Super(imposition) Collider

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sastri-ji,

Thank you for your response. I did say that I was open to correction, which I am genuinely and not as part of a humility competition. First of all this idea of avidya being the material cause of adhyasa. By the standard interpretation of material cause we say that clay is the material cause of various vessels and that bronze is the material cause of a certain statue. I can only suppose that you mean by way of analogy that avidya and adhyasa are intimately connected in the way that artefacts and what they are made out of are connected. You can’t have one without the other. So cause in this sense means that they arise out of the same matrix. If there were no avidya there would be perhaps nothing at all, no cosmos. Here a translation of the precise words of Padmapada would be useful if you have them to hand.

If we look at the development of the argument in the preamble it starts with a sketch of the predicament which we are in, the primal epistemological/ontological puzzle. There can only be a puzzle if it is taken as a given that there is such a thing as perception. That is the unstated premise. Is this controversial?

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " ombhurbhuva " <ombhurbhuva

wrote:

>

> Namaste Sastri-ji,

>

> Thank you for your response. I did say that I was open to

correction, which I am genuinely and not as part of a humility

competition. First of all this idea of avidya being the material

cause of adhyasa. By the standard interpretation of material cause

we say that clay is the material cause of various vessels and that

bronze is the material cause of a certain statue. I can only suppose

that you mean by way of analogy that avidya and adhyasa are

intimately connected in the way that artefacts and what they are

made out of are connected. You can't have one without the other. So

cause in this sense means that they arise out of the same matrix. If

there were no avidya there would be perhaps nothing at all, no

cosmos. Here a translation of the precise words of Padmapada would

be useful if you have them to hand.

> Best Wishes,

>

> Michael.

 

Dear Michael-ji,

This is what Padmapada says in PanchapAdikA:---

 

mithya tad ajnAnam ca mithyAjnAnam. mithyeti anirvacanIyatA ucyate.

ajnAnam iti ca jaDAtmikA avidyAshaktiH jnAnaparyudAsena ucyate.

tannimittaH tadupAdAnam ityarthaH.

 

Meaning: The word `mithyAjnAnam' used in Shankara's bhAshya is to

be split up as—what is mithyA as well as ignorance. By the

word `mithyA' what is meant is `anirvacanIyata'—i.e., not capable of

being described as either real or unreal. By the word `ajnAnam' is

meant the insentient avidyAshakti (the power, avidyA), as opposed to

jnAnam (i.e., not mere absence of knowledge). That which has this

ajnAnam as the material cause is adhyAsa.

 

VivaraNa, which is the famous commentary on PanchapAdikA says on

this point: ---

nanu katham mithyAjnAnam adhyAsasya upAdAnam? tasmin sati adhyAsasya

udayAt, asati ca anudayAt iti brUmaH.

 

Meaning: How is mithyAjnAnam the material cause of adhyAsa? We say

it is so because when there is mithyAjnAna, adhyAsa arises and when

it is not there adhyAsa does not arise.

 

However the view of Vachaspati misra, the author of BhAmati, is

different. He says that mithyAjnAnam is itself adhyAsa and adhyAsa

is the cause of the empirical usage (lokavyavahAraH) in the form " I

am this " and " This is mine " .

 

Such differences of opinion exist on many topics and all these views

are accepted by tradition as correct. With regard to such different

views, SureshvarAcharya has said: " All the different means by which

people can attain knowledge of the Self should be understood to be

valid. These means (prakriyA) are unlimited in number " .

 

The only point on which there is no difference of opinion is the

ultimate truth, that brahman alone is real, the world is mithyA and

the jIva is none other than brahman.

 

If I have hurt you by the brusque way of my last post, my apologies.

I later felt that I should have put it in a different way.

 

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Srinivas Nagulapalli "

<srini_nagul wrote:

>

>

> Nothing new to know, nothing else to learn, nothing more to find

out,

> explore or discover! Only ignorance makes it possible to have the

> thrill of trying, discovering, learning. No incentive to share,

> discuss, no need of even such forums, no sharing of thoughts, why?

> Everything is already known already! Omniscience - what a curse!

>

 

Namaste,

 

Hardly! Even the jnani, I feel certain, enjoys the

continuing

magical display!

 

 

shriibhagavaanuvaacha .

hanta te kathayiShyaami divyaa hyaatmavibhuutayaH .

praadhaanyataH kurushreShTha naastyanto vistarasya me .. 10\-19..

 

19. O best of the Kurus, now, according to their importance, I shall

described to you My onw glories, which are indeed divine. There is

no end to my manifestations.

 

naanto.asti mama divyaanaa.n vibhuutiinaaM parantapa .

eSha tuuddeshataH prokto vibhuutervistaro mayaa .. 10\-40..

 

40. O destroyer of enemies, there is no limit to My divine

manifestations. This description of (My) manifestations, however,

has been stated by Me by way of illustration.

 

athavaa bahunaitena kiM j~naatena tavaarjuna .

viShTabhyaahamidaM kR^itsnamekaa.nshena sthito jagat.h .. 10\-42..

 

42. Or, on the other hand, what is the need of your knowing this

extensively, O Arjuna? I remain sustaining this whole creation in a

special way with a part (of Myself).

 

By the way, the Digital Library of India has the Sanksrit

text of Panchapadika at:

 

http://tinyurl.com/42adnd

 

and Panchapadika Vivarana by Prakashatman-Yati, at:

 

http://tinyurl.com/4j2tbx

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Sunder Hattangadi " <sunderh

wrote:

>

> Hardly! Even the jnani, I feel certain, enjoys the continuing

> magical display!

 

Hari OM!

I am not so certain. Because, I enjoy watching magical shows since

childhood only because there are things I don't quite know how they

manage to do.

 

Few years ago, magician Nerella Venumadhav conducted a magic show in

Chinmaya Mission for fund raising. Whole day I helped him, took him

and showed around Washington DC. After gaining his gratitude, I asked

him if I can sit close enough, to see what goes inside the magic

table, even promising not to reveal his tricks to any one!

He sincerely told me that by seeing how he does the magic, I would

not enjoy the show at all!

 

Magic is magic only until we do not know. Certainly no magician would

watch his own magic shows for his own entertainment. Why? Because he

knows everything about it already!

---

Hari OM!

-Srinivas

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " ombhurbhuva " <ombhurbhuva

wrote:

>

> Namaste Jaishankar-ji,

>

> We mustn't, I think you will agree, create more mystery than is

strictly necessary. If the primal puzzle is there for all people and

not just those in the Vedic tradition then sraddha does not come into

it.

 

Jai: What do you mean by sraddha doesn't come into it?

 

Every seeker has to start with the assumption that what is said by

the Guru and the Sastra is true or at least possible. If you first

don't give the benefit of the doubt to the sastra then there is no

possibility of proper enquiry and knowledge. Accepting the Veda as a

pramana (Valid means of knowledge) is sraddha and without sraddha

there is no knowledge.

 

 

>You make a great deal out of belonging to a great tradition and

recieving instruction from a living Master. I wouldn't gainsay that

in the least but until you 'graduate' you are still a student even if

you are attending an elite school.

>

 

Jai: Anyone who has studied under a Guru in a Gurukulam would make a

great deal about it as it is a great blessing. Even Rama, Krishna and

Sankara studied under a Guru even though they are considered as

Incarnations. Self-study from books is fine to start with but it is

not a viable option if you are a Mumukshu (Seeker of Moksha). About

someone being a 'graduate or not' who can decided that in this case?

If it is Harvard or other Ivy League Schools at least one can show

one's certificate:-)

 

> You wrote:

>

> " Subject and Object are mutually dependent. If two things are

mutually dependent there has to be a third independent thing which

gives existence to these two things, which is brahman/Self. "

>

> What do you mean by 'mutual dependence'? Are there other examples

of it., two people on a see-saw, hot/cold, what? Are you making a

point about contingency and necessity?

>

 

Jai: I mean there is no Subjecthood without Objects and without a

Subject perceiving Objects you cannot establish their existence.

There are other examples like father & Son, Husband & Wife etc. Even

heart pumping blood to itself is a case of mutual dependence of blood

flow and heart. In all these cases there is an independent entity

which makes these mutually dependent things possible.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Sunder Hattangadi " <sunderh

wrote:

>

> Please do not compare a human magician with the Divine One!

> The waves in the Ocean of Bliss are also Bliss.(There is a famous

> hymn by Saint Tukaram to that effect - " AnandAche DohI Ananda

> tara~Nga... " ). The waves in the ocean of samsara are ephemeral

> (anityam) and fraught with pain (asukham).

 

Hari OM!

This is not to compare, but struggle to comprehend.

 

I am blissfully ignorant of the Ocean of Bliss. But remain grateful

and thankful for ocean of samsara, because even if it seems fraught

with pain, thanks to the infinitely thoughtful and compassionate

Lord, it is also ephemeral, and not permanent. And borrows words

from Kunti's prayer to wonder if even this much pain cannot make

mind remember Him, then what else would!

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

Hari OM!

-Srinivas

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michaelji:

 

Your comments on Sastri-jis response contradict your argument

against " shraddha. " For Boyle's Law or mathematical or physical laws

to become intelligible one has to have faith in " reasoning. " For

those who don't believe in " reasoning, " nothing will become

intelligible including Boyle's Law. Can you please explain to me how

you would be able to recognize any Law including Boyle' Law without

an iota of Shraddha?

 

I have been following your arguments (Vada) on various threads

dealing with the subject matter of `knowledge,' `adhyasa,' and

avidya. Your arguments sometime (at least in appearance) fall into

the Vada category of Jalpa (according to Nyaya) even though you may

not recognize it. This is my honest opinion and I do admit that I

could be potentially wrong!

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: Jalpa means a dispute in which disputants give wrangling

rejoinders in order to defeat their respective opponents. (A Jalpa

can potentially become a Vitanda when it fully focuses to refute or

defeat the opponent with destructive criticisms.)

 

 

advaitin , " ombhurbhuva " <ombhurbhuva

wrote:

>

>

> What I said about avidya being the material cause in a figurative

sense is borne out by Sastri-jis response. In relation to 'sraddha',

it is not required when the matter in hand is intelligible by the use

of reason and can be established by demonstration. Boyle's Law does

not require sraddha and neither does an epistemological/ontological

point that has occured to thinkers outside the Vedic fold.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji:

 

The Sanskrit word, " Shraddha " is not really equivalent to 'faith' and

it is much more than that. This is one of those cases where it is

very difficult to explain in plain English what Shraddha really

means! Any activity including 'reasoning' requires " Shraddha. "

 

While expressing my opinion about what Michael-ji was stating, I did

state that his arguements in appearance looks like Jalpa. I know

that Michael-ji is very sincere.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Ram-ji,

>

> I would have to disagree with your 'faith in reasoning' assertion.

My

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri. Michael,

 

>

> What I said about avidya being the material cause in a figurative

sense is borne out by Sastri-jis response. In relation to 'sraddha',

it is not required when the matter in hand is intelligible by the use

of reason and can be established by demonstration. Boyle's Law does

not require sraddha and neither does an epistemological/ontological

point that has occured to thinkers outside the Vedic fold.

>

 

Jai: Until you understand Boyle's law properly through whatever

means, you require SraddhA that your teacher is telling the truth. If

you don't have this SraddhA you wont listen to reason/attend the

demonstration and there is no possibility of any learning.

 

> No Subjecthood without Objects is on the face of it a tautology

like no bachelorhood without unmarried men.

 

Jai: Your analogy is wrong. If I say there is no subjecthood without

the subject then it is more like what you are saying. But I am saying

there is no subjecthood without the object. It is like saying there

is no marriagehood without a life-partner :-)

 

 

> If you know the meaning of one, you know the meaning of the other.

It is analytically true and therefore non-informative. How does that

require " an independent entity which makes these mutually dependent

things possible " ?

 

Jai: Two mutually dependent things cannot arise because they cannot

be the cause of each other. So they require a third independent

entity. In the vedantic tradition we call mutually dependent things

as madhu. One way of looking at mithya-jagat is as madhu. Please read

the madhu-brahmanam from brhadAranyaka-upanishad for further details.

 

 

>Isn't the idea of a relation that is separate from the relata denied

in Vedanta?

 

Yes. From the point of view of ultimate reality.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran

wrote:

>

>

> The Sanskrit word, " Shraddha " is not really equivalent to 'faith' and

> it is much more than that. This is one of those cases where it is

> very difficult to explain in plain English what Shraddha really

> means! Any activity including 'reasoning' requires " Shraddha. "

>

 

Namaste,

 

Let me add some thoughts to this. 'shraddhA' has been defined

by Shankara in Gita Bhashya in several places (17:17) as 'Astikya-

buddhi', [AstikabhAvaH shraddhadhAnatA AgamArtheShu 18:42].

 

One's attitude to the thought that there is some 'entity'

beyond what is cognized by the senses (buddhi-grAhyam atIndriyam), that

it is possible to access it through a variety of methods, that the

entity can NEVER be falsified or denied - birthless and deathless -,

that sages who speak of It as the Summum Bonum of human existence

(paramArtha)are trust-worthy, that one has to qualify oneself for this

consummation through a discipline (of body, mind, and speech) of the

highest order, is what Vedanta proclaims. The determined pursuit of

this is shraddhA.

 

Faith in 'scientific method' ALONE can be classed as 'tAmasic'

shraddhA, or materialism.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Subrahmanya-ji and others,

 

> I came across some mantrahs on the word " Shraddha " picked up from Udaka

> Shanti Prayogah. The learned members like Shastriji or prof VK can give us

> the meanings . I have given the mantrahs below without swaras.

 

> " shradhAyAgni samidhyatE ; shradhayA vindatE havihi; shradhAm bhagasya

 

> I feel these mantrahs give more detailed definiton on the word " ShradhA " ,

> which I need to understand word by word. One can suggest a web site also

> which gives meanings both direct and hidden.

 

I think the given udaka shAnthi mantras are from Yajur Veda, the " primary

source " for these could be considered the Rig Veda sukta 10.125. If someone

is posting a translation of this, they could rever to the sAyaNa bhAshya for

these mantras and post them as well. You would also find a very famous sukta

(in the parishistha bhAga).

 

I have read a good translation of this in one of Shri Avinash Bose's Vedic

Hymns books. My Vedic Guruji also explained the sAyaNa bhashya for me and I

think he said Prof. Bose translation was reasonably accurate. I do not have

Prof. Bose's book at hand, as I read it when from a library when I was in

U.S.

 

praNAms to all Advaitins,

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

> I think the given udaka shAnthi mantras are from Yajur Veda, the " primary

> source " for these could be considered the Rig Veda sukta 10.125. If someone

 

Namaste,

I am sorry for the typo. I meant Rig Veda I0.151.

I think I need to show more shraddha, rather than writing about it.

 

praNAms to all Advaitins,

Ramakrishna