Guest guest Posted March 27, 2008 Report Share Posted March 27, 2008 Pranams Previously http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2008/03/brahma-sutra-shankara-bhashya.html http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2008/03/brahma-sutra-shankara-bhashya-2.html http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2008/03/brahma-sutra-shankara-bhashya-3.html Shankaram ShankarAchAryam KEshavam BAdarAyanam SUtrabhAshya kritau vandE Bhagavantau punah punah ____ The questions posed by the purvapakshin are answered (more in-depth answers will be seen as the bhashyA proceeds). " Yes Atman is something that is not unknown – it is prasiddha – well-known to everyone as " I am " – no conscious entity ever harbors any doubt about " I am " - no one ever says " i am not " - But at the same time there is erroneous notions about it, - various schools of thought exist as to what the atman as - as we shall see very soon as we begin our enquiry – Self is evdient - but Self is Brahman is not at all evident - hence athAto brahma jijnAsa. Yes, knowledge by itself does not yield any result – unless – - unless " Absence of that knowledge 'atmanavabodha' causes problems, leads to anartha. " In this case what is needed is right knowledge – and especially so because the vastu is very much self-established – nothing special needs to be done to achieve this. And this knowledge is a unique jnana because it talks about aikyam. Knowledge " this is apple " - no vichara needed; Knowledge " this is consciousness, this is brahman " - no vichara needed; Knowledge " you are brahman " - aikya-jnana - vichAra is needed. So in this peculiar case knowledge has a direct effect, because and only because the bondage is not " real " - it is adhyasta - i the atma is taken to be something else, and the result of this mistaken notion, this superimposition is the entire problem of beginigless samsara. This now sets the stage for one of Adi Shankara's most important works – the adhyasa bhashya which systematically lays the very groundwork of advaita. No study of advaita can ever begin without an attempt at understanding adhyasa and no study of advaita can ever end without a complete and comprehensive understanding of adhyasa. One can never hope to reach the portals of Advaita without passing through the corridors of Adhyasa. Critics and scholars have often felt that Adi Shankara begins his bhashyas with adhyasa bhashya which seems to be hoisting his own philosophy onto the brahma sutras. They claim there is no sparsha no connection between the brahmasUtra and adhyAsa. They point out that Bhagwan VyAsa begins his Sutra with " athato brahmajijnAsa " and the bhashyakAra instead of staring to talk about Brahman or some related topic, starts talking elaborately about superimposition or adhyAsa! In fact, the truth of the matter is, without this adhyasa bhashya there can be no meaning to the very opening lines of the brahmasutra - athato brahmajijnasa. A thorough reading of the adhyasa bhashya makes this crystal clear. How so? As we noted earlier, if bondage is real, then knowledge by itself cannot achieve liberation; and so any enquiry in an attempt to gain knowledge will not achieve anything of consequence - it is precisely because we are dealing with a bondage which is notional, due to a superimposition of what is apparent on what is real, that this enquiry needs to be done, and when accomplished bears fruit. Only when we can prove that there is adhyasa can there be any possibility of moksha by means of enquiry and shastra can be a pramAna. If jiva as a separate entity is real, abhaditam satyam, then limitation is real, then that real limitation can never be eliminated, it can only be temporarily forgotten (like in deep sleep), there cannot be moksha (anirmoksha prasanga). Only a notional limitation due to adhyasa can be sublated by knowledge. So Shastravishayaprayojanam is not there unless adhyAsa siddhi is established. Adi Shankara begins with what seems to be a very valid and powerful objection aakshepa: Yushmatasmatpratyaya gocharayoho Vishayavishayeenoho TamahprakAshavatviruddhasvabhAvayohoh itaretarabhAvAnupapattau SiddhAyAm TaddharmAnAmAmapi Itaretara bhavanupapatti Ityatah asmatpratyagochare vishayini Chidatmake Yushmatpratyaya gocharasya taddharmanAmcha adhyAsah tadviparyayena vishayinah tad dharmanAm cha vishaye adhyasah mithyeti bhavitum yuktam [ " It is a matter not requiring any proof that the object and the subject whose respective spheres are the notion of the 'Thou' (the Non-Self) and the 'I (Self),' and which are opposed to each other as much as darkness and light are, cannot be identical. All the less can their respective attributes be identical. Hence it follows that it is wrong to superimpose upon the subject--whose Self is intelligence, and which has for its sphere the notion of the self--the object whose sphere is the notion of the Non-self, and the attributes of the object, and vice versâ to superimpose the subject and the attributes of the subject on the object. " ] Now, whenever any major work is begun, there is always a prayer, a remebrance of the Lord - mangalam. Here in the very opening line, prthyagAtma, the ParamAtman, is talked about and this prthyagAtma smaranam itself is the mangala suchitam here according to the tikAkAra. The very first word yushmatpratyaya - the you-sense or the sense of object, and asmatpratyaya - the I-sense are talked about. Why not say " this " sense instead of saying " you " sense to refer to objects - because while " this " on occasion may be used in place of " i " - " you " can never be taken for " i " - so in the very opening lines it is made clear that what is talked about is two distinct entities of opposing polarity - " i " the subject, vishayee, and " you " the object, the vishaya. All objects, all the non- " I " - is included in the term yushmat. That which is self-evident is the subject & #2404;That which is evident to self, i.e. objectifiable is the object. To use an analogy one can consider the light in the room and the pot that is illumined by this very light. Now this is the problem. When you say something is superimposed like a snake on a rope, there are a couple of factors that need to be present. There are two real entities - real rope and real snake, one of which has to be pratyaksha - an object of perception i.e.rope. Morover the rope should not be fully known - i.e. there should be possibility of an error. The cognizer has to have prior experience or samskAra(pUrva anubhava janya samskArA) of both these entities Both these entities have to a sAdrshyam - i.e. you cannot mistake a pot for a mountain. Only because the rope is of certain appropriate length, is coiled in a certain way, and one has seen a very similar snake before, or carries the memory of the same, can this superimposition take place, and whn one sees rope - one recoils with fear thinking " its a snake! " Now in this case, one is dealing with entities that could not be more divergent - viruddhasvabhAvayoh Atma or asmat pratyaya is self evident, and hence ignorance of the Atma is impossible. In addition, there are no similarities between atma and anatma for a misconception to take place. Atma being the conscious, chaitanya, changeless subject, vishayee, and anaatma the insentient jada, object, vishaya, subject to modifications. Adhyasa requires the previous experience of a real object in order to create a samskara of the superimposed entity. Anatma being unreal, a previous experience of Anatma is not possible. Therefore, no vasana or samskara of Anatma is created. Hence, it is but proper that a atma-anatma adhyaasa is never possible. (to be continued) Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam advaitin , " shyam_md " <shyam_md wrote: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 Pranams Further significant additions and editing of the 1st sentence of the adhyasa bhashya(yushmatasmat pratyaya..) have been made, including a word-for-word translation, and uploaded onto: http://tinyurl.com/3xkvmj We will begin part 5 next with the very important 2nd sentence tathApi anyonyasmin anyonyAtmani..naisargikoyam lokavyavahArah Hari OM Shyam advaitin , " shyam_md " <shyam_md wrote: > > Pranams > > > Previously > http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2008/03/brahma-sutra-shankara-bhashya.html > http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2008/03/brahma-sutra-shankara-bhashya-2.html > http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2008/03/brahma-sutra-shankara-bhashya-3.html > > Shankaram ShankarAchAryam KEshavam BAdarAyanam > SUtrabhAshya kritau vandE Bhagavantau punah punah > > ____ > The questions posed by the purvapakshin are answered (more in-depth > answers will be seen as the bhashyA proceeds). > " Yes Atman is something that is not unknown – it is prasiddha – > well-known to everyone as " I am " – no conscious entity ever harbors > any doubt about " I am " - no one ever says " i am not " - But at the same > time there is erroneous notions about it, - various schools of thought > exist as to what the atman as - as we shall see very soon as we begin > our enquiry – Self is evdient - but Self is Brahman is not at all > evident - hence athAto brahma jijnAsa. > > Yes, knowledge by itself does not yield any result – unless – - > unless " Absence of that knowledge 'atmanavabodha' causes problems, > leads to anartha. " > In this case what is needed is right knowledge – and especially so > because the vastu is very much self-established – nothing special > needs to be done to achieve this. > > And this knowledge is a unique jnana because it talks about aikyam. > Knowledge " this is apple " - no vichara needed; Knowledge " this is > consciousness, this is brahman " - no vichara needed; Knowledge " you > are brahman " - aikya-jnana - vichAra is needed. So in this peculiar > case knowledge has a direct effect, because and only because the > bondage is not " real " - it is adhyasta - i the atma is taken to be > something else, and the result of this mistaken notion, this > superimposition is the entire problem of beginigless samsara. > > This now sets the stage for one of Adi Shankara's most important works > – the adhyasa bhashya which systematically lays the very groundwork of > advaita. No study of advaita can ever begin without an attempt at > understanding adhyasa and no study of advaita can ever end without a > complete and comprehensive understanding of adhyasa. One can never > hope to reach the portals of Advaita without passing through the > corridors of Adhyasa. > > Critics and scholars have often felt that Adi Shankara begins his > bhashyas with adhyasa bhashya which seems to be hoisting his own > philosophy onto the brahma sutras. They claim there is no sparsha no > connection between the brahmasUtra and adhyAsa. They point out that > Bhagwan VyAsa begins his Sutra with " athato brahmajijnAsa " and the > bhashyakAra instead of staring to talk about Brahman or some related > topic, starts talking elaborately about superimposition or adhyAsa! In > fact, the truth of the matter is, without this adhyasa bhashya there > can be no meaning to the very opening lines of the brahmasutra - > athato brahmajijnasa. A thorough reading of the adhyasa bhashya makes > this crystal clear. How so? > As we noted earlier, if bondage is real, then knowledge by itself > cannot achieve liberation; and so any enquiry in an attempt to gain > knowledge will not achieve anything of consequence - it is precisely > because we are dealing with a bondage which is notional, due to a > superimposition of what is apparent on what is real, that this enquiry > needs to be done, and when accomplished bears fruit. Only when we can > prove that there is adhyasa can there be any possibility of moksha by > means of enquiry and shastra can be a pramAna. > > If jiva as a separate entity is real, abhaditam satyam, then > limitation is real, then that real limitation can never be eliminated, > it can only be temporarily forgotten (like in deep sleep), there > cannot be moksha (anirmoksha prasanga). Only a notional limitation due > to adhyasa can be sublated by knowledge. > > So Shastravishayaprayojanam is not there unless adhyAsa siddhi is > established. > > Adi Shankara begins with what seems to be a very valid and powerful > objection aakshepa: > > Yushmatasmatpratyaya gocharayoho > Vishayavishayeenoho > TamahprakAshavatviruddhasvabhAvayohoh > itaretarabhAvAnupapattau > SiddhAyAm TaddharmAnAmAmapi > Itaretara bhavanupapatti > Ityatah asmatpratyagochare vishayini > Chidatmake > Yushmatpratyaya gocharasya > taddharmanAmcha adhyAsah > tadviparyayena vishayinah > tad dharmanAm cha vishaye adhyasah > mithyeti bhavitum yuktam > > [ " It is a matter not requiring any proof that the object and the > subject whose respective spheres are the notion of the 'Thou' (the > Non-Self) and the 'I (Self),' and which are opposed to each other as > much as darkness and light are, cannot be identical. All the less can > their respective attributes be identical. Hence it follows that it is > wrong to superimpose upon the subject--whose Self is intelligence, and > which has for its sphere the notion of the self--the object whose > sphere is the notion of the Non-self, and the attributes of the > object, and vice versâ to superimpose the subject and the attributes > of the subject on the object. " ] > > Now, whenever any major work is begun, there is always a prayer, a > remebrance of the Lord - mangalam. Here in the very opening line, > prthyagAtma, the ParamAtman, is talked about and this prthyagAtma > smaranam itself is the mangala suchitam here according to the tikAkAra. > > The very first word yushmatpratyaya - the you-sense or the sense of > object, and asmatpratyaya - the I-sense are talked about. > Why not say " this " sense instead of saying " you " sense to refer to > objects - because while " this " on occasion may be used in place of " i " > - " you " can never be taken for " i " - so in the very opening lines it > is made clear that what is talked about is two distinct entities of > opposing polarity - " i " the subject, vishayee, and " you " the object, > the vishaya. All objects, all the non- " I " - is included in the term > yushmat. > That which is self-evident is the subject & #2404;That which is evident to > self, i.e. objectifiable is the object. > To use an analogy one can consider the light in the room and the pot > that is illumined by this very light. > > Now this is the problem. > When you say something is superimposed like a snake on a rope, there > are a couple of factors that need to be present. > There are two real entities - real rope and real snake, one of which > has to be pratyaksha - an object of perception i.e.rope. Morover the > rope should not be fully known - i.e. there should be possibility of > an error. > The cognizer has to have prior experience or samskAra(pUrva anubhava > janya samskArA) of both these entities > Both these entities have to a sAdrshyam - i.e. you cannot mistake a > pot for a mountain. > Only because the rope is of certain appropriate length, is coiled in a > certain way, and one has seen a very similar snake before, or carries > the memory of the same, can this superimposition take place, and whn > one sees rope - one recoils with fear thinking " its a snake! " > > Now in this case, one is dealing with entities that could not be more > divergent - viruddhasvabhAvayoh > > Atma or asmat pratyaya is self evident, and hence ignorance of the > Atma is impossible. In addition, there are no similarities between > atma and anatma for a misconception to take place. Atma being the > conscious, chaitanya, changeless subject, vishayee, and anaatma the > insentient jada, object, vishaya, subject to modifications. Adhyasa > requires the previous experience of a real object in order to create a > samskara of the superimposed entity. Anatma being unreal, a previous > experience of Anatma is not possible. Therefore, no vasana or samskara > of Anatma is created. Hence, it is but proper that a atma-anatma > adhyaasa is never possible. > > (to be continued) > Hari OM > Shri Gurubhyoh namah > Shyam > > advaitin , " shyam_md " <shyam_md@> wrote: > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 Mithyajnana in this context does not mean false knowledge - i.e. mithya plus jnAna - why? Let us examine this a bit in detail. We have already seen that there is a mixing up of levels and that this is lokavyavaHara. If Shankara were to simply say that this is due to false knowledge then he is leaving a whole lot of things unexplained. He has to complete the sentence by pointing to the cause of this problem. This is indicated here by the word nimitta - cause - what is the cause mithya and ajnAna. If one were to say that the cause for this false knowledge, as indicated by the term lokavyavahAra, for this mixing up or superimposition is false knowledge, then one is left having to explain what is the cause of that false knowledge - it is absurd to say the cause for the tree is the tree praNAms Hare Krishna IMHO it is also absurd to ask for the cause of adhyAsa when it is repeatedly said *naisarkikOyaM lOka vyavahAra*....For example, I dont know anything about computer programming....this is my ajnAna/avidyA...I would go to a computer institution in search of computer jnAna/programming....No sane computer instructor would ask me the illegitimate question what is the *cause* of this computer ajnAna?? He, without doubting about my ajnAna, without asking for the root cause for this ajnAna, starts teaching computer jnAna...is it not?? Likewise, questions like, how and when was this satyAnruta happened?? what is the cause of lokavyavahAra etc. etc. is quite illegitimate, since it is innate human tendency of the human mind. Hence, shankara says anAdi anantO naisarkigOdhyAsaH...and also emphasizes it is mithyA pratyaya rUpaH...Finding the cause for adhyAsa leads to anavAsthA dOsha, coz. a doubting mind can keep on asking cause for the *cause of adhyAsa* also :-))....Without complicating the issue in finding out the nimittOpadAna kAraNa to anAdi adhyAsa, it is better to conclude that all actions of human being and the respective experience of the fruits of action would invariably presupposes the intellection and this *socalled* intellection itself is based on this natural error!! Hence, shankara, in adhyAsa bhAshya, subsequently compares human behaviour with that of animal's and concludes that both are the result of this natural want of discrimination (vivEka). As a matter of fact, nowhere in the adhyAsa bhAshya bhagavatpAda exclusively raised the question : what is the cause for avidyA?? but for the question why do the people entertain this adhyAsa?? or why do they wrongly reckon Atman & anAtman each for other?? shankara simply says the inability to distinguish between Atman & anAtman is itself the cause for this adhyAsa...Kindly see shankara's gIta bhAshya (13.26) in this context... I dont know by saying all this, whether I am again opening the can of worms :-)) Nevertheless, since it is exclusively discussed & argued that mithyAjnAna cannot be mithyA + jnAna...I have to say all this....By the way, prabhuji, you have not given shankara bhAshya reference for the interpretation mithyA (anirvachanIya) ajnAna... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 Shruti pramAna serves to give us the jnAna that serves to eliminate ajnAna - and thus alone there is vishaya prayojanam for Shruti. JnAna nivrttyeva ajnanam. One cannot knock off avidya by any factor besides jnAna. Once mithyAjnAna is taken as false knowledge then of course it cannot go away by " mere " jnAna, Sabda (or mahAvAkya) is no longer a pramAna, and then one is forced into conjuring up all manners of theories to explain this away. The bottomline is - one cannot postulate a removal of adhyAsa without the simultaneous gain of knowledge of the vastu. praNAms Sri Shyam prabhuji Hare Krishna As you have rightly pointed out, in the case of objective knowledge (like knowledge of *rope*) it is first essential to get the right knowledge of rope instead of keep on eliminating the *false knowledge* about the rope....But when it comes to brahma vichAra/jignAsa, the case may not be the same....The first and foremost problem we have on our hand is, brahman is apramEya, not objectifiable like *rope* to have the correct knowledge of it...And also since this Atman/brahman is not an adventitious thing & self-established (svayaM siddha), the objectifying of the same & the right knowledge of it is not possible....According to advaita, brahman_is_not pramANa gOchara...Then how can the shruti is antya pramANa in *knowing* the brahman?? Shankara's answer to this question implies that ONLY removal of ajnAna (not gaining jnAna) about brahman is the work of shAstra & not that shruti is teaching *correct knowledge* of brahman...In the *tattusamanvayAt* sUtra bhAshya (1-1-4) shankara says, shAstra's purports is just to wipe off the distinctions superimposed on brahman by avidyA and shAstra does not indeed propose to teach brahman as such & such an object...but it teaches brahman as no object at all*....it only removes the false knowledge of katrutva, bhOktrutva (jnAtru, jnEya & jnAna) superimposed on Atman... In short, for the question, whether shAstra is jnAna kAraka or ajnAna nivAraka?? the answer that we find in shankara siddhAnta is shAstra is ONLY ajnAna nivAraka not jnAna kAraka...(jnApakaM hi shAstraM na kArakaM)....Hence, shruti also says nEti, nEti is the highest teaching of brahman....coz. it is a matter of fact that in advaita school the brahman is devoid of all specific features it cannot be positively described....Shankara's bhAshya on the bruhadAraNyaka (2-3-6) shruti is quite relevant here. Shankara here emphasizes that : Brahman is described by means of superimposed name, form or action by means of words and expression like *brahman is consciousness and bliss (satyaM, jnAnam, anantaM/AnandaM brahma), it is a solid mass of consciousness ( prajnAna ghana)...When however, it is intended to indicate its essential nature itself, free from all particulars conditioning adjuncts (upAdhi-s), then it is impossible to define it in any particular manner. And so, for that purpose the ONLY MEANS to employ is to point out it by NEGATION, i.e. by calling it *nEti, nEti* thus denying all properties attributable. So, is we say we have the *correct* knowledge of brahman ( like in the case of objective correct knowledge of rope ), that *correct* knowledge may not indeed be the *absolute* knowledge of brahman, it is only adhyArOpita attributes on brahman that we are thinking we gained as correct ...it cannot be positively described nor it can be positively known as an object... clarifications & corrections are welcome. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Dear Bhaskar-ji Pranams. Thank you for your notes and for offering your perspectives. " > IMHO it is also absurd to ask for the cause of > adhyAsa when it is > repeatedly said *naisarkikOyaM lOka > vyavahAra*. " As I have explained in the post - lokavyavahAra refers to both false knowledge and experience and behaviour/transactions. The opponent has just presented to you the impossibility of any such false knowledge - of any such superimposition of what are inherently two entities of opposing polarity - the subject and the object. ShankarA could have simply said nasiargikoyam lokavyavaHara - and(as you subsequently say later in your post he could also said due to lack of discrimination) - he has already also said itaretara avivekena - lack of discrimination - BUT - Shankara does not stop here. Please read the entire sentence without these three words mithya ajnana and nimitta - it seems complete - it is naisargikoyam lokavyavahara and there is itaretarara aviveka -all terms you have already used to explain this - so why now add this " mithyAjnAna nimitta " - it is unnecessary - the word nimitta itself shows that these very important words are an answer to such a objection previously raised - that such a adhyAsa - as superimposition of vishayee and vishaya - is not tenable, and moreover no ingredients or cause for it to happen. Hence the term mithyAjnAna has to refer to the nimitta. ************************ ....For example, I dont know > anything about computer programming....this is my > ajnAna/avidyA...I would > go to a computer institution in search of computer > jnAna/programming....No > sane computer instructor would ask me the > illegitimate question what is the > *cause* of this computer ajnAna?? He, without > doubting about my ajnAna, > without asking for the root cause for this ajnAna, > starts teaching computer > jnAna...is it not?? ************************* Yes ajnAna is naisargika and hence beginingless. Now suppose i ask you - between absence of computer knowledge and absence of automobile knowledge and absence of a train and absence of food - is there any difference in the " absence " - abhAva. Absence is absence - is it not? NOw look at this. There is One nondual Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahman. Yet externally one perceives a Srshti, a Order, Yet internally one finds oneself to be or have a body, a mind, a sthoola shareera and a sookshma shareera. At the time of pralaya all of this resolves and remains in unmanifest form as avyaktA, only to reappear for the next cycle of manifest srshti.(BG:avyakt & #257;d vyaktayah & #803; sarv & #257;h...) & #803;One has to account for this. Now if you postulate that satyam jnanam brahman plus " abhAva " is avyakta - does this seem plausible - esp so since satyam jnanam brahman is akarta, is uninvoled in this. Also, you cannot dimiss this Order as being totally asat - if it is asat, then how do you experience it? asat chet na pratyeetaye - that whis is unreal will never appear. Now also, suppose you do postulate that absence of knowledge, which is beginningless, (or absence of discrimination) is the cause for this superimposition - for the appearance of manifest Srshti including the jivAs, etc - then where should this ajnAna abide? - in the kAryA jivA or in kAranA Brahman? So you say from Satyam Jnanam Brahman, with ajnAna - lack of knowledge, or aviveka, lack of discrimination, there is Srshti. So then what is Ishwara? AjnAnaVan Atman. Bhaskar-ji do you think this is tenable? No Bhaskar-ji, IMHO, it is only by the potenccy of MAyA, that the impossible is made possible. Sukhachidhakhanda vibodhamadvitheeyam,Viyadanaladhi vinirmathe niyojya,Bhramayathi bhavasAgare nithantham,Thwagathitha ghatanaa patiyasi mAyA!! Máyá which is skilful in accomplishing the impossible makes the Self, which is of the nature of bliss and consciousness which is impartite and non-dual, whirl round very much in the ocean of samsára by associating it with the created ákáshA, air etc. ********************* > By the > way, prabhuji, you have not given shankara bhAshya > reference for the > interpretation mithyA (anirvachanIya) ajnAna... ********************* This is the interpretation in the PachapAdika. mithyAjnananimittA mithya cha tadajnanam cha mithyajnanam. mithyeti anirvacchaneeyata uchyate...........tannimittaha tadupAdAna ityarthaha. ******************* > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > bhaskar ***************** Thank you Bhaskar-ji once again for your close scrutiny of my notes and for your viewpoints - let me in closing say this - I would not like to look at any differences of opinion as " opening a can of worms " etc - any discussion esp with a learned scholar such as your goodself can only serve to highlight certain key points along the way and provided everyone an opportunity to dwell on them. I think there really is no harm in each of us, on this diverese forum sticking to what has been taught to us by our Gurus for ALL of whom we have the utmost respect and whose blessings we all seek and benefit from. I see in the meantime you have already given me a second post to dwell on and i shall get to it timepermitting very shortly. Humble pranams Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 Pranams once again dear Bhaskar-ji **** > The first and foremost problem we have > on our hand is, brahman > is apramEya, not objectifiable like *rope* to have > the correct knowledge of > it **** Brahman is non-objectifiable - but is certainly knowable as being our own swarUpa. **** And also since this Atman/brahman is not an > adventitious thing & > self-established (svayaM siddha), the objectifying > of the same & the right > knowledge of it is not possible....According to > advaita, brahman_is_not > pramANa gOchara...Then how can the shruti is antya > pramANa in *knowing* the > brahman?? **** What you are saying is 100% right. We will of course examine this issue in more detail as we move along. When we say Shruti is a pramAna for jnAna of the vestu - what is meant really speaking is that shrUti is pramAna for jiva-Brahma aikyam. It is not about Brahman that there is ajnAna. Every one knows " I am " exactly like " This is " or idam amsha of rope is known - what is not known is the real nature of the " I " or the " this " - and for this Shruti IS the pramAna - it is not a vastu to be " gained " but something already ever-present that needs to be recognized - we will discuss this when talking about aadhAra and adhistAna soon. **** > Shankara's answer to this question > implies that ONLY removal of > ajnAna (not gaining jnAna) about brahman is the > work of shAstra & not that > shruti is teaching *correct knowledge* of > brahman...In the > *tattusamanvayAt* sUtra bhAshya (1-1-4) shankara > says, shAstra's purports > is just to wipe off the distinctions superimposed on > brahman by avidyA and > shAstra does not indeed propose to teach brahman as > such & such an > object...but it teaches brahman as no object at > all*....it only removes the > false knowledge of katrutva, bhOktrutva (jnAtru, > jnEya & jnAna) > superimposed on Atman...> In short, for the question, whether shAstra is jnAna > kAraka or ajnAna > nivAraka?? the answer that we find in shankara > siddhAnta is shAstra is > ONLY ajnAna nivAraka not jnAna kAraka...(jnApakaM hi > shAstraM na > kArakaM)....Hence, shruti also says nEti, nEti is > the highest teaching of > brahman....coz. it is a matter of fact that in > advaita school the brahman > is devoid of all specific features it cannot be > positively > described....Shankara's bhAshya on the > bruhadAraNyaka (2-3-6) shruti is > quite relevant here. Shankara here emphasizes that > : > Brahman is described by means of superimposed name, > form or action by means > of words and expression like *brahman is > consciousness and bliss (satyaM, > jnAnam, anantaM/AnandaM brahma), it is a solid mass > of consciousness ( > prajnAna ghana)...When however, it is intended to > indicate its essential > nature itself, free from all particulars > conditioning adjuncts (upAdhi-s), > then it is impossible to define it in any particular > manner. And so, for > that purpose the ONLY MEANS to employ is to point > out it by NEGATION, i.e. > by calling it *nEti, nEti* thus denying all > properties attributable. **** Removal of ajnAna Bhaskar-ji is possible only through jnAna - because only jnAna is opposed to ajnAna. If all the shAstras said was " neti neti " - then eternally one has to go on negating one's identity with every blessed objectifiable thing - i am not body, i am not sun, i am not moon, i am not mountain, i am not sea....etc... " Satyam jnanam anatam " as you know are lakshanAs for Brahman - they are not mere visesanas that serve ONLY to eliminate anrtam, jadam and limitation respectively. Shruti has to and does point to the truth about Brahman - only then will it be able to remove ignorance about it. Only " tat tvam asi " when understood removes the bhramA about " i am " being related to all the superimpositions such as " naroham " " aham karta " " aham sukhi " etc and REVEALS the prama to me - the truth about my real nature being Brahman alone. **** > > So, is we say we have the *correct* knowledge of > brahman ( like in the case > of objective correct knowledge of rope ), that > *correct* knowledge may not > indeed be the *absolute* knowledge of brahman, it is > only adhyArOpita > attributes on brahman that we are thinking we gained > as correct ...it > cannot be positively described nor it can be > positively known as an > object... ***** Yes - Brahman cannot be positively known as an object - but the gain of knowledge, from Shruti alone, knocks off ajnAna, and this then leads to a direct realization of Brahman being non other than the very subject I, the Atman. I look forward to revisiting these issues in far more detail as we proceed. Thank you once again for your valuable comments and observations. Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam --- Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 Humble praNAms Sri Shyam prabhuji Hare Krishna If you could permit me, I shall try to continue this discussion with what I understand from my guruji's teachings. Sri Shyam prabhuji : As I have explained in the post - lokavyavahAra refers to both false knowledge and experience and behaviour/transactions. The opponent has just presented to you the impossibility of any such false knowledge - of any such superimposition of what are inherently two entities of opposing polarity - the subject and the object. bhaskar : And shankara himself as you know prabhuji, agrees that it is appropriate to say that such superimposition is not possible logically...but continues to say that but it is there in vyavahAra....shankara here gives an example of bAlAh tala malinatvAdi parikalpitam... & he clarifies that there is no hard & fast rule to say that there must be always a subject to superimpose object (na chAyamasti niyamaH, purOvastita yEva vishayE vishayAntaraM adhyasitavyaM iti..apratyakshEpi hi AkAshE bAlAstalamalinatAdi adhyAsyanti) ....That clarifies the fact that superimposition is possible without the direct link to subject. Sri Shyam prabhuji : ShankarA could have simply said nasiargikoyam lokavyavaHara - and(as you subsequently say later in your post he could also said due to lack of discrimination) - he has already also said itaretara avivekena - lack of discrimination - BUT - Shankara does not stop here. Please read the entire sentence without these three words mithya ajnana and nimitta -it seems complete - it is naisargikoyam lokavyavahara and there is itaretarara aviveka -all terms you have already used to explain this - so why now add this " mithyAjnAna nimitta " - it is unnecessary - the word nimitta itself shows that these very important words are an answer to such a objection previously raised - that such a adhyAsa - as superimposition of vishayee and vishaya - is not tenable, and moreover no ingredients or cause for it to happen. Hence the term mithyAjnAna has to refer to the nimitta. bhaskar: It seems there is little bit of confusion here with regard to original text..mithyAjnAna nimittaH is not an addition to naisarkikOyam lOkavyavahAra...it is coz. of mithyAjnAna satyAnruta mithuneekaraNam and ahamidaM, mamEdam etc. etc. & natural lOka vyavahAra possible...mithyAjnAna nimittaH is a part of a big sentence in adhyAsa bhAshya...Let us look at the complete sentence : taTHapyanyOnyasmin anyOnAtmakatAmanyOnya dharmAMshcha adhyAsyEtarEtarAvivEkEna atyantaviviktayOdharmAdharmiNOH *mithyAjnAna nimittaH satyAnrutE miThunIkrutya ahamidaM mamEdamiti naisargikOyaM lOkavyavahAraH. (adhyAsa bhAshya 1..Kindly see the original Sanskrit text for the correct wordings) A rough reading goes, the common people, by nature, do adhyAsa (misconceive) with regard to Atman and anAtman by misconceiving one in the other and also they misconceive the dharmA-s of each in other..This is coz. of the reason that they have not distinguished dharmA-s which are different as also the dharmi-s (the entities which have been endowed with those qualities) from each other...they mix the real with the false and they carry the day to day transactions *naturally* due to wrong knowledge (mithyA jnAna or misconception) in the type of I am this & this is mine...etc.. From the above bhAshya vAkya it is evident that inability to distinguish between Atman & anAtman is itself the cause of adhyAsa...or we can say avidyA of the nature of agrahaNa (non comprehension) is responsible for wrong knowledge (i.e. false knowledge)..If you see the gItA bhAshya of shankara (13-26) this very opinion has been expressed by him. Here shankara concludes : kshEtra kshEtrajna svarUpa vivEkAbhAva nibandhanaH..for this saMyOga the absence or lack of not distinguishing between the kshEtra & kshEtrajna svarUpa is itself the cause. With these two bhAshya vAkya-s let us examine the compound word in question i.e. *mithyAjnAna* which is nimittaH..which you have broken and said mithyA ajnAna nimittaH... & subsequently interpreted that (based on paNchapAdika) this mithyA ajnAna is the upAdAna (material cause) for adhyAsa which is also anirvachanIya (indescribable)..Since prabhuji, you have taken this interpretation from later vyAkhyAnakAra-s and agreed that it is not traceable in shankara bhAshya, I think I have a valid reason not to accept this as a valid interpretation...Apart from this, as I have shown in the gIta bhAshya (13-26) avidyA which is nature of adhyAsa is itself being called mithyAjnAna also. (sOyamadhyAsasvarUpaH kshEtrakshEtrajna saMyOgO mithyAjnAna lakshaNaH)..Actually this is what shankara also calls mithyA pratyaya rUpaH in adhyAsa bhAshya...As you have pointed out, nimitta can be interpreted like kAraNa, bIja, hEtu & we can find all these words in place of nimitta at various contexts in shankara bhAshya. But it cannot be said that in all these contexts nimitta means avidyA alone which is bhAva rUpa & upAdAna kAraNa (material cause). In short, shankara never ever admits that avidyA is anirvachanIya...(whereas he explicitly says avidyA kalpita mAya is!!) to propate anirvachanIya khyAti. shankara in all through the bhAshya-s do talk about various theories of adhyAsa just to drive home the point that adhyAsa is something is mistaken for something else..(adhyAso nAma atasmin tadbuddhihi avOchAma)..To strengthen this shankara cites two commong examples (gIta & taitireeya upanishad bhAshya). IMO, there is no need for us to look for material cause (upAdAna kAraNa like avidyA shakti) for adhyAsa when shankara explicitly says at the very beginning of adhyAsa bhAshya that notions of me & mine are the result of the basic super-imposition (adhyAsa itarEtara vivEkEna mithyAjnAna nimittaha...ahaM idaM mama idam....) As a matter of fact nowhere in the adhyAsa bhAshya, wheres shankara has taken lot of trouble to explain this concept of avidyA, say, it is anirvachanIya...On the other hand, he has cites lot of day to day experiences to explain this concept with more clarity. Sri Shyam prabhuji : Also, you cannot dimiss this Order as being totally asat - if it is asat, then how do you experience it? asat chet na pratyeetaye - that whis is unreal will never appear.Now also, suppose you do postulate that absence of knowledge, which is beginningless, (or absence of discrimination) is the cause for this superimposition - for the appearance of manifest Srshti including the jivAs, etc - then where should this ajnAna abide? - in the kAryA jivA or in kAranA Brahman? bhaskar : Kindly refer bruhadAraNyaka bhAshya (2-4-14) shankara himself answers this question by saying yatra yasmin avidyAkalpitE kArya kAraNa sa~NgOpAdhijanitE vishEshAtmani khilya bhAvE hi yasmAt dvaitamiva paramArthataH...srushti is there in shruti, not to advocate the theory that there is avyAkruta bIja shakti at the beginning alongwith brahman...it is only a device to teach the truth there there is absolutely no kArya-kArana business in nirvishEsha brahman...shankara expressly says here that kArya kAraNa bhEdha is avidyA kalpita..For further reference we can also look at kArikA bhAshya (3-15) where shankara confirms his position about srushti by saying sa sarvaH srushti prakAraH jIva paramAtmaikatvabhdhyavatArAya *upAyaH* asmAkaM...So prabhuji, srushti, jIva bhAva is not completely asat but it is mithyA deliberately superimposed by shruti-s for the teaching purpose for those who believe there is *real* srushti out there... Now to your question, where should this ajnAna abide?? in the kArya jIva or in kAraNa brahman??..strictly speaking this question does not arise at all in this advaita siddhAnta...to whom avidyA?? about which matter ?? etc. etc. have to arise only in dvaita is it not :-)) Here advaita vEdAnta says, the whole scenario of dvaita is adhyAstha (superimposed or misconceived) and avidyaka and is not really real...So, IMO, we cannot expect this type of illogical questions from the followers of shankara siddhAnta..Anyway, as you know, our bhagavadpAda answers this question also for the benifit of ignorant like me...In the sUtra bhAshya (4-1-3) : to whom is the ajnAna?? shankara answers to this question, to *you* who is asking this question...if you say: in the shruti it is stated that I am that Ishvara, for that we say if you know/realized that truth, then there is no avidyA/ajnAna to anyone whatsoever... If we see the above statement it is clear that there is no Ashraya whatsoever for avidyA but for the carrying out AtmAnAtmavivEka, shankara has expressed his opinion that avidyA is a mental concept (pratyaya) or it is antaHkaraNa dharma (an attribute of the inner instrument)..Kindly refer gIta bhAshya (13-2). Sri Shyam prabhuji: So you say from Satyam Jnanam Brahman, with ajnAna -lack of knowledge, or aviveka, lack of discrimination, there is Srshti. So then what is Ishwara? AjnAnaVan Atman. Bhaskar-ji do you think this is tenable? bhaskar : prabhuji, who am I to decide whether it is tenable or untenable?? but it is a matter of fact that Ishwara & his qualities like omniscience, omnipotence etc. etc. are valid ONLY in avidyAkruta vyavahAra...and in ultimate truth there is no question of divisions like Ishwara & his srushti...Dont you think there cannot be Lordhood in non-dual brahman?? coz. it requires the distinction between the ordainer & ordained or ruler and ruled to say there is Ishitavya in brahman...The non dual brahman itself called Ishwara from the standpoint of mAya which is inturn conjured up by avidyA and vEdAnta has attributed the creator, sustainer and destroyer of the universe etc. on brahman...From the absolute point, the status of Ishwara is quite shaking according to the perspective of shuddhadvaita prabhuji. Sri Shyam prabhuji : No Bhaskar-ji, IMHO, it is only by the potenccy of MAyA, that the impossible is made possible. bhaskar : As said above, shankara says mAya is Ishwara shakti (for example gIta bhAshya 13-5 & 13-19) & holds good only from the vyAvahArik view point...and its aghatithaghatanAshakti is valid only from the empirical view point...to be taken with a pinch of salt :-)) Sri Shyam prabhuji : I would not like to look at any differences of opinion as " opening a can of worms " etc. - any discussion esp with a learned scholar such as your goodself can only serve to highlight certain key points along the way and provided everyone an opportunity to dwell on them. bhaskar : Thanks for your encouraging words prabhuji...I wanted to have an objective discussion on this issue, which was not possible all these days in this list due to reservation of some learned pundits ...Whenever these issues being questioned, they simply say, since upholders of tradtion are saying this, they cannot be wrong, questionable and we have to accept whatever they say coz. we are not in a position to evalute their scholarship & adherence to the tradition etc..But I think, without belittling those sampradAyavAdins contribution to advaita, we can discuss these topics with the help of shankara's mUla bhAshya on prasthAna traya. By the way, I am not at all a learned scholar of shanakara's advaita vEdAnta by any stretch of imagination, whatever little data I've in my mind is the *bhiksha* that compassionately bestowed by my guruji. Humble praNAms onceagain Sri Shyam prabhuji Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 " Satyam jnanam anatam " as you know are lakshanAs for Brahman - they are not mere visesanas that serve ONLY to eliminate anrtam, jadam and limitation respectively. Shruti has to and does point to the truth about Brahman - only then will it be able to remove ignorance about it. praNAms Sri Shyam prabhuji Hare Krishna I am not going to stretch this point, since you have assured that you are addressing all these issues more elaborately in your subsequent posts...I shall wait for it...but while doing so, kindly clarify what shankara says on satyaM jnAnaM anantham brahma in taitireeya upanishad (2-1)bhAshya. Here shankara's observation seems to contradict your above statement (I may be wrong!!)..Here it is clearly stated by shankara that : the brahman cannot be denoted by the epithet *jnAnaM* (knowledge) either. Nevertheless, it is indicated (lakshyate) though not expressed, by the word *jnAnaM* denoting the semblance of consciousness which_is_really_a_modification_of_mind. IT IS NOT DIRECTLY DENOTED BY THAT TERM BECAUSE BRAHMAN IS DEVOID OF GENUS AND OTHER SPECIFIC FEATURES WHICH ALONE ARE THE OCCASION FOR THE APPLICATION OF WORDS TO A THING. Kindly note that this observation shankara gives immediately when shruti specifically says *satyam, jnAnaM anantaM brahmA..shankara here comments on satyaM also which is really noteworthy to study...Anyway, I shall be looking forward for your further elaboration on this point.. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2008 Report Share Posted April 18, 2008 Dear Bhaskar-ji Pranams once again and my apologies for the late reply - have been in a time crunch. Before I respond to your post may I remind you that I am still waiting to hear your response to explaining avyaktA by taking avidya as abhAva - absence or nonexistence. " Beyond the Mahat there is the Avyakta, beyond the Avyakta is the Purusha. Beyond the Purusha there is nothing - this is the goal, the highest path " Katha Up.1.3.11 If according to you avidyA is abhAvA(nonexistent) then avyaktA = brahman plus abhAva? please clarify. advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > bhaskar: > > It seems there is little bit of confusion here with regard to original text. ************* No confusion at all Bhaskar-ji - in fact i am not sure why you took the trouble of spelling out the entire Sanskrit sentence when if you read my original post it is already spelt out. I think the point being made about the importance of the word nimitta may not have come across as intended. ************* > With these two bhAshya vAkya-s let us examine the compound word in question > i.e. *mithyAjnAna* which is nimittaH..which you have broken and said mithyA > ajnAna nimittaH... & subsequently interpreted that (based on paNchapAdika) > this mithyA ajnAna is the upAdAna (material cause) for adhyAsa which is > also anirvachanIya (indescribable). ************* I want to emphasize that this not my interpretation but only what i have been taught. I claim not a trace of originality in anything I write - not on this post, not on this subject, not in anything i have ever written on this list - every word is borrowed and every idea copied by my Gurus - so this interpretation is by no means mine at all, but only whatever little I can gather listening to the discourses by Pujya Swami Dayanada-ji. He talks about this as being the only correct interpretation of this sentence and also does specifically refer to the alternative interpretations by the Bhamati as well as by others as being mistaken and clearly (to my mind) outlines why. The day I begin posting my " original " views I would request them to be immediately and summarily rejected! :-) Again my posts are not in the least meant to " covert " anyone else to these views but just to outline (primarily for myself) the truths contained there-in. Yes, the term mithyajnAna has been used by Shankara in other places as well - as you in your profound scholarship have clearly shown - however please note that in these places the word " nimitta " does not stand next or in apposition to the term " mithyajnAna " ************** ..Since prabhuji, you have taken this > interpretation from later vyAkhyAnakAra-s and agreed that it is not > traceable in shankara bhAshya, I think I have a valid reason not to accept > this as a valid interpretation... ************ I am sorry Bhaskar-ji but i jave to humbly disagree with you on this point. PadmapAdachArya was the foremost student of Adi Shankara. One cannot dismiss his viewpoint as a " later " vyAkhyAnakAra, esp. when there is no dispute whatsoever concerning the authorship of both the adhyAsa bhAshya as well as the panchapAdika. Let me explain. You base your views on the teachings of your Pujya ParamaGuruji - correct? Now let me ask you, how much time have you actually spent in His presence at His lotus feet? In fact his teachings to you are indirect through the medium of his shishyAs. And yet you are reasonably confident that the views you express and the contentions you make are fully in line with what he meant to teach - am i right? Now PadmaPAdAchArya a direct disciple of Shankara, a scholar, served at the lotus feet of Adi Shankara for most of His lifetime, and drank the ambrosia of Vedanta directly from the very source! I am not sure how one can afford to adopt a attitude of dismissal of something He (or SureshwarachArya) write about interpretation of the Shankarabhasyas, unless one has overwhelming reasons to suggest that something was clearly misunderstood by them! ************** > So you say from Satyam Jnanam Brahman, with ajnAna -lack of knowledge, or > aviveka, lack of discrimination, there is Srshti. So then what is Ishwara? > AjnAnaVan Atman. Bhaskar-ji do you think this is tenable? > bhaskar : > prabhuji, who am I to decide whether it is tenable or untenable?? ******** Do you really mean to tell me Bhaskar-ji that you are unable to decide if Ishwara, the Lord Narayana, the very goal of all our spiritual pursuits can be described a ajnAnaVan?? ******** > The non dual brahman > itself called Ishwara from the standpoint of mAya which is inturn conjured > up by avidyA and vEdAnta has attributed the creator, sustainer and > destroyer of the universe etc. on brahman...From the absolute point, the > status of Ishwara is quite shaking according to the perspective of > shuddhadvaita prabhuji. ********** 2 different points 1. Maya is conjured up by avidya?? Let me ask you, if acccording to you avidya is abhAva - nonexistence - how does abhAva - absence of knowledge conjure up Maya?? Also can you please explain what Krishna means when he says mama mAya - " daivi hy esa guna-mayi mama mAya duratyaya " Based on what you are saying - Krishna has avidya, (and itaretara avivekA also?) - and by virtue of this abhAvarUpa avidyA of Krishna, somehow " it " i.e the nonexistent absence of knowledge - conjures up MAyA?? Your explanation of this one verse from the Bhagawad Gita will be certainly illumining in helping me understand what you take MAyA to mean... 2. Status of Ishwara is " shaking " ?? Really??! I can perhaps refer you to multiple prior posts of mine on the issue of Ishwara http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2007/09/does-advaita-consider-ishwara-real-or.ht\ ml http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2007/02/srshti-we-cognize-is-in-perfect-order.ht\ ml Before you start " shaking " Lord Jagannatha Himself Bhaskar-ji, in the name of shuddhadvaita let me respectfully ask you - Who are " you " to dismiss Ishwara as unreal? Are you real or unreal? If you say I am real then let me ask you if it is the real you the Atman that is dismissing Ishwara? Can the Atman do any dismissing? If you say I am unreal then how can a unreal you dismiss anything let alone Ishwara? If you say " I alone am " then Lord Narayana has allowed you to realize your oneness with Him! Ishwara is (at least) as Real as you are prabhu-ji. :-) The only thing that is shaken off in advaita (there is only ONE kind no question of shuddha and ashuddha at least in advaita!) Prabhu-ji is the ego's notional separation from Ishwara. ********** > bhaskar : > > > As said above, shankara says mAya is Ishwara shakti (for example gIta > bhAshya 13-5 & 13-19) & holds good only from the vyAvahArik view > point...and its aghatithaghatanAshakti is valid only from the empirical > view point...to be taken with a pinch of salt :-)) ******** Bhaskar-ji - we are talking about nimitta for lokavyavahAra alone here! - from the absolute standpoint Bhaskar-ji there is nothing but Brahman - there is no question of taking any pinches of salt when talking about Ishwara, MAyA, etc because ANY talking can only be in the plane of lokavyavahAra. ********* > bhaskar : > By the way, I am > not at all a learned scholar of shanakara's advaita vEdAnta by any stretch > of imagination, whatever little data I've in my mind is the *bhiksha* that > compassionately bestowed by my guruji. ********* Bhaskar-ji - your command over the ShankarabhAshyas and your towering scholarship should be a source of inspiration for everyone who follows this list. My humble pranams to you. One final note. The parama Gurus whose teachings we try to faithfully follow be it Pujya Swami Dayananda-ji (for me) or Pujya Swami Satchidanendra Saraswati-ji (for you), have spent a lifetime in the pursuit of their widely acknowledged mastery of the subject matter and are needless to say highly revered in their status as jIvanmuktAs - i think it would be foolhardy for - and i speak only for myself here - someone in the nursery section of vedantA to pretend that by a couple of armchair discussions across the net, any of their views can in the least be justifiably refuted by us. All one can humbly do Bhaskar-ji is present one's own understanding of what one has been taught by one's Guru, and leave the rest to the readers to come to their own conclusions. Discussions are highly fruitful only to the extent that they help present various viewpoints that helps everyone understand the complexities and intricacies of the subject matter - Bhaskar-ji, I am positive that you will be in complete agreement with me on this perspective . Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Advaita Priyan Posted December 7, 2014 Report Share Posted December 7, 2014 When the essence or purport of both schools of thought ( Bhamati and Vivarana ) are the same, ie mithyajnana is illusion, why create difference based on one's intellect and accept one while rejecting other, and not take the essence as such, to understand the purport of adhyaasa bhashya and move on ? 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.