen to Shankara in BSB.I.I.5: "The further objection was raised that, since Brahman has no body, etc., before creation, no seeing is possible for It. That objection can hardly be raised; for like the effulgence of the sun, Brahman has eternal consciousness by Its very nature, so that It has no dependence on the means of knowledge. Moreover, in the case of a trasmigrating soul, subject to ignorance, the rise of knowledge depends on body, etc, but not so in the case of God whose knowledge is free from obstacles." "For whenn it appears that it does not see, it is seeing even though it appears it is not seeing; for there is no cessation of the seeing of the seer, but there is no second thing apart from it that it can see." (Br.Up. IV,III,23). bhaskar : I am not disputing this as you've seen earlier...my problem is with your eternality of knower & known distinctions in brahman. it is not vijnAna Atman in pancha kOsha prakriya that is what I am trying to say here. Hope atleast now you got it. CN prabhuji: My dear friend, beware before you say that Brahman is not the Knower. bhaskar : small correction here, in brahman there is no knower, known distinction. It is always kEvalo nirguNascha. CN prabhuji: It is not Vedanta. Those who know Brahman as deep-sleep will become deep-sleep! Do you want me to find a quote from Shankara to show you that? bhaskar : bring those quotes my dear prabhuji, let us discuss it together..after all we are here to learn shankara siddhAtna:-)) you know everybody cannot have *deep sleep* frequently :-)) CN prabhuji: It is not simply a question of your being careful, but it is your inability to say that Brahman is NOT ALL. Please say it, and see how many shruti statements it contradicts. bhaskar : when brahman is yEkamEva advitIya where is the question of *all* & not all prabhuji?? (you see I am careful here :-)) this advitIyatva is a proven fact in shrutis & anubhava. But world is brahman is lokAnubhava viruddha & shruti viruddha & more importantly shankara siddhAnta viruddha :-)) CN prabhuji: Please read my essay on bheda. There is no bhedha in seeing that samanya and vishesha are not different. BUT YOUR EXPECTED ANSWER IS THAT IT IS ALL AVIDYAKRUTA AND HENCE WE NEED NOT STUDY AND CONTEMPLATE ON THESE ASPECTS OF SHANKARA BHASHYA! bhaskar : that is not my expected answer, that what has been said by shankara. CN prabhuji > bhaskar : > > see tattusamnvayAt sUtra bhAshya & try to understand what > is sAkshi's view point that shankara talking here. *na hi > ahaMpratyayavishaya kartavyatirEkENa tat sAkshi > sarvabhUtasthaH, samaH, yEkah, kUtasthA nityaH*: Please explain it, and I will try to show you where you are slipping up. bhaskar : if your primary intention itself is proving me wrong where is the question of further discussion prabhuji?? this reminds me our great prabhuji Sri Jay Nelamangala...he says you bring all versions of advaita, I'll prove it is wrong :-)) such is his confidence :-)) CN prabhuji: I am taking Shankara's help, but you seem to be focussing on cricket! bhaskar : why focussing on cricket cannot teach us brahman?? ALL is brahman why cricket should be out here :-)) sorry, just on the lighter note :-)) > CN: > > If we don't accept mysticism when we are still in vyavahara, > we are merely befooling ourselves that we know the Truth > when we are still in vyavahara. That would be a contradiction > in terms - 'vyavaharika' and 'the Truth'. > > bhaskar: > > but what you are telling about mysticism is vyavahArAtIta > in advaita is it not?? CN prabhuji: What do you think is the context in which we are discussing now? bhaskar : do you think we have to be the permanent residents of vyavahAra to keep on discussing mysticism prabhuji:-)) shruti/shankara do talk about paramArtha *relatively* by negating the all anAtma vastu is it not?? CN prabhuji: Bhaskarji, your question was about bhedha, and I am talking of bhedha, and now you are speaking about eternality of nama and rupa. bhaskar : Yes what I've been asking you is bhEda, your talking is also bhEda & your conclusions about abhEda is also bhEda, so I am wondering where is abhEda in your bhEda conclusions :-)) CN prabhuji: Let us not stray from the point in question. Cricket shouldn't allow us to become de-focussed. :-) bhaskar : neither cricket nor my udaka shAnti pArAyaNa can cause me de-focussed...coz. I know what is being focussed is not my svarUpa. CN prabhuji: But the svaroopa you are talking about is that of deep sleep wherein one knows nothing (sunya) rather than Knowing All. Do you want me to find a Shankara quote where he says that knowing Brahman this way is like knowing nothing? I recall reading it, I just have to find it. bhaskar : you are always welcome to substantiate your claims with bhAshya vAkya...after all as you know that is what I am insisting. BTW who said deep sleep is shUnya?? if you are thinking deep sleep state is shUnya, then I am afraid you are venturing into shUnyavAdi..shUnyavAdi says so, do you agree with that prabhuji?? :-)) CN prabhuji: We are both talking of the formless Brahman, but by saying it only 'appears it has everything', you are in effect saying that it has nothing. So what you are saying is that Brahman is sunya and what I am saying is that Brahman is purna. :-) bhaskar : No prabhuji simply you are guessing my stand..I've been telling this based on avasthA traya..which is lokAnubhava in which our conscious is present without intermission whereas waker & dreamer & their corresponding worlds have the intermittent reality. you label it whatever way you want it hardly matters :-)) Bhaskarji: > Then what is the difference between sushupti & turiya?? > shankara answers this also in mAndukya Up & kArika bhAshya. CN prabhuji: What is the answer? I have provided the very quote from Mandukya Upanishad bhashya itself (above). Let those who have eyes see, and those who have ears hear. bhaskar : dont get agitated prabhuji:-)) those who have eyes & ears would definitely see & hear *shankara siddhAnta* :-)) CN prabhuji: The experience of three states is not jnyana. bhaskar : but analysing the three states' experience from sAkshi view point is practical method to understand our svarUpa. CN prabhuji: That is what I have been saying all along, and now I have produced Shankara's words, but you seem to persist with the opinion that there is no state of ajnyana. It is nice to say 'Aham Brahmasmi', but beware of the knot. bhaskar : but that *knot* is BIG NOT in paramArtha that is what shruti & shankara saying. that is what we have to understand ultimately from shruti purports not ascribing eternality to *knots* in brahman :-)) CN prabhuji: True, but the meaning of adhyaropa has been changed by later interpretations. In Shankara, adhyaropa is nothing but avidya, but now it has become forms. Don't you see how absurd is your position when you say avidya is not bhava-rupa and still you insist that the world of forms is avidyakruta? bhaskar : if it is bhAva rUpa & positive entity in brahman then any amount of knowledge cannot remove the eternally existing entity...I know by this time you must be realising how absurd it is giving rUpa to avidyA & saying at the same time its not there in brahman & subsequently making conclusions that nAma & rUpa, sukha-dukha, gradation (inferior-superior) are eternal in brahman :-)) Bhaskarji: > It only requires careful study of it under the able > guidance of shrotrIya brahmanishta bonafide sampradAya guru. CN prabhuji: The Grace of the Guru is ever flowing. I pray that I may become worthy of receiving that Grace. bhaskar : I too pray the almighty on behalf of you prabhuji,,,so that my work will be relieved to the great extent :-)) CN prabhuji: If names and forms are not there in Brahman, then it can never create even the illusion of forms, for the son of a barren woman can never be born. Please try to understand that whenever Shankara says something doesn't exist, he means that it is not manifested. Please refer Shankara (Br.Up): "Every effect such as a jar has two kinds of obstruction. When it has become manifest from its component clay, darkness and the wall etc. are the obstructions; while before its manifestation from the clay the obstruction consists in particles of clay remaining as some other effect such as a lump. Therefore, the effect, the jar, although existent, is not perceived before its manifestation, as it is hidden. The terms and concepts 'destroyed', 'produced', 'existence' and 'non- existence' depend on this two-fold character of manifestation and disappearance." bhaskar : since you are giving only english translation it is difficult for me to make out. Atleast give me the maNtra reference prabhuji, so that I can have a look at the original text. CN prabhuji: Brahman is NOT IDENTICAL TO the world. The world is pre-existent in Brahman. When you say Brahman, you have said All. bhaskar : but you said avidya also *existing* in brahman as bhAva rUpa. so all including avidyA is also brahman according to your version correct prabhuji. CN prabhuji: Shankara did not waste his time. In the context of duality, when Brahman is concealed, the world 'becomes' a limiting adjunct. How can there be an adjunct if duality is not seen? Therefore, adjunct arises only within the context of duality. Non-duality is established by the negation of the seen to get to the substative Brahman, and when Brahman is realised then that same world which was an adjunct is no more an adjunct because there is no duality. Therefore, Shankara has not wasted his words. :-) bhaskar : I repeat your words, coz. for the first time you are saying this : *Non-duality is established by the negation of the seen to get to the substative Brahman* this is what I've been saying prabhuji...when anAtma vastu is negated as has been done in chAdOgya what remains is our svarUpa. CN prabhuji: Wonderful! Then please don't throw out Shankara's words when he says that those who see the world must not deny it even when they see it! Please remember that we are in vyavaharika and we see the world. Please don't ignore Shankara words when he says that Brahman is the material and efficient cause of the universe. Please don't ignore Shankara's words in all those parts of the bhashya where he speaks about words being eternal. bhaskar : I agreed all this from vyavahAra...but shankara talks about shAstra drushti also..though we are still talking in vyavahAra do you think it is the eternal reality?? CN prabhuji: You can't reconcile the bhashya when you mask off large parts of the bhashya as pertaining to avidyakruta world and hence not important. Please recognise that Shankara has not wasted his words. And samanvyaya should preserve the Vedic sampradaya and not fracture it. bhaskar : above you said talking about vEdavyAsa & bAdarAyaNa is sampradAya. First you tell me what sampradAya mean to you. then we will talk about fractures & fabrications :-)) CN prabhuji: Do you mean that this discussion should happen with some of us listening to others -- to those who have gurus from the sampradaya? :- have no problem with that if that is the way discussions in the list are to be done. :-) bhaskar : I didnt mean that...atleast those who are persuing studies outside sampradAya should aware of the method of teaching in tradition. CN prabhuji: Are you sure that I have not quoted relevant passages from the shruti and the bhashya? Or is it that all these quotes are termed as pertaining to avidyakruta? Will you also forget what I have quoted in this post? bhaskar : I know you've quoted bhAshya in your mails...you have not quoted bhAshya when defending your stand when those quotes have been explained in greater detail. You said mAya is shakti & stree etc. for that I've shown what shankara said. You said bijAnkura is eternal, for that I quoted shankara saying it is avidyAkruta You said sarvajnatva & sarvashaktitva is eternal in brahman, I've quoted why it has secondary importance in shankara siddhAnta. you said nAma & rUpa, bhEda eternal in brahman, I've shown through shankara bhAshya how absurd it is. Just some of them out of big list :-)) CN prabhuji: Thank you. But it may surprise you to know that my understanding of Western philosophy, to whatever limited extent that I have it, is due to my study of Indian philosophy. I was fortunate indeed that a singular coincidence in my life brought the prasthana traya to me, almost as if it was ordained... and these were the first texts that I read about any philosophy. bhaskar : your studies would have been still better had it been done under the proper guidance of shankara sampradAyavida. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2004 Report Share Posted August 21, 2004 Dear Advaitins, During the next couple of days, I will be making the complete set of Chittaranjan's essays available at my website. Initially, these will be as written, one page per essay, nine in total. I will add Chittaranjan's summary and glossary to these as and when they are available. Note than none of the subsequent discussions will be included. The pages will be available as soon as possible, in an unedited state, so that members may study them during this quiet week. Hopefully, they will be there by Monday evening at the latest. The address of the introduction will be www.advaita.org.uk/realist_chittaranjan.htm and the remaining essays will link on from there. Initially, these will only be available to members (i.e. those who have the above link) until editing is complete. In connection with this, I am inviting help from members to assist in editing. What I am looking for is one person per page, nine in total. The task would be to check through for spelling, grammar etc. and, especially, to ensure that all Sanskrit words are in correct ITRANS representation. Could I invite anyone interested (who must obviously have some knowledge of Sanskrit and ITRANS and willingness to look words up in a Sanskrit dictionary to check spelling) to email me direct at dwaite and I will email you an essay, in MS Word 97 format to work on. Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 The essays from Sri Chittaranjan have now been added to my website. The Introductory essay is www.advaita.org.uk/realist_chittaranjan.htm and the nine subsequent essays link from there. Since I am not very optimistic about recruiting help in editing (based on the current zero response!), I have linked all of the essays into the main site as they are. I don't think this is really a problem since the standard of writing is already so high. The main problem is with the ITRANS standardisation but then most people do not seem too bothered about this anyway. Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 Dear Shri Dennisji, advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote: > During the next couple of days, I will be making the > complete set of Chittaranjan's essays available at my > website. Initially, these will be as written, one page > per essay, nine in total. I will add Chittaranjan's > summary and glossary to these as and when they are > available. Note than none of the subsequent discussions > will be included. I would like you thank you for putting up the essays on the 'Real and Unreal' on your website. For many years now I have felt that the depth and richness of Advaita Vedanta as a formal philosophy has not been presented properly to the contemporary world. This is rather sad considering that Advaita has so much to say on the perennial problems of philosophy that have occupied philosophers from both the West and East -- such as the problem of substance and ontology, the paradox of mind-body dualism, the relation between language and the world, the problem of universals and particulars, the problems of epistemological determinations, to name only a few. I believe that the manner in which Advaita Vedanta treats these problems have hitherto not been fleshed out and presented to the world in a concise and comprehensive manner. Writing these essays on the 'Real and Unreal' has been for me an attempt in this direction, howsoever modest and imperfect the attempt might have been. I thank the Advaitin list for forcing me out of my procrastination to sit down and write these essays, and to you, Dennisji, for putting up the essays on your website. If it encourages any reader to investigate deeper into the pages of Indian Philosophy, I would consider that the purpose of writing these essays has been fulfilled. Thank you again. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 Namaste Sri Chittaranjanji: In addition to Sri Dennisji's webpage, http://www.advaita.org.uk , the essays on the "Real and Unreal" are also posted at the advaitin homepage (http://www.advaitin.com). Specifically monthly discussions Key Topics are now available at: http://www.advaitin.com/LinksToListDiscussions.html These files are downloadable (adobe pdf format) and the site is easily accessible. Your essays on what is real and unreal provide good insights to Shankara's Advaita Philosophy to those who got tangled inside the paradox of mind-body dualism. The advaita philosophy is quite comprehensive and no presenter can ever be able to present all the details that can please all the audience. Each reader (believer) from the East or West perceives the philosophy in his/her own way and this perennial problem can never be resolved satisfactorily. In spite of the `self-created' misunderstandings and misconceptions, richness of Advaita Vedanta was `Self-Revealed' through the two-month long discussions. When you got out of procrastination, you motivated others to join the discussions. Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: >.. > I would like you thank you for putting up the essays on the 'Real and > Unreal' on your website. For many years now I have felt that the > depth and richness of Advaita Vedanta as a formal philosophy has not > been presented properly to the contemporary world. This is rather sad > considering that Advaita has so much to say on the perennial problems > of philosophy that have occupied philosophers from both the West and > East -- such as the problem of substance and ontology, the paradox of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 Thank you sri Ramachandran-ji for giving the 'Real and Unreal ' discussion the honor and recognition it deserved by making it a part of the mirror site!!! It was indeed a valiant effort on Chitta's part to put the discussion in its proper perspective and the right context - it is indeed a valuable contribution and made us all think 'long and hard' about what Advaita philosophy was really all about - oF course, we all did not agree on all that was said but at least there was a 'meeting of minds' at some point... It is jokingly said that " whenever there are six Economists, there are seven Opinions' ... we can paraphrase the same thing by saying that whenever there are Many Advaitins , there is not 'ONE' Truth but MANY Truths!!! SMILES!! On another note, how about adding Nairji's wonderful discussion on 'purnamidam' discussion to the Mirror site . It will be great to have all these related topics such as Real and Unreal, MAya in the Vedas and PURNAMIDAM ETC - UNDER ONE ROOF - for easy accessibility and complementary reading? I know you moved these files to the mirror site to save space in the files section but i thought this will be a good move for the Purnamidam topic also! with warmest regrads and thanx for all your efforts!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 Namaste Adi_ji: The list moderators do agree with your suggestion. If you any volunteer can gather the discussions, prepare a word/wordperfect file, I should be able to transfer as a adobe file and post them on the advaitin.com homepage. I am looking forward to get the discussion files from one of you, Ram Chandran advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16> wrote: >.... > > On another note, how about adding Nairji's wonderful discussion > on 'purnamidam' discussion to the Mirror site . It will be great to > have all these related topics such as Real and Unreal, MAya in the > Vedas and PURNAMIDAM ETC - UNDER ONE ROOF - for easy accessibility > and complementary reading? I know you moved these files to the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 Namaste Shri Ram Chandranji, Thank you Sir for your kind words. And thank you also for honouring the essays by putting them up on the Advaitin site. I agree with you that the richness of Advaita philosophy can never be presented with all its glory and minute details and subtle nuances. Neither can the perennial problems of philosophy be resolved from within the life of samsara. In the end, the resolving of all 'perennial' problems is nothing short of Self-Realisation. Meanwhile, we can try to catch a bit of its radiance through these discussions. Thank you. Warm regards, Chittaranjan advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...> wrote: > Namaste Sri Chittaranjanji: > > In addition to Sri Dennisji's webpage, http://www.advaita.org.uk , > the essays on the "Real and Unreal" are also posted at the advaitin > homepage (http://www.advaitin.com). Specifically monthly discussions > Key Topics are now available at: > http://www.advaitin.com/LinksToListDiscussions.html > These files are downloadable (adobe pdf format) and the site is > easily accessible. > 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.