Guest guest Report post Posted April 12, 2003 Namaste to all, I've been going through all the mails regarding the subject matter with much interest. I believe that all are saying the right thing one way or another, but we are unable to pin point that common correct part. When I'm reading the continous arguments and counter arguments, I feel like watching a tennis match and that my head is following the course of the ball !(though I should admit that my eyes were in Sadanandaji's court most of the time) I'll try to summarize what I've understood so far. Free-will is the choice we have in our actions. Fate is the circumstances and situations under which we *think* we are exercising free-will. Fate is the result of our Karma which inturn is the result of our past actions. IF we were to say that we are really exercising free-will (a point which everyone disagree), then we can say that the course of action taken by us now (result of exercising free-will) will become our Karma and it will come back to us as Fate in a later stage. If free-will is the *think* thing , we are not really exercising it. Then the course of action that we take (resulting from exercising free-will) is already *predetermined* (by whom???) !! But exercising(thinking that) our free-will and doing the resultant action is also part of our Fate. This means that Fate is responsible for exercising Free-will, resulting action, resulting Karma, ultimately leading to Fate (again???) !! Now I feel like I'm back to square one... Om ranjeet Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 13, 2003 Namaste all. The only way we can avoid being thrown back to square one is to abide by the karmanyevAdhikaraste… verse in BG. It is evident to all of us that we have the freedom or right (seeming or otherwise) to do, not to do or to do differently but the results of whatever actions we undertake are not within our control. We don't need a teacher, oriental or occidental, to tell us this much. So, as true advaitins, let us all act legitimately with legitimate desires and leave the results to the Unknown – be it called God, Consciousness or Fate. Any discussion on fate and free will is futile as it always takes us back to square one. It is also beside the Indian context. That is why, I believe, YogavAsiStam stresses the importance of actions and efforts and exhorts us against complacence. If this is understood, then our scriptures have served their purpose. Why then add to the verbiage? PranAms. Madathil Nair __________________________ advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar_s" <thefinalsearch> wrote: > If free-will is the *think* thing , we are not really exercising it. Then > the course of action that we take (resulting from exercising free- will) is > already *predetermined* (by whom???) !! > > But exercising(thinking that) our free-will and doing the resultant > action is also part of our Fate. This means that Fate is responsible for > exercising Free-will, resulting action, resulting Karma, ultimately leading > to Fate (again???) !! > Now I feel like I'm back to square one... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 13, 2003 --- Ranjeet Sankar_s <thefinalsearch wrote: > Then > the course of action that we take (resulting from exercising > free-will) is > already *predetermined* (by whom???) !! > > But exercising(thinking that) our free-will and doing the resultant > action is also part of our Fate. This means that Fate is responsible > for > exercising Free-will, resulting action, resulting Karma, ultimately > leading > to Fate (again???) !! > Now I feel like I'm back to square one... > > Om > ranjeet Ranjeet - You have provided the essence of the discussion leaving with questions to think how we are going to act freely on our fateful situation. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 13, 2003 Namaste and like Ranjeet, I've been going thru the posts with the feeling of watching a tennis match. Although I have no answers to any questions, I can add to the confusion a little bit :-) Instead Fate vs Free-will, can we possibly imagine Fate with Free- will ? In other words, fate and free-will coexisting. Hope this will not be like a new tennis match where each player serves two balls one after the other. Regards, Raghava advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar_s" <thefinalsearch> wrote: > Namaste to all, > > I've been going through all the mails regarding the subject matter with much > interest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 13, 2003 Dear Nair, Thanks for pointing me to the AdhyAsa-web-page. Very good reading material. However, several questions arise. 1) Is this theory of super-imposition coming from Sri VedavyAsa or is it coming from Sri ShankarAchArya. 2) Where is it found in the prasthAna-traya? 3) If adhyAsa-theory is very essential to understand brahma-sootras, how come Sri VedavyAsa has not written it himself ?. 4) Sri VedavyAsa who wrote bhagavad-geetha and brahma-sootras was not aware of it? - Madathil Rajendran Nair advaitin Saturday, April 12, 2003 3:37 AM Re: Fate and Free Will Namaste Shri Jay. Please permit this intrusion into the exchange of thoughts between you and Dennisji. I note from your statements quoted below that you have already created a third "I" besides the "I" and "non-I". There is, therefore, the danger of the mix-up being much more convoluted. Why don't you refer to the following link recommended by Stig-Ji on adhyAsa? I believe it can answer your doubts as it did mine. http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/articles/adhyasa_bhashyam.htm Nice reading and ruminating. PranAms. Madathil Nair advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote: 1. But my question was, When I am not making the mistake of mixing up the two 'I' and 'non-I' (Atman and anAtman) and there is no confusion or mixing up of the two, then how can we say the two are still superimposed? you do not 2. "I get to understand from this that all activities pertaining to knowledge and its objects are due to "superimposition" or adhyAsa of Atman denoted by "I" and anAtman which is all that is "non- I"." 3. "But between Atman and anAtman there is no such confusion. My question is : > how can we say they are superimposed on > each other when there is no confusion between these two to begin with?" Sponsor Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 13, 2003 Namaste to all, Yesterday I had the opportunity to watch a movie based on Jagatguru Adi Sankaracharya. In the movie, Sankaracharya advises his students "Only what SHOULD happen will happen. But that doesnt mean that you should not act. Also dont do anything with the arrogance (Ahankara) that all things happen only because of your actions". And then he recites the sloka "Yel thaavi thal bhavathi yatnamanatnathova yatnenachapi mahatha na Bhavatyabhavi" I'm not very familiar with Sanskrit. I hope what I've written is correct. Please correct it if I'm wrong. Anyone knows from where this sloka is taken? Raghava-ji: "Instead Fate vs Free-will, can we possibly imagine Fate with Free- will ? In other words, fate and free-will coexisting." Raghavaji, I believe what I've mentioned in my previous mail is Fate coexisting with Free-will. "IF we were to say that we are really exercising free-will (a point which everyone disagree), then we can say that the course of action taken by us now (result of exercising free-will) will become our Karma and it will come back to us as Fate in a later stage." Om ranjeet Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 14, 2003 Dear Jay, Of all the things written in that article, what I find most interesting and what I abide by is the following advice: QUOTE ........by the way, this affirms that, in shankara's tradition of advaita, it is futile trying to establish the cause of avidyA, as, once it is recognised and removed , it is seen to never have existed at all! This is why shankara never taxes himself with detailed discussions concerning where does this avidyA come from, and to whom does it belong, as these matters become totally irrelevant once atman is known. Later followers of shankara chose not to let the matter rest, hence the elaborate theories regarding the root cause of avidyA, and various discussions of the locus of avidyA. One imagines that, should these discussions have happened in front of shankara, he would have given them short shrift by saying something like "its about brahman, not avidyA! Don't get distracted!") ... UNQUOTE I don't think I am competent enough and well-versed in scriptures to answer your four questions. I request teachers like Atmachaitanyaji, Sadaji, Stigji et al to help us here. PranAms and regards. Madathil Nair ________________________ advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote: However, several questions arise. > > 1) Is this theory of super-imposition coming from Sri VedavyAsa > or is it coming from Sri ShankarAchArya. > > 2) Where is it found in the prasthAna-traya? > > 3) If adhyAsa-theory is very essential to understand brahma-sootras, > how come Sri VedavyAsa has not written it himself ?. > > 4) Sri VedavyAsa who wrote bhagavad-geetha and brahma-sootras was > not aware of it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 14, 2003 The sections quoted by Sri Murthy from the yoga vashiShTa certainly do back up what Sri Sadananda was saying and are very clearly expressed - I really will have to read this some day, I've been postponing it for far too long! I agree with all that is said except that one small addition changes the emphasis completely. I have never doubted that self-effort is required on a spiritual 'path'. Otherwise the entire system would make no sense at all and we might as well just stay in bed all day. The point I would venture to make however is this: whether or not we make this self-effort is itself predetermined. And it seems that the material itself effectively says as much here: "In cases where one does not succeed in one's self-effort, one should not develop faith in destiny. One should rather realize that his past self-effort was more intense than his present self-effort. Therefore, even the apparent experience of defeat sings the glory of one's own self-effort." Is not 'past self-effort being more intense than present' saying that the outcome has already been determined by the past? Yes, I know that repeated self-effort now and in the future will eventually overcome that and I acknowledge the metaphor of navigating the boat against a strong current. But all this seems to be mere wriggling. The ability to make that repeated self-effort now is dicatated by the past and itself becomes the destiny for the future. I think this is the key sentence: "But such a philosophy can be maintained only by the dead. It is impossible for the living to stop activity even for a second. Whether a child or a learned scholar, all use their mind, intellect, senses, and body in order to attain whatever they desire. It is impossible to stop activity in the name of destiny." We cannot help but act and we cannot help feeling that we do so freely. And those actions are driven by desires (and fears). But where do the desires come from if not from the influence of the past, as does our ability to go with them or fight against them. And where is the freedom in that? One further point. "Destiny, therefore, exists as a figment of imagination in a diseased mind." - So also is free-will a figment of the diseased mind! After writing the above, I see that Benjamin makes pretty well the same points. Ranjeet: "Then the course of action that we take (resulting from exercising free-will) is already *predetermined* (by whom???) !!" D: This point has been addressed earlier. There is no 'whom'. Why do you think a 'whom' is implied? It is all simply a mechanistic cause-effect chain - Materialism if you like (though none of us are materialists!). This is why I keep objecting to the use of words that might imply that a god has 'mapped out' the life of each 'person'. Ranjeet: "This means that Fate is responsible for exercising Free-will, resulting action, resulting Karma, ultimately leading to Fate (again???) !!" I think that, if you read Sri Murthy's quotations together with mine and Benjamin's responses, this problem should be clarified. Madathil: "Why then add to the verbiage?" D: Because we enjoy it... and because we have no choice? Raghava: "In other words, fate and free-will coexisting. Hope this will not be like a new tennis match where each player serves two balls one after the other. D: I think this is effectively what the yoga vashiShTa is saying, isn't it? Best wishes, Dennis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 14, 2003 > > advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote: > > However, several questions arise. > > > > 1) Is this theory of super-imposition coming from Sri VedavyAsa > > or is it coming from Sri ShankarAchArya. > > > > 2) Where is it found in the prasthAna-traya? > > > > 3) If adhyAsa-theory is very essential to understand brahma-sootras, > > how come Sri VedavyAsa has not written it himself ?. > > > > 4) Sri VedavyAsa who wrote bhagavad-geetha and brahma-sootras was > > not aware of it? Shree Jay, Here is my understanding. 1. It is generally assumed that Badarayana, author of Brahmasuutra, and Vedavyaasa are one and the same. There is no foolproof for that assumption. Recently Shree Vishal Agarawal who has Website of his own has mentioned that Badarayana came much later and there are several Brahmasuutra-s in the evolution of suutra literature and this particular one received most authenticity. Vishal is known for his extensive research on these subjects and therefore one should not take his comments lightly. So to answer your questions, Vyasa may not have anything to do with Brahmasuutra. Having said that, all the bhaashyakaara-s that we know of have equated Badarayana to Veda Vyasa. Because of these bhaashya-s only Brahmasuutra received its importance as one of the prasthanatraya. There is also a consideration that Vyaasa is not one but many corresponding to Vyaasa peeTha -like now we call the head of the Shankara Mutts as Shankaracharya. 2. Upanishads emphasized that 'ignorance' as the root cause of the problem. This is agreed upon by most of the achaarya-s - They differ in terms of the contents of avidya. 3. Adhyaasa is based on Shaastriiya anumaana - if ignorance is accepted as the root cause of samsaara - then logically as well as experientially projection resulting from ignorance follows. As we know of today, Goudapaada kaarika is the well-known document that addresses this issue. The greatness of Shankara comes in providing detailed analysis of the adhyaasa and he presents this before he comments on Brahmasuutra as needed introduction to understand the suutra. 4.Suutra-s normally are very condensed form like mathematical equations, therefore bhaashya-s are required to unravel the intended meaning of the suutra-s. Since Brahmasuutra-s are samanvaya(bringing consistency)of Vedanta, every acharya first provides a vishaya vaakya for each suutra that relates the suutra-s to Vedanta. Most of the time Shankara and Ramanuja agree on the relating vishaya vaakya-s for all the suutra-s. Only their interoperations differ. 5. The highest pramaaNa for Vedantin are Veda-s - only Bhagawad Geeta comes next and then only Brahashuutra - Hence the weightage for each three are not the same. 6. For Adviata Philosophy, the mahavaakya-s from the Veda-s constitute as the essential pramaaNa. Some of the advaitic masters like Madusuudhana Saraswati did not give much importance to Brahmasuutra-s. 7. Now to answer it specially, it is not that adhyaasa bhaashya is very important to understand Brahmasuutra - but it is very important to understand the Advaita Vedanta, which echoes the vedantic truth that ignorance is the root cause of the problem. Adhyaasa bhaashya logically expounds the nature of the problem and therefore nature of the solution to the problem. Since Suutra-s intended to solve the fundamental problem by showing self-consistency of the Vedanta, Shankara rightly put adhyaasa Bhaashya in front of Suutra bhaashya. One can ofcorse skip that section if one wants. Bhagawaan Ramanuja spends one tenth of his Shree Bhaasya introduction criticising advaitic doctrin in his laghu and mahaa puurvapaksha - is that important to study for Brahmassutra - not really but unless we study that we would not know what makes his bhaashya different from Shankara. 8. Whey did Veda Vyaasa did not write himself. He might have thought that it is self-evident. Or perhaps he thought that he did not have to since Lord Shiva as Shankara will be writing one in the future! 9. Finally we are fortunate that Shankara wrote the Adhyaasa Bhaashya. It is put in front of Brahmasuutra for one purpose. Since Brahmasuutra is nyaayaprasthaana, it is more important to analyze adhyaasa logically before one goes into details of the logic of suutra-s. That my friend is my understanding and it is not intended for debate. You are welcome to have your own theories if you want and I have no problem with that. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 14, 2003 Dear SadA-jI, >It is generally assumed that Badarayana, author of Brahmasuutra, and >Vedavyaasa are one and the same. There is no foolproof for that >assumption. The foolproof is Geetha 15th chapter, where Shri Krishna claims that He is the author of VedAnta. ( vEdAntakrit vEdavit Eva chAham ) Everyone knows that vEdAnta has begun with uttara-mImAmsA which is brahma-sootras. Therefore, Shri Krishna and Shri VedaVyAsa are avatAras of the same VishNu. (vyAsAya vishNu roopAya vyAsa roopAya vishNavE) Thus there is foolproof from within prasthAna-traya. So, there is no need to go to any academicians for the proof. As the Creator of all that exists, SriKrishna Himself is saying this, that should be enough proof. (for me atleast :-) ) >2. Upanishads emphasized that 'ignorance' as the root cause of the >problem. This is agreed upon by most of the achaarya-s - They differ in >terms of the contents of avidya. avidyA is 'jada', so it can't create anything, including "problems". >3. Adhyaasa is based on Shaastriiya anumaana I am very glad you said this. It means it is open for shAstraic discussion. No one can get away by saying it is beyond discussion. anumAna ( or inference) needs perception as its foundation. What is shAstra- Vedas ( with all of its 4 parts - mantra, brAhmaNa, AraNyaka and upanishat) brahma-sootras and Geetha - what is known as prasthAna-traya. This is the reason why we need to find the "foundation" of AdhyAsa in prasthAna-traya, otherwise it becomes a grand-theory without any shAstraic foundation and hence can't be called 'vedAnta' at all. Hence the question, "where is it found in prasthAna-traya?". There have been many theories that have been put forth by various thinkers all around the world, to tell us why this world is the way it is. We don't call all of them vedAnta, because the "foundation" for those theories was not vEdAdi-shAstra. Is adhyAsa-theory, although a grand theory is one such? is my question. It is definitely not in the Brahma-sootras and Geetha. Where is it in the Veda is my question. - kuntimaddi sadananda advaitin Monday, April 14, 2003 7:31 AM Re: Fate and Free Will > > advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote: > > However, several questions arise. > > > > 1) Is this theory of super-imposition coming from Sri VedavyAsa > > or is it coming from Sri ShankarAchArya. > > > > 2) Where is it found in the prasthAna-traya? > > > > 3) If adhyAsa-theory is very essential to understand brahma-sootras, > > how come Sri VedavyAsa has not written it himself ?. > > > > 4) Sri VedavyAsa who wrote bhagavad-geetha and brahma-sootras was > > not aware of it? Shree Jay, Here is my understanding. 1. It is generally assumed that Badarayana, author of Brahmasuutra, and Vedavyaasa are one and the same. There is no foolproof for that assumption. Recently Shree Vishal Agarawal who has Website of his own has mentioned that Badarayana came much later and there are several Brahmasuutra-s in the evolution of suutra literature and this particular one received most authenticity. Vishal is known for his extensive research on these subjects and therefore one should not take his comments lightly. So to answer your questions, Vyasa may not have anything to do with Brahmasuutra. Having said that, all the bhaashyakaara-s that we know of have equated Badarayana to Veda Vyasa. Because of these bhaashya-s only Brahmasuutra received its importance as one of the prasthanatraya. There is also a consideration that Vyaasa is not one but many corresponding to Vyaasa peeTha -like now we call the head of the Shankara Mutts as Shankaracharya. 2. Upanishads emphasized that 'ignorance' as the root cause of the problem. This is agreed upon by most of the achaarya-s - They differ in terms of the contents of avidya. 3. Adhyaasa is based on Shaastriiya anumaana - if ignorance is accepted as the root cause of samsaara - then logically as well as experientially projection resulting from ignorance follows. As we know of today, Goudapaada kaarika is the well-known document that addresses this issue. The greatness of Shankara comes in providing detailed analysis of the adhyaasa and he presents this before he comments on Brahmasuutra as needed introduction to understand the suutra. 4.Suutra-s normally are very condensed form like mathematical equations, therefore bhaashya-s are required to unravel the intended meaning of the suutra-s. Since Brahmasuutra-s are samanvaya(bringing consistency)of Vedanta, every acharya first provides a vishaya vaakya for each suutra that relates the suutra-s to Vedanta. Most of the time Shankara and Ramanuja agree on the relating vishaya vaakya-s for all the suutra-s. Only their interoperations differ. 5. The highest pramaaNa for Vedantin are Veda-s - only Bhagawad Geeta comes next and then only Brahashuutra - Hence the weightage for each three are not the same. 6. For Adviata Philosophy, the mahavaakya-s from the Veda-s constitute as the essential pramaaNa. Some of the advaitic masters like Madusuudhana Saraswati did not give much importance to Brahmasuutra-s. 7. Now to answer it specially, it is not that adhyaasa bhaashya is very important to understand Brahmasuutra - but it is very important to understand the Advaita Vedanta, which echoes the vedantic truth that ignorance is the root cause of the problem. Adhyaasa bhaashya logically expounds the nature of the problem and therefore nature of the solution to the problem. Since Suutra-s intended to solve the fundamental problem by showing self-consistency of the Vedanta, Shankara rightly put adhyaasa Bhaashya in front of Suutra bhaashya. One can ofcorse skip that section if one wants. Bhagawaan Ramanuja spends one tenth of his Shree Bhaasya introduction criticising advaitic doctrin in his laghu and mahaa puurvapaksha - is that important to study for Brahmassutra - not really but unless we study that we would not know what makes his bhaashya different from Shankara. 8. Whey did Veda Vyaasa did not write himself. He might have thought that it is self-evident. Or perhaps he thought that he did not have to since Lord Shiva as Shankara will be writing one in the future! 9. Finally we are fortunate that Shankara wrote the Adhyaasa Bhaashya. It is put in front of Brahmasuutra for one purpose. Since Brahmasuutra is nyaayaprasthaana, it is more important to analyze adhyaasa logically before one goes into details of the logic of suutra-s. That my friend is my understanding and it is not intended for debate. You are welcome to have your own theories if you want and I have no problem with that. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax. Sponsor Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 14, 2003 namaste. May be it is time to put this discussion aside. But I still have some lingering questions on this topic and somehow, they were not addressed in this debate. 1. Yes, yoga vashiShTa says that self-effort is far supreme than leaving everything to fate. But I feel that does not address the debate on free-will. Yes, self-effort is supreme and no one denies that. Everyone has to do the self-effort for progress (either spiritual or materialistic). 2. My question still remains. How free is the free-will? I raised this question earlier and it was not responded to. Take the case of a hypothetical pious man. Does this pious man have the free-will to commit a hineous crime or even to think to commit a crime? Can the karmic-phala (uptill now) which made him pious allow him to do it? Will his past saMskArA-s, his knowledge of what is right and wrong, and will his belief in the abidance to law and order (which is itself a result of the past-saMskArA-s) allow him to do it? My answer is no, and hence the only conclusion is there is no free free-will. There is only a tiny diversion that one can take. This pious man can be able to commit a crime only after many many lives of criminal thinking so that the past good karma-phala has been fully extinguished and he is no longer pious. Even the thinking of committing a crime is foreign to the pious man. He has become pious because of his past actions. These past actions dictate what sort of thinking this man will have. 3. As another hypothetical example to say that thinking even is dictated by actions of past lives: I do not believe in the justification for the present war. This belief was developed in me by my past karma. Even if I want to believe in the justification for the present war, I cannot do that. Where is my free-will then? 4. I think self-effort is not to be confused with free-will. My question is how free is this free-will? I hope someone would address these questions. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 14, 2003 Namaste Sri Gummuluru Murthy >2. My question still remains. How free is the free-will? >I raised this question earlier and it was not responded to. >Take the case of a hypothetical pious man. Does this pious >man have the free-will to commit a hineous crime or even to >think to commit a crime? Can the karmic-phala (uptill now) >which made him pious allow him to do it? Will his past >saMskArA-s, his knowledge of what is right and wrong, and >will his belief in the abidance to law and order (which is >itself a result of the past-saMskArA-s) allow him to do it? >My answer is no, and hence the only conclusion is there is no >free free-will. There is only a tiny diversion that one can take. It seems to me that I was basically agreeing with what you just said, when I responded directly to your quotes from Yoga VashiShTa in message number 16562. I may have used different words, but the content and logic are really the same (or at least quite similar). So it is not the case that nobody responded to you! >4. I think self-effort is not to be confused with free-will. >My question is how free is this free-will? I hope someone >would address these questions. Once again, I agree with your distinction. Why don't you humor me and read what I wrote. It is not too long and is actually rather clear and logical, even if not inspired by the Gods! Om! Benjamin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 14, 2003 Dear SadA-jI > Since Brahmasuutra-s are samanvaya(bringing consistency)of Vedanta. Very correct. Then why don't we let Sri VedavyAsa tell us about adhyAsa? is my question. The very fact that Sri Shankara had to add adhyAsa-bhAshya before starting brahma-sootra-bhAshya, tells us that the theory of adhyAsa was not really Sri VedavyAsa's idea. Once we mix up our ideas with sri VedavyAsa's ideas, have we not lost Vedanta already. Why call adhyAsa-theory as vEdanta - when Sri VedavyAsa who is (vEdanta-krit vEdavit) himself does not to it. Even if adhyAsa-theory happens to be the correct theory explaining this world, even then we can not call it "vEdAnta" if it is not based on prasthAna-traya. That is the point I am trying to make. - kuntimaddi sadananda advaitin Monday, April 14, 2003 7:31 AM Re: Fate and Free Will > > advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote: > > However, several questions arise. > > > > 1) Is this theory of super-imposition coming from Sri VedavyAsa > > or is it coming from Sri ShankarAchArya. > > > > 2) Where is it found in the prasthAna-traya? > > > > 3) If adhyAsa-theory is very essential to understand brahma-sootras, > > how come Sri VedavyAsa has not written it himself ?. > > > > 4) Sri VedavyAsa who wrote bhagavad-geetha and brahma-sootras was > > not aware of it? Shree Jay, Here is my understanding. 1. It is generally assumed that Badarayana, author of Brahmasuutra, and Vedavyaasa are one and the same. There is no foolproof for that assumption. Recently Shree Vishal Agarawal who has Website of his own has mentioned that Badarayana came much later and there are several Brahmasuutra-s in the evolution of suutra literature and this particular one received most authenticity. Vishal is known for his extensive research on these subjects and therefore one should not take his comments lightly. So to answer your questions, Vyasa may not have anything to do with Brahmasuutra. Having said that, all the bhaashyakaara-s that we know of have equated Badarayana to Veda Vyasa. Because of these bhaashya-s only Brahmasuutra received its importance as one of the prasthanatraya. There is also a consideration that Vyaasa is not one but many corresponding to Vyaasa peeTha -like now we call the head of the Shankara Mutts as Shankaracharya. 2. Upanishads emphasized that 'ignorance' as the root cause of the problem. This is agreed upon by most of the achaarya-s - They differ in terms of the contents of avidya. 3. Adhyaasa is based on Shaastriiya anumaana - if ignorance is accepted as the root cause of samsaara - then logically as well as experientially projection resulting from ignorance follows. As we know of today, Goudapaada kaarika is the well-known document that addresses this issue. The greatness of Shankara comes in providing detailed analysis of the adhyaasa and he presents this before he comments on Brahmasuutra as needed introduction to understand the suutra. 4.Suutra-s normally are very condensed form like mathematical equations, therefore bhaashya-s are required to unravel the intended meaning of the suutra-s. Since Brahmasuutra-s are samanvaya(bringing consistency)of Vedanta, every acharya first provides a vishaya vaakya for each suutra that relates the suutra-s to Vedanta. Most of the time Shankara and Ramanuja agree on the relating vishaya vaakya-s for all the suutra-s. Only their interoperations differ. 5. The highest pramaaNa for Vedantin are Veda-s - only Bhagawad Geeta comes next and then only Brahashuutra - Hence the weightage for each three are not the same. 6. For Adviata Philosophy, the mahavaakya-s from the Veda-s constitute as the essential pramaaNa. Some of the advaitic masters like Madusuudhana Saraswati did not give much importance to Brahmasuutra-s. 7. Now to answer it specially, it is not that adhyaasa bhaashya is very important to understand Brahmasuutra - but it is very important to understand the Advaita Vedanta, which echoes the vedantic truth that ignorance is the root cause of the problem. Adhyaasa bhaashya logically expounds the nature of the problem and therefore nature of the solution to the problem. Since Suutra-s intended to solve the fundamental problem by showing self-consistency of the Vedanta, Shankara rightly put adhyaasa Bhaashya in front of Suutra bhaashya. One can ofcorse skip that section if one wants. Bhagawaan Ramanuja spends one tenth of his Shree Bhaasya introduction criticising advaitic doctrin in his laghu and mahaa puurvapaksha - is that important to study for Brahmassutra - not really but unless we study that we would not know what makes his bhaashya different from Shankara. 8. Whey did Veda Vyaasa did not write himself. He might have thought that it is self-evident. Or perhaps he thought that he did not have to since Lord Shiva as Shankara will be writing one in the future! 9. Finally we are fortunate that Shankara wrote the Adhyaasa Bhaashya. It is put in front of Brahmasuutra for one purpose. Since Brahmasuutra is nyaayaprasthaana, it is more important to analyze adhyaasa logically before one goes into details of the logic of suutra-s. That my friend is my understanding and it is not intended for debate. You are welcome to have your own theories if you want and I have no problem with that. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax. Sponsor Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 14, 2003 --- Jay Nelamangala <jay wrote: > > The foolproof is Geetha 15th chapter, where Shri Krishna claims that > He is the author of VedAnta. Shree Jay - It loks like you have already made conclusions - It will be foolish for me to argue with those. Normally I would stop with this. Let me just state that Dwaitins and VishishhTadviatins argue that Veda-s have no beginnig - Hence - it is considered at least by some of the vedantic schools that it is beginning less and only Lord has bought them out to Brahma and so on. Hence even Lord is not considered as creator of the Veda-s. In 13th chapter where he refers to brahmasuutra per sec it is also not clear that he is referring to these baadarayana suutra-s. Finally contrary to your believes even Krishna does not claim that the knowledge is His - He claims - RishibhiH bahuudaa giitam chando bhiH vividhai prathak - that sages have sung this in many ways in the Veda-s. Your understanding that Vyasa is Vishu - yes that is what he said in Vibhuti yoga - But he also said he is Arjuna too who is all confused - can you equate Arjuna to Vishnu now and take all the statements of Arjuna as Vishnu's statements - Hence there is more deeper significance in terms of Krishna's statement in the Vibuuti yoga. you can have your own explanations and interpretations and it will be foolish for me to argue on those. SriKrishna Himself is saying this, that should be enough > proof. > (for me atleast :-) ) Well Jay - I am glad you have such a strong faith in your interpretation and I am not going to question them. But do not assume that if that is enough for you it is enough for everybody. Others are equally entitled to their beliefs, as you can see from the strong discussions on Fate and Free will. > avidyA is 'jada', so it can't create anything, including "problems". Jay - you are not arguing any thing different from what has been presented by Bhagawaan Ramaanuja in this Shree Bhaashya. To use your terminology 'everybody' knows that jada cannot create anything (not everybody -in sankhyan philosophy creation is by prakriti) and when advaitin says 'avidya' is cause for creation - you need to pay more attention to what exactly he is saying before you jump with guns. You are forgetting that they do not have any substantive jada to start with. What Ramanuja criticises is 'bhaava ruupa ajnaana' not ajnaana per sec, a concept that crept after shankara to account for some of the objections. You need to slow down before you jump in with statements. > >3. Adhyaasa is based on Shaastriiya anumaana > > I am very glad you said this. It means it is open for shAstraic > discussion. > No one can get away by saying it is beyond discussion. > > anumAna ( or inference) needs perception as its foundation. No loukika anumaana needs perception as its foundation - not shaastriiya anumaana - that is why it is shaastriiya - it requires consistency in the interpretation of shastric statements. I am sure Shankara is not self-inconsistent in interpreting shaastric statements. You may not agree with his interpretation - that is why we have dviata and vishishhTadvaita list serves that caters to differnt interpretations of the shaastra-s. If you are against adivatic concept that centers on adhyaasa, my friend, all I can say is you are in the wrong list and I am sure Shree Ram chandran can guide you to the list that caters to your needs. > > What is shAstra- Vedas ( with all of its 4 parts - mantra, brAhmaNa, > AraNyaka and upanishat) brahma-sootras and Geetha - what is known as > prasthAna-traya. First Vedanta ( here we are not taking about puurvakaanda dealing with karma kanda) and then B. Geeta comes next in the order of pramaana. Suutra-s come last. They do not have the same weight, just becuse you believe that they are all from Krishna or Vishnu. The role of puurva miimamsa in relation to uttara miimamasa has been extensively dealt with in relation to suutra bhaashya I - Each aacharya has different interpretations for each. We have in notes on suutra I where all the puurvapaksha-s have been eloborately dealt with and I can guarentee any objections you may have, are already been treated in the notes. My stong recomendation is if you are deeply interested, you should first read first all the notes that is available and then raise objections. But if you have already concluded and want to dump your theories on this list - my best wishes. > This is the reason why we need to find the "foundation" of AdhyAsa in > prasthAna-traya, otherwise it becomes a grand-theory without any > shAstraic > foundation and hence can't be called 'vedAnta' at all. Hence the > question, > "where is it found in prasthAna-traya?". Jay - You are jumping your aruments too fast. Shaastriiya anumaana is based on shaastra to account for the experience of human being. Loukika anumaana is only based on perception for its proof. I have prepared a notes on the adhyaasa Bhaasya and stored in the files - my strong recommendation is to go over it and see if it violates the shaastra. If so plase bring it to our discussion and we have a basis to discuss. If you have some preconceived charter and want to use this mailing list for that, I think you are wasting your time. If you have time my advice is to read the notes and raise any objections to the contents if you find strongly about it and put forth counter arguments that you think more correct. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 14, 2003 advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > 4. I think self-effort is not to be confused with free-will. My > question is how free is this free-will? I hope someone would address > these questions. Namaste, May I again request that readers refer to Sw. Chandrashekhara Bharati's dialogue : advaitinArticles/The%20Riddle% 20of%20Fate%20and%20Free-Will%20Solved.txt Regards, Sunder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 14, 2003 Dear SadA-jI, >I have prepared a notes on the adhyaasa Bhaasya and stored in the files >- my strong recommendation is to go over it and see if it violates the >shaastra. If so plase bring it to our discussion and we have a basis to >discuss. Yes, I would love to go through those notes. Is there a web-page? The current basis for our discussion is "If a theory is added to prasthAna-traya, can it still be called vedAnta?" My contention is no. - kuntimaddi sadananda advaitin Monday, April 14, 2003 2:01 PM Re: Re: Fate and Free Will --- Jay Nelamangala <jay wrote: > > The foolproof is Geetha 15th chapter, where Shri Krishna claims that > He is the author of VedAnta. Shree Jay - It loks like you have already made conclusions - It will be foolish for me to argue with those. Normally I would stop with this. Let me just state that Dwaitins and VishishhTadviatins argue that Veda-s have no beginnig - Hence - it is considered at least by some of the vedantic schools that it is beginning less and only Lord has bought them out to Brahma and so on. Hence even Lord is not considered as creator of the Veda-s. In 13th chapter where he refers to brahmasuutra per sec it is also not clear that he is referring to these baadarayana suutra-s. Finally contrary to your believes even Krishna does not claim that the knowledge is His - He claims - RishibhiH bahuudaa giitam chando bhiH vividhai prathak - that sages have sung this in many ways in the Veda-s. Your understanding that Vyasa is Vishu - yes that is what he said in Vibhuti yoga - But he also said he is Arjuna too who is all confused - can you equate Arjuna to Vishnu now and take all the statements of Arjuna as Vishnu's statements - Hence there is more deeper significance in terms of Krishna's statement in the Vibuuti yoga. you can have your own explanations and interpretations and it will be foolish for me to argue on those. SriKrishna Himself is saying this, that should be enough > proof. > (for me atleast :-) ) Well Jay - I am glad you have such a strong faith in your interpretation and I am not going to question them. But do not assume that if that is enough for you it is enough for everybody. Others are equally entitled to their beliefs, as you can see from the strong discussions on Fate and Free will. > avidyA is 'jada', so it can't create anything, including "problems". Jay - you are not arguing any thing different from what has been presented by Bhagawaan Ramaanuja in this Shree Bhaashya. To use your terminology 'everybody' knows that jada cannot create anything (not everybody -in sankhyan philosophy creation is by prakriti) and when advaitin says 'avidya' is cause for creation - you need to pay more attention to what exactly he is saying before you jump with guns. You are forgetting that they do not have any substantive jada to start with. What Ramanuja criticises is 'bhaava ruupa ajnaana' not ajnaana per sec, a concept that crept after shankara to account for some of the objections. You need to slow down before you jump in with statements. > >3. Adhyaasa is based on Shaastriiya anumaana > > I am very glad you said this. It means it is open for shAstraic > discussion. > No one can get away by saying it is beyond discussion. > > anumAna ( or inference) needs perception as its foundation. No loukika anumaana needs perception as its foundation - not shaastriiya anumaana - that is why it is shaastriiya - it requires consistency in the interpretation of shastric statements. I am sure Shankara is not self-inconsistent in interpreting shaastric statements. You may not agree with his interpretation - that is why we have dviata and vishishhTadvaita list serves that caters to differnt interpretations of the shaastra-s. If you are against adivatic concept that centers on adhyaasa, my friend, all I can say is you are in the wrong list and I am sure Shree Ram chandran can guide you to the list that caters to your needs. > > What is shAstra- Vedas ( with all of its 4 parts - mantra, brAhmaNa, > AraNyaka and upanishat) brahma-sootras and Geetha - what is known as > prasthAna-traya. First Vedanta ( here we are not taking about puurvakaanda dealing with karma kanda) and then B. Geeta comes next in the order of pramaana. Suutra-s come last. They do not have the same weight, just becuse you believe that they are all from Krishna or Vishnu. The role of puurva miimamsa in relation to uttara miimamasa has been extensively dealt with in relation to suutra bhaashya I - Each aacharya has different interpretations for each. We have in notes on suutra I where all the puurvapaksha-s have been eloborately dealt with and I can guarentee any objections you may have, are already been treated in the notes. My stong recomendation is if you are deeply interested, you should first read first all the notes that is available and then raise objections. But if you have already concluded and want to dump your theories on this list - my best wishes. > This is the reason why we need to find the "foundation" of AdhyAsa in > prasthAna-traya, otherwise it becomes a grand-theory without any > shAstraic > foundation and hence can't be called 'vedAnta' at all. Hence the > question, > "where is it found in prasthAna-traya?". Jay - You are jumping your aruments too fast. Shaastriiya anumaana is based on shaastra to account for the experience of human being. Loukika anumaana is only based on perception for its proof. I have prepared a notes on the adhyaasa Bhaasya and stored in the files - my strong recommendation is to go over it and see if it violates the shaastra. If so plase bring it to our discussion and we have a basis to discuss. If you have some preconceived charter and want to use this mailing list for that, I think you are wasting your time. If you have time my advice is to read the notes and raise any objections to the contents if you find strongly about it and put forth counter arguments that you think more correct. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax. Sponsor Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 14, 2003 Dear sadA-jI >Shree Jay - It loks like you have already made conclusions - It will be >foolish for me to argue with those. Normally I would stop with this. I have great respect for you, I am not arguing with you at all. All I am trying to find out is the origin of adhyAsa-theory. Is it in the prasthAna-traya or not?. If it is not, then how can we call it vEdanta?. That is the simple and sole point of discussion. >Finally >contrary to your believes even Krishna does not claim that the knowledge >is His - He claims - RishibhiH bahuudaa giitam chando bhiH vividhai >prathak - that sages have sung this in many ways in the Veda-s. Sages have sung no doubt, but they did not create Veda. >Others are equally entitled to their beliefs, as you can see >from the strong discussions on Fate and Free will. Yes, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, as long as they don't call it vEdAnta. Ideas and beliefs coming from outside of prasthAna-traya can not be called vEdAnta. That is the only point I am trying to make. >terminology 'everybody' knows that jada cannot create anything (not >everybody -in sankhyan philosophy creation is by prakriti) and when >advaitin says 'avidya' is cause for creation - you need to pay more >It is true that sAnkhya says Prakrti itself is the cause of creation. That is their theory of explaining this world, >coming from outside of prasthAna-traya, and therefore sAnkhya school is not a vEdAnta-school. >If you are against adivatic concept that centers on >adhyaasa, my friend, all I can say is you are in the wrong list and I am >sure Shree Ram chandran can guide you to the list that caters to your >needs. I am not against adhyAsa-theory itself, there are several theories that have been put forth by various thinkers including modern science big-bang theory about this universe, and adhyAsa-theory is also one such. I expect some one in this group to show me where in prasthAna-traya the theory of adhyAsa shows up, so it can be called vedAnta. Asking me to to some other list, is not going bring adhyAsa-theory back into vEdAnta. or Does it ? - kuntimaddi sadananda advaitin Monday, April 14, 2003 2:01 PM Re: Re: Fate and Free Will --- Jay Nelamangala <jay wrote: > > The foolproof is Geetha 15th chapter, where Shri Krishna claims that > He is the author of VedAnta. Shree Jay - It loks like you have already made conclusions - It will be foolish for me to argue with those. Normally I would stop with this. Let me just state that Dwaitins and VishishhTadviatins argue that Veda-s have no beginnig - Hence - it is considered at least by some of the vedantic schools that it is beginning less and only Lord has bought them out to Brahma and so on. Hence even Lord is not considered as creator of the Veda-s. In 13th chapter where he refers to brahmasuutra per sec it is also not clear that he is referring to these baadarayana suutra-s. Finally contrary to your believes even Krishna does not claim that the knowledge is His - He claims - RishibhiH bahuudaa giitam chando bhiH vividhai prathak - that sages have sung this in many ways in the Veda-s. Your understanding that Vyasa is Vishu - yes that is what he said in Vibhuti yoga - But he also said he is Arjuna too who is all confused - can you equate Arjuna to Vishnu now and take all the statements of Arjuna as Vishnu's statements - Hence there is more deeper significance in terms of Krishna's statement in the Vibuuti yoga. you can have your own explanations and interpretations and it will be foolish for me to argue on those. SriKrishna Himself is saying this, that should be enough > proof. > (for me atleast :-) ) Well Jay - I am glad you have such a strong faith in your interpretation and I am not going to question them. But do not assume that if that is enough for you it is enough for everybody. Others are equally entitled to their beliefs, as you can see from the strong discussions on Fate and Free will. > avidyA is 'jada', so it can't create anything, including "problems". Jay - you are not arguing any thing different from what has been presented by Bhagawaan Ramaanuja in this Shree Bhaashya. To use your terminology 'everybody' knows that jada cannot create anything (not everybody -in sankhyan philosophy creation is by prakriti) and when advaitin says 'avidya' is cause for creation - you need to pay more attention to what exactly he is saying before you jump with guns. You are forgetting that they do not have any substantive jada to start with. What Ramanuja criticises is 'bhaava ruupa ajnaana' not ajnaana per sec, a concept that crept after shankara to account for some of the objections. You need to slow down before you jump in with statements. > >3. Adhyaasa is based on Shaastriiya anumaana > > I am very glad you said this. It means it is open for shAstraic > discussion. > No one can get away by saying it is beyond discussion. > > anumAna ( or inference) needs perception as its foundation. No loukika anumaana needs perception as its foundation - not shaastriiya anumaana - that is why it is shaastriiya - it requires consistency in the interpretation of shastric statements. I am sure Shankara is not self-inconsistent in interpreting shaastric statements. You may not agree with his interpretation - that is why we have dviata and vishishhTadvaita list serves that caters to differnt interpretations of the shaastra-s. If you are against adivatic concept that centers on adhyaasa, my friend, all I can say is you are in the wrong list and I am sure Shree Ram chandran can guide you to the list that caters to your needs. > > What is shAstra- Vedas ( with all of its 4 parts - mantra, brAhmaNa, > AraNyaka and upanishat) brahma-sootras and Geetha - what is known as > prasthAna-traya. First Vedanta ( here we are not taking about puurvakaanda dealing with karma kanda) and then B. Geeta comes next in the order of pramaana. Suutra-s come last. They do not have the same weight, just becuse you believe that they are all from Krishna or Vishnu. The role of puurva miimamsa in relation to uttara miimamasa has been extensively dealt with in relation to suutra bhaashya I - Each aacharya has different interpretations for each. We have in notes on suutra I where all the puurvapaksha-s have been eloborately dealt with and I can guarentee any objections you may have, are already been treated in the notes. My stong recomendation is if you are deeply interested, you should first read first all the notes that is available and then raise objections. But if you have already concluded and want to dump your theories on this list - my best wishes. > This is the reason why we need to find the "foundation" of AdhyAsa in > prasthAna-traya, otherwise it becomes a grand-theory without any > shAstraic > foundation and hence can't be called 'vedAnta' at all. Hence the > question, > "where is it found in prasthAna-traya?". Jay - You are jumping your aruments too fast. Shaastriiya anumaana is based on shaastra to account for the experience of human being. Loukika anumaana is only based on perception for its proof. I have prepared a notes on the adhyaasa Bhaasya and stored in the files - my strong recommendation is to go over it and see if it violates the shaastra. If so plase bring it to our discussion and we have a basis to discuss. If you have some preconceived charter and want to use this mailing list for that, I think you are wasting your time. If you have time my advice is to read the notes and raise any objections to the contents if you find strongly about it and put forth counter arguments that you think more correct. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax. Sponsor Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 14, 2003 Dear sadAjI, >But he also said he is Arjuna too who is all confused - can you >equate Arjuna to Vishnu now and take all the statements of Arjuna as >Vishnu's statements - Hence there is more deeper significance in terms >of Krishna's statement in the Vibuuti yoga. Of course not. But that is exactly what Advaita teaches does it not?. That Arjuna (individual soul) and Krishna ( God) are one and the same, and use "paandavaanaam dhananjayaha" as proof from Geetha for the theory that this jeeva is indeed Brahman. But SriKrishna is telling Arjuna that He could have made anyone of the other pAndaVas into a greatest warrior. But it was an iota of His infinite splendour that makes Arjuna the greatest warrior among all pandavas, because His presence in Arjuna is such. Just as the presence of God in a Lion is such that it has a certain majesty among animals for us to consider it lion-king etc etc. (mrigANAm cha mrigEndrOham). The 10th chapter gives a long list of these. yadyat vibhootimat sattvam shreemadoorjitamEva vaa | Tattat evAvagaccha tvam mama tEjOmsha sambhavam 10.41 There is nothing that is without Me. (10.39). Wherever there is strength (sattva) utmost greatness among its class (vibhooti), brightness (kAnti), excellence (Urjita), you understand that it is born out of an iota (amsha) of My infinite splendour (Tejas) (10.40, 41). For this reason, other vEdAntins do not equate Arjuna to SriKrishna because, they derive their theories from prasthAna-traya which includes Geetha. It is only Advaita which talks about identity, in spite of Geetha saying explicitly no. - kuntimaddi sadananda advaitin Monday, April 14, 2003 2:01 PM Re: Re: Fate and Free Will --- Jay Nelamangala <jay wrote: > > The foolproof is Geetha 15th chapter, where Shri Krishna claims that > He is the author of VedAnta. Shree Jay - It loks like you have already made conclusions - It will be foolish for me to argue with those. Normally I would stop with this. Let me just state that Dwaitins and VishishhTadviatins argue that Veda-s have no beginnig - Hence - it is considered at least by some of the vedantic schools that it is beginning less and only Lord has bought them out to Brahma and so on. Hence even Lord is not considered as creator of the Veda-s. In 13th chapter where he refers to brahmasuutra per sec it is also not clear that he is referring to these baadarayana suutra-s. Finally contrary to your believes even Krishna does not claim that the knowledge is His - He claims - RishibhiH bahuudaa giitam chando bhiH vividhai prathak - that sages have sung this in many ways in the Veda-s. Your understanding that Vyasa is Vishu - yes that is what he said in Vibhuti yoga - But he also said he is Arjuna too who is all confused - can you equate Arjuna to Vishnu now and take all the statements of Arjuna as Vishnu's statements - Hence there is more deeper significance in terms of Krishna's statement in the Vibuuti yoga. you can have your own explanations and interpretations and it will be foolish for me to argue on those. SriKrishna Himself is saying this, that should be enough > proof. > (for me atleast :-) ) Well Jay - I am glad you have such a strong faith in your interpretation and I am not going to question them. But do not assume that if that is enough for you it is enough for everybody. Others are equally entitled to their beliefs, as you can see from the strong discussions on Fate and Free will. > avidyA is 'jada', so it can't create anything, including "problems". Jay - you are not arguing any thing different from what has been presented by Bhagawaan Ramaanuja in this Shree Bhaashya. To use your terminology 'everybody' knows that jada cannot create anything (not everybody -in sankhyan philosophy creation is by prakriti) and when advaitin says 'avidya' is cause for creation - you need to pay more attention to what exactly he is saying before you jump with guns. You are forgetting that they do not have any substantive jada to start with. What Ramanuja criticises is 'bhaava ruupa ajnaana' not ajnaana per sec, a concept that crept after shankara to account for some of the objections. You need to slow down before you jump in with statements. > >3. Adhyaasa is based on Shaastriiya anumaana > > I am very glad you said this. It means it is open for shAstraic > discussion. > No one can get away by saying it is beyond discussion. > > anumAna ( or inference) needs perception as its foundation. No loukika anumaana needs perception as its foundation - not shaastriiya anumaana - that is why it is shaastriiya - it requires consistency in the interpretation of shastric statements. I am sure Shankara is not self-inconsistent in interpreting shaastric statements. You may not agree with his interpretation - that is why we have dviata and vishishhTadvaita list serves that caters to differnt interpretations of the shaastra-s. If you are against adivatic concept that centers on adhyaasa, my friend, all I can say is you are in the wrong list and I am sure Shree Ram chandran can guide you to the list that caters to your needs. > > What is shAstra- Vedas ( with all of its 4 parts - mantra, brAhmaNa, > AraNyaka and upanishat) brahma-sootras and Geetha - what is known as > prasthAna-traya. First Vedanta ( here we are not taking about puurvakaanda dealing with karma kanda) and then B. Geeta comes next in the order of pramaana. Suutra-s come last. They do not have the same weight, just becuse you believe that they are all from Krishna or Vishnu. The role of puurva miimamsa in relation to uttara miimamasa has been extensively dealt with in relation to suutra bhaashya I - Each aacharya has different interpretations for each. We have in notes on suutra I where all the puurvapaksha-s have been eloborately dealt with and I can guarentee any objections you may have, are already been treated in the notes. My stong recomendation is if you are deeply interested, you should first read first all the notes that is available and then raise objections. But if you have already concluded and want to dump your theories on this list - my best wishes. > This is the reason why we need to find the "foundation" of AdhyAsa in > prasthAna-traya, otherwise it becomes a grand-theory without any > shAstraic > foundation and hence can't be called 'vedAnta' at all. Hence the > question, > "where is it found in prasthAna-traya?". Jay - You are jumping your aruments too fast. Shaastriiya anumaana is based on shaastra to account for the experience of human being. Loukika anumaana is only based on perception for its proof. I have prepared a notes on the adhyaasa Bhaasya and stored in the files - my strong recommendation is to go over it and see if it violates the shaastra. If so plase bring it to our discussion and we have a basis to discuss. If you have some preconceived charter and want to use this mailing list for that, I think you are wasting your time. If you have time my advice is to read the notes and raise any objections to the contents if you find strongly about it and put forth counter arguments that you think more correct. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax. Sponsor Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 15, 2003 Namaste. Reference Shri Jay's responses to Sadaji. I can only quote the "pUrNamata, pUrNamidam ….." verse from IsovAsyopaniSad which has guided me safely all along through my advaitic quest. Fullness minus fullness is fullness is a mathematical impossibility. We cannot, therefore, apply mathematics to prove advaita. Similarly, therefore, we cannot apply all our mundane observations too to prove the validity of the advaitic truth. So, what is the point in pointing out that the earth as an object has not disappeared even when the old theories about its shape and movement have been corrected? If there is Fullness and if that is the Truth advaita extols, then there is nothing ouside it as Fullness cannot have any beyonds. Even the idea of a beyond would be only within it. It is even wrong to use the word 'within' because that word also loses its meaning vis a vis Fullness. Thus, advaitic knowledge is called parAvidya, as opposed to other limited mundane knowledges. Fullness is discerned even inspite of apparent duality, the objects of which are actually in the total embrace of Oneness. In other words, 'duality' loses its meaning in this embrace like 'within' loses its meaning. Duality becomes Fullness in effect. That is why Fullness minus Fullness is Fullness. Why don't we try to contemplate on this Truth and lose our own individual identities in that embrace instead of looking for differneces in points of view? About the word adhyAsa (not a theory like Relativity!), since it connotes avidyA of the Upanishads, why make such a big hallabaloo for its date of birth and condemn it as external to prastAnatraya? What are we going to achieve from such an exercise? A doctorate from some university? PranAms. Madathill Nair _______________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 15, 2003 Jay: "When "knowledge" dawns, it does not destroy its object." D: In this context I am still understanding 'knowledge' to be a synonym for 'enlightenment'. My understanding is that when knowledge-enlightenment dawns it becomes 'known' that there are no objects. Obviously 'knowledge' is an inappropriate word because the very word implies an object of knowledge but unfortunately we do have to communicate throught the use of language. So, I would maintain that yes, it does indeed *effectively* destroy its object. When the 'ultimate knowledge' dawns, the previously presumed object - i.e. a separate universe - is effectively destroyed. It is now known that the very idea of a separate universe was a mistake, brought about through ignorance, which itself no longer exists. What remains (what was always there and always will be there) is simply the one undifferentiated reality, which is neither subject nor object. In truth, of course, nothing has been destroyed because the presumed separate world never existed in the first place. I must say that it does seem as though you intentionally posted initial questions from the apparent vantage point of someone genuinely seeking understanding only to pounce on the various responses from the new vantage point of someone believing that they know all about the subject and able to bring forth learned 'put-downs' to those whom you had succeeded in catching out. Forgive me if this assessment is unjust but that is how it appears. If you have new input on the adhyAsa theory, I am sure that we would all be willing to receive it and learn from you without any dissembling preamble. The expression 'outside the "choir"' does sound a bit disrespectful, however. Jay: "If we say, everything in this world appears as they are because of adhyAsa and therefore nothing is real except Brahman, then as belonging to this world, this theory itself is unreal." D: I don't see a problem with this. All of our present understanding is in the realm of objectivity and thoughts and so is ultimately 'unreal' but if an unreal theory can bring us to that realisation then what's the problem? C.f. the dream lion metaphor or thorn to remove a thorn, with which I am sure you are familiar. P.S. Please delete old messages from the end of your posts. Apart from taking up space, there is also the danger of missing a new message when scrolling through all of the repeated old stuff. Best wishes, Dennis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 15, 2003 --- Jay Nelamangala <jay wrote: > > Yes, I would love to go through those notes. Is there a web-page? > The current basis for our discussion is > "If a theory is added to prasthAna-traya, can it still be called > vedAnta?" > My contention is no. Jay - since you have d for the list you can access the Brahmasuutra notes from the files stored in the archives. Shree Sunder wanted me to write a read me first to direct readers to the contents. Briefly Ch. I is introduction and Ch. II deals with pramaaNa and Ch. III deals with adhyaasa and Suutras start with Ch. IV. letters a, b, c etc are just divisions with in each chapter. In chapter IV, suutras are designated as 1,2 etc. I have presented up to Suutra 4. The rest is incomplete. Many of the puurvapaksha-s are also dealt with and many of them are not different from what you are raising. Since they have been addressed exhaustively with proper reference to the scriptures, you may have your hearts content. Hopefully your contention may change if you are open-minded. Most of your arguments seem to be similar to Dwaitins, but I may be wrong. I had helped my 'God-son' who was ex Junior swami of Pejawar mutt to translate 'Shreeman Nyaayasudhaasaara' and learned in that process some of their strong objections to Advaita. I have recently learned from Shreeman Srinivasa chari, Ramanuja's Shree Bhaasya. As you may be familiar every conceivable objection has been raised against adhyaasa and avidya. adhyaasa has been dealt with by other Vedantic schools - these are extensive discussion of 'theory of error' (khyaati vaada-s) and prama vs. bhrama since to some extent every Vedantic school agree that the basic adhyaasa -that is taking ' I am this body' is there. If that is not accepted as adhyaasa - superimposed error - philosophy will reduce to that of Chaarvaaka-s, and I don’t think any Vedantin wants that. To what extent that adhyaasa extends and what is the cause for that adhyaasa is where aacharya-s differ. Since Dennis has extensive background on this subject I will let Shree Dennis answer your questions. He has written no. One book on Advaita and it is getting published. You may find some of its contents in his website. Hari OM! Sada ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 15, 2003 Dear sadA-jI, Thanks for the reply. I will read them. I don't know if it is appropriate for me to take up further discussion on what I find there with everyone in this group. I am not here to "offend" anyone or any beliefs that this group of people may have. My interest is only in vEdAnta as given by prasthAna-traya. >Hopefully your contention may change if you are open-minded Sure, why not?. > that the basic adhyaasa -that is taking ' I am this body' is there. If > that is not accepted as adhyaasa - superimposed error - philosophy will > reduce to that of Chaarvaaka-s, and I don't think any Vedantin wants I agree with you. It is an error to think that 'I am this body'. But when that 'error' is corrected, you will know that there were two things - body and soul and that body is only a casing for that soul. Neither body nor soul vanishes because of that corrrection. But adhyAsa theory insists that they do vanish. That is where other vEdAntins have an issue. > Most of your arguments seem to be similar to Dwaitins, but I may be The words Dwaita and adwaita have been borrowed from prasthAna-traya and therefore their meaning should come from prasthAna-traya and not from any school of thought. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 15, 2003 Dear Dennis-Ji, Glad to know that you are publishing a book. >When the 'ultimate knowledge' dawns, the previously presumed object - i.e. a >separate universe - is effectively destroyed. Then how come all the 'realized' people are still walking on this earth? If their 'ultimate knowledge' has destroyed this world, where do they come back to?. Does it get recreated due to their avidyA, so that they have a place to come back to. But when they had the realization, at that time avidyA did get corrected and therefore was already destroyed. Do each one of us live in our 'copy' of the world created by our avidyA. or do all of us share the same world?. If we share, then when one person has 'realization' and the world gets destroyed, what happens to the world which still has others?. Since non-advaitins are still walking around this world, it must be true that we don't share the same world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 15, 2003 At 09:13 AM 4/15/03 -0400, Jay Nelamangala wrote: >But adhyAsa theory insists that they do vanish. That is where other >vEdAntins have an issue. Dear Jay, Are you looking for someone to explain or defend this theory? I certainly won't -- I'm not crazy about it either. Or are you seeking a ramp for better understanding on your own part, for your own growth? All theories are teaching mechanisms, for expedient purposes only. The purpose: to sublate or dislodge the currently-held views and attachments of the student. The endpoint is not to hold the most 100% foolproof theory. No. Rather, it's freedom from attachment to theory, to thought, to feeling, to phenomenality. Some theories (especially when skillfully taught) "work" for some people. Others work for others. As they say in New York City, "So what else is new?" Om! --Greg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 15, 2003 Dear Greg, >All theories are teaching mechanisms, for expedient purposes only. The >purpose: to sublate or dislodge the currently-held views and attachments of >the student. The endpoint is not to hold the most 100% foolproof theory. >No. Rather, it's freedom from attachment to theory, to thought, to feeling, >to phenomenality. Again this is according to adhyAsa-theory. But Shruti's don't put it that way. "sarvE vedAh yat padam Amananti, tapAmsi sarvANi cha yat vadanti". - All the Vedas have come about to teach Parabrahman. If you say, Veda is teaching a theory which is also for "expedient purposes" only, then you are making Parabrahman also expedient. I don't think Advaita teaches that. - Greg Goode advaitin ; advaitin Tuesday, April 15, 2003 10:34 AM Re: Re: Fate and Free Will At 09:13 AM 4/15/03 -0400, Jay Nelamangala wrote: >But adhyAsa theory insists that they do vanish. That is where other >vEdAntins have an issue. Dear Jay, Are you looking for someone to explain or defend this theory? I certainly won't -- I'm not crazy about it either. Or are you seeking a ramp for better understanding on your own part, for your own growth? All theories are teaching mechanisms, for expedient purposes only. The purpose: to sublate or dislodge the currently-held views and attachments of the student. The endpoint is not to hold the most 100% foolproof theory. No. Rather, it's freedom from attachment to theory, to thought, to feeling, to phenomenality. Some theories (especially when skillfully taught) "work" for some people. Others work for others. As they say in New York City, "So what else is new?" Om! --Greg Sponsor Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
