avidyA is adhyasta (superimposed) in AtmA

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

Bhagvan BhAshyakAra in His commentary on KathOpanishad mantra 2.2.11 states the following:

सूर्यो यथा सर्वलोकस्य चक्षुर्न लिप्यते चाक्षुषैर्बाह्यदोषैः ।
एकस्तथा सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा न लिप्यते लोकदुःखेन बाह्यः ॥ ११ ॥

लोको ह्यविद्यया स्वात्मन्यध्यस्तया कामकर्मोद्भवं दुःखमनुभवति ।

Due to the avidyA, which is adhyasta (superimposed) in one's own AtmA, people experience sorrow which emanates from desire and karma.

न तु सा परमार्थतः स्वात्मनि ।

However, that avidyA in not there really, in paramArtha, in one's own AtmA.

This commentary clearly demonstrates that avidyA is itself adhyasta in AtmA. And (hence), this avidyA is not there in AtmA in paramArtha. That is to say, this avidyA merely appears in AtmA, while it is not actually there.

Incidentally, the usage स्वात्मनि अध्यस्तया अविद्यया also demonstrates that avidyA and adhyAsa have different connotations.

Further, in BSB 1.3.19, BhAshyakAra states - एक एव परमेश्वरः कूटस्थनित्यो विज्ञानधातुरविद्यया, मायया मायाविवत् , अनेकधा विभाव्यते, नान्यो विज्ञानधातुरस्तीति ।

The one Supreme Lord, who is eternal, immutable and pure consciousness, appears multifarious on account of avidyA, which is MAyA, like a magician. There is no other consciousness.

Here, AchArya equates MAyA and avidyA, just as He does in MANDUkya kArikAa 3.10 - आत्मनो माया अविद्या, तया प्रत्युपस्थापिताः, न परमार्थतः सन्तीत्यर्थः ।

Thus, the conclusion is as under:-

1. avidyA is superimposed in AtmA.

2. avidyA and adhyAsa have different connotations.

3. avidyA and MAyA are identical.

4. avidyA i.e. MAyA is not there in AtmA in paramArtha. It merely appears therein like snake appears in rope.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

Here are some instances where Shankara uses the term 'svAbhAvikyA avidyayA' with or without adhyAsa too in his works:

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम्प्रथमोऽध्यायःद्वितीयं ब्राह्मणम्मन्त्र ४ - भाष्यम्

………अशनायावत्त्वान्मृत्युः अभिव्याददात् मुखविदारणं कृतवान् अत्तुम् ; स च कुमारो भीतः स्वाभाविक्याविद्यया युक्तः भाणित्येवं शब्दम् अकरोत् ; सैव वागभवत् , वाक्………

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम्प्रथमोऽध्यायःचतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम्मन्त्र ७ - भाष्यम्

………काले, नामरूपाभ्यामेव व्याक्रियते — असौनामायमिदंरूप इति । यदर्थः सर्वशास्त्रारम्भः, यस्मिन्नविद्यया स्वाभाविक्या कर्तृक्रियाफलाध्यारोपणा कृता, यः कारणं सर्वस्य जगतः, यदात्मके नामरूपे सलिलादिव………

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम्प्रथमोऽध्यायःचतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम्मन्त्र १६ - भाष्यम्

………किं तत् , यत्प्रवृत्तिहेतुरिति ; तदिहाभिधीयते — एषणा कामः सः, स्वाभाविक्यामविद्यायां वर्तमाना बालाः पराचः कामाननुयन्तीति काठकश्रुतौ, स्मृतौ च — ‘काम

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम्प्रथमोऽध्यायःचतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम्मन्त्र १७ - भाष्यम्

………जायादिभेदरूपं नासीत् ; स एवैक आसीत् — जायाद्येषणाबीजभूताविद्यावानेक एवासीत् । स्वाभाविक्या स्वात्मनि कर्त्रादिकारकक्रियाफलात्मकताध्यारोपलक्षणया अविद्यावासनया वासितः सः अकामयत कामितवान् । 

(Here both the terms svAbhAvikyA avidyayA and adhyAropalakShaNayA are used together by Shankara.)

ऐतरेयोपनिषद्भाष्यम्प्रथमः अध्यायःतृतीयः खण्डःमन्त्र १२ - भाष्यम्

………अयमावसथः इत्युक्तानुकीर्तनमेव । तेषु ह्ययमावसथेषु पर्यायेणात्मभावेन वर्तमानोऽविद्यया दीर्घकालं गाढं प्रसुप्तः स्वाभाविक्या, न प्रबुध्यतेऽनेकशतसहस्रानर्थसंनिपादजदुःखमुद्गराभिघातानुभवैरपि ॥ ……… 

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यवार्तिकम्  Sureshwara in Brihadaranyaka Bhashya Vartika:

……… यस्मिंश्चाविद्ययाध्यासः संसारानर्थलक्षणः ।।स्वाभाविक्या कृतो मिथ्या शुक्त्यादौ रजतादिवत् ।। ४१४ ।।

He too accepts a svAbhAvikA avidyA which is the cause of adhyAsa. He gives the analogy of shell-silver. 

Thus, both Shankara and Sureshwara admit of an avidyA that is 'natural' as a cause that precedes adhyAsa, superimposition.  All superimposition is preceded by an ignorance.  Hence avidyA and adhyAsa are separately stated by Shankara and Sureshwara. 

warm regards

subbu  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBvagiyUHO1LJ7cNuYJ4WgJwgXSiLi1MmKmBPW9CWFChQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[लोकेश]

> That is to say, this avidyA merely appears in AtmA, while it is not actually there.

You say the world appears though it doesn't exist because of avidya. Now if avidya too just appears but doesn't actually exist, why does avidya appear? Does it appear because of another avidya? If yes, this leads to infinite regress and the assertion that world appears because of avidya, is rendered useless for the same avidya is non-existent.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Lokesh ji.

// You say the world appears though it doesn't exist because of avidya. Now if avidya too just appears but doesn't actually exist, why does avidya appear? Does it appear because of another avidya? If yes, this leads to infinite regress and the assertion that world appears because of avidya, is rendered useless for the same avidya is non-existent.//

This is the standard objection and is dealt with in advaita. This objection is called AtmAshraya-dOsha. This is refuted in two manners. First, avidyA is swa-para-nirvAhikA. Second, on the analogy of bheda.

Please check the following verses of Samkshepa ShArIraka along with the commentary thereupon by MadhusUdana SaraswatI Swamiji and Nrisimhashrama Swamiji. If the doubt persists, we can discuss further. If the doubt resolves, please share your considered understanding.

स्वाज्ञानमेवमिदमात्मपरप्रक्लृप्तौ। शक्तं भवेदिति न किञ्चन दौस्थ्यमस्ति।१.५४।

भेदञ्च भेद्यञ्च भिनत्ति भेदो यथैव भेदान्तरमन्तरेण। मोहञ्च कार्यञ्च बिभर्ति मोहस्तथैव मोहान्तरमन्तरेण।१.५५।

https://archive.org/details/WRJC_sankshepa-sharirak-chapter-1-with-explanation-by-madhusudan-sarasvati-1887-kashika-press-kashi/page/n91/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/sankshepasharirakamnrisimhashrampart1a1b234/Sankshepa-Nrisimha%201A/page/n77/mode/2up

My understanding:

Opponent: But ajnAna is also sublatable by jnAna. So, ajnAna would also have ajnAna-kalpitatva. That is undesirable on account of AtmAshraya-dosha. Since ajnAna has jnAna-nivartyatA and cannot have ajnAna-kalpitatva, therefore there is avyApti (non-extension) of ajnAna-kalpitatva as nivartyatA-avachchhedaka in ajnAna. Hence, ajnAna-kalpitatva cannot be nivartyatA-avachchhedaka.

ajnAna is swa-para-nirvAhaka and hence ajnAna is also accepted as ajnAna-kalpita. Thus, ajnAna is the cause of imagination of both ajnAna as well as ajnAna-kArya without AtmAshraya-dosha on account of its swa-para-nirvAhakatA.

Moreover, following NyAya, just as bheda distinguishes a pot from a cloth while also distinguishing itself from pot and cloth, ajnAna also ensures, without the requirement of any other ajnAna, the imagination of itself as well as others. This is what is explained in Samkshepa ShArIraka 1.54 and 1.55.

Namaste Subbu ji.

Indeed, avidyA can be held to be swAbhAvikI. However, it cannot be argued by anyone that if it is swAbhAvikI, then it cannot be removed. This is because the meaning of swAbhAvikI can be either of the following two -- Agantuka-kAraNa-ajanyatva OR anAditva.

Just as ghaTa-rUpa, despite being Agantuka-kAraNa-ajanya, perishes OR prAk-abhAva, despite being anAdi, perishes; similarly; ajnAna, despite being swAbhAvika i.e. Agantuka-kAraNa-ajanya OR anAdi, perishes. 

Advaita Siddhi says in AvidyA-Ashraya-vichAra - taking the objection against swAbhavikatA and AtmAshraya pointed by Lokesh ji -  न चात्माश्रयः; भेदस्य स्वभेदकत्ववदुपपत्तेः, स्वाभाविकस्यापि घटरूपस्य तत्प्रागभावस्य च निवृत्तिदर्शनात् ॥

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

Thanks Sudhanshu ji, for the response. 

Since Avidya/Ajnana is admitted to be anAdi (प्रकृतिं पुरुषं चैव विद्ध्यनादी उभावपि । BG 13.19), there cannot be AtmAshraya doSha since no cause needs to be stated for something that is anAdi (aadi = kAraNam). It is also to be noted that this anAdi avidyA cannot also be admitted to be absolutely real, satyam, like Brahman, since in such a case, avidyA can never be annihilated. As a result, samsara will never end. The BG says: jnanena tu tadajnAnam nAshitam..Hence jnAna nivartyatvam is admitted for ajnAna (and its effects) and thus it is not absolutely real. The position that it is mithyA alone stays without any defect.   

warm regards

subbu 

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDYrtyOAnma%2BsF1oKP8iq3oU5vS3SDpnPfqLpzBC9DxJw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji,

 

Since Avidya/Ajnana is admitted to be anAdi (प्रकृतिं पुरुषं चैव विद्ध्यनादी उभावपि । BG 13.19), there cannot be AtmAshraya doSha since no cause needs to be stated for something that is anAdi (aadi = kAraNam). It is also to be noted that this anAdi avidyA cannot also be admitted to be absolutely real, satyam, like Brahman, since in such a case, avidyA can never be annihilated. As a result, samsara will never end. The BG says: jnanena tu tadajnAnam nAshitam..Hence jnAna nivartyatvam is admitted for ajnAna (and its effects) and thus it is not absolutely real. The position that it is mithyA alone stays without any defect.   

Very well summarised.

Regards.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

This may not be entirely acceptable but I think of the logical dosha possibility not as a flaw to eliminate but as indication of avidya’s anirvachaniyatvam. Below was posted a few months back.

Quote

regarding the controversy of whether avidya = adhyasa. My thinking on this (which I wrote in the four-bhavas file) is that the problem is logically intractable which is why avidya is anirvachaniya.

The standpoint in which namarupa is affirmed as being not asat is the same in which avidya is affirmed as the cause - as the locus (bija) of the namarupa-knowledge and of the iccha-kriya that projects creation. But that doesn't mean avidya stands apart from Brahman in some sankhya sense doing the projection onto Brahman; it is not sat. Avidya is not only coeval to the dream but has 'existence' as cause only within the dream. Therefore it is itself realized as a limiting adjunct that is superimposed/conditioned onto Brahman, because Brahman is the sole adhishtanam for All identified entities. Thus the identification of avidya (as the cause for superimposition) is non-different from the identification of Brahman as the Ishvara who (by His maya-shakti) imagines/superimposes the All (including the coeval avidya). And the identification of Brahman as Ishvara is in turn a superimposition, hence due to avidya!

This is a circularity or infinite regress conundrum which points to: Avidya=namarupa-bija=jnana-iccha-kriya-shakti=Maya is anirvachaniya, neither sat nor asat.

Unquote

thollmelukaalkizhu 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2yTLX9tJqCjeBu8jhb%2BZR-jzoo8bkVuofJ9DsneBb1yA%40mail.gmail.com.

[लोकेश]

Sudhanshu Ji

> ajnAna is swa-para-nirvAhaka and hence ajnAna is also accepted as ajnAna-kalpita.

I do not find it convincing. I don't see the justification behind labeling ajnAna as sva-kalpita (arising out of its own) or svanirvahaka (accomplishing itself without anything external). How can something arise out of it's own?

[लोकेश]

It appears even more contradictory to assert that avidyā not only arises from itself but also has no existence and yet somehow appears. These two claims (1. avidyā arises from itself, 2. avidyā has no existence) cannot coexist. Either you must accept that avidyā arises because it has a real existence, or you must concede that avidyā is entirely non-existent, in which case its existence, whether illusory or real, along with its effects, including its apparent manifestation, becomes logically impossible.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Lokesh ji.

// I don't see the justification behind labeling ajnAna as sva-kalpita (arising out of its own)//

The very fact that ajnAna is sublated by jnAna implies that it is ajnAna-kalpita. That was clearly mentioned in "my understanding".

The anumAna is as under: अज्ञानम् अज्ञानकल्पितम्, ज्ञान-निवर्त्त्यत्वात्, रज्जुसर्पवत्.

//or svanirvahaka (accomplishing itself without anything external)//

The anumAna above proves without a doubt that ajnAna is ajnAna-kalpita. Once it is shown by anumAna, one has no option but to accept the swa-nirvAhakatA of ajnAna.

// How can something arise out of it's own?//

Something which never existed in three points of time, and merely appears to exist -- cannot be refuted through such objection. If something were really arising, this could have been an objection. It is all an illusion. 

//It appears even more contradictory to assert that avidyā not only arises from itself but also has no existence and yet somehow appears.//

The appearance of avidyA is postulated from the frame of reference of avidyA. The appearance of avidyA is negated from the frame of reference of substratum.

The existence of avidyA is negated from both frames of reference.

//These two claims (1. avidyā arises from itself, 2. avidyā has no existence) cannot coexist.//

If the "arising" of avidyA is avidyA-kalpita, it can make sense. All transactions of avidyA and avidyA-kArya, their arising/sustenance/dissolution are all avidyA-kalpita. Hence, there is no incongruity. 

//Either you must accept that avidyā arises because it has a real existence, or you must concede that avidyā is entirely non-existent, in which case its existence, whether illusory or real, along with its effects, including its apparent manifestation, becomes logically impossible.//

The real existence of avidyA is denied on account of its negatability.

The absolute-non-existence of the type of horns of hare of avidyA is denied on account of its perceptibility. 

The illusoriness of avidyA, i.e. non-existence coupled with appearance, is upheld on account of anumAna wherein hetu is drishyatva, jaDatva, parichchhinnatva and drishTAnta is rajju-sarpa.

Once you appreciate the illusoriness of avidyA, it will make sense. If you think of some "real" arising from some "real" entity, you will not appreciate illusion.

In any case, the example of bheda has already been provided. 

So, by the force of anumAna adduced, one has to admit the ajnAna-kalpitatvam of ajnAna and hence swa-nirvAhakatA thereof.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Dec 26, 2024 at 4:53 PM लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sudhanshu Ji

> ajnAna is swa-para-nirvAhaka and hence ajnAna is also accepted as ajnAna-kalpita.

I do not find it convincing. I don't see the justification behind labeling ajnAna as sva-kalpita (arising out of its own) or svanirvahaka (accomplishing itself without anything external). How can something arise out of it's own?

In the Bh.Gita is this verse:

न कर्तृत्वं न कर्माणि लोकस्य सृजति प्रभुः ।
न कर्मफलसंयोगं स्वभावस्तु प्रवर्तते ॥ १४ ॥   

For the word 'svabhAva' Shankara comments:  

यदि किञ्चिदपि स्वतः न करोति न कारयति च देही, कः तर्हि कुर्वन् कारयंश्च प्रवर्तते इति, उच्यते — स्वभावस्तु स्वो भावः स्वभावः अविद्यालक्षणा प्रकृतिः माया प्रवर्तते ‘दैवी हि’ (भ. गी. ७ । १४) इत्यादिना वक्ष्यमाणा ॥ १४ ॥

If the Jiva / Atman does not do or get done anything, who indeed does all this? The reply is: svabhAva - avidyalakshana prakriti maayaa.

For 'svah' we have this meaning:

स तस्य स्वो भावः प्रकृतिनियतत्वादकृतकः U. 6. 14.    not created.

—स्व-ज, अस्, आ, अम्,
self-produced, self-born, produced in or by one's
self

For भावः   Apte:

20 Birth.

शब्दकल्पद्रुमः

स्वयंभुवा, स्त्री, (स्वयम्भवतीति । भू + कः ।टाप् ।) धूम्रपत्रा । इति राजनिर्घण्टः ॥ 

Capeller Eng  

स्वयंभू॑ a. self-existent

m. E. of Brahman.

 Benfey  

स्वयंभू स्वयंभू, i. e. स्वयम्-भू-
(existing by himself, not created), m.

Maya/avidya/prakriti is admitted to be without anything 'causing' it. But it has no existence of its own and is dependent on Brahman.

Thus, we have ample evidence in the shaastra itself for the sva-bhAva concept, applicable for Maayaa. 

regards

subbu  

  

On Thu, Dec 26, 2024 at 1:44 PM लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That is to say, this avidyA merely appears in AtmA, while it is not actually there.

You say the world appears though it doesn't exist because of avidya. Now if avidya too just appears but doesn't actually exist, why does avidya appear? Does it appear because of another avidya? If yes, this leads to infinite regress and the assertion that world appears because of avidya, is rendered useless for the same avidya is non-existent.

--

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2BksRZcO7hna0jXXk7oM4cTfrUd7-sDAeKmL1RStv%3DT3qbDzQA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Loukika "physics" example: 

Water is water and earth is earth, different entities, in pratyaksha standpoint. But water => Energy <= earth in "all" standpoints. If someone says, "No there is water there which is different from energy", that is ignorance.

Energy is satya here but the pratyaksha duality (water vs earth) is mithya. And with reference to the knowledge of non-dual Energy adhishtanam, the duality implied in the pratyaksha standpoint is equivalent to adhyasa - if you accept that as real, then you are ignorant of the reality.

Similarly, 

avidya and its effect jagat are real in the cognition/vyavaharika standpoint. But shastra pramana tells us that Nirguna Brahman is satya. If we accept the shastra, then we will conclude that the "duality" shown by pratyaksha is actually adhyasa (not its essential reality) from adhishtanam standpoint and mithya from our standpoint (when we include shastra as well).

thollmelukaalkizhu

--

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2BksRZdJ1qNWyXJ%2Bw5%2B5gWp7CyO%3DOK-CN0CLK_iut3eHyzXUuw%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Just to add this:

Apte  

स्व [sva], pron. with and without a. ज a. self-born. Monier Williams: self-born. subbu

[लोकेश]

Sudhanshu Ji

I'm unable to confirm the logical validity of your points. They seem as evading and word-trickery. Lets try to keep it as simple as possible. The example of snake-rope don't seem to match here as the snake is previously known by a person while avidya is beeging the question of it's own existence before it can be mistaken in Brahman like snake in a rope.

Kindly answer a simple question - If avidya is non-existent then what is it that appears to manifest when you say "avidyA merely appears in AtmA, while it is not actually there".

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Lokesh ji.

I'm unable to confirm the logical validity of your points. They seem as evading and word-trickery.

It is unfortunate that a valid anumAna-pramANa "अज्ञानम् अज्ञानकल्पितम्, ज्ञान-निवर्त्त्यत्वात्, रज्जुसर्पवत्" is being rejected, without a counter-argument, and termed as "evading and word-trickery". 

You have to analyze: 1. Is rajju-sarpa ajnAna-kalpita? 2. Is rajju-sarpa jnAna-nivartya? 3. Is it not a fact that wherever there is jnAna-nivartyatva, there is ajnAna-kalpitatva?

If you can answer these three questions, then you can appreciate the anumAna.

 

Lets try to keep it as simple as possible.

I don't know how to make it easier to understand any further. It is quite simple unless we are ready to ignore our own experience.

The example of snake-rope don't seem to match here as the snake is previously known by a person while avidya is beeging the question of it's own existence before it can be mistaken in Brahman like snake in a rope.

On the contrary, avidyA is known by one and all. It is sAkshi-bhAsya and an object of experience at all time. The example of sAmAnyatah sAkshi-pratyaksha is "aham ajnah". The example of visheshatah sAkshi-pratyaksha is "tvaduktam artham aham na jAnAmi", and saushupta-sAkshi-pratyaksha in the form of "sukham aham aswapsam, na kinchit avedisham".

So, your assertion is incorrect as perceptibility is common to rajju-sarpa and avidyA and hence the anumAna adduced before works perfectly.

Kindly answer a simple question - If avidya is non-existent then what is it that appears to manifest when you say "avidyA merely appears in AtmA, while it is not actually there".

It is the avidyA which appears to manifest. Just as the non-existent rajju-sarpa appears to exist but does not exist, similarly non-existent avidyA appears to exist but does not exist.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[लोकेश]

Subrahmanian Ji

You might be explaining the concepts as intended by tradition. I'm not denying that. I'm asking about logic validity of what you are presenting.

Do you present them before understanding them yourself or just conveying what the traditional says without understanding?

In your reply, you have mentioned three different behaviours of avidya. They are all mutually contradictory -

1. Avidya is dependent on Brahman.

2. Avidya exists by its own (svabhava)

3. Avidya doesn't exist at all.

[लोकेश]

Sudhanshu Ji

> It is the avidyA which appears to manifest. Just as the non-existent rajju-sarpa appears to exist but does not exist, similarly non-existent avidyA appears to exist but does not exist.

I don't think that manifestation of snake in rope is equivalent to avidya manifesting in mind because snake *appears* to manifest where as avidya doesn't just appear to manifest but *actually* manifests in mind. Therefore unlike snake, avidya cannot be said to be non-existent because avidya do manifests in mind.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Lokesh ji.

I don't think that manifestation of snake in rope is equivalent to avidya manifesting in mind because snake *appears* to manifest where as avidya doesn't just appear to manifest but *actually* manifests in mind. Therefore unlike snake, avidya cannot be said to be non-existent because avidya do manifests in mind.

There is equivalence between rajju-sarpa and avidyA in so far as drishyatva/jnAna-nivartyatva is concerned. That was the main point. Drishyatva/jnAna-nivartyatva being common in both and ajnAna-kalpitatvam being the admitted property of rajju-sarpa, the anumAna works faultlessly to give rise to anumiti-pramA describing ajnAna as ajnAna-kalpita.

avidyA does not manifest in mind. Mind itself is a product of avidyA. The pratyaksha of avidyA is by sAkshI. This is held due to,inter alia, the recollection after waking - I did not know anything. In sushupti, there is no mind and yet there is anubhava of ajnAna. 

Hence, your statement linking manifestation of avidyA in mind, is downright against universal experience.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Dec 26, 2024 at 9:04 PM लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subrahmanian Ji

You might be explaining the concepts as intended by tradition. I'm not denying that. I'm asking about logic validity of what you are presenting.

Lokesh ji,

Actually these things are for the first time looked at by anyone only when one is exposed to tradition. For someone completely unexposed to tradition the question about samsara, moksha, avidya, etc. are simply not there at all.  

 

Do you present them before understanding them yourself or just conveying what the traditional says without understanding?

Naturally, when one is exposed to tradition, one makes an attempt to understand correctly what it teaches on those topics.  

In your reply, you have mentioned three different behaviours of avidya. They are all mutually contradictory -

1. Avidya is dependent on Brahman.

2. Avidya exists by its own (svabhava)

3. Avidya doesn't exist at all.

 I don't see any contradiction.   Avidya can be there only for a sentient entity and Brahman is specified so here, based on the Brihadaranyaka mantra 1.4.10 where occurs the statement: Even before realizing 'I am Brahman', It was Brahman.  It realized itself to be Brahman and shed its finittude ('gained' sarvAtmabhAva).  That shows Brahman had avidya about its own nature and that shAstra had to be resorted to in order to eradicate it.  Hence avidya is dependent on Brahman. This is from the jiva angle.  From the Ishwara angle, shAstra posits avidya/maya/prakriti with the sole objective of accounting for the world-appearance.  It explains Ishwara to press maya into service to create, etc. the world. 

For Ishwara to use prakriti, it has to be there.  Ishwara does not create prakriti/avidya/maya.  Hence shastra says it is anAdi, uncreated.  But it comes to an end when realization of one's true nature is had.  The last verse of the Bh.Gita 13th chapter is about this. Upon realization of Aham Brahmasmi, for that person, avidya/maya/prakriti 'was not, is not and will not be.' 

There is no contradiction in this.  When the shAstra is properly studied, with the aid of logic, all these concepts can be appreciated. 

warm regards

subbu 

On Thu, Dec 26, 2024, 8:22 PM लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sudhanshu Ji

I'm unable to confirm the logical validity of your points. They seem as evading and word-trickery. Lets try to keep it as simple as possible. The example of snake-rope don't seem to match here as the snake is previously known by a person while avidya is beeging the question of it's own existence before it can be mistaken in Brahman like snake in a rope.

Kindly answer a simple question - If avidya is non-existent then what is it that appears to manifest when you say "avidyA merely appears in AtmA, while it is not actually there".

On Thu, Dec 26, 2024, 4:53 PM लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

It appears even more contradictory to assert that avidyā not only arises from itself but also has no existence and yet somehow appears. These two claims (1. avidyā arises from itself, 2. avidyā has no existence) cannot coexist. Either you must accept that avidyā arises because it has a real existence, or you must concede that avidyā is entirely non-existent, in which case its existence, whether illusory or real, along with its effects, including its apparent manifestation, becomes logically impossible.

On Thu, Dec 26, 2024 at 4:37 PM लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sudhanshu Ji

> ajnAna is swa-para-nirvAhaka and hence ajnAna is also accepted as ajnAna-kalpita.

I do not find it convincing. I don't see the justification behind labeling ajnAna as sva-kalpita (arising out of its own) or svanirvahaka (accomplishing itself without anything external). How can something arise out of it's own?

On Thu, Dec 26, 2024 at 1:44 PM लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That is to say, this avidyA merely appears in AtmA, while it is not actually there.

You say the world appears though it doesn't exist because of avidya. Now if avidya too just appears but doesn't actually exist, why does avidya appear? Does it appear because of another avidya? If yes, this leads to infinite regress and the assertion that world appears because of avidya, is rendered useless for the same avidya is non-existent.

--

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2BksRZfWzpJu1HxRZPciuiPRY0aKCAUAK3s5L6DZinigvWeZ0A%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

avidya and its effect jagat are real in the cognition/vyavaharika standpoint. But shastra pramana tells us that Nirguna Brahman is satya. If we accept the shastra, then we will conclude that the "duality" shown by pratyaksha is actually adhyasa (not its essential reality) from adhishtanam standpoint and mithya from our standpoint (when we include shastra as well).

I want to clarify my understanding. Avidya/Maya/Ishvara is also known properly through Shastra pramana where the shastra completes our Pratyaksha-aligned knowledge, by incorporating and teaching the knowledge of Brahman as it reflects/projects within the vyavaharika standpoint. But the shastra then also teaches the knowledge of “unconditioned” Nirguna Brahman taking which into consideration, we realize avidya-jagat pair is mithya/adhyasa as said above.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

[लोकेश]

Sudhanshu Ji

> avidyA does not manifest in mind. Mind itself is a product of avidyA.

What an absurd statement!

You suggested that avidya appears to manifest and yet is non existent. Now you are saying that mind itself where avidya "appears" to manifest (while not manifesting in reality) is also a product of avidya. 

So avidya that itself is non existent, "produces" mind, and then within mind the avidya "appears" to manifest. Does that make sense?

It seems like you are evading the difficult questions pertaining to advaita such as appearance of world in one homogeneous Brahman (without any acceptance of variety) by inducing absurd properties on avidya. 

The avidya that I know of, from day to day life, is that it simply is ignorance about something and it really exists (not materially ofcourse). It doesn't produce mind but is manifested in mind. It doesn't appear to manifest but manifests actually.

You have a lot of work to do in explaining how do I go from ignorance that I know of, to the grand avidya that doesn't exists, doesn't manifests in mind, and yet produces the mind and appears to manifest there.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Lokesh ji.

> avidyA does not manifest in mind. Mind itself is a product of avidyA.

What an absurd statement!

There is nothing absurd in it. Entire anAtmA is avidyA-prasUta. Mind, being anAtmA, is avidyA-prasUta too.

You suggested that avidya appears to manifest and yet is non existent. Now you are saying that mind itself where avidya "appears" to manifest (while not manifesting in reality) is also a product of avidya. 

You have assumed, without any logical basis, that avidyA appears to manifest in mind. I had demonstrated that avidyA appears in sushupti, when there is no mind. Perception of avidyA during sushupti is proof that avidyA does not appear in mind.

So avidya that itself is non existent, "produces" mind, and then within mind the avidya "appears" to manifest. Does that make sense?

Who has told you that avidyA appears to manifest within mind? 

It seems like you are evading the difficult questions pertaining to advaita such as appearance of world in one homogeneous Brahman (without any acceptance of variety) by inducing absurd properties on avidya. 

I am answering each and every question raised by you. Where is the question of evading "difficult questions". 

Appearance of the world in singular homogeneous Brahman cannot be explained without an illusory avidyA. Illusion means perception without existence. There are many examples in the world in the form of rajju-sarpa. 

What appears to you as "absurd" properties of avidyA? You have some flawed presumptions like avidyA manifesting within mind.

The avidya that I know of, from day to day life, is that it simply is ignorance about something and it really exists (not materially ofcourse). It doesn't produce mind but is manifested in mind. It doesn't appear to manifest but manifests actually. You have a lot of work to do in explaining how do I go from ignorance that I know of, to the grand avidya that doesn't exists, doesn't manifests in mind, and yet produces the mind and appears to manifest there.

You are scratching at the surface. Go deeper and you can appreciate it. Ignorance is never about anAtmA, it is always about AtmA. That which is a product of avidyA cannot be a vishaya of avidyA. "ignorance about something" and "grand avidyA" are not two different avidyA sir. So, it is not that I have to go from here to there and do a "lot of work" to explain.

Both table-ajnAna and ajnAna are sAkshi-bhAsya-ajnAna. Table ajnAna is ajnAna with AtmA as vishaya and table as avachchhedaka. Just as table is adhyasta in AtmA, similarly ajnAna-vishayatA is also adhyasta in AtmA. Due to eka-Ashrayatva-sambandha, like iron burns, one gets the cognition - table is unknown.

Are you interested in raising objections against advaita? If yes, then be sincere. Go through advaita texts, understand them and then put forth your objections.

Raising objections without having studied displays a causal attitude. Your objections and inability to understand the answers provided demonstrate shallow study.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

 

--

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2BksRZfSUXi3%3DPdTUzDv_0Yvt1NNaKJ-uZJrnd2Sx8PeyLpAfA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com

[लोकेश]

Sudhanshu Ji

> Who has told you that avidyA appears to manifest within mind? 

I assumed it because it is common sense. If you believe otherwise, kindly explain what you mean by "avidya appearing to manifest". To whom does it appear? Can it appear to a stone with no mind but the same Atman as we do?

> I am answering each and every question raised by you. Where is the question of evading "difficult questions". 

In that case, I appreciate that and take my words back.

However, in light of what you said below -

> Raising objections without having studied displays a causal attitude. Your objections and inability to understand the answers provided demonstrate shallow study.

You seem to be using a common tactic people generally use to dissuade others from asking questions. I've come across it a lot many times - you haven't studied enough, you haven't studied from bonafide teachers, you haven't understood authentic Advaita Vedanta, you don't show the willingness to learn, you keep arguing, you keep putting dry reasoning, so on and so forth. 

[लोकेश]

Subrahmanian Ji

> There is no contradiction in this.  When the shAstra is properly studied, with the aid of logic, all these concepts can be appreciated. 

Are you convinced that there's no contradiction in this or is this belief coming from tradition, that when the sastras are properly studied one finds no contradiction?

For Dvaitins, from their point of view there's no contradiction when their sastras are studied properly while from Advaitins' point of view, it's full of contradictions. The same goes the other way.

> That shows Brahman had avidya about its own nature and that shAstra had to be resorted to in order to eradicate it.

When it's not there in the first place, why do we need to resort to sastra to eradicate it? And what do we eradicate? That which doesn't exist? How can we eradicate something that, which doesn't exist in the first place? Do we eradicate something that depends on Brahman? How can we eradicate something that depends on Brahman without eradicating Brahman itself? Or do we eradicate something that exists by its own? How can we eradicate something that exists on its own? From whatever point of view you look at, it is hard to make sense of it.

> This is from the jiva angle.

How can we talk of jiva angle, when Jiva himself is a product of avidya and not established. You are undergoing circular reasoning. To talk about Jiva, you first need an avidya. However, to talk about avidya you are assuming a Jiva. 

> Hence shastra says it is anAdi, uncreated.  But it comes to an end when realization of one's true nature is had.

This is impossible. Something that is uncreated, how can it come to an end? Can a barren woman's child come to an end that is not even created?

Now if you say that it comes to an end from Jiva point of view, we are back to circular reasoning.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Lokesh ji,

 

I assumed it because it is common sense. If you believe otherwise, kindly explain what you mean by "avidya appearing to manifest". To whom does it appear? Can it appear to a stone with no mind but the same Atman as we do?

Analyse your assumption. I told you the illustration of sushupti. You did not pay any attention.

//kindly explain what you mean by "avidya appearing to manifest".//

It means that there is pratyaksha of avidyA.

 //To whom does it appear?//

To the sAkshI. And not to the pramAtA. sAkshI = avidyA-upahita-chaitanya, pramAtA = buddhi-pratibimbita-chaitanya.

You seem to be using a common tactic people generally use to dissuade others from asking questions.

I don't need any tactic sir. All your questions have been answered.

 

I've come across it a lot many times - you haven't studied enough, you haven't studied from bonafide teachers, you haven't understood authentic Advaita Vedanta, you don't show the willingness to learn, you keep arguing, you keep putting dry reasoning, so on and so forth. 

As an example thereof, I have provided you an anumAna, which you are unable to respond to and yet you did not investigate that anumAna further. What would you gather from such approach about the sincerity of the enquirer?

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

 

[लोकेश]

Sudhanshu Ji

> It means that there is pratyaksha of avidyA.

> To the sAkshI. And not to the pramAtA. sAkshI = avidyA-upahita-chaitanya, pramAtA = buddhi-pratibimbita-chaitanya.

I'm unable to understand this cryptic language of yours. Could you explain it in simple words without alluding to more and more complex terminologies?

> Analyse your assumption. I told you the illustration of sushupti. You did not pay any attention.

I read that and knowingly ignored it to avoid distracting from the current topic. If you feel it is essential, then let's talk about it.

> Perception of avidyA during sushupti is proof that avidyA does not appear in mind.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I don't think we perceive anything in sushupti. For perception, you need a waking mind. 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Lokesh ji.

> To the sAkshI. And not to the pramAtA. sAkshI = avidyA-upahita-chaitanya, pramAtA = buddhi-pratibimbita-chaitanya.

I'm unable to understand this cryptic language of yours. Could you explain it in simple words without alluding to more and more complex terminologies?

There is pratyaksha of avidyA. Means, there is perception of avidyA. Since the mind is a product of avidyA, it is not cognised by pramAtA, which is defined as buddhi-pratibimbita-chaitanya. The pratyaksha of avidyA is by sAkshI, which is defined as avidyA-upahita-chaitanya.

What is it here that you don't understand? If you want to understand the meaning of upAdhi, please refer to this beautiful explanation: https://www.advaitasiddhi.com/blog/upadhi-upalakshana-visheshana

If you want to understand difference between sAkshI and pramAtA, refer to: https://sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com/2023/05/14/concept-of-sakshi-and-pramata-in-advaita-vedanta/

 

> Analyse your assumption. I told you the illustration of sushupti. You did not pay any attention.

I read that and knowingly ignored it to avoid distracting from the current topic. If you feel it is essential, then let's talk about it.

All concepts are inter-related. You "knowingly ignored" a vital piece of information without understanding its importance and yet attributed "dissuading tactics". Unfortunate! 

 

> Perception of avidyA during sushupti is proof that avidyA does not appear in mind.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I don't think we perceive anything in sushupti. For perception, you need a waking mind. 

There is perception of avidyA in sushupti. That is evident from subsequent recollection in the form of "I did not know then". Without experience, there is no recollection. The anubhava "I did not know then" shows that the object of experience was ignorance.

That there is no mind in sushupti is accepted by one and all. Still, there is anubhava then, is evident from subsequent recollection. Hence, it is clear that ignorance is perceived in sushupti without any requirement of "waking mind".

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

[Suresh Balaraman]

Avidya means something like optical illusion.Say like a mirage....it exists but shastras say it differently....my 2 cents 🙏

On Thu, Dec 26, 2024, 4:06 AM लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That is to say, this avidyA merely appears in AtmA, while it is not actually there.

You say the world appears though it doesn't exist because of avidya. Now if avidya too just appears but doesn't actually exist, why does avidya appear? Does it appear because of another avidya? If yes, this leads to infinite regress and the assertion that world appears because of avidya, is rendered useless for the same avidya is non-existent.

--

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2BksRZeGX5x1aPR6B_n%2BnW1gXC%2B6KyHDQQTLgCAf9cPLq%2BdPmw%40mail.gmail.com.

[लोकेश]

Sudhanshu Ji

Thank you for the explanation. I will go through the new terminologies of saksi, pramata, etc and get back to you.

> There is perception of avidyA in sushupti. That is evident from subsequent recollection in the form of "I did not know then". Without experience, there is no recollection. The anubhava "I did not know then" shows that the object of experience was ignorance.

I don't think we can say that there's experience in sushupti. A person who wakes up, can recollect what happened before they slept but cannot remember anything post sushupti.

If I close my eyes, I simply would stop receiving the visual world. That doesn't mean that I have no eyes or that I'm seeing the ignorance. Similarly when mind shuts down, we stop receiving the world and any thought about it. We have no idea of ourselves, our body or the time. Only when we wake up, we start inferring how much time it has passed, we might feel remorse if we overslept and so on. None of our anubhava after waking up requires any ignorance that we must perceive during sleep. Your point that we perceive ignorance during sushupti is not established.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Lokesh ji.

Thank you for the explanation. I will go through the new terminologies of saksi, pramata, etc and get back to you.

You are welcome.

I don't think we can say that there's experience in sushupti. A person who wakes up, can recollect what happened before they slept but cannot remember anything post sushupti.

If I close my eyes, I simply would stop receiving the visual world. That doesn't mean that I have no eyes or that I'm seeing the ignorance. Similarly when mind shuts down, we stop receiving the world and any thought about it.

How do you know that mind shuts down? You yourself said - "but cannot remember anything post sushupti". So, how do you know that mind shuts down in sushupti? Please apply mind and write after due deliberation.

We have no idea of ourselves, our body or the time. Only when we wake up, we start inferring how much time it has passed, we might feel remorse if we overslept and so on.

But this anumAna, which states that there was a time-period between when I slept and when I woke up, tells nothing about the attributes of the period. It does not and cannot tell that there was sushupti during this time. It can only say that there was a time-period on account of being उदय-अस्त-मय like सम्प्रतिपन्न-उदय-अस्त-मय. That this time-period was सुषुप्ति-अधिकरणीभूत-काल cannot be proved. 

None of our anubhava after waking up requires any ignorance that we must perceive during sleep.

Without bhAvarUpa ajnAna perceived during ajnAna as hetu, no anumAna can work. You can try presenting an anumAna devoid of bhAvarUpa ajnAna. That will be an erroneous anumAna and I can demonstrate that as has already been done by sampradAya-vit AchAryAs.

Your point that we perceive ignorance during sushupti is not established.

I have merely stated the siddhAnta. I have not given any explanation thereof. 

You need to examine the mechanics of arising of the knowledge - I did not know then. When you do that, you will unfailingly arrive at bhAvarUpa ajnAna. Try!!

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[लोकेश]

Sudhanshu Ji

> How do you know that mind shuts down? You yourself said - "but cannot remember anything post sushupti". So, how do you know that mind shuts down in sushupti? Please apply mind and write after due deliberation.

I do not know what you are trying to get at. The mind shuts down because no thoughts occur in sushupti. Only when we wake we realize that we were in sushupti not before. I don't understand how it contradicts my assertion that we cannot remember anything post sushupti.

> But this anumAna, which states that there was a time-period between when I slept and when I woke up, tells nothing about the attributes of the period.

Why not? If you went to sleep miserable and woke up relieved, it tells about the attribute of the period. 

> It does not and cannot tell that there was sushupti during this time.

I don't understand how that can be. 

> It can only say that there was a time-period on account of being उदय-अस्त-मय like सम्प्रतिपन्न-उदय-अस्त-मय. That this time-period was सुषुप्ति-अधिकरणीभूत-काल cannot be proved. 

I don't know what that means.

> Without bhAvarUpa ajnAna perceived during ajnAna as hetu, no anumAna can work. You can try presenting an anumAna devoid of bhAvarUpa ajnAna. That will be an erroneous anumAna and I can demonstrate that as has already been done by sampradAya-vit AchAryAs.

Nor this.

> I have merely stated the siddhAnta. I have not given any explanation thereof. 

Kindly provide the explanation.

> You need to examine the mechanics of arising of the knowledge - I did not know then. When you do that, you will unfailingly arrive at bhAvarUpa ajnAna. Try!!

I do not know what you are talking about. "I did not know then" is clearly a thought arising in this period not before. It doesn't prove that you experienced absence of something. You only experience when I ask you now. For example, do you experience there's no elephant in your room? No, right? Did you experience the absence of an elephant in your mind before I put that question? No, right? Similarly given that you did not experience the world during your sleep, doesn't imply that you experienced the absence of the world.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 1:00 PM लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subrahmanian Ji

> There is no contradiction in this.  When the shAstra is properly studied, with the aid of logic, all these concepts can be appreciated. 

Are you convinced that there's no contradiction in this or is this belief coming from tradition, that when the sastras are properly studied one finds no contradiction?

For Dvaitins, from their point of view there's no contradiction when their sastras are studied properly while from Advaitins' point of view, it's full of contradictions. The same goes the other way.

Atman, Brahman, Maya, Avidya, etc. are common to all schools. Each school has presented these concepts free of contradictions from their point of view . If anyone thinks there are contradictions in the other school, the topic is debated, discussed and replies given.  This happens in all schools.  

> That shows Brahman had avidya about its own nature and that shAstra had to be resorted to in order to eradicate it.

When it's not there in the first place, why do we need to resort to sastra to eradicate it? And what do we eradicate? That which doesn't exist? How can we eradicate something that, which doesn't exist in the first place? Do we eradicate something that depends on Brahman? How can we eradicate something that depends on Brahman without eradicating Brahman itself? Or do we eradicate something that exists by its own? How can we eradicate something that exists on its own? From whatever point of view you look at, it is hard to make sense of it.

> This is from the jiva angle.

How can we talk of jiva angle, when Jiva himself is a product of avidya and not established. You are undergoing circular reasoning. To talk about Jiva, you first need an avidya. However, to talk about avidya you are assuming a Jiva. 

> Hence shastra says it is anAdi, uncreated.  But it comes to an end when realization of one's true nature is had.

This is impossible. Something that is uncreated, how can it come to an end? Can a barren woman's child come to an end that is not even created?

Now if you say that it comes to an end from Jiva point of view, we are back to circular reasoning.

All the above questions only show that the basics of Vedanta are not understood properly. The concepts of Brahman, jiva, Ishwara, adhyasa (bhrama), avidya, moksha, etc. are not grasped unless one applies oneself to systematic study.  A discussion group like this is not a substitute for a regular course, classes conducted by a competent teacher. 

regards

subbu

[लोकेश]

A correction in my last reply -

> For example, do you experience there's no elephant in your room? No, right?

For example, do you experience/infer there's no elephant in your room? Yes, right?

[लोकेश]

Subrahmanian Ji

> All the above questions only show that the basics of Vedanta are not understood properly.

Questions are not necessarily a mark of a lack of understanding.

> A discussion group like this is not a substitute for a regular course, classes conducted by a competent teacher. 

I'm not claiming it to be.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Lokesh ji.

 

I do not know what you are trying to get at. The mind shuts down because no thoughts occur in sushupti. Only when we wake we realize that we were in sushupti not before. I don't understand how it contradicts my assertion that we cannot remember anything post sushupti.

How do you know that there were no thoughts in sushupti? You can only talk about now, after waking up. How do you know that prior to waking up, there were no thoughts.

I asked you how do you know now, that mind was shut down a while back, which you are claiming to be sushupti. You answering - because no thoughts occur in sushupti. 

Question remains the same - how do you know that there were no thoughts? 

> But this anumAna, which states that there was a time-period between when I slept and when I woke up, tells nothing about the attributes of the period.

Why not? If you went to sleep miserable and woke up relieved, it tells about the attribute of the period. 

That does not imply that there were no thoughts or that mind was shut down. Indriya-prasAda happens in many other periods. It does not prove that the time-period was of sushupti.

 

> It does not and cannot tell that there was sushupti during this time.

I don't understand how that can be. 

Indriya-prasAda is not an exclusive result of sushupti. 

 

> It can only say that there was a time-period on account of being उदय-अस्त-मय like सम्प्रतिपन्न-उदय-अस्त-मय. That this time-period was सुषुप्ति-अधिकरणीभूत-काल cannot be proved. 

I don't know what that means.

Then please make effort to understand.

 

> Without bhAvarUpa ajnAna perceived during ajnAna as hetu, no anumAna can work. You can try presenting an anumAna devoid of bhAvarUpa ajnAna. That will be an erroneous anumAna and I can demonstrate that as has already been done by sampradAya-vit AchAryAs.

Nor this.

Make an effort to understand.

> I have merely stated the siddhAnta. I have not given any explanation thereof. 

Kindly provide the explanation.

The recollection post-waking is impossible without anubhava in sushupti. Recollection is always preceded by anubhava. Recollection implies awakening of samskAra which is formed due to jnAna-nAsha. The recollection shows ignorance in sushupti was qualified by all vishaya. na-knichid-avedisham. Hence, bhAvarUpa-ajnAna was experienced by sAkshI during sushupti, through ajnAna-vritti. Such jnAna-nAsha leads to samskAra which in turn leads to smriti after waking.

 

I do not know what you are talking about. "I did not know then" is clearly a thought arising in this period not before. It doesn't prove that you experienced absence of something.

Sir, I have not claimed that one experiences absence of something. On the contrary, I asserted that one experiences bhAvarUpa-ajnAna.

 

You only experience when I ask you now.

No. I recollect and answer.

 

For example, do you experience there's no elephant in your room? No, right? Did you experience the absence of an elephant in your mind before I put that question? No, right? Similarly given that you did not experience the world during your sleep, doesn't imply that you experienced the absence of the world.

 First, you need to understand what I am talking about. I did not say that we experience absence-of-world in sushupti. So, your statement is akANDa-tAnDava. 

For example, do you experience/infer there's no elephant in your room? Yes, right?

Sir, understanding elephant-abhAva in the room is impossible without bhAvarUpa-ajnAna with elephant as the avachchhedaka. 

Consider this. How do we understand elephant-abhAva? By elephant-upalabdhi-abhAva. Right?

And how do we understand elephant-upalabdhi-abhAva? By elephant-upalabdhi-upalabdhi-abhAva??

And that in turn by elephant-upalabdhi-upalabdhi-upalabdhi-abhAva???

Apply mind and understand how you understand elephant-abhAva. Share your understanding as to how you know elephant-abhAva in the room.

All topics are inter-related. If you leave anything in my response, it would be an indicator of insincerity. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

 

[लोकेश]

Sudhanshu Ji

> How do you know that there were no thoughts in sushupti? You can only talk about now, after waking up. How do you know that prior to waking up, there were no thoughts.

Because of lack of samskaras. When we experience something samskaras are formed in mind. Through these samkaras we remember our past experiences.

> Indriya-prasAda is not an exclusive result of sushupti. 

What do you mean by indriya-prasada?

> The recollection post-waking is impossible without anubhava in sushupti. Recollection is always preceded by anubhava.

Not true. If I ask you if you were in Amazon rainforest last night, you can simply say "no" without having explicitly experienced your absence in Amazon last night, by just recalling that you went to bed in your home and wake up in your home, ruling out the possibility that you went to Amazon at night.  

> Recollection implies awakening of samskAra which is formed due to jnAna-nAsha. The recollection shows ignorance in sushupti was qualified by all vishaya. na-knichid-avedisham. Hence, bhAvarUpa-ajnAna was experienced by sAkshI during sushupti, through ajnAna-vritti. Such jnAna-nAsha leads to samskAra which in turn leads to smriti after waking.

I cannot digest the meaning of this. I request you to kindly speak in simple language without resorting to complex terms as much as possible.

> Sir, I have not claimed that one experiences absence of something. On the contrary, I asserted that one experiences bhAvarUpa-ajnAna.

Kindly give a straight proof that there's bhAvarUpa-ajnAna during sushupti. Whatever you have stated so far, can also be explained without going into the assumption that there exists an entity such as bhavarupa-ajana.

> All topics are inter-related. If you leave anything in my response, it would be an indicator of insincerity. 

I request you to kindly come to the point. We have already digressed so much. I asked you to prove your claim that mind is a product of avidya. I haven't seen a proof of it yet. On the other hand you keep tossing new terms and unfounded claims. 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Lokesh ji.

> How do you know that there were no thoughts in sushupti? You can only talk about now, after waking up. How do you know that prior to waking up, there were no thoughts.

Because of lack of samskaras. When we experience something samskaras are formed in mind. Through these samkaras we remember our past experiences.

It is not necessary that all experience result in samskAra. Sir, while going to office, you saw grass on the roadside. But you do not recollect it. So, there was anubhava but no samskAra.

Absence of samskAra does not imply absence of anubhava. Presence of samskAra implies prior anubhava. Absence of samskAra does not imply absence of prior-anubhava.

There is vyabhichAra in the case of upekshaNIya-jnAna. 

 

> Indriya-prasAda is not an exclusive result of sushupti. 

What do you mean by indriya-prasada?

The prasannatA of indriyAs. That which you referred by miserable-relieved etc.

 

> The recollection post-waking is impossible without anubhava in sushupti. Recollection is always preceded by anubhava.

Not true. If I ask you if you were in Amazon rainforest last night, you can simply say "no" without having explicitly experienced your absence in Amazon last night, by just recalling that you went to bed in your home and wake up in your home, ruling out the possibility that you went to Amazon at night.  

This does not show that recollection is possible without prior-anubhava. Here, it is not the recollection but it is anumAna. From the amazon-rainforest-ajnAna, there is inference of amazon-rainforest-anubhava-abhAva. The experience of ajnAna in sushupti is sarva-vishaya-vyAvritta because I say "na kinchid avedisham". Amazaon-rainforest-vishishTa-ajnAna leads to inference of amazon-rainforest-anubhava-abhAva. Thus it is an example of pramA and not smriti, as is the case of ajnAna.

You cannot say that it is due to absence of samskAra, as that is an invalid rule having vyabhichAra in case of upekshaNIya-jnAna.

 

> Recollection implies awakening of samskAra which is formed due to jnAna-nAsha. The recollection shows ignorance in sushupti was qualified by all vishaya. na-knichid-avedisham. Hence, bhAvarUpa-ajnAna was experienced by sAkshI during sushupti, through ajnAna-vritti. Such jnAna-nAsha leads to samskAra which in turn leads to smriti after waking.

I cannot digest the meaning of this. I request you to kindly speak in simple language without resorting to complex terms as much as possible.

Sir, if you are questioning general relativity, then please study Integral calculus. What I wrote is extremely simple to understand. Apply mind.

 

Kindly give a straight proof that there's bhAvarUpa-ajnAna during sushupti. Whatever you have stated so far, can also be explained without going into the assumption that there exists an entity such as bhavarupa-ajana.

An abhAva-padArtha cannot have anAvrita-sAkshi-tAdAtmya being parOksha and anupalabdhi-gamya. The recollection of ignorance in waking is not possible without anubhava of abhAva-vilakshaNa ajnAna by sAkshI. This is straight proof rooted in everyday anubhava.

 

I request you to kindly come to the point. We have already digressed so much.

I am absolutely on the topic. It is erroneous to say that it is digression. You brought elephant-abhAva and I responded to that. It is crucial to understand the role of bhAvarUpa-ajnAna in the knowledge of elephant-abhAva. That you see it as a digression shows that enough mind has not been applied.

 I asked you to prove your claim that mind is a product of avidya.I haven't seen a proof of it yet. On the other hand you keep tossing new terms and unfounded claims. 

Sir, mind is avidyA-kArya, on account of being seen, like the illusory snake. This is an irrefutable argument. I have already presented it. I have answered all your questions which you asked.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Aurobind Padiyath]

नमस्कारः सुधांशु महोदयः।
भवतः वाक्ये भावरूप-अज्ञानम्  इति अस्ति। तत्र कीदृशः समासः वक्ष्यसि।
अरविन्दः

--

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBB4trjPxehJ1dq_BXYsovjzUW7XxNE7zC%3D_E3%3DOk8o4TQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

नमस्ते महोदय,

भावरूपाज्ञानम् इति अस्मिन् शब्दे कर्मधारयः समासोऽस्ति इति तु स्फुटम्। यतो भावरूपम् इति पदम् अज्ञानमिति पदस्य विशेषणत्वेन अत्र उपयुज्यते। भावरूपं विशेषणं पुनः अज्ञानं विशेष्यम् इति व्यवस्था। तथात्वे अत्र कर्मधारयः समासो नीलोत्पलं मधुरफलम् इव वर्तते इति तु निर्णयः सम्यक्।

Since bhAvarUpa is the adjective and ajnAna is noun, the usage bhAvarUpa-ajnAna (bhAvarUpAjnAna) is karmadhAraya-samAsa. For example, blue lotus, sweet fruit.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Aurobind Padiyath]

नमस्कारः महोदयः
मम विवक्षा तत्र भावरूपम् इति पदस्य समासः विषये आसीत्। कृपया स्पष्ठीकरोतु।
अरविन्दः

--

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAC77H3rkytYrwCM58E%3Dj_OnWQyCFpjRWy%2B%3D%2Bw4FcPp%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Aurobind-ji, Sudhanshu-ji,

This is a forum that caters to English as the base language for communication. We are of course friendly to Sanskrit usage, especially for technical terms and quotations. And we appreciate the rich contributions of scholars on technical topics that involve sanskrit more intensely. However members should try as much as possible to provide translations, since we want the larger audience to understand as well. 

At the same time, I am of the present view that non-Sanskrit scholars also have to participate in this process by explicitly asking for translation of terms and quotes, which then have to be provided by the scholars to their best ability without evasion. Anyway this is already an ongoing topic of discussion among us moderators.

In light of this, please read my recent post on Sanskrit use in our forum and Ram Chandran-ji's guidelines therein. At least wholly Sanskrit posts intending to discuss with only other Sanskrit scholars can be deemed out of bounds in our forum.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP%3DXLmYk3vONSEWvUSeqHf6hz_53y%3DeXtnFHqHxQBWAUJ-re5Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Respected Putran ji.

Certainly. That is why I gave translation to Aurobind Ji's question.

In other technical posts, to the extent possible, I try to give english translation. At some places, it becomes more difficult to understand and abstruse if English translation is used. So, there I retain the Sanskrit words as they are kind of words having precise definition. For e.g. vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna. How to translate!! So, I rather use VVAJ.

At times, to give translation to each and every line and word used in Sanskrit will break the flow of writer. There I suggest that interested readers can very effectively use ChatGPT and understand the discussion and context. Of course, the writers would always be happy and willing to answer any doubt arising.

The posts may be intense and use Navya NyAya language which is not very amenable to English translation. Just as lot of effort goes into writing the posts after lot of study, similarly interested readers may also need to put in lot of effort to understand. I find ChatGPT to be very helpful. 

At the same time, learning basic Sanskrit words used very frequently in VedAnta should be envisaged by everyone. They are like basic terms used in say Chemistry or Physics. Like Plank's constant, electronegativity etc. We can translate them but it becomes abstruse.

For e.g. take drishyatva. Now I can translate it as seen-ness, but it loses its effectiveness completely as it is a vital topic in VedAnta and we understand what it means, but seen-ness would not do justice with it.

I am with you for communication in English on this forum. My request would however be to the interested members who are unfamiliar to Sanskrit to learn basic vocabulary of VedAnta in Sanskrit. It makes a big difference.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Aurobind ji.

नमस्कारः महोदयः
मम विवक्षा तत्र भावरूपम् इति पदस्य समासः विषये आसीत्। कृपया स्पष्ठीकरोतु।
अरविन्दः

In bhAvarUpa also, it is karmadhAraya-samAsa. Here "bhAva" acts as upamA for "rUpa".

भाव इव रूपम् इति.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Sudhanshu-ji,

That is a reasoned response from your practical point of view. And your suggestion to use ChatGPT as an intermediary is apt in the present world. I just searched and used it for the first time and was impressed; at least it quickly gave an elaborate explanation for VVAJ. Members who are confounded by technical terms and want to follow a discussion can first use that tool, get a preliminary understanding and then engage further in the conversation if they wish. The scholars ought to then answer their questions or discuss their ChatGPT understanding if necessary, which I know you were willing to do with Michael-ji.

So, there is some adaption that has to happen for the forum and boundaries and norms re-assessed going forward. Both sides, scholars and non-scholars, can put in the effort to aid in the learning of advaita for all sincere members. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

--

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBB7FmGbm%3Dbp5_GyZ0OZwfmf7rVTRVjVQgzDQbHPbU8ihQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2024 at 9:27 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Aurobind ji.

नमस्कारः महोदयः
मम विवक्षा तत्र भावरूपम् इति पदस्य समासः विषये आसीत्। कृपया स्पष्ठीकरोतु।
अरविन्दः

In bhAvarUpa also, it is karmadhAraya-samAsa. Here "bhAva" acts as upamA for "rUpa".

भाव इव रूपम् इति.

Yes, for the Adhyasa bhashya expression: कोऽयमध्यासो नामेति । उच्यते — स्मृतिरूपः परत्र पूर्वदृष्टावभासः 

The explanation of smRtirUpa by the Ratnaprabha is: It is 'similar to memory/recollection.'  The component 'rUpa' is explained as 'sadRsha' = similar to.   

भाष्यरत्नप्रभाव्याख्या

………। तत्रार्थाध्यासे स्मर्यमाणसदृशः परत्र पूर्वदर्शनादवभास्यत इति योजना । ज्ञानाध्यासे तु स्मृतिसदृशः परत्र पूर्वदर्शनादवभासत (पूर्वदर्शनादवभास)* इति वाक्यं योजनीयमिति सङ्क्षेपः ।  

regards

subbu

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAqGcRmkz%3Ds%2BpSe5-%3D8P2eisCXY1zS4iStap7zQeH%3DXng%40mail.gmail.com.

[Aurobind Padiyath]

NamaskarAH Sudhanshu Mahodaya,

My purpose of getting the bAvarUpa SamasaH was to bring out the non-reality of ajnAna being similar to ascertained the fact the rUpa of ajnAna is not bhAva but similar means appearance. 

This clearly fixed the issue of giving sathyA status for ajnAna.

It was never there in all times but appeared to be present when experienced like the snake.

Aurobind 

PS: NamaskaraH Sri Putranji,

I purposely used Sanskrit to get clarity on the technical terms. Not with any other intentions.

--

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAqGcRmkz%3Ds%2BpSe5-%3D8P2eisCXY1zS4iStap7zQeH%3DXng%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Aurobind ji.

My purpose of getting the bAvarUpa SamasaH was to bring out the non-reality of ajnAna being similar to ascertained the fact the rUpa of ajnAna is not bhAva but similar means appearance. 

That is true. That is why ajnAna is bhAva-vilakshaNa as well as abhAva-vilakshaNa.

This clearly fixed the issue of giving sathyA status for ajnAna.

It was never there in all times but appeared to be present when experienced like the snake.

Yes. ajnAna is mithyA like illusory snake. That is the siddhAnta.

Thanks you Subbu ji for RatnaprabhA reference. That is quite apt.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

 

 ChatGPT as an intermediary is apt in the present world. I just searched and used it for the first time and was impressed; at least it quickly gave an elaborate explanation for VVAJ. Members who are confounded by technical terms and want to follow a discussion can first use that tool, get a preliminary understanding and then engage further in the conversation if they wish. The scholars ought to then answer their questions or discuss their ChatGPT understanding if necessary, which I know you were willing to do with Michael-ji.

In this context, I should note that Michael-ji had asked chatGPT and received answers that supported his viewpoints. For instance, I don't know if there is already an inherent bias built into the system that avidya=jnana-abhava (instead of the bhavarupa thesis) or whether it is a matter of how we ask or message it. If the former and the system is biased in one way, then it is liable to output interpretations and translations based on its bias, even for vivarana or advaita siddhi quotes. Scholars can plug in their important vivarana anumana quotes, and check if chatGPT interprets them somewhat closely to their school and not outright contradicting it or being too ambivalent. We want a neutral reading by the machine, if possible; or at least, for quotes from authors of a particular school that are intended for a particular meaning, the machine should be consistent with that meaning. 

For example: Suppose I type in a sanskrit quote from Shankara bhashya on tattvamasi and the machine slants towards a dvaita interpretation, then I should probably hesitate looking to it for further "preliminary" translations of the bhashya. That would be a bad starting point to begin with. I assume this problem of bias can be circumvented if used properly, but scholars have to test it and understand the limits of its usability for the "intermediary/preliminary" purpose we intend here.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

[लोकेश]

Sudhanshu Ji

> Sir, mind is avidyA-kArya, on account of being seen, like the illusory snake. This is an irrefutable argument. I have already presented it. I have answered all your questions which you asked.

avidya is non-existent according to you, how can it produce anything? The illusory snake is not a product, that's why it is called an illusion.

Next, you say that on account of being seen, mind is product of avidya. By "seen" do you mean perceived? 

If I understand you correctly, you argue that anything on account of being perceived is an illusion. If that's the case, then this argument fails even in normal world matters, what to talk of ultimate reality. The first litmus test of any good argument is that it works in practical life. No matter how rigorous your argument is, no matter in what scripture it is written if it conveys something as stupid as fire is cold, the argument is unequivocally false. If things are illusory on account of being seen, why do you watch out for potholes when walking on a road? You should be stepping right on the potholes, convinced they are an illusion.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Lokesh prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

• My quick observations based on what I learnt from adhyAsa upAdAna vAdins 😊

 

avidya is non-existent according to you, how can it produce anything?

 

• Yes it can produce and it would be the material cause for something else (adhyAsa) as well.  And it is an existing thing and that can be seen by ONLY sAkshi.  It is said to be an existing one just to defeat the argument that avidyA is abhAva, but the ultimate status of avidyA is : it is bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa, neither sat nor asat it is anirvachaneeya. 

 

 

The illusory snake is not a product, that's why it is called an illusion.

 

• No as per them, at the time of perception of snake, the rope gives birth to snake, please note seeing the snake is not only your antaHkaraNa dOsha (jnAnAdhyAsa) but there exists an anirvachaneeya snake in the rope as well (arthAdhyAsa).  That is the reason why, they argue :  you will be afraid of ‘seeing’ the snake.  An illusionary jeeva with his illusionary mind would see the illusionary snake in illusionary rope 😊

Next, you say that on account of being seen, mind is product of avidya. By "seen" do you mean perceived? 

 

Ø     Anything that is termed as kshetra (Vishaya) is avidyAkruta as per them.  Only the pure Chaitanya which is not Vishaya, which can not be seen as an object is the only truth. 

 

If I understand you correctly, you argue that anything on account of being perceived is an illusion. If that's the case, then this argument fails even in normal world matters, what to talk of ultimate reality. The first litmus test of any good argument is that it works in practical life. No matter how rigorous your argument is, no matter in what scripture it is written if it conveys something as stupid as fire is cold, the argument is unequivocally false. If things are illusory on account of being seen, why do you watch out for potholes when walking on a road? You should be stepping right on the potholes, convinced they are an illusion.

 

Ø     You are seeing the potholes, avoiding it or stepping on it whatever you say, whatever you do, everything is illusion as per these vedAntins and they are no good than bhrAntivAdins 😊 They just do not want to hear what Acharya, shruti say about it.  tArkika-s would always be like that 😊

 

 

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste

Could you cite the references from the Bhashya as to what the Shruti and Shankara say about this? 

Best regards

subbu

 

tArkika-s would always be like that 😊

 

 

--

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB662522848CDC0E1CD6E3230F840A2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Could you cite the references from the Bhashya as to what the Shruti and Shankara say about this? 

 

Ø     Why!!  Are you not aware what both shruti and Acharya say about it!!??  Do I have to again reiterate that as per shAstra and Acharya the perceived universe is not an illusion and vyavahAra has its own significant role to play for testing and determining reality and unreality!!??  It is ONLY Buddhists (shUnyavAdins) who deny the reality of external objects.  And ONLY vijnAnavAdins says that the object is identical with the idea!!  Hope modern day vedAntins would the over dose of tarka have not become shUnyavAdins or vijnAnavAdins 😊

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

[V Subrahmanian]

While there are countless examples across the Bhashya, here is just one, as a sample:

At the end of the BGB 2.16, Shankara summarises the teaching/message of the verse to Arjuna:

त्वमपि तत्त्वदर्शिनां दृष्टिमाश्रित्य शोकं मोहं च हित्वा शीतोष्णादीनि नियतानियतरूपाणि द्वन्द्वानि ‘विकारोऽयमसन्नेव मरीचिजलवन्मिथ्यावभासते’ इति मनसि निश्चित्य तितिक्षस्व इत्यभिप्रायः ॥ १६ ॥   

'Arjuna, you too, following the ways of the Jnanis, giving up sorrow and delusion, forbear the dualities like heat and cold, that are of both consistent and inconsistent nature, with the firm conviction, looking upon them as 'these transformations, which are non-existent (asanneva) like the mirage water (there is no water there really) but falsely appear to be there - mithyA avabhAsante.' 

Why would Shankara say this? It is for the sole reason that our experiences (and their causes) are giving us the false feeling of their being real.  

None, however much he might be smart, can ever succeed in denying what Shankara has said.  Nor can anyone succeed in giving a twisted meaning to Shankara's words here.  There are many more such statements in the Bhashya based on shruti and the Gita. 

warm regards

subbu   

--

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB662538AE7F13D941506A7EF5840A2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Lokesh ji.

Again you have ignored all important arguments presented and evaded of responsibility of answering the counter-questions posed. I leave it to you to assess the implications of that.

avidya is non-existent according to you, how can it produce anything? The illusory snake is not a product, that's why it is called an illusion.

Sir, just as avidyA is non-existent appearance i.e. an illusion, the "production" is also non-existent appearance i.e. an illusion. The illusory avidyA can "produce" an illusory effect. 

Since the cause-effect relationship is seen, it is an illusion. Hence, the cause-avidyA, the effect-avidyA-kArya such as mind etc, and this causation i.e. "production" are all illusory. So, there is no incongruity.

Next, you say that on account of being seen, mind is product of avidya. By "seen" do you mean perceived? 

Seen-ness means drishyatva. Drishyatva means either of the following:

1. शब्दाजन्यवृत्तिविषयत्वम् दृश्यत्वम्
2. स्वव्यवहारे स्वातिरिक्तसंविदपेक्षानियतिरूपं दृश्यत्वम्
3. अवेद्यत्वे सत्यपरोक्षव्यवहारयोग्यत्वाभावरूपं दृश्यत्वम्

The loose English translation "perceived" does not do justice with drishyatva.

 

If I understand you correctly, you argue that anything on account of being perceived is an illusion. If that's the case, then this argument fails even in normal world matters, what to talk of ultimate reality. The first litmus test of any good argument is that it works in practical life. No matter how rigorous your argument is, no matter in what scripture it is written if it conveys something as stupid as fire is cold, the argument is unequivocally false. If things are illusory on account of being seen, why do you watch out for potholes when walking on a road? You should be stepping right on the potholes, convinced they are an illusion.

Sir, why did you watch out for potholes when walking on a road in your dream? You thought that the potholes and the road and your walking and your own body was real. And that is why you watched out for potholes. Is it not? But you yourself would admit that the enitre dream was illusory. There was mere appearance of pothole while there was no pothole in reality. It was just an appearance of pothole without corresponding existence of pothole. Right?

When you have such a powerful experience which demonstrates that you can watchout for potholes even if pothole were to be an illusion, what logical problem do you face in extending the argument to waking world?

Sir, it is not a "stupid" conclusion like "fire is cold". It is a conclusion which is rooted in your everyday experience. This waking world is just a plain illusion, on account of being seen, like the dream, like the illusory snake.

//You should be stepping right on the potholes, convinced they are an illusion.//

काहे भइया? Why should I do that? In my dream, you asked me to step on the potholes, I denied. Here also, I deny. Just as my denial in my dream was not contradictory to the illusoriness of dream, similarly my denial in waking to your request is not contradictory to the illusoriness of waking. 

Regards,

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji, Bhaskar prabhu ji. 

 Ø     Why!!  Are you not aware what both shruti and Acharya say about it!!??  Do I have to again reiterate that as per shAstra and Acharya the perceived universe is not an illusion and vyavahAra has its own significant role to play for testing and determining reality and unreality!!??  It is ONLY Buddhists (shUnyavAdins) who deny the reality of external objects.  And ONLY vijnAnavAdins says that the object is identical with the idea!!  Hope modern day vedAntins would the over dose of tarka have not become shUnyavAdins or vijnAnavAdins 😊

Please see the following mantra from Tejobindu Upanishad, 5.75:

इदं प्रपञ्चं यत्किचिद्यद्यञ्जगति विद्यते । दृश्यरूपं च दृग्रूपं सर्व शशविषाणवत् ॥७५||  

Are you a vaidika? Do you accept Tejobindu Upanishad? Clarify.

Of course, you had your reservations in accepting Rigveda NAsadIya SUkta which says, न सत् आसीत्, न असत् आसीत्, तम आसीत् - thereby explaining tamas=darkness=ignorance to be sat-asat-vilakshaNa.

Of course, you have no qualms in rejecting the omniscient SAyaNAchArya who explains - that by the word tamas, mAyA-apara-paryAya bhAvarUpa-ajnAna is meant by the Veda.

Of course, you reject SAyaNAchArya without giving an alternate explanation of the Rigveda which is coherently explained in its entirety through advaita framework.

Sir, if you have some pick-and-choose within the Shruti, then please give a list that only these-these are accepted as Shruti, as per your own esteemed decision and rest do not match up to your rigorous criteria of qualification as Shruti.

Does Tejobindu pass the qualification of being called a Shruti? It is bAhya-artha-pratishedha-paraka. So what if BhAshyakAra and KArikAkAra are unanimous in bAhya-artha-pratishedha - ‘प्रज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्वम्’ (मा. का. ४ । २५) इत्यादि एतदन्तं विज्ञानवादिनो बौद्धस्य वचनं बाह्यार्थवादिपक्षप्रतिषेधपरम् आचार्येणानुमोदितम् ।

Does TripAda-vibhUti-mahA-NArAyaNa-upanishad pass your test of being called as Shruti? After all, it talks about mUlAvidyA - त्वमेव सर्वमूलाविद्यानिवर्तकः ।

Does Rigveda satisfy your test of being called a Shruti -- it too talks of sat-asat-vilakshaNa tamas.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

 

 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Why would Shankara say this? It is for the sole reason that our experiences (and their causes) are giving us the false feeling of their being real.  

 

Ø     Yes, arjuna was down with shOka-mOha and rAga-dvesha as he was wrongly thinking and perceiving the stage called Kurukshetra.  One’s rAga – dvesha is due to adhyAsa ( like seeing the snake in place of rope and as a result getting afraid of it)…this does not mean the battle of Kurukshetra itself a big illusion.  What is being talked here is about arjuna-s agony. 

 

None, however much he might be smart, can ever succeed in denying what Shankara has said.  Nor can anyone succeed in giving a twisted meaning to Shankara's words here.  There are many more such statements in the Bhashya based on shruti and the Gita. 

 

Ø     If one do not know the difference between antaHkaraNa dOsha and abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNatva of brahman there is every possibility of ignoring the shruti verdicts like : tadAksharAt saMbhavateeha vishwaM, yathOvA imAni bhUtAni jaayante, yena jAtAni jeevanti, ……tad brahmeti, brahmaivedaM purastAt, brahmaivedaM vishwaM.  When all become grand illusion, when Krishna is illusion, arjuna is illusion, when battle ground of Kurukshetra is illusion why on the earth Krishna taught geeta to arjuna and geeta too as per you an illusionary teaching by illusionary person called Krishna to the illusionary person arjuna!!??  Is there any end to speculations like this!!??

[लोकेश]

Sudhanshu Ji

This waking world isn't an illusion because you get the result of your actions here. You wouldn't get bitten if you were to step on an illusory snake that is a rope, but you will get bitten if you step on a real snake. You wouldn't satisfy your thirst if you run towards a mirage, but you will satisfy your thirst if you run towards a well. Certainly, there's a difference between this world and an illusion. You gain nothing by calling the whole world an illusion, but you do benefit when you understand rope mistaken as a snake to be a rope, or mirage mistaken as water to be an illusion. 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Lokesh ji.

 

This waking world isn't an illusion because you get the result of your actions here.

No. In the dream also, you were getting the results of your action and yet it remained an illusion. Hence, there is hetu-vyabhichAra.

 

You wouldn't get bitten if you were to step on an illusory snake that is a rope, but you will get bitten if you step on a real snake.

No. In the dream also, you were not bitten when you stepped on an illusory-snake that was a dream-rope, but got bitten and rushed to hospital when you were bitten by a "real" snake in your dream.

You wouldn't satisfy your thirst if you run towards a mirage, but you will satisfy your thirst if you run towards a well.

Just as the dream-mirage did not satisfy your thirst, but dream-well satisfied your thirst.

 

Certainly, there's a difference between this world and an illusion.

No. Just as dream was illusion, similarly this waking is illusion because there is no parameter on which waking and dream can be distinguished.

 

You gain nothing by calling the whole world an illusion, but you do benefit when you understand rope mistaken as a snake to be a rope, or mirage mistaken as water to be an illusion. 

Same in the case of dream. 

The point is, these so-called "distinguishing features" were present in dream to the dreamer. Still, the dream remained an illusion. Hence, there is hetu-vyabhichAra.

Therefore, these points cannot prove that waking is not an illusion.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Please see the following mantra from Tejobindu Upanishad, 5.75:

 

इदं प्रपञ्चं यत्किचिद्यद्यञ्जगति विद्यते । दृश्यरूपं च दृग्रूपं सर्व शशविषाणवत् ॥७५||  

 

Are you a vaidika? Do you accept Tejobindu Upanishad? Clarify.

 

Ø     I will accept the Upanishad but not your interpretation I have already shared by understanding what is silver in shukti and what is shashavishANa.  As per me for adhyAsa the mAyA kArya is the Asare / Aspada.  For various valid reason I don’t accept mAya and avidyA are one and the same.  Because bhAshyakAra says : sarva vedAnteshu cha ishwarahetuka ‘eva’ srutyayO vyapadishyante, tadeva cha Ishwarasya phalahetutvaM yat svakarmAnurUpAH prajAH srujAteeti.  I don’t accept your theory that jagat is shashavishANa for me it is Ishwara’s vibhUti, as he is the oNLY abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa for this jagat. 

 

Of course, you had your reservations in accepting Rigveda NAsadIya SUkta which says, न सत् आसीत्, न असत् आसीत्, तम आसीत् - thereby explaining tamas=darkness=ignorance to be sat-asat-vilakshaNa.

Of course, you have no qualms in rejecting the omniscient SAyaNAchArya who explains - that by the word tamas, mAyA-apara-paryAya bhAvarUpa-ajnAna is meant by the Veda.

 

Of course, you reject SAyaNAchArya without giving an alternate explanation of the Rigveda which is coherently explained in its entirety through advaita framework.

 

Ø     Sat-asat vilakshaNa, sAkshi vedya, anirvachaneeya bhAvarUpa and at the same time it is bhAvAbhAva vilakshaNa all contrary statements are babies of mUlAvidyAvAdins.  No trace of this in shankara’s mUlabhAshya unless you see the mUlabhAshya through vyAkhyAnakAra Lense. 

 

 

Sir, if you have some pick-and-choose within the Shruti, then please give a list that only these-these are accepted as Shruti, as per your own esteemed decision and rest do not match up to your rigorous criteria of qualification as Shruti.

 

Does Tejobindu pass the qualification of being called a Shruti? It is bAhya-artha-pratishedha-paraka. So what if BhAshyakAra and KArikAkAra are unanimous in bAhya-artha-pratishedha - ‘प्रज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्वम्’ (मा. का. ४ । २५) इत्यादि एतदन्तं विज्ञानवादिनो बौद्धस्य वचनं बाह्यार्थवादिपक्षप्रतिषेधपरम् आचार्येणानुमोदितम् ।

 

Does TripAda-vibhUti-mahA-NArAyaNa-upanishad pass your test of being called as Shruti? After all, it talks about mUlAvidyA - त्वमेव सर्वमूलाविद्यानिवर्तकः ।

 

Does Rigveda satisfy your test of being called a Shruti -- it too talks of sat-asat-vilakshaNa tamas.

 

Ø    I am already used to your verbal diarrhea 😊 not worthy of any response.. 

[V Subrahmanian]

You are ignoring what Gaudapada has specifically said about srishTi-shruti-s:

मृल्लोहविस्फुलिङ्गाद्यैः सृष्टिर्या चोदितान्यथा ।
उपायः सोऽवताराय नास्ति भेदः कथञ्चन ॥ १५ ॥  3.15 

Pl. read the English translation of Shankara's commentary here:

https://archive.org/details/EightUpanishadsVol.2BySwamiGambhirananda/page/n295/mode/2up

The gist is:  The Creation shruti passages, giving analogies of clay, metal, spark, etc. given out in so many ways, is with this purpose:  These shruti-s have no purport in teaching that the creation/created world is real.  On the other hand they are only a means, upAya, to enable the aspirant's intellect to grasp the Nirguna Brahma tattvam which is devoid of any connection whatsoever with the created world. 

The Mandukya upanishad itself teaches the Turiya Brahman as Prpanchopashamam, where the world is not.

Thus, the shruti passages like yato vA imAni bhUtAni, etc. are not teaching the world is real.  On the other hand they intend to point to the Cause of the world and draw our attention to that Cause.  When sufficient vairagya is developed to the unreal created world, the shruti teaches that the Cause is also not really a cause at all.  Thereby it discards the cause-label from the Cause. Thus, the shruti never intends to hold the world to be real. 

regards

subbu

 

  

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

--

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625D224634BADC76154D142840A2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[लोकेश]

Sudhanshu Ji

> Therefore, these points cannot prove that waking is not an illusion.

You are overlooking a very crucial fact when describing dreams as illusions. The dream qualifies to be an illusion when it is over and not before. While you are in a dream, your actions carry the same efficacy as they do in the waking world. It is only after waking up that you describe the dream as an illusion. Until then, it is as real as this world. So, be vary of your actions in dreams as you do in the waking world. The same goes the other way. 

> No. In the dream also, you were getting the results of your action and yet it remained an illusion. Hence, there is hetu-vyabhichAra.

This is the same as saying - "you are going to die one day, so it is an illusion like a dream. Just like a dream comes to an end, this world comes to an end too." This is not very comforting. Running away from life by calling it an illusion is never the solution.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar prabhu ji.

 Ø     I will accept the Upanishad but not your interpretation I have already shared by understanding what is silver in shukti and what is shashavishANa.  As per me for adhyAsa the mAyA kArya is the Asare / Aspada.  For various valid reason I don’t accept mAya and avidyA are one and the same.  Because bhAshyakAra says : sarva vedAnteshu cha ishwarahetuka ‘eva’ srutyayO vyapadishyante, tadeva cha Ishwarasya phalahetutvaM yat svakarmAnurUpAH prajAH srujAteeti.  I don’t accept your theory that jagat is shashavishANa for me it is Ishwara’s vibhUti, as he is the oNLY abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa for this jagat. 

Sir, the Upanishad is saying - इदं प्रपञ्चं यत्किचिद्यद्यञ्जगति विद्यते । दृश्यरूपं च दृग्रूपं सर्व शशविषाणवत् ॥७५||

It is not my theory that you can deny.

Further, BhAshyakAra says - एक एव परमेश्वरः कूटस्थनित्यो विज्ञानधातु: अविद्यया, मायया मायाविवत् , अनेकधा विभाव्यते, नान्यो विज्ञानधातुरस्तीति । and also आत्मनो माया अविद्या, which clearly prove that BhAshyakAra holds mAyA = avidyA.

These are not my theories. It is rooted in bhAshya and Shruti.

 

 Ø    I am already used to your verbal diarrhea 😊 not worthy of any response.. 

Bhaskar prabhu ji. These are references from Shruti and bhAshya. To dismiss them as "verbal diarrhea" is not proper. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Lokesh ji.

You are overlooking a very crucial fact when describing dreams as illusions. The dream qualifies to be an illusion when it is over and not before. While you are in a dream, your actions carry the same efficacy as they do in the waking world. It is only after waking up that you describe the dream as an illusion. Until then, it is as real as this world. So, be vary of your actions in dreams as you do in the waking world. The same goes the other way. 

Sir, the dream is an illusion, whether it is being perceived or whether it is over. It is not that dream-road and dream-tree are real at the time of perception and when I wake up, they "then" become an illusion. "The dream qualifies to be an illusion when it is over and not before." This is a wrong statement. Dream has always been an illusion, i.e. dream-objects have always been merely an appearance without any corresponding existence; even at the time of perception.

After waking up, you realise that it was illusion. Prior thereto, you did not realise that it was illusion. That is the difference.

//Until then, it is as real as this world.//

No. Until then, it appeared as if it was real. Just like this world.

This is the same as saying - "you are going to die one day, so it is an illusion like a dream. Just like a dream comes to an end, this world comes to an end too." This is not very comforting. Running away from life by calling it an illusion is never the solution.

Sir, anityatva is an equally valid hetu for illusoriness. Something which was not existent before, not existent afterwards is not existent even in between. Whether it is a dream, or waking - they are anitya. Dream negates waking and waking negates dream. They are both anitya and hence both illusory. 

// This is not very comforting. //

Are you in search of comfort? Or in search of truth??

//Running away from life by calling it an illusion is never the solution.//

A "clear perception of life" cannot be equated to "running away from life". When you see that whatever is seen is illusory, including the very doership, you see yourself as the ceaseless seer, the substratum of illusion. The adhyaksha, who sees. Merely sees this drama. You see that things go on without your doership. You see how it goes on without your kartritva.

That your kids will be fed, their school-fees will be submitted on time, that you will watch Mufasa in PVR, that you will go and buy vegetables - and yet - you will ceaselessly see this संसारनाटकम्.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

You are overlooking a very crucial fact when describing dreams as illusions. The dream qualifies to be an illusion when it is over and not before. While you are in a dream, your actions carry the same efficacy as they do in the waking world. It is only after waking up that you describe the dream as an illusion. Until then, it is as real as this world. So, be vary of your actions in dreams as you do in the waking world. The same goes the other way. 

praNAms Sri Lokesh prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Knowingly or unknowingly you are just echoing the expressions of bhAshyakAra in sUtra bhAshya bhAshyakAra clarifies : it is on the evidence or want of evidence of some valid means of knowledge (pramANa) that we have to determine the conceivability or the inconceivability of the existence of a thing and not vice versa.  We have to wake up from dream to say dream is unreal and likewise we have to wake up to the higher reality to say waking world is unreal or illusion.  But when we are in this world of waking taking and talking some other world as dream, it is already known that we are not in THAT world and THAT world may be another waking world, who knows 😊 but when we are standing in this ‘socalled’ waking world and talking about dream world, then we have to say jAgrat prapancha is something different from Svapna prapancha.  Holding this transactional view point where significant importance given to waking world bhAshyakAra says : creation of Ishwara universally perceived in the jAgrat state such as ether etc. are objective whereas dream creation is NOT objective nor it is commonly transactionable.  Hence dream world is indeed unreal there is not even an iota of reality in it. 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

.

[लोकेश]

Sudhanshu Ji

> Sir, the dream is an illusion, whether it is being perceived or whether it is over.

Not true. If you burn your finger in a dream, it is as painful as it is burned in real life. The difference is that once you wake up the pain won't stick to you, it will go away because the dream has ended. However, you cannot undo the pain that you experienced during the dream. 

You need to understand that for the dreamer, the dream is real, although, from the waking point of view, it is an illusion. 

> Are you in search of comfort? Or in search of truth??

You misunderstood my intent. I'm in search of truth. By comfort, I meant the satisfaction of knowing the truth of the would around you as it is.

I hope you would agree that truth is relative. And the truth that matters right now at this very moment is the world we are living in. You cannot benefit by calling it an illusion. That was my point.

> A "clear perception of life" cannot be equated to "running away from life".

That's not a clear perception of life in which you say that the world is an illusion. It is self-delusion.

> That your kids will be fed, their school-fees will be submitted on time, that you will watch Mufasa in PVR, that you will go and buy vegetables - and yet - you will ceaselessly see this संसारनाटकम्.

You get this wrong, the world is not a drama. The world would be a drama if you were capable enough to turn it off at your disposal, get away with any consequences, and switch to another one of your liking. Unlike drama, the actions in this world stick with you till you die. In many ways this world may be compared with a drama but not to the effect that you start calling this very world an illusion. 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

• We have discussed all these things somany times earlier, but you are coming up with these quotes as if we are hearing this first time in our lives 😊

 

The gist is:  The Creation shruti passages, giving analogies of clay, metal, spark, etc. given out in so many ways, is with this purpose:  These shruti-s have no purport in teaching that the creation/created world is real.  On the other hand they are only a means, upAya, to enable the aspirant's intellect to grasp the Nirguna Brahma tattvam which is devoid of any connection whatsoever with the created world. 

 

Ø     Yes the gist of all creation theory is just to drive home the point that brahman is ultimately nirguNAm and nirvishesham.  But to realize this nirvisheshatvaM brahman himself have become this, yadi hi nAmarUpe na vyakreeyate tadA asyAtmanO nirupAdhikaM rUpaM prajnAnaghanAkhyaM na pratikyAyeta…to know the nirupAdhika brahman we need the nAmarUpAtmaka jagat, shAstra, Acharya, upadesha etc. just you cannot push aside all these and say there are all just bhrAnti.   

 

 

 

The Mandukya upanishad itself teaches the Turiya Brahman as Prpanchopashamam, where the world is not.

 

Ø     You are missing the point here, world on its own (svatastu) will not be there when one realize the tureeya brahman but OTOH he realizes brahma dAshA brahma dAsA brahmaiveme kitavAH, don’t you read same kArika saying tattvamAdhyAtmikaM drushtvA tattvaM drushtvA tu ‘bAhyataH’ ??  when you realize this sarvAtmabhAva automatically you would realize that tattvaM in its svarUpaM nirguNam and nirvisheshaM.  There is no gap between jagat and jagadeeshwara to say anything about it.  When one is having IshwarAnugraha and AcharyOpadesha he would see jagat as brahman and don’t say this jagat is asarvaM or abrahman. 

 

Thus, the shruti passages like yato vA imAni bhUtAni, etc. are not teaching the world is real.  On the other hand they intend to point to the Cause of the world and draw our attention to that Cause.  When sufficient vairagya is developed to the unreal created world, the shruti teaches that the Cause is also not really a cause at all.  Thereby it discards the cause-label from the Cause. Thus, the shruti never intends to hold the world to be real. 

 

Ø     It has been told umpteen times in this list itself kArya-kAraNa prakriya is there to drive home the point that parabrahma tattva is kArya-kAraNAteeta.  That does not anyway mean kArya is bhrAnti and kArya is in kAraNa rUpa satyam eva. 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Lokesh ji,

Not true. If you burn your finger in a dream, it is as painful as it is burned in real life. The difference is that once you wake up the pain won't stick to you, it will go away because the dream has ended. However, you cannot undo the pain that you experienced during the dream. 

And yet the dream is illusion. That the dream-road never existed in three point of time. 

So, the dream-pain appears real to the dreamer without the dream-pain existing at three point of time. The dream-pain appeared, the dream-knife appeared, without existence. That is what is illusion.

Similarly, waking-knife appears real to waker. Complete identical analogy with dream.

 

You need to understand that for the dreamer, the dream is real, although, from the waking point of view, it is an illusion. 

Define illusion and real. Then you will appreciate the fallacy. Don't use the words casually. 

I hope you would agree that truth is relative. And the truth that matters right now at this very moment is the world we are living in. You cannot benefit by calling it an illusion. That was my point.

Ye bekaar ki baaten hain. First define truth in clear terms. Casual discussion is pointless. 

 

That's not a clear perception of life in which you say that the world is an illusion. It is self-delusion.

You are entitled to continue with your erroneous conclusion despite the incapacity to answer the irrefutable anumAna - विमतं मिथ्या, दृश्यत्वात्, रज्जुसर्पवत्

You get this wrong, the world is not a drama. The world would be a drama if you were capable enough to turn it off at your disposal, get away with any consequences, and switch to another one of your liking. Unlike drama, the actions in this world stick with you till you die. In many ways this world may be compared with a drama but not to the effect that you start calling this very world an illusion. 

The capacity to switch-off the seen is not a valid hetu as it as vyabhichAra in dream. In dream, someone was throttling your neck and you had no capacity to switch it off. And yet it remained an illusion. 

//Unlike drama, the actions in this world stick with you till you die. In many ways this world may be compared with a drama but not to the effect that you start calling this very world an illusion. //

Sir, as stated before, the anumAna proves the illusoriness of the world. So, your strong beliefs rooted in the conviction of reality of the world are shattered in pieces in front of the mighty anumAna.

If despite the incapacity to refute the anumAna, which gives rise to pramA, you want to carry on with your beliefs, you can do so - but that is not a pramA. That is illusion.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 2:24 PM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

• We have discussed all these things somany times earlier, but you are coming up with these quotes as if we are hearing this first time in our lives 😊

 

The gist is:  The Creation shruti passages, giving analogies of clay, metal, spark, etc. given out in so many ways, is with this purpose:  These shruti-s have no purport in teaching that the creation/created world is real.  On the other hand they are only a means, upAya, to enable the aspirant's intellect to grasp the Nirguna Brahma tattvam which is devoid of any connection whatsoever with the created world. 

 

Ø     Yes the gist of all creation theory is just to drive home the point that brahman is ultimately nirguNAm and nirvishesham.  But to realize this nirvisheshatvaM brahman himself have become this, yadi hi nAmarUpe na vyakreeyate tadA asyAtmanO nirupAdhikaM rUpaM prajnAnaghanAkhyaM na pratikyAyeta…to know the nirupAdhika brahman we need the nAmarUpAtmaka jagat, shAstra, Acharya, upadesha etc. just you cannot push aside all these and say there are all just bhrAnti.   

 

 

 

The Mandukya upanishad itself teaches the Turiya Brahman as Prpanchopashamam, where the world is not.

 

Ø     You are missing the point here, world on its own (svatastu) will not be there when one realize the tureeya brahman but OTOH he realizes brahma dAshA brahma dAsA brahmaiveme kitavAH, don’t you read same kArika saying tattvamAdhyAtmikaM drushtvA tattvaM drushtvA tu ‘bAhyataH’ ??  when you realize this sarvAtmabhAva automatically you would realize that tattvaM in its svarUpaM nirguNam and nirvisheshaM.  There is no gap between jagat and jagadeeshwara to say anything about it.  When one is having IshwarAnugraha and AcharyOpadesha he would see jagat as brahman and don’t say this jagat is asarvaM or abrahman. 

Actually this is exactly the Bhashyakara is doing:  In the BGB 2.16 bhashya, cited already: The Jnani will no doubt see the world as Brahman, but will also know that the seen world is 'falsely appearing to be while it is non-existent, just like the water in the mirage is non-existent but falsely appears to exist:

त्वमपि तत्त्वदर्शिनां दृष्टिमाश्रित्य शोकं मोहं च हित्वा शीतोष्णादीनि नियतानियतरूपाणि द्वन्द्वानि ‘विकारोऽयमसन्नेव मरीचिजलवन्मिथ्यावभासते’ इति मनसि निश्चित्य तितिक्षस्व इत्यभिप्रायः ॥ १६ ॥   

'Arjuna, you too, following the ways of the Jnanis, giving up sorrow and delusion, forbear the dualities like heat and cold, that are of both consistent and inconsistent nature, with the firm conviction, looking upon them as 'these transformations, which are non-existent (asanneva) like the mirage water (there is no water there really) but falsely appear to be there - mithyA avabhAsante.' 

In fact in the Bhashya for the famous Gita verse: BrahmArpaNam, Brahma haviH, Shankara gives the example of shukti-rajata:

ब्रह्मार्पणं ब्रह्म हविर्ब्रह्माग्नौ ब्रह्मणा हुतम् ।
ब्रह्मैव तेन गन्तव्यं ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना ॥ २४ ॥

ब्रह्म अर्पणं येन करणेन ब्रह्मवित् हविः अग्नौ अर्पयति तत् ब्रह्मैव इति पश्यति, तस्य आत्मव्यतिरेकेण अभावं पश्यति, यथा शुक्तिकायां रजताभावं पश्यति ; तदुच्यते ब्रह्मैव अर्पणमिति, यथा यद्रजतं तत् शुक्तिकैवेति । 

Just as one would see the rajatAbhAva in shuktkA after he has realized that there is only shukti there and no rajata, so too the Jnani will see the abhAva of the jagat in Brahman the adhiShThAnam.  

If Shankara were to be supporting your understanding, he should not have used the mirage water, shell-silver, rope-snake etc. examples.  That he uses them itself dislodges your understanding of the Advaita tattva.

warm regards

subbu  
    

 

Thus, the shruti passages like yato vA imAni bhUtAni, etc. are not teaching the world is real.  On the other hand they intend to point to the Cause of the world and draw our attention to that Cause.  When sufficient vairagya is developed to the unreal created world, the shruti teaches that the Cause is also not really a cause at all.  Thereby it discards the cause-label from the Cause. Thus, the shruti never intends to hold the world to be real. 

 

Ø     It has been told umpteen times in this list itself kArya-kAraNa prakriya is there to drive home the point that parabrahma tattva is kArya-kAraNAteeta.  That does not anyway mean kArya is bhrAnti and kArya is in kAraNa rUpa satyam eva. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

--

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB66256BFE79FF94F15C231058840A2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

The perceptible world is not absolutely real - Srimad Bhagavatam

One of the statements of Yama in this chapter:

https://www.transliteral.org/pages/z100517064042/view

सप्तमः स्कन्धः - अथ द्वितीयोऽध्यायः

यथा मनोरथः स्वप्नः सर्वमैन्द्रियकं मृषा ॥४८॥

Just as manoratha (imagination that is indulged in the waking) and dream are not real, so also this world which is perceived through all senses is not absolutely real.

अथ नित्यमनित्यं वा नेह शोचन्ति तद्विदः ।

Because of this, the wise do not grieve over anything, whether long standing or short-lived.

नान्यथा शक्यते कर्तृं स्वभावः शोचतामिति ॥४९॥

Because there is a rule that what is born must die.

We know from this saying of the Bhagavatam: The world is akin to dream, not real like the proverbial castle in the air. This premise stated by Veda Vyasa in the Bhagavatam is accepted with no compromise only in Advaita. This premise is contradictory to the doctrinal beliefs of other schools.

See Sridhara Swami's commentary below:

The Bhagavatam teaches:

 प्रत्यक्षेणानुमानेन, निगमेनात्मसंविदा ।

 आद्यन्तवदसज्ज्ञात्वा निःसङ्गो विचरेदिह ॥९॥ (uddhavagita 23.9 of the Advaita Ashrama edition) 

That which has a beginning and end is not there in the middle too; it only appears to be existent then. This has to be realized, the Bhagavatam says, through pratyaksha, direct experience, anumAna, logic/reasoning and nigama, shAstra and by direct experience of the truth. Having realized thus, Uddhava, roam about the world free of attachment.  

Secondly, following from the mutually annulling of states, it is to be recognized that even while a state is experienced to be going on, actually it is not there.  The rule is enunciated by Sri Gaudapadacharya in the mAnDUkya kArikA (2.6) that explains this maxim: anitya is asatya: 

आदावन्ते च यन्नास्ति, वर्तमानेऽपि तत्तथा । 

वितथै: सदृशा: सन्तोऽवितथा इव लक्षिता: ॥ (२.६) 

[That which does not exist in the beginning and in the end is equally so in the present (i. e in the middle). Though they are on the same  footing with the unreal, yet they are seen as though real.] 

The idea is: That which is not there before and after  the appearing of the object/event, is deemed to be not there in the  period of its appearing too. This amounts to saying: The object does not exist in all the three periods of time: past, present and future.   

Thus, the Shaastra is not teaching us anything out-worldly but only helping us to see our own experiences in the right perspective.  

Everything that is cognized/perceived/experienced is mithyA.  The dream is the undeniable experience.  In my dream, a friend visits me and we have a conversation.  Upon waking if I call the friend to continue the conversation, he would only laugh at my foolishness.  This only shows that 'even when the dream conversation took place, it did not really take place at all.'  The Vedanta helps us to realize this day-to-day experience and uses this analogy for the waking world experience. The rule is: anything that is experienced is false and only the experiencer is real. 

The Aitareya Upanishad calls all the three states as three dreams:

तस्य त्रय आवसथास्त्रयः स्वप्ना अयमावसथोऽयमावसथोऽयमावसथ इति ॥ १२ ॥  

Shankara says: त्रयः स्वप्ना जाग्रत्स्वप्नसुषुप्त्याख्याः । ननु जागरितं प्रबोधरूपत्वान्न स्वप्नः । नैवम् ; स्वप्न एव । कथम् ? परमार्थस्वात्मप्रबोधाभावात् स्वप्नवदसद्वस्तुदर्शनाच्च ।

There are three dreams: the waking, the dream and the sleep states. Q: Since the waking is of the nature of wakeful consciousness, how can you call it a dream? A: It is indeed a dream. How? Since the Absolute awakening has not happened and also since in the waking too, like in a dream, one is experiencing, witnessing, perceiving, what is not there, avastu.  

The Vedanta alone is capable of calling a spade a spade. Only that we have to shed our mental blocks to be able to understand the Vedantic teaching. 

Om Tat Sat  

 

--

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCqDvD2K0FXnGDyLz8%3DX%3DPXyf-MYaPLpAAFMeiTFdiOfg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Just as one would see the rajatAbhAva in shuktkA after he has realized that there is only shukti there and no rajata, so too the Jnani will see the abhAva of the jagat in Brahman the adhiShThAnam

 

• abhAva of jagat is not disappearance of jagat in thin air after realization for that to happen jnAni has to physically perish (die) that means to get the jagat abhAva jnAni has to die….no that is not Advaita as advocated by bhagavatpAda OTOH after realization he would realize what he was / is / will be seeing brahman only and nothing but brahman.  He realize that clay pot is NOT different from clay.  Somewhere pUrvapaxi asks : ekameva adviteeyaM, neha nAnAsti kiMchana etc. will be contradictory if the nAma rUpa adjuncts exist.  For this siddhAnti clarifies : No, it is NOT SO and then gives the example clay pot is not separate from clay.  When this fact is observed and realized the awareness that there is ONLY clay dawns.  What is sublated is abrahmatvaM and asarvatvaM of jagat and NOT the jagat itself.  After the realization of rope jnAna the mithyApratyaya ( the misconception) goes.  And not the adhishtAnaM.  And this adhishAnam is what brahman / jagat.  You call it brahman or jagat what is there is one and ONLY satyam. 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 4:01 PM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Just as one would see the rajatAbhAva in shuktkA after he has realized that there is only shukti there and no rajata, so too the Jnani will see the abhAva of the jagat in Brahman the adhiShThAnam

 

• abhAva of jagat is not disappearance of jagat in thin air after realization for that to happen jnAni has to physically perish (die) that means to get the jagat abhAva jnAni has to die….

That is why Bhagavatpada said:  what is appearing is only falsely appearing so as it is non-existent. That's why he gives the mirage water example.  Even after knowing it is a mirage, the water appearance phenomenon continues to appear.  But the person will not attach reality to it. Nobody claimed that the world will disappear into thin air.  Shankara has himself clarified in the BSB that: who indeed can deny a Jnani's experience that he is Brahman and that he also continues to enliven the body? As long as the body is there the world also will be perceived, but with the understanding that it is false. 

regards

subbu 

• no that is not Advaita as advocated by bhagavatpAda OTOH after realization he would realize what he was / is / will be seeing brahman only and nothing but brahman.  He realize that clay pot is NOT different from clay.  Somewhere pUrvapaxi asks : ekameva adviteeyaM, neha nAnAsti kiMchana etc. will be contradictory if the nAma rUpa adjuncts exist.  For this siddhAnti clarifies : No, it is NOT SO and then gives the example clay pot is not separate from clay.  When this fact is observed and realized the awareness that there is ONLY clay dawns.  What is sublated is abrahmatvaM and asarvatvaM of jagat and NOT the jagat itself.  After the realization of rope jnAna the mithyApratyaya ( the misconception) goes.  And not the adhishtAnaM.  And this adhishAnam is what brahman / jagat.  You call it brahman or jagat what is there is one and ONLY satyam. 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

--

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625D20949ED063D568BBB85840A2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

The perceptible world is not absolutely real - Srimad Bhagavatam

 

Ø     But for the perceivable world the adhishtAnaM is that brahman only.  brahmasvarUpAnugamAya cha ‘AkAshAdyannamayAntaM kAryaM’…no existence to bangle, ring, bracelet etc. without the existence of GOLD.  But Gold can always be there without ring etc. 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Bhaskar prabhu ji.

You need to appreciate bAdha-sAmAnAdhikaraNya. When it is said -- world is Brahman -- it only means -- world does not exist, only Brahman exists. Like - this ghost is post.

SureshwarAchArya explains it in Naishkarmya Siddhi and it is there at all places.

What Subbu ji is saying by relying on Gita 2.16 and what you are saying - as world is Brahman - is reconciled by 

योऽयं स्थाणुः पुमानेष पुंधिया स्थाणुधीरिव ।
ब्रह्मास्मीतिधियाशेषा ह्यहंबुद्धिर्निवर्त्यते ॥ २९॥

See, world is changeable, active. It cannot be Brahman, because that would make Brahman vikArI. This is pretty simple. Isn't it?

Clay-pot is given keeping pariNAma-vAda in mind, which is the first level. Then vivarta-vAda where rope-snake is taught. Then ajAtivAda, where there is no perception, no creation.

World is Brahman -- according -- in advaita vedAnta is explained as NS explains - ghost-post.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

who indeed can deny a Jnani's experience that he is Brahman and that he also continues to enliven the body? As long as the body is there the world also will be perceived, but with the understanding that it is false

 

• With the understanding of that it is nothing but brahman and there existing brahman nothing but brahman. jnAni’s darshana is not mithyAdarshana but satya darshana, darshana of what exactly existing there, (yathArtha jnAna not ayatArtha jnAna)  Sarveshu brahmAdisthAvarAnteshu vishameshu sarvabhUteshu samaM nirvishesham brahmAtmaikavishayaM darshaNam jnAnaM yasya saH sarvatra samadarshanaH…And this samadarshana possible only when one realizes that  the sarvajna, sarvashakta kAraNa parabrahman from which proceeds the srushti, sthiti, laya of this jagat, the jagat which is differentiated by nAma, rUpa, consisting of many kartru, bhOktru-s and the abode of the fruits of actions regulated by particular places, times and causes (karma phaladAta) whose creation is not even conceivable by the mind and that cause is ekam eva adviteeya brahman.  BTW there is one more world that is created by jeeva due to his adhyAsa or lack of knowledge about his svarUpa and that world indeed does not exist it is mere gaNdharva nagari, Gagana Kusuma, snake in the rope etc. 

[Bhaskar YR]

See, world is changeable, active. It cannot be Brahman, because that would make Brahman vikArI. This is pretty simple. Isn't it?

 

Clay-pot is given keeping pariNAma-vAda in mind, which is the first level. Then vivarta-vAda where rope-snake is taught. Then ajAtivAda, where there is no perception, no creation.

 

Ø     In short kArya does not affect the kAraNa in any manner.  But at the same time kArya on its own cannot have any sort of existence apart from its kAraNa. 

• The shape of the pot, pitcher, jug etc. which appeared in the clay prompts us to think that clay (mrutsAmAnya) is vikAri But as we know this mrutsAmAnya continues to be clay whether this shape exists or does not exist. This means that the shape does not affect the clay in any way.  We are not saying this ghost is post.  We are simply saying what exists is only exists call it with the name you want.  Mruttiketyeva satyaM.  And when one has this mrutsAmAnya jnAna he would realize just as brahman the cause never deviates from the existence in all the three periods of time, so also the effect, the world, never deviates from existence in all the three periods (of srushti, sthiti, laya).  And existence again is ONLY ONE. So the effect is none other than the cause.  If one allergic to the name jagat they can call it as brahman by dropping the name ‘jagat’ we have no qualms with that 😊

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

BhAskar ji.

Suppose there is only clay. Without any activity, can pot appear?

You need some activity for clay to turn into pot. Isn't it?

There is only Brahman. Inactive Brahman. Can the world appear in inactive Brahman?

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

bhAshyakAra answered this question the sahakAri kAraNa 😊 BTW in my books it is not avidyA 😊

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

BHASKAR YR

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Sudhanshu Shekhar
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2024 4:52 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: avidyA is adhyasta (superimposed) in AtmA

 

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

--

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDAtyonzmDM4C%3DnnJDTna%3DW3t_2OQGGvVzxeqb3FeOmmQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Please answer how a singular inactive entity, without any activity, appear as world!!

Suppose a sixth-standard student asks this question. Sir, there is only one entity. Completely inactive. How can diversity appear from it? Something needs to happen, isn't it? Otherwise, shapes, forms will not arise.

Some activity is done, then only clay turns into pot. Isnt it?

Regards. 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Please answer how a singular inactive entity, without any activity, appear as world!!

 

• He is antaryAmi as well upAdAna…without legs he can run, without eyes he can see!!  There is no rule that everyone should have a SahakAri for every job. The jobs can take place even without them. Kevala saMkalpa mAtra he can do it as he is both upAdAna and nimitta for what he creates.  Don’t you know the spier example in shruti?? 

 

Suppose a sixth-standard student asks this question. Sir, there is only one entity. Completely inactive. How can diversity appear from it? Something needs to happen, isn't it? Otherwise, shapes, forms will not arise.

 

Ø     I will answer him there is sahAkAri kAraNa like wheel to make pot by potter etc.  😊  Ofcourse I know he is not tArkika like you 😊

 

Some activity is done, then only clay turns into pot. Isnt it?

 

Ø     That activity, the pot, the clay, the potter etc. are one and only one…though in vyavahAra they are different.  Don’t you know how bhAshyakAra explained this in anna, annada and shlOkakarta bhAshya??

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!! 

bhaskar

 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hmm.

• He is antaryAmi as well upAdAna…without legs he can run, without eyes he can see!!  There is no rule that everyone should have a SahakAri for every job. The jobs can take place even without them. Kevala saMkalpa mAtra he can do it as he is both upAdAna and nimitta for what he creates.  Don’t you know the spier example in shruti?? 

But running means activity na! I am not asking for sahakArI. But I am saying, some activity is there na.

So, inactive singular entity -- how do you explain manifest activity? 

Samkalpa mAtra is also activity na!! Samkalpa means something happening. How can that be possible without activity.

Let us concentrate on activity.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

Shankara has very well answered it in the BSB 1.4.3 तदधीनत्वादर्थवत् ॥ ३ ॥: We have to accept a shakti that is dependent on Brahman (unlike an independent shakti as the Sankhya accepts), without which the Brahman of Vedanta can do nothing:

अत्रोच्यते — यदि वयं स्वतन्त्रां काञ्चित्प्रागवस्थां जगतः कारणत्वेनाभ्युपगच्छेम, प्रसञ्जयेम तदा प्रधानकारणवादम् । परमेश्वराधीना त्वियमस्माभिः प्रागवस्था जगतोऽभ्युपगम्यते, न स्वतन्त्रा । सा चावश्याभ्युपगन्तव्या । अर्थवती हि सा । न हि तया विना परमेश्वरस्य स्रष्टृत्वं सिध्यति । शक्तिरहितस्य तस्य प्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तेः । मुक्तानां च पुनरनुत्पत्तिः । कुतः ? विद्यया तस्या बीजशक्तेर्दाहात् ।     

This alone is reflected in the very first Soundaryalahari verse:

Shivah Shaktya yukto yadi bhavati Shaktah prabhavitum
Na chedevam devo na khalu kushalah spanditumapi |
Atah tvam aradhyam Hari-Hara-Virinchadibhir api
Pranantum stotum vaa katham akrita-punyah prabhavati ||
– Soundarya Lahari 1

Joined with Shakti(thyself), Lord Shiva is capable of creating the Universe.
Otherwise, the Lord is not be able even to stir.
You are worthy of being adored even by Lord Vishnu, Lord Shiva and Lord Brahma.
Therefore, O Goddess! without acquiring great merits, how can a person be able to salute you?

regards

subbu

Regards. 

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBA2JSfjktCj5oVzyGyWzVXM96rpNtED_Wa%2BUUVtMTwi%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[लोकेश]

Sudhanshu Ji

> Define illusion and real. Then you will appreciate the fallacy. Don't use the words casually. 

I use the words illusion and real just like they are used in their normal usage. Something is real if it shows expected functional efficacy (अर्थक्रियासामर्थ्य). That which appears to have functional efficacy but doesn't is an illusion.

I expect water to quench my thirst and it does it, therefore it is real. Mirage doesn't quench my thirst, however, it gives a false hope of water, therefore it is an illusion.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Lokesh ji.

Again, several important points ignored by you!!

You had stated:

//You need to understand that for the dreamer, the dream is real, although, from the waking point of view, it is an illusion. //.

I asked: 

//Define illusion and real. Then you will appreciate the fallacy. Don't use the words casually.//

You responded:

 

I use the words illusion and real just like they are used in their normal usage. Something is real if it shows expected functional efficacy (अर्थक्रियासामर्थ्य). That which appears to have functional efficacy but doesn't is an illusion.

I expect water to quench my thirst and it does it, therefore it is real. Mirage doesn't quench my thirst, however, it gives a false hope of water, therefore it is an illusion.

1. In the dream-1, you saw a dream-2 that you wanted to quench your thirst. And you drank water in dream-2. It did quench your thirst in dream-2. Was the water in dream-2 illusory or real?

2. Your definition of reality and illusion involves "I". That is, if x shows expected artha-kriyA-kAritva with respect to "I", then x is real. And if x does not show expected artha-kriyA-kAritva with respect to "I", then x is an illusion. Right?

How to do you find out whether "I" is illusion or not? There will be AtmAshraya-dOsha. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

 

[लोकेश]

Sudhanshu Ji

1. Illusion

2. Yes

> How to do you find out whether "I" is illusion or not? There will be AtmAshraya-dOsha.

I'm not alluding to any hypothetical definition of the word illusion. What I used is practical, derived from our common experience. You can continue posing these questions and I can continue answering them for you. However, I feel that such an exercise may not lead us anywhere, because it is irrelevant in the discussion. I wish to close my participation with the following comments.

What I feel is that you have an unusual definition of illusion in mind which is that everything that is impermanent is an illusion. This I think is very childish kind of a definition and one that mostly Vedantins have conjured up in their head to prove to themselves that everything is an illusion. It is like this - I wish to prove that fish flies, therefore I will define fish as something that has wings. Hence, fish flies.

You can do the same thing with illusion. You can deceive others into thinking that everything is an illusion by changing the very definition of illusion to mean something which is impermanent. This is trickery and not really a valid proof.

[लोकेश]

I made an error. The answer to your first question is "real" not "illusion". The water in dream 2 is real from dream 2 point of view.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Sri Subbu prabhuji answered on my behalf.  Again brahman’s shakti ( his omnipotence and omniscience) is not it’s (brahman’s) avidyA but it is his svabhAva in my books 😊  but mUlAvidyAvAdins say it is brahman’s avidyA 😊

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

BHASKAR YR

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of V Subrahmanian
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2024 5:24 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: avidyA is adhyasta (superimposed) in AtmA

 

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

 

 

On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 4:58 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0EYVSM-h%2BzA2Op3kC9FoB5PMF4On2LYZrunsehzODNxw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Lokesh ji.

Your definition is like scratching the surface. You have not gone in depth.

Your definition implies that x is real and illusory at the same time. Dream-2-water is simultaneously real for dream-2-I and at that very time it was illusion for dream-1-I. This is weird as same entity at the same time is being attributed both reality and illusoriness.

You did not answer as to how do you identify whether the "I" is real/illusion. Your definition hinges on "I" whose reality/illusoriness is undefined. 

I'm not alluding to any hypothetical definition of the word illusion. What I used is practical, derived from our common experience.

 

Your definition is rooted in the reality of seer, which is itself questioned. You have not applied mind on this. There is AtmAshraya-dOsha.

 

You can continue posing these questions and I can continue answering them for you. However, I feel that such an exercise may not lead us anywhere, because it is irrelevant in the discussion. I wish to close my participation with the following comments.

 

Sir, hopefully we are not doing roadside tea-shop gossip. We are discussing about things which relate intimately to Brahma-vidyA. You are entitled to have your erroneous assumptions and conclusions which vest the same entity x with both reality and illusoriness.  

What I feel is that you have an unusual definition of illusion in mind which is that everything that is impermanent is an illusion. This I think is very childish kind of a definition and one that mostly Vedantins have conjured up in their head to prove to themselves that everything is an illusion. It is like this - I wish to prove that fish flies, therefore I will define fish as something that has wings. Hence, fish flies.

Again, this is emanating from complete non-understanding of advaita. Listen, mithyAtva i.e. illusoriness is defined as either of the following:

सत्त्वात्यन्ताभावासत्त्वात्यन्ताभावरूपधर्मद्वयवत्त्वं मिथ्यात्वम्;
प्रतिपन्नोपाधौ त्रैकालिकनिषेधप्रतियोगित्वं  मिथ्यात्वम्;
ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वं मिथ्यात्वम्;
स्वाश्रयनिष्ठात्यन्ताभावप्रतयोगित्वं मिथ्यात्वम्.

Impermanence is not a definition of illusoriness. Impermanence is derived to be illusory through anumAna. The definitions of illusoriness are provided before. All these definitions are in line with our day-to-day experience and are free from dOsha.

You can do the same thing with illusion. You can deceive others into thinking that everything is an illusion by changing the very definition of illusion to mean something which is impermanent. This is trickery and not really a valid proof.

 This shows that you have not understood the definition of mithyAtva in advaita vedAnta. And have the impudence to attribute deception and trickery to the other party. 

You have not understood the difference between definition and inference. Apply mind on it. 

All in all, you have simply avoided answering a number of questions posed in this thread which displays your own lack of understanding of whatever your siddhAnta is. And further, that you have no understanding of advaita vedAnta is clear from your responses.

Coupled with these two, you have the brazen impudence to attribute deception and trickery to the other party, which is not unexpected!!

I continue the discussion in the hope that the other party is interested in truth. I leave the assessment to the other party to examine whether he is interested in truth. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar ji.

AchArya says the following:

एक एव परमेश्वरः कूटस्थनित्यो विज्ञानधातु: अविद्यया, मायया मायाविवत् , अनेकधा विभाव्यते, नान्यो विज्ञानधातुरस्तीति ।

आत्मनो माया अविद्या, तया प्रत्युपस्थापिताः, न परमार्थतः सन्तीत्यर्थः ।

Can you explain why AchArya is using the word MAyA and avidyA interchangeably?

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB662517FE7AB70DA04A12959084142%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

--

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com

[Bhaskar YR]

एक एव परमेश्वरः कूटस्थनित्यो विज्ञानधातु: अविद्यया, मायया मायाविवत् , अनेकधा विभाव्यते, नान्यो विज्ञानधातुरस्तीति ।

आत्मनो माया अविद्या, तया प्रत्युपस्थापिताः, न परमार्थतः सन्तीत्यर्थः ।

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

So as per your understanding, since brahman in itself having the avidyA so bhAshyakAra used the mAyA and avidyA interchangeably…Do you think / argue that this is an unambiguous statement by bhAshyakAra and he is emphasizing here that brahman is having the avidyA ??  BTW, what do you going to achieve by realizing this avidyAvanta brahman who is at the same time nishkriya, nirvayava, nirguNa (but avidyAvanta) and cannot do anything on its own!!?? 😊

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.

You did not answer my question as to why BhAshyakAra is using the words MAyA and avidyA interchangeably here.

Anyway, let me answer your questions:

So as per your understanding, since brahman in itself having the avidyA so bhAshyakAra used the mAyA and avidyA interchangeably…

Yes prabhu ji. anAtmA cannot have avidyA, right! Because anAtmA is ajnAna-kArya. So, only AtmA i.e. Brahman can have avidyA. "can have" means locus. Naishkarmya Siddhi says -  एवं तावत् नाऽनात्मनोऽज्ञानित्वम्, नापि तद्विषयमज्ञानम्।  पारिशेष्यादात्मन एवास्त्वज्ञानम्.

So, Brahman is locus of avidyA i.e. Brahman "has" avidyA is undisputed siddhAnta of advaita vedAnta.

However, the point is - "Brahman has avidyA" is stated while sitting in avidyA. Please see BrihadAraNyak Sambandha bhAshya VArtika:

PUrvapaksha

ब्रह्माविद्यावदिष्टं चेन्ननु दोषो महानयम् ।।
निरविद्ये च, विद्याया आनर्थक्यं प्रसज्यते ।। १७५ ।।

If you hold that Brahman is avidyA-vAn, then is it not a great defect? And if you say that Brahman is without avidyA, then there will arise the contingency of uselessness of vidyA.

SiddhAntI

नाविद्याऽस्येत्यविद्यायामेवाऽऽसित्वा प्रकल्प्यते ।।
ब्रह्मटृष्ट्या त्वविद्येयं न कथंचन युज्यते ।। १७६ ।।

No. Because, "avidyA is of Brahman" is stated while sitting in avidyA. From the point of view of Brahman, the avidyA itself is not possible to be postulated.

 

Do you think / argue that this is an unambiguous statement by bhAshyakAra and he is emphasizing here that brahman is having the avidyA ??

These statements clearly describe that BhAshyakAra is using MAyA and avidyA interchangeably.

 BTW, what do you going to achieve by realizing this avidyAvanta brahman who is at the same time nishkriya, nirvayava, nirguNa (but avidyAvanta) and cannot do anything on its own!!?? 😊

So, Brahman is nishkriya, niravayava, nirguNa is a statement of apavAda, whereas Brahman has avidyA is a statement of adhyArOpa. The apavAda statement will lead to rejection of avidyA and ensure situating as nishkriya Brahman. This is the obvious meaning coming out of it.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

 

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji

Thank you for sharing these two verses.

Did SSSS ji reconcile these two vArtika verses anywhere? Because as I understand, they accept Sri Sureshvaracharaya to a great extent.

 I meant the verses that assert clearly that 

"asya brahmaNah avidyA" is a statement whose acceptance within the realm of avidyA *does not* shatter Advaita to pieces (as colorfully expressed by SSSS). 

ब्रह्माविद्यावदिष्टं चेन्ननु  दोषो महानयम् ।।
निरविद्ये च, विद्याया आनर्थक्यं प्रसज्यते ।। १७५ ।।

If you hold that Brahman is avidyA-vAn, then is it not a great defect? And if you say that Brahman is without avidyA, then there will arise the contingency of uselessness of vidyA.

नाविद्याऽस्येत्यविद्यायामेवाऽऽसित्वा प्रकल्प्यते ।।
ब्रह्मटृष्ट्या त्वविद्येयं न कथंचन युज्यते ।। १७६ ।।

No. Because, "avidyA is of Brahman" is stated while sitting in avidyA. From the point of view of Brahman, the avidyA itself is not possible to be postulated."

Nothing could be clearer than this. And sva-para-nirvAhikA nature of avidyA ensures that there is no AtmAshraya doSha (the logical fallacy of self-dependence) either.

Om

Raghav

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

--

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

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBC%2BEArFpUfakpOw_rNMo18cf9arCuD134rJOfZSBK5pQ%40mail.gmail.com

.

[V Subrahmanian]

Even in the Br.Up.Bh. 1.4.10 Aham Brahmasmi, Shankara discusses at length and concludes: We have to attribute avidya to Brahman alone because: Avidya can be for a sentient entity alone, and there is no other sentient entity than Brahman.  

Nevertheless, such avidya is mithyA and the attribution is also an as if.  Only then the pAramArthika Adviteeya status of Brahman stands unchallenged. So, the system of Advaita is very strongly built by Shankara himself, on the basis of the shruti. 

regards

subbu 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1887621836.9075582.1735873080891%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Subbuji

Indeed. And I may add that this "attribution" of avidyA to Brahman obviously cannot be from the pAramArthika standpoint; so it is from the vyAvahArika standpoint. 

The question that would then remain would be "Why would anyone start to seek/pursue this avidyA-tinged Brahman?", as Bhaskar ji asked.  Since this has already been answered, I shall be brief . Brahman is understood as avidyAvAn-iva upon vedAntic enquiry, not before enquiry.

Prima facie, Ishvara is the sRShTA of all the adhArmik people too. We cannot start with akartR Ishvara. Only upon vedAntic enquiry, Ishvara who is sRShTi-kartA, merely as-though creates.  Really Ishvara is akartA - that is the conclusion of vedAntic enquiry, not it's starting point, of anuvAda of the initial experience of the world.

Unless Ishvara is discovered as akartA, the fact that law of karma accounts for adharma and dukha etc., would not absolve Him of affliction. Because the law of karma is also a manifestation of Ishvara.

Om

Raghav

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0_r7hnS4-QLJjKpx1%3DqVX7y38h3784%3DPF1f-MS_-Dmxw%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 10:37 AM Raghav Kumar <raghav...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Namaste Subbuji

Indeed. And I may add that this "attribution" of avidyA to Brahman obviously cannot be from the pAramArthika standpoint; so it is from the vyAvahArika standpoint. 

The question that would then remain would be "Why would anyone start to seek/pursue this avidyA-tinged Brahman?", as Bhaskar ji asked.  Since this has already been answered, I shall be brief . Brahman is understood as avidyAvAn-iva upon vedAntic enquiry, not before enquiry.

Very nicely put, Raghav ji.  In fact Shankara has himself answered that question too, to the fullest satisfaction of any questioner:

The realization of aham brahma asmi has been articulated by Shankara in the Brahma sutra bhashya thus: 

 पूर्वसिद्धकर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वविपरीतं हि त्रिष्वपि कालेष्वकर्तृत्वाभोक्तृत्वस्वरूपं ब्रह्माहमस्मि,नेतः पूर्वमपि कर्ता भोक्ता वा अहमासम्, नेदानीम्, नापि भविष्यत्काले — इति ब्रह्मविदवगच्छति ; एवमेव च मोक्ष उपपद्यते ; ४.१.२३. इति ।  

Contrary to the previous thinking that I am doer-enjoyer, in all the three periods of time I am Brahman that is neither doer nor enjoyer. Before I was not a doer-enjoyer, nor now, nor even in the future will I be doer-enjoyer - such is the realization of a Knower. BSB 4.1.23.

Nothing can be more direct than this:  This statement 1. accepts there was avidya before and 2.that upon realization it would be realized that there was no avidya even before.  

That makes Brahman pure in all three periods of time.  Untaintable.   

warm regards

subbu

  

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Indeed. And I may add that this "attribution" of avidyA to Brahman obviously cannot be from the pAramArthika standpoint; so it is from the vyAvahArika standpoint. 

 

Ø     So according to you in vyavahAra the brahman itself have the avidyA and in paramArtha it does not….brahman has two rUpa then, one in avidyA in vyavahAra and another one is in paramArtha, thanks for sparing brahman from avidyA atleast in paramArtha 😊

 

The question that would then remain would be "Why would anyone start to seek/pursue this avidyA-tinged Brahman?", as Bhaskar ji asked. 

 

• Yes, I asked this because even before talking anything about jeeva and jagat, you prabhuji-s already started talking about brahmAshrita avidyA….No jeeva effort would efface the avidyA in brahman because it is pre-existing one in brahman as his own!!  So, avidyA would become his sva-bhAva hence cannot be eradicated with any amount of jnAna that would be acquired from the jeeva through shravaNAdi sAdhana. 

 

 

Since this has already been answered, I shall be brief . Brahman is understood as avidyAvAn-iva upon vedAntic enquiry, not before enquiry.

 

Ø     What sort of vedAntic enquiry is this??  Do you start brahma jignAsa by saying ‘as if brahman is having avidyA’!!??  or OTOH brahman is our own svarUpa who is nitya, Shuddha, buddha, mukta paripUrNa Ananda svarUpa??  If your contention is right then sUtra would have been started with athAthO avidyAvAn-eva brahma jignAsa 😊 

 

• Coming back to locus of avidyA ( the Ashraya of avidyA)  bhAmati says it is jeevaashrita, and your prabhuji-s (PP & V) say brahman itself having the avidyA and he is the visha and Ashraya for the avidyA, there is hell a lot of confusion with regard to locus, object and number of avidyA-s.  And you also say world is illusion but avidyA has the objective existence and it is dravya and bhAva rUpa and it is an existing ‘shakti’ even covers/conceals the brahman itself.  And also declare no avidyA is neither bhAva nor abhAva, it is anirvachaneeya, sAkshi vEdya etc.

 

• For those who follow shankara and ONLY shankara would definitely know that these are speculations of later vyAkhyAnakAra-s and avidyA as in adhyAsa rUpa is only a mental mixing up of the real and unreal (mithyA pratyaya rUpa).  And as for the Ashraya of this avidyA as per mUla bhAshyakAra is simply we understand as per his own words without any polish and fabrication to it by later vyAkhyAnakAra-s.  Su. Bh. 4-1-3 : if it should be asked ‘and to whom is this avidyA or non enlightenment??  siddhAnti :  TO YOU WHO ARE asking this question.  But if it is objected like : am I not Ishwara / brahman himself declared by shruti??  For this siddhAnti answers :  if you are awakened to this reality then please note there IS NO ONE TO WHOM THE AVIDYA BELONGS. 

 

• Brahman having avidyA is the fanciful theory of later vyAkhyAnakAra-s completely ignoring the jeeva’s antaHkaraNa dOsha in day to day life.  adhyAsa bhAshya is there to explain jeeva’s misconception not to prove brahmAshrita avidyA.  Those who study this without any later vyAkhyAnakAra-s fabricated views would obviously come to understand that the question about a locus for avidyA can arise ONLY at the level of vyAvahAric life, where there is already accepted duality where pramAtru, pramANa and prameya bedha holds sway.  In this transaction the one who raises the question would definitely influenced by this duality so the question is superfluous at that stage.  But when one realizes that his svarUpa is brahman or Ishwara and it is the ONLY reality, there can be neither any question nor reply concerning that socalled avidyA whatsoever. 

 

• Please be aware that there would be nothing second beside HIM in the shape of avidyA to advocate the theory of brahmAshrita avidyA, when avidyA is categorically declared as antaHkaraNa dOsha and it is adhyAsa rupa and all the loukika and vaidika vyavahAra presupposes this type of avidyA. 

 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Bhaskar prabhu ji.

Please read SSSS ji explanation in third chapter of Klesha apahAriNI where he accepts Brahman as Ashraya of avidyA.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Bhaskar ji.

Please check the following from Klesha apahAriNI which states that nitya-kUTastha-chaitanya AtmA is both the Ashraya and vishaya of avidyA.

1. Please answer definitively whether you agree with SSSS ji here?

2. Whether you agree with Sureshwara in Sambandha VArtika verse quoted by me, which is also quoted by SSSS ji, in this chapter of NS to stress that Brahman is Ashraya of avidyA.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Raghav ji.

Did SSSS ji reconcile these two vArtika verses anywhere? Because as I understand, they accept Sri Sureshvaracharaya to a great extent.

SSSS ji accepts these two verses of vArtika and quotes them in his Naishkarmya Siddhi commentary in chapter 3. SSSS ji accepts that Brahman is the locus and vishaya of ajnAna. I have shared the excerpt in previous mail.

Curiously, his followers, such as Bhaskar ji, seem to reject this view of SSSS ji and instead pose jIva as Ashraya of avidyA. I don't know whom they consider as vishaya of avidyA. Their teacher SSSS ji clearly says आत्मनः एव अज्ञानित्वम्, अज्ञानविषयत्वं च। And explains AtmA to mean nitya shuddha kUTastha chaitanya AtmA. That is Brahman as he explains quoting VArtika verse.

I don't know whether they would answer this question of mine as many questions of mine are plainly ignored by them as "verbal diarrhea". I don't mind such adjectives because I understand that sometimes people may get frustrated and angry with me. That is understandable.

But at least, the questions raised should be answered. More so, if their teacher has held the same view.

I meant the verses that assert clearly that "asya brahmaNah avidyA" is a statement whose acceptance within the realm of avidyA *does not* shatter Advaita to pieces (as colorfully expressed by SSSS). 

He would answer that ajnAna is jnAna-abhAva. And this jnAna-abhAva has nitya shuddha chaitanya AtmA as the Ashraya as well as vishaya.

Nothing could be clearer than this. And sva-para-nirvAhikA nature of avidyA ensures that there is no AtmAshraya doSha (the logical fallacy of self-dependence) either.

That is true. This is the advaita siddhAnta.

People who hold ajnAna as jnAna-abhAva have no understanding as to what abhAva is. If asked to define and analyse abhAva, they cannot do that. Their discussions are casual and loose. They use words casually with vagueness. So, their theory is not taken seriously because they don't understand what they are talking about.

Regards, 

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji

Regarding what you wrote about the total divergence between SSSS and his current followers viz.,

"Curiously, his followers, such as Bhaskar ji, seem to reject this view of SSSS ji and instead pose jIva as Ashraya of avidyA. I don't know whom they consider as vishaya of avidyA. Their teacher SSSS ji clearly says आत्मनः एव अज्ञानित्वम्, अज्ञानविषयत्वं च। And explains AtmA to mean nitya shuddha kUTastha chaitanya AtmA. That is Brahman as he explains quoting VArtika verse",

 I note the following -

1. If ajnAna is just antaHkaraNa-doSha the same way as seeing a snake instead of a rope is an  antaHkaraNa doSha, then it does not square with SSSS saying that आत्मनः एव अज्ञानित्वम्  particularly noteworthy is the एव usage by SSSS. 

2. Regarding the dRshyatvAt hetu mentioned by you for the mithyAtvaM niscaya, how do they or anyone deal with dRshyatvAt hetu which would put the rope-snake and antaHkaraNa as being ontologically same. And this ontological sameness is taught and asserted while within vyavahAra itself during the vedAnta teaching process. 

Because they (SSSS and co.) seek to arbitrarily contradict the dRshyatvAt hetu by saying snake is avidyA-kalpita while mind itself is not avidyA-kalpita, it is mAya-kalpita. My understanding is that this is contrary to Siddhanta because it leaves mAyA unsublated.

Om

Raghav

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

--

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

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCs0%3D-od6Sp0YKXhFBMSvM%3Ddg2P5ZUH4yNQ96rFC5rsxw%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Raghav ji.

1. If ajnAna is just antaHkaraNa-doSha the same way as seeing a snake instead of a rope is an  antaHkaraNa doSha, then it does not square with SSSS saying that आत्मनः एव अज्ञानित्वम्  particularly noteworthy is the एव usage by SSSS. 

That is true. 

I have a bit to add here. avidyA is not the antah-karaNa-dOsha even in case of rajju-sarpa.

DOsha is required in kArya-adhyAsa. This dOsha is three-fold. PramAtri-dOsha, vishaya-dOsha and karaNa-dOsha. PramAtri-dOsha are fear, attachment; vishaya-dosha is similarity; karaNa-dOsha is defect in the eye etc.

avidyA as antah-karaNa-dOsha is not required. antah-karaNa acting as upAdhi acts as dOsha regarding fear, attachment etc.

Illusory snake is a product of avidyA, which is rajju-avachchhina-chaitanya-nishTha. We cannot say that avidyA is antah-karaNa-dOsha even in rajju-sarpa. That is my point.

2. Regarding the dRshyatvAt hetu mentioned by you for the mithyAtvaM niscaya, how do they or anyone deal with dRshyatvAt hetu which would put the rope-snake and antaHkaraNa as being ontologically same. And this ontological sameness is taught and asserted while within vyavahAra itself during the vedAnta teaching process. 

Because they (SSSS and co.) seek to arbitrarily contradict the dRshyatvAt hetu by saying snake is avidyA-kalpita while mind itself is not avidyA-kalpita, it is mAya-kalpita. My understanding is that this is contrary to Siddhanta because it leaves mAyA unsublated.

SSSS ji holds mAyA to be avidyA-kalpita. That is, mAyA is imagined due to ignorance. And this imagined-mAyA is shakti of Ishwara. And with this shakti, real Ishwara creates real world, which is not different from Brahman. 

You can ascertain the logical soundness of this assertion!!

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar