Taittiriya Aranyaka III.iii.7, Purusha Suktam & Upanishad

[Guest guest]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

To make the reply short...shruti's primary intention is not to propagate

the "srushti" (creation) as such..Hence, shruti is not consistent while

describing order & process of creation (shruti drastically differs in

creation theories in mundaka, prashna , ItarEya & taitirIya). Whatever

may be the context, if the creation is *really* happened at some point of

time... shruti would have not contradicted itself while explaining the

same. That is the reason why shankara explains Ishvara & his omniscience

& omni potence etc. hold good only in vyAvahAric sense...but from the

absolute point of view *there is no creation* at all...(na utpatti, na

bhandha, na sAdhaka, na cha mOksha..says kArika)

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

 

Pranams,

 

Thank u very much.

 

Do u hav the Taittiriya Aranyaka III.iii.7 quotation in Sanskrit ?

 

In which Upanishad does the bhuriti vyaharat quote comes?

 

If u know , kindly let me know.

 

Yours in the oceanic love of Sri adi Samkara Bhagavatpujyapada

 

Bolo Jai Badrinathji ki Jai!!!

 

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 bhaskar.yr wrote :

>

>praNAms

>Hare Krishna

>

>To make the reply short...shruti's primary intention is not to propagate

>the "srushti" (creation) as such..Hence, shruti is not consistent while

>describing order & process of creation (shruti drastically differs in

>creation theories in mundaka, prashna , ItarEya & taitirIya). Whatever

>may be the context, if the creation is *really* happened at some point of

>time... shruti would have not contradicted itself while explaining the

>same. That is the reason why shankara explains Ishvara & his omniscience

>& omni potence etc. hold good only in vyAvahAric sense...but from the

>absolute point of view *there is no creation* at all...(na utpatti, na

>bhandha, na sAdhaka, na cha mOksha..says kArika)

>

>Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>bhaskar

>

>

>

>

>

>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

>

>

> Links

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Do u hav the Taittiriya Aranyaka III.iii.7 quotation in Sanskrit ?

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Yes..I have the text...let me check it out....anyway, our Sri sunder

prabhuji will always be there to help you out.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

>

> Do u hav the Taittiriya Aranyaka III.iii.7 quotation in Sanskrit ?

>

 

Namaste,

 

The quotation is at:

 

http://www.sanskritweb.net/yajurveda/yv-ta.pdf

III:xii:7 (p. 43 of 121)

 

 

This site refers to an Andhra recension and a Dravida recension!

 

http://www.dharmicscriptures.org/scriptures.htm

 

 

Taittiriya upanishad I:v:2-3-4 has references to bhU &c. as

'vyAhRRiti'-s.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "bhuvan eswar chilukuri"

<bhuvaneswarc@r...> wrote:

>

>

>

> In which Upanishad does the bhuriti vyaharat quote comes?

 

Namaste,

 

Is the reference perhaps to the following?

 

http://sanskrit.gde.to/doc_upanishhat/brinew-proofed.itx

 

saH aham asmi iti agre vyAharat

 

so.ahamasmItyagre vyAharat [i.iv.1]

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> To make the reply short...shruti's primary intention is not to

> propagate the "srushti" (creation) as such..Hence, shruti is

> not consistent while describing order & process of creation

> (shruti drastically differs in creation theories in mundaka,

> prashna , ItarEya & taitirIya).

 

The Vedas are apaurusheya. The Vedas say WHAT IS. There is no

contradiction in the sruti. The contradiction is in the mind of the

person reading the sruti.

 

> Whatever may be the context, if the creation is *really*

> happened at some point of time... shruti would have not

> contradicted itself while explaining the same.

 

When the mind is unable to grasp the highest pramana, it sees a

contradiction in the highest pramana itself. So what is the pramana

by which the mind knows this 'contradiction' in the sruti? It is

better to correct oneself than attempt to correct the sruti.

 

To persist in the belief that there is a contradiction in the sruti

is to be deflected from one's effort to find the unitary vision of

Vedartha that is to be obtained from its samanvaya. In the darshana

of Vedartha there is no contradiction. Seeing a contradiction in the

sruti indicates that the samanvaya has still not been achieved.

 

> That is the reason why shankara explains Ishvara & his

> omniscience & omni potence etc. hold good only in vyAvahAric

> sense...but from the absolute point of view *there is no

> creation* at all...(na utpatti, na bhandha, na sAdhaka, na

> cha mOksha..says kArika)

 

How one understands Shankara depends on one's discriminative ability.

Shankara stipulates viveka as the first qualification for a sadhaka

on the path of Advaita. One needs to be a hamsa to separate the milk

from the water. The absolute point of view is not seen with the mind

but with the Great Eye of the Absolute.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

The Vedas are apaurusheya. The Vedas say WHAT IS. There is no

contradiction in the sruti. The contradiction is in the mind of the

person reading the sruti.

 

praNAms Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

There is a lot of difference in assertion *not consistent* &

*contradiction* ...prabhuji, I hope, you know that better than me :-))

for that matter both statements i.e. *there is contradiction in shruti* &

*there is NO contradiction in shruti* are in the mind of the person who is

reading the sruti is it not?? would you like to attribute the judgement

that *no contradiction* in shruti to something else prabhuji :-)) Yes,

there is samanvaya & there is discriminative power to do this

reconciliation...but it should not be at the cost of our AchArya's words

!!!

 

Anyway, let us not discuss this further...as you know our domain of

operation is entirely different :-))

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> There is a lot of difference in assertion *not consistent* &

> *contradiction* ...prabhuji, I hope, you know that better

> than me :-)) for that matter both statements i.e. *there is

> contradiction in shruti* & *there is NO contradiction in shruti*

> are in the mind of the person who is reading the sruti is it

> not?? would you like to attribute the judgement that *no

> contradiction* in shruti to something else prabhuji :-)) Yes,

> there is samanvaya & there is discriminative power to do this

> reconciliation...but it should not be at the cost of our

> AchArya's words!!!

>

> Anyway, let us not discuss this further...as you know our domain

> of operation is entirely different :-))

 

 

Your words bring a smile to my lips. :-)

 

The domain of our operations may be different but they are striving

to the same Ocean. It is better to strive than to not strive.

 

I hold it true, whate'er befall;

I feel it, when I sorrow most;

'Tis better to have loved and lost

Than never to have loved at all.

 

.. .......Tennison

 

 

Cheers!

 

And warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Sri Bhaskar wrote:

> > To make the reply short...shruti's primary intention is not to

> > propagate the "srushti" (creation) as such..Hence, shruti is

> > not consistent while describing order & process of creation

> > (shruti drastically differs in creation theories in mundaka,

> > prashna , ItarEya & taitirIya).

 

Sri Chittaranjan Naik replied:

> The Vedas are apaurusheya. The Vedas say WHAT IS.

 

When vedas teach the nature of WHAT IS, it cannot be a teaching of

WHAT IS about physical reality. Since such reality is also accesible

through other pramANas, it would render vedas as redundant. Therefore

what vedas teach about WHAT IS can only be in relation to Atma-jnAna

which is not available through any other pramANa.

 

The models of creation used in veda are either related to explanation

of some vidhi/nishedha or arthavAda or conveying Atma-jnAna. It will

be misplaced to use these models independent of this context.

 

A physicist may talk of "jumping" of electrons to convey some concept.

It would be fallacious on my part to analyze this "jumping"

independent of this context and derive a theory of high jump on this

basis. Talking about "jumping" is not the main purport of the

physicist. He is trying to convey something else.

 

A biologist may talk about "queen" ants and "worker" ants to convey

some concept. It would be fallacious on my part to analyze this

"queen"ship independent of this context and derive a theory about

"queens" and "workers" on this basis. Talking about "queens" and

"workers" is not the main purport of the biologist.He is trying to

convey something else.

 

Vedas may use different models of creation to convey something about

vidhi/nishedha, arthavAda or Atma-jnAna. It would be fallacious on my

part to analyze this model independent of this context and derive a

theory of creation on this basis. Describing a model of creation is

not the main purport of the vedas. They are trying to convey something

else.

> When the mind is unable to grasp the highest pramana, it sees a

> contradiction in the highest pramana itself.

 

Vedanta does not rank the pramANas in the order of validity. Shruit is

as valid as any other pramANa. It just has a different jurisdiction.

Consequently, it is the "highest" pramANa only in its own jurisdiction

viz. dharma and moksha. Explaining the models of creation does not

fall in either category and therefore if there is an "apparent"

contradiction in shruti in this area, it will have to be reinterpreted

with the help of other pramANas.

> So what is the pramana

> by which the mind knows this 'contradiction' in the sruti?

 

It depends. If it is not the subject matter of shruti, other pramANas

can be legitimately used to know and resolve the apprent contradiction

in shruti.

> To persist in the belief that there is a contradiction in the sruti

> is to be deflected from one's effort to find the unitary vision of

> Vedartha that is to be obtained from its samanvaya. In the darshana

> of Vedartha there is no contradiction. Seeing a contradiction in the

> sruti indicates that the samanvaya has still not been achieved.

 

.... and if the subject matter is other than dharma or moksha, this

samanvaya can be legitimately brought with the help of the outside

pramANas also. It is only in case of dharma and moksha that the

samanvaya needs to be brought from the shruti itself, since no other

pramANa is applicable there.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sanjay Srivastav-ji,

 

advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava

<sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:

 

> When vedas teach the nature of WHAT IS, it cannot be a teaching

> of WHAT IS about physical reality.

 

Is not the subject of the Vedas Brahman by knowing which everything

is known? If what you say is true it would negate the very Knowledge

that Vedas teach. The Vedas do not teach mere physical reality but

they teach Reality in which the physical is constituted Its Nature

through names and forms that abide in identity with It. This nature

is inexpressible because it is relationless.

 

> Since such reality is also accesible through other pramANas,

> it would render vedas as redundant.

 

Reality accessible through other pramanas independently of Vedas is

inherently faulty. The fault is corrected only through the Vedas.

There is no world but that which is Brahman. There is not a single

movement that does not happen except through the efficiency of

Brahman. It is true that the pump pumps water, but the attribution of

pumping to the pump is inherently faulty and the true knowledge of

the pumping of water is known when it is known that pumping happens

only because of Brahman. There is only One Efficient cause of all

things. There are no two realities.

 

> Therefore what vedas teach about WHAT IS can only be in

> relation to Atma-jnAna which is not available through any

> other pramANa.

 

It is true that atma-jnana is not available through any other

pramana, but the atma is not an isolated prisoner. The atma is the

Conscious One who is also the entire world.

 

> Vedanta does not rank the pramANas in the order of validity.

 

It does. See Sri Shankaracharya's Brahma Sutra Bhashya. Pratyaksha

and anumana may not contradict sruti. Anumana may not contradict

pratyaksha.

 

> Shruit is as valid as any other pramANa.

> It just has a different jurisdiction.

 

Okay, then why not accept that creation is as valid as non-creation?

Why not accept that the world is real because its reality is given by

the pramana of pratyakhsa which you say has independent jurisdiction?

 

The jurisdictions of the pramanas are not independent of one another.

There is no validity to anumana without pratyaksha. The vyapti

employed by anumana is based on the invariable concomitence that is

seen in perception. Without the base of perception, anumana is itself

invalid. Likewise, perception itself is based on the validity given

to it by pratyabhijna. The basis of that pratyabhijna is the Self -

it is the sakshi pramana of Self. This topic has been dealt with in

Manasallosa, which is Sri Sureshvaracharya's commentary on Adi

Shankara's Dakshinamurthy Stotra.

 

> Consequently, it is the "highest" pramANa only in its own

> jurisdiction viz. dharma and moksha.

 

Dharma permeates the entire universe. The dharma of a thing is its

conformance to its swadharma which is the intrinsic nature of the

thing. How can dharma have its own jurisdiction independent of

things? Dharma would then be the dharma of what? The Self alone

cannot be the jurisdiction of dharma. Dharma is applicable to the

self identified with the body.

 

Moksha is the freedom that obtains from knowing That by which all

this is known. It is not isolated form all this.

 

The jurisdiction of the highest pramana is everything that is.

 

> Explaining the models of creation does not fall in either

> category and therefore if there is an "apparent" contradiction

> in shruti in this area, it will have to be reinterpreted with

> the help of other pramANas.

 

If the Vedas are talking about creation, you cannot be saying that

they are talking about things that they have no jurisdiction over.

The Vedas talk about creation irrespective of what you may have to

say regarding their jurisdiction. The Vedas say that creation came

about through Brahman who thought 'Let me be many'. The pramanas that

you say have independent jurisdiction such as pratyaksha and anumana

have given us creation theories like the Big Bang which is in direct

contradiction to the Upanishadic account of Brahman creating the

universe through Its Will. Are you saying that we should consider the

Vedas as not having jurisdiction over topics like creation and that

we should hence reject the account of creation given by the Vedas in

favour of theories like Big Bang which are supposedly given by

pramanas that have jurisdiction in these areas?

 

There is absolutely no contradiction in the sruti when the nature of

words is understood. Sabda is all of this creation and sabda is not

different than Brahman. Advaita embraces the paradox in its darshana

that is without contradiction.

 

> > So what is the pramana by which the mind knows

> > this 'contradiction' in the sruti?

>

> It depends. If it is not the subject matter of shruti, other

> pramANas can be legitimately used to know and resolve the

> apprent contradiction in shruti.

 

The framing of the phrase 'apparent contradiction' implies that there

is no real contradiction. Why not try to find the seamless Knowledge

where there is no contradiction?

 

> ... and if the subject matter is other than dharma or moksha,

> this samanvaya can be legitimately brought with the help of the

> outside pramANas also. It is only in case of dharma and moksha

> that the samanvaya needs to be brought from the shruti itself,

> since no other pramANa is applicable there.

 

It would be quite a fractured samanvaya!

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Srivastav-ji,

 

 

advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava

<sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:

 

> ... and if the subject matter is other than dharma or moksha,

> this samanvaya can be legitimately brought with the help of

> the outside pramANas also. It is only in case of dharma and

> moksha that the samanvaya needs to be brought from the shruti

> itself, since no other pramANa is applicable there.

 

 

What is the first section of the Brahma Sutra all about? Why did Sri

Shankaracharya write so many pages of commentary on a section

titled 'Samanvaya' in which page after page is devoted to the

reconciliation of creation accounts in the Vedas, the order of

creation, the cause of creation, and other related topics?

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namste Chittaranjan ji. Kindly pardon my impudence at the outset, but

I have my differences:

 

Sri Chittaranjan Naik wrote:

> What is the first section of the Brahma Sutra all about?

 

"That omniscient and omniptent source must be Brahman from which occur

the birth, continuance and dissolution of this universe that is

manifested through name and forms, that is associated with diverse

agents and experiences, that provides support for actions and results,

having well regulated space, time and causation and that defies all

thoughts about the real nature of this creation. "

 

The section talks about the ultimate cause of the creation. I do not

see how it can be taken as either supporting or in direct

contradiction to the theories such as Big Bang etc.

 

When different shrutis describe the creation made up of three, four or

five elements, such differences have simply been glossed over.

> Okay, then why not accept that creation is as valid as non-creation?

> Why not accept that the world is real because its reality is given by

> the pramana of pratyakhsa which you say has independent jurisdiction?

 

Pratyaksha gives us knowledge only about what is perceived as such. I

see a computer screen in front of me through pratyaksha. It does not

mean that I have knowledge of everything about the computer screen.

Pratyaksha does not give us any knowledge whether what is perceived is

real in the ultimate analysis.

 

Pratyaksha is not contradicted by anumAna or shruti but can be

sublated by either. When we have a conclusive knowledge of rising sun,

it is pratyaksha sublated by anumAna. When we have a conclusive

knowledge of ultimate reality, it is pratyaksha, sublated by shruti.

 

It will be incorrect to say that shruti cannot not be sublated by

other pramANas. Otherwise our AchArya would not have had any reason

to say that "if shruti says fire is cold, shruti needs to be

reinterpreted." Clearly he is willing to give more weightage to

pratyaksha in this case.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

your posts are really chitta ranjanIya :-)) I like it very much though

I've the difference with your siddhAnta:-))

 

CN prabhuji:

 

Your words bring a smile to my lips. :-)

 

bhaskar :

 

I am glad to know that my words atleast brought smile to your lips if not

enlightenment:-))

 

CN prabhuji:

 

The domain of our operations may be different but they are striving

to the same Ocean. It is better to strive than to not strive.

 

bhaskar :

 

yes...but elasticity of this striving stretching at different ends...I

think no coherence possible in this striving to arrive at mutually

acceptable siddhAnta ..ofcourse, in the name of *advaita*:-))

 

CN prabhuji:

 

I hold it true, whate'er befall;

I feel it, when I sorrow most;

'Tis better to have loved and lost

Than never to have loved at all.

 

.. .......Tennison

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, normally I skip the reading of English poems...coz. my English is

not that good to understand it...by the way prabhuji what is the *Tis*

mean in the third line of the above poem?? (is it *it is*)

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> by the way prabhuji what is the *Tis* mean in the third

> line of the above poem??

 

(is it *it is*)

 

It is. :-)

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

.... and if the subject matter is other than dharma or

moksha, this

samanvaya can be legitimately brought with the help of

the outside

pramANas also. It is only in case of dharma and moksha

that the

samanvaya needs to be brought from the shruti itself,

since no other

pramANa is applicable there.

 

praNAm

 

Dear Advaitins,

 

To reiterate Chittaranjanji's afore said point. Swami

Paramarthananda Saraswathy has told in one of his

lectures that Sri Shankaracharya himself has very

clearly told that for physical sciences the Shrutis

are not the pramanas.

 

HARI OM TAT SAT,

 

Yours in the Lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

 

 

 

 

 

FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.

http://farechase.

[Guest guest]

It is only in case of dharma and moksha

that the

samanvaya needs to be brought from the shruti itself,

since no other

pramANa is applicable there.

 

praNAm

 

Dear Advaitins,

 

To reiterate Chittaranjanji's afore said point. Swami

Paramarthananda Saraswathy has told in one of his

lectures that Sri Shankaracharya himself has very

clearly told that for physical sciences the Shrutis

are not the pramanas.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

It is to be noted that the difference between two types of jignAsa-s one is

dharma jignAsa another one is brahma jignAsa...for dharma jignAsa/AcharaNa

& resultant lOkAntara/janmAntara jnAna/phala shruti is the ONLY pramANa

whereas in brahma jignAsa, not only shruti but alongwith that *anubhava* &

shrutyanugrahIta tarka are also equally important ...since brahma jnAna is

NOT a lOkAntara or janmAntara jnAna....shankara explicitly mentions this in

sUtra bhAshya. brahma jignAsa is not dharma jignAsa...that is the reason

why bAdarAyaNa starts his sUtra by saying *athAto brahma jignAsa* as

against jaimini's *athAto dharma jignAsa*.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Srivastav-ji,

 

advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava

<sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:

> "That omniscient and omniptent source must be Brahman from

> which occur the birth, continuance and dissolution of this

> universe that is manifested through name and forms....

>

> The section talks about the ultimate cause of the creation.

> I do not see how it can be taken as either supporting or in

> direct contradiction to the theories such as Big Bang etc.

 

It would be illogical to speak about the ultimate cause of creation

if creation is held to be non-existent. The Brahma Sutra says that

the ultimate cause of creation is Brahman and that Brahman created

this universe through name and form. The power of creating through

name and form is called speech. Speech is an activity that arises in

a Sentient Principle. Prakriti cannot act without the Sentient Being

(Brahman) impelling it to act. This is Advaita. In the Big Bang

Theory creation has no place for a sentient being. It is therefore in

direct contradiction to Advaita.

 

As I mentioned in my last post, the first section of the Brahman

Sutra Bhashya is titled 'Samanvaya'. If you read beyond the sutra

(bhashya) that you have quoted, you will see that Shankara is

speaking about various aspects of creation as mentioned in the Vedas

and their samanvaya.

 

> When different shrutis describe the creation made up of three,

> four or five elements, such differences have simply been glossed

> over.

 

Thank you for your interpretation, but the accounts of sruti have not

been not 'glossed over'; they have been logically interpreted.

Shankara takes up the various accounts of creation in the Vedas and

shows how they are to be reconciled. The interpretation of Advaita

regarding the elements is one only and it is as follows. The first

element to be created is akasha. The second is air. The third is

fire. The fourth is water. The fifth is earth. Each element is

differentiated from the previous element through name. The name

differentiates the element that is already subsistent in the prior

element from which the posterior is differentiated. Advaita does not

consider the posterior element to have been brought into existence

from non-existence and it adheres to the principle that the effect is

already subsumed completely in the cause.

 

Each element has its intrinsic attribute or attributes. The attribute

of akasha is sound. Air is an element that arises from akasha and it

therefore possesses the attribute of akasha in addition to the

attribute specifically intrinsic to air - touch. Each subsequent

attribute possesses the attributes of the prior element(s) because

the element is an effect of the prior element (as its cause) from

which it is non-different. The sequence in which the elements are

differentiated is found in the samanvaya of Advaita. There is

no 'glossing over' here if you try to understand the principle of the

effect being non-different from the cause and the capacity of names

to differentiate these efect from the cause. The sequence of creation

between different parts of the Vedas find their reconcilion through

the examination of the contexts of these accounts as well as the

coherence of attributes with the elemental substances.

 

> Pratyaksha gives us knowledge only about what is perceived

> as such. I see a computer screen in front of me through

> pratyaksha. It does not mean that I have knowledge of

> everything about the computer screen. Pratyaksha does not

> give us any knowledge whether what is perceived is real in

> the ultimate analysis.

 

Pratyaksha does give us knowledge about the reality of the computer

screen. Pratyaksha involves three instruments in the perceiving - the

senses, the mind and the consiousness of the witness. The senses

discern the sensible attributes. The mind discerns qualities that are

not sensible. The reality of the object perceived is discerned by the

consciousness of the witness which is presenting it as real or

unreal. The ultimate reality of the computer screen as given by the

sruti reconciles the reality given to the computer screen by the

witness as well as the unreality of the computer screen given by the

witness (when for example one is hallucinating) in the Reality of the

Witness that assigns predicative reality and unreality to the

computer screen.

 

> Pratyaksha is not contradicted by anumAna or shruti but can be

> sublated by either.

 

What is sublated is avidya only. If you go by Advaita, pratyaksha is

never sublated by anumana. Please elaborate on the nature of the

vyapti which is the basis of anumana and then we will take up this

discussion further.

 

> When we have a conclusive knowledge of rising sun, it is

> pratyaksha sublated by anumAna.

 

How do you get this conclusive knowledge of the rising sun? Please

elaborate.

 

> When we have a conclusive knowledge of ultimate reality,

> it is pratyaksha, sublated by shruti.

 

It is only the avidya underlying the pratyaksha that is sublated.

 

> It will be incorrect to say that shruti cannot not be sublated

> by other pramANas. Otherwise our AchArya would not have had any

> reason to say that "if shruti says fire is cold, shruti needs

> to be reinterpreted." Clearly he is willing to give more

> weightage to pratyaksha in this case.

 

The acharya is not giving more weightage to pratyaksha than the sruti

as you claim. Shankara does not say that the sruti is to be re-

interpreted; he is asserting that the nature of a thing - its

swadharma - can never change. He is reinforcing this eternal truth by

saying that even the sruti cannot change the nature of a thing. Does

Shankara ever say that the sruti attributes characteristics to things

that are contrary to the natures of things? Attribution of

characteristics that are foreign to the natures of things is adhyasa

which is what is to be removed for seeing the Truth of sruti.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

An interesting point that struck me during these discussions on

the 'jurisdiction' of the pramanas is the similarity of the views being

expressed here by Advaitins with those of the Dvaitins (as far as this

matter is concerned). In Dvaita, the domain of pratyaksha and anumana

is the world, and the domain of sruti is the ateendriya - that which

cannot be seen by the indriyas. This separation of the domains is

consistent with the darshana of Dvaita because prakriti is therein

considered to be a separate dependent existence, and the material cause

of all physical things is held to be prakriti. Pratyaksha and anumana

therefore relate to prakriti and its evolutions (as Willed by Brahman),

and Sruti relates to Brahman who is always immanent and anteendriya.

 

The isolation of the domains of different pramanas is not consistent

with the darshana of Advaita in which Brahman is considered to be the

material cause of the entire universe.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Sri Chittaranjan Naik wrote:

 

> What is sublated is avidya only. If you go by Advaita, pratyaksha is

> never sublated by anumana. Please elaborate on the nature of the

> vyapti which is the basis of anumana and then we will take up this

> discussion further.

> How do you get this conclusive knowledge of the rising sun? Please

> elaborate.

 

It would not be a single step of anumAna to arrive at the knowledge of

rising sun but a series of deductive reasoning with each step having a

different vyApti. It is difficult for me to break up in parts the

entire set of reasoning that goes into the conclusion that "sun does

not rise". But I know that the knowledge that "sun does not rise" is

not my pratyaksha knowledge (and it has not come to me through Agama

either).

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

Dear Chittaranjanji,

 

Namaste,

> In Advaita, the material cause of the world is

> Brahman. To know a

> thing without knowing its material cause, and its

> essence, and its

> efficient cause is not knowing the thing. It is

> knowing the mere

> shadow of the thing.

 

With regard to your view i would like to say some

thing. Ofcourse it is yes as you have mentioned

knowing a thing without the casue or substratum is not

complete knowledge. Here the question of jurisdriction

comes. With the help of the Shruti one can know the

cause. That is the fundamental question in the

scriptures - by knowing what i will be able to know

everything. So from the paramartika view with the help

of the scriptures we can understand the world

correctly even it applies to vyavaharika perspective

also.

 

But what about the matters within the periphery of

this visible phenominal world. Say for example take

medicine. It is going on advancing and we can never

diagnoise or cure modern diseases with the knowledge

of scriptures isnt it? As far as the "shadow" part is

concerned we have to accept the science ultimately.

You can very well say many things are there is

Ayrveda. But there also it is classified as apara

vidya.

 

So can we conclude that as far as shadow part is

concerned the science truimphs?

 

HARI OM TAT SAT,

 

Yours in the lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

 

 

 

 

>

> Warm regards,

> Chittaranjan

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.

http://farechase.

[Guest guest]

Sometimes we even agree with each other. :-)

 

 

praNAms CN prabhuji

Hare krishna

 

Yes...a positive sign!!! credit goes to *our striving march* towards the

*same ocean* :-))

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Vinayaka-ji,

 

advaitin, br_vinayaka <vinayaka_ns> wrote:

> But what about the matters within the periphery of

> this visible phenominal world. Say for example take

> medicine. It is going on advancing and we can never

> diagnoise or cure modern diseases with the knowledge

> of scriptures isnt it?

 

We can. It is said that in the 'process' of realising the Self there

comes a stage when one is able to partake of the Self's efficient

causality that makes things happen in this world. This power of

partaking of the Self's efficiency is called siddhi. It is the power

by which one can levitate in the air, cure oneself of diseases,

understand the speech of the animals, etc. But it is an obstruction

on the path.

 

> As far as the "shadow" part is concerned we have to accept

> the science ultimately.

 

Actually there is no shadow part. I had used the word 'shadow'

metaphorically to indicate that the world cannot be talked about in

isolation from its material cause. There is no thing, not even a

shadow, without Brahman. Yes science exists and it works, so we have

to accept it.

 

> You can very well say many things are there is

> Ayrveda. But there also it is classified as apara

> vidya.

> So can we conclude that as far as shadow part is

> concerned the science truimphs?

 

No, there are higher vidyas that identify the flow of the power

(Shakti) of Consciousness as She springs into the forms of the world.

Take for example medicine. What is it that causes health and disease?

The health of the body (according to the higher vidya) is given by

the flow of the life-current in the body. It is called prana. The

life-current or prana is nothing but the flow of Shakti as She

maintains the presentation of the body to Consciousness. The vidya

that presents this flow of Consciousness or Shakti is called Sri

Vidya. Through this vidya the desired flow of Shakti may be effected.

This vidya uses the very power by which Consciousness creates the

universe through the word. Each phoneme (or sound of the letter) of

the alphabet is related to an aspect of this universe. Certain

combinations of phonemes are called mantras and the Grace of

Consciuosness is invoked for Shakti to abide in the mantra for it to

work. I think I should stop now at this point, for already I have

said enough today to be ranked as some kindly of loony character set

loose in this world! :-)

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan