A Question on Shankaracharya's geeta bhashya

[Guest guest]

Dear Advaitins,

 

Namaste,

 

I have a question on the commentary of Sri Shankaracharya on the verse

Naasato vidyate bhavo....(2.16)

 

1. In the discussion between the real and the unreal a reference to

the blue lotus comes. It runs thus.

 

Objection: If it be that such material causes as earth etc. as also

their causes are unreal since they are not perceived diferently from

their causes, in that case, may it not be urged that owing to the

non-esistence of those (casuses) there will arise the contigency of

everything becoming unreal?

 

Vedantin:No, for ain all cases there is the experience of two

awarenessess, viz the awareness of the reality and the awareness of

unreality. That in relation to which the awareness does not chage is

real; that in relation to which it changes is unreal. Thus, since the

distinction between the real and the unreal is dependent on awareness,

therefore inall cases(of empirical experiences) everyone has two kinds

of wareness with regard to the same substratum. (As for instance, the

experiences) the pot is real, the cloth is real, the elephant is real

(which experiences) are not like (that of) A blue lotus. This is how

it happens everywhere.

 

Gambhiranandaji's translation ( A publication of Sri Ramakrishna Math)

 

Can anyone elaborate on the metaphor blue lotus?

 

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

 

 

Yours in the lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:    ---

>

>

 

Dear Subramanium,

                              Shorn of the too much logical analysis involved, do you mean to convey the following in the examples of the Acharya? When we say that the pot etc exists, existence is predicated of the attributes like pot etc, which are unreal, whereas Existence is the common, real, factor, persisting unbrokenly in all our empirical dealings. The latter example of the blue lotus serves only as an adjective for the noun lotus. This example is not being considered fit by the Acharya to bring into clear relief the Existence aspect which  runs as a common thread in all our undertakings. Mixing up the two examples might give rise to the confusion that there are separate aspects involved in the statement, "Pot exists." In the example of lotus in the locus lotus, two distinct aspects are perceived, the one not capable of sublating the other. Whereas in the example, "The pot exists," even though in one locus two aspects, existence and pot, appear undistinguished, a

metaphysical enquiry would reveal that the existence aspect alone is true, whereas in the other case, the blue lotus, entirely different aspects are being involved. The lotus example, if taken for this philosophical enquiry, would lead us to the wrong conclusion that existence and pot are distinct entities similar to the lotus example. The lotus example is found fit only for empirical parlance. Or we could even say that in the statement, "There is the blue lotus," only the 'Is' aspect is real and the other elements predicating of it a noun and qualifying it by an adjective, are unreal. Sorry, for citing too much of grammatical examples. Please, state whether my understanding is correct.

 

with warm regards,

yours ever in Bhaghavan Ramana

Sankarraman

    

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran>

wrote:

>

>  Dear Subramanium,

>                               Shorn of the too much logical

analysis involved, do you mean to convey the following in the

examples of the Acharya? When we say that the pot etc exists,

existence is predicated of the attributes like pot etc, which are

unreal, whereas Existence is the common, real, factor, persisting

unbrokenly in all our empirical dealings. The latter example of the

blue lotus serves only as an adjective for the noun lotus. This

example is not being considered fit by the Acharya to bring into

clear relief the Existence aspect which  runs as a common thread in

all our undertakings. Mixing up the two examples might give rise to

the confusion that there are separate aspects involved in the

statement, "Pot exists." In the example of lotus in the locus lotus,

two distinct aspects are perceived, the one not capable of sublating

the other. Whereas in the example, "The pot exists," even though in

one locus two aspects, existence and pot, appear undistinguished, a

>  metaphysical enquiry would reveal that the existence aspect alone

is true, whereas in the other case, the blue lotus, entirely

different aspects are being involved. The lotus example, if taken for

this philosophical enquiry, would lead us to the wrong conclusion

that existence and pot are distinct entities similar to the lotus

example. The lotus example is found fit only for empirical parlance.

Or we could even say that in the statement, "There is the blue

lotus," only the 'Is' aspect is real and the other elements

predicating of it a noun and qualifying it by an adjective, are

unreal. Sorry, for citing too much of grammatical examples. Please,

state whether my understanding is correct.

 

> with warm regards,

> yours ever in Bhaghavan Ramana

> Sankarraman

 

Namaste Sankarraman ji,

 

The way you have delineated the position is much more lucid than what

i had struggled to convey in so many tough-sounding sentences.  Many

thanks for the nice portrayal of the Bhashya taatparyam. This is a

telling example of how the same truth told in different terms helps

clearly grasping the same.

 

With warm regards,

subbu

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran> wrote:

>

>

> subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v> wrote:    ---

>  >

>  >

>

The lotus example, if taken for this philosophical enquiry, would

lead us to the wrong conclusion that existence and pot are distinct

entities similar to the lotus example. The lotus example is found fit

only for empirical parlance. Or we could even say that in the

statement, "There is the blue lotus," only the 'Is' aspect is real and

the other elements predicating of it a noun and qualifying it by an

adjective, are unreal. Sorry, for citing too much of grammatical

examples. Please, state whether my understanding is correct.

>

> with warm regards,

> yours ever in Bhaghavan Ramana

> Sankarraman

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

Your elucidations are simply superb. This shows that you have

progressed a long way in intuitive conviction rather than mere

intellectual understanding which according to  tapasyanandaji shows a

real growth in the spiritual dimension.

 

As i was contemplating on the above subject i was just arriving at the

same conclusions as given out by you. Gambhiranandaji has given notes

which conveys the same ideas that you have expressed above which are

as under.

 

In the empirical experience, A blue lotus, there are two awarenesses

concerned with two entities, vis substance(lotus) and the

quality(blueness). In the case of the experience, the pot is real etc,

the awarenesses are not concerned with substratum and qualities, but

the awareness of pot, of cloth, etc. are superimposed on the awareness

of reality, like that of water in a mirage.

 

He further addes by noting... The coexistence of reality and pot etc.

are valid only empirically according to the non dualists; where as the

co-existence of blueness and lotus are real according to dualists.

 

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

 

YOurs in the lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka