The misery of Atman/brahman in advaita

[Kalyan K]

Namaste to all members here

I want to understand advaita better, especially since I seem to find that some of its teachings are contradictory. Hence I want to get the opinions from vidwans here who have a good understanding of advaita.

Let me sum up a key teaching of advaita first - In advaita, the Atman/brahman, which is of the nature of Ananda (bliss), and is forever free from all evil, misery and ignorance, and which is forever liberated in the past, present and the future, and which is free from all actions and agitations, somehow jumps into the samsAra (transmigration), by imagining Itself to be miserable and ignorant, even though it is neither miserable nor ignorant in reality. There is no other entity apart from the Atman Itself that can be affected by ignorance and misery, because the One Atman is the only conscious entity in advaita. Unlike sAmkhya, plurality of selves is not admitted in advaita. 

Assuming that I have correctly summed up the advaitic position, we have two apparently contradicting characteristics of the Atman (which by the way is supposed to be free from all characteristics, Itself being nirvishesha) - 

1. The Atman is forever free from misery and ignorance

2. The Atman imagines itself to be miserable even though it is in reality free from misery

Here comes the crux of my argument. Now, #2 above implies that the Atman is really affected by misery, since imagination of misery is also a form of misery. Let me illustrate this by an example. Mr. X is very rich, and has everything he needs and is otherwise a very happy person. But he has a little problem. He dreams every night that he is being chased by lions and tigers. Hence in his dreams he imagines himself to be miserable even though in his waking state he is free from all misery. But this very imagination of misery in his dreams naturally makes him miserable, at least during the duration of the dreams. Hence, an imagination of misery and ignorance is itself a form of misery and ignorance.

Hence, the Atman, which is free from misery, but only imagines itself to be miserable, is in fact really miserable just due to the fact of imagining itself to be miserable.

Thus, the Atman is both free from misery and also miserable at the same time, which is a contradiction.

Let us take this one step further. The Atman is free from actions (nishkriya) and tranquil/unagitated (shAntam) by its very nature. Imagination requires actions and agitations in the form of thoughts. How then does the Atman get the capacity to imagine something in the first place? If it is said that this capacity is due to avidya (ignorance), then it is a direct admission that the Atman, which by nature is free from ignorance, is also the biggest ignoramus. This leads us to another contradiction.

How are these contradictions resolved by advaita? Please help me understand. 

Warm regards

Kalyan 

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

1. The Atman is forever free from misery and ignorance

2. The Atman imagines itself to be miserable even though it is in reality free from misery

Assumption 1. does not imply assumption 2. An entity if at all Atman is an entity is free. If  an entity is free how can an entity be miserable at the same time. Hope this helps

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Kalyan K]

Sri Ajit,

With all due respect, I did not understand your answer. Both #1 and #2 are assumptions of advaita. They are not my personal assumptions. As you have rightly observed, they are contradictory. But that only imples that advaita is contradictory since they are postulates of advaita.

Regards
Kalyan

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

1 and 2 are not assumptions of Advaita. Advaita has no assumptions to start with. There is only one Brahman. The one appears to be many  due to ignorance. Appearance is different from imagination. When there is only one from the without any beginnin or end why will advaita vada assume any misery and ignorance. Adavita Vedanta is not based on postulates.   The one Brahman is ever free and ever liberated.

Atman  or second entity is not there when there is no second entity how can a second entity imagine any misery

Hence what you have proposed as Point 1 & 2 are contradictory and not Advaita. 

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

Kalyan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Corrections to my previous post
1 and 2 are not assumptions of Advaita. Advaita has no assumptions to start with. There is only one Brahman. The one appears to be many  due to ignorance. Appearance is different from imagination. When there is only one without any beginning or end why will advaita vada assume any misery and ignorance. Adavita Vedanta is not based on postulates or assumptions.  The one Brahman is ever free and ever liberated.

Atman  or second entity is not there when there is no second entity how can a second entity imagine any misery

Hence what you have proposed as Point 1 & 2 are contradictory and not Advaita. 

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Kalyan K, 

Let us take the following example: 

A Scientist knows that the object in front of him is made up of certain chemical substances, each of which is,at an atomic level made up of atoms of certain elements combined in certain ratios and each of the atoms turn out to be atoms of the respective elements only on account of different configurations of the subatomic entities which themselves are certain configurations of charge and mass. But he does not 'see' all these details every time he sees the object. He employs the two kinds of 'seeing' this object prudently depending on the context. If he considers one of the two 'forms' of the object : the outer , visible/tangible/cognizable form and the inner invisible / noncognizable form as truer than the other, then he needs an heuristic concept to 'explain' why he is seeing the less truer form. 

Similarly Advaitin who 'knows' (at least as guided by statements such as Ekamevaadvitiiyam Brahma Sarvam khalvidam brahma etc. .) that everything including 'himself', (his self ) has to be one and the only unique entity, needs a heuristic concept to 'explain' why he sees himself as different from the rest. 'imagines' 'dreams'  'illusion' 'magic' etc. are those heuristic concepts used to 'explain'.       

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Kalyan K]

#1 is an assumption of advaita, based on Sruti teachings that Atman is forever liberated and it is repeated many times in Shankara bhAshyas. As an example you can see bhAshya of Shankara on brihadAraNyska upanishad 1.4.7.

#2 is an assumption of advaita, as also stated by Shankara himself in his bhAshya on brihadAraNyaka upanishad 1.4.7. I invite you to read this part of his bhAshya. This is also stated in the Gaudapada karika-


mAyaiShA tasya devasya yayA sammohitaH svayam ||

So both #1 and #2 form part of the siddhAnta of advaita.

You claim that the One brahman appears as many due to ignorance. May I ask *whose* ignorance? If brahman is the only conscious entity in advaita, then only brahman can be affected by ignorance.

I request you that in future, you please give references from bhAshyas of Shankara to prove your point. Otherwise, this discussion will not go anywhere.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Kalyan K, 

Let us take the following example: 

A Scientist knows that the object in front of him is made up of certain chemical substances, each of which is,at an atomic level made up of atoms of certain elements combined in certain ratios and each of the atoms turn out to be atoms of the respective elements only on account of different configurations of the subatomic entities which themselves are certain configurations of charge and mass. But he does not 'see' all these details every time he sees the object. He employs the two kinds of 'seeing' this object prudently depending on the context. If he considers one of the two 'forms' of the object : the outer , visible/tangible/cognizable form and the inner invisible / noncognizable form as truer than the other, then he needs an heuristic concept to 'explain' why he is seeing the less truer form. 

Similarly Advaitin who 'knows' (at least as guided by statements such as Ekamevaadvitiiyam Brahma Sarvam khalvidam brahma etc. .) that everything including 'himself', (his self ) has to be one and the only unique entity, needs a heuristic concept to 'explain' why he sees himself as different from the rest. 'imagines' 'dreams'  'illusion' 'magic' etc. are those heuristic concepts used to 'explain'. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Kalyan K]

Dear Sri Nagaraj

If I understand you correctly, then none of what I have written in the original post is the true position of advaita, but it just represents a heuristic explanation of our current state. May I ask if heuristic explanations are allowed to contain contradictions in them? Only logical explanations are excluded from the burden of contradictions?

Regards

Kalyan

[Nagaraj Paturi]

> May I ask if heuristic explanations are allowed to contain contradictions in them? Only logical explanations are excluded from the burden of contradictions?

----- I did not say, heuristic explanations. I said heuristic concept. Heuristic concept is part of explanation. Explanation itself is logical. There are no two categories called heuristic and logical. 

To use heuristic concepts to 'explain' apparent contradictions or to resolve appearance of contradictions is in itself a logical method. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

I don't have to prove by making any quotes to what I have to say. As far as I know advaita makes no assumptions or any imagination as you have said earlier. What you said in your earlier mail was not what you are saying now.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dr Gargeshwariji,

He did not say Advaita imagines. He just said 'Atman imagines' is part of Advaitist position. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I said to him that in 'Atman imagines' , 'imagines' is a heuristic concept. 

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Adyasa or vivarta is not imagination or non existence. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

True. But that is not the point he is making.

The point he brought in for discussion is a beaten track classic age old question already attended to several times. 

I thought it does not hurt to engage a fresh raising of it once again by a curious person. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Misery or experiencing misery is an observation. 

Who is the experiencer?

Atman.

So the observation turns out to be that 'Atman is experiencing misery'. 

But 'Atman is free from misery' is the derived fact, derived from other evidences. 

Since observation is contradicting the fact, it is posited that the problem should be with the observation. Observation being in contradiction with the fact is 'explained' as a result of false observation. It is explained that being trained to rightly observe helps in overcoming false observation. Once the training bears fruit, right observation results. Fact is observed. Contradiction between observation and fact gets dissolved.  

[Kalyan K]

Sri Nagaraj

You say "imagines" is a heuristic concept. I confess I do not understand your point. So I will rephrase my question - What is the entity that is affected by ignorance in advaita? Only conscious entities can be affected by ignorance. And brahman is the only conscious entity in advaita. So only brahman can be affected by ignorance. That makes brahman as the biggest ignoramus.

Regards

Kalyan

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Misery or experiencing misery is an observation. 

Who is the experiencer?

Atman.

So the observation turns out to be that 'Atman is experiencing misery'. 

But 'Atman is free from misery' is the derived fact, derived from other evidences. 

Since observation is contradicting the fact, it is posited that the problem should be with the observation. Observation being in contradiction with the fact is 'explained' as a result of false observation. It is explained that being trained to rightly observe helps in overcoming false observation. Once the training bears fruit, right observation results. Fact is observed. Contradiction between observation and fact gets dissolved. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Sure the points he raised are very important. Thank you for allowing this discussion.

I would like to know where Kalpanika vada has been proposed  or Atman imagines itself to be miserable is proposed?

One finds Abhasa vada, Vivarta Vada, Pratibimba Vada are found in Adavita school. Arambha Vada Parinama Vada  are not Advatic views.

Adhyasa
युष्मदस्मत्प्रत्ययगोचरयोर्विषयविषयिणोस्तमःप्रकाशवद्विरुद्धस्वभावयोरितरेतरभावानुपपत्तौ सिद्धायाम् , तद्धर्माणामपि सुतरामितरेतरभावानुपपत्तिः — इत्यतः अस्मत्प्रत्ययगोचरे विषयिणि चिदात्मके युष्मत्प्रत्ययगोचरस्य विषयस्य तद्धर्माणां चाध्यासः तद्विपर्ययेण विषयिणस्तद्धर्माणां च विषयेऽध्यासो मिथ्येति भवितुं युक्तम् । तथाप्यन्योन्यस्मिन्नन्योन्यात्मकतामन्योन्यधर्मांश्चाध्यस्येतरेतराविवेकेन अत्यन्तविविक्तयोर्धर्मधर्मिणोः मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तः सत्यानृते मिथुनीकृत्य ‘अहमिदम्’ ‘ममेदम्’ इति नैसर्गिकोऽयं लोकव्यवहारः ॥
आह — कोऽयमध्यासो नामेति । उच्यते — स्मृतिरूपः परत्र पूर्वदृष्टावभासः । तं केचित् अन्यत्रान्यधर्माध्यास इति वदन्ति । केचित्तु यत्र यदध्यासः तद्विवेकाग्रहनिबन्धनो भ्रम इति । अन्ये तु यत्र यदध्यासः तस्यैव विपरीतधर्मत्वकल्पनामाचक्षते । सर्वथापि तु अन्यस्यान्यधर्मावभासतां न व्यभिचरति । तथा च लोकेऽनुभवः — शुक्तिका हि रजतवदवभासते, एकश्चन्द्रः सद्वितीयवदिति ॥
कथं पुनः प्रत्यगात्मन्यविषये अध्यासो विषयतद्धर्माणाम् ? सर्वो हि पुरोऽवस्थित एव विषये विषयान्तरमध्यस्यति ; युष्मत्प्रत्ययापेतस्य च प्रत्यगात्मनः अविषयत्वं ब्रवीषि । उच्यते — न तावदयमेकान्तेनाविषयः, अस्मत्प्रत्ययविषयत्वात् अपरोक्षत्वाच्च प्रत्यगात्मप्रसिद्धेः ; न चायमस्ति नियमः — पुरोऽवस्थित एव विषये विषयान्तरमध्यसितव्यमिति ; अप्रत्यक्षेऽपि ह्याकाशे बालाः तलमलिनतादि अध्यस्यन्ति ; एवमविरुद्धः प्रत्यगात्मन्यपि अनात्माध्यासः ॥

The complete adhayasa Bhasyha is here

http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/BS

Here is a translation by Swamy Gambhirananda

 It being an established fact that the object and the subject, that are fit to be the contents of the concepts "you"
and "we" (respectively), and are by nature as contradictory as light and darkness, cannot logically have any identity, it follows
that their attributes can have it still less. Accordingly, the superimposition of the object, referable through the concept
"you", and its attributes on the subject that is conscious bynature3 and is referable through the concept "we" (should be
impossible), and contrariwise the superimposition of the subject and its attributes on the object should be impossible. Nevertheless, owing to an absence of discrimination between these attributes, as also between substances, which are absolutely disparate,there continues a natural human behaviour based on self-identification in the form of "I am this" or "This is mine" This behaviour has for its material cause an unreal nescience and man resorts to it by mixing up reality with unreality as a result ofsuperimposingthe things themselves or their attributes on each other.

Regards

Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

True. But that is not the point he is making.

The point he brought in for discussion is a beaten track classic age old question already attended to several times. 

I thought it does not hurt to engage a fresh raising of it once again by a curious person. 

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Adyasa or vivarta is not imagination or non existence. 

On Feb 18, 2017 11:20 AM, "Nagaraj Paturi" <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dr Gargeshwariji,

He did not say Advaita imagines. He just said 'Atman imagines' is part of Advaitist position. 

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't have to prove by making any quotes to what I have to say. As far as I know advaita makes no assumptions or any imagination as you have said earlier. What you said in your earlier mail was not what you are saying now.

On Feb 18, 2017 11:02 AM, "Kalyan K" <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

#1 is an assumption of advaita, based on Sruti teachings that Atman is forever liberated and it is repeated many times in Shankara bhAshyas. As an example you can see bhAshya of Shankara on brihadAraNyska upanishad 1.4.7.

#2 is an assumption of advaita, as also stated by Shankara himself in his bhAshya on brihadAraNyaka upanishad 1.4.7. I invite you to read this part of his bhAshya. This is also stated in the Gaudapada karika-


mAyaiShA tasya devasya yayA sammohitaH svayam ||

So both #1 and #2 form part of the siddhAnta of advaita.

You claim that the One brahman appears as many due to ignorance. May I ask *whose* ignorance? If brahman is the only conscious entity in advaita, then only brahman can be affected by ignorance.

I request you that in future, you please give references from bhAshyas of Shankara to prove your point. Otherwise, this discussion will not go anywhere.

--

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dr Gargeshwari is the first scholar to respond to the initial post. 

How can I disallow a discussion by Dr Gargeshwari?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[tamoghna sarkar]

Dear Kalyan K, 

Understanding of these two preliminaries of Advaita will clear your doubts : sattAtraividhyavAda and mithyAtva. Read texts carefully and then you are free to speculate. 

Tamoghna 

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Kalyan K]

Sri Ajit writes:

//I would like to know where Kalpanika vada has been proposed or Atman imagines itself to be miserable is proposed?//

I have already answered this question.

Please refer to brihadAraNyaka bhAshya 1.4.7.

Also refer to the Gaudapada karika that I quoted.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Brha#BR_C04

I clicked on Adhyaya 1 Fourth Brahmana 7 sentence

I am sorry I could locate any sentence  where Kalpanika vada has been proposed  or Atman imagines itself to be miserable is proposed by the Bhashyakara I may be please pointed to Thanks

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

--

[Kalyan K]

Since we are discussing this, I felt it is better to give references from Gaudapada karika also (vaitathya prakarana). Please refer to Swami Gambhirananda translation for these -

विकरोत्यपरान्भावानन्तश्चित्ते व्यवस्थितान् ।
नियतांश्च बहिश्चित्त एवं कल्पयते प्रभुः ॥ १३ ॥ भाष्यम्
सङ्कल्पयन्केन प्रकारेण कल्पयतीत्युच्यते — विकरोति नाना करोति अपरान् लौकिकान् भावान् पदार्थाञ्शब्दादीनन्यांश्च अन्तश्चित्ते वासनारूपेण व्यवस्थितानव्याकृतान् नियतांश्च पृथिव्यादीननियतांश्च कल्पनाकालान् बहिश्चित्तः सन् , तथा अन्तश्चित्तो मनोरथादिलक्षणानित्येवं कल्पयति, प्रभुः ईश्वरः, आत्मेत्यर्थः ॥

जीवं कल्पयते पूर्वं ततो भावान्पृथग्विधान् ।
बाह्यानाध्यात्मिकांश्चैव यथाविद्यस्तथास्मृतिः ॥ १६ ॥ भाष्यम्
बाह्याध्यात्मिकानां भावानामितरेतरनिमित्तनैमित्तिकतया कल्पनायाः किं मूलमित्युच्यते — जीवं हेतुफलात्मकम् ‘अहं करोमि, मम सुखदुःखे’ इत्येवंलक्षणम् । अनेवंलक्षण एव शुद्ध आत्मनि रज्ज्वामिव सर्पं कल्पयते पूर्वम् । ततस्तादर्थ्येन क्रियाकारकफलभेदेन प्राणादीन्नानाविधान्भावान्बाह्यानाध्यात्मिकांश्चैव कल्पयते । तत्र कल्पनायां को हेतुरित्युच्यते — योऽसौ स्वयं कल्पितो जीवः सर्वकल्पनायामधिकृतः, सः यथाविद्यः यादृशी विद्या विज्ञानमस्येति यथाविद्यः, तथाविधैव स्मृतिस्तस्येति तथास्मृतिर्भवति स इति । अतो हेतुकल्पनाविज्ञानात्फलविज्ञानम् , ततो हेतुफलस्मृतिः, ततस्तद्विज्ञानम् , ततः तदर्थक्रियाकारकतत्फलभेदविज्ञानानि, तेभ्यस्तत्स्मृतिः, तत्स्मृतेश्च पुनस्तद्विज्ञानानि इत्येवं बाह्यानाध्यात्मिकांश्च इतरेतरनिमित्तनैमित्तिकभावेनानेकधा कल्पयते ॥

That the Atman itself is deluded is stated below -

प्राणादिभिरनन्तैस्तु भावैरेतैर्विकल्पितः ।
मायैषा तस्य देवस्य ययायं मोहितः स्वयम् ॥ १९ ॥ भाष्यम्
यदि आत्मैक एवेति निश्चयः, कथं प्राणादिभिरनन्तैर्भावैरेतैः संसारलक्षणैर्विकल्पित इति ? उच्यते शृणु — मायैषा तस्यात्मनो देवस्य । यथा मायाविना विहिता माया गगनमतिविमलं कुसुमितैः सपलाशैस्तरुभिराकीर्णमिव करोति, तथा इयमपि देवस्य माया, यया अयं स्वयमपि मोहित इव मोहितो भवति । ‘मम माया दुरत्यया’ (भ. गी. ७ । १४) इत्युक्तम् ॥

[Kalyan K]

Dear Sri Ajit

Here it is -

....परस्यादुःखित्वेऽन्यस्य च दुःखिनोऽभावे दुःखोपशमनाय शास्त्रारम्भानर्थक्यमिति चेत् , न ; अविद्याध्यारोपितदुःखित्वभ्रमापोहार्थत्वात् — आत्मनि प्रकृतसङ्ख्यापूरणभ्रमापोहवत् ; कल्पितदुःख्यात्माभ्युपगमाच्च ॥

I am following the translation of Swami Madhavananda.

Also as I mentioned before, please refer to the Gaudapada karika that I mentioned. If you have difficulty locating it, I can be of help.

Regards
Kalyan

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

अविद्याध्यारोपितदुःखित्वभ्रमापोहार्थत्वात् does this sentence mean that  Atman imagines itself to be miserable even though it is in reality free from misery? No it doesn't . Atman does not imagine. Atman was never is misery. Avidya, Adhyaropa and Bhrama  are all technical terms. There is only brahman there are no two. As there is only one the question Atman and its imagination or misery doesn't arise. What is Avidya whats its locus is it existence or non existence all these again are different questions Either one can stick to what the bhashyakara says or say one is giving one own view on the text best not to mix ones own view and say the texts says or advaita is contradictory.

Is advaita view not a subject of challenge? Yes it but that a different matter.

The bhashya on the Upanishad on the karika is also  clear here in vaitathya prakarana for verse 16 as you have quoted

बाह्याध्यात्मिकानां भावानामितरेतरनिमित्तनैमित्तिकतया कल्पनायाः किं मूलमित्युच्यते —
जीवं हेतुफलात्मकम् ‘अहं करोमि, मम सुखदुःखे’ इत्येवंलक्षणम् ।
अनेवंलक्षण एव शुद्ध आत्मनि रज्ज्वामिव सर्पं कल्पयते पूर्वम् । ततस्तादर्थ्येन क्रियाकारकफलभेदेन प्राणादीन्नानाविधान्भावान्बाह्यानाध्यात्मिकांश्चैव कल्पयते ।
तत्र कल्पनायां को हेतुरित्युच्यते — योऽसौ स्वयं कल्पितो जीवः सर्वकल्पनायामधिकृतः, सः यथाविद्यः यादृशी विद्या विज्ञानमस्येति यथाविद्यः, तथाविधैव स्मृतिस्तस्येति तथास्मृतिर्भवति स इति ।
अतो हेतुकल्पनाविज्ञानात्फलविज्ञानम् , ततो हेतुफलस्मृतिः, ततस्तद्विज्ञानम् , ततः तदर्थक्रियाकारकतत्फलभेदविज्ञानानि, तेभ्यस्तत्स्मृतिः, तत्स्मृतेश्च पुनस्तद्विज्ञानानि इत्येवं बाह्यानाध्यात्मिकांश्च इतरेतरनिमित्तनैमित्तिकभावेनानेकधा कल्पयते ॥

Thanks Kalyanji it was good discussion.

[Kalyan K]

Sri Ajit

Yes, the bhAshya on both the upanishad and karika mean that the Atman imagines itself to be deluded. In the case of the upanishad, if you read the prior bhAshya, Shankara denies that the Atman is affected by misery. The opponent argues that if there is no misery, then scripture, which serves the purpose of removing misery is useless. Shankara replies that the Atman imagines itself to be miserable. Here is the relevant translation by Swami Madhavananda of the portion quoted by me -

http://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc117939.html


//Objection: If the Supreme Self has no misery, and there is no other entity to be miserable, then it is useless for the scriptures to try to remove misery.

Reply: Not so, for they are meant to remove the false notion of misery superimposed by ignorance. And the Self being admitted to imagine Itself as miserable, the scriptures help to remove that error, as in the case of the failure to count the tenth man, although he was there.[11]//

[Kalyan K]

//अविद्याध्यारोपितदुःखित्वभ्रमापोहार्थत्वात् does this sentence mean that Atman imagines itself to be miserable even though it is in reality free from misery? No it doesn't .//

Sri Ajit. Please don't read that statement alone in isolation. Please read the preceding and subsequent portions quoted.

[Kalyan K]

Dear Sri Ajit

//The bhashya on the Upanishad on the karika is also clear here in vaitathya prakarana for verse 16 as you have quoted//

I am not sure I understand your point. Verse 19 is emphatic that Atman itself is deluded - mAyaiShA tasya devasya yayA sammohitaH svayam ||

The other quoted verses serve to show that the entire universe is imagined by the Atman. I am not sure how such clear statements can be denied.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

I suggest you read the bhashyas without translation That is going to help. Maya is not Avidya. Maya and  Avidya are are not equivalent terms or synonyms The bhashyakara doesn't say entire universe is imagined by atman. I don't read translations. Popular translation are useful but often bring in more doubts than clarifying doubts . I don't read the terms in isolation. I read the terms keeping the bhashya on Brahmasutra which will always always clarify doubts.

Let me also add Maya is not the ista of the Bhashyakara unlike Ista Siddhikara for whom Maya is his Ista.

Haven't you not answered your question by your own quotation of a translation The important phrase being 'the false notion of misery superimposed by ignorance' and the phrase 'self being imagine itself as misarable' is an approximate translation and is not be giving accurately the view of the bhashyakara.

//Objection: If the Supreme Self has no misery, and there is no other entity to be miserable, then it is useless for the scriptures to try to remove misery.

Reply: Not so, for they are meant to remove the false notion of misery superimposed by ignorance. And the Self being admitted to imagine Itself as miserable, the scriptures help to remove that error, as in the case of the failure to count the tenth man, although he was there.[11]//

Thanks again for bring out this discussion.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Shri Kalyanji,

Shri Ajitji is right. The Maya is not Avidya. Maya is both Vidya and Avidya. With his Maya the Lord Krishna himself appeared to us in Sattvaroopi and gave us the guidance through the Bhagavad Gita, the Uttara Gita and the Uddhave Gits etc. He was the Brahman who wanted to be many and He Himself takes his avataras to guide us from time to time.

We are the many that came form One (Him) and we are led by our desires and we get more and more entangled in the Samsara and  take many births to fulfill our desires. Those of us who desire to go back to the pristine state  have to get over the attachments and take His guidance. :Lord Krishna very clearly stated that people get Him the way the people desire. The Advaitins want to go back to the state of oneness with Him. The Vishishtadvaitins do not think that the oneness with Him is possible and  they desire to devote to him as separate, thinking that though they are part of Him they are destined to stay separate from Him. The Dvaitins think the the Lord  is separate and they are dependent on Him for ever.

Shri Gauapadacharya and Adi Shankara appeared more than two thousand years ago and they taught us the Advaitic concept as taught in the Upanishads  and which is in line with what the Lord said in His Gita. Other spiritual Stalwarts like Shri Ramanujacharya and Shri Madhvacharya had taught their Vishishtadvaita and the Dvaita views, according to their interpretation of the Veda,Vedanta  and Gita. In this modern age Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa said that the Dvaiata, Vishishtadvaita and the Advaita are all correct and there is only their different levels of perception.

Hope this clarifies.

Best

Sunil KB

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Kalyan K]

Sri Ajit


Thank you. I believe this discussion is going nowhere. I dont think I have anything else to add.

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
www.lalitaalaalitah.com

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

1. The Atman is forever free from misery and ignorance

2. The Atman imagines itself to be miserable even though it is in reality free from misery

Here comes the crux of my argument. Now, #2 above implies that the Atman is really affected by misery,

​If you say that 'misery is imagined', then it is contradictory to say that misery afflicts really.

​

since imagination of misery is also a form of misery.

​Accepted. But, this imagination is not like 'planning the day'​(which needs activity on part of person). But, it is superimposition on self due to ignorance of it's nature. I don't see any conscious activity involved here. Ignorance itself is enough for superimposition.

Let me illustrate this by an example. Mr. X is very rich, and has everything he needs and is otherwise a very happy person. But he has a little problem. He dreams every night that he is being chased by lions and tigers. Hence in his dreams he imagines himself to be miserable even though in his waking state he is free from all misery. But this very imagination of misery in his dreams naturally makes him miserable, at least during the duration of the dreams. Hence, an imagination of misery and ignorance is itself a form of misery and ignorance.

​Imagination involves some conscious effort is not acceptable, just test your own dream.

Ignorance of waking state and saMskAra-s are enough for that, in case of dream.

Ignorance is accepted as misery itself. But, that ignorance is again no real, but superimposed. So, this also doesn't make self really miserable.

Let us take this one step further. The Atman is free from actions (nishkriya) and tranquil/unagitated (shAntam) by its very nature. Imagination requires actions and agitations in the form of thoughts. How then does the Atman get the capacity to imagine something in the first place?

​This doesn't need separate solution since it assumes that conscious effort it needed for imagination, which is not acceptable.

​

If it is said that this capacity is due to avidya (ignorance), then it is a direct admission that the Atman, which by nature is free from ignorance, is also the biggest ignoramus. This leads us to another contradiction.

​Accepting ignorance superimposed is the solution.

​

How are these contradictions resolved by advaita? Please help me understand. 

​Now, the question is why do we say ignorance superimposed?

For that, you need to start from beginning.

Any philosophy based on shAstra-pramANa, either advaita, vishiShTAdvaita or dvaita, is not some idea which can be know by pratyaxa, anumAna, etc. If you are a person who has yet not appreciated importance of veda-s in this regard, I fear that there is no way to make you understand at this point.

I have to first make you understand the quality of veda-s to generate valid perception. Once you understand that, you will be able to appreciate validity of advaita, dvaita or anything else.

Whatever logic is provided by teachers of those philosophies, was to remove siege caused by other veda-vAkya or pratyaxa or anumAna, etc.

Since all of them are pramANa, we try to find ways to avoid their conflicts. 

When we do that in present case, it comes that every thing which is not brahman, is not real - is said by upaniShad(neti-neti). So, whatever it may be, either ignorance or it's effect, is not real.

Now, when we try to compare with other superimposition, we see some dissimilarities, and we try to show that those can't obstruct un-reality of world and ignorance. ​

I'll suggest to take these queries to some forum which is dedicated to Advaita, since you will find more enthusiasts there.

A few are - Advaita-l, Advaitin Yahoo Group.

I think that these type of common question may be already replied in their archives.

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

नमस्ते,

On Saturday, 18 February 2017 10:12:18 UTC+5:30, Kalyan K wrote:

Thus, the Atman is both free from misery and also miserable at the same time, which is a contradiction.

Let me rephrase this statement as under:
Thus, the Atman is both free from characteristics and also characteristic at the same time, which is a transformation.

Here is a "water-bottle analogy" (a toy model) :
Hold a water-bottle in the hand, and rotate it randomly. The water-bottle looks different from different angles. And then suddenly we have a specific angle from where the bottle looks symmetric. This symmetry is Atman.

Advaita is a classical system for the discovery of Brahman as one's ishta. Advaita is a true sect of Hinduism, and Brahman is one of the many (by no means the only) truths within Hinduism.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Let me rephrase Atman is free from misery. Atman was never in misery to be free. Transformation in the sense of Parinama is not applicable is Advaitas position.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

--

[Aurobind Padiyath]

Your questions :
Let me sum up a key teaching of advaita first - In advaita, the Atman/brahman, which is of the nature of Ananda (bliss), and is forever free from all evil, misery and ignorance, and which is forever liberated in the past, present and the future, and which is free from all actions and agitations, somehow jumps into the samsAra (transmigration), by imagining Itself to be miserable and ignorant, even though it is neither miserable nor ignorant in reality. There is no other entity apart from the Atman Itself that can be affected by ignorance and misery, because the One Atman is the only conscious entity in advaita. Unlike sAmkhya, plurality of selves is not admitted in advaita.

Assuming that I have correctly summed up the advaitic position, we have two apparently contradicting characteristics of the Atman (which by the way is supposed to be free from all characteristics, Itself being nirvishesha) -

1. The Atman is forever free from misery and ignorance

2. The Atman imagines itself to be miserable even though it is in reality free from misery

Here comes the crux of my argument. Now, #2 above implies that the Atman is really affected by misery, since imagination of misery is also a form of misery. Let me illustrate this by an example. Mr. X is very rich, and has everything he needs and is otherwise a very happy person. But he has a little problem. He dreams every night that he is being chased by lions and tigers. Hence in his dreams he imagines himself to be miserable even though in his waking state he is free from all misery. But this very imagination of misery in his dreams naturally makes him miserable, at least during the duration of the dreams. Hence, an imagination of misery and ignorance is itself a form of misery and ignorance.

Hence, the Atman, which is free from misery, but only imagines itself to be miserable, is in fact really miserable just due to the fact of imagining itself to be miserable.

Thus, the Atman is both free from misery and also miserable at the same time, which is a contradiction.

My understanding :
somehow jumps into the samsAra - - - - is a wrong assumption. The Advaita approach is that during the JAGRAT avastha "alone" the Jeeva-Atma is identifying itself as the Samsara inflicted due to the quality of the equipment (upadhi) i. e. Intellect, budhi. The other two avastha like dream and deep sleep the absence of this budhi does not cause concern, but still experiences a separation and identification with the body. Here you have to give importance to the quality of the upadhi. Sun light falls everywhere at all times(relatively - just for example) yet the effects of the light varies depending on the surface it falls. Can you say since it fell on dirty surface it has become dirty and non-reflective and on a clear surface it is reflective? The very nature of the light it has never lost at any point of time, past-present-future. Here the dirty surface represents the AjnAni and reflective surface represents the jnAni. As long as it reflects the quality of the surface will determine the effect.

Your quote of KArika verses refers to JeevAtma which is imagining and not Paramatman. One is the reflected Consciousness (upAdhi grastha) and the other the ParamAtman (AvikAri).
Then the next question can come, if that being the case is the upAdhi different from the Atma? The answer is no. The same jeevAtma suffered from the jAgrat is enjoying in deep sleep and and a mixture of both in the dreams. Here to know the nature of upAdhi analysis of the experiences of all the states are required. Is there anything else other than "experiencing" in all the three states? If they really existed those objects should also be available in all the three states. But what remains all through is only the JeevAtma who's nature is of pure experience, but when associated with the three different upAdhi, it calls itself as dreamer etc. The Sun never became the dirty pond or the clean mirror or the water or mountain. But what we see are only the Sun in the form of light whatever it is. Similarly whatever we are and whatever we experience is nothing other than the consciousness. Karika says it as Turiya spandanam, meaning that the effects are ripples of the Pure Consciousness. The ripple is not different at any point of time from the consciousness.

You mixed up the word Atma in two separate contexts as the same. The unaffected is paramatman and the deluded is jeevAtma.
You may next ask why is then these are happening? To answer that the KArika says "devasya esha Swabhavah". Does the water in anyway effected if it fills up during the high tide a small area on the beach which drys up to merge with the same ocean later? As long as it identifies with the limitations of the pond the limitations are superimposed until the merger with the ocean. But even when it is in the pond and "knows" it's real nature is of the Ocean the limitations do not inflict.
In the case of the jeevAtma one can ask how is this happening? For that there are various approaches (prakriyas) according to various traditions. You can choose what appeals to you.
Hope, without confusion and usage of the technical terms, I've answered the question. You should be careful with technical words as they are system specific and can misguide if not guided by a proper teacher. That is why the importance of the traditional teaching methods. One can get a broad concept by reading the translations but will not be able to take you to the final state of establishing in clear understanding.

Aurobind Padiyath

[Venkata Sriram]

Namaste,

A similar shloka vide no. 8 of Dakshinamurti Stotram also holds a similar stance:

विश्वं पश्यति कार्यकारणतया स्वस्वामिसम्बन्धतः
शिष्याचार्यतया तथैव पितृपुत्राद्यात्मना भेदतः ।
स्वप्ने जाग्रति वा य एष पुरुषो मायापरिभ्रामितः
तस्मै श्रीगुरुमूर्तये नम इदं श्रीदक्षिणामूर्तये ॥८॥

Acharya uses the word "मायापरिभ्रामितः".  

For this, श्री स्वयंप्रकाश यती in his commentary called "तत्वसुधा" says :

स्वोपाधिभूतमायया "मलिनस्त्वप्रधानया" कार्यकारणसंघाताकारेण परिणतया स्वेन प्रविष्टया परिभ्रामितः बहुविधं भ्रमं प्रापितः..........

So, first one should have good conceptual understanding of the following concepts:

1) अध्यास​

2) पारमार्थिक सत्यं  

3) व्यावहारिक सत्यं

4) माया

5) अविद्या

Last but not the least, a firm conviction in the sentence "ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या जीवो ब्रहैव नापरः"

Without studying the Dakshinamurti Stotram and basic prakaraNa-s, by directly jumping to Gaudapada Karika, Brahma Stutra etc. leads one to

such confusions.  The vedanta should be studied under qualified guru.

regs,

sriram

On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 7:25:37 AM UTC+5:30, Aurobind Padiyath wrote:

Your questions :

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Primary position of Advaita needs to be clearly understood. Then one goes in to prakarnas bhashyas and other literature. This is similar to studying any philosophical system may it be Sankhya, Yoga Mimasa Nyaya Bouddha etc Why vedanta all shastras should be studied under a qualified teacher. ( By qualified teacher I don't mean to say a monk or so called practitioners) Why Shastras even science and engineering has to be studied the way it has to be. One can learn the formal, traditional or informal way.

It best not be preachy ans say learn under a guru etc.....Advaita as a Shastra can be self studied or studied under a knowledgeable person who knows adavita including in this list

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

2017-02-20 10:35 GMT+05:30 Venkata Sriram <srira...@gmail.com>:

Namaste,

[Kalyan K]

To all the vidwans who have responded, thank you. Since the week has started, I will take some time to respond to your posts.

 

Last but not the least, a firm conviction in the sentence "ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या जीवो ब्रहैव नापरः"

Without studying the Dakshinamurti Stotram and basic prakaraNa-s, by directly jumping to Gaudapada Karika, Brahma Stutra etc. leads one to

such confusions.  The vedanta should be studied under qualified guru.

I was almost waiting for this kind of response. Whenever someone asks genuine questions, they are given such gratuitous advice. Such gratuitous advice kills the spirit of enquiry. This is part of the reason why I do not post questions on advaita forums, having tasted such gratuitous advice in the past. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Looks like the discussion reached a loop type deadlock. 

Advice is no argument or no substitute for a sound reasoning. 

So let us avoid that. 

If there is a confidence on both sides that there is a common ground of commonly accepted axioms and scope for open minded reception both sides, this discussion may continue. Otherwise, it may be prudent to close the thread, if there are no points to be made within healthy norms of discussion. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

We can probably wait for Kalyanji to respond as he has asked. Except for the preachy part it was for me a good discussion especially the clear views of Prof .Paturi earlier and the views Arvindji and Swami Lalitaji thanks to members.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I remember Dr Gargeshwari trying to control  discussion of issues not necessarily Advaitic, from tilting completely towards Advaitic side. 

I think this is for the first time, to my knowledge, Dr Gargeshwari is trying his  skills in taking paksha in favour of Advaita. 

Yes, if Vidwan Sri Kalyan K thinks the thread may be closed let us do it. 

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

I agree due to the mass of the literature that has grown around the primary vedantic texts reading one Paksha is often a life time challenge. By reading one Paksha one gets glimpses of the sound and perfect arguments of the other Paksha which is the beauty of Indian Philosophical systems which I feel no system in the philosophical  system in the world can provide. Every word, every sentence and even letter is so closely examined one feels that unless one is specialist one cannot even venture.

The dialectics of Vyasatirtha and others is one of the finest specimens which any philosophical system can have is the opinion of Prof. Surndranth Das Gupta by one who wrote on different philosophical systems. How true his statement is.

In my opinion There are no pakshas at all. All pakshas form a part of the integral whole which these systems of thoughts claim to show and the integral whole is mans eternal quest for knowledge.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I have a project in mind : to enlist all the basic axioms or tenets commonly agreed by all the different schools of Vedanta. 

These shall be :

Common sources from S'ruti, Sutra granthas and other texts accepted as authority by all the different schools of Vedanta and specific to schools of Vedanta only and not for other Vaidika dars'anas. 

Words/concepts commonly used by all the schools of Vedanta, belong to / central for Vedanta and do not belong to or not central for the other Vaidika Drshanas and other avaidika but Dhaarmika (i.e., Bhaarateeya) Darshanas (such as Bouddha, Jaina etc. )

(Statements of ) axioms commonly accepted by all schools of Vedanta. 

Tenets commonly accepted by all schools of Vedanta. 

  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Kalyan K]

On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 12:21:17 PM UTC+5:30, Nagaraj Paturi wrote:

Yes, if Vidwan Sri Kalyan K thinks the thread may be closed let us do it. 

Please allow me some time to respond to vidwans here.  The week has started today and I dont want to respond in a hurry. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

No issues. Your thread. Your forum. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Aurobind Padiyath]

It will be a great help to those who are interested in Vedanta and mostly into the initial stage of self-study. 

But we will encounter some issues like e.g

The words Indra, PrAna, Manas, and Atma are interchangeably used in Upanishads. These will have to be addressed with the relevant portion of the Shastra in explanatory notes. 

To begin with the project there are books which have published these as appendix of the original work for newcomers as references. A compilation of these will be a better place to start. 

Aurobind Padiyath 

On Mon 20 Feb, 2017, 13:15 Nagaraj Paturi, <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have a project in mind : to enlist all the basic axioms or tenets commonly agreed by all the different schools of Vedanta. 

These shall be :

Common sources from S'ruti, Sutra granthas and other texts accepted as authority by all the different schools of Vedanta and specific to schools of Vedanta only and not for other Vaidika dars'anas. 

Words/concepts commonly used by all the schools of Vedanta, belong to / central for Vedanta and do not belong to or not central for the other Vaidika Drshanas and other avaidika but Dhaarmika (i.e., Bhaarateeya) Darshanas (such as Bouddha, Jaina etc. )

(Statements of ) axioms commonly accepted by all schools of Vedanta. 

Tenets commonly accepted by all schools of Vedanta. 

  

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree due to the mass of the literature that has grown around the primary vedantic texts reading one Paksha is often a life time challenge. By reading one Paksha one gets glimpses of the sound and perfect arguments of the other Paksha which is the beauty of Indian Philosophical systems which I feel no system in the philosophical  system in the world can provide. Every word, every sentence and even letter is so closely examined one feels that unless one is specialist one cannot even venture.

The dialectics of Vyasatirtha and others is one of the finest specimens which any philosophical system can have is the opinion of Prof. Surndranth Das Gupta by one who wrote on different philosophical systems. How true his statement is.

In my opinion There are no pakshas at all. All pakshas form a part of the integral whole which these systems of thoughts claim to show and the integral whole is mans eternal quest for knowledge.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

I remember Dr Gargeshwari trying to control  discussion of issues not necessarily Advaitic, from tilting completely towards Advaitic side. 

I think this is for the first time, to my knowledge, Dr Gargeshwari is trying his  skills in taking paksha in favour of Advaita. 

Yes, if Vidwan Sri Kalyan K thinks the thread may be closed let us do it. 

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

We can probably wait for Kalyanji to respond as he has asked. Except for the preachy part it was for me a good discussion especially the clear views of Prof .Paturi earlier and the views Arvindji and Swami Lalitaji thanks to members.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/KlKjUx7J9mY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Aurobind

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have a project in mind : to enlist all the basic axioms or tenets commonly agreed by all the different schools of Vedanta. 

Sir, Late Sri Polagam Rama Sastri in his work 'चतुर्मतसारसङ्ग्रहः’ published by Srimad Appayya Dikshitendra Granthāvali Prakaśana Samiti, Hyderabad (Series - 6) has done some good ground work on this topic.  He lists the common features of any two or three or four schools (including Srikantha's Śivādvaita school for which Sri Appayya Dikshita has written the Sivārkamaṇidīpikā) and for the last grouping of all four schools gives 51 items. 

This list is found on pages 17 - 19 of the book.   

The project proposed by you is laudable and may be started in a new thread with an appropriate title. All those who wish to contribute material could do so in that thread. 

regards

subrahmanian.v 

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

The conclusion, "Thus, the Atman is both free from misery and also miserable at the same time, which is a contradiction" is erroneous.

Going back to your analogy, Mr. X is not miserable and free from misery at the same time. He imagines his misery only in the dreaming state, not in the waking state. These are different times, when he is free from misery and when he imagines his own misery. Even in his dreaming state when he dreams of being chased by lions or tigers, the consequent misery is born out of his own imagination, not due to a cause external to himself. It doesn't adversely affect the reality of the waking state, as it is a self-created delusion that ends when he wakes up. As to how and why he dreams thus when he goes to sleep, perchance to dream, only Mr. X can answer, not a Ms Y or Z.

Nevertheless, if he somehow manages, within his dream, to set aside his own ignorance and remember that he is free from misery, that these lions and tigers are nothing more than creatures of his own imagination and that he really has no valid reason to be miserable and afraid of them, he could easily stop dreaming and get into restful, deep sleep, or perhaps wake up completely. Or else, he could perhaps simply watch the lions and tigers in his dream, without thereby feeling miserable about it.

May I recommend a close reading of SankarAcArya's gItAbhAshya 13.2, where he addresses this question? Read especially the concluding portion of the commentary on this verse, from  

अत्र आह — सा अविद्या कस्य इति । यस्य दृश्यते तस्य एव । कस्य दृश्यते इति । अत्र उच्यते — ‘अविद्या कस्य दृश्यते?’ इति प्रश्नः निरर्थकः । कथम् ? दृश्यते चेत् अविद्या, तद्वन्तमपिपश्यसि । न च तद्वति उपलभ्यमाने ‘सा कस्य ? ’ इति प्रश्नो युक्तः ।

This will not necessarily convince you of the correctness of the advaita position, but it will help elucidate why it is not a logical contradiction the way you portray it to be. Another key reading would be SankarAcArya's commentary on the kartradhikaraNa and the takshAdhikaraNa of the brahmasUtra (2.3.33 to 2.3.40)

Best regards,

Vidyasankar


On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 11:42:18 PM UTC-5, Kalyan K wrote:

Namaste to all members here

I want to understand advaita better, especially since I seem to find that some of its teachings are contradictory. Hence I want to get the opinions from vidwans here who have a good understanding of advaita.

Let me sum up a key teaching of advaita first - In advaita, the Atman/brahman, which is of the nature of Ananda (bliss), and is forever free from all evil, misery and ignorance, and which is forever liberated in the past, present and the future, and which is free from all actions and agitations, somehow jumps into the samsAra (transmigration), by imagining Itself to be miserable and ignorant, even though it is neither miserable nor ignorant in reality. There is no other entity apart from the Atman Itself that can be affected by ignorance and misery, because the One Atman is the only conscious entity in advaita. Unlike sAmkhya, plurality of selves is not admitted in advaita. 

Assuming that I have correctly summed up the advaitic position, we have two apparently contradicting characteristics of the Atman (which by the way is supposed to be free from all characteristics, Itself being nirvishesha) - 

1. The Atman is forever free from misery and ignorance

2. The Atman imagines itself to be miserable even though it is in reality free from misery

Here comes the crux of my argument. Now, #2 above implies that the Atman is really affected by misery, since imagination of misery is also a form of misery. Let me illustrate this by an example. Mr. X is very rich, and has everything he needs and is otherwise a very happy person. But he has a little problem. He dreams every night that he is being chased by lions and tigers. Hence in his dreams he imagines himself to be miserable even though in his waking state he is free from all misery. But this very imagination of misery in his dreams naturally makes him miserable, at least during the duration of the dreams. Hence, an imagination of misery and ignorance is itself a form of misery and ignorance.

Hence, the Atman, which is free from misery, but only imagines itself to be miserable, is in fact really miserable just due to the fact of imagining itself to be miserable.

Thus, the Atman is both free from misery and also miserable at the same time, which is a contradiction.

Let us take this one step further. The Atman is free from actions (nishkriya) and tranquil/unagitated (shAntam) by its very nature. Imagination requires actions and agitations in the form of thoughts. How then does the Atman get the capacity to imagine something in the first place? If it is said that this capacity is due to avidya (ignorance), then it is a direct admission that the Atman, which by nature is free from ignorance, is also the biggest ignoramus. This leads us to another contradiction.

How are these contradictions resolved by advaita? Please help me understand. 

Warm regards

Kalyan 

[Kalyan K]

Dear Sri Vidyasankar

I want to make a limited point here, defending my conclusion, since you say it is erroneous.

//The conclusion, "Thus, the Atman is both free from misery and also miserable at the same time, which is a contradiction" is erroneous.

Going back to your analogy, Mr. X is not miserable and free from misery at the same time.//

Yes, I understand that in the analogy, Mr.X is not miserable and free from misery at the same time. The timings are different.

However, the same cannot be said of the Atman. The Atman is *eternally* free from misery according to advaita. And the same Atman is miserable when It imagines Itself to be miserable. Hence, for the duration that It imagines Itself to be miserable, my conclusion holds - the Atman is both miserable and free from misery at the same time.

I will read the portions of Shankara bhAshyas that you mentioned. Thanks for the help with the references.

Regards
Kalyan

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 12:49:33 PM UTC-5, Kalyan K wrote:

Dear Sri Vidyasankar

I want to make a limited point here, defending my conclusion, since you say it is erroneous.

//The conclusion, "Thus, the Atman is both free from misery and also miserable at the same time, which is a contradiction" is erroneous.

Going back to your analogy, Mr. X is not miserable and free from misery at the same time.//

Yes, I understand that in the analogy, Mr.X is not miserable and free from misery at the same time. The timings are different.

However, the same cannot be said of the Atman. The Atman is *eternally* free from misery according to advaita. And the same Atman is miserable when It imagines Itself to be miserable. Hence, for the duration that It imagines Itself to be miserable, my conclusion holds - the Atman is both miserable and free from misery at the same time.

The point is, this misery, being only imagined, is not real. So we do not describe the Atman as being simultaneously the locus of two equally real yet contradictory attributes. As per the advaita interpretation, the experience of an imagined misery does not partake of the same nature of reality as the real lack of misery that is the intrinsic nature of Atman/brahman. 

Therefore, it is concluded that the state of experiencing the misery is merely a superimposition, and that in the state of experiencing the imagined misery, the real nature of the Atman, as being fundamentally free of duHkha, is only temporarily obscured from itself. Because, ayam AtmA brahma, ekam evAdvitIyam, yatra tvasya sarvam AtmaivAbhUt, ajnAnenAvRtaM jnAnam, kshetrajnaM cApi mAm viddhi, etc. The advaita position is not derived from our usual logic, but is based on what is said in Sruti and smRti about the AtmA. Logic and reasoning are employed to provide a framework to interpret these sources.

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

                  

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Vidyashankarji,

I think it is not easy to explain the Advaita position to all and it has been so even for many stawarts. One is drawn to arguments. Adi Shankara, as I understand, believed that Shruti needed and there is no need to go to any dielectics. However one may consider some similes to show the Advaitic position and the relevance of the Shruti-directions.  I remember  a  simile of the following type, The reproduction is not exact, but may give a hint.  The Atman is the person at home yet unconfined (i.e. spread everywhere). and in a state of bliss. The Atman wants to become many and creates replicas, capable of intelligence and the  Atman residing in a cavity inside a cavity inside the creation as well as outside. The intelligent replicas  are fitted with coloured glasses (Maya) and see everything coloured and desire to explore and  have to take birth after birth, in different ways to fulfill their desires, and suffer miseries of  facing the pleasures and the pains including the disappointments and the physical illnesses, and thus get exasperated .

Some of the replicas find the shruti texts, which say that the life with the coloured glass is not the  real existence and that all the miseries are due to coming under the influence of the coloured glass and the best way is to give up the glass with the required sadhanas and to get back to the original housee. Some others read the texts and surmise  that their place is not inside the house, but they will be better off if they are near the house in their mind  and get the grace of the one inside the house., while some others think that they are from inside but once out of the house they have no right to get back into the house and the only way left is to devote to the one inside the house. There are still others who read the texts and have different  interpretations.

As no simile can replicate the actual situation, I am aware this simili too will have inadequacies, but may give a hint to try to understand the Advaita position, where some think they have to go back to the house and the coloured views have been  nothing but dreams with disconsolate consequences. May be you will like to refine this simili or may have a better simili to offer.

Regards,

Sunil KB 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Aurobind Padiyath]

Shastra never takes a stand or uses words like
1. Kalyanji's - somehow jumps into the samsAra (transmigration)
Or
2. Vidyasankarji's - As to how and why he dreams thus when he goes to sleep, perchance to dream, only Mr. X can answer, not a Ms Y or Z.
Nevertheless, if he somehow manages, within his dream......

Shastra is very clear and in a totally unambiguous way explains  the cause and effect of the Jeeva.
अपाणि पादौ जवनो ग्रहीता पश्यत्यचक्षु स श्रुणोत्यकर्ण स वेत्ति वेद्यं न च तस्यास्ति वेत्ता  तम्हुरग्र्यम् पुरुषं महान्तं।।
One need to assimilate the लक्ष्यार्थ and understand the discussion is about the himself (आत्मनिष्ठ) , then only the clarity of what Shastra is indicating can be grasped.
Even माय will remain अथनिर्वचनीयं only until the truth dawns on oneself.
Falling of his playstuff and flying of his balloon is like Maya to a child till he learns the science behind it.
As Sunilji said "Adi Shankara, as I understand, believed that Shruti needed and there is no need to go to any dielectics."

Katopanishad says:
न एषा तर्केण मतिः आपनेया

प्रोक्ता अन्येन एव सुज्ञानाय प्रेष्ठ ।

यां त्वम् आपः सत्यधृतिः बत असि

तादृक् नो भूयात् नचिकेतः प्रष्टा ॥ ९

From all these it is clear that while it is quite understandable to clarify doubt at the same time one should depend on more into मननं.
Aurobind Padiyath

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/KlKjUx7J9mY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Aurobind

[Kalyan K]

The point is, this misery, being only imagined, is not real. So we do not describe the Atman as being simultaneously the locus of two equally real yet contradictory attributes. As per the advaita interpretation, the experience of an imagined misery does not partake of the same nature of reality as the real lack of misery that is the intrinsic nature of Atman/brahman. 

Dear Sri Vidyasankar Sir, the analogy of Mr. X shows that an imagined misery makes one miserable in reality also. Same goes with imagined ignorance. If one imagines oneself to be ignorant when one is not really ignorant, then it means one is *actually* ignorant because one does not know that one is not ignorant. So imagined ignorance and imagined misery makes one really ignorant and miserable. 

Having said this much, I will temporarily not pursue this point further, because I have something else to add. Which brings me to your next statement - 

 

Therefore, it is concluded that the state of experiencing the misery is merely a superimposition, and that in the state of experiencing the imagined misery, the real nature of the Atman, as being fundamentally free of duHkha, is only temporarily obscured from itself.

Let us say that the state of experiencing misery is merely a superimposition, as you mention. Who is doing this superimposition? The Atman itself must do this superimposition, for there is no other entity to do this superimposition. And this superimposition is due to the Atman's ignorance alone. Hence, we face the same situation - the Atman is both ignorant and knowledgeable at the same time.

Let us take this one step further. Let me temporarily refrain from asking the question "whose ignorance". It is somebody's ignorance and right now we are not interested in who this somebody is. The superimposition, that leads to experiencing misery, must be caused by ignorance (avidya). Let us call this ignorance # 1. Now is ignorance # 1 real? No. If it is real, then there is no advaita as both Atman and ignorance # 1 would be equally real. Hence ignorance # 1 itself must be superimposed by another ignorance # 2. And ignorance # 2 must be superimposed by another ignorance # 3 and so on ad infinity.  

Best regards

Kalyan

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dr B S Ravindranath posted as follows:

Sir,

        Here Sri Kalyan had asked that the atman is misery as well as free at the same time, first one should know what is the matter atman and what are it's properties, so let's keep it simple in a classroom of 30 students and a teacher what is the status of a teacher to keep attention of the students towards him, do you call it a misery or free what one call it, I can call it as responsibility so I can call it as Atman is neither in misery nor free it is  responsible for it's existence and that existence is recognized by the body.

Regards,

B S Ravindranath 

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

Dr Gargeshwari responded as follows:

Now we have a definition " ​Atman is neither in misery nor free it is responsible for its existence and that existence is recognized by the body. Comes very close to Charvakas definition

Regards

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Vidvan Kalyanji Namaste,

Before Vidyashankarji responds I have some questions

 Dialectical method of argument if you are hinting are you prepared for dialectical method. Is this list suitable for such arguments .If you are convinced its fine with me but let me warn that such arguments on a list like this will take you no where. It will not answer your curious questions or will not prove the two contradicting points you posted st the very onset of this thread. Thanks

--

[Kalyan K]

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 12:42:25 PM UTC+5:30, ajit.gargeshwari wrote:

Vidvan Kalyanji Namaste,

Before Vidyashankarji responds I have some questions

 Dialectical method of argument if you are hinting are you prepared for dialectical method. Is this list suitable for such arguments .If you are convinced its fine with me but let me warn that such arguments on a list like this will take you no where. It will not answer your curious questions or will not prove the two contradicting points you posted st the very onset of this thread. Thanks

Vidwan Sri Ajit-ji

I believe advaita must be evaluated by using the same logical methods that it employs against other schools like nyAya, sAmkhya, vaisheshika and bauddha. I am not unduly worried about whether or not the arguments here lead to a definite conclusion. 

Regards

Kalyan

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

If this was your uddesa a vitanda vada mails without anything to learn you are wasting yours and scholars time on this list. This is my opinion Now I should say Good bye not Thanks

--

[Aurobind Padiyath]

He is saying a vector analysis should be done exactly like chemical analysis and physical analysis.. 

On Tue 21 Feb, 2017, 13:51 Ajit Gargeshwari, <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

If this was your uddesa a vitanda vada mails without anything to learn you are wasting yours and scholars time on this list. This is my opinion Now I should say Good bye not Thanks

On Feb 21, 2017 1:46 PM, "Kalyan K" <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 12:42:25 PM UTC+5:30, ajit.gargeshwari wrote:

Vidvan Kalyanji Namaste,

Before Vidyashankarji responds I have some questions

 Dialectical method of argument if you are hinting are you prepared for dialectical method. Is this list suitable for such arguments .If you are convinced its fine with me but let me warn that such arguments on a list like this will take you no where. It will not answer your curious questions or will not prove the two contradicting points you posted st the very onset of this thread. Thanks

Vidwan Sri Ajit-ji

I believe advaita must be evaluated by using the same logical methods that it employs against other schools like nyAya, sAmkhya, vaisheshika and bauddha. I am not unduly worried about whether or not the arguments here lead to a definite conclusion. 

Regards

Kalyan

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/KlKjUx7J9mY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Aurobind

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

To be frank this whole argument of his stands neither logical or shruti anusara nyaya. Any way I have said Good bye.

On Feb 21, 2017 1:54 PM, "Aurobind Padiyath" <aurobind...@gmail.com> wrote:

He is saying a vector analysis should be done exactly like chemical analysis and physical analysis.. 

On Tue 21 Feb, 2017, 13:51 Ajit Gargeshwari, <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

If this was your uddesa a vitanda vada mails without anything to learn you are wasting yours and scholars time on this list. This is my opinion Now I should say Good bye not Thanks

On Feb 21, 2017 1:46 PM, "Kalyan K" <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 12:42:25 PM UTC+5:30, ajit.gargeshwari wrote:

Vidvan Kalyanji Namaste,

Before Vidyashankarji responds I have some questions

 Dialectical method of argument if you are hinting are you prepared for dialectical method. Is this list suitable for such arguments .If you are convinced its fine with me but let me warn that such arguments on a list like this will take you no where. It will not answer your curious questions or will not prove the two contradicting points you posted st the very onset of this thread. Thanks

Vidwan Sri Ajit-ji

I believe advaita must be evaluated by using the same logical methods that it employs against other schools like nyAya, sAmkhya, vaisheshika and bauddha. I am not unduly worried about whether or not the arguments here lead to a definite conclusion. 

Regards

Kalyan

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/KlKjUx7J9mY/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Aurobind

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Kalyan K]

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 1:51:16 PM UTC+5:30, ajit.gargeshwari wrote:

If this was your uddesa a vitanda vada mails without anything to learn you are wasting yours and scholars time on this list. This is my opinion Now I should say Good bye not Thanks

I think that is an unduly harsh assessment. I do not understand why one should be charged with vitanda vada, when one is arguing based on logic.  Is it an implicit admission that these questions have no logical answers?

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Its for you to decide since you were the one who posted two points which were contradictory and tried to argue that you are consistent without any intention to learn even vitanda vada and how its done.

--

[Ravindranath.B.S Ravi]

Sir,

        Here the responsible means freedom and freedom means who has no boss he is in the top, he has the freedom to move to any position and any situation but doesn't get affected, and that is why he is called Brahman according to place and time the name and form may be different.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

To Dr. Gargeshwariji, 

That was really harsh. I don't think that was required. He did not claim that he wanted to learn. He seems to intend debating. 

To Sri Kalyan K,

" Is it an implicit admission that these questions have no logical answers?"

sounds as though you were waiting for or aiming at such an admission. 

Dr Gargeshwari is not the sole representative of the respondent side to your debate. Its not prudent to decide the nature of the claims attended to (it looks that 'attempted to be disproved') by you, just on the basis of the outside the debate comments by one of the respondents. 

[Kalyan K]

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 2:05:21 PM UTC+5:30, ajit.gargeshwari wrote:

Its for you to decide since you were the one who posted two points which were contradictory and tried to argue that you are consistent without any intention to learn even vitanda vada and how its done.

Sri Ajit. Thank you for the discussion. If Sri Vidyasankar responds, then I will respond to him. I will also respond to Vidwans Sri Aurobindo and Sri Lalitha, later this week. Apart from this, I shall remain silent.

Regards

Kalyan  

[Kalyan K]

To Sri Kalyan K,

" Is it an implicit admission that these questions have no logical answers?"

sounds as though you were waiting for or aiming at such an admission. 

Dr Gargeshwari is not the sole representative of the respondent side to your debate. Its not prudent to decide the nature of the claims attended to (it looks that 'attempted to be disproved') by you, just on the basis of the outside the debate comments by one of the respondents. 

Dear Sri Nagaraj

I have seen lot of constructive and destructive debates and as far as this particular debate is concerned, I have tried my best to keep it constructive and impersonal and purely based on logical lines. I have also exercised restraint in the face of personal attacks by Sri Ajit, some of whose posts, the moderators should not have approved in the first place, given that the list policies state that personal attacks are a discouraged form of communication. It is also my past experience that personal attacks happen when the other party runs out of logical arguments. Hence, I asked a rhetorical question to Sri Ajit alone. I did not mean that other members who are party to this debate will not be able to come up with convincing answers. I hope that clarifies my stand. 

Regards

Kalyan

[Nagaraj Paturi]

There were responses  (from Nagaraj) like the following:

Misery or experiencing misery is an observation. 

Who is the experiencer?

Atman.

So the observation turns out to be that 'Atman is experiencing misery'. 

But 'Atman is free from misery' is the derived fact, derived from other evidences. 

Since observation is contradicting the fact, it is posited that the problem should be with the observation. Observation being in contradiction with the fact is 'explained' as a result of false observation. It is explained that being trained to rightly observe helps in overcoming false observation. Once the training bears fruit, right observation results. Fact is observed. Contradiction between observation and fact gets dissolved.  

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Kalyan K]

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 2:47:38 PM UTC+5:30, Nagaraj Paturi wrote:

There were responses  (from Nagaraj) like the following:

Sorry, this post escaped my attention somehow. 

 

Misery or experiencing misery is an observation. 

Who is the experiencer?

Atman.

So the observation turns out to be that 'Atman is experiencing misery'. 

Atman itself is never observed by perception or inference. Shankara explicitly states this in his introduction to the Brihadaranyaka upanishad bhashya and I completely agree with him on this point. If Atman were an object of observation, then Bauddha and Carvaka schools would not have denied Atman. 

If Atman itself can never be observed by perception or inference, may I know how 'Atman is experiencing misery' can become an observation? I will respond to the rest of the post once you clarify this. Thanks.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

'Atman' is the third person form of the first person expression 'aham'. 

Misery or experiencing misery is an observation. 

Who is the experiencer?

Atman.

There is no need to separately observe or infer Atman. 

'He is experiencing Misery (or anything like that)' is an observation from outside.

But 'I am experiencing' is not an observation from outside. It is a self-referring first person expression. 

Conversion of that into third person turns out to be 'self is experiencing misery (or anything like that)' which when 'self' is replaced by its Sanskrit equivalent 'atman' , it turns out to be 'Atman  is experiencing misery (or anything like that)' 

Thus 'Atman  is experiencing misery' (= I am experiencing misery) is not an observation from outside, but observation nevertheless.   

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

'Atman' is the third person form of the first person expression 'aham'. 

Misery or experiencing misery is an observation. 

Who is the experiencer?

Atman.

There is no need to separately observe or infer Atman. 

'He is experiencing Misery (or anything like that)' is an observation from outside.

But 'I am experiencing' is not an observation from outside. It is a self-referring first person expression. 

Conversion of that into third person turns out to be 'self is experiencing misery (or anything like that)' which when 'self' is replaced by its Sanskrit equivalent 'atman' , it turns out to be 'Atman  is experiencing misery (or anything like that)' 

Thus 'Atman  is experiencing misery' (= I am experiencing misery) is not an observation from outside, but observation nevertheless.   

This is stated by Shankara here:

Br.up. Bhashyam 1.4.7:

 प्रत्यक्षानुमानविषययोश्च दुःखात्मनोर्गुणगुणित्वे न अनुमानम् ; दुःखस्य नित्यमेव प्रत्यक्षविषयत्वात् ; रूपादिसामानाधिकरण्याच्च ; मनःसंयोगजत्वेऽप्यात्मनि दुःखस्य, सावयवत्वविक्रियावत्त्वानित्यत्वप्रसङ्गात् । 

Swami Madhavananda:

...for misery is always an object of perception (being perceived) and abides in the same substance (body) that has form or colour. Even if the misery of the Self is said to be due to Its contact with the mind (as the vaśeṣika-s say),  it would make the Self a thing wh!ch has parts, is changeful and transitory, for no attribute is ever seen to come or go without making some change in the substance connected with it. And a thing which has no part' is never seen to change, nor is an eternal entity seen to possess transitory attributes.....Therefore the Self cannot be proved to have transitory

attributes like misery.

Objection: If there is no other entity to be miserable, then it is

useless for the scriptures to try to remove misery.

Reply: Not so, for they are meant to remove

the false notion of misery superimposed by ignorance.

And the Self being admitted to imagine Itself as miserable,

the scriptures help to remove that error, as in the

case of the failure to count the tenth man, although

he was there. 

In the above extract from the bhashya, Shankara says:

1. Misery is an object of experience, the observed, different from the experiencer, the observer.
2. This experiencer is none other than the Self.
3. It is viṣaya-viṣayi bhāva that is stated here. The observer is always distinct from the observed
4. Granting that misery is of the self, being part of it, then the Self can't be an eternal one since that which transforms (due to misery) and has parts, is perishable. The Self is not admitted to be of this nature in the Vedanta. Thus, on logical grounds Shankara refutes the idea that misery is of/belongs to the Self. 
5. Misery is a superimposition in the Self. 
6. That which is a superimposition is not the attribute of the Self. 

In fact the very 13th chapter of the Gita has come to make clear this viveka, distinction, between the Self and the not-self. And while stating what the not-self is, the verse 13.6 says:

Shankara introduces this verse thus:

अथ इदानीम् आत्मगुणा इति यानाचक्षते वैशेषिकाः तेपि क्षेत्रधर्मा एव न तु क्षेत्रज्ञस्य इत्याह भगवान् -

In order to show that those attributes that the Vaiśeṣika-s hold as belonging to the Atman, are not so but they belong to the not-self, the Lord says: 

इच्छा द्वेषः सुखं दुःखं सङ्घातश्चेतना धृतिः । 

एतत्क्षेत्रं समासेन सविकारमुदाहृतम् ॥ ६ ॥ 

Desire, hatred, happiness, misery, etc. are all kshetram, not-self, which is a product of transformation.

सा इयं इच्छा अन्तःकरणधर्मः ज्ञेयत्वात् क्षेत्रम् । तथा द्वेषः, यज्जातीयमर्थं दुःखहेतुत्वेन अनुभूतवान् , पुनः तज्जातीयमर्थमुपलभमानः तं द्वेष्टि ; सोऽयं द्वेषः ज्ञेयत्वात् क्षेत्रमेव । तथा सुखम् अनुकूलं प्रसन्नसत्त्वात्मकं ज्ञेयत्वात् क्षेत्रमेव । दुःखं प्रतिकूलात्मकम् ; ज्ञेयत्वात् तदपि क्षेत्रम् ।

Shankara employs the logic, reasoning, that is most familiar to Vedantins: jñeyatvāt. That which is observed/known/experienced is non-ātman, kshetram. And therefore not of the Self. Misery is one such and hence is not of the Self, the kshetrajna, Ātman, observer/knower/experiencer.     

The method Shankara teaches to overcome all afflictions, samsara, is: This samsara is an object of experience, observed, dṛśya, for/by Me, the Atman, who am different from it. Hence it is not My attribute; it is of the not-self, dṛṣyatvāt, mithyā, svapnavat. 

Shankara says this very clearly in the BGB 2.16 too:

न हि शीतोष्णादि सकारणं प्रमाणैर्निरूप्यमाणं वस्तुसद्भवति । विकारो हि सः, विकारश्च व्यभिचरति । 

Heat, cold, etc. (dualities) that are endowed with a cause, and are proven by pramāṇa-s, pratyaksha, instruments of knowledge, cannot be real. They are transformations and are bound to change. (And what changes is not real on the authority of the Vācārambhaṇa shruti of the Chandogya). Hence also they are not of the Atman. Here as well Shankara employs the dṛṣyatva hetu (observed) to hold that they do not belong to the Self, which is the draṣṭā, observer. 

In fact in the very opening sentence of the Sutra bhashya Shankara has laid down this rule: that which are opposed to each other  cannot be in one locus: viṣaya-viṣayi, like light and darkness, the chit and achit......If they appear to be together then it is concluded that such a combination is a product of error. ....Atman is chit and misery is achit. Hence in Advaita the two are never admitted to be together. In fact the Atman is satya and misery is anṛta. Satya and anṛta cannot be together. It is only to remove the erroneous thinking that they are together that the śāstra endeavors.   

What has been stated above is a sample from the prasthāna traya bhāṣya of Shankara. 

regards

subrahmanian.v

 

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

I don't want to again get back when I said good bye to this thread  though I should clarify.

Two statements were made to show there is contradiction in adaviata.

1. The Atman is forever free from misery and ignorance

2. The Atman imagines itself to be miserable even though it is in reality free from misery

The contradiction in the above statement has been answered right from the beginning and has been clarified that this is not the position of advaita.

Subsequently quotation from  Karika Bhashayas were given to show that the point  2 is said in the karika bhashya. The Karikas and Bhashyas are based on an argument called shruti anukula tarka. Explanation was given that the karika bhashayas don't say so.

When  statement 2 was never the position of Advaita then whats there to debate.

The thread initiator further said in a later post I am not unduly worried about whether or not the arguments here lead to a definite conclusion. (but yet I want to debate and argue​)

I was not harsh but wanted to say if you have an argument or a debate without seeking to establish ones own potion it is called Vitanda. Vada. In Vitanda Vada there is no learning involved.

​Regards

Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Jaya Prakash]

Hello Sir,

In this Theses link you can get more details [http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/81995]

On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 10:12:18 AM UTC+5:30, Kalyan K wrote:

Namaste to all members here

I want to understand advaita better, especially since I seem to find that some of its teachings are contradictory. Hence I want to get the opinions from vidwans here who have a good understanding of advaita.

Let me sum up a key teaching of advaita first - In advaita, the Atman/brahman, which is of the nature of Ananda (bliss), and is forever free from all evil, misery and ignorance, and which is forever liberated in the past, present and the future, and which is free from all actions and agitations, somehow jumps into the samsAra (transmigration), by imagining Itself to be miserable and ignorant, even though it is neither miserable nor ignorant in reality. There is no other entity apart from the Atman Itself that can be affected by ignorance and misery, because the One Atman is the only conscious entity in advaita. Unlike sAmkhya, plurality of selves is not admitted in advaita. 

Assuming that I have correctly summed up the advaitic position, we have two apparently contradicting characteristics of the Atman (which by the way is supposed to be free from all characteristics, Itself being nirvishesha) - 

1. The Atman is forever free from misery and ignorance

2. The Atman imagines itself to be miserable even though it is in reality free from misery

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste,

Interestingly, the conclusion arrived at by Bhashyakara that "why bondage and liberation are both mithyA" is arrived at by showing various flaws in the interpretation of Dvaitins, as a group of Purvapakshins, that bondage and liberation are both real, the most severe being that Atman will become anitya, let alone mokSha! The analysis refutes the Dvaitins' interpretation of real bondage and liberation, be it simultaneous or sequential. For those really interested, these are dealt with elaborately under Bhagavadgita 13.2 क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि--

At the beginning of the discussion itself, Bhashyakara establishes:

अविक्रियस्य च व्योमवत् सर्वगतस्य अमूर्तस्य आत्मनः केनचित् संयोगवियोगानुपपत्तेः, सिद्धं क्षेत्रज्ञस्य नित्यमेव ईश्वरत्वम् ; ‘अनादित्वान्निर्गुणत्वात्’ (भ. गी. १३-३१) इत्यादीश्वरवचनाच्च ॥ Specifically note Bhashyakara's usage of the word ईश्वरवचनात् which would be interesting to all Purvapakshins dealt with there.

​Then, during the discussion, Bhashyakara resolves a similar doubt as this subject line shows by pointing out that Purvapakshin is using अर्धजरतियन्याय when rejecting the possibility of मिथ्या संसारी status for क्षेत्रज्ञ but accepting जरामृत्यु as मिथ्या for आत्मा! That is, the way जरामृत्यु are accepted as मिथ्या for आत्मा, so to संसारित्व। This is to be applied to each apparent contradiction in Advaita Vedanta, which is either due to using अर्धजरतियन्याय or misunderstanding of what the term मिथ्या means. Due to the latter, there is an effort to categorize everything that cannot be categorized, using one's own logic which itself, in case of आत्मा, should depend on Shruti.

If one has to quote that since there is no one other than ब्रह्म to be bound, then one should not conclude there, but as everything being one. Then what misery can be brought about as separate from ब्रह्म?! The misery that is seen from one व्यावहारिका सत्ता cannot be shown as applying in another पारमार्थिका सत्ता, where no one other than ब्रह्म being there is mentioned.

​गुरुपादुकाभ्याम्,

प्रवीणभट्टः।
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

[Sivasenani Nori]

Sri Kalyan wrote:

"If one imagines oneself to be ignorant when one is not really ignorant, then it means one is *actually* ignorant because one does not know that one is not ignorant. So imagined ignorance and imagined misery makes one really ignorant and miserable." 

- This gives rise to a problem. To extend Sri Kalyan's argument, once he has established that "one is *actually* ignorant", his contention that "one does not know that one is not ignorant" is not correct, as Sri Kalyan himself established "*actual* ignorance". When I am an Indian, how can I "not know that I am not an Indian"? Of course, we also cannot expect this position because we can start one more round of application of the meaning of "imagines".

The issue here highlights the problems of meaning and interpretation. Here Bhartrihari is an useful guide.

सर्वं मिथ्या ब्रवीमीति नैतद्वाक्यं विवक्ष्यते ।

तस्य मिथ्याभिधाने हि प्रक्रान्तोऽर्थो न गम्यते ॥3.3.25॥

For the statement "all that I speak is false" to be meaningful, the statement itself should be excluded from the domain of the meaning of the sentence. This is lokavyavahara; otherwise there is no way for a man to declare that he shall only speak falsehoods.

Similarly in statements such as "if one imagines oneself to be ignorant when one is not really ignorant", the application of meaning should be restricted to one level only.

Regards

N. Siva Senani

[Kalyan K]

Thus 'Atman  is experiencing misery' (= I am experiencing misery) is not an observation from outside, but observation nevertheless.   

Alright. I see the sense in which you have used the word Atman.

 //But 'Atman is free from misery' is the derived fact, derived from other evidences.// 

These other evidences being Sruti, or more accurately, a particular interpretation of Sruti. It is considered a fact only if one believes in Sruti and also in such a particular interpretation of Sruti. Otherwise, 'Atman is free from misery' is not considered a fact.

//Since observation is contradicting the fact, it is posited that the problem should be with the observation.// 

But who is the observer? The observer is the Atman. If the Atman is subjected to erroneous observation, then the Atman is coming under ignorance. But Sruti (fact) says that Atman is not ignorant! So, positing that the problem is with the observation, is leading to another contradiction. We just moved from one contradiction to another.

//Once the training bears fruit, right observation results. Fact is observed. Contradiction between observation and fact gets dissolved//

Future dissolution of the contradiction does not preclude its current existence. My point, is concerned with the current existence of the contradiction rather than its future dissolution. Further, what guarantees that once the contradiction is dissolved, it wont appear again? In simpler terms, what guarantees that the Atman does not come under ignorance again, after liberation?

[Bijoy Misra]

Friends,

While I appreciate the curiosity and zeal of debate in people, the thread never produced an answer.

This is typical of a classroom discussion in a western university.  The "teachers" in such framework

then proceed to explain the terms for the "benefit" of the youth. I suggest that the philosophic terms

on "non-existence" be appreciated internally through sufficient reflection than attempted in "words".

We are entering into शब्दजाल as the philosopher had warned!  Please deal the concept from a 

cosmological point of view.

Regards,

BM

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 11:44:50 PM UTC-5, Aurobind Padiyath wrote:

Shastra never takes a stand or uses words like
1. Kalyanji's - somehow jumps into the samsAra (transmigration)
Or
2. Vidyasankarji's - As to how and why he dreams thus when he goes to sleep, perchance to dream, only Mr. X can answer, not a Ms Y or Z.
Nevertheless, if he somehow manages, within his dream......

Dear Sri Padiyath,

Mr. X was born in Sri Kalyan's analogy and was always only a hypothetical person. Obviously, what I said about the imaginary wild animals in the dream of this hypothetical gentleman were my own words. 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

                 

[Kalyan K]

//This gives rise to a problem. To extend Sri Kalyan's argument, once he has established that "one is *actually* ignorant", his contention that "one does not know that one is not ignorant" is not correct, as Sri Kalyan himself established "*actual* ignorance".//


All these types of logical problems arise because the advaitic assumption that "Atman is not really ignorant but imagines itself to be so" is inherently contradictory.

[Aurobind Padiyath]

I am giving stress to the words "somehow" which is never the words of Shastra. 

There are only two ways this can be understood and assimilated( स्वांशीकरणं). 

1. Taking the Karika stand of "देवस्य एष स्वभावः where we can understand that the three states are Swabhavah of the Turiya and just as dream events never inflict the other two states. This knowledge makes us free from the effects of dream at the same time give a permanent knowledge of unrealistic nature of dream. Same way on realising that the waking is similar unreality swapnavat, the knowledge wards of the ill-effects of the apparent reality of the waking.  ज्ञाते द्वैतं न विद्यते। 

2. Or as in the Brhadaranyaka ध्यायतीव लेलायतीव everything is an apparent reality and विज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण नाऽस्ति किंन्चत् । In this case  also the result will be the same. 

The whole problem comes when reality is superimposed in all the three states while experiencing them. 

Once the knowledge about one's true nature of प्रत्यगात्मन् is established then there is no chance of effects of the three states wrecking that Knowledge. It becomes your Swabhavah, just as you don't have to be reminded of your status of human-hood or your male/female nature. 

It will be like seeing wateryness in mirage with the knowledge of the reality of the appearance. 

Aurobind Padiyath 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/KlKjUx7J9mY/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Aurobind

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Sri Kalyan,

I don't really see what I can add to this debate that has not already been discussed by many stalwarts for a long time now. All the questions you raise about duHkha, avidyA, the locus of avidyA, the object of avidyA, what is meant by mithyAtva, the role and ultimate failure of vAk and manas in apprehending the AtmA, etc etc have been analyzed threadbare over a thousand years or so. 

All I would like to say at this point is that you must address two crucial points.

1. whether it is acceptable to talk of different levels of reality, whereby only the highest level is really real and other levels necessarily partake of an element of unreality, and

2. whether there is room for a reliance on anything other than logic (i.e. Sruti and smRti sources) when you discuss any issue in any kind of vedAnta. 

That said, I'm not sure whether this is the right forum for a protracted debate on this topic, so I'll refrain from writing much more.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Sri Kalyan K says:

These other evidences being Sruti, or more accurately, a particular interpretation of Sruti. It is considered a fact only if one believes in Sruti and also in such a particular interpretation of Sruti. Otherwise, 'Atman is free from misery' is not considered a fact.

'These evidences being S'ruti' is your ( hasty ) assumption about my intention behind my words, "other evidences"

"Atman is free from misery" is derived logically from the evidences of day to day experiences themselves. 

When I say, " I am running fever", I mean that I am currently running fever. i know that I was free from fever. I shall be free from fever. I am not defined by fever. Fever is not my defining feature. I am by definition , free from any feature that is not my defining one. 

Similarly when I say, I am experiencing misery, I mean that I am currently experiencing misery. That implies that I was free from misery and I shall be free from misery. I am not defined by my misery. i.e., I am not defined as misery - experiencer. Misery -experiencing is not my defining feature. 

Obviously, I am free from any feature that does not define me. 

Hence, I am free from misery.

= Atman is free from misery.    

Atman is free from misery is the fact thus derived. 

 

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//This gives rise to a problem. To extend Sri Kalyan's argument, once he has established that "one is *actually* ignorant", his contention that "one does not know that one is not ignorant" is not correct, as Sri Kalyan himself established "*actual* ignorance".//


All these types of logical problems arise because the advaitic assumption that "Atman is not really ignorant but imagines itself to be so" is inherently contradictory.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

[Kalyan K]

Dear Sri Vidyasankar

I have great personal respect for you.
You have raised some interesting questions. I need some time to respond.

It is my misfortune if you do not want to debate, because in my opinion, you are the most authoritative source for advaita on the internet. (No disrespect intended to other members).

Best Regards
Kalyan

[Kalyan K]

Sri Aurobind

Pardon me for not responding to your previous mails. They are in my "to do" list.

//I am giving stress to the words "somehow" which is never the words of Shastra//

And yet, if someone goes by the advaitic interpretation of shastra, it is the Atman alone which can be in samsAra since It is the only conscious entity. To talk of samsAra for non-conscious entities like chairs and tables would make no sense. And yet we are told that Atman is ever free. So I said, being ever free, the Atman still *somehow* jumps into samsAra. This is a direct consequence of the advaitic position.

Regards
Kalyan

[Kalyan K]

Sri Nagaraj

I am not sure how you can maintain that one is free from misery, when it is a universal observation that everyone goes through pleasures and pains through out their life.

Regards
Kalyan

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Yes, universal or not, observation. Thai is what I said. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Yes, universal or not, observation. That is what I said. 

Everyone goes through pleasures and pains. 

No one is defined as the entity experiencing pleasures and /or pains .

[Venkata Sriram]

Namaste,

 

In अध्यात्म रामायण​, there is a chapter called रामगीता which has the rope-analogy. The excerpt is below:

 

एवंविधे ज्ञानमये सुखात्मके कथं भवो दुःखमयः प्रतीयते ।

अज्ञानतोऽध्यासवशात्प्रकाशते ज्ञाने विलीयेत विरोधतः क्षणात् ॥३३

One who is of the nature of Absolute Bliss, Knowledge and Bliss, what is the reason of presence of apparent misery called “samsaara”  in IT? The reason being “adhyAsa” which arises out of erroneous cognition because Knowledge and Ignorance are mutually exclusive and doesn’t stay together.

 

यदन्यदन्यत्र विभाव्यते भ्रमादध्यासमित्याहुरमुं विपश्चितः ।

असर्पभूतेऽहिविभावनं यथा रज्जवादिके तद्वदपीश्वरे जगत ॥ ३७

Out of ignorance, the erroneous cognition of reality to be something else is called “adhyAsa”.  Just as one erroneously perceives the rope as snake; similarly the misery is erroneously perceived in Ishwara.

 

विकल्पमायारहिते चिदात्मकेऽहङ्कार एष प्रथमः प्रकल्पितः

अध्यास एवात्मनि सर्वकारणे निरामये ब्रह्मणि केवले परे ॥ ३८

The One Absolute Brahman who is beyond vikalpa and mAya, the “adhyAsa”

in the form of “I-ness” (Ahamkara) is superimposed in It.

 

It is this superimposition of “I-ness” that results in “jiva-bhaava” which is given below as:

 

अनाद्यविध्योद्भवबुद्धिबिम्बितो जीवः प्रकाशोऽयमितीर्यते चितः ।

आत्माधियः साक्षितया पृथक स्थितो बुध्यापरिच्छिन्नपरः स एव हि ॥ ४०

 

Regs,

Sriram

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 10:52:51 PM UTC+5:30, Nagaraj Paturi wrote:

Yes, universal or not, observation. That is what I said. 

Everyone goes through pleasures and pains. 

No one is defined as the entity experiencing pleasures and /or pains .

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, universal or not, observation. Thai is what I said. 

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:41 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sri Nagaraj

I am not sure how you can maintain that one is free from misery, when it is a universal observation that everyone goes through pleasures and pains through out their life.

Regards
Kalyan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

Permit me to add that there is another way also for looking at the  miseries. The miseries are related to the body, but we are not the bodies for ever, though we have it during our lifetime and discard one body  for another  at the end of the life time, and finally we can transcend the body and become videhamukta.  Even in any life-time, when we are related to a particular body,  the miseries are all in the mind.  In Mahabharata, Lord Krishna tells Bhishma that he should impart his vast knowledge to Yudhisthira and not allow that to be lost with his departure. Then Bhsihma said that he is miserable with his physical pain due to being on the bed of arrows, and he was in no position to do what the Lord wanted him to do. Then the Lord said that his pains will disappear and indeed the pains disappeared and Bhishma started answering all the queries of Yudhisthira.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Aurobind Padiyath]

Dear Kalyan K
Your own statement // it is the Atman alone which can be in samsAra since It is the only conscious entity. To talk of samsAra for non-conscious entities like chairs and tables would make no sense //

1. Can you please define your terminology of samsAra, Atman (both the free-Atman and misery-Atman)? so that we're on the same page.
2. Does your above statement mean that samsAra is a conscious entity and chairs and tables are not? I don't get what you imply. (because, it is the Atman alone which can be in samsAra since It is the only conscious entity, is my stand also with a slight modification by replacing "can" with "appear to")

Please clarify before we proceed further.

Aurobind Padiyath

[Sivasenani Nori]

On 21 Feb 2017 9:31 pm, "Kalyan K" <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//This gives rise to a problem. To extend Sri Kalyan's argument, once he has established that "one is *actually* ignorant", his contention that "one does not know that one is not ignorant" is not correct, as Sri Kalyan himself established "*actual* ignorance".//


All these types of logical problems arise because the advaitic assumption that "Atman is not really ignorant but imagines itself to be so" is inherently contradictory.

There are two aspects here. Language is not adequate to describe Atman / Brahman and every description lands at a seeming contradiction (how is language supposed to operate when the difference of kartaa, karma, kaarana, kaarya, kriyaa etc. is not there?).

Second, the world has worked out a way to operate with these limitations, which Bhartrihari's analysis of language shows. It may be pointed out that Bhartrihari has taken a sentence which does not deal with Brahman, so that principle of interpretation stands on general grounds and not only while describing Brahman.

And, due to the reasons cited, there is nothing inherently contradictory in the position of Advaita.

Regards

N. Siva Senani

[Dr BVK Sastry]

Namaste

 

On Sri Bijoy Misra ji’s note: < We are entering into शब्दजाल as the philosopher had warned!  Please deal the concept from a cosmological point of view.     Regards,     BM    >

 

Let me draft a question to facilitate such a  pursuit, and get the needful clarifications.

 

I begin  with a set of statements, leading to the ‘Question-logic-Articulation’:

 

Statement 1 (Experience) :     I ( /We / anyone with a set of sense organs and mind functioning) observe –perceive - experience  a ground on which I /we are  standing  and the space around this ground where observer are positioned.   

 

Statement 2 (  Need ) :            I ( /We) desire to understand the Truth of all these -  ‘Cosmologically / Cosmos- logically’, the ‘ Reality of Experience’.

 

 

Statement 3 ( Vocabulary / Shabda – Jaala ) :  TERMS and EXPLNATIONS  inherited from texts :   

 

-          The term for I /We is ‘ Aham / Vayam.  The term shifts bring in the issue of individual and group experience analysis challenges.

-          The term for sense organs and mind functioning is ‘  Indriya –Manas - Prakriyaa’.

-          The term for experience is ‘ anubhava’.  The term for perceiving is ‘ darshana’ ( in a limited sense, as ‘ pashyAmi/ pashyAmaH).

-          The term for ground is ‘ PruthvI’ ; The term for space around is ‘ aakaasha/  Kham’

-          The term for ‘ observer is ‘ draShTA’.  

-          The term for Consciousness –Reality is ‘Brahma’ { Satyam,  Sat, Chit,} .

 

-          The texts of Upanishads  explaining the relations and experience-processes in statement -1 above hypothesize at some stage of analysis that the observer, the ground on which one is standing, the space surrounding, the process are all ‘ Transformations related to Consciousness’.( Chit- PariNAma).   The text specific for the context is Gita 7-4: bhumir apo 'nalo vayuh kham mano buddhir eva ca ahankara itiyam me bhinna prakrtir astadha.

 

Question- Logic Articulation :      When I see these as distinct different entities and processes, at what state and stage, and How, these ‘Cosmological Conscious Entity-Layers and Processes’ are formed and ‘Experienced as My Mind-Processes’ ? In other words, what is the tag to distinguish the  layers, phases and processes of Consciousness-Dynamics ? in relation to observer ?

 

I as an ‘ observer-analyst’ see each entity and process in statement -1 above, namely  the ground, the space surrounding, myself and experience of observation –memory-recall as information to be : Discrete, Finite, Bound in Time-Space-Energy dynamics of Cosmos,  each  belonging to different categorizations’ and using different terms and explanations. Each one carries its unique properties and propensities (GuNa –Dharma / swabhaava / Prakruti).

 

In modern physics, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is discussed together with another postulate called the observer effect. This postulate notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems, that is, without changing something in a system. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty.  It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology. It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer.

 

Since the uncertainty principle is such a basic result in quantum mechanics, typical experiments in quantum mechanics routinely observe aspects of it. Certain experiments, however, may deliberately test a particular form of the uncertainty principle as part of their main research program. These include, for example, tests of number–phase uncertainty relations in superconducting or quantum optics systems. Applications dependent on the uncertainty principle for their operation include extremely low-noise technology such as that required in gravitational wave interferometers.

 

Plausible outcomes of further discourse  on this  Question- Logic:   

Option 1: One may trash this line of investigation saying Eastern Vedanta and Western Science address different paradigms and use different terms. There is no need to mix them.

Option 2 : Force Traditional terms as ‘Catch All phrases’ to claim (Advaita and all other flavors of )  Vedanta to be a better explanation of ‘Consciousness –Cosmo-Logic’.

Option 3:  Engage interactively  in to further <  शब्दजाल   >  and find ingenious ‘ Vedic Science explanations’ for  ‘ Planks Constant, Thermodynamics, Fundamental particles  and Entropy.

 

 

I look forward for scholars inputs, as this deliberation  may help in unveiling the ‘ Nature of Observer / Experience and Process of Consciousness –Transformation Dynamics’.  Whatever emerges as explanation in this case, would also get extended to the classical cases like ‘ rajju –sarpa, Kha- pushpa, vandhyaa-suta, shukti-rajata; dealing with ‘ avidyaa / mAyA’  explanations.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Siva Senani ji,

​Very well said, Mahodaya.​ ​The world appears yellow to a jaundiced. There appear to be logical problems due to inherent misunderstanding of Advaita Vedanta. The Atman that is not really ignorant is in a different sattA than the sattA of imagination. The dreamer who is running away from the tiger is not the same waker that is sleeping in his cosy bed, but is not really non-different, else he would not wake up with a scare and sweating and remember the dream. There are no pAramArthikA examples possible, so what is prAtibhAsika dreamer to vyAvahArika waker, so is vyAvahArika jIvAtman to pAramArthika brahmAtman. So even if one stands on his head, one will not be able to prove *real* difference between free brahmAtman and bound jIvAtman waker, just as one won't be able to prove that waker and dreamer are *really* different. No matter how many times how many people ask across eras as to categorically assert whether one is bound or not bound, the answer will be the same: not really bound, but appears to be bound.

​gurupAdukAbhyAm

,
--Praveen R. Bhat

[Kalyan K]

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:05:42 AM UTC+5:30, Aurobind Padiyath wrote:

Dear Kalyan K
Your own statement // it is the Atman alone which can be in samsAra since It is the only conscious entity. To talk of samsAra for non-conscious entities like chairs and tables would make no sense //

1. Can you please define your terminology of samsAra, Atman (both the free-Atman and misery-Atman)?  so that we're on the same page.

Sri Aurobind. Samsara = transmigration, Atman is that which has been described as "neti neti". Or you can follow the second brahmasUtra and say that Atman is that from which the origin etc. of the world proceed.

 

2. Does your above statement mean that samsAra is a conscious entity and chairs and tables are not?

No. It means that only conscious entities can be in samsara. It is meaningless to say that chairs and tables can be in samsara because they are not conscious entities.

 

I don't get what you imply. (because, it is the Atman alone which can be in samsAra since It is the only conscious entity, is my stand also with a slight modification by replacing "can" with "appear to")

Appears to whom? To whom does it appear that the Atman alone is in samsara?

Regards

Kalyan 

[Kalyan K]

Dear Sri Vidyasankar

All I would like to say at this point is that you must address two crucial points.

1. whether it is acceptable to talk of different levels of reality, whereby only the highest level is really real and other levels necessarily partake of an element of unreality, and

As long as there is evidence for the existence of different levels of reality, I see no reason why one cannot talk about them, if one has presented such evidence. Having said that, I have noticed during my readings of Shankara bhAshyas, that Shankara himself seldom talks about various levels of reality with a few exceptions here and there. You can correct me if I am wrong here.

 

2. whether there is room for a reliance on anything other than logic (i.e. Sruti and smRti sources) when you discuss any issue in any kind of vedAnta. 

Yes, there is definitely room for Shruti and smRti, but I believe any interpretation of such sources must not contradict logic and perception. There is a well known saying that thousands of Shruti statements cannot make fire as cold. 

Since I have answered your questions, I request a favor. Please answer one of my questions. When Shankara has employed logic to argue against nyAya, vaisheshika, sAMkhya, mImAmsa, bauddha and other such schools, is it improper to employ logic against advaita? I have noticed that whenever a logical contradiction is brought against the advaita school, people are immediately charged with "not understanding advaita". Is it ok if other schools make similar charges against Shankara and his disciples? For example, can the bauddha charge Shankara with not understanding Buddhism? Or is there anything special about advaita that it is above all scrutiny?

Regards

Kalyan

[Kalyan K]

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 8:02:28 AM UTC+5:30, Sivasenani Nori wrote:

On 21 Feb 2017 9:31 pm, "Kalyan K" <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//This gives rise to a problem. To extend Sri Kalyan's argument, once he has established that "one is *actually* ignorant", his contention that "one does not know that one is not ignorant" is not correct, as Sri Kalyan himself established "*actual* ignorance".//


All these types of logical problems arise because the advaitic assumption that "Atman is not really ignorant but imagines itself to be so" is inherently contradictory.

There are two aspects here. Language is not adequate to describe Atman / Brahman and every description lands at a seeming contradiction (how is language supposed to operate when the difference of kartaa, karma, kaarana, kaarya, kriyaa etc. is not there?).

If language is not adequate, then Shruti is useless for Shruti uses language. So we must accept at least the partial adequacy of language. If language is not adequate, then there is no need to write bhAshya-s on any portions of the Shruti. It may not be possible to described Atman positively, but negative descriptions like "neti neti" do exist.  Such descriptions don't land into any contradictions. 

[Aurobind Padiyath]

//Samsara = transmigration,// is it an independent reality having a सत्ता of it's own? Or is it part and parcel of the world प्रपञ्चम्?


//Atman is that which has been described as "neti neti". Or you can follow the second brahmasUtra and say that Atman is that from which the origin etc. of the world proceed.//
When the origin of the world is from Atman, all that is out of it should necessarily be Atman itself? कार्यकारणतया । वाचारंभणं विकारो नामधेयं।

//It means that only conscious entities can be in samsara. It is meaningless to say that chairs and tables can be in samsara because they are not conscious entities.//

If everything, meaning the प्रपञ्चम्, has come out of the same Atman how can there be different products other than their names and forms. Immaterial what they exhibit or behave. That means every moment of experience, the objects and the subject are not independent realities but of the same Atman called by different names and having different appearance. अनन्यत्वं & अद्वयत्वं


//Appears to whom? To whom does it appear that the Atman alone is in samsara?//

To the Jeeva, who has no knowledge of the truth of it's reality that he and what is not him all are essentially from the same source. That includes everything from his intellect to everything conceivable to him. प्रतिबोधम् ।।


Aurobind Padiyath

[Sivasenani Nori]

Sri Kalyan

On 22 February 2017 at 10:55, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 8:02:28 AM UTC+5:30, Sivasenani Nori wrote:

On 21 Feb 2017 9:31 pm, "Kalyan K" <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//This gives rise to a problem. To extend Sri Kalyan's argument, once he has established that "one is *actually* ignorant", his contention that "one does not know that one is not ignorant" is not correct, as Sri Kalyan himself established "*actual* ignorance".//


All these types of logical problems arise because the advaitic assumption that

​​

"Atman is not really ignorant but imagines itself to be so" is inherently contradictory.

There are two aspects here. Language is not adequate to describe Atman / Brahman and every description lands at a seeming contradiction (how is language supposed to operate when the difference of kartaa, karma, kaarana, kaarya, kriyaa etc. is not there?).

If language is not adequate, then Shruti is useless for Shruti uses language. So we must accept at least the partial adequacy of language. If language is not adequate, then there is no need to write bhAshya-s on any portions of the Shruti.

​​

- If the limitation of language is understood, then the flaw in the over-analysis of 

​

"Atman is not really ignorant but imagines itself to be so" would be recognized. Even if the limitation of language is not internalized, the principles of interpretation show the flaw in the over-analysis.

Anyways, there is not more more material to be added. Thank you for raising the question.

Regards

N. Siva Senani

[Kalyan K]

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 1:34:20 PM UTC+5:30, Aurobind Padiyath wrote:

//Samsara = transmigration,// is it an independent reality having  a सत्ता of it's own?  Or is it part and parcel of the world  प्रपञ्चम्?


//Atman is that which has been described as "neti neti". Or you can follow the second brahmasUtra and say that Atman is that from which the origin etc. of the world proceed.//
When the origin of the world is from Atman, all that is out of it should necessarily be Atman itself? कार्यकारणतया । वाचारंभणं विकारो नामधेयं।

I believe we are deviating from the focus of this thread. On the above point, there are multiple interpretations. In advaita, Atman is both material and instrumental cause. In dvaita, Atman is just the instrumental cause. In most vedAntic schools, including bhedAbheda, dvaita, vishishTha-advaita, the world is real. However, a discussion on the various vedAntic view points, will span another thread.

 

//It means that only conscious entities can be in samsara. It is meaningless to say that chairs and tables can be in samsara because they are not conscious entities.//

If everything,  meaning the  प्रपञ्चम्, has come out of the same Atman how can there be different products other than their names and forms. Immaterial what they exhibit or behave. That means every moment of experience, the objects and the subject are not  independent realities but of the same Atman called by  different names and having different appearance. अनन्यत्वं & अद्वयत्वं

Please see above. There are multiple senses in which the Atman is treated as a creator. Moreover, even in advaita, the Atman is ultimately denied of any creatorship.

//Appears to whom? To whom does it appear that the Atman alone is in samsara?//

To the Jeeva, who has no knowledge of the truth of it's reality that he and what is not him all are essentially from the same source. That includes everything from his intellect to everything conceivable to him.   प्रतिबोधम् ।। 

But jIva is nothing but the Atman. All the upAdhis that constitute jIvatva are jaDa. The only conscious entity being Atman. So it should appear only to the Atman, and hence the Atman alone can be deluded. Shankara states in bRhadAraNyaka bhAshya 1.4.10, two points - brahman is not the author of ignorance, but no other conscious entity can be admitted to be the author of the ignorance. (Only God knows what such contradictory statements mean, since only a conscious entity can be an author of ignorance.) 

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

I fully agree with Sri Kalyan when he says ""I have noticed that

whenever a logical contradiction is brought against the advaita school,
people are immediately charged with "not understanding advaita".

In fact the same happened to me 2 years back when I started bringing
out some contradictions in Samkara's viewpoint and his interpretations
in this forum. Members of this forum charged me with not enough/correct
understanding of Samkara, and some others commenting that I have not
studied the original texts, etc. etc. Some have given me (as they have
done so for Kalyan also ) unsolicited advice .

In fact at the end of a protracted discussion I sent my observation
exactly as Sri Kalyan has now sent.
Not only here, but in the forum ADVAITA also the same vehemence and
virulent attack followed.

It is clear that Samkara has been deified by these scholars and they
firmly believe that all of Samkara's views/interpretations SHOULD BE
ACCEPTED IN TOTO UNQUESTIONINGLY.

All these are done by scholars who swear by Samkara for his highest
logical acumen !!!!! (to repeat my final remark 2 years back)


Ganesan

On 22-02-2017 11:27, Kalyan K wrote:
>
> Since I have answered your questions, I request a favor. Please answer
> one of my questions. When Shankara has employed logic to argue against
> nyAya, vaisheshika, sAMkhya, mImAmsa, bauddha and other such schools,
> is it improper to employ logic against advaita? I have noticed that
> whenever a logical contradiction is brought against the advaita
> school, people are immediately charged with "not understanding
> advaita". Is it ok if other schools make similar charges against
> Shankara and his disciples? For example, can the bauddha charge
> Shankara with not understanding Buddhism? Or is there anything special
> about advaita that it is above all scrutiny?
>
> Regards
> Kalyan

> --