Guest guest Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Dear Sri Subrahmanian-ji, Refer post 29772 advaitin, V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v> wrote: > See what Shankara comments: > > for verse 14.3 > > My womb: My own Prakriti, ie. the Prakriti which belongs > to Me, the Maaya made up of the three gunas, the cause of > all beings. This Prakriti is spoken of as great(mahat) > because it is greater than all effects (sarva-kaaryebhyo > mahattvaat); and as the source and nourishing energy of > all its modifications (bharanaaccha sarva-vikaaraanaam), > it is termed Brahman. In that Great Brahman (mahad-brahma) > I place the germ, the seed of the birth of the Hiranyagarbha, > the seed which gives birth to all beings. > > for verse 14.4: > > ... of these forms, the Great Brahman (mahat-brahma), > Prakriti which passes through all states of matter is > the cause; and I, the Isvara, am the Father, the author > of impregnation of the seed in the womb. > > Logically speaking also, the impregnator has to be other > than the impregnated. Logically speaking, logic should not try to relate THAT which is relationless with a relation. By bringing in a relation between Brahman and Prakriti, you have, in one sweeping sentence, negated Advaita to sink into a kind of duality where something is there to be negated. Why does Lord Krishna say 'my OWN Praktiti'? Is His own Prakriti to be negated? Yes, Maya is to be negated on the Way to Advaita, but what does the negation of Maya negate is the question that should be reflected upon deeply - in the Heart. > Thus the yoni is Prakriti and not Brahman. In Vedanta as > it is held that the Prakriti, Maaya is itself inert, it > cannot do anything without the support of the Consciousness, > Brahman. You are applying the relations of logic (sambandha, the language relations of the padharthas) to Maya, the inscrutable power of the Lord, the Shakti who is the Matrika from which language arises. Brahman is the yoni because She who is the womb is He Himself. > This is one instance where words can be misleading. Matrika is confusion one way and revelation the other way. When She is seen as different from Him, she is confusion. When She is seen as not different from Him, She is revelation. Long live confusion and revelation - they are both in the One Nirvisesha Nirakara Reality that is beyond speech! Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Namaste Sri Chittaji: Post reference # 29774 Let me begin with your profound conclusion: "Long live confusion and revelation - they are both in the One Nirvisesha Nirakara Reality that is beyond speech!" Let me add the above sentence with the change - … that is beyond, speech, language, and logic. There is less confusion in understanding the unmanifested Brahman and confusion gets introduced with the manifestation. More and higher levels of confusion are added when we try to describe our own understanding of manifestation with words using our own language of expression along with a supporting logic. The problem is that `language is not universal' and consequently logic is introduced to make others to understand. This may partly explain why there is more disagreement than agreement. The best source for clearing our confusion is to refer back once more verses 4 and 5 of chapter 9 of Gita: Mayaa tatamidam sarvam jagadavyaktamoortinaa; Matsthaani sarvabhootaani na chaaham teshvavasthitah. All this world is pervaded by Me in My unmanifest aspect; all beings exist in Me, but I do not dwell in them. Na cha matsthaani bhootaani pashya me yogamaishwaram; Bhootabhrinna cha bhootastho mamaatmaa bhootabhaavanah. Nor do beings exist in Me (in reality): behold My divine Yoga, supporting all beings, but not dwelling in them, is My Self, the efficient cause of beings. I am afraid to use any more words to explain and try to relate this to the ongoing discussion because it will certainly manifest the confusion which did not exist before! Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > > > Long live confusion and revelation - they are both in the One > Nirvisesha Nirakara Reality that is beyond speech! > > > Warm regards, > Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Ref post 29772 Namaste Vs: First, let me join CN in congratulating you on your 'devotional' approach while discussing this thread. It is awe inspiring. You write: (The sight of the word Yoni brought to my mind the Gita verses referred above by you. And along with that the recollection of the words of my Guru when he taught these verses: 'Here, the word Brahma means Maya.') Your Respected Guru is right because in the very next verse Krishna says : sattvam rajas tama iti gunah prakrti-sambhavah nibadhnanti maha-baho dehe dehinam avyayam Material nature consists of three modes -- goodness, passion and ignorance. When the eternal living entity comes in contact with nature, O mighty-armed Arjuna, he becomes conditioned by these modes. Prakriti is thus made of three modes- Sattwa, Rajas ad tamas. Thank you for bringinging to our attention Shankara's commentary on these verses. Very Illuminating. You conclude: (This is one instance where words can be misleading.) True. That is why words are described as 'Shabda -jaalam' in Viveka Chudamani. With all respects to you, SIR, it is not that words are misleading , it is their interpretation that is at fault. For example, it is said 'Maya is Anirvachinya' but different commentators try to interpret this 'Word' which is beyond interpretation . There lies the trouble, I would say. Take the word 'Prakriti' for instance It is madfe of two words- Pra - which means - primary - or precedes something which is made- pradhana Kriti- means to make Thus , in one sense , it means the 'root' of the Universe. When you translate this it means Prakriti is also 'pradhana' . Is Brahman not 'Pradhana'( aja can also mean pradhana)Then , logic says two things can not be pradhana - only one of them can.. Therfore Brahman and Prakriti are One- The creator and the created . Svetasvatara Upanishad says IV-10: Know then that Nature is Maya, and that the great God is the Lord of Maya. The whole world is filled with beings who form His parts. Who is the Lord of Maya ? Mayeshwera . Mayeshwera is also one of the names of Krishna. CN says in his post "Why does Lord Krishna say 'my OWN Praktiti'? Is His own Prakriti to be negated? Yes, Maya is to be negated on the Way to Advaita, but what does the negation of Maya negate is the question that should be reflected upon deeply - in the Heart." Words that come from the heart and not from the head are full of Bhava and therfore are more meaningful. Warm regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Dear Sri Ram Chandran-ji, Refer your post 29776 advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <ramvchandran> wrote: > Let me begin with your profound conclusion: "Long live > confusion and revelation - they are both in the One > Nirvisesha Nirakara Reality that is beyond speech!" Sir, the former part of the statement was made in a humorous vein, but as you may see from the latter part, it was also meant seriously. The confusion-tattva does exist in Reality. Without it, there would be no confusion for samsara to be an illusion. I do hope that some amount of humour is allowed on this list considering that the Mother Herself is Lalitambika, the One who likes to play. Therefore permit me to be a fool in Her hands, and, like the proverbial fool, to go where angels fear to tread. This fool would now like to say a few words Nakedly for addressing and undressing the confusion that you spoke about. > There is less confusion in understanding the unmanifested > Brahman and confusion gets introduced with the manifestation. The Unmanifested Brahman is same as the Under-Standing because He is the Light Standing-Under all manifestations. Confusion does not get created with manifestation, but with the misunderstanding of the manifestation. Misunderstanding arises when we Miss to Stand Under to Witness the manifestation for what it simply is. > More and higher levels of confusion are added when we try > to describe our own understanding of manifestation with words > using our own language of expression along with a supporting > logic. Yes, this is what Sri Felipe said beautifully and musically. > The problem is that 'language is not universal' There is a Universal Language. The Universe came out of its Meaning. > and consequently logic is introduced to make others to > understand. Logic is the structure of Language. Logic comes from the word 'logos' which means 'word'. When the Universal Language is understood, the logic of the Universe is understood. The instrument by which logic operates in us is the buddhi, the intellect, and the Cave of the intellect is the Heart. The hurdle to overcome for Under-Standing Advaita is the trying that we do with our minds dressed with all sorts of philosophical concepts. We need to be Naked when we approach Brahman. Warm regards, Chittaranjan 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.