Guest guest Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 Hello, I am one of your silent listeners. It would be an enormous help to me who knows absolutely no Sanskrit if when a Sanskrit word is used an English translation of that word is also used. There is much important information being presented here and for that I am thankful to you all. However, I do get lost so often by the language. Thank you, Evelyn - <advaitin> <advaitin> Saturday, August 14, 2004 8:14 AM Digest Number 2225 There are 22 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1. Re: Nyaya, Vyakarana and Vedanta-my last post!! "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16 2. Re: Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada 3. Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran 4. Re: Re: Nyaya, Vyakarana and Vedanta-my last post!! Bob Freedman <rlfreed 5. Re: Re: Nyaya, Vyakarana and Vedanta-my last post!! Bob Freedman <rlfreed 6. Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran 7. Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji "ymoharir" <ymoharir 8. Re: The Real and the Unreal Yadu Moharir <ymoharir 9. Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh 10. Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran 11. Re: Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada 12. Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh 13. Re: Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada 14. Shata-shlokI of Shankara - 49,50 of 101 "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk 15. Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p 16. Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair 17. Re: Mithya - myth or ,,,,,,,,,,,something else? "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik 18. Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik 19. Re: Series by Chittaranjanji - Ranjeet Shankar Essay/Purnamidam... "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik 20. Rupa and svarupa - appearance and reality Ananda Wood <awood 21. Re: Re: Mithya - myth or ,,,,,,,,,,,something else? kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada 22. Re: Rupa and svarupa - appearance and reality kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada ______________________ ______________________ Message: 1 Fri, 13 Aug 2004 13:51:36 -0000 "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16 Re: Nyaya, Vyakarana and Vedanta-my last post!! Beloved Chitta writes... "The soul has to become a Virgin once again before she can gain entry into the Bridal Chamber of the Lord." WOW!! all these days, i thought you were an advaitin, a visishta- advaithin of sorts, somewhat a kashmiri trika shaivite, maybe even a shakta and now a SUFI TOO!!!! LOL!!! LOL!! i cannot figure you out, chitta!! In sufism, the Lord is always described as the 'beloved' and the Devotee is described as the 'bride' and their mystical union ( the jivatma merging with the paramatma) is called the 'WEDDING NIGHT' Jallaluddin Rumi describes it thus ... Tonight is the night. It's the creation of that land of eternity. It's not an ordinary night, it's a wedding of those who seek God. Tonight, the bride and groom speak in one tongue. Tonight, the bridal chamber is looking particularly well. AND WHEN ONE ENTERS THE BRIDAL CHAMBER OF THE LORD, ONE DROPS THE VEIL!!! love and regards ______________________ ______________________ Message: 2 Fri, 13 Aug 2004 06:54:17 -0700 (PDT) kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada Re: Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji --- pgraj <pgraj wrote: > > Hello All, > > I am Silent reader of this mailing list. I have enjoyed every mail of > this list thank you all great people who are involved in this > discussions. I do not reply to all the mails as I do not know If I am > wrong or right or will I be diverting the topic of discussion. Shree Govind - thanks for comming out of silence. In silence we do not know who is listening and who is not and whether the discussion is of any help to any one else other than considered as lot of noise by the discussors with no one to benefit from the discussions. > I have a small calrification. > > Though Iam not good in Sanskrit can you please tell me the meaning of > the following words > > 1) abaadhitam > 2) ahaara > 3) samharaa > Here in the context of our discussion baadha is used as negation or sublimation. There was a discussion in the use of the word 'sublimation' by Michael some time back. by putting 'a' in front, we take it as nonnegatable or not sublimable. A simple example is 'gold' is non-negatable in the transient forms of ring, bangle etc. Ring can become a bangle or bracelet but gold remains the same in all these transactions. Similarly truth or real is defined as that which cannot be negatable in time. That which exists cannot cease to exist and that existence is what is real or sat. The second word is aahaara - meaning 'food' that one eats. By adding 'aa' to 'haara' the garland become food to eat! - In the context of Shree CNJi discussions it is food for thought. > My 2nd Question > > 1) What is the diference between Shakthi , Paraa Shakthi and Adi > ParaaShakthi. ? They all sound like maaya shakti to me! Hari OM! Sadananda > > thank you. > Om Sri Sai Ram Guru deva Datta > Govind > > kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > --- Chittaranjan Naik wrote: > > > > > It could be as you say, for I am not conversant with Sanskrit. I > > would be grateful if anyone here can throw light on the root of the > > word 'mithya' - to me it has the connotation of 'myth' and > 'fiction'. > > > > With regards, > > Chittaranjan > > ===== What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort. Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda ______________________ ______________________ Message: 3 Fri, 13 Aug 2004 13:58:26 -0000 "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji Namaste Sri Chittaranjan: Honestly most of us agree with you on most of what you have articulated in your essays. Many have already their admiration for your sincerity and dedication while posting those essays and your willingness to answer the questions. Since all of us do want to make sure that the general audience gets the full flavor of Sankara's advaita philosophy, we explore our understanding through these exchanges. We are all benefiting by contemplating on the thoughts expressed by the learned members of this list. The subject matter of 'world' is rather complex. In simplistic terms, World = Brahman + maayaa Though I agree that 'Brahman + maayaa' = Brahman, we can't conclude that World = 'Brahman" We have no problme accepting the fact that "Brahman" is REAL, but if we state that World is 'as REAL as' the Brahman, we can't explain the changes that we perceive in the World. Only at the paramarthikal level of reality (from jnani's point of view) 'maayaa' is nullified so that Brahman is identical to WORLD. As for as I can see that the 'mithya' is responsible for our differences. According to Sankara, with the revealation of 'vidya' (wisdom), the maayaa will likely disappear! Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > > You raise an important question in the context of Advaita. > While many in this forum may not agree with me, I would atleast > like to provide my understanding of the Advaitic answer to the > question you ask. ______________________ ______________________ Message: 4 Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:01:33 -0400 Bob Freedman <rlfreed Re: Re: Nyaya, Vyakarana and Vedanta-my last post!! Namaste Adi-ji, I have more experience with poetry than I do with Advaita, and I have to say that the "looking particularly well" is particularly jarring given the extravagance of the other lines. You have displayed a fine ear for poetry in some of your posts, so I ask, do you think that line could have been translated far differently? Warmly, Bob Freedman adi_shakthi16 wrote: > Tonight > is the night. > It's the creation of that land of eternity. > It's not an ordinary night, > it's a wedding of those who seek God. > Tonight, the bride and groom > speak in one tongue. > Tonight, the bridal chamber > is looking particularly well. > > > > > > > > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > Links > > > > > > ______________________ ______________________ Message: 5 Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:08:30 -0400 Bob Freedman <rlfreed Re: Re: Nyaya, Vyakarana and Vedanta-my last post!! Whoops! I should have used some of what I thought was my newly learned sense of detachment and sent this to Adiji rather than the list since it's certainly worth deleting from the archives. Adiji, please feel free to reply to me rather than the list; I don't want you to waste a public post on this topic. Sorry, Bob Bob Freedman wrote: > Namaste Adi-ji, > > I have more experience with poetry than I do with Advaita, and I have to > say that the "looking particularly well" is particularly jarring given > the extravagance of the other lines. You have displayed a fine ear for > poetry in some of your posts, so I ask, do you think that line could > have been translated far differently? > > Warmly, > > Bob Freedman > > adi_shakthi16 wrote: > >>Tonight >>is the night. >>It's the creation of that land of eternity. >>It's not an ordinary night, >>it's a wedding of those who seek God. >>Tonight, the bride and groom >>speak in one tongue. >>Tonight, the bridal chamber >>is looking particularly well. >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. >>Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ >>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin >>Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages >> >> >> Links >> >> >> >> >> >> > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > Links > > > > > > ______________________ ______________________ Message: 6 Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:08:33 -0000 "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji Namaste: One other complexity which I forgot to mention is that there is no maayaa without Brahman. It is just like the statement of Dwaitans, that there will be no Lila without Narayana. Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...> wrote: > Namaste Sri Chittaranjan: > > Honestly most of us agree with you on most of what you have > articulated in your essays. ______________________ ______________________ Message: 7 Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:39:16 -0000 "ymoharir" <ymoharir Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji Namaste Sadananda-Ji: > > > I have a small calrification. > > > > Though Iam not good in Sanskrit can you please tell me the meaning of > > the following words > > > > 1) abaadhitam > > 2) ahaara > > 3) samharaa > > > > Here in the context of our discussion baadha is used as negation or > sublimation. There was a discussion in the use of the word 'sublimation' > by Michael some time back. > > by putting 'a' in front, we take it as nonnegatable or not sublimable. > A simple example is 'gold' is non-negatable in the transient forms of > ring, bangle etc. Ring can become a bangle or bracelet but gold remains > the same in all these transactions. > Similarly truth or real is defined as that which cannot be negatable in > time. That which exists cannot cease to exist and that existence is > what is real or sat. > > The second word is aahaara - meaning 'food' that one eats. By adding > 'aa' to 'haara' the garland become food to eat! - In the context of > Shree CNJi discussions it is food for thought. > > > vagbhatta has used the word "ahaara" to convey express "non- digestable" food. May be a double negation of this by adding an another "a" it could have become "digestable". Regards, Yadunath ______________________ ______________________ Message: 8 Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Yadu Moharir <ymoharir Re: The Real and the Unreal 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. ______________________ ______________________ Message: 9 Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:18:45 -0000 "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote: > Namaste Sadananda-Ji: > > > > > > I have a small calrification. > > > > > > Though Iam not good in Sanskrit can you please tell me the > meaning of > > > the following words > > > > > > 1) abaadhitam > > > 2) ahaara > > > 3) samharaa > > > > > > > Here in the context of our discussion baadha is used as negation or > > sublimation. > > > > The second word is aahaara - meaning 'food' that one eats. By > adding > > 'aa' to 'haara' the garland become food to eat! - In the context of > > Shree CNJi discussions it is food for thought. > > > > > > > > > vagbhatta has used the word "ahaara" to convey express "non- > digestable" food. > > May be a double negation of this by adding an another "a" it could > have become "digestable". Namaste, In fact Shankara defines aahaara as anything taken in through the organs. (Bhashya on Chandogya upan. 7:26:2) Regards, Sunder ______________________ ______________________ Message: 10 Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:23:30 -0000 "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji Namaste Sri Chittaranjan: I have one request from you which will help all of us to clear our doubts. You might have already noticed that the condensed version of your essays (more than 50 pages) as understood by Sri Madathil has generated most of the recent discussions. I do believe that what you have provided is an important contribution. If you can provide one or couple of pages of a summary of your theses to the general audience, this will motivate more members to take a serious look at those essays. Since this one of the most important topics, your essays and the summary will be very useful for the readers around the world. Thanks again for your fine contribution, regards, Ram Chandran Note: When I prepare my technical reports (some of them go over 100 pages), I will be asked to provide a one or two-page executive summary. In addition, I have to provide an abstract consists of less than 300 words. advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: ______________________ ______________________ Message: 11 Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:41:00 -0700 (PDT) kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada Re: Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji --- Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote: > advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote: > > > > vagbhatta has used the word "ahaara" to convey express "non- > > digestable" food. > > Well - if that 'ahaara' continues it can become cause for 'samhaara'! On the other hand in this county one cannot think of 'vihaara' without stuffing with some kind of 'phalahaara' even if it is 'ahaara' - or junk food. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort. Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda ______________________ ______________________ Message: 12 Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:41:28 -0000 "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...> wrote: > > Since this one of the most important topics, your essays and the > summary will be very useful for the readers around the world. > > Thanks again for your fine contribution, Namaste, In addition, I would request Chittaranjanji (as his schedule allows) to cull a glossary of technical words and phrases, that could be added as an Appendix. A brief bibliography, perhaps not to exceed 5-10, of the most useful references would add to the value of the study. Further annotations on some sentences will also be helpful. [For example, I have collected the following from Parts I and II] - (I hope others will keep adding to the list!) asparsa negate Sublation qualia-filled consciousness bicameral mind. ontological hermeneutic idealism of Buddhist philosophy fallacy medieval scholasticism idealism British Empiricism German Idealism American Pragmatism Continental Existentialism transcendental epoche eidetic investigation intentional consciousness transcendental reason truth-assertion Vijnanavadins Scholastic philosophy positivism of August Comte Lockean duality ------------------------------- A philosophy that seeks to answer these questions must explain the world and not negate the very thing that is to be explained. {****Is this not contrary to the logic that unless one knows one's own true nature, no explanation of the world can be valid?*****} The limits of the world are the limits of language. The "outside world" cannot appear in its vocabulary because the other side of the reality-divide reduces to an absence of a referent. It does not remain a denotative symbol, but reduces to a meaningless warp in the use of language. conflation between the descriptive and the prescriptive aspects of Advaita. Regards, Sunder ______________________ ______________________ Message: 13 Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:43:59 -0700 (PDT) kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada Re: Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji CNji - If I can add to what Ram mentioned, if that summary includes the synopsis of the topics - essential objections and responses in condensed form or where it is discussed- that will be good. Hari OM! Sadananda --- Ram Chandran <RamChandran wrote: > Namaste Sri Chittaranjan: > > I have one request from you which will help all of us to clear our > doubts. You might have already noticed that the condensed version of > your essays (more than 50 pages) as understood by Sri Madathil has > generated most of the recent discussions. I do believe that what you > have provided is an important contribution. If you can provide one or > couple of pages of a summary of your theses to the general audience, > this will motivate more members to take a serious look at those > essays. > > Since this one of the most important topics, your essays and the > summary will be very useful for the readers around the world. > > Thanks again for your fine contribution, > > regards, > > Ram Chandran > > Note: When I prepare my technical reports (some of them go over 100 > pages), I will be asked to provide a one or two-page executive > summary. In addition, I have to provide an abstract consists of less > than 300 words. > > advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" > <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > > > ===== What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort. Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda ______________________ ______________________ Message: 14 Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:10:47 -0700 (PDT) "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk Shata-shlokI of Shankara - 49,50 of 101 Namaste. 49 otaH protashca tantushh-viha vitata-paTash-citra-varNeshhu citraH tasmin jijnAsyamAne nanu bhavati paTaH sUtra-mAtrA-vasheshhaH / tadvad-vishvaM vicitraM naga-nagara-nara-grAmam-ashvAdi-rUpaM protaM vairAja-rUpe sa viyati tad-api brahmaNi protam-otaM // iha : In this world citraH vitata-paTaH : the spread-out picturesque cloth otaH protaH ca : is woven crosswise and lengthwise citravarNeshhu tantushhu : of threads of many colours. tasmin jijnAsamAne : When this is so understood nanu bhavati paTaH : there remains, indeed, nothing of the cloth sUtra-mAtra-avasheshhaH : except the threads. tadvat vicitraM vishvaM : So is the manifold universe naga-nagara-nara-grAmam-ashvAdi-rUpaM: in the form of mountains, cities, men, villages, animals, etc. protaM vairAja-rUpe : pervaded throughout by the transcendental VirAT, sa viyati : and that too by the space (AkAsha) tad-api : and that too protam-otam : woven in and through brahmaNi : brahman. Note: Recall the dialogue between Gargi and Yajnavalkya in the Upanishad. 50 rUpaM rUpaM pratI-daM pratiphalana-vashAt prAti-rUpyaM prapede hyeko drashhTA dvitIyo bhavati ca salile sarvato'nanta-rUpaH / indro mAyAbhir-Aste shrutir-iti vadati vyApakaM brahma tasmAt jIvatvaM yAty-akasmAd-ati-vimalatare bimbitaM buddhy-upAdhau // idaM : This brahman pratiphalana-vashAt : because of its manifestation (reflection) rUpaM rUpaM prati : in objects of various forms prAtirUpyaM prapede: assumes those corresponding forms: Eko drashhTA : (just as) one seer dvitIyaH ca bhavati hi : becomes also a second one, indeed, salile : (by reflection) in water. shrutiH iti vadati : The veda (also) speaks thus: indraH mAyAbhiH Aste : The Ultimate One is seated along with its powers of mAyA sarvataH anantarUpaH : and has infinite forms on all sides. tasmAt : Therefore vyApakaM brahma: The all-pervading brahman jIvatvaM yAti : becomes the individual soul akasmAt bimbitaM : by being accidentally reflected buddhy-upAdhau : in the limitation of the intellect ati-vimalatare : that is faultlessly clear. Note 1. The famous words 'indro mAyAbhiH' come from the Rg Veda itself (6-47-18). ruupáM-ruupam prátiruupo babhuuva tád asya ruupám praticákSaNaaya índro maayaábhiH pururuúpa iiyate yuktaá hy àsya hárayaH shataá dásha In every figure he hath been the mode: this is his only form for us to look on. Indra moves multiform by his illusions; for his Bay Steeds are yoked, ten times a hundred. Also the same rik is in Br. U. 2.5.19. Also recall from Katha Upanishat: Part II-1: 9 and 10 Note 2: The word 'indraH' is derived thus: 'idam drAvayati iti indraH' - meaning, what pulverizes 'this' (this universe) is 'indraH'. And so 'indra' means 'The Absolute'. Note 3. 'rUpaM rUpaM pratirUpo babhUva' - by manifesting in different forms It assumes those forms. This thought occurs everywhere in the Upanishads and therefore everywhere in later literature also. PraNAms to all students of Adi Shankaracharya. profvk ===== Prof. V. Krishnamurthy My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/ You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site. Also see my webpages on Live Happily, the Gita Way at http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/contentsbeach11.html ______________________ ______________________ Message: 15 Fri, 13 Aug 2004 20:48:46 -0000 "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji Namaste Sri.CN-ji, Thanks for your reply. >> Good point. While pondering about this, got a question in similar >> lines and your answer is greatly appreciated. How our worldly >> notions 'real' and 'unreal' themselves under sleep of avidya, >> similarly, why shouldn't our very notion of 'avidya', which is yet >> another worldly notion, itself be under yet to know real avidya ? >You raise an important question in the context of Advaita. While many >in this forum may not agree with me, I would atleast like to provide >my understanding of the Advaitic answer to the question you ask. >Firstly, I would like to clarify that I am not using the >word 'avidya' as meaning the world itself, but as the falsity that >clouds our understanding of the truth of things. Therefore, when I >say that something is clouded by 'avidya', I do not mean that what is >seen is false, but that what is seen is coloured by one's own notions >which may not be in accordance with the innate nature of what is >seen. Thus, the truth is not completely hidden, but is not completely >revealed either. What is yet to be known is already known through a >veil, as it were, but is to be still revealed in its purity. The >meaning of the terms 'real' and 'unreal' are to be uncovered thusly. Your position of 'truth coloured by one's own notions', is that universal & applies to all the things & which still persist as of now ? OR for case by case basis and effective only to certain things as of now? If former, we'll end up with no single knowledge is definite yet (because all knowledge are covered or colored). Which means, there is no such thing as 'pramANa' and that renders pratyaksha and Agama useless as a pramANa. Objectivity dies because everything is subjective. Epistemology looses it's meaning. Worse yet, there won't be any hopes at all for us to say (now or in future) we know the full truth of things, for, we wouldn't have any criteria of 'full truth' of things. Thus, if it is later case only we know certain things established as objective truth and they can play a definite role as 'pramANa' in our truth building exercise. In this model, truth of the things are built incrementally and in an integrated manner. This justifies the Vedanta's acceptance of pratykshAdi means as pramANa-s. Having said this, thus correct understanding of 'real' or 'unreal' is fully justified only by already established truths such as pratyksha, anumAna & Agama. Regards, Srinivas. ______________________ ______________________ Message: 16 Sat, 14 Aug 2004 05:51:33 -0000 "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji Namaste. I hope the following demonstration often employed by PUjya Sw. Dayananda Saraswathiji to articulate miTyA will be helpful: Swamiji shows a flower and asks his audience what it is. They answer that it is a flower. Then he removes one of the pollen grains and asks what it is. The obvious answer is pollen grain. Then the pollen stem receives his attention and the audience is in agreement with him that it is the pollen stem. This process is repeated through the petals and their supports until only the flower stem remains in his hand and his listeners rightly call it flower stem. Swamiji then breaks into a cackle and asks them where the flower is. The flower of nAmA rUpA is thus shown as miTyA (It is there and it is not there!) and this analysis can be applied to all the objects in this universe. MiTyA is also what is not there, what is there and again what is not there. It is conditioned by space and time while it apparently exists as a nAma-rUpa. The entire gamut of advaita aims at showing that miTyA is dependent on something else for its apparent existence and that something is the all-pervading Consciousness like gold is the substratum for all the nAma-rUpAs of gold like chains, rings and bracelets. Thus, Consciousness is, miTyA is. It can never be the other way round. There isn't anything at all in this universe that can run contra to this rule because all its objects are dependent on Consciousness for their apparent existence. Hence, the universe is mItyA - jaganmiTyA - totally dependent on Consciousness for its manifestation. It is in this context that I like to refer CN's reality-divide as miTyA. PraNAms. Madathil Nair advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > Namaste Shri Sadanandaji, > > > In the mitya part there is a satya part and there is > > transient part, which keeps changing - the names and > > forms. > > Such an interpretation ignores one of the central tenets of Advaita. ..................... ______________________ ______________________ Message: 17 Sat, 14 Aug 2004 06:42:28 -0000 "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik Re: Mithya - myth or ,,,,,,,,,,,something else? Namaste AdiMa, Thank you so much for giving us the many variations and flavours of the meaning of the word 'mithya'. As I see it, these many meanings are like the branches of a tree that has its roots buried deep in the soil of the unreal! :-) Namaste Shri Sadanandaji, The way I look at it is like this... The search for truth is the driving 'Is it true?' When we ask the question, "Does the world exists?', it must elicit the answer as true or false. There is no third category called mithya. I have never seen Shankara use mithya as a third category, and any reference in this regard would be useful. The world as it is seen in samsara is mithya, false, because it is seen as independently subsisting in itself, and that is certainly false. Its existence is seen as jada, and hence arises the expression of 'jagan-mithya'. But the same world, when seen that it is not independently existing, and that it has Brahman as its Existence, is seen to be real only. Warm regards, Chittaranjan advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16> wrote: > Dear ALL, > > Our BELOVED Ken-ji always instructed us to look up Monier-williams > when in doubt regarding Sanskrit words used in the context of > discussions in English... > > here it is .. > > Monier-williams > > mithyA > > Meaning ind. (contracted from %{mithUyA4}) invertedly , contrarily , > incorrectly , wrongly , improperly S3Br. &c. &c. (with Caus , of % > {kR} , to pronounce a word wrongly `" once "' [P.] or `" > repeatedly "' [A1.] Pa1n2. 1-3 , 71 ; with %{pra-car} , to act > wrongly Mn. ix , 284 ; with %{pra-vRt} , to behave improperly MBh. > iii , 2414) ; falsely , deceitfully , untruly Mn. MBh. &c. (often > with %{brU} , %{vac} or %{vad} , to speak falsely , utter a lie ; > with %{kR} , to deny MBh. ; to break one's word , with %{na-kR} , to > keep it) R. ; with %{bhU} , to turn out or prove false MBh. ; not in > reality , only apparently Madhus. ; to no purpose , fruitlessly , in > vain MaitrUp. MBh. &c. (ibc. often = false , untrue , sham ; Mithya1 > is personified as the wife of A-dharma KalkiP.) > > ********************************************************************** ______________________ ______________________ Message: 18 Sat, 14 Aug 2004 07:24:11 -0000 "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik Re: The Real & Unreal Series by Chittaranjanji Namaste Shri Srinivas-ji, advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p> wrote: > Your position of 'truth coloured by one's own notions', > is that universal & applies to all the things & which > still persist as of now? OR for case by case basis > and effective only to certain things as of now? It is effective for what is not known, and not effective for what is known. Otherwise, the expression 'knowing' would have no meaning, and the word 'knowledge' would go out of the vocabulary. That is how the pramanas have validity, because they are known as pramanas. The buddhi, intellect, is what discriminates, and what it determines is the truth. When something is not known, it is to be understood as the prevarication of manas and not the contribution of buddhi; otherwise the word 'buddhi' loses its meaning. > If former, we'll end up with no single knowledge is > definite yet (because all knowledge are covered or > colored). What is covered is not knoweldge. When something is covered, knowledge is that which is below the cover, and which is never absent. > Which means, there is no such thing as 'pramANa' and > that renders pratyaksha and Agama useless as a pramANa. > Objectivity dies because everything is subjective. > Epistemology looses it's meaning. Worse yet, there won't > be any hopes at all for us to say (now or in future) we > know the full truth of things, for, we wouldn't have > any criteria of 'full truth' of things. There is certainly such a thing as pramana, but the problem usually lies in lack of shraddha, or conviction in one's own self. What pratyaksha shows is the truth, and what the mind superimposes on it is the untrue. What buddhi discrimnates is the truth, but unfortunately the buddhi is hindered in its operations by the motives of the mind with its desires and passions, and the buddhi then stops being operative. Therefore, in our search for Vedantic knowledge, shraddha plays an important role. Without shraddha in oneself and in the words of the shruti, there is little hope of making progress. > Thus, if it is later case only we know certain things > established as objective truth and they can play a > definite role as 'pramANa' in our truth building exercise. > In this model, truth of the things are built > incrementally and in an integrated manner. This justifies the > Vedanta's acceptance of pratykshAdi means as pramANa-s. But look at where the world has gone by such incremental building of the truth. Even what we call the pramanas get derailed without shraddha. Are you aware of modern 'theories of truth'? Some say truth is the 'correspondence to things', some say it is merely 'coherence', some say it is a 'pragmatic' device, some say it is only a justifiable 'stance'. The pramanas are recognised as pramanas only when one has faith in the certainty of one's own Self. > Having said this, thus correct understanding of 'real' or > 'unreal' is fully justified only by already established > truths such as pratyksha, anumAna & Agama. Already established by what criteria? In the final analysis, there is shraddha involved, isn't it? Otherwise one gets trapped in what is called 'the Gettier problem', where you start looking for an external basis for the most fundamental element of knowledge -- which you can never find externally. Warm regards, Chittaranjan ______________________ ______________________ Message: 19 Sat, 14 Aug 2004 10:27:33 -0000 "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik Re: Series by Chittaranjanji - Ranjeet Shankar Essay/Purnamidam... Namaste Shri Ranjeetji, Whenever you have the time, please reconcile your commentary (the gist of your essay) with the Advaitic tenets that (1) words are eternal, and (2) that words are eternally connected to objects. Also, in the light of your essay, please explain Shankara's commentary in the Brhdaranyaka Upanishad that I had quoted in Part VII wherein all things are said by the Acharya to be eternal. Reconciliation of Shankara's Advaita should not leave out key parts of the bhashya, or leave out the key doctrinal tenets of Advaita unresolved. Also please explain how the effect that is pre-existent in Brahman (which you say is true), and the effect that is seen differentiated (that you say is false), come to have the same name 'effect', say for example, cow. What commonality have these two that they have a common name. Ranjeetji, if you examine the bhashya carefully, you will find that the unreal is not the name or form but the bewitching power of names to seemingly differentiate the form from its substative ground. You ask in your essay: What do we attain by talking of substance? I would only answer that the truth is to be sought for its own purpose and not for any attainment. Truth is its own attainment, because Truth is our own nature which, sadly and mysteriously, lies concealed. Warm regards, Chittaranjan advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar" <thefinalsearch> wrote: > Dear Nairji, > > Namaste > > My replies in . > > > > In the meanwhile, can somebody enlighten me on the following: > > > > 1. Who is the commentator here known as an ardent devotee of Sankara > > and signing off at the end as bhagavadpadadasan? > > [i am the commentator.] > > ______________________ ______________________ Message: 20 Sat, 14 Aug 2004 16:08:20 +0530 Ananda Wood <awood Rupa and svarupa - appearance and reality The current discussion of real and unreal has set me thinking of the distinction between 'rupa' and 'svarupa'. The result is a piece of verse that I am appending below. This is of course a delicate question, which is all too liable to descend into mind-boggling conundrums. Sorry if I've fallen prey to that. Ananda Rupa and svarupa ---------------- Whatever may appear perceived through sense and mind is just a 'form'. It's nothing but a seeming shape produced by sight or sound or smell or taste or touch or by some thought or feeling in the course of time. As time proceeds, in world or mind, such seeming shapes become transformed, by changing ways of seeing and observing and describing things from various different points of view. Whatever gets perceived through sense, or is conceived or felt through mind, it's thereby shown externally, through some external instrument that makes an outside show of it, to something other than itself. That 'something other' stands elsewhere, out in a world of space and time, where standpoints change and thus produce the changes of external show. But what is it that's truly known through intervening instruments of sense and mind which show all these apparent forms of seeming things that are observed from the outside? To know what truly is perceived, the forms produced by sense and mind must be interpreted to find what is observed just as it is, in its own self, just as it stands there in its own reality. Where that reality is found, no doubtfully known instrument of sense or mind can interfere between what knows and what is known. The knower there must stand at one with the reality that's known. What is there known is only self, just in its own identity, unchanged by any outside show that's seen by looking from elsewhere. That self is known, just as it is, through inner sight: reflecting back, beneath all show of sense and mind, to knowing as identity of that which rightly knows with the reality that's truly known. That is not 'rupa', not a form that mind and sense have seen transformed from any outside point of view. Instead, it is 'svarupa': just that inmost form which is what's found by penetrating outward forms to stand at one with what is known, just as it is within itself. There, every last remaining trace of transformation is dissolved in truth beyond all compromise with ignorance and falsity. ______________________ ______________________ Message: 21 Sat, 14 Aug 2004 04:52:35 -0700 (PDT) kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada Re: Re: Mithya - myth or ,,,,,,,,,,,something else? --- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote: Chittaranjanji - Pranaams. > > Namaste Shri Sadanandaji, > > The way I look at it is like this... > > The search for truth is the driving 'Is it true?' When we ask the > question, "Does the world exists?', it must elicit the answer as true > or false. There is no third category called mithya. I have never seen > Shankara use mithya as a third category, and any reference in this > regard would be useful. This is a good question to our dear friend - Sundar H. The statement that Brahma satyam jagan mithyaa .. I think is from 'Brahmaavali' of Shankara. - I think mithyaa and maaya are interchangeably used while satya for real, asatya for unreal; and mithyaa for the world - mithyaa is defined that which experienced therefore not unreal, but that which is transient therefore not real. As one sees, there is an order of reality - in gold vs. the ring or bangle - one is substantive that is unchanging and hence more real compared to that which is a superimposition of form and hence a name for the form is transient and changing - the naama and ruupa. Ontologically the independent, gold and dependent ring cannot be at the same level. In the Nyaaya that you are familiar with anvaya and vyatireka are used to distinguish the dependent and independent entities. This also is the spirit of the discussion in the Ch. Up. with three examples of vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam. ( I realize that you have your way of explaining this mantra). Since transient does not fall under the category of unchanging reality and nor under the category of unreal like vandhyaa putraH, a third term is needed and unavoidable in order to separate it from nether real or unreal. Shankara did not have to use mithyaa for the world if it is satya. Superimposed reality is obviously distinguished from the substantive reality. You may use different words to separate the two. > > The world as it is seen in samsara is mithya, false, because it is > seen as independently subsisting in itself, and that is certainly > false. Its existence is seen as jada, and hence arises the expression > of 'jagan-mithya'. But the same world, when seen that it is not > independently existing, and that it has Brahman as its Existence, is > seen to be real only. Yes indeed - I donot think you are saying anything different - substantive of the world is real and that is Brahman. The so-called false which you call 'seen as independently existing' that seen-seer distinctions are with in the realm of mithyaa -apparently real or only transiently real (which differs from absolutely real and unreal) - that is the precisely the nature of mithyaa or maaya. Personally I do not see any difference between what you are saying and what I, Basker or Murthy gaaru saying. I see it as only semantics. Nairji has resolved that your reality-divide (in a way you are dividing reality which cannot be divided but apparently divided like space) (the term may be coming from the analysis of western philosophies) is nothing but this maaya. I am guilty of not reading your posts past V - The concepts are buried in exquisite language presentation, and therefore requires lot of mental discipline for me to go through the posts - which I am lacking right now- and postponing with any little excuse. My apologies. I will try to study them this weekend and if I do not understand something, I will get back with you. Hari OM! Sadananda > > Warm regards, > Chittaranjan > > > > advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16> > wrote: > > Dear ALL, > > > > Our BELOVED Ken-ji always instructed us to look up Monier-williams > > when in doubt regarding Sanskrit words used in the context of > > discussions in English... > > > > here it is .. > > > > Monier-williams > > > > mithyA > > > > Meaning ind. (contracted from %{mithUyA4}) invertedly , > contrarily , > > incorrectly , wrongly , improperly S3Br. &c. &c. (with Caus , of % > > {kR} , to pronounce a word wrongly `" once "' [P.] or `" > > repeatedly "' [A1.] Pa1n2. 1-3 , 71 ; with %{pra-car} , to act > > wrongly Mn. ix , 284 ; with %{pra-vRt} , to behave improperly MBh. > > iii , 2414) ; falsely , deceitfully , untruly Mn. MBh. &c. (often > > with %{brU} , %{vac} or %{vad} , to speak falsely , utter a lie ; > > with %{kR} , to deny MBh. ; to break one's word , with %{na-kR} , > to > > keep it) R. ; with %{bhU} , to turn out or prove false MBh. ; not > in > > reality , only apparently Madhus. ; to no purpose , fruitlessly , > in > > vain MaitrUp. MBh. &c. (ibc. often = false , untrue , sham ; > Mithya1 > > is personified as the wife of A-dharma KalkiP.) > > > > > ********************************************************************** > > ===== What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort. Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda ______________________ ______________________ Message: 22 Sat, 14 Aug 2004 04:57:16 -0700 (PDT) kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada Re: Rupa and svarupa - appearance and reality --- Ananda Wood <awood wrote: ........... ........... > > There, every last remaining trace > of transformation is dissolved > in truth beyond all compromise > with ignorance and falsity. > > Beautiful Anandaji. Reading that was refressing indeed in the dissolution in the truth, divine. God Bless You. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort. Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda ______________________ ______________________ Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages ------ ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 advaitin, "Drs. Moschetta" <drsm@i...> wrote: > Hello, I am one of your silent listeners. It would be an enormous help to me > who knows absolutely no Sanskrit if when a Sanskrit word is used an English > translation of that word is also used. > > There is much important information being presented here and for that I am > thankful to you all. However, I do get lost so often by the language. > Thank you, Evelyn -------------------------------- Namaste, Thank you for your valuable suggestion, which has been made by others in the past also. It is a daunting task to translate many of the sanskrit words, which even when precise carry a variety of meanings in different contexts! If all the silent readers even sent a list of words periodically to the moderators, we shall try to build a glossary that would be useful on this list. Meanwhile, a list of glossaries is given below from which one could build one's own collection. http://www.advaita.org.uk/terms_ab.htm http://www.himalayanacademy.com/books/mws/mws_glossary_A-I.html http://www.miraura.org/lit/skgl/skgl-01.html http://www.hindunet.org/glossary/ http://www.sivananda.org/teachings/glossary/glossary.html http://sanatan.intnet.mu/upanishads/glossary.htm http://www.geocities.com/neovedanta/gloss.html http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/ocglos/og-hp.htm http://www.vahini.org/glossary/a.html http://peterspearls.com.au/glossary.html If others would like to add to this list (or suggest eliminating any from it), they are welcome to do so. List Moderators 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.