The three states

[Guest guest]

ThePowerOfSilence , " saikali6362 "

<saikali6362> wrote:

 

Chapter 1: Discrimination

 

3. THE THREE STATES

 

Part 1

 

48. The two states, waking and dream, are filled up by forms and

names, which are the creations of the restless mind; therefore they

are alike unreal.

 

49. A partial unfoldment of the ego-sense is called dream; the

complete expression of it is called waking; both are alike rooted in

the ego-sense.

 

50. It is not reasonable to object, saying, " Dream is a creation of

the mind; but waking is not so. " Each in its own time seems real;

there is no material difference.

 

51. By the self-deceiving power of the mind the waking state appears

to be long and the dream state to be short; (really) the thing

called time is (itself) a mental form (not real).

 

52. The dream-body is obviously different from the waking one; when

the karma giving rise to the dream becomes active, the mind

necessarily takes on another body. (25)

 

(25) Karma, which literally means " action " , here means the previous

actions, which determine the course of life, its pleasures and

sufferings. There is nothing in common between waking and dream

except the mind, which creates two distinct worlds in the two states.

 

53. The emission of semen in the waking body, caused by the dreamer

enjoying sexual union with a dream woman, is due to the speed with

which the mind enters the waking body, leaving the other.

 

Note: Taken from Guru-Ramana-Vachana-Mala by " Who " , pages 13 and 14

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji,

I am at a loss to know what there was in my post which made you fly into a

rage and lash out even at bhagavatpAda himself. I said nothing against your

paramaguru. On the other hand I said that his views deserve as much respect

as those of the AchAryas of the past. All that I said was that there is no

such thing as the one and only right interpretation and that all the

different views are valid. This is not my own opinion, in which case it

would have no value, but it is the opinion of the great sureSvara himself. I

had quoted his Sloka in support of this. If it is your view that your

paramaguru's view is the only correct one, you are certainly entitled to

hold that. I have only stated what is the general understanding among the

traditional scholars.

 

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Most respected Shastriji :

 

I have known over BHASKAR PRABUJI ove the years - He is a young and

a sincere sadhaka but above all his Guru Shraddha will even put

Eklavya to shame . Which is commendable as long as he does not

attack other great saints or personalities .... His recent criticism

of Sufi saints , Lalla , Tagore and even Shankara Bhagvadapada and

the great Appayya dikshitar has covinced me beyond a doubt that SSS

should indeed be proud to have such a loyal, dedicated disciple !

His *andha shraddha* in his guru is commendable ! Smile :-)

 

When i first joined this group several years ago ,all we heard was

praise for Swami Chinmayananda's gita commentary. Then slowly , the

tide turned in favor of Swami Dayananda's commentary. for a while ,

it was about Swami Dayanandaji and his commentary ! Then we had the

fortune of reading about the commentary by Parmarthanandaji on gita

and mandukya upanishads - He became the hot favorite of the day -

the Trend continues . So we are able to hear Shankara's advaita from

many sources so that we can call this group AVG shabnkara advaita ?

Does it make advaita any less appealing ? not at all !

 

Actually , in the srimad bhagvatam , it is said , that A bee should

gather 'honey from as many flowers as possible ! similarly , we can

read all the commentaries from all these scholars and benefit from

them! Bhaskarji is right on one point though ! sometimes i also

wonder why should our mail box be cluttered with all the Gita and

mandukya bhasya commentaries of AVG sWAMIJIS , WHEN WE CAN READ THEM

ON LINE at their web sites ? The only point to be conceded is the

posters of these commentaries get some personal satisfaction out of

repeating /rerepeating the words of these Swamijis ! similarly the

posters of LALLESHWERI POEMS GET SOME CONTENTMENT out of downloading

her poems as was done by Virenderaji recently ! So who is to say ,

which poster downloading is more relevant and which is not ?

 

This is the point i was trying to make ! iF harshaji can post a link

on 'shaking hands ' on his blog , Virenderaji can also post

Lalleshweri's poems! That is where 'kindness' comes in ! Advaita is

about practicing UNIVERSAL KINDNESS not SELECTIVE KINDNESS !

 

If somebody asks about meditation mats , we should respond to his

question ! if that topic was not relevant , it should never been

allowed in the first place ! Since these are days of *no

moderation*., all kinds of posts are finding their place on the

message board!

 

btw , Bhaskar prabhuji , " FOR THE SAKE OF SELF , LALLA IS DEAR ;

FOR THE SAKE OF SELF, TAGORE IS DEAR'; FOR THE SAKE OF SELF , RUMI

IS DEAR ; FOR THE SAKE OF SELF , APPAYYA DIKSHITAR IS DEAR ; FOR THE

SAKE OF SELF , SSS IS DEAR ; FOR THE SAKE OF SELF , ALL THE

SWAMIJIS ARE DEAR ! "

 

BHASKARJI , this is what i love about you ! you get excited for the

flimsiest of reasons ! with you around , we do not need any

Firecrackers for deepavali! Happy deepavali to you and your lovely

family and kids ! your mataji!

 

 

 

advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> Dear Bhaskarji,

> I am at a loss to know what there was in my post which made you

fly into a

> rage and lash out even at bhagavatpAda himself. I said nothing

against your

> paramaguru. On the other hand I said that his views deserve as

much respect

> as those of the AchAryas of the past. All that I said was that

there is no

> such thing as the one and only right interpretation and that all

the

> different views are valid.

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I think I've to quickly clarify certain things here...

 

S prabhuji :

 

Dear Bhaskarji,

I am at a loss to know what there was in my post which made you fly into a

rage and lash out even at bhagavatpAda himself.

 

bhaskar :

 

Lashing bhagavadpAda?? how can I ?? No prabhuji, I think, you've

completely mistaken my intetion, kindly note it is not a rush of blood

outburst...just I was trying to present the existing scenario...dont you

agree with me that bhagavadpAda, an epitome of brahmajnAna has seen the

*opponent* in his bhAshya-s??

 

S prabhuji :

 

I said nothing against your paramaguru.

 

bhaskar :

 

No prabhuji, my intention was not to uphold the supremacy of my parama

guruji's views over other vyAkhyAnakAra-s..and I did not say anywhere that

you are offtending my paramaguruji...So, I'd humbly submit that context &

intention of my previous mail is entirely different than what you are

assuming :-))

 

S prabhuji :

 

On the other hand I said that his views deserve as much respect

as those of the AchAryas of the past.

 

bhaskar :

 

Thanks for your kind heart prabhuji.

 

S prabhuji :

 

All that I said was that there is no such thing as the one and only right

interpretation and that all the

different views are valid.

 

bhaskar :

 

yes, but that is not the case when you look back the works of

vyAkhyAnakAra-s & other traditions' AchArya-s..they hold the attitude like

*my daddy strongest* :-)) that is what I have tried to convey in my

previous mail.

 

S prabhuji :

 

This is not my own opinion, in which case it would have no value, but it is

the opinion of the great sureSvara himself. I

had quoted his Sloka in support of this. If it is your view that your

paramaguru's view is the only correct one, you are certainly entitled to

hold that.

 

bhaskar :

 

Thanks for giving me that liberty prabhuji...Yes, for me, Sri SSS is the

reincarnation of bhagavadpAda himself..he is abhinava shankara & purusha

saraswati..but I wont force anybody to accept it...that I've already said.

 

S prabhuji :

 

I have only stated what is the general understanding among the traditional

scholars.

 

bhaskar :

 

Infact, I too was talking about *general understanding* of scholars in

advaita saMpradAya & other traditions...there is no unanimous opinion about

brahma & its jignAsa :-))...right from aNu to vibhu :-)) Hence, it called

for somany voluminous reconciliatory works from vEdAntins :-))

 

S.N.Sastri

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

praNAms Adi mAtAji

Hare Krishna

 

If I write anything in reply to your personal comments on me..then that

mail would definitely be beyond the scope of this list...

 

For your kind information, I have neither critisized nor offended any saint

(be it sufi, lalleshwari or any other great personality), I was just asking

whether we are quoting shankara parallely when copy & pasting these

poems/articles from other websites. If you think I am disrespectful to

others, that is only your reading between the lines of my mail, mAtAji, I

can not help it :-)) First of all, this would have not been an issue at all

had you not raised your objection on Sri Vinayaka prabhuji's quoted

excerpts from Sri SSS's work...I can only say, this is not the blame game

we are playing here ...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Bhaskar prabuji writes :

 

(Thanks for giving me that liberty prabhuji...Yes, for me, Sri SSS

is the reincarnation of bhagavadpAda himself..he is abhinava

shankara & purusha saraswati..but I wont force anybody to accept

it...that I've already said.)

 

How can you force anyone to accept that SSS is reincarnation of

Shankara Bhagvadapada ? Prabhuji , that is asking for too much ! It

is like my claiming that Lalleshweri is *ubhaya bharati* herself !

Or akka mahadevi is * devi saraswati* herself ! Your guru shraddha

is admirable and worth emulating but members will take you more

seriously if in the process you do not put down other great saints !

Your attack on Appayya Dikshitir , a saint very dear to my heart ,

was totally uncalled for ! You can prove your Guru is great without

putting down other saints , would you not agree ? Your writings

should be such that when members read your posts , they should

wonder who is the Guru of such a great sisya ?

 

bhaskarji :

 

you ask in all your innocence/naivity " And again, our great

advaitin Sri appayya dIkshita,after seeing the fanatic blasphemy of

vaishNava-s, written a work which shows the supremacy of shiva over

vishNu!!?? what is the need for him to show the supremacy of shiva

over vishnu...when brahman is nirvikAri, nirguNa & nirAkAra?? "

 

Wonderful question , prabhuji ! Precisely the reason is 'Samanvaya' -

to prove that all Roads lead to Rome ! Why fight over siddantha - be

it vaishnava or shaiva ? in the end , there is only one Brahman-

nirvikara , nirguna and nirakara ! So, this is the reason why

Appayya dikshitiir wrote all those commentaries to prove that

ultimately there is only one Truth!

 

i have no problems at all with your quoting SSS OR MISQUOTING

SHANKARA! FOR EXAMPLE, you quoted Shankara bhagvadapada as saying "

Shankara, following the verdict of dharma shAstra clearly says

shUdra is not supposed to listen to vEda maNtra-s, if at all he

does that *boiling lead *should be poured into his ears & vaidika

should not recite vEda maNtra when shUdra is there beside

him..etc..) " This was like a 'dagger' into my heart ! Shankara

bhagavadapada is very dear to my heart and he even forgave a

buddhist who was going to poison him , how would shankara

bhagvadapada ever make such a comment ? what is the* source* of this

comment ? Did SSS write this in one of his books ? That is good

enough reason for me not to read any of his books !

 

please understand ! i have no problem your quoting SSS or

virenderaji quposting Lalla's biography or poems or Ramji extensive

daily repitition of Gita commwentary by AVG swamis but by the same

token i like to see consistency and clarity on what is Shankara

advaita ? is it avg interpretation of shankara's advaita or sss

interpretation of Shankara's advaita ? or advaita as an underlying

philosophy of all great thinkers be it Swami vivekananda , swami

Paramarthananda , Mahtama Gandhi or even my own beloved Rumi ,

Tagore , lALLA ?

 

prabhuji , prove to mewhy i should accept your guru SSS is an

reincarnation of Adi shankara bhagvadapada ? i will 'divorce' all my

24 gurus /upagurus and adopt your sss bwithout batting an eyelid ! i

don't mind being a 'guru hopper '

 

no offence ! mataji loves her son anyway ! happy deepavali!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bHASKARJI

(advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> Humble praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> I think I've to quickly clarify certain things here...

>

> S prabhuji :

>

> Dear Bhaskarji,

> I am at a loss to know what there was in my post which made you

fly into a

> rage and lash out even at bhagavatpAda himself.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> Lashing bhagavadpAda?? how can I ?? No prabhuji, I think, you've

> completely mistaken my intetion, kindly note it is not a rush of

blood

> outburst...just I was trying to present the existing

scenario...dont you

> agree with me that bhagavadpAda, an epitome of brahmajnAna has

seen the

> *opponent* in his bhAshya-s??

>

> S prabhuji :

>

> I said nothing against your paramaguru.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> No prabhuji, my intention was not to uphold the supremacy of my

parama

> guruji's views over other vyAkhyAnakAra-s..and I did not say

anywhere that

> you are offtending my paramaguruji...So, I'd humbly submit that

context &

> intention of my previous mail is entirely different than what you

are

> assuming :-))

>

> S prabhuji :

>

> On the other hand I said that his views deserve as much respect

> as those of the AchAryas of the past.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> Thanks for your kind heart prabhuji.

>

> S prabhuji :

>

> All that I said was that there is no such thing as the one and

only right

> interpretation and that all the

> different views are valid.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> yes, but that is not the case when you look back the works of

> vyAkhyAnakAra-s & other traditions' AchArya-s..they hold the

attitude like

> *my daddy strongest* :-)) that is what I have tried to convey in my

> previous mail.

>

> S prabhuji :

>

> This is not my own opinion, in which case it would have no value,

but it is

> the opinion of the great sureSvara himself. I

> had quoted his Sloka in support of this. If it is your view that

your

> paramaguru's view is the only correct one, you are certainly

entitled to

> hold that.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> Thanks for giving me that liberty prabhuji...Yes, for me, Sri SSS

is the

> reincarnation of bhagavadpAda himself..he is abhinava shankara &

purusha

> saraswati..but I wont force anybody to accept it...that I've

already said.

>

> S prabhuji :

>

> I have only stated what is the general understanding among the

traditional

> scholars.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> Infact, I too was talking about *general understanding* of

scholars in

> advaita saMpradAya & other traditions...there is no unanimous

opinion about

> brahma & its jignAsa :-))...right from aNu to vibhu :-)) Hence, it

called

> for somany voluminous reconciliatory works from vEdAntins :-))

>

> S.N.Sastri

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar-ji,

 

advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> and what to talk about Sri madhvAchArya here...you know how he &

his

> disciples treated advaita in their works...And, coming back to

advaita

> lineage, our Sri madhusUdana Saraswati who has given the fitting

reply to

> nyAya sudha in his advaita siddhi did not think that tattvavAda

too is a

> part & parcel of hindu philosophy

 

A small correction…

 

Advaita-Siddhi is the reply not to `nyAyasudha' but `nyAyAmrta' of

Sri.Vyasa Tirtha (accepted by tradition as previous incarnation of

Sri Raghavendra Swami of Mantrayala).

 

Nothing to the topic being discussed in this thread, here is some

side notes;

 

Contrary to many Advaitins, who believe that Advaita-Siddhi of

Madhusudana Sarswati is the last reply to dvaitAdivita

controversory , here is the `not so complete' list of works from

both the sides on this issue;

 

1. tarangiNi - This work is vyakhyana on NYM and first ever

refutation on Advaita-Siddhi. This is by Sri.VyasarAmAcharya(1555-

1640).

 

2. brahmAnandeea - By Gouda-BrahmAnanda Sarswati (17th CE) (Advaita

order). This work refutes tarangiNi.

 

3.SiddhivAkya - By Balabhadra Bhatta (16th CE?). This work is

refutes taragini in detail.

 

4. nyAyAmruta-kantakOdhAra : By Sri. Pandurangi Ananda-BhattAraka

(1536-1605). This work is extensive vyakhyAna of NYM and refutes

all objections cited in various Advaitic works.

 

5. Nyayamrita-Sougandhya and TarangiNi-Sourabha : By Sri.Vanamaali

Mishra (a disciple of Sri.Vyasa Tirtha from North India). Sougandhya

is detailed answer to brahmaanadeea and where as Sourabha is

detailed commentary on TarangiNi. Also, these two works reviews and

criticizes many objects raised in AS and other advaitic works.

 

6. Panchagranthi : Aneppachrya ( 18th CE). In this work, most of the

above works have been analyzed and criticized.

 

7. VittaleeShia : This work from Kaashi VittalOpaadyaya ( of Advaita

order). This is detailed commentary on Laghu-Chandrika of Brahmanada

Saraswati, and a refutation of Nyayamrita-Sougandhya of Sri.Vanamali

Mishra.

 

8. DwaitadhyumaNi : This work is from Sri. Hulagi Sreepathyaacharya

(end of 18th CE) of mAdhva order. The author learnt Advaita from

Kaashi VittalOpaadyaya. This work is very extensive in its

exposition and refutes several advaitic works, such as VittaleeShia,

Shruti-matadyOta (of Tryambaka Shastri) and others.

 

9. Advaita-kuTaara : From Sri.Mudgalaacharya ( 17th CE) and refutes

Advaita Siddhi in detail.

 

10. Nyayamrta-Kalaadhara : By Sri.Vishwapriya Madhvanaatha Tirtharu

(19th CE). Both Advaita-Siddhi and Brahmaanadia were refuted.

 

11. Nyayamrita-Sougandhya-Vimarshae : By Pt.Ananta Krishana Shastri

(19th CE) and he refutes Sri.Vanamaali's Nyayamrita-Sougandhya.

 

12. NyayamrtaarNava : By Sri. JaaliHaL Sreenivasaacharya. He refutes

Ananta Krishna Shastri's above work.

 

 

Just as Sri.Vysa Tirtha himself once said this dvaitAdvaita polemics

should not be limit only to Sanskrit mainstream literature, in

previous century, it had entered into English too !

 

1. Dr.Narain's (1964) " A critique of Madhva's refutation of

Sankara's School "

 

2. As an answer to the above, we have BNK's 2 Volume " Advaitasiddhi-

vs.Nyayamrta " and " Mahataatparya of Mahavaakhyas " (1991) in

English.

 

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

PraNAms to all.

 

I get the feeling that discussion is getting side

tracked. I request all discussers to stick to the

issue rather than personalities - The truth is advaita

and not dvaita. Details of mithyaa, which by

definition is relative, depends on ones perspective of

the vision from his/her reference. All these

contradictions and confusion exists only in the

dvaitic states. The essence of advaita involves only

three -

1. Brahma satyam

2. jagat mithyaa

3. jiivaH brahma eva - na aparaH.

 

All advaitic masters essentially zero in on that. It

is that we need to realize not just establish by logic

but recognize that truth as fact. Let us not worry of

the details of the snake and loose the vision of the

substantive, the rope that is the satyam.

 

Sreenivas - your points are well taken. Last word has

been said by Madhussudhana Saraswati in the Advaita

Siddhi only because the falsity has been clearly

defined. He has provided the definition from five

perspectives. The rest are all dialectic arguments

with not much substantives. From advaita perspective

it is useless to argue further since the truth is

advaita and not dwaita - tat tvam asi, -

For those who are interested, Shree Anand Hudli, from

Bangalore, has provided an excellent analysis of

Advaita Siddhi which can be downloaded.

 

Shrenivas, you seem to jump in for every passing

comment on dwaita to clarify dvaita here. It is not

necessary. Yes, as for as we are concerned, the last

words have been send in the Advaita Siddhi concerning

the dialectic arguments and the rest is all noise.

Shreeman Srinivasa Chari maama (author of

Dviata-Advaita) told me once that no one has addressed

or responded to Shreeman Vedanta Desika's

'ShatadhuushaNii', although Shree Ananta Krishna

Shastri has written 'shatabhuushaNii'. I was thinking

of addressing each one from my perspective, pretty

soon I realized that it is a waste of time and energy.

Advaita needs no defense, since it is a fact. naataH

praJNaH ... advaitam, caturtam manyante, sa aatmaa, sa

vijneyaH.

It is more useful to contemplate on that truth, than

waste ones time on the dialectic arguments with no

substance - that is my opinion. Thanks for your input

anyway.

 

Of course this is not a license to continue discussion

on dvaita-advaita. Let us focus on the topic, without

bringing in personalities, the topic of deep-sleep

state - a state that can only defined from the from

the reference of a waker!

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Srinivas Kotekal prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I know that as soon as any member mentions anything about madhvA or his

tattvavAda by any chance, our Srinivas prabhuji's hawk eye catches it :-))

& he comes up with some clarification or correction :-)) Thanks for the

correction & additional information...I vaguely remember that I've seen a

Sanskrit work called *madhva timira bhAskara* in Karyalaya...I've forgotten

the author's name...but a cursory look at it says that it is another

refutation of paNcha bEdha theory of tattvavAda...Kindly let me know the

details of it off the line....

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Bhaskar prabuji writes :

 

(Thanks for giving me that liberty prabhuji...Yes, for me, Sri SSS

is the reincarnation of bhagavadpAda himself..he is abhinava

shankara & purusha saraswati..but I wont force anybody to accept

it...that I've already said.)

 

bhagini mAtAji :

 

How can you force anyone to accept that SSS is reincarnation of

Shankara Bhagvadapada ?

 

bhaskar :

 

I think you are in too hurry to fire me :-)) I've clearly told in my mail

that FOR ME, SSS is abhinava shankara & it is only my belief & *I WONT

FORCE ANYBODY TO ACCEPT IT*....Inspite of that, you went on rampage as if I

am forcing someone to accept it :-))

 

bhagini mAtAji :

 

MISQUOTING SHANKARA! FOR EXAMPLE, you quoted Shankara bhagvadapada as

saying " Shankara, following the verdict of dharma shAstra clearly says

shUdra is not supposed to listen to vEda maNtra-s, if at all he

does that *boiling lead *should be poured into his ears & vaidika

should not recite vEda maNtra when shUdra is there beside

him..etc..) " This was like a 'dagger' into my heart ! Shankara

bhagavadapada is very dear to my heart and he even forgave a

buddhist who was going to poison him , how would shankara

bhagvadapada ever make such a comment ? what is the* source* of this

comment ?

 

bhaskar :

 

Kindly dont jump to the conclusion so fast mAtAji..Atleast you should make

an attempt to study what shankara exactly said on this issue before calling

anyone for *misquoting* shankara :-)) Have you ever mind to study the

adhikaraNa bhAshya of shankara which I've mentioned before saying the

above?? Without accepting the facts, succumbing to sentimental

attachments & blindly accusing *misquoting* of shankara without bothering

to look at the original text clearly shows that you only want to have some

maudlin relationship with these exalted personalities without bothering

about the intricacies of their well documented doctrines...

 

bhagini mAtAji :

 

Did SSS write this in one of his books ? That is good enough reason for me

not to read any of his books !

 

bhaskar :

 

Again, a haste decision without any base !!! Anyway, nobody cares or

forcing you to study SSS's works mAtAji ...atleast I think you can spend

your time to study shankara before accusing others for *misquoting*...

 

I hope our subsequent discussion would be strictly on shankara's bhAshya

bhAga with regard to the above issue (ofcourse, only if it falls within the

scope of list policy) without personal comments, guru nindA & names

calling...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

 

" bhaskar.yr " <bhaskar.yr

advaitin

Wednesday, 31 October, 2007 11:29:03 AM

Re: Re: The three states

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bhagini mAtAji :

 

 

 

MISQUOTING SHANKARA! FOR EXAMPLE, you quoted Shankara bhagvadapada as

 

saying " Shankara, following the verdict of dharma shAstra clearly says

 

shUdra is not supposed to listen to vEda maNtra-s, if at all he

 

does that *boiling lead *should be poured into his ears & vaidika

 

should not recite vEda maNtra when shUdra is there beside

 

him..etc..) " This was like a 'dagger' into my heart ! Shankara

 

bhagavadapada is very dear to my heart and he even forgave a

 

buddhist who was going to poison him , how would shankara

 

bhagvadapada ever make such a comment ? what is the* source* of this

 

comment ?

 

 

 

bhaskar :

 

 

 

Kindly dont jump to the conclusion so fast mAtAji..Atleast you should make

 

an attempt to study what shankara exactly said on this issue before calling

 

anyone for *misquoting* shankara :-)) Have you ever mind to study the

 

adhikaraNa bhAshya of shankara which I've mentioned before saying the

 

above?? Without accepting the facts, succumbing to sentimental

 

attachments & blindly accusing *misquoting* of shankara without bothering

 

to look at the original text

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bhaskarji,

 

 

 

would you be kind enough to let us - readers - know what exactly was the verse

with page ref etc so that we too can try to understand what exactly going on

please?

 

 

 

thanks a lot

 

 

 

namaskaram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you know? You can CHAT without downloading messenger. Go to

http://in.messenger./webmessengerpromo.php/

 

 

[Guest guest]

Bhaskarji,

 

would you be kind enough to let us - readers - know what exactly was the

verse with page ref etc so that we too can try to understand what exactly

going on please?

 

thanks a lot

 

praNAms Sri Rammohan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

In the vEdAnta sUtra, there is an adhikaraNa called

*apashudrAdhikaraNa*...This adhikaraNa contains totally 5 sUtra-s I suppose

( I dont have the text here in office)...In the commentary of those sUtra-s

shankara strictly follows the *rules* of dharma shAstra & clearly says

there is no vEdAdhikAra for *Sudras*...If you are interested, I shall pick

you the more details about it on next Monday (next 4 days I'll be on leave

:-)) In the meanwhile you can check the same reference in any of the

available on line brahma sUtra shankara bhAshya commentary.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Madathilji,

Pranams,

 

Sorry for my delayed reply.

 

You wrote:

 

" Well, a question now remains. Will you kindly address it? To my eyes, all this

looks like a matter of terminology. Can we not put an end to this endless debate

through the following understanding?If bIjabhAva is there in all states, then it

no doubt is the root cause (mUlAvidyA). The phala (projection of duality) in

waking and dreams is only a result of that cause. True, in deep sleep, the

original cause remains without projection. However, there is a result still in

deep sleep. And that is 'agrahaNa' (not cognizing one's own real nature). "

 

 

 

My reply:

The bIjabhAva is no doubt a mUla in the sence that it is the root cause. I

certainly do agree with you here. Sri SSS do argue that this bIjabhAva is

superimposed (adhyAsa), but he claims that this is different from how

post-Shankara vedantins have interpretated it. According to SSS, those later

vedantins do claim that bIjabhAva is actually a positive existing mUlAvidyA, and

not a superimposition due to absence of knowledge. However, I personally do

think that we shouldn´t worry to much about this. What gives moksha is knowledge

of brahman, not knowledge of avidya. We should put our efforts in trying to gain

brahmavidyA rather than getting unneccerarily disturbed by different theories on

avidya. The words and explanations of Shankara, bhamati, vivarana, Sri SSS,

appayya dikshita etc. are all approaches to something (brahman) that is

infinitely bigger than the very concepts and explanations themselves. The

bhashyas and subcommentaries are the tools we have to understand reality. But

they are not brahman itself. Texts and concepts can not capture brahman, which

is beyond all limitations, attributes and hence all concepts. Texts cannot

capture brahman, but they can wipe away the misconceptions we are superimposing

on brahman. Hence, the bhashyas and the vedantic text are there to help us wipe

away avidya, which is the keyhole to brahmavidya. They are the valid tools on

our journey towards final liberation, and moksha is possible through shrutivakya

only. Some vedantins explain avidya and it´s locus in one way, other gives

another view. Sri SSS in his books has argued that Advaita Vedanta has evolved

and changed since the age of Adi Shankara. Some says that Sri SSS was wrong in

doing so. Sri SSS being my paramaguruji, I personally think that moksha is

possible if you follow Shankara only, but also if you study vedanta through

bhamati, vivarana, SSS´s books or other texts within the traditional Advaita

Vedanta sampradaya. However, I am very well aware that there are some followers

of Sri SSS who wouldn´t agree with me on this point.

 

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear mAtAji,

Pranams

 

 

Adressing Sri Vinayakaji, you wrote:

 

" The moderators keep emphasizing that we are here to discuss Shankara's advaita

philosophy and nothing else ! but now you have introduced another variable in

the printout that of SSS'S INTERPRETATION OF SHANKARA'S PHILOSOPHY ! many of us

are not familiar with SSS 'S works EXCEPT THROUGH BHASKAR PRABHUJI !in

mathematics , they say , first you have to understand the basic theorem before

understanding the corollaries ! "

 

 

My comment:

I agree with you that this list should keep focus on " Shankara´s advaita

philosophy " . But doesn´t this imply also that the list policies would permitt us

to discuss also later exponents of vedanta, following in the footsteps of Adi

Shankara? If not, then we wouldn´t have the right to discuss here for instance

Sureshvara, Vidyaranaya, Appayya Dikshita or the sankaracharyas of Sringeri,

Kanchi etc! And if we are permitted to discuss those thinkers, then why not

other traditional thinkers within the Advaita Vedanta sampradaya? Thinkers like

for instance the Sringeri Sankaracharya Chandrasekhara Bharati or Sri SSS are

just as much parts of the Advaita Vedanta tradition as where Shankara and his

immediate disciples. After all, Shankara himself belonged to an already existing

tradition.

 

I hope I didn´t violate any list policies by saying this.

 

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Stigji:

 

It is good to see your insightful posts and welcome back to the list

and we hope that continue with your active partipation.

 

Your understanding of the list policies is quite accurate and the FAQ

clearly encourages members to discuss not only Sankara's Advaita

Philosophy but also closely related Post-Sankara schools of thought.

To clear the misunderstandings, let me provide a brief parapraph

describing the FAQ:

 

Advaita Vedanta holds that all that exists is only Brahman.

The plurality of living and nonliving beings of the entire universe

is indeed nothing but Brahman. The ignorance and misapprehension of

this astonishingly simple truth leads to samsaara. The Atman of the

individual jeeva is not different from Brahman, and realization of

this Truth is Moksha.

 

A number of institutions have drawn inspiration from Advaita

philosophy which include Shankara Matha-s, Ramanaashram, Ramakrishna

Mission, Sivananda Ashram, etc. The Internet contains an ocean of

literature on Vedanta Philosophy and the list welcomes discussions

that can bring new insights. The list encourages a wide range of

discussion topics focusing on Shankara, pre-Shankara and post-

Shankara Advaita Philosophy.

 

Discussions can go beyond Indian culture and philosophy and the

discussants are welcome to post their personal experiences. The

moderators will not hesitate to exercise their right to curtail

discussions when they consider the discussion is drifting away from

the primary focus.

 

This list is truly dedicated to Vedavyasa, Shankara, and the lineage

of aachaaryaas extending to the present day. Ramana Maharishi,

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and other sages and saints of East and West

who have dedicated their life-time on nondual philosophy. Discussions

of insights by sages and saints are welcome.

 

The list intends to facilitate meaningful discussions in a friendly

and pleasant atmosphere with several key goals:

To understand the nature of who we are.

To motivate the beginners in philosophy and help them to understand

and appreciate the message of Scriptures.

To help members to develop an attitude to appreciate that every human

being is good in his/her own way.

 

I hope this clarification is helpful for all members.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , " Stig Lundgren " <slu wrote:

>

> Dear mAtAji,

> Pranams

>

>

> Adressing Sri Vinayakaji, you wrote:

>

> " The moderators keep emphasizing that we are here to discuss

Shankara's advaita philosophy and nothing else ! but now you have

introduced another variable in the printout that of SSS'S

INTERPRETATION OF SHANKARA'S PHILOSOPHY ! many of us are not familiar

with SSS 'S works EXCEPT THROUGH BHASKAR PRABHUJI !in mathematics ,

they say , first you have to understand the basic theorem before

understanding the corollaries ! "

>

>

> My comment:

> I agree with you that this list should keep focus on " Shankara´s

advaita philosophy " . But doesn´t this imply also that the list

policies would permitt us to discuss also later exponents of vedanta,

following in the footsteps of Adi Shankara? If not, then we wouldn´t

have the right to discuss here for instance Sureshvara, Vidyaranaya,

Appayya Dikshita or the sankaracharyas of Sringeri, Kanchi etc! And

if we are permitted to discuss those thinkers, then why not other

traditional thinkers within the Advaita Vedanta sampradaya? Thinkers

like for instance the Sringeri Sankaracharya Chandrasekhara Bharati

or Sri SSS are just as much parts of the Advaita Vedanta tradition as

where Shankara and his immediate disciples. After all, Shankara

himself belonged to an already existing tradition.

>

> I hope I didn´t violate any list policies by saying this.

>

> Warmest regards

> Stig Lundgren

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste ! Stig-ji !

 

i wonder if you remember me .... you and i had a quite an

interesting exchange of private emails a few years ago specially on

the subject of the authorship of Vivekachudamani. Subsequently , you

left for Bangalore and we lost touch.

 

I have had the fortune od reading your posts in the old advaitin-l

list and always admired your scholarship . Stigji , no that , you

have also admitted that your paramaguru is SSS , i would like to

know more about SSS . Please send me more information on SSS and his

works and also any links to my private email.

 

The moderators are vey protective of what constitutes list policy

and what is advaita . so , what they say goes ! i am just an

innocent bystander!

 

To me , i enjoy reading all philosophies including Kashmir shaivism,

Sufism, Zen buddhism , Vedanta etc etc etc ......

this is the same mataji _shakthi16)with whom you corrresponded some

years ago , the name and form has changed but the Mataji is the

same !

 

keep writing - we love to hear more from you !

 

now , once again, is there 'ignorance' in deep sleep ? how do we

know it ? only on waking is it not ? but a jnani is never ignorant

in all three states , right ? what is SSS'S CONTENTION ON THIS VIZ

A ADI SHANKARA'S ? pl keep it simple - i am a little slow on the

uptake .

 

Thanx and wishing you a very auspicious deepavali !

 

love and regards

 

 

 

 

In advaitin , " Stig Lundgren " <slu wrote:

>

> Dear mAtAji,

> Pranams

>

>

> Adressing Sri Vinayakaji, you wrote:

>

> " The moderators keep emphasizing that we are here to discuss

Shankara's advaita philosophy and nothing else ! but now you have

introduced another variable in the printout that of SSS'S

INTERPRETATION OF SHANKARA'S PHILOSOPHY ! many of us are not

familiar with SSS 'S works EXCEPT THROUGH BHASKAR PRABHUJI !in

mathematics , they say , first you have to understand the basic

theorem before understanding the corollaries ! "

>

>

> My comment:

> I agree with you that this list should keep focus on " Shankara´s

advaita philosophy " . But doesn´t this imply also that the list

policies would permitt us to discuss also later exponents of

vedanta, following in the footsteps of Adi Shankara? If not, then we

wouldn´t have the right to discuss here for instance Sureshvara,

Vidyaranaya, Appayya Dikshita or the sankaracharyas of Sringeri,

Kanchi etc! And if we are permitted to discuss those thinkers, then

why not other traditional thinkers within the Advaita Vedanta

sampradaya? Thinkers like for instance the Sringeri Sankaracharya

Chandrasekhara Bharati or Sri SSS are just as much parts of the

Advaita Vedanta tradition as where Shankara and his immediate

disciples. After all, Shankara himself belonged to an already

existing tradition.

>

> I hope I didn´t violate any list policies by saying this.

>

> Warmest regards

> Stig Lundgren

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa murthy

Pranams to all.

 

There is no " a jnani " . There is only " JNANI " . EkamEva.

JNANI is not a person.

JNANI is not in the three states.

The states appear in HIM/ THAT (tat).

 

Finally as Bhagavan Ramana says " There is no jnani. There is only

JNANA " .A person is limited. JNANI IS ananta Viz.INFINITE.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

--- bhagini_niveditaa <bhagini_niveditaa

>

> The moderators are vey protective of what

> constitutes list policy

> and what is advaita . so , what they say goes ! i am

> just an

> innocent bystander!

 

Bhagini_Niveditaaji - PraNAms.

 

With due respects, I request you not to moderate the

moderators. If you really want to be innocent

bystander, without you taking the resposibility of

moderators, that will be great; and let the

moderators, who have been maintaining this list for

nearly a decade, do their job. Stig has been in this

list for more than you have been and he knows the

policies very well. He only posts whenever he feels

he needs to make some positive contribution.

 

Anyway it is moderators’ job to find if a post is out

of line with the policies that they have outlined and

If you or anyone finds that they are not doing their

job, you can send them a private email.

 

I would like everyone to recognize that it is a

privilege to be in the list and make some positive

contributions that benefit to all. Moderators will

only interfere if things, IN THEIR OPINION, are going

out of line. Yes, moderators are individuals with

excellent credentials, who started this list with a

vision and maintain this list keeping that vision.

They try to be open-minded as much as possible with

least moderation and only interfere if the posts are

going out of line. The decisions are made collectively

by all the moderators. The fact that the list is doing

an excellent job for the past 10 plus years is a

testimony itself. One can scan through the archives

and see the excellent service the list serve has

provided.

 

I hope all take these comments in the spirit they are

offered. If any one has any comments on moderation

policies, please do not post to the list, but send it

directly to the chief moderator.

 

He will respond if he needs to.

 

> > I hope I didn´t violate any list policies by

> saying this.

> >

> > Warmest regards

> > Stig Lundgren

 

NO stig, you have stepped in right time to provide the

readers the gist of Shree SSS analysis of three states

and thanks for your timely contribution.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Stig-ji.

 

Immense thanks for your post 37828. I go fully with your balanced view

of Advaita. I am sure Shri SSS had expected all his disciples to share

your worthy stand.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

PraNAms to you too Niveditaa – You have asked the

loaded questions. I will try to present my

understanding as best as I can.

 

--- bhagini_niveditaa <bhagini_niveditaa

wrote:

 

>

> Sadaji you mentioned

>

> ( It is that we need to realize not just establish

> by logic

> but recognize that truth as fact. Let us not worry

> of

> the details of the snake and loose the vision of

> the

> substantive, the rope that is the satyam. )

>

> Sadaji , could you please explain to this audience

> in the context of

> the above sentence what 'Aprameyam' means ! thanx !

 

Pramaa is knowledge. It is generally translated as

valid knowledge. Not sure what is an invalid

‘knowledge’ really means! That what we thought is

knowledge, but if it is negated by further inquiry,

then it is invalidated knowledge or ‘bhadita jnaanam’

or more appropriately called ‘bhramaa’. Some times

invalidation of knowledge gained by one pramaaNa

occurs by higher ‘pramaaNa’. For example sun rises in

the east and sets in the west- that knowledge or

pramaa is gained by Pratyaksha pramaaNa, direct

perceptual means. But shaastra, or science teaches,

to those who are receptive to that teaching that sun

neither rises nor sets. Thus experientially we see the

sun rise and sun set, but shaastra says sun neither

rises nor sets – but that later information forms

acceptable knowledge only if shaastra can convincingly

prove why sun neither rises nor sets, even when one is

still experiencing the sun rise and sun set. Here

the lower pramaaNa, in this case perceptual knowledge

based on direct experience, provides a lower or

relative knowledge, but higher pramaaNa, shaastra,

provides the correct truth underlying that experience.

From this discussion we make some important points:

1. Experience is different from knowledge of that

experience. 2. Most of the knowledge, based on the

analysis of our experiences, using pramaaNa is

relative. This transactional or relative knowledge is

called vyaavahaarika satyam. (For transacting in the

world of plurality we need transactional knowledge all

loukika (worldly) pramaaNas are zero in on this) is

this worldly knowledge pramaa or bhramaa? – it is

pramaa at one level but negated at higher level and

therefore becomes bhrama from the higher level). 3.

Higher pramaaNa does not really negate the experience

of sun rise and sun set, but only provides the true

knowledge behind that experience. Hence worldly

experiences are not negated but only understood better

by higher pramaaNa. 4. In this case we can call

knowledge of the shaastra or science is better

knowledge than what is based on perceptual knowledge.

To be exact, there are relative grades in the

knowledge – one is superior to the other. 5. That

knowledge which can never be negated becomes absolute

knowledge. 6. That knowledge can only be of the

knowledge of SAT or existence, since SAT is that which

can never be negated, na abhavo vidyate sataH.

 

Knowledge of any thing can takes place only through

‘pramaaNa’ – or means of knowledge. There are six

means of knowledge and many zero in on three –

Pratyaksha, anumaana and shabda – Perception,

inference and the word (of trustworthy) – Normally

anumaana or inferential knowledge requires a

supportive evidence which ultimately based on

pratyaksha or perceptual data – the data is used in

dRishTanta or example or data that can be gathered by

perception. Science which involves deductive and

inductive reasoning relays on the experimental

supportive data. In the Upanishads wherever or

whenever clear examples are provided they are

essentially providing a shaastra based anumaana

pramaaNa – here the anumaana pramaaNa is not to

establish the truth directly but to provide the

logical support, as well, in support of the truth

pointed out by Veda itself as shabda pramaaNa. (The

reason I am going in detail before I address question

directly is to provide the sufficient background to

the readers to appreciate why advaita is the truth)

 

Now Brahman is the absolute truth that needs to be

known says Veda – …tat vijnaasaswa. What is that

Brahman to be known? Brahma is defined by both

swaruupa lakshaNa and tatasta lakshaNa – Swaruupa

lakshaNa involves its intrinsic nature. I have

discussed extensively before in my notes on mAnDUkya

that swaruupa lakshaNa involves ‘necessary and

sufficient’ qualification and Brahman is defined in

that way as ‘satyam, jnaanam, anantam’ Brahma, using

converse statements (converse statements establish the

necessary and sufficient qualification or swaruupa

lakshaNa – see Shankara’s commentary on Tai. Up.). It

is the nature of existence-knowledge-infiniteness.

Here they are both necessary and sufficient making

them as Brahman’s very swaruupa itself. This implies

that wherever ‘sat– chit – ananta (or ananda –

anantam eva anandam – infinite or limitless is bliss)

that is Brahman. These are not three separate

requirements but one and the same expressed from three

different perspectives. A simple example for swaruupa

lakshaNa is, for water its swaruupa is H2O – it means

H2O is water and water is H2O and there are no two

ways about it. But in all these worldly (finite

objects) examples, the objects have no swaruupa

lakshaNa of there own, since they are only assembled

using some other ingredients – that is they are

divisible. Hence in reality water does not have its

own swaruupa lakshaNa, since it just an assemblage of

Hydrogen and Oxygen. – each, constituent in turn, is

an assemblage of some other finer particles – and this

can go on endlessly, as we are yet to determine the

fundamental nature of the matter that constitutes the

world; there are full with uncertainties at the

fundamental level. The very investigation into the

fundamental nature back fires, since the very

investigation affects the system being investigated.

The fundamental truth Vedanta emphasizes is “No object

has absolute swaruupa lakshaNa, since they are made of

‘parts’”. Relative LakshaNas can be defined for

operational or transactional purposes. PramaaNas can

only provide the relative knowledge. This points to

the very nature of the world itself. One can only

define the world at vyaavahaarika or relative level

and not at absolute level. Vedas provide the reason

for this, since the substantive for the world is

nothing but Brahman itself – and that constitutes the

paaramaarthika satyam – Vedas ascertain this advaitic

fundamental truth –sat eva idam agra aseet| ekam eva

advitiiyam| and that is Brahman – Ch.Up. – Existence,

one with out a second alone was there before creation.

In another upanishad it says ‘aatmaa eva idam agra

aseet| - self, conscious entity alone was there before

creation –etc. emphasizing what was there is Brahman

which is of the nature of Sat-chit.

 

 

Knowledge of Brahman, the substantive of the whole

universe, forms the absolute knowledge which cannot be

negated. All other knowledge is only transactional

knowledge only.

 

Let us analyze this transactional knowledge of the

role of pramaaNa. Take for example a carpet. It is

there with its properties. Knowledge of the carpet

based on its properties form only relative knowledge.

For transactional purposes that is sufficient at one

level. But if I want to investigate its substantive

or upaadaana kaaraNa, I find that it is just an

assemblage of parts or more correctly assemblage of

fibers and there is really no carpet there other than

fibers assembled in a particular form. Fibers, in

turn are there with there properties; upon further

inquiry using appropriate pramaaNa, I find that they

are assemblage of natural or synthetic compounds,

etc, etc. The bottom line is all loukika pramaaNas or

worldly means of knowledge (through sense input) give

only relative knowledge or vyaavahaarika satyam or

transactional truth, which is needed for all

transactions. Then what is the absolute truth of

this world of objects its ultimate substance?.

Science is yet to provide an answer. Vedas form the

absolute pramaaNa even to understand the world. They

say the substantive of the world is nothing but

Brahman. Hence Brahman, who is part less or that is

division less, alone is the swaruupa lakshaNa of the

world also as defined by Vedas as

SATYAM-JNAANAM-ANATAM. Mind/intellect can only grasp

that which is finite, while Brahman’s swaruupam is

itself infinite. Hence Braham can only defined at our

vyaavahaarika level as that which cannot be transacted

(avyavahaaryam) or that which is not finite (infinite)

and that which cannot be grasped by any PRAMAANA –

aprameyam. yat adresyam agraahyam, agotram, avarNam…

etc .

 

Hence Brahman, in principle, is ‘aprameyam’ since it

cannot be an object of any pramaaNa. PramaaNa can

operate where there is triputi or three fold division

– praamaaNa, prameya and pramAta – means of knowledge,

object to be known and the knower. These three by

being mutually exclusive are finite. Brahman being

infinite, the tripuTi cannot operate since PramaaNa

can only operate at finite level.

 

One can also deduce that ‘I am’ cannot be object for

knowledge or ‘I am’ cannot be an object of any

pramaaNa – it is also aprameyam. – Essentially ‘I am’

is the subject and prameyam is an object of knowledge.

The subject ‘I’ cannot become an object of knowledge.

Hence Mandukya Up says that turiiyam that “ I am” is

defined first using negative definitions – just like

the way Upanishads define Brahman using negatives –

naataH prajnaH, na bahiH prajnaH, .. adRishTam,

agraahyam, avyapadeshyam, avyavahaaryam, advaitam,

and also some positive definitions as shaantam,

shivam, prapancopashamam, ekaatma pratyayasaaram ..

etc.

 

Thus both ‘I’ the subject, and the Brahman the very

cause for the entire universe – both are aprameyam –

and both are sat and chit swaruupam. Hence no

pramaaNa can operate to know either aatman or Brahman.

Vedas are pramaaNa giving us the essential relation

between myself, the world and Brahman – they provide

as pramaaNa the most important declarations called

–mahaavaakyaas – that shows the identity of I and

Brahman and Brahman and the world. That is only way

it can be possible. Brahman being infinite can only

both material and intelligent cause for the universe

and Upanishad show the analysis of dream state as an

example or dRiShTaanta to establish the abhinna

nimitta upaadaana kaaraNa where the dream world and

the dream subject are both projection of the mind

supported by sat-chit swaruupam that ‘I am’.

 

Chandogya in the 6th chapter indicating the

mayaavaakya – tat thou art – tat tvam asi – shows the

identity relation while emphasizing using several

dRishTaantaas or examples that knowing the cause one

can knows all the effects – eka vijnaanena sarva

vijnaanam bhavati – since all the effects are nothing

but cause itself in different forms. Thus world is

nothing but Brahman in different form – sarvam khalu

idam brahma – neha naanaasti kincana – all that that

is indicated by this is nothing but Brahman and there

is no absolute plurality that is real. If I see

plurality it is only apparent, just as I see the dream

world of plurality all projected by one entity – the

waker’s mind.

 

In order to understand or realize this truth an

inquiry is needed and Vedas provide the means or

pramaaNa for that inquiry. It is like pointing the

moon in the sky using a finger. Hence although the

truth is aprameyam – not an ‘object’ for pramaaNa,

Vedas are still pramaaNa to point out; 1. the identity

relations between to apparently two essential facts –

I am and the Brahman and also means one should direct

the mind to inquire to realize this truth. Hence it

is not knowing as knowing as an object where

pramaata-prameya and pramaaNa operate; but it is an

understanding that there is nothing other than ‘I am’

which is self-conscious-self-existing entity beyond

any pramaaNas.

 

If I am sitting in a pitch dark room and someone calls

me if I am there – I cannot say that I cannot see

myself or I should be here since I am able hear you –

etc. I know I am there without any means of knowledge

or pramANa to prove that I am there. I, in fact,

provide proofs for all pramaaNas and therefore I have

to be pre-existing before any pramaaNa can operate.

Brahman cannot be prameyam since by definition he is

infinite and no pramANa can operate on Brahman.

 

My existence is a fact not a theory nor an ‘ism’. ‘I

am a conscious entity’ is also a fact and not a

‘theory’ or ism. The world that is separate from me

‘appears to exist in the waking state’ – another

world, separate from the waking world and separate

from I, seems to exist in my dream state and in the

deep sleep state – I dismiss all the projections and

‘I alone am’ there with out any space-time duality.

Hence only one fundamental truth which cannot be

established by any pramaaNa and which cannot be

negated by any process – which is independent of any

process and therefore the fundamental truth what

philosophy I to – is ‘existent-conscious

entity – I am – aham. And Vedas say ‘I am’ is

adviatam – non-duality – since any duality implies

object different from subject. All knowledge of any

duality is only relative and not absolute. The only

thing that is absolute that cannot be known by any

means is myself – I am - since I have to be there to

validate all pramaaNas. Existence-consciousness is the

very cause for this universe – sat eve idam agra asiit

–and it is one without a second. Hence declaration by

the Vedas is this essential truth – that I am –

independent of whether I am believer or non-believer,

dvaitin or advaitin or whatever designation I give

myself to. To those philosophies that claim that

‘this division of ‘vyaavahaarika satyam and

paaramaarthika satyam is not acceptable to us’ is like

saying the statement ‘sun neither rises nor sets’ is

not acceptable to us. It is better to leave them to

their theories than argue with them. This is the

fundamental truth that does not depend on any body to

validate or accept. ‘I am’ – is self-existent and

self-conscious entity. The rest has to be validated

by me – that the world IS – I have to say that the

world is and I have to be there to validate even the

world.

 

I am advaitam and that is the fundamental truth and

does not depend on opinions of anybody – even Shankara

– Ramanuja - Madhva. We glorify Shankara who can

synthesize the teaching of the upanishad in a

self-consistent way bringing out this essence of the

teaching in crystallized form – brahma satyam, jagat

mityaa, jiivo brahmaiva naaparaH. We glorify Shankara

who could bring out this fundamental truth in

self-consistent way in the interpretation of the

mahaavaakyaas and providing ‘samanvaya’ – for all

Vedic statements. The concept of maaya by which one

appears to be many is brought out in a systematic

manner. Appearance of plurality which is called

illusion or leela and taking that plurality as

reality, delusion, due to avidya are emphasized in the

advaitic doctrine keeping in mind the fundamental

truth that ‘I am’ alone is the non-negatable truth.

 

Since our minds are not ready to accept this

fundamental truth – not as a conceptualized idea but

as a fact – just as ‘I am a man and not a rat’

(recollect the story of Mr. Jones who thought that ‘he

is a rat’) – shravaNam, mananam and nidhidhyaasanam is

required to reaffirm my true identity – aham

brahmaasmi.

 

When we give importance to ‘naama and ruupa’, but

forget the very substantive of the world – brahman –

existence-consciousness-infiniteness we are loosing

track of the very purpose of these discussions. My

last mail was only to emphasize the purpose of

Vedanta, the achaarya’s bhaashyaas and the discussions

to keep our vision in the teaching and not to get lost

in the unwanted details about the names and forms –

one can give importance to the details as long as it

only reinforces our fundamental understanding. Giving

more than needed importance to the names and forms

will only distract the main purpose of the discussions

unless the very names and forms lead us to the

formless and nameless eternal entity, sat-chit-ananda

swaruupam.

 

Shree T.P. Mahadevan, one of the great advaitins wrote

– advaita translated as non-dualism – the non applies

to not only to duality but to ism as well. Hence

advaita is non-duality in spite of duality – it is not

a philosophy – it is a fact implied by scriptures and

supported by logic as well –knowing oneself

(prapancopashamam) or Brahman (jagat kaaraNam) is the

only way – knowing one, one knows everything – eka

vijnaanena sarva vijnaanam bhavati – knowing the cause

all effects are known, since all effects are nothing

but cause itself in different form – vaachaarambhanam

vikaaro naamadheyam. (By the by – I will be taking

Ch. Up. sad vidya for the Memorial Week end camp, next

year in Washington D.C.- for those who are

interested).

 

> i have read some of Anand hudli's works - he is

> great . Please

> provide thw web site for the above . Thanx again!

>

> also, Sadaji you keep writing

> (Advaita needs no defense, since it is a fact.

> naataH

> praJNaH ... advaitam, caturtam manyante, sa aatmaa,

> sa

> vijneyaH. It is more useful to contemplate on that

> truth, than

> waste ones time on the dialectic arguments with no

> substance - that is my opinion. )

>

> but , even then, at the slightest provocation,

> members are always

> arguing about how Shankara's Advaita is different ?

> this is what

> confuses me the most ! is there a shankara advaita

> and a non

> shankara advaita ! pl clarify !

 

Niveditaji – man is emotional and gets attached to the

favorite theories and concepts – this is natural.

dvaitins are attached to dvaita philosophy, advaitin

to advaita and vishishhTaadvaitins to

vishisshTaadvaita. Science of Vedanta is pure science

– it is about facts that we cannot grasp through

Pratyaksha and anumaana. Vedanta requires proper

teacher since it involves adhyaaropa apavaada method

of teaching where the misconceptions about the world

about oneself are slowly taken out to reveal the

truth. If you look carefully at any bhaashhyas –

puurva pakshaas have been raised based on issues and

not on personalities. Personalities never entered

into puurva pakshaas – that is how science is

presented.

 

There is no Shankara Advaita and non-Shankara advaita

– it is a contradiction in terms, that is making

dvaita out of advaita!

 

There are only three – ‘I’ – and ‘the world’ that I

see, and third factor, Brahman, is brought in to

account the cause for this universe (both material and

intelligent cause). Vedas define Brahman in clear

terms as – prajnaanam brahman – consciousness is

brahman (as I said before in converse form). Further

explanation is required to account how conscious

entity be the cause for unconscious world – This is

where the interpretations differ and advaita stands

tall in accounting clearly how one became many – as

transformation less transformation – it is just naama

and ruupa – vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam – how

‘I’ the subject cannot be different from Brahman, the

existence-consciousness and infiniteness – leaving the

world that is seen different from ‘I’ and is only

apparent or really true or true only a transactional

level and not absolute level. If I am Brahman and I

take myself spatially and time-wise located then there

is an error in my knowledge arising from avidya.

 

The purpose of life is to realize this truth. All

discussions intended only to provide for shravaNa,

manana and nidhidhyaasana. If we loose sight of the

objective and get carried away with unnecessary

details, we are going to loose the vision of the truth

and get entangled in unnecessary vyavahaara only.

 

Let us pose the question before we post – Is this

helping me or others in their understanding of the

nature of the reality – If not, then the very purpose

of Vedantic discussions becomes futile only lot of

noise will occur without any progress. If I have

clear understanding without any doubts, then how can I

communicate that knowledge without bringing any

personalities since truth of advaita is to beyond the

names and forms to see the essence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> and finally , about deep sleep - the question still

> remains - 'is

> there ignorance in deep sleep '? how do we know that

> we are ignorant

> in deep sleep except in waking state ? Sorry , pl

> help me out . i

> Thought a jnani is always 'awake' in all three

> states

>

 

Ch. Up. answers these questions very clearly in sad

vidya. When a tiger sleeps and get up it does not get

up as jiivan mukta – it gets up only a tiger – so is a

dog, cat or man. When a jiivan mukta sleeps and get

up, he gets up as jiivan mukta while an ignorant man

sleeps and gets up, he gets up only as ignorant man.

The relevant example is the rivers merging in ocean

without any naama ruupa – that is merging into to

oneness. But when clouds form and rains forming the

rivers again, they do not remember they are oceans –

again they go back to ocean.

 

In fact, there is never a time we are not merged with

Brahman – not only in deep sleep state – all the time.

Only things different in deep sleep state is all

names and forms and all pramaaNa, prameya and pramaata

– triputies are gone into a potential form – avyaktam

that Gita Ch. 8 also addresses in terms of laya and

pralaya – There is no self realization in any state

although in all states we are one with Brahman –

unless the ignorant mind that has notions that I am

separate from brahman is dissolved through jnaana.

That is the absolute merger. Ramana calls this as

laya – laya gatam manaH purbhavati – laya vinaashane

ubhaya rodhane, layagatam manaH purabhavit nomRitam.

Ignorance can never go without knowledge that is

opposite to that ignorance. My chemistry ignorance

cannot go without chemistry knowledge. My

self-ignorance cannot go without the self-knowledge.

If one can learn by going to sleep – everybody will be

a scholar in all pramaas! Hence sleep is never

considered as pramaaNa!

 

This is true across the board and we do not really

need bhaashhyas to know this but when scripture is

saying something, it has to be properly understood

from what reference the statements are made. That is

the reason we need a proper ‘sampradaaya’ – teacher to

explain to us the correct import of the scripture.

 

I am sorry I went on writing since I felt this

requires detailed explanation to my satisfaction.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Thank you Sadaji for taking the time to explain all my questions in a

detailed manner. I will try to read your response slowly and grasp

all the details therin.

 

Sadaji, on another note, you are right about the WONDERFUL MODERATORS

ON THIS LIST some of them are my own personal favorites ! but for

this list , i would have never met Anandaji who familiarized us with

tHE WRITINGS of Shri Atmananda .

 

my question to you is Why is Kashmir saivism not considered part of

Advaita ? Why are virendera's posting of Lalleshweri's poems

considered an act of violating list policies ? Is not Lalla's poems

full of advaitic content ? is not runi's poem full of non -dualism ?

anyway , you know and i know , i admire the 'advaitin' list a lot and

that is why i am still here in spite of being 'carded' so many

times !

 

 

i hold stigji in very high esteem. Bhaskarji is also one of my very

dear friends. But once in a while , prabhuji quotes Shankara as

having said this or that ( like the hot lead being poured into the

ears of shudra for listening to vedas) and these statements are not

only irksome but paint a bad picture of our most respected

jagadguru ! Our jagadguru might have upheld vaidika dharma in tune

with the times ! but Acharya , the founder of Asvaita philosophy , is

above all, the very embodiment of Manav dharma ! Manav dharma

teaches us to treat all 'manavs' (be it a shudra or a brahmin) with

love and compassion!

 

anyway, i learn a lot from you all and there is no doubt in my mind

the moderators are doing their best and it is not easy to please

everyone!

 

thank you kindly for all your time and efforts !

 

LOVE AND REGARDS

 

PS YOUR EXPLANATION IS WHOLLY SATISFYING TO ME AND I HOPE TO OTHERS

AS WELL. i now know what shankara advaita means - it is

the 'parampara' and sampradaya' to which adi shankara belongs - from

Narayana to vyasa to shankara ......

 

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

>

> PraNAms to you too Niveditaa – You have asked the

> loaded questions. I will try to present my

> understanding as best as I can.

>

> ---th

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>

> I am sorry I went on writing since I felt this

> requires detailed explanation to my satisfaction.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

 

Thank you very much for this, Sada ji

 

Sudesh

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145 wrote:

There is no " a jnani " . There is only " JNANI " . EkamEva.

JNANI is not a person.

JNANI is not in the three states.

The states appear in HIM/ THAT (tat).

 

Finally as Bhagavan Ramana says " There is no jnani. There is only

JNANA " .A person is limited. JNANI IS ananta Viz.INFINITE.>

 

I would like to add the saying of Sri Atmananda to the above.

Sri Atmananda says:

Question; What is Jnanin?

 

Reply:Jnanin Is Anubhavam Or Truth

OR

the " I-Principle " .

[spiritual Discourses Of Sri Atmananda; 1951 -38}

 

The above statement should dispell all the misconceptions or wrong

understanding/information one is having about jnani.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy