Atmachaitanyaji - questions for you

[Guest guest]

--- atmachaitanya <atmachaitanya wrote:

 

Shree Atmachaitanyaji - we are delighted by your active re-entry into

discussions. I have couple of questions for you, as you are very much

familiar with Shree H.H. Swami Satchidanandendra swaraswati's monumental

work in pointing out some of the disparities in the Post-Shankara

Adviata from that of Shankara.

 

In the discussions of real and unreal a point was raised whether mityaa

defined as 'sat asat vilakshanam' - is this an interjection from post

Shankara adviatins rather than Shankara's statement. Has Swami

Satchidanandendra Saraswati - made such a point anywhere in his

monumental analytical work?

 

The second question that was raised is in term of the definition of the

real - Is there anywhere in the Upanishads a definition of what is

satyam - to the effect that it is used in adviata as - trikaala

abhaaditam satyam?

 

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

[Guest guest]

Dear Kuntimaddi Sadananda,

 

Briefly, 1) "Sat Asat Vilakshanam" (different from both the Real

and the Unreal) is a rediculous and indefencable invention of the Post

Shankara Vedantins. It is this definition that is succesfully attacked

by the Vaishnava Vedanta Acharyas.(Mistakenly thinking that thereby

they have succesfully refuted Shankara.) Swamiji Satchidanandenra

deals with this at great length and in many places in his magnum opus,

The Method of Vedanta, and in many other works.

 

2) While I don't recall any Upanishad using the exact

phraseolgy "Reality is that which is never sublated in the three

periods of time" (Sunderji??. )Nevertheless, this is the obvious and

implied meaning of many Upanishadic descriptions: Everlasting

(Druvam),Eternal(Nityam)'Other than the 'known' and the 'unknown',

etc.,etc. (It is a definition which can never be applied to the World,

--Waking or Dream-- but only to the Pure Conciouness of Atman.)

 

Hari Om

Atmachaitanya

 

 

 

-- In advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

> --- atmachaitanya <atmachaitanya> wrote:

>

> Shree Atmachaitanyaji - we are delighted by your active re-entry into

> discussions. I have couple of questions for you, as you are very much

> familiar with Shree H.H. Swami Satchidanandendra swaraswati's monumental

> work in pointing out some of the disparities in the Post-Shankara

> Adviata from that of Shankara.

>

> In the discussions of real and unreal a point was raised whether mityaa

> defined as 'sat asat vilakshanam' - is this an interjection from post

> Shankara adviatins rather than Shankara's statement. Has Swami

> Satchidanandendra Saraswati - made such a point anywhere in his

> monumental analytical work?

>

> The second question that was raised is in term of the definition of the

> real - Is there anywhere in the Upanishads a definition of what is

> satyam - to the effect that it is used in adviata as - trikaala

> abhaaditam satyam?

>

> 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

[Guest guest]

Atmachaitanyaji

 

Very Interesting and You have endorsed what Chittaranjanji has been

saying from his early post on the real and unreal. My Pranaams to both

of you.

 

As I see it this does raise a problem -even if it is a concoction of the

post advaitins - if the second is the basis of the reality, then the

world cannot be 'categorized' as real by the definition of

unsublatability and it cannot be classified as unreal like vandhyaa

putraH, since it is experienced - by anumaana the first one then has to

follow - the 'ridiculous' may be strong word and defensibility is done

by the very second definition of what is real.

 

Anyway our goal is to establish in reality, divine.

 

Hari OM

Sadananda

 

--- atmachaitanya <atmachaitanya wrote:

>

> Dear Kuntimaddi Sadananda,

>

> Briefly, 1) "Sat Asat Vilakshanam" (different from both the Real

> and the Unreal) is a rediculous and indefencable invention of the Post

> Shankara Vedantins. It is this definition that is succesfully attacked

> by the Vaishnava Vedanta Acharyas.(Mistakenly thinking that thereby

> they have succesfully refuted Shankara.) Swamiji Satchidanandenra

> deals with this at great length and in many places in his magnum opus,

> The Method of Vedanta, and in many other works.

>

> 2) While I don't recall any Upanishad using the exact

> phraseolgy "Reality is that which is never sublated in the three

> periods of time" (Sunderji??. )Nevertheless, this is the obvious and

> implied meaning of many Upanishadic descriptions: Everlasting

> (Druvam),Eternal(Nityam)'Other than the 'known' and the 'unknown',

> etc.,etc. (It is a definition which can never be applied to the World,

>

> --Waking or Dream-- but only to the Pure Conciouness of Atman.)

>

> Hari Om

> Atmachaitanya

>

>

>

> -- In advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

> <kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> >

> > --- atmachaitanya <atmachaitanya> wrote:

> >

> > Shree Atmachaitanyaji - we are delighted by your active re-entry

> into

> > discussions. I have couple of questions for you, as you are very

> much

> > familiar with Shree H.H. Swami Satchidanandendra swaraswati's

> monumental

> > work in pointing out some of the disparities in the Post-Shankara

> > Adviata from that of Shankara.

> >

> > In the discussions of real and unreal a point was raised whether

> mityaa

> > defined as 'sat asat vilakshanam' - is this an interjection from

> post

> > Shankara adviatins rather than Shankara's statement. Has Swami

> > Satchidanandendra Saraswati - made such a point anywhere in his

> > monumental analytical work?

> >

> > The second question that was raised is in term of the definition of

> the

> > real - Is there anywhere in the Upanishads a definition of what is

> > satyam - to the effect that it is used in adviata as - trikaala

> > abhaaditam satyam?

> >

> > 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

>

>

 

 

=====

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

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "atmachaitanya" <atmachaitanya>

wrote:

>

> 2) While I don't recall any Upanishad using the exact

> phraseolgy "Reality is that which is never sublated in the three

> periods of time" ........Nevertheless, this is the obvious and

> implied meaning of many Upanishadic descriptions: Everlasting

> (Druvam),Eternal(Nityam)'Other than the 'known' and the 'unknown',

> etc.,etc. (It is a definition which can never be applied to the World,

 

Namaste,

 

These passages point in that direction:

 

Mandukya upan. 1:

yachchhAnyat trikAlAtItaM tadapyoMkAra eva -

"And whatever else there is beyond the threefold time ,

that too is only the syllable OM."

 

Shvetashvatara 6:2 -

yenAvRtaM nityamidaM hi sarvaM jnaH kAlAkAro........

"He by whom this whole world is always enveloped, the knower,

the author of time....."

 

 

Gita 15:18

yasmaatkSharamatiito.ahamakSharaadapi chottamaH .

ato.asmi loke vede cha prathitaH purushhottamaH ..

"As I transcend the Perishable and am also superior to the

Imperishable, I am well-known as the Purushottama (the Supreme Being)

in both the Vedic and secular literature."

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Atmachaitanya-ji,

>2) While I don't recall any Upanishad using the exact

>phraseolgy "Reality is that which is never sublated in the three

>periods of time" (Sunderji??. )Nevertheless, this is the obvious and

>implied meaning of many Upanishadic descriptions: Everlasting

>(Druvam),Eternal(Nityam)'Other than the 'known' and the 'unknown',

>etc.,etc. (It is a definition which can never be applied to the

World,

>--Waking or Dream-- but only to the Pure Conciouness of Atman.)

 

While I do agree with you on unavailability of any references in

Upanishadic text on the definition of reality as 'trikAla-

abAdhyatvam', however, there are more fundamental issues we need to

take a look in this regard.

 

1. Definition of satyatvam being one which does not sublate in all

time 'trikAla-abAdhyatvam', presupposes kAla(time) itself must exist

always as a framework and deciding criteria for truth. Otherwise if

kAla itself is not *real*, there is no meaning in holding 'trikAla'

as a deciding factor. So also, in order for us to say Brahmn is

sattya, kAla must co-exist at least if not anterior to Brahmn. I am

not sure how kAla is preserved in pAramArtha, but according to

Sri.Sadanand-ji's view, the concept of time and space exist in mind

only and thus it is vyavahAra only.

 

2. Searching for any pramANa (for the definition of satyattvam)

either in shruti or elsewhere is futile, for two reasons as I see ;

 

- 'pramANa' as such in general (in Advaitic definition "pramAkaraNaM

pramANam.h" guarantor of valid knowledge) is itself in the realm of

avidya only, as per Sri.Shankara

"sarvE pramANapramEyavyavahArA loukikA vaidikAscha pravrutaH sarvANi

cha ShAstrANi vidhipratiShEdamOkShaparANi" (in his introduction to

sUtra bhAShya)

(All conventions of the means (pramANa) and objects (praMEya) of

right knowledge-whether loukika or vaidika - & all the ShAstrAs

dealing with injuction (vidhi) & pratishEda (prohibition) or final

release deliverance (mOkSha) are in the realm of avidya.)

 

-The shruti itself is not sattya (and not preserved in pAramArtha)

according to Sri.Shankara in his gItA bhaashya

18.20 "..navedAnayajnAnatIrthambruvanti | avidyAvadvishhayANyeva ---

shAstrANicha |" (There is no Veda, no yajna, nor tIrtha-s. shAstrA-s

are for ignorant people who believe that they are true). Thus, there

is no use to find the support for definition of satyattvam in shruti

either.

 

3. If satyattvam is trikAla-abAdhyatvam, then what is the difference

between the words 'sattya' and 'nittya'? The distinction between them

is lost. Why does shruti is using them distinctly?

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "atmachaitanya" <atmachaitanya>

wrote:

>

> Dear Kuntimaddi Sadananda,

>

> 2) While I don't recall any Upanishad using the exact

> phraseolgy "Reality is that which is never sublated in the three

> periods of time"..............Nevertheless, this is the obvious and

> implied meaning of many Upanishadic descriptions:

 

Namaste,

 

There is a reference:

 

Tripad-vibhuti-narayana upanishad : 1:3

 

kathaM brahma | kAlatrayAbAdhitaM brahma | sarvakAlAbAdhitaM brahma |

 

What is Brahman? Brahman is unsublated by time- past, present, future.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

aTharvaNi nArAyaNOpanishad says tvam avasthAtrayAthItaH, tvam

dEhatrayAtItaha, tvam kAla trayAtItaH, tvam guNatrayAtItaha etc. etc.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

--- Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> There is a reference:

>

> Tripad-vibhuti-narayana upanishad : 1:3

>

> kathaM brahma | kAlatrayAbAdhitaM brahma | sarvakAlAbAdhitaM brahma |

>

> What is Brahman? Brahman is unsublated by time- past, present, future.

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

 

Beautiful Sundar, you suceeded. The trikaala abhaditatvam is implied

in the 'naasto vidyate bhaavo na abhaavo vidhyate sataH ! But the direct

reference to the Narayanopanishad is very good indeed.

 

As I had mentioned 'Brahman is kAlatraya abhAditamm' is a direct

statement and is obvious for that which is satyam. But a converse

statement 'kAlatraya abhaadhitam brahma' is a converse statement and

make it more rigorous just as 'prajnaanam brahma'. It becomes an

operative definition for Brahman. (Dvaitins in the list donot jump on me

that we are defining Brahman! - it is operative difinition who are

suffering in or due to dvaita.- because I find my e-mail is flooded with

mails from Jay that I have no interest even to open them.)

 

In view of this converse statement - anything that is transient cannot

be Brahman - The world is transient, looking from the ruupa, form and

naama, name - or as agglomeration of objects. The substantive is Brahman

as is trikaala abhaaditam and therefore real. This is different from the

claim that objects are eternal as shree Chittaranjanji argues. The

transient world cannot be Brahman as per the rigorous definition leaving

only, that which is unchanging (tri kaala abhaaditam) as the substantive

in the transients alone as Brahman.

 

We have now two criteria for 'something' or ‘anything’ – ‘all things’ as

the world for to be considered as Brahman.

 

1. Prajnaanam brahman - consciousness is brahman which is converse of

saying Braham is consciousness. – that is any thing non-conscious cannot

be brahman.

 

And

 

2. trikaala abhaaditam brahman - that which cannot be sublated in three

periods of time (that which is essentially independent of time) alone is

Brahman which is converse of statement that Brahman is trikaala

abhaaditam. Therefore anything that is changing in time or transient

cannot be Brahman by the converse theorem.

>From both aspects we cannot but dismiss the world which is 1) jadam and

2) transient – cannot be brahman since it is transient and therefore

not real and it is jadam.

 

But if 'everything' is nothing but brahman and if brahman (nothing but

consciousness) cannot but be the cause for the world, then the jadam or

the world we see and experience can only be apparently real

(transactionally real or vyavahaarika satyam) but not really real

(satyasya satyam) in the absolute sense of the word that the reality

defined.

 

This is what is referred to as shaastriiya anumaana - logical deduction

from the scriptural statements, which is different from the normal

anumaana, which is supported by pratyaksha vyaapti jnaaana.

 

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