Brahman - Revelation and Confusion

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri.Chittaranjan-ji and Sri.Sadananda-ji,

 

This mail caught my attention and I hope you both do not mind my

intervention….

 

With that hope, let me put my 2c…

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> One can't reach the Truth without being true to oneself.

>

> But the basic point is this: When the question relates to the

nature

> of the world, why should we get into questions regarding its

> existence? Shouldn't a question be taken for what it simply is?

>

 

My contention, how can one take the question about swadharma of a

thing without bringing in existence of the same thing?, for existence

of a thing isn't it part and parcel of swadharma of the thing? What

does it mean to say swadharma of a thing does not include `existence'

of the thing? Can a thing exist without `existence' (either true or

false) being its swadharma?

 

In my opinion, you should also include `existence' of the world in

your analysis of the swadharma of the world.

 

> The question about swadharma is one of the MOST IMPORTANT questions

> for the revelation of TRUTH. Without answering the question, there

is

> neither Vedanta nor Siddhanta nor any knowledge. How do I know that

> birds will not start swimming tomorrow? How do I know that tomorrow

> when I wake up I will not be King Arthur riding in the woods of

> Avalon, or that the Board of Moderators of this Group will not be

> Captains of a ship on the Atlantic Ocean by the time this mail

flies

> off into Cyberspace? (:-)) How do I know that the world will not

> become Brahman tomorrow or that Brahman will not become the world

the

> day after?

>

> What does swadharma mean? Does the swadharma of a thing change? If

it

> does, is it still swadharma? If it does not, then can a thing ever

> disappear? When questions about swadharma are first answered

clearly,

>

 

True.

>

> > which are apaurusheya, but still falls within the creation

> > as apara vidya – that is how Veda-s declare themselves

> > about themselves.

>

> True, but it doesn't change anything regarding the Vedas being the

> WAY of the Self revealing Itself. The world lies (harmoniously)

along

> this WAY.

>

 

As I remember, this subject of apara and para vidya of vEda-s was

already discussed at length between us in other list. I'll dig up

further.

>

> > When I know gold, in its totality – that is I also know

> > its glory or capacity to exist in multitude of forms yet

> > remaining as advaita. That is precisely the teaching.

> > It is non-duality in spite of duality, and not non-duality

> > without duality.

>

> 'Non-Duality inspite of duality' is either (1) Duality or (2)

Apology

> for Non-Duality. That is not what the teaching is. The teaching is

> Absolute Non-Duality.

>

>

 

For me, the position 'Non-Duality inspite of duality' looks more like

qualified non-duality. The very qualification or vishEsha ` inspite

of ' is quite obvious. As I understood, Sri.Shankara's is kEvala-

advaita or nirvishEsha-advaita.

 

Thanks for letting me express myself.

 

With warm regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

K.S. writes:

 

 

Let us first collect all the data we have:

1. I am self-existent self-conscious entity – No proof is needed, since

it is self-evident.

2. Strangely, I take myself to be limited inert body-mind-complex. This

is definitely an error based on datum 1. This is not a subjective error,

like mistaking snake for a rope, since it is universally committed

error.

3. I seem to dismiss this world of objects in the waking world and

experience a new set of world in my dream which appears to be as real

while I am dreaming. This is also a universal experience. Only when

awakened I feel the dream world is unreal.

4. I am conscious of neither world (waking or dream) in the deep sleep

state. We can say I am conscious of the absence of any world of objects

since we are able to remember and talk about that state, as I am doing

just now.

5. Since I am the only the self-existent and self-conscious entity

(datum 1), the world being inert, its existence depends on my existence,

since I have to be there to say the world ‘is’.

6. Data 1 and 5 – imply that the limitless existent-consciousness I

should include the inert worlds (waking-dream-deep sleep). Other wise

the existence-consciousness gets limited which is illogical.

 

||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Sadaji,

Let's take a serious look at this

without skipping over steps. (1) This is not basic data

but data that has been analysed. It is not

raw data. What is the raw data? An immediate

immersion in a world which as an infant I first have

to separate into the me and not-me. This has

become so second nature that I no longer

have to consider myself as subject to

discover that I have a viewpoint. To arrive

at your (1) requires an element of reasoning

and it is not self-evident as we can see because

it is denied by various thinkers. Their reasoning

may be faulty but that must be demonstrated.

It is not self-evident.

 

About (2): Continuous, as Shankara says, with

the fact of perception and what it entails namely

a point of view comes the identification with

that point-of-view and the holder of it. I do

not believe that at this point we have the view

that the Body/Mind complex is inert. We are

on the contrary enmired in the assumption that

it is not inert. It is the object that we take

to be inert and the wonder at how that

inert thing comes to be in our mind

is what spurs the inquiry which is:

what is the nature of the subject

and what is the nature of the object

such that this can happen. I believe that

it is important to stick to the order of

business as delineated by Shankara

in the Preamble.

 

About (3)(4): That the waking state is the

central modality of consciousness which

asseses the others is Shankara's position

in B.S.B. II.ii.29:

"With regard to this we say, the perceptions

of the waking state cannot be classed with those

in a dream.

Why?

Because of difference of characteristics; for

waking and dream states are really

different in nature."

 

About (5): This is very much the position

of absolute idealism. It is interesting that

Shankara never considered the problem

of other minds as arising out of our

necessarily direct acquaintance with

our own minds. Some have taken this

to imply that our knowledge of other

minds must be an inference. Others

would say that once you have the

concept of mind other minds come

with it.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadananda-Ji and Chittaranjan-Ji:

 

My humble apologies for intergecting in this wonderful discussion.

But I thought that my comments may help.

>>>>>

>>>>>>

Still Shankara says in the Gita

>bhashya as well as in the Sutra bhashya that not even the Vedas can

>make fire cold.

 

Yes – I agree. Now would that knowledge help me in gaining saadhana

chatushhTayam required for Brahman inquiry. Laws of nature are part

of

Nature. I can spend my whole lifetime in trying to learn and discover

them. The more I investigate the more the nature reveals its

mysteries.

That is what science is all about. The more I learn the more ignorant

I become, since in trying to analyze the swadharma of the world I

keeping learning that there is lot more to learn. Every scientific

paper

will leave more questions in the end than answers. That is the

swadharma

of the world!

<<<<<<<<<<

<<<<<<<<<<

 

Here, IMHO – More questions are left behind at the end of every

scientific paper is because scientists have not realized the final

non-negate-able truth. Thus the "svadharma" of that scientist is to

continue with his query about that truth Brahman (the real truth).

 

Other day, I was asked what is my religion and belief. I said my

religion is Science and I do my science religiously.

>>>>>

>>>>>

It is violation of the advaita to say that there is Brahman, which is

the substantive for both seer and the seen and still claim that seen

is real. One cannot have inert or jadam with consciousness as the

substantive, if it appears to be so – that is what advaita calls as

maaya - the projection of plurality on the singularity is maaya. If I

give reality to maaya and the world – I am eternally doomed!

<<<<<<<

<<<<<<<

 

I agree with Sadananda-ji on this statement. IMO – This can be

explained in simple terms of the meaning of the word itself.

maa – means that and yaa – means "that truth the adhiShTataa

puruSha". All maayaa serves is that it becomes and remains the

designator of that purusha. That is why our yoga-shaastra

says "tasya vaacakaH praNavaH".

 

IMO - the problem comes when we relate the manifested brahman to the

process that manifested it.

 

Again, my apologies for interjecting.

 

hariH OM tat sat!

 

Yadunath

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjan-ji and Sadananda-ji;

 

Pardon me for stepping-in the discussion, but i believe you are both talking

from the same perspective and finding disagreement in the way you both

express it (or it is that i am so conditioned to seeing things the way i do

that i find it once more to be the same...).

 

If one is to go beyond concepts and systems, therefore indicating the

presence of viveka, then it can be inferred that the swadharma of the world

has been understood. However, "understood" couldn't be relatable to any

system as well (including rational, linguistic etc), since to achieve

clarity one would have had to let go of such systems to begin with. So it's

possible to understand, as in cognitive thought, but in a manner that

remains parallel to the "core" of the understanding, allways skimming from

the surface inwards, closer and closer, yet never reaching this very "core".

It's possible to "peel the onion", but never to touch it's nucleus in a

cognitive system, such as in this discussion. Therefore, " Vedas provide the

self-knowledge, which, in principle, cannot be object of any knowledge

(aprameyam)."

> It is violation of the advaita to say that there is Brahman,

> which is the substantive for both seer and the seen and

> still claim that seen is real.

 

Taking my first paragraph as reference, one could say that the world is

real, but this would remain under the category of things that have been

said. If one is not able to particularly address the truth head-on, in such

a way that would be describable and an object of knowledge, one could at the

very same time conclude that the truth is to be assessed individually, hence

consciousness alone would remain, but never to be expressed, since to travel

in a direct path to the nucleus would mean that the exterior would not be

operative in any way (and with it all the system-building, cognitive and

outwards expressing functions).

 

Therefore, upon crossing over one could say the world to be real, however,

to say so one would have to have crossed back. This does not invalidates the

reality of the world, but only the point of view from which it is said.

Since i am not a jivan-mukta, i am not able to understand what would be the

case of the nature of the world being assessed from the "correct"

perspective. I can only make an effort to remove all conceptualization, in

order that the true swadharma of things crystalizes, and from it the

underlying absolute reality of brahman appears. But i suspect the correct

perspective in assessing the world would be that that further removes layers

in the circular skimming process (blatantly circular, though...).

 

This is only my understanding, anyway, hope it did not bother too much.

My warmest regards...

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

doce lar. Faça do sua homepage.

http://br./homepageset.html

[Guest guest]

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

Michael - 'I am' is self evident as existent and conscious- that is

what aprameyam implies. - 'I am this and this is mine' is an error

arising from beginnningless ignorance. Hence, baby born out of

ignorance needs to be educated before he has the maturity to analyze and

recognize the obvious error. That is why the error is stated as the

second datum.

 

Your comments on the second are well taken - in fact that was what was

presented in the Brahmasuutra notes on adhyaasa bhaashhya.

 

> About (3)(4): That the waking state is the

> central modality of consciousness which

> asseses the others is Shankara's position

> in B.S.B. II.ii.29:

> "With regard to this we say, the perceptions

> of the waking state cannot be classed with those

> in a dream.

> Why?

> Because of difference of characteristics; for

> waking and dream states are really

> different in nature."

 

Micheal, if you take only B.Suutra as the basis for advaita, then we

will run into lot more problems. B. suutra is only a pourusheya

pramaaNa. It is nyaaya pramaaNa, providing samanvaya for the Vedanta. I

consider Shankara bhaashyaas on Upanishads are more relevant and His

prakaraNa granthaas are even more relevant to understand Shankara's

stand.

 

Waking states and dream states are different in nature - hence Shankara

uses the word - In aatma bodha he says:

"samsaaraH swapnatulyohi

raaga dweshaadi sankulaH

sakaale satyavad bhaati

prabodhe satyasad bhavet"

 

The sufferings in the waking states are similar (not he did say they are

identical) to those in dream - in the sense that they appear to be real

as long as one is dreaming, but when awakened to higher state, what

appeared to be real is recognized as unreal.

 

He says the same thing in DakshiNamuurthy - the very first sloka comes

out as bang

 

vishvam darpana dRisyamaana nagarii tulyam nijaantargatam

pasyan aatmani maayaa bahuvidhiH bhuutia yathaa nidrayaa

yat saakshaat kurute prabhoda samaye swaatmaanamevaadvayam

tasmai shree gurumuurthaye nama idam shree dakshiNaamuurthaye

 

The whole universe is like a reflection of the city in a mirror of my

mind but seen as though outside arising from pancha bhuuta-s due to the

power of maaya just like in a dream, but when awaken to a higher state

recognized as ones own non-dual self, to that teacher DakshiNamuurthy my

prostrations.

 

Michal every text of Shankara you take, he brings in analogy with dream

state and unreality of the waking world similar to the dream world. I

remember we had discussions related to this in the past. The

comparison between the two states is only in terms of notions of reality

in the two states and dissolution of these notions of reality of the

duality when awakened to the higher state.

 

You are right they are not identical in all respects. Once awakened

from the dream, waker cannot enter into the dream state. A self-realized

master however appears (underline appears)to return back to the waking

world and guide the other souls. Hence comparison only in terms of the

two degrees of realities but not in the absolute sense.

 

Madukya upanishad deals exhaustively this problem of waking, dream and

deep sleep states and turiiya state that is independent of the three but

pervades the three. This is the data that I have presented as 1 to 5.

Agree it is not obvious and requires analysis to recognize the raw data

because the erronious data is taken as real due to the second datum.

 

Thanks for your rational input. Agreed - Shankara does this

beautifully in his adhyaasa bhaashya.

 

By the by why don't you take up the analysis of Vedanta Paribhaashha for

the list. That will be educational for everybody.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

>

> Sir, yesterday it was venting out. Today it is an outburst. I am

> sorry for being an irritant.

>

> Warm regards,

> Chittaranjan

 

Chittaranjanji

 

Again I have to apologize. The venting out and outburst is not against

you sir. I felt compelled to present my understanding of advaita,

otherwise the readers will not be exposed to the version alternate to

your understanding of advaita.

 

As you stated varity is the beauty of life. No leef in the same tree

looks alike. Dwaita is definitely is beatiful but perhaps one can see

even more beauty if one can stand apart and look at the dvaita from

advaitic perspective.

 

My PraNaams

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

In the earlier post Ramachandra-Ji stressed the importance of

shraddha, which indeed is the corner stone but I would like to say

that let it not be the central focus when it comes to saadhanaa. When

that occurs then the shraddha can easily get transformed into andha-

shraddha.

 

Here I would like to quote one of my favorite mantra from the tatntra-

shshartra.

 

kulaarNava tantra has an interesting shloka that signifies the

importance of tranta as everyone need to use some sort of a tool.

 

advitaM kecidicchhanti dvaitamicchhanti caapare |

mama tattvaM vijaanato dvaitaadvaitavivarjitam ||

 

Meaning - Some aspirants desire (prefer) to be in dvaitaa, where as

some are desirous of advaita. However, knowledgeable folks (j~naate)

aspire for dvaitaadvaita-vivarjita tattva.

 

Thank you for this wonderful thread.

 

Regards and best wishes,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

>

> As you stated varity is the beauty of life. No leef in the same tree

> looks alike. Dwaita is definitely is beatiful but perhaps one can see

> even more beauty if one can stand apart and look at the dvaita from

> advaitic perspective.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sadanandaji,

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

 

> Again I have to apologize. The venting out and outburst is

> not against you sir.

 

I any case, i didn't take it personally. But it is i who needs to

apologise to you and to all those other members whose sensibilities

might have been hurt by the 'mad' language i've been using in some of

my recent posts. I apologise.

 

After reading your recent posts, i feel there are a few

clarifications that i need to provide:

 

1) I didn't mean that adhyasa was a theory; i meant that 'adhyasa =

world' is a theory.

 

2) I didn't mean that i didn't like your philosophical arguments. I

meant that i liked the poetical words in your post more than your

arguments, just as some people like Sri Shankaracharya's stotras more

than his bhashyas.

 

3) I couldn't detect the 'detect' in the desist-word when it should

have been obvious to me that you had meant detect. My apologies for

the needless response i made.

 

4) When i said that i regarded you as an elder, i wasn't referring to

your age Sir, but to your wisdom. My Guru is an elder to me though in

this life he happens to be younger than me in age.

 

> I felt compelled to present my understanding of advaita,

> otherwise the readers will not be exposed to the version

> alternate to your understanding of advaita.

 

Honestly Sir, i feel it is the other way round. The version you

present is well-known on this list. It is an interpretation of

Advaita that is shared by many scholars on this list as well as

outside this list. I would say that it is my understanding of Advaita

that is less represented. But i am told by both Advaitins and

Dvaitins alike that it is not Advaita. It has been rejected by

scholars as well as by popular vote. So there is little chance of it

doing much damage to anybody on this list.

 

But i don't believe that the alternate version you provide is

correct. The day i see an alternate version as being the correct one,

i will reject my present understanding of Advaita. It is easy for me

to do it because i don't belong to any sampradaya. I do not believe

that Advaita can have a sampradaya. It has a guru-shishya parampara

and that is how the light is kept alive through the ages. It can

never die though the world may not see it. The bhashyas of Shankara

are hidden codes that get unlocked as you move along. It is the Guru

who has the keys to the hidden locks. He works unseen. He is the

whole universe for the sadhaka. There is none higher than the Guru.

He gives the greatest Gift there is to give and what we offer him in

return is resistance to the Gift he is trying to give. Yet he

persists. Truly there is none higher than the Guru.

 

Guru Brahma Gurur Vishnu

Guru Devo Maheshwaraha

Guru Saakshat Para Brahma

Tasmai Sree Gurave Namaha

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri. Sadananda-gAru,

 

Namaste.

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

>

> >"Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik>

> >

> >No it doesn't. I don't have to presuppose it. It is given to me

like

> >that.

>

> Chittaranjanji – the presupposition is implied in your question you

> posed. Yes, it is given only in the waking state and being negated

in

> the dream and deep sleep state.

 

Here, we need to explore bit on experience and knowledge of

experience.

 

Although we experience dream and dreamless states while they were

running, we however realize such knowledge (and assert aloud) that "

there exist three states" only in one of among those states , which

we call `waking'.

 

The very knowledge of the form "there exist three states called

waking, dream and dreamless" is also given ONLY in the waking state.

In dream, do we know existence of three states as such? So also, in

dreamless state do we know existence of those states?

 

It follows that experience and knowledge(and assertion thereof) of

experience are two different.

 

Thus, this very knowledge (of existence of avastatraya ) is as much

given as any other knowledge of this world.

 

If knowledge of world is contented to be negated in dream state, so

also one needs to negate the very admittance of dream state as such,

and thereby cancels the whole negation process itself.

 

Dvaitin's position is that, experience of dream is as much GIVEN as

any other experiences of this world, such as experience of existence

of a bhAva vastu (such as an apple) or experience of non-existence of

a abhAva vastu (such as son of barren woman etc).

 

>The question of its existence as real

> although experienced in the waking state therefore arises before one

> inquires more about its swadharma.

 

But that inquiry is also in waking state and equally negatable in

dream.

> Existence is not swadharma of the

> world unless you can recognize the Brahman as its substantive which

is

> of the nature of existence.

>

> Anyway, the point has been made for whatever it is worth.

>

> >But the basic point is this: When the question relates to the

nature

> >of the world, why should we get into questions regarding its

> >existence? Shouldn't a question be taken for what it simply is?

>

> Chittaranjanji you can ask. However, before I could, I need to ask

> whether the world I take it as granted, is it really as I perceive

it,

> before I could investigate its properties?

 

Before asking so, one need to admit that the perception of world

itself is real. Otherwise, the objects of perception i.e world, if

unreal , turn out to be real by logical implication.

 

Snake is unreal in final conclusion no doubt, but perception of a

presentation as `snake' is real. Otherwise, if one were to deny

reality of perception itself, the illusory snake turn real! How so?

Because of double negation as in `My perception of unreal snake is

unreal'

 

The point is, before we embark on investigating world as perceived is

real or not, we need to admit the perception of world's presentation

itself is real.

 

The reason is obvious as

> pointed in the data 1-5, I have stated before. If I see a snake and

> people say it is a rope then I need to know whether the snake

exists or

> not before I investigate the beauty of the snake. If I have no

doubt

> that is a snake, no further inquiry is needed. If I have no doubt

that

> it rope, there no problem either. The doubt comes only because

> scripture says there is only one – that is Brahman which is a

conscious

> entity. When it say one and I am seeing two then the question is

it two

> or one- i.e does the second that I see exists or not, before I go

into

> detailed analysis of the swadharma of the second that I see.

 

As a outsider, here is the difficulty in understanding this prakriya.

Any help is appreciated.

 

In snake-over-rope illusion, we get doubt about snake because (as you

have said above) other people say it is not snake. This assumes

that so called `other people' are real and we do not have any doubt

on their reality. If one were to doubt that too, then we need another

thing telling so and hence there is no end for series of doubts.

However that is not the case in practical. We have admitted that the

so called `other people' are real.

 

So also, regarding world, you have got doubt because Veda-s telling

about One-vs-Many. In this very process, the reality of vEda-s are

admitted implicitly and unknowingly. My problem is in understanding

how can we deny the reality to vEda-s subsequently? Did I miss

anything here?

 

> What you need is viveka and vairaagya, shat sampatti and

mumukshutvam.

> Viveka is defined as nitya anitya vastu viveka – discrimination of

real

> and unreal – Here the validity of existence and non-existence and

> apparent existence is what has been pointed out. I have no reason

to

> believe that I need to know if the birds are going to swim tomorrow

or

> walk tomorrow in order for me to understand what is eternal and

> ephemeral. The analysis of there states of human experience is

suffice

> to discard what is eternal self-existent and what has temporal

> existence. The five data I presented is sufficient to proceed

further.

> For example, do I need to know what the swadharma of the water that

is

> seen is in the reflected sand? Is it not enough to ask how can

there be

> water in the middle of a desert where there is no water? – How can

there

> be inert mater when there only Brahman as substantive which is

nothing

> but sat chit ananda swaruupa. I have no problem with dvaitins since

> they assume that Brahman is not the material cause of this

universe.

> However, advaita starts with datum 1 that I have pointed out in the

last

> post.

>

 

Sir, with due respect, it is an misunderstanding in holding that

Dvaitin are assuming about Brahman not being material causality.

 

There are so many pramAna-s in prastAnatraya which establishes our

position. As per my limited understanding, the analysis goes like

this;

 

Taittariya Up. II.vi.1 says "He desired: 'May I be many, may I be

born. He performed austerities. Having performed austerities, He

created all this – whatever there is. Having created all this, He

entered into it."

 

Upanishad does not say He `became' all of this world, instead it

says: `He created all this'. 'bahu syAM prajAyeya' simply means "He

desired to become many". His becoming 'all this' (of World) is not in

shruti as such.

 

The Upanishad does not say that that "many" refers to the

multiplicity in this world. His becoming 'many' is in shruti. The

equation of 'many' = 'all this in this world' is an assumption.

 

We take 'bahu syAM prajAyeya' as the Lord willing to manifest his

multiple forms to handle creation. This understanding is supported by

Upanishad itself as 'sa sarvaM idaM asR^ijata'. His taking multiple

forms is explained in the quoted verses: asadvA idamagra AsIt.h,

tato vai sadajAyata, tadAtmAnaM svayamakuruta,

tasmaattatsukR^itamuchyata iti'.

 

Also, His 'entering' as mentioned in the same Up. would be pointless

if He were to be the material cause of that which he is 'entering',

even if this 'entering' only be a understood as manifestation.

Dvaitins have an easy explanation; His entering is to show that His

presence is needed for each jIva and jaDa to manifest their

respective properties and actions (ichhA-guNa-kriya). His entering is

by one form, while He is already pervading everything and everywhere

by another form. Simpler without any assumptions.

 

So also, in gIta, SriKrishna asserts that "mayA.adhyaxeNa prakR^itiH

sUyate sacharAcharam.h". What is `prakriti' here?

Normally it is interpreted as `Nature' in English. That is to say `me

prakriti' would render Brahmn's nature. But in above gIta vAkya, it

makes no sense to say that "Under My control, My nature will bring

forth this jagat".

 

The term 'me prakriti' is equivalent to saying 'my computer' or 'my

happiness'. The former form illustrates something other than me but

being under my control, while the latter describes an attribute of

myself.

 

Because it does not make sense in understanding `prakriti' as Nature

of Brahman, Dvaita understands `prakriti' as a separate tatva which

is under His Control as said in mayA adhyaxeNa

 

Please compare our understanding of Prakriti with that of Rg.smhita

10-125-5 where a tatva called ambriNi (or Sree tatva or LakshmI

tatva) says "yam kAmayE tam tam ugram kriNomi tam brahmANam tam

sumEdhAm" (Whom I want to make Rudra I make him Rudra. I make him

chaturmukha-brahmA whom I want to make Chaturmukha. I make him a

sage whom I want make a sage. I make him

wise whom I want to make wise ) and having said that She

continues "mama yOnirapsu antah samudrE" (that which gives me birth

dwells in the water within the sea), who resides in sea? nArayaNa

tatva.

 

With all these background and many more pramANa-s , we do not take

Brahman as material cause of the world. It was never a assumption as

such.

 

Thanks for the opportunity extended to clarify the Dvaitic position

on this issue.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

--- Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote:

 

Shree Srinivas Kotekal,

 

PraNaams.

 

Thanks for the presentation of dvaitic perspective.

 

This may not the forum to discuss further the validity of that position

and the issues involved. I wrote recently to Shree JN that I may take up

his adhyaasa series as puurvapaksha and address the issues from advaitic

perspective. It is one of those wish lists.

 

Thanks again for your participation in the discussion.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

> Dear Sri. Sadananda-gAru,

>

> Namaste.

>

> Thanks for the opportunity extended to clarify the Dvaitic position

> on this issue.

>

> Regards,

> Srinivas.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Chittaranjanji - I admire your honesty and and your communication

skills. Advaitin moderators are happy to present your views as well as

others, and the fact that your presentations are stored in the archieves

for reference is recognition of both your scholarship as well as it

relavance to the advaitins community.

 

Please continue your presentations whatever you feel correct. If I may

suggest, you could present the accepted version and why and how you

deviate from that would also be helpful for the readers to have better

perspective. I felt compelled to jump in for that reason.

 

The reasons for my emphasis is we have many dvaitins who are also

members and they also discuss their own version of adviata in vaadaavali

which they refute.

 

It is the glory of advaita to accomidate all dvaitic arguments, since

they all pertain to vyavahaara. Yet we need to be clear what is the

accepted version and where we deviate from that verion.

 

We both agree that truth is one and question is only in terms of how one

is related to many.

 

With PraNaams

Sadananda

 

--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

>

> Honestly Sir, i feel it is the other way round. The version you

> present is well-known on this list.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <> >

> It is the glory of advaita to accomidate all dvaitic arguments,

since

> they all pertain to vyavahaara. Yet we need to be clear what is the

> accepted version and where we deviate from that verion.

>

> We both agree that truth is one and question is only in terms of how

one

> is related to many.

>

 

OM TAT SAT

Respected Sada-ji and Naik-ji, May I ask one last question on this

thread. I have very elementary theoretical knowledge of vedanta so

kindly pardon me if my question does not make sense. My simple

understanding is that nitya-anitya vastu vivek pertains to women, job,

money, prestige, house and other material things.(For e.g. if I eat

too much sweet everyday then I still don't have nitya-anitya vastu

vivek). What has nitya-anitya vastu vivek anything to do with reality

or mithya nature of jagat ? Whether there is a mountain out there or

adhyasa is immaterial to a sadhak. What is the importance of

understanding the mithya nature of world in Advaita ? Does it matter

to a sadhak. We have already said that it is not entirely unreal like

a hare's horn. Then why dwell on its reality or mithya or relative

reality or absolute reality.

 

regards,

OM TAT SAT

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Mahadevaji,

 

advaitin, "mahadevadvaita"

<mahadevadvaita> wrote:

 

> Respected Sada-ji and Naik-ji, May I ask one last question

> on this thread.

> Whether there is a mountain out there or adhyasa is immaterial

> to a sadhak. What is the importance of understanding the

> mithya nature of world in Advaita ? Does it matter to a sadhak.

> We have already said that it is not entirely unreal like

> a hare's horn. Then why dwell on its reality or mithya or

> relative reality or absolute reality.

 

It is not a matter of choice. We are already dwelling in the world as

also on the many objects of desire in the world. This dwelling leads

to great sorrow. In the happier moments of our lives, we tend to

forget that this life is full of sorrow. But the ocean of samsara is

terrible. This human birth is very rare. One may be born as a worm, a

donkey, an immobile plant, an insect, a ghost living on air, and many

other such things. To avoid these unpleasant births one has to live

purely according to dharma, but the seeds of desire in us can easily

lead us into adharma and then suffering becomes inevitable. Samsara

is compared to an ocean full of sharks. One day, after millions of

births maybe, the hankering for liberation arises. Then a man turns

away from dwelling on objects to dwelling on the mithyatva of the

world. It is a means to liberation.

 

But your point may be something else. You say:

> We have already said that it is not entirely unreal like

> a hare's horn. Then why dwell on its reality or mithya or

> relative reality or absolute reality.

 

You have made a good point. If we have already said it, then why

dwell on it? It is because what is said has to be tested by manana,

and after it is tested by manana, its truth has to be realised

through nidhidhyasana. For a sadhaka who is absolutely pure, manana

and nidhidhyasana are not required. He spontaneously sees the truth

on hearing the Sruti. But for others it is required. These

discussions are meant to be external forms of manana.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

ref post 29969

 

Sri Sadanandaji writes :

 

( As you stated variety is the beauty of life. No leef in the same

tree

looks alike. Dwaita is definitely is beatiful but perhaps one can see

even more beauty if one can stand apart and look at the dvaita from

advaitic perspective.)

 

Here is a English Translation of a beautiful Nammazhwar poem

translated by the well known Indian author and poet A.K.RAMANUJAM .

 

 

We here and that man, this man,

and that other in-between,

and that woman, this woman,

and that other, whoever,

 

those people, and these,

and these others in-between,

this things, that thing,

and this other in-between, whichever,

 

all things dying, these things,

those things, those others in-between,

good things, bad things,

things that were, that will be,

 

being all of them,

HE stands there.

 

( "Hymns for the Drowning: Poems for Vishnu by Nammalzhwar" by AK

Ramanujam)

 

A.K.RAMANUJAM was the son of the great mathematician Sri Srinivasa

Ramanujam. A.k RAMANUJAM lived in the U.S.A and translated Sangam

poetry in English. He also translated the Kannada poetess Mahadevi

Akka's Vachanas in English.

 

This poem is a translation of a poem by Naamalzhwar from

his 'Tiruvaimozhi' .

 

In this poem, HE reprsents the virata purusha Vishnu.

 

In order to understand the Infinite Brahman , the jivatma has to

reduce ZERO....

 

Enjoy the dwaita-adwaita wisdom in this poem which is a play

on 'pronouns'

 

regards

 

ps

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sadanandaji,

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> Advaitin moderators are happy to present your views as

> well as others, and the fact that your presentations

> are stored in the archieves for reference is recognition

> of both your scholarship as well as it relavance to

> the advaitins community. Please continue your presentations

> whatever you feel correct.

 

Thank you Sir. Giving respect to diverse views is what makes the

Advaitin a great group.

 

> If I may suggest, you could present the accepted version and

> why and how you deviate from that would also be helpful for

> the readers to have better perspective.

 

I think it would be better for each person to present the

interpretation as he or she sees it, and for those who don't agree

with it to point out the difficulties that arise from the

interpretation. I think this is the way vada should be. Presenting

the opponent's point of view may lead to situations like the one you

describe below:

> The reasons for my emphasis is we have many dvaitins who

> are also members and they also discuss their own version

> of adviata in vaadaavali which they refute.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan