Guest guest Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 praNAms Hare Krishna I've couple of small queries with regard to universal (sAmAnya) & particular (viSESha) theory. 01. To notice the sAmAnyAmSa in viSESha do we always need the aid of viSESha ?? 02. Can this sAmAnya (existence) exist on its own right without the Ashraya of viSESha?? I think shankara does say that pure existence of sAmAnya without the aid of viSESha is possible in sushupti & pralaya...In chAndOgya commentary he says "yaThA suShuptAduttitaH sattvamAtramavatacchati *sushuptE sanmAtramEva kEvalaM vastu iti* taThA prAgutpattEriti bhAvaH" From this it is clear that shankara's universal & particular theory is not that of vaiSEShika-s...But unfortunately what we have been seeing here in the name of sAmAnyA & viSESha is that of vaiSEShika's theory... Just my opinion ...kindly clarify my above doubts. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji, This is again one of those occasions when we are happily agreeing with each other. :-) advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: > 01. To notice the sAmAnyAmSa in viSESha do we always > need the aid of viSESha ?? We don't need vishesha to be manifest for knowing samanya. > 02. Can this sAmAnya (existence) exist on its own right > without the Ashraya of viSESha?? Yes, in its identity with the witness. > I think shankara does say that pure existence of > sAmAnya without the aid of viSESha is possible > in sushupti & pralaya...In chAndOgya commentary > he says "yaThA suShuptAduttitaH sattvamAtramavatacchati > *sushuptE sanmAtramEva kEvalaM vastu iti* taThA > prAgutpattEriti bhAvaH" A thousand thanks to you Prabhuji for this reference. > From this it is clear that shankara's universal & > particular theory is not that of vaiSEShika-s... True. > But unfortunately what we have been seeing here in > the name of sAmAnyA & viSESha is that of vaiSEShika's > theory... If you are referring to my posts, then it is an innocent mistake on your part. Warmest regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji, praNAms Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji Hare Krishna CN prabhuji : This is again one of those occasions when we are happily agreeing with each other. :-) bhaskar : That is really bhagavad pAda's kAruNya on us isn't it?? he does not want to see his desciples squabble each other over his siddhAnta again & again :-)) CN prabhuji: > But unfortunately what we have been seeing here in > the name of sAmAnyA & viSESha is that of vaiSEShika's > theory... If you are referring to my posts, then it is an innocent mistake on your part. bhaskar : But you are the one I remember had given the bruhadAraNyaka commentary quote with regard to drum & sound is it not?? Here you are implying that there can be no genus (sAmAnya) without species (viSESha)...but here shankara implying in chAndOgya that Atman is a genus only by the view point of deliberate imputation employed as a device (upAya)..& says that Atman can be there in its entireity without the dirt of viSESha..*sushuptE sanmAtramEva kEvalaM vastu iti* defeats the theory of existence of seed form of universe in Atman in sushupti... See we have already started quarrelling again :-)) Warmest regards, Chittaranjan Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji, advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: > But you are the one I remember had given the > bruhadAraNyaka commentary quote with regard to > drum & sound is it not?? Which quote in which context? I think you are mistaking someone else's post for mine. > Here you are implying that there can be no genus > (sAmAnya) without species (viSESha)... You have understood the opposite of what I said. There can be no vishesha without genus. But there can be samanya without any vishesha being manifest. > but here shankara implying in chAndOgya that Atman is a > genus only by the view point of deliberate imputation > employed as a device (upAya).. & says that Atman > can be there in its entireity without the dirt of > viSESha.. The interpretation here will depend on how you understand sushupti - as characterised by latent duality (avyakta) or without it. Our difference in perspectives arise from this difference. Anyway I don't want to debate this topic here. I have a request to make of you - can you please give me the exact Chandogya verse no for the bhashya you quoted? > *sushuptE sanmAtramEva kEvalaM vastu iti* defeats the > theory of existence of seed form of universe in Atman > in sushupti... Yes, there is no seed and sprout in ajatavada (and vivartavada). There is also no seed and sprout in samanya and vishesha. > See we have already started quarrelling again :-)) See how I am avoiding it! :-) Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 praNAms Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji Hare Krishna On Jan' 20th you had written : CN prabhuji: Dear Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji, > But you are the one I remember had given the > bruhadAraNyaka commentary quote with regard to > drum & sound is it not?? Which quote in which context? I think you are mistaking someone else's post for mine. bhaskar : I think you must have forgotten this quote from bruhadAraNyaka upanishad which you yourself quoted to uphold the *eternal reality of objects in brahman*..(may be in your series of mails on *the real & unreal but not sure) since I donot have to internet access I cannot give you the link for that mail... CN prabhuji: > Here you are implying that there can be no genus > (sAmAnya) without species (viSESha)... You have understood the opposite of what I said. There can be no vishesha without genus. But there can be samanya without any vishesha being manifest. bhaskar : Then prabhuji, what is the purpose behind declaring avyakta / bIja rUpa / avyAkruta rUpa of jagat in sushupti?? Anyway, dont take my words seriously...as we both know *our socalled discussion on vEdAnta* is a never ending story :-)) & it is as anAdi and ananta as *avidyA* :-)) Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar 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.