Just for a change !

[Guest guest]

Sampathji writes:

Here we can also notice AchArya's intention behind giving the

example of One moon appearing as two while defining adhyAsa in his

adhyAsa bhAshyam. Most of us take only the Nacre-Silver example to

explain adhyAsa.

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

Namaste Sampathji,

Your close reading of the text discovers the way in which the different

analogies that Shankara uses nudges us towards a specific understanding.

The single moon appearing as two indicates the apparent diversity in

Brahman. It is this single being in which all beings are suspended in

solution, as in the salt analogy. All conscious beings and their

consciousness are permeable by osmosis and so thereby the 'inert' object

can appear 'in' the sentient subject. To give a sense of the 'movement'

of the one into the other the analogy of the nacre and the silver is

used. In the case of superimposition the movement is onto the nacre.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Shri Sampath ji,

I have nothing more to say when you see the whole siddhanta paksa as

purva paksa from my earlier post. I still object your statement

regarding modification. Probably you are struggling hard to express

yourself in this issue. Or if you still stand by your definitions and

explanations for modification of consciousness, then you severely

deviate from Siddhanta. Anyways better luck for you. Thank You.

With Narayana Smrthi,

[Guest guest]

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

praNAmaH SrI Michael ji,

 

Thank you very much for the wonderful reconciliation of both analogies

used by SrI Sankara.

 

!! Aum namO brahmavidbhyaH !!

 

Yours,

SAMPATH.

================================

> Sampathji writes:

> Here we can also notice AchArya's intention behind giving the

> example of One moon appearing as two while defining adhyAsa in his

> adhyAsa bhAshyam. Most of us take only the Nacre-Silver example to

> explain adhyAsa.

> |||||||||||||||||||||

> Namaste Sampathji,

> Your close reading of the text discovers the way in which the

different

> analogies that Shankara uses nudges us towards a specific

understanding.

> The single moon appearing as two indicates the apparent diversity in

> Brahman. It is this single being in which all beings are suspended in

> solution, as in the salt analogy. All conscious beings and their

> consciousness are permeable by osmosis and so thereby the 'inert'

object

> can appear 'in' the sentient subject. To give a sense of the

'movement'

> of the one into the other the analogy of the nacre and the silver is

> used. In the case of superimposition the movement is onto the nacre.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

>

[Guest guest]

sAdar praNAm everyone,

 

I feel a lot is being 'lost in translation' in this

thread. Let me try to clarify my understanding and

others can see if it is right.

 

Firstly, by DEFINITION, 'modification' is a change in

a state A of an object O to another state B, where A

and B are necessarily different. This has to be

accepted as a definition before one talks about

modification in anything.

 

Then there can be various types of modifications.

1. A modification can be a change in composition, such

as you add milk to water and the water turns white.

Here the composition of water is changed.

2. Modification can be a change of shape, size, such

as clay turning into a pot. Here the size and shape of

the original clay is changed.

 

Of course, none of these are applicable to Brahman as

it is non-composite, shapeless and Infinite.

 

3. The third modification is an apparent one, like the

reflection of the sun in a water pool. The reflection

of sun falls in the lake, and it *appears* the sun is

in water.

 

This modification is real, illusory or simply

non-existing from the observer's point of view. For

example:

 

a) Seen from the side of the lake, from the

earthly/vyavahArika/ajnAni's view, the sun actually is

in the water. The modification is " real " for such a

person.

 

b) For a person well-versed in scriptures, who knows

the unreality of the world, the actual sun is in the

sky, but he still sees the reflection in water. He

knows the reflection is " illusory " , but it very much

still exists for him. This is the second stage. Here

the sAdhaka accepts that " brahma satyam, jagat

mithya " .

 

c) The third viewpoint is of a jnAni, who has reached

the paramArthika level, where he himself is the sun.

He knows that the lake, the reflection the observer

are all him only and hence there is no reflection. The

modification here is " non-existing " or " unreal " .

This is the state where the principle of " sarvam

khalvidam brahmam " is realized.

 

 

A lot of the questions asked here can be addressed by

studying the above analogy. For e.g. regarding the

Brahman modifying a part of itself, it has been said

from the viewpoint (b) above or it has been said by a

teacher for a student who has viewpoint b and has not

quite reached the state of a jnAni. Here, the Brahman,

with its AvaraNa and vikSEpa shakti acts as a

reflection and hence the statement " Brahman modifies a

part of it, and remains unmodified after that. " For a

sAdhaka, the world is a part of Brahman, but the

Brahman is still unmodified. The doubt can only be

removed with the complete jnAna of Brahman.

 

That is my understanding, any comments will be highly

appreciated.

Hari Om!

Vaibhav.

 

 

Why delete messages? Unlimited storage is just a click away. Go to

http://help./l/in//mail/mail/tools/tools-08.html

[Guest guest]

advaitin , vaibhav khire <vskhire wrote:

>

>

> I feel a lot is being 'lost in translation' in this

> thread. Let me try to clarify my understanding and

> others can see if it is right.

 

Namaste,

 

The 'translation' being referred to is perhaps of the

words 'pariNAma' and 'vivarta'. (Sri Sastriji's website on

definitions explains these nicely.) A number of illustrations

('angles of vision') can be gathered from the list as under:

 

http://www.dlshq.org/download/vedbegin.htm

 

" Illustrations In Vedanta

(Nyayas)

 

The Vedanta Philosophy is best taught through practical illustrations

of daily life, because its abstract truths cannot be understood by

the finite intellect very easily. The main purport of Vedanta is that

Brahman alone is real and the whole world of appearance is unreal,

and that the Jiva is nothing but Brahman Itself. This abstruse theory

cannot be comprehended by ordinary men of small understanding, who

are immersed in the life of relativity and ignorance. They are taught

this sublime Truth by means of illustrations suitable to them, so

that they may fix their minds on the Reality through various angles

of vision.

 

Section I

 

1. Rajjusarpa-Nyaya

2. Mrigatrishna-Nyaya

3. Shuktirajata-Nyaya

4. Kanakakundala-Nyaya

5. Samudrataranga-Nyaya

6. Sphatikavarna-Nyaya

7. Padmapatra-Nyaya

8. Vatagandha-Nyaya

9. Oornanabhi-Nyaya

10. Surya-Bimba-Nyaya

11. Ghatakasa-Nyaya

12. Bhramara-Kita-Nyaya

13. Dagdhapata-Nyaya

14. Arundhati-Nyaya

15. Bija-Vriksha-Nyaya

16. Markata-Kishora-Nyaya

17. Ashma-Loshta-Nyaya

18. Kakadanta-Nyaya

19. Dandapoopa-Nyaya

20. Kshaurikaputra-Nyaya

21. Visha-Krimi-Nyaya

22. Kakataliya-Nyaya

 

Section II

 

1. Butter In Milk

2. Fire In Wood

3. Smoke And Fire

4. Thread And Necklace

5. Wearer And Apparel

6. The Chameleon

7. Salt And Water

8. Two Thorns

9. Sword And Philosopher's Stone

10. Chandelier And Electricity

11. The Two Birds

12. Man And The Necklace

13. Silk-Worm And The Cocoon "

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Sampath prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

S prabhuji :

 

Sampath:-- mahASaya, the same objections you have raised were

anticipated by SrI Sankara as we see in Brahma sUtra.2.1.27.

 

His solution to this boils down to saying, " One has to see the

difference between vyAvahArika and pAramArthika levels. "

I request you to consider the bhAshya to 2.1.27 as a whole but not

specific parts of it.

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, as said earlier, in that same sUtra bhAshya shankara clarifies what

exactly he meant about *modification* of brahman...I think, just in the

name of vyavahAra, we cannot take everything for granted. When it comes to

brahman & brama jIgnAsa, the operative force should be derived from

absolute point of view (or keeping the view points of absolute truth).

Hence, shankara, time & again, without losing the sight of paramArtha,

clarifies his position then & there whenever objections such as above

confronts him..

 

S prabhuji:

 

Sampath:-- Modified brahman according to SrI Sankara is jagat and

jIvas. Separate from this, there exist 3 quarters of unmodified

brahman.

 

bhaskar :

 

Again I find it a serious problem in literally interpreting the upanishad

vAkya & declaring one quarter is jIva & jagat & remaining part is nirguNa

brahman...It is as good as saying vEda purusha is 10 inches above coz. vEda

saying *atyatishTadashAngulaM*..Here we have to understand the

*lakshyArtha* not *vAkyArtha* perse..The intention of quarters of brahman

here is just to show that there is absolutely no difference between kArya &

kAraNa & kArya as such is kEvala avidyAkruta.It is not anyway meant to

prove the parallel existence of modified brahman in one quarter &

unmodified brahman in 3 quarters... Hope you'd agree with me.

 

S prabhuji :

 

So IMHO, saguNa must be ISvara who pervades through jagat and

jIvas.

 

bhaskar :

 

So according to this, Ishwara cannot be nirgUna coz. he has the attributes,

so cannot be classified as *unmodified* 3/4th quarter brahman and he cannot

be part of unmodified brahman either (i.e.that is jIva & world)..So, kindly

tell me what exactly his position in this modified & unmodified brahmans'

scenario... By the way, shankara elsewhere says that the world/mAya is

fictiously imagined or concocted by avidyA..what is your take on that??

Kindly dont think these remarks are sarcasm, I am really serious & curious

to know this in detail...

 

S prabhuji :

 

SAMPATH:-- mahASaya, why should sushupti alone be viewed from three

differnt standpoints? Can't we view even the other two states in those

three ways to declare that jIva is brahman even in jAgrat and svapna?

 

bhaskar :

 

Oh yes, definitely. Infact this is the ideal way to analyse all the three

states...And in shruti & bhAshya-s too we find these different perspectives

of avasthAtraya in detail. My special emphasis on sushupti in this

particular context was just coz. we were talking about sushupti, existence

of avidyA in it & individuality of jIva in sushupti etc.

 

S prabhuji:

 

Sampath:-- We say Creation is NOT in our anubhava. So if pralaya

occurs now, is my individuality going to end? If the individuality ends at

each pralaya, how can jIvatva be anAdi?

 

bhaskar :

 

why pralaya should happen to lose individuality?? does not individuality

of waker goes every day when dreaming?? where is the waker in dream??

where is the dreamer in waking?? where is the waker & dreamer in deep

sleep?? Our day to day anubhava clearly shows our socalled individuality

is restricited to one particular time & space frame. So, according to

advaita, thinking about jIvatva & his/her individuality as anAdi is mere

avidyA.

 

S prabhuji :

 

Is it avidyA that creates individuality or Mind?

 

bhaskar :

 

can avidyA exist without mind?? Anyway, just for the records sake,

shankara very clearly says *defect* pertains to instrument not to the user

of instrument sightings the example of cataract... (reference vide gItA

bhAshya & taitirIya bhAshya).

 

S prabhuji :

 

Kindly pardon me for I differ from the view that avidyA is confined to

Mind alone. Because it would lead to circular reasoning as aviydA

itself is adhyAsa and it amounts to saying that Mind can exist without

avidyA.

 

bhaskar :

 

Those who say avidyA is antaHkaraNa dOsha are very much aware of this

chakrikApatti dOsha ( if at all you call it as dOsha :-)) Anyway, I respect

the views of those who say there is a material cause for even adhyAsa apart

from mind..

 

This is an exhaustive subject altogether...let us not go into it right

now.. I had written my understanding on this on other list..If you are

interested I shall forward the same to you.

 

In short, adhyAsa cannot be explained by any stretch of reason...coz.

reason comes after adhyAsa :-))likewise, time, space, causality come after

adhyAsa. So, anubhava is the only proof for adhyAsa..the identification of

Atman with body, mind etc. is in the experience of all. upAdhi-s or avidyA

are merely forms of the mind and therefore where the mind is absent there

the upAdhi-s or avidyA is also conspicuous by its absence. The upAdhi-s

exist in the mind only. Since there was no mind in the deep sleep, we say,

there is no upAdhi or avidyA. This is not mere logical conclusion, it is

based on anubhava..Inference which goes against anubhava is not valid..This

conclusion is based on sArvatrika pUrNAnubhava ( universal experience).

One may ask where the mind existed then, it can be said that it is existed

in avidyA or ignorance..does it not suffere from *anyOnyAshraya dOsha* ??

No, for that we say, mind & avidyA cannot be separated from one another.

The manifestation of the mind means there is a symptom of avidya. As we

know mind can function only when we identify ourselves (Atman or brahman)

with it i.e. when it is under the ifluence of adhyAsa, it cannot operates

on its own.. In the deep sleep this misidentification of the self with the

mind does not exist since the mind itself absent there. Hence we say,

Atman is alone in his real pure consciousness nature in deep sleep state.

 

On the other hand, if we say, avidyA exists apart from mind, we have to

search for the state where avidyA is there but mind is not there.which is

simply anubhava viruddha....And to get rid of this avidyA we have to sit in

a peculiar state where mind should not be there but jnAna should be there

to get rid of the avidyA which does not belong to mind...

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Pranams Shri Bhaskar Ji,

I liked your statement that said " The upAdhi-s exist in the mind

only. Since there was no mind in the deep sleep, we say,there is no

upAdhi or avidyA. " Very true. But a question still persist to

account for how the Triputi comes back to the state of Jagrat ? Some

Advaitins say that it is due to the Iswara icca – the volition that

makes this transference possible. Susupti is nitya pralaya and the

nitya Srsti is evident immediately after every pralaya. The world is

created by one's own (subjective) Drsti once the Triputi is awake.

The prAjna or the bhUman in the state of Susupti is none but Iswara

himself who is devoid of any degree of Avidya and that he stands

alone in his effulgent bliss. The Saksi that witnesses the bliss

transfers its experience to the temporarily dissolved mind where

experience is transformed as samskara. The kutastha Caitanya in deep

sleep alone persists in deep sleep which is the substratum of all

vyavaharika Adhyasas (karana and karya adhyasas). The Saksin, in the

rank of Iswara is one who remains in the supreme state of Bhuman

where the Avidya is drawn to nill. There are different prakriyas

involved here. What is Saksin ? is it the pure nirvisesa Brahman

that is called Saksin or is it the Sarvajna Iswara who witnesses

it ? Chitsuka in Tatvapradipika says that it is the Nirguna Caitanya

that remains as Saksin while Ramadvaya author of Vedanta Kaumudi

regards Saksin to be the Saguna Iswara. Later Advaitins including

Dharmarajadhvarindra and Ramaraya have classified the Saksin into

two vide, Jiva Saksin and Iswara Saksin. I would to know your take

in this regard and elaborate more on the issue for us.

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

namastE SrI Bhaskar ji,

 

 

SrI Bhaskar ji:--

>

> Yes, as said earlier, in that same sUtra bhAshya shankara clarifies what

> exactly he meant about *modification* of brahman...I think, just in the

> name of vyavahAra, we cannot take everything for granted. When it

comes to

> brahman & brama jIgnAsa, the operative force should be derived from

> absolute point of view (or keeping the view points of absolute truth).

> Hence, shankara, time & again, without losing the sight of paramArtha,

> clarifies his position then & there whenever objections such as above

> confronts him..

 

SAMPATH:-- mahASaya, I am really not asking to pervert the absolute

truths. And if it is vyavahAra, taking it as granted doesn't create

any absurdity because it is after all vyAvahArika !

-------------------------

 

SrI Bhaskari ji :--

 

> Again I find it a serious problem in literally interpreting the

upanishad

> vAkya & declaring one quarter is jIva & jagat & remaining part is

nirguNa

> brahman...It is as good as saying vEda purusha is 10 inches above

coz. vEda

> saying *atyatishTadashAngulaM*..Here we have to understand the

> *lakshyArtha* not *vAkyArtha* perse..The intention of quarters of

brahman

> here is just to show that there is absolutely no difference between

kArya &

> kAraNa & kArya as such is kEvala avidyAkruta.It is not anyway meant to

> prove the parallel existence of modified brahman in one quarter &

> unmodified brahman in 3 quarters... Hope you'd agree with me.

 

SAMPATH :-- mahASaya, I am really not interpreting the upanishad or

Sruti statement. I have simply quoted what SrI Sankara said:--

 

## yathaiva hi brahmaNO jagat utpattiH SrUyatE, evam vikAra

vyatirEkENApi brahmaNOvasthAnam SrUyatE ! -- For in the same way as

Sruti speaks of the origin of the world from Brahman, it also speaks

of Brahman subsisting apart from its effects.

vikRitEna brahmaNA nityasampannatvAdavikRitasya cha brahmaNOobhAvAt --

 

## IMHO, we cannot apply implications even to AchArya's words.

-----------------------

 

SrI Bhaskar ji :--

>

> So according to this, Ishwara cannot be nirgUna coz. he has the

attributes,

> so cannot be classified as *unmodified* 3/4th quarter brahman and he

cannot

> be part of unmodified brahman either (i.e.that is jIva & world)..So,

kindly

> tell me what exactly his position in this modified & unmodified

brahmans'

> scenario... By the way, shankara elsewhere says that the world/mAya is

> fictiously imagined or concocted by avidyA..what is your take on that??

> Kindly dont think these remarks are sarcasm, I am really serious &

curious

> to know this in detail...

 

SAMPATH :-- I shall try to write a new post to clear my stand on the

Realism-Idealism-Advaita.

For time being, I can simply quote AitarEya bhAshya of AchArya, which

I have quoted earlier,

 

" The three dreams of ISvara are Waking, Dreaming and Deep Sleep states

are the three dreams of ISvara " . -- traya svapnAH

jAgratsvapnasushuptAvasthAH.

-----------------------------

 

SrI Bhaskar ji :--

 

> why pralaya should happen to lose individuality?? does not

individuality

> of waker goes every day when dreaming?? where is the waker in dream??

> where is the dreamer in waking?? where is the waker & dreamer in deep

> sleep?? Our day to day anubhava clearly shows our socalled

individuality

> is restricited to one particular time & space frame. So, according to

> advaita, thinking about jIvatva & his/her individuality as anAdi is

mere

> avidyA.

 

SAMPATH :-- mahASaya, pardon me, for I couldn't understand what you

wanted to convey when you said,

" does not individuality of waker goes every day when dreaming?? "

 

# Doesn't the same waker recollect his dream experience? Otherwise as

the classical example goes to say, " of what chaitra has dreamt, Maitra

also would recollect. "

 

Further, I have asked about pralaya because it can at least *start* in

ones anubhava.

-----------------------------

 

SrI Bhaskar ji :--

 

> can avidyA exist without mind?? Anyway, just for the records sake,

> shankara very clearly says *defect* pertains to instrument not to

the user

> of instrument sightings the example of cataract... (reference vide gItA

> bhAshya & taitirIya bhAshya).

 

 

SAMPATH :-- mahASaya, as you know SrI Sankara's stand is not clear

about " whose is avidyA " . If avidyA belongs exclusively to the Mind,

what makes One to cognize through the Mind?

This question is just another way of asking, " Is avidyA

misapprehension or something else which causes misapprehension " ?

 

My idea of avidyA is something which is manifested as agrahaNa,

viparItagrahaNa and samSaya. There is absolutely no cessation of

agrahaNa in sushupti as SrI Sankara states explicitly without giving

any chance for implications. Hence avidyA doesn't belong wholly to Mind.

------------------------------

 

SrI Bhaskar ji :--

 

> In short, adhyAsa cannot be explained by any stretch of reason...coz.

> reason comes after adhyAsa :-))likewise, time, space, causality come

after

> adhyAsa.

 

SAMPATH :-- adhyAsa = avidyA = Indescribable. I agree.

-----------------------------

 

SrI Bhaskar ji :--

 

> The manifestation of the mind means there is a symptom of avidya. As we

> know mind can function only when we identify ourselves (Atman or

brahman)

> with it i.e. when it is under the ifluence of adhyAsa, it cannot

operates

> on its own..

 

SAMPATH :-- Mind exists due to avidyA and avidyA exists due to Mind.

Can we call it as inexplicable?

--

 

SrI Bhaskar ji :--

 

> On the other hand, if we say, avidyA exists apart from mind, we have to

> search for the state where avidyA is there but mind is not

there.which is

> simply anubhava viruddha....And to get rid of this avidyA we have to

sit in

> a peculiar state where mind should not be there but jnAna should be

there

> to get rid of the avidyA which does not belong to mind...

 

SAMPATH :-- mahASaya, is sushupti not a state where there is supti

denoting agrahaNa i.e. avidyA?

-------------------------------

 

Thanks,

 

Yours,

SAMPATH.

[Guest guest]

What is Saksin ? is it the pure nirvisesa Brahman

that is called Saksin or is it the Sarvajna Iswara who witnesses

it ?Chitsuka in Tatvapradipika says that it is the Nirguna Caitanya

that remains as Saksin while Ramadvaya author of Vedanta Kaumudi

regards Saksin to be the Saguna Iswara.

 

Humble praNAms Sri Devanathan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks for your kind feed back prabhuji. IMHO, the sAkshi chaitanya which

is the uniform *witness* to all the three states of ours cannot be saguNa

Ishwara or sOpAdhika brahma, coz. shruti itself says *sAkshi chEtaH kEvalO

nirguNascha* (vide shvEtAshvatara upanishad).. yat sAkshAt aparOkshAt

brahma ya AtmA sarvAntaraH ( bruhadAraNyaka shruti) is the yagnAvalkyA's

answer to ushastha chakrAyaNa's question about *the tattva* which pervades

all. Shankara in his tattusamanvayAt (1-1-4) sUtra bhAshya beautifully

explains this as : *na hi ahaMpratyaya vishaya kartruvyatirEkENa tat

*sAkshi sarvabhutasThaH*, samaH, yEkaH, kUtasTha nityaH, purushaH

vidhikAndE tarkasamayEvA kEnachit adhigatA sarvasya AtmA. shankara very

often uses the stand point of this sAkshi (witness standpoint) to analyse

the three states...Strictly speaking, this rank of *sAkshi* (witness)

implies duality that there is sAkshi & sAkshya...this is only for the sake

of teaching purpose..not to be taken literally...

 

Interestingly, while refuting the theory that there can be a *sAkshi* to

even Ishwara, shankara says in sUtra bhAshya (2-3-41) sAkshi is Ishwara

himself...Here shankara gives all the vishEshaNa-s to this sAkshin, like

sarvabhutAdhivAsa, karmAdhyaksha, chaitanya etc. (karmAdhyakshAt,

sarvabhUtAdhivAsAt, sAkshiNaH chEtaituH *IshwarAt* ) & concludes that

through the grace of this Ishwara, jIva would attain the realization.

 

I hope you are aware of all these bhAshya quotes, further studies on the

same lines would help us to understand the concept of *sAkshi* in

shankarAdvaita.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Sampath prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

S prabhuji :

 

SAMPATH:-- mahASaya, I am really not asking to pervert the absolute

truths. And if it is vyavahAra, taking it as granted doesn't create

any absurdity because it is after all vyAvahArika !

 

bhaskar :

 

but problem here is we are dragging brahman in the vyAvahArik (who is

vyavahArAtIta) realm & finding modified & unmodified parts of him by

completely ignoring the pArmArthik satyatva of nirguNa, nirvishEsha

brahman. what I am trying to say here is while doing vyavahAra with regard

to brahman we have to be very careful to see that his absolute nature as

enshrined in the shruti is not disturbed....

 

S prabhuji :

 

## IMHO, we cannot apply implications even to AchArya's words.

 

bhaskar :

 

I think, we can contextually interpret bhagavatpAdA's words by keeping the

shankara's mUla siddhAnta of yEkAtmatva...otherwise we may end up in

finding some contradictions within the works of shankara...for example in

sUtra bhAshya shankara upholds the supremacy of waking state as against

dream & in mAndUkya bhAshya says both are same there is absolutely no

difference!!! So, I think, to do appropriate *samanvaya* of these seemingly

contradictory bhAshya vAkya-s, considering the context & intention of

bhAshyakAra is very important.

 

S prabhuji :

 

SAMPATH :-- mahASaya, pardon me, for I couldn't understand what you

wanted to convey when you said,

" does not individuality of waker goes every day when dreaming?? "

 

bhaskar :

 

Kindly look at your anubhava, what does it say?? can waker cross the

boundary of his waking state & enter the dream land?? can we carry our

same waking identity to dream?? you know our anubhava does not permit to

say that :-))

 

S prabhuji :

 

 

# Doesn't the same waker recollect his dream experience?

 

bhaskar :

 

How can he?? asks gaudapAda in kArika..has he carried his mind to dream to

take account of dream proceedings?? or is it only inferential recollection

of waker's mind ?? If all the three states are svapnA-s (tasya traya

avasthA trayI svapnAH...kindly recall your quote from ItarEya) how can one

svapna validate another svapna when that svapna's ground itself shaking

:-)) If we analyse both waking & dream states objectively, it is but quite

obvious that we cannot have firm ground wherein we can stand & declare

'waker can recollect the dream experience'..

 

S prabhuji :

 

Otherwise as the classical example goes to say, " of what chaitra has

dreamt, Maitra

also would recollect. "

 

bhaskar :

 

If chaitra in his/her dream cricket match bowls to Maitra, Maitra would not

say, 'see chaitra, it is only your dream cricket match I cannot play this

delivery...it is but true that in chaitra's dream, both chaitra & maitra

would equally maintains their respective individuality & act according to

the demands of the situation...Same is the case in socalled waking state

also...But to analyse this impartially, we have to assume the

disassociation of ourselves from waking state. No doubt prabhuji, it is in

our anubhava that in waking states we identify ourselves with the little

ego and convinced that this waking world is common to a number of other

souls in it as against dreams which are exclusively our own show :-)) But

as soon as you switch over from this monobasic standpoint to tribasic view

of vEdAnta ( i.e. sAkshi chaitanya drushti or witness standpoint) from

where we can examine all the three states without any partiality for either

the waking ego or the dreaming ego, the scene what we perceived from

waker's view point changes drastically...we will come to know that dream

condition is an exact replica of waking..we can hardly draw any demarkation

line between these two states...Hence mAndUkya attributes saptAnga &

yEkOnaviMshati mukhA to both vishva & taizasa...

 

S prabhuji :

 

SAMPATH :-- mahASaya, as you know SrI Sankara's stand is not clear

about " whose is avidyA " .

 

bhaskar :

 

why?? shankara is not clear in sUtra bhAshya, taitirIya bhAshya & gItA

bhAshya ?? Just see sUtra 4-1-3, pUrvapaxi asks ' to whom does this avidyA

(agrahaNa) pertain to?? for this vEdAntin answers, *to you* who are asking

this question...for this answer, pUrvapaxin counters, 'is it not shruti

stated I am Ishwara or absolute nature of consciousness?? for this vEdAnti

answers, if you have realized that you are *that* then there is no avidyA

or non-apprehension to anyone'

 

Kindly tell me what the above dialogue conveys to us??

 

See taitirIya (2-8-5) shruti bhAshya where shankara very clearly says

without any ambiguity that knowledge & ignorance are not the qualities of

the self, it pertains only to mind...coz. both jnAna & ajnAna are *vishya*

and can be perceived like colour as *ATTRIBUTES OF THE MIND*...

 

And in gItA (13-2) bhAshya shankara cites here cataract problem of eyes and

says defective vision is due to problem in instrument & it is nothing to do

with the *user* of the instrument. Shankara confirms here that the knower

who is the kshEtrajna whose nature is pure consciousness does not have

dealings like ignorance & knowledge.

 

It is quite evident from the above quotes that from the vyAvahArika drushti

ignorance pertains to the mind alone and that should be as it is..

 

Dont you think prabhuji, these references are more than enough to

understand shankara's stand on avidyA??

 

S prabhuji :

 

 

my idea of avidyA is something which is manifested as agrahaNa,

viparItagrahaNa and samSaya.

 

 

bhaskar :

 

 

you are absolutely right prabhuji...this is what shankara says in gIta

bhAshya & explains avidyA as *tAmasa pratyaya*..

 

 

S prabhuji :

 

 

There is absolutely no cessation of agrahaNa in sushupti as SrI Sankara

states explicitly without giving

any chance for implications. Hence avidyA doesn't belong wholly to Mind.

 

 

 

bhaskar :

 

Kindly see bruhadAranyaka bhAshya from 3-2-21 to 3-2-22 and let me have

your opinion on it.. Ofcourse in kArikA & kArikA bhAshya Sri gaudapAda &

shankara say there exists avidyA bIja in agrahaNa rUpa in sushupti, but

this is said taking the view that in waking state jnAna should dawn...It is

does not anyway mean *there* really exists a thing called mUlAvidyA or

bhAvarUpa avidyA...If at all it is a state of ajnAna, shankara would not

have taken this state as *drushtAnta* to mOksha!!! shankara says in 3-3-34

'saMprasAda sThAnaM (sushupti) mOkshadrushtAnta bhUtaM'...Kindly read the

complete bhAshya, it contains very useful information with regard to

sushupti...

 

And again see bruhadAraNyaka 4-4-6, here also shankara compares the

sushptAvasta with that of mOksha state. He states, yO hi sushuptAvastamiva

nirvishEshaM advaitaM alupta chidrupa jyOtiHsvabhAvaM AtmAnAM pashyati

tasyaiva .......Had the sushpti been the state of ignorance, why shankara

has *wrongly* opted for this upamAna prabhuji?? He would have easily taken

the *experience* of nirvikalpa samAdhi instead!!!is it not???

 

bhaskar :

 

> On the other hand, if we say, avidyA exists apart from mind, we have to

> search for the state where avidyA is there but mind is not

there.which is

> simply anubhava viruddha....And to get rid of this avidyA we have to

sit in

> a peculiar state where mind should not be there but jnAna should be

there

> to get rid of the avidyA which does not belong to mind...

 

SAMPATH :-- mahASaya, is sushupti not a state where there is supti

denoting agrahaNa i.e. avidyA?

 

bhaskar :

 

I'm onceagain forced to ask, kindly tell me in which state we should get

rid of the ajnAna that which does not belong to mind....

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

PS : next 4 days I'll not be in office, if time permits, we shall continue

this discussion next Wednesday (26.12.2007) onwards. praNAms once again

prabhuji.

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Pranams Shri Bhaskar ji,

In the pratamAdhyAya dvitIya pAda, BagavadpAda categorically refers

AntharyAmin as the Saksi. What is its nature of existence? Answering

to a purvapaksin who equates the inner ruler with pradhana,

Sankaracarya replies to say, `this is not so since the qualities of

Pradhana does not match with that of Antharyamin; for it is the

witness of all beings. `He who is never seen but is the witness says

Sankara by quoting the Antharyami Brahmana. The witness that is

unseen is due to the fact that it is asarIra and arUpa. Kanva and

Madhyandina recessions differ in discerning this state of Arupa

asarIra antharyAmin, where the former reads that it is Consciousness

that inhabits the entire earth without form while the latter reads

it to be the consciousness that inhabits the atman itself (which is

attributeless). Acarya endorses the Madhyandina recession in his

commentary to the Seventh Brahmana of Third chapter in Br. Up and

shows that the Saksi or the Antharyami is the all pervading

Consciousness that exists without any attributes. Acarya promptly

denies any objection that attempts to ridicule the Supreme Self's

ability of rulership on account of lack of body. Acarya replies to

say that `there can be `no' other separate ruler other than the

individual self which is Supreme without any difference'. Further he

reiterates the same idea elsewhere to point out Saksin as Aksara

connoting attributeless Caitanya; for Mundaka too says `out of this

immutable does universe emerge for it is the witness to it'.

Sureswara in his Vartika to this Brahmana adds a pivotal point on

the issue where he says Saksin to be `para' `asarIra' and `aguna'.

This view declines the claim that Saksin is Saguna. Sureswara's own

words – `AntharyAmi parah SaksAdasarIrah aguno-advayaH'.

Sureswaracarya, more clearly describes Saksi as `Svata sattva karana

abheda Nirgunoh abheda evaca' This point seems to be very cryptic at

this stage where the tAtparya linga's sum up to derive that Saksin

is nothing but the Nirguna tattva while the Saguna vakyas are taken

to be in a secondary sense. (pls apply jahallaksana). Anandagiri in

his upodgAtha to the aforesaid Brahmana opens with a statement `atah

pramsanAyAd vinirmuktam nirUpAdikam sAksAdaparoksAt sarvAntaram

Brahma vaktavyamiyata arambah'. He says, that Brahman (revealed in

this Brahmana) is that Caitanya which is devoid of any limiting

adjuncts and that is most immediate for all beings'.

Anubhutisvarupacarya (disciple of Anandagiri) in his Istasiddhi

vivarana too favours this stand where he says `the inner ruler – the

Saksin penetrates and indwells even the limiting adjuncts' –

indicating the witness to be attributeless Brahman alone. Adding

heat to the issue Swami Vidyaranya takes a completely different

stand sponsoring the view to claim `Iswaro Narayanakya iti

niyamanasya stiti hetutvarupatvAt Visno tatAtvAt anEnAntharyAmi

Saguna Brahma svarupam iti Spastam'. Please throw more light on

these points please.

With Narayana Smrti,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Adding

heat to the issue Swami Vidyaranya takes a completely different

stand sponsoring the view to claim `Iswaro Narayanakya iti

niyamanasya stiti hetutvarupatvAt Visno tatAtvAt anEnAntharyAmi

Saguna Brahma svarupam iti Spastam'. Please throw more light on

these points please.

 

 

 

 

 

praNAms Sri Devanathan prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

what can I add to your already elaborated observation on this issue

prabhuji?? I have not studied in depth other schools of thought to compare

their stand with that of shankara....Kindly forgive me prabhuji. All that

I can say is, if we conclude that sAkshi is always upAdhi sahita then we

have to conclude that for different upAdhi-s different sAkshi-s will be

there...this view point anyway refuted by shankara in sUtra bhAshya.

Thanks onceagain for sharing your vast knowledge with us prabhuji.

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar