Brahman is the All

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Attached file on this topic "Brahman is the All" using the Chair as central example/analogy. Take as a compilation of my thoughts on the subject, as usual may have errors in understanding. It was mainly written around 2 weeks back, edited (sec III, III.2) now for posting. I had more ideas that I wanted to write in an ordered way but it may not happen soon, so decided to post. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Ram Chandran]

Dear Putranji:

 

One of the standard explanations often used in advaita is through Gold and Ring Analogy!  Dr. Sadananda has posted many messages in this list using the Gold and Gold-ring Analogy. He has also written with great details through Web articles published with the title, “Critical Analysis of Vedanta Paribhasha” and are available at:  https://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/knowledge/perceptuality_questions1.htm

 

In the Gold and Ring analogy, the ring represents a transitory form and the gold represents the unchanging or the transcendent form.  Likewise within a person, the body, mind and intellect undergo lots of changes which are transitory. But there is also an underlying essence (Atman) that remains the same. The gold can assume many forms such as ring, necklace, bangle, etc. but yet the underlying reality (gold) is the substratum of all those forms of gold jewelry.

 

Instead of using the gold and ring analogy, you have developed the analogy of  ‘chair’ and its ‘leg.’  Even though you tried to explain advaita using this analogy, I am not sure whether this will be accepted to many scholars of advaita. 

 

I suggest that you send your pdf to Acharya Sadananda and get his feedback which would be helpful to you to make appropriate revisions.

 

With my warm regards,

Ram Chandran 

[putran M]

Namaskaram Ram Chandran-ji,

It is quite possible that my "mananam" has elements of wrong understanding in it. But I don't think the issue is with the analogy by the example objects. The same advaita tattva has to be discerned in spite of either type of object identification. In vyavaharika (within the reach of language and thought), in my viewpoint, this tattva is "Ishvara is the All".

What does this mean with the Gold analogy?

The Gold is not substance apart from form. The forms are eternally intrinsic to Gold as its upadhi-based knowledge, and the manifest "bracelet" is the "cognitive conditioning/superimposing/projecting" of Gold in the "bracelet upadhi". Maya-shakti refers to the power of Gold that has within it both the knowledge of forms and the power to manifest/cognize them. 

The Gold (Wood in my file) analogy offers a simplification for the mind. We are able to separate think of the duality of forms from the non-duality of substance, and thereby reduce one dimension of that form-substance duality to mithya, transitory status and the know the substratum as unchanging real.

The Chair analogy attempts a different route. It says every cognition of Chair is upadhi-conditioned knowledge of the Chair-All. The Chair-All is not split into Chair vs All (like Gold-substance vs its forms). It is non-dual Reality that by way of mayic conditioning is known variously. The Chair-leg would be one such cognized "face" of the Chair-All; for the jnani, no matter the face he sees, it is the Chair-All that he knows.

That is the general idea, that the chair analogy offers a different insight that may not come out as clearly in the gold-ring analogy. I expressed it in the file in a way I was comfortable with; but it may need to be modified according to the sub-school of advaita (given all the avidya vs maya debates here).

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/168aea64-db57-410f-a4c8-468474dae823n%40googlegroups.com.

[Ram Chandran]

Dear Putranji:

The purpose of our discussion group is to bring new ideas and make appropriate corrections when necessary.  I have forwarded your pdf file to Dr. Sadananda who has agreed to send a reply soon.  He has just gone for a Cataract surgery a week back and will post when he becomes ready.  

In my email correspondence with him, his brief reply is the following:

"Gold-ring example is from Chandogya Upanishad where material cause and the effects are discussed. The effect is nothing but cause in a form with attributes. Upanishad provides three examples to illustrate the cause-effect relationship. 

Chair - leg example may not be right. The leg is not the same as the chair in a different form. 

Will respond to the article. "

I am looking forward to hear from him.  My personal thanks to you for sharing the article,

with warm regards,

Ram Chandran

[Ram Chandran]

I am forwarding the posting from Sadaji since it will be useful reference for those interested in Advaita Philosophy. I want to express my special thanks to Acharya Sadaji (a Senior Moderator) who provided time inspite of having Cataract surgery 10 days back. Ram Chandran

Putranji – Shree Ram Chandran sent me your article in pdf form. I went through it
quickly. Here are some comments of mine for your consideration.

As stated by Putranji:
When we “see a chair”, the non-dual self-knowledge obtained by the
cognition (pratyaksha) of the chair is immediate and doubtless in our
consciousness. Our cognition centers on the chair individually and distinctly
from the rest of the world around it. There is Identity/self. At the same time,
we are aware that the visual or other sensory content of our cognition of the
chair is not constant or unique; it is subject to change, depending on
various factors such as time, distance, angle, available light, the primary
sense in contact with the chair, etc. When we “see a chair”, the non-dual
self-knowledge obtained by the cognition (pratyaksha) of the chair is
immediate and doubtless in our consciousness. Our cognition centers on
the chair individually and distinctly from the rest of the world around it.
There is Identity/self. At the same time, we are aware that the visual or
other sensory content of our cognition of the chair is not constant or unique;
it is subject to change, depending on various factors such as time,
distance, angle, available light, the primary sense in contact with the chair,
etc.
Sada: I do not think cognition of a chair as on object is immediate. When a
child sees the chair for the first time, he may not know what it is. He just
sees the object and his mother teaches him ‘it is a chair’. Senses can only
perceive the attributes of the object – form, color etc. When a
corresponding thought forms in the mind, and consciousness illumining that
thought results in the knowledge of the thought – that is called perceptuality
condition in Vedanta Paribhash. The cognized object is then compared with
the stored memory (if it is there) and re-cognition takes place that ‘it is a
chair’. The first time there is no memory – That is termed in Advaita as
indeterminate cognition. When the mother teaches him as it is a chair, then
it forms a determinate cognition stored in the memory. A similar object, a
little bit different form of the chair, when the child sees and mother says that
it is also a chair, the child picks up then some generic features of the chair
– This is called Jaati. Only Tarkikas give importance to the Jaati as an
important fundamental category – Not Advaita. Whenever a chair is
perceived, cognition at the mental level and recognition based on the
memory based on the objects of similar attributes take place.

A chair is not a material property like wood. It is only an individual form of a
word. Wood has no form but can exist in various forms with different
attributes and corresponding names such as chairs, tables, stools, desks,
etc. They arise from wood, sustained by wood, and go back into wood.
Chandogya Upanishad uses Gold, mud, and wrought iron – three examples
to show the cause itself exits in different forms (attributes) with each with a
different name. The chair is not a material cause, even though it is a jaati
for several forms that look like chairs.
Chandogya Upanishad uses these example and says SAT or existence is
the material cause from which the whole universe is formed, sustained and
go back into. A similar statement is made in Tai Up – yatova imaani
bhuutani jaayante … etc.
Uddaalaka then concludes with the fundamental statement that – existence
is sat – you – tat tvam asi, swetaketu. The essence of this entire universe is
nothing but existence and that is the Self that you are.
Instead of a chair, it may be more appropriate to you ‘wood’ as the material
cause for all wooden objects, including chairs, tables, desks, stools, etc. In
essence ‘Jaati’ is not a material cause but represents a family of objects
that have some similar attributes. It is like Rings, Bangles, Bracelets, etc
as there can be many types of Rings, Bangles, etc.
Shankara says – there is no sajaati, vijaati, and sagata bhedas in existence
– while Ramanuja subscribes to Swagata bhedas in Brahman.
By the by – these are discussed along with the Jaati aspect in my recent
book ‘How Do I Know’, published by the Indic Academy and made available
online on Amazon, etc. This is part of Prathyaksha Pramana discussed in
my series on Critical Analysis of Vedanta Paribhash that Ram referred.
Hari Om!
Sada  

On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 2:37:31 PM UTC-4 putranm4 wrote:

[putran M]

Namaskaram Sada-ji, Ram Chandran-ji,

I think it is possible that the analogy is misleading in some respects from what it is supposed to indicate by way of similarity, but this is not atypical even for other well-known analogies. They are not going to be a perfect match. We use something within the realm of duality that points our attention to the non-dual truth of Brahman. There is a limit to how much we can use them. In that sense, the chair-analogy can help indicate advaita if we don’t extend outside its scope. 

If we think of the Gold-ring analogy, it is based on two aspects that are real in vyavaharika: Substance and Form. Two forms, the ring and bracelet, are distinct by an actual change of form, and not a cognitive change. The analogy is arguably suited for some sort of parinama vada. Moreover if we try to separately consider the Substance aspect and lower the form aspect (by pointing out particular form variations which do not actually undermine the form dimension of reality), then how is substance Gold the All? It is not obvious and we have to twist and turn because the analogy has its limitations like any other. 

What is the principle that this Chair-analogy is meant to highlight? That Brahman is the All. How so? The All denotes the objects of knowledge/cognition. The chair-form, chair-leg, chair+background, the wood, the brown colour. Even though the All appears fundamentally dualistic, the advaitic truth is that it is non-dual Reality appearing (being cognized) in manifold nama-rupa. Of course, the clay-pot, gold-ring analogy is standard for this purpose. The Chair analogy brings to light the same truth, perhaps from a slightly different angle or as an alternate viewpoint. 

The analogy points out how the same non-dual Chair is the subject of manifold objective cognitions. Whatever is in our cognition (chair, leg, chair-leg, chair+background, wood, brown colour) and known to us is a viewing (limiting) of the non-dual Reality, the Chair-All (Brahman), through a particular upadhi lens provided by Maya. Each "partial cognition" has vyavaharika satya because it is the manifest knowledge of Ishvara. However, (unlike in VA) the duality in our cognition and of the multiplicity of cognitions does not transfer to the Substratum except by way of Maya/adhyasa. It is “as if” and becomes subsumed/sublated when we shift attention to the substratum "Chair-All".

The top-view of chair is a partial cognition and yet when we see it, we think "I see the chair". The chair-leg is also a partial cognition of the chair, and it is just as possible that when one sees/touches the leg, one realizes "I see/touch the Chair”. The advaitic realization is of the non-dual Chair="Chair-All" that is known in all these conditioned limiting ways including the top-view, the leg, the chair-leg, the wood-substance, the brown colour. The jnani realizes the unchanging Self (the "Chair-All") in all Chair-cognitions. 

(I realize I didn't spend time trying to answer some of Sada-ji's objections; but I feel a unique utility in this analogy especially for mananam and realizing the All as Ishvara. That has to be the focus for the analogy.)

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/b0a2a7ed-ed0b-404d-a880-40ac678bae1cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

(I realize I didn't spend time trying to answer some of Sada-ji's objections; but I feel a unique utility in this analogy especially for mananam and realizing the All as Ishvara. That has to be the focus for the analogy.)

 

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Due to time constraints I am not able to read the articles you have written on sanAtana dharma and brahman all.  But I read Sri Rama prabhuji, Sri Sada prabhuji replies and your latest mail.  If your chair-leg analogy is ‘as same as’ conventional gold-ring analogy to ultimately drive home the point that ‘sarvaM khalvidaM brahma’ then, IMO, no need to find fault with analogies which have been used for the ‘same’ purpose.  But if you think you chair-leg analogy is more appropriate and has an unique utility than the traditional one then you have to make your observations accordingly contrasting your analogy with that of traditional mrudghata or survarNAbharaNa. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Ramachandran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Chair - leg example may not be right. The leg is not the same as the chair in a different form. 

 

• I think I have raised this point when he first brought this example in the list ( I am not talking about his recent PDF article) The cognition of leg (leg alone without complete cognition of ‘chair)  would not always give us the knowledge of chair (jAti) but would definitely give us the knowledge of ‘wood’ (sAmAnya), we might be cognizing the legs of cot who knows??  But as Sri Putran prabhuji clarified it is just a stretch of analogy without taking into account of its intended purpose.  Chair’s leg, back rest, its colour etc. are explained to say its all wood so any stretch of this analogy is just unwarranted.  But will be interesting to understand why Sri Putran prabhuji takes this jAti as main and more appropriate example in place  of traditional sAmAnya-vishesha. 

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

Firstly, for the purpose of the analogy, it may be sufficient or best to consider a single Chair (Brahman) as opposed to a chair in a world of other chairs and cots and so on. 

As I mentioned in the earlier mail, the gold-ring analogy has to be guarded against falling into parinama vada. Because in common understanding, there is a shape dimension of reality that is brought about by the moulding of gold within space. If you say the gold has ring form, then where is the bracelet form? We can say "It is intrinsic in the manifesting potential of gold." but this is not obvious in the usual understanding of gold. Typically when we see the ring shape, we think the bracelet shape is not there and not that "bracelet is in the gold". (Not an issue for using the analogy with appropriate clarifiers, just saying it is not obvious to the analogy.) 

In the case of the Chair, when you see the top-view of the chair, do you doubt the existence of the bottom-view? Does the chair have to undergo some internal change in order to create that bottom-view? Neither is created or destroyed but is the eternal knowledge intrinsic to the Chair. Cognition through the appropriate upadhi-lens obtains this knowledge of Chair. But when you have such a limiting cognition (like the top-view), is it not natural to realize "I am seeing the chair" as opposed to "I am seeing top-view chair different from bottom-view"? Or, is it not natural to think "I am seeing the same Chair that my friend is seeing" even though the cognitions will have very different content? 

The Chair in such considerations is naturally known in a non-dual manner.

Now, with regard to leg, yes this analogy has to be interpreted correctly. It is not that the leg and the chair constitute same knowledge. They are based on different upadhis (even though the leg-upadhi can be understood as a sub-upadhi of the chair's). The chair is an object of knowledge and the leg is an object of knowledge. The relation implicit in the identification "chair-leg" is an object of knowledge. The Chair-All is the non-dual Reality that becomes known as chair, leg, chair-leg, top-view of chair, and so on, based on the cognitive conditioning by way of maya/upadhi. I am not saying everyone will see/touch the leg and think Chair. Most will say leg vs arm vs Chair. The jnani realizes non-dual Chair-All in all partial chair-cognitions (which includes the leg).

This reminds me of objects in mathematical set theory. A set "E" has a power-set "H" where H is the set containing all subsets of E (including E). By that analogy, H would be the Chair-All whereas E the chair.

Anyway, I thought I already explained these points one way or other in the file, didn't see a big debate coming on it. I have to look back at your earlier objections since they were likely in the context of avidya/maya debate; the present file explaining this analogy I would have thought aligned more with your understanding - perhaps not!

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581FBFFEE2A597A8C6CAE1484C2A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

• I was writing my reply on ‘avidyAvanta brahman/Ishwara’ and in the middle of it your mail came, I left that there and replying to your mail 😊

 

Firstly, for the purpose of the analogy, it may be sufficient or best to consider a single Chair (Brahman) as opposed to a chair in a world of other chairs and cots and so on. 

 

Ø     Your assertion ‘a single chair’ would give the impression that it is talking about ‘a particular nAma and rUpa (a particular and specific name and form of the common thing / substance called wood)  until you clarify it otherwise.  Perhaps Sri Sada prabhuji and Sri Ramachandran prabhuji objecting this analogy based on this understanding.  Just guessing you can wait for their replies.  And at the cursory reading ‘A single chair’ analogy does not give us the clarity about ‘wood’ but a particular form of ‘wood’ which is different from other forms of ‘wood’.  Anyway I agree with you analogy when you clarified it is in the sense of brahman is the all. 

 

As I mentioned in the earlier mail, the gold-ring analogy has to be guarded against falling into parinama vada. Because in common understanding, there is a shape dimension of reality that is brought about by the moulding of gold within space. If you say the gold has ring form, then where is the bracelet form? We can say "It is intrinsic in the manifesting potential of gold." but this is not obvious in the usual understanding of gold. Typically when we see the ring shape, we think the bracelet shape is not there and not that "bracelet is in the gold". (Not an issue for using the analogy with appropriate clarifiers, just saying it is not obvious to the analogy.) 

 

Ø     I am just curious how your single chair analogy is free from above defects to prefer ‘chair’ in place of gold-ring analogy.  BTW, those who traditionally takes these analogies for the clarification with regard to kArya(effect) kAraNa (cause) ananyatvaM do not advocate literal transformation of Chaitanya into jada etc. OTOH it is there to advocate Atmaikatvam or brahmaikatvaM.  If we stretch gold-ring analogy beyond its limited scope the purpose of Advaita pratipAdana through this analogy will not be served.  kArya is vAchAraMbhaNa aiming to understand the ‘tattva’ behind it. 

 

Anyway, I thought I already explained these points one way or other in the file, didn't see a big debate coming on it. I have to look back at your earlier objections since they were likely in the context of avidya/maya debate; the present file explaining this analogy I would have thought aligned more with your understanding - perhaps not!

 

Ø     Though all (sarvaM) denotes some duality Brahman is all is what shruti siddhAnta one cannot deny this at any stretch of imagination. And if your article is saying this using some unique analogies I am fine with it as I am not so particular about ‘drushtAnta’ when dAstrAntika’ is clearly explained. 

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

Ø     Your assertion ‘a single chair’ would give the impression that it is talking about ‘a particular nAma and rUpa (a particular and specific name and form of the common thing / substance called wood)  until you clarify it otherwise.  Perhaps Sri Sada prabhuji and Sri Ramachandran prabhuji objecting this analogy based on this understanding. 

As I said, analogies will have limits within which they may help best. If you use the gold analogy, where gold denotes one-without-second Brahman, it will not be proper for me to state "what about wood? What about clay? They also exist not just gold, so analogy is misleading!" For the purpose of the analogy, we restrict attention to one substance and build around that. 

In the case of the chair, I have already explained how I interpret it's cognitions in this analogy. 

Ø     I am just curious how your single chair analogy is free from above defects to prefer ‘chair’ in place of gold-ring analogy.  BTW, those who traditionally takes these analogies for the clarification with regard to kArya(effect) kAraNa (cause) ananyatvaM do not advocate literal transformation of Chaitanya into jada etc. OTOH it is there to advocate Atmaikatvam or brahmaikatvaM.  If we stretch gold-ring analogy beyond its limited scope the purpose of Advaita pratipAdana through this analogy will not be served.  kArya is vAchAraMbhaNa aiming to understand the ‘tattva’ behind it. 

I gave the chair analogy and said in a reply that I found it has unique utility for my mananam etc. I make no claim of originality to whatever extent people find it serves a correct purpose. I was not comparing against the gold analogy until Sada-ji said chair analogy appears flawed etc. It's a matter of preference and nature of usage, and how we control the misleading boundaries in the analogies.

Any case, people can read that file where I grapple with subtleties further, and agree, disagree, modify to fit with their knowledge of Advaita and use it.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

 

Anyway, I thought I already explained these points one way or other in the file, didn't see a big debate coming on it. I have to look back at your earlier objections since they were likely in the context of avidya/maya debate; the present file explaining this analogy I would have thought aligned more with your understanding - perhaps not!

 

Ø     Though all (sarvaM) denotes some duality Brahman is all is what shruti siddhAnta one cannot deny this at any stretch of imagination. And if your article is saying this using some unique analogies I am fine with it as I am not so particular about ‘drushtAnta’ when dAstrAntika’ is clearly explained. 

 

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581A279FBE691FC53F4431284C2A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Ram Chandran]

namaskar:

Problems always exist while using analogies to validate a theory or concept.  With this understanding, I want to send my appreciations to Putranji on his sincere efforts in presenting the Chair-legs as an analogy similar to gold and gold-ring.  Many traditional advaitins are more comfortable using the gold and ring analogy.  This should not be taken to conclude that that is the only way to explain a difficult concept. I want to give an example to illustrate our why we become uncomfortable when the presentation is away from our usual setup.  In one of the mathematical conference, a presenter draw a vertical and horizontal line and labelled the horizontal to be Y and the vertical as X!  In most mathematical presentations, horizontal is labelled as X axis and the vertical as Y axis. The mathematicians who are present in the hall including me tried to look at the board by bending our neck to make sense of what the presenter draw on the board!! The problem is not with the presenter but it lied mostly with the audience who do not want to be flexible. The validity of a concept will not change whether the X axis and Y axis got reversed!  The presenter could have had an easier time along with the audience if we use the same notions!  Advaita philosophy is no exception when it comes to acceptance presented using unconventional frameworks.  

We all need to admit the fact that when we want to present away from the traditional notions, we have to make lot more explanations!

With warm regards,

Ram Chandran

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar Putranji:

While making corrections to your pdf file, Please consider reading the following set of articles of Sadaji for your revisions:

(Http://www.advaita-vision.org)

Science and Vedanta (Part 3)

What is Absolute Reality?

Vedanta defines the absolute reality as that which can never be negated at any time, trikAla abhAditam satyam. As an example, let us analyze a chair made of wood. Is that chair really real (satyasya satyam) or only transactionally real? When I dismantle the chair or break it into pieces, it is no more a chair. What was there before and what is there now is only wood. Hence wood is more real than chair. Chair is only a name for a form of wood arranged in some fashion to serve some purpose, and gets negated when the form is destroyed. I can do this without breaking the chair into pieces. I can cognitively say that there is really no chair there but what is there is only wood currently in the form of a chair. Chair is only transactionally real but not really real; and what is more real than chair is wood, the material cause for the chair.

I have quoted a section that discusses the Chair analogy.  I agree with Sadaji and you may consider wood and chair instead of chair and its legs.  wood and chair analogy is much closer to gold and golden ring and I am sure that you will agree!

with warm regards,

Ram Chandran

[putran M]

Namaskaram Ram Chandran-ji,

I agree with you that the wood-chair (or gold-ring) analogy (which you have quoted) is very useful to attune us to the advaitic concepts. I am not trying to say the chair analogy is superior. It gives an alternate viewpoint or may prove useful to highlight certain aspects of advaita. Those who find it is distracting (maybe into dvaita), they can leave it aside. Any analogy has to be aligned with the siddhanta suitably and not stretched in a wrong manner.

Just to illustrate this:

With gold, as per modern science, it is a composite of sub-atomic particles and they too are said to reduce to energy. So technically, gold is less real than energy. Since our intuition does not naturally go to the subatomic level nor resorts to these other pramanas, therefore the analogy appeals to us as it is meant to be understood. Otherwise, if we will scrutinize any further, then the gold can be broken down into pieces (no longer gold) just as the chair.

When we speak of ring vs bracelet form, are we saying Brahman is somehow malleable into different nama-rupa? Because, if we see ring now and bracelet later, the same gold has undergone a physical change of form. Gold has physical malleability (and shape) as an essential real attribute (even though a particular shape is not constant). 

Secondly, To talk of ring-shape, we have to acknowledge space outside of gold (which posits a "real" duality of gold vs not-gold) in the context of which gold appears as ring. Malleability and form in gold comes along with its being an object having spatial dimensions (size, weight etc.) and within a larger ambient space. Is Brahman then an entity within Akasha that we can compare with gold?

Likewise, to compare bracelet vs ring for the same underlying gold, we are comparing its manifestation at different points of time. Does that mean Brahman is an object in time?

We have to sideline such excesses when we appeal to an analogy. 

The (real) physical malleability property of gold, if taken into account, can be mapped to maya-shakti of Ishvara by which He projects the All. Then it comes down to how we understand the role of Maya. We say any change projected by maya is vivarta (apparent, not real). That would suggest that the difference between ring and bracelet is a difference in cognitions and not a duality in the Gold in which the forms are seen. It should not matter whether the imagined context for this perceived duality in cognition is Space (like for chair, for ring) or Time (like for ring vs bracelet). If we keep this in mind, I think the chair analogy can also be beneficial for mananam, without necessarily tripping us into dvaita or VA.

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/6c3ad497-7e75-4a9f-a871-062f049ff656n%40googlegroups.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

I added a last section containing some of my explanations in this thread.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

I am enclosed herewith once again Sri Putran prabhuji-s write-up with regard to brahman is the all and he uniquely uses his chair-chair leg analogy to share his thoughts as against conventional suvarNa-AbharaNa.  I think this would throw more light on vedAnta accepted mAya satkAryavAda as against Buddhists shUnyavAda, kshaNika vAda or vijnAnavAda. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar

 

PS :  myself yet to read this in detail

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

 

I am enclosed herewith once again Sri Putran prabhuji-s write-up with regard to brahman is the all and he uniquely uses his chair-chair leg analogy to share his thoughts as against conventional suvarNa-AbharaNa. 

Just a note on Bhaskar-ji's above comment:

It is true that I tried to understand, convey, express the import of advaita tattva through the analogy. However, to whatever extent the analogy serves this purpose, it should not be seen as "his" or "he uniquely uses". It is only advaita knowledge already known and expressed in many other ways in the Upanishads itself; and this particular analogy would be just another commonly known example elaborated on in the context of that knowledge - that may aid some people more readily. 

But if it hits "new" or "different" or "misleading", as some others have objected to, then I agree it is wise to tag it with an identifier "his analogy" and people roll it in their own minds to see if it aligns (or they can align it suitably for themselves) and illuminates advaita tattva properly.

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

I think this would throw more light on vedAnta accepted mAya satkAryavAda as against Buddhists shUnyavAda, kshaNika vAda or vijnAnavAda. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar

 

PS :  myself yet to read this in detail

 

Namaskaram,

 

I added a last section containing some of my explanations in this thread.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 2:37 PM putran M <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskaram,

 

Attached file on this topic "Brahman is the All" using the Chair as central example/analogy. Take as a compilation of my thoughts on the subject, as usual may have errors in understanding. It was mainly written around 2 weeks back, edited (sec III, III.2) now for posting. I had more ideas that I wanted to write in an ordered way but it may not happen soon, so decided to post. 

 

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65810E36100073FADE44EB8084C9A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

I am enclosed herewith once again Sri Putran prabhuji-s write-up with regard to brahman is the all and he uniquely uses his chair-chair leg analogy to share his thoughts as against conventional suvarNa-AbharaNa. 

Just a note on Bhaskar-ji's above comment:

 

It is true that I tried to understand, convey, express the import of advaita tattva through the analogy. However, to whatever extent the analogy serves this purpose, it should not be seen as "his" or "he uniquely uses".

 

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I have already clarified that the uniqueness of your analogy against conventional one would not do any harm as long as the purpose of it is one and the same.  So when I was writing the above it was not my intention to ‘highlight’ the drawbacks of chair and chair leg analogy.  I was just saying that the uniqueness of this analogy also giving the same meaning i.e. brahma is the all and jagat is not atyantika abhAva as per some.  If my observations prompted you to understand something else my apologies.