Guest guest Posted November 13, 2004 Report Share Posted November 13, 2004 As far as I have been able to understand so far - all is Consciouness. Consciousness is Love. The ego prevents us from realising this. We have no volition - everything just happens as it does and as it should. There is no free will.So Hitler was not responsible for anything he did. So Consciousness was responsible in which case how can it be termed an expression of Love? Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 Hi Chittaranjan-ji, Excellent response as usual - looks like a suitable essay for my website, if you would give permission. However, I would like to take a little issue with your statement: "The One Self is divided into many 'contracted' beings." This seems to be begging lots of questions. Who is doing the dividing and doesn't this mean duality? Isn't there a confusion of reality and appearance (as always seems to happen in these discussions!)? And doesn't the statement imply creation? (Sorry, I can't remember whether we've argued about ajAtivAda before.) Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 15, 2004 Report Share Posted November 15, 2004 Dear Dennis-ji, advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote: > Excellent response as usual - looks like a suitable > essay for my website, if you would give permission. Thank you Dennisji. I would of course be honoured to have the essay on your website. > However, I would like to take a little issue with > your statement: "The One Self is divided into many > 'contracted' beings." This seems to be begging lots > of questions. You are right. According to Advaita there is no creation in the absolute sense. I had tried to convey this idea by preceding the statement with the words 'metaphorically speaking' to indicate that I was speaking figuratively. > Who is doing the dividing and doesn't this mean duality? It is Brahman doing the dividing in His 'creative' aspect. He is then called Ishvara. But creation in truth doesn't mean duality because creation is in the realm of names and forms that are eternal and inseparable from Brahman. It is only the jiva, under the thrall of avidya, that sees duality because it doesn't see the Oneness of the names and forms with the Substratum. When Brahman is spoken about to such a jiva, which is under avidya and is not able to see this Oneness, its conception conceives Brahman as one entity and the world as another. Such a divorced world (that the jiva conceives) is an upadhi (limiting adjunct) on Brahman because the notion of duality is superimposed on to the world that it sees. But when the jiva's third eye is opened, and it sees the truth, then the various things of the world are nothing but waves of Brahman's Effulgence, and the five sheaths of the jiva too are only waves in the ocean of Consciousness which is its own Infinite Self. > Isn't there a confusion of reality and appearance (as always > seems to happen in these discussions!)? And doesn't the > statement imply creation? (Sorry, I can't remember whether we've > argued about ajAtivAda before.) Yes, the locution of 'reality and appearance' seems to lead to confusion, especially as it is difficult for us not to see the 'and' between the one and the other. When the 'and' exists, it implies 'creation'. But both the 'and' and 'creation' being false disappear simultaneously when the truth is seen because they are parasitic one upon the other. I prefer the term 'vivartavada' to 'ajativada' though both of them imply absolute non-creation. Sri Shankaracharya uses the term 'vivartavada' in the bhashya and this term is in consonance with the doctrine that the effect is non-different from Brahman (and hence eternal), whereas the term 'ajativada', which was borrowed by Sri Gaudapada from the Buddhists, seems to imply that things have no nature. Advaita does not believe in 'no natures' as it says that each thing has its own dharma (innate nature). It is my firm belief that Gaudapadacharya borrowed the term 'ajativada' from the Buddhists as a siddanta (agreed tenet) to facilitate the primary aim of the Karika which was to show that even the transitory appearance of an unreal world cannot appear without there being the substratum of an unchanging Consciousness. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 15, 2004 Report Share Posted November 15, 2004 I prefer the term 'vivartavada' to 'ajativada' though both of them imply absolute non-creation. Sri Shankaracharya uses the term 'vivartavada' praNAms prabhuji Hare Krishna Kindly give more details about the appearance of the term *vivartavAda* in shankara bhAshya. I'd like to look at the original text. Thanks in advance. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 Namaste Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji: Does it really matter prabhuji if the exact word "vivartavada" did not appear in the original text? Aren't we better of focusing on the essence of Sankara's message instead of checking for errors on the 'actual word?' I would very much welcome knowledgeable persons like you to come forward to provide your understanding of the subject matter instead of just checking for the word usage. I know that you will agree that spiritual lists like advaitin should help the members in enhancing their understanding the essence of the message of Sankara. I invite you on behalf of the list once again to provide your understanding of 'ajativada' through a series of articles. With your posting, you, I and everyone in the list can clear our doubts on Sankara's advaita philosophy. This will also help us all to contemplate on the subject matter and get opportunity to progress spiritually. Good to see your participation, Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: > > .... > Kindly give more details about the appearance of the term *vivartavAda* in > shankara bhAshya. I'd like to look at the original text. Thanks in > advance. > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2004 Report Share Posted November 16, 2004 ram-ji writes... ( Does it really matter prabhuji if the exact word "vivartavada" did not appear in the original text? Aren't we better of focusing on the essence of Sankara's message instead of checking for errors on > the 'actual word?') well, you are right - any discussion whether it is *ajativada* or *vivartavada* is tantamount to *vithanda-vada* !!! smiles!!! anyway, i believe there is a prayoga of this term *vivarta-vada* in Brahma sutras! pl go to www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/ bs_2-1-06.html - 42k - Cached i am also glad to see our beloved prabhu-ji in this holy congrgation. ram-ji, i am enjoying all your posts ... regards 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.