Analysis of Standpoints

69 views
Skip to first unread message

putran M

unread,
Dec 11, 2022, 2:14:41 PM12/11/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaskaram,

Compiled some thoughts. Attaching as a file.

thollmelukaalkizhu



Analysis of different standpoints of cognition and knowledge-1.pdf

putran M

unread,
Dec 11, 2022, 9:59:47 PM12/11/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaskaram,

“ so long as he [jnani] sees the duality”

Here, it should be obvious that the duality mentioned as being seen by the jnani is of the movie-appearance category ( affirming cognition of nama-rupa multiplicity), sans the (ignorance) belief in its contents that the ajnani has. According to this strict viewpoint, even such a rudimentary acknowledgment of nama-rupa (seer-seen divide) dualistic appearance belongs to vyavaharika and corresponds to dualistic association of Maya in Brahman. The negation of such vyavaharika is not done by calling it adhyasa on paramarthika; rather it belongs to a lower level of ‘reality’ that is mithya from the standpoint of the Jnani in vyavaharika.

thollmelukaalkizhu

putran M

unread,
Dec 12, 2022, 1:54:27 AM12/12/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com
The swamiji explains their viewpoint on adhyasa between minutes 10 and 15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfB6BmYrBqU&list=PLMddRSWoHnQY9kX3hpmMgw2WZg0b0fJ82

One cannot unambiguously tell whether he thinks these statements contradict the traditionalist's position. 

We all agree that adhyasa does not exist for the atma ("from His standpoint"), and vanishes when awareness turns towards it (or aligns with paramarthika standpoint). We agree that for the knower, the Self alone is the adhishtana of all cognition. The issue as I understand is whether a duality of cognition can be admitted in spite of and alongside the knowledge of nondual Self, and the implications thereafter: Like, Two standpoints: 1. Brahman 2. Brahman+Maya; Maya (and nama-rupa) mithya, Brahman sathya. etc.

thollmelukaalkizhu

H S Chandramouli

unread,
Dec 13, 2022, 2:17:38 AM12/13/22
to advaitin

Namaste.

Reg  << The issue as I understand is whether a duality of cognition can be admitted in spite of and alongside the knowledge of nondual Self >>,

Shruti is the authority in this regard and it has adequately addressed  the issue. It lists the experiences of Sages Vamadeva, Trishanku (in TU), the jnAni who exclaims **ahamanna….ahamannAdah…** in TU etc  which address the issue unambiguously. Such a duality of cognition is admitted. Where  then is the doubt?

Regards

putran M

unread,
Dec 13, 2022, 3:39:23 AM12/13/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaskaram Chandramouli-ji,

The doubt comes as follows. When we say the seer-seen divide standpoint (or nama-rupa duality of cognition) is purely adhyasa on Brahman AND we say a jnani has such dualistic cognition, then the jnani's awareness is still subject to adhyasa. But this contradicts the assumption that the jnana negates adhyasa like the snake on the rope, therefore jnani is not a jnani!  

To avoid this conundrum, the standard viewpoint says that nama-rupa ("jagat") is not simple adhyasa that necessarily vanishes on realization, rather it is posited in the non-absolute (vyavaharika, mithya, not asat) standpoint where Brahman can only be known as Ishvara=Brahman+Maya. 

Or we have to say jnana being realization that Brahman alone IS and naught else, the seer-seen divide itself has vanished in jnana and there is no such separate individual entity called jnani - for "he" (the adhyasa-based ajnani) has merged in Brahman. It is only the ajnani (itself an adhyasa) who superimposes on Brahman the nama-rupa called jnani and imagines there is some retention of reflected i-awareness in that body-mind that belongs to the jnani and indulges in vyavahara even while having knowledge "I am All". In truth, the jnani is Brahman and jnana is a realization wherein adhyasa (or the nama-rupa snake) never was, is or will be. (the swamiji says it is not an event in time, etc.)

The latter position seems a stretch to insist on (or comprehend) but I don't know how else to retain that all duality is adhyasa (not mithya) where adhyasa is eliminated in jnana.

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/78d36674-e5b4-46f1-bc85-d04eb9819105n%40googlegroups.com.

putran M

unread,
Dec 13, 2022, 3:49:26 AM12/13/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com


The latter position seems a stretch to insist on (or comprehend) but I don't know how else to retain that all duality is adhyasa (not mithya) where adhyasa is eliminated in jnana.

to insist on as the only standpoint that constitutes truth. The "traditional" side (as I understand) accepts the paramarthika standpoint but does not negate absolutely (as being only adhyasa) the vyavaharika standpoint.

putran M

unread,
Dec 13, 2022, 4:45:14 AM12/13/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaskaram,


to insist on as the only standpoint that constitutes truth. The "traditional" side (as I understand) accepts the paramarthika standpoint but does not negate absolutely (as being only adhyasa) the vyavaharika standpoint.


Analogy for two-standpoint perspective: Consider "stone". There is a paramarthika standpoint where there is only Stone and naught else. (This should not be confused as "Duality exists but is not cognized or lost in some other higher Cognition". Duality is simply asat in paramarthika).  There is a vyavaharika standpoint where the statue nama-rupa appearance is posited in the stone and (for the jnani) the adhishtana stone is manifest as Statue. The ajnani starts talking of the hands and eyes as distinct realities; the jnani sees only stone appearing as All. The statue-cognition for both jnani and ajnani is not simply due to adhyasa that has to vanish upon realizing I am seeing Stone only. It denotes a lower order of reality.

thollmelukaalkizhu

H S Chandramouli

unread,
Dec 13, 2022, 5:28:47 AM12/13/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaskaram.

I am not sure if you are trying to compare or mixing up two advaitic standpoints, one that with jnAna all adyAsa vanishes or is destroyed, and the other that perception of duality continues even for a jnAni but he knows it is only appearance. I am not mixingup or comparing the two.  I am only  going by my understanding that appearance of duality continues for a jnAni for which Shruti is the authority. And I have cited references concerning the same.

It may be at variance with what the Swamiji in the video clip you have attached is saying. If yes, I am really not commenting on his views.

Regards

Regards

H S Chandramouli

unread,
Dec 13, 2022, 5:55:54 AM12/13/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com, putr...@gmail.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaskaram.

There is no vyAvahArika or pAramArthika viewpoint  of a jnAni in my understanding. The nature of a jnAni is as follows in my understanding.

For an ajnAni, the *I* sense identifies itself very strongly with the antahkaraNa or BMI. I am not elaborating as it is unnecessary. For a jnAni, there are two states possible. In one state, his *I* sense completely dissociates itself from the antahkaraNa or BMI and *identifies*  itself  with Brahman. This is his state of nirvikalpa samAdhi. There is no perception of duality. But there is really no *experiential anubhava*  either in such a state. At other times, the *I* sense of the jnAni  identifies itself with the antahkaraNa or BMI, but such identification is very very weak. He perceives duality no doubt, but with very little association with the duality. His understanding is one of  sarvAtmabhAva and he enjoys great Ananda in this state. Experiences of Sages Vamadeva/Trishnku /Sthitaprajna  etc  fall in this category. This is the experiential jnAna phala of a jnAni. He can and does interact with the world in such a state, and is perhaps what you have termed vyAvahArika standpoint. Since the identification with BMI is very weak, there is no resultant karma phala associated with any of his actions. Hence there is no rebirth for him.

This in brief is my understanding.

Regards

putran M

unread,
Dec 13, 2022, 5:59:29 AM12/13/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaskaram Chandramouli-ji,

I was comparing or trying to present the two viewpoints, but may have shown some logical bias towards the "appearance can continue for jnani" or 2-standpoint understanding. As I said before, the question of cognition of duality seems central to testing the arguments of the two camps. I am however not clear whether I represented the swamiji or SSS position correctly on it. That's why I just wrote of the two approaches generally, as per my understanding.

thollmelukaalkizhu

Bhaskar YR

unread,
Dec 13, 2022, 6:34:04 AM12/13/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I am however not clear whether I represented the swamiji or SSS position correctly on it. That's why I just wrote of the two approaches generally, as per my understanding.

 

Ø     Let us keep aside what Sri SSS saying on this.  Let us check what bhAshyakAra himself says (right from horse mouth…though I don’t know why it is said like this to emphasis on authority 😊)   on the jnAni’s drushti AFTER realization.  Kindly refer Sutra bhAshya 4-1-13 : trishvapi kAleshu akartrutva abhOktrutva svarUpaM bramhAhamasmi, netaH pUrvamapi kartA bhOktA vAhamAsaM, nedAneem naapi bhavashyatkAle iti brahmavidavagacchati, eva meva cha mOksha upapadyate. ( kindly see any English translation at your convenience). 

Ø     

Ø    And this should not  gives us the impression that duality including jnAni’s deha, buddhi, ahamkara, this jagat of nAma rUpa vanishes in thin air after the dawn of this mOksha jnana!!  bhAshyakAra very beautifully explains this in sUtra bhAshya 2-1-13 how even though bhOktru and bhOgya cannot become one another but it is nothing different from brahman.  Gives here example of water, foam, bubble, wave etc. and now it is not different from water.  Please see the bhAshya bhAga : evaM lOke drushtatvAt, tathA hi samudrAdudakAtmanaH ananyatvepi tadvikArANAM phena-veechee-taranga-budbudhaadeenaaM etaretara vibhAgaH…………….. na cha bhOktru bhOgyayOritaretarabhAvApattirna cha parasmAd brahmaNOnyatvaM bhavishyati ( kindly see any English translation of this bhAshya vAkya, and share your thoughts on that.).

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

H S Chandramouli

unread,
Dec 13, 2022, 7:15:05 AM12/13/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com, putr...@gmail.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Namaskaram.

A small correction to my previous post

Please read  **experiential Ananda** for **experiential anubhava**.

Regret the error.

Regards

H S Chandramouli

unread,
Dec 13, 2022, 7:36:35 AM12/13/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com, putr...@gmail.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Namaskaram Putram Ji,

Reg  <<  The statue-cognition for both jnani and ajnani is not simply due to adhyasa that has to vanish upon realizing I am seeing Stone only. It denotes a lower order of reality >>,

I do not think as between stone and statue, there is any lower or higher Order of Reality, both represent the same rder of Reality for both jnAni and ajnAni. But in respect of a jnAni, both stone and statue are appearances only,lower Order of Reality, the Reality of both being Brahman which is the same as Atman, which is the *I* sense of him. That is what is meant by sarvAtmabhAva of a jnAni. For the ajnAni, both as stone as well as as statue, it is different from *him*, his *I* sense.

Regards






V Subrahmanian

unread,
Dec 13, 2022, 7:45:16 AM12/13/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com, putr...@gmail.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Namaste

I think Sri Putran ji's idea behind the stone-statue analogy is this:

மரத்தை மறைத்தது மாமத யானை
மரத்தில் மறைந்தது மாமத யானை
பரத்தை மறைத்தன பார்முதல் பூதம்
பரத்தில் மறைந்தன பார்முதல் பூதமே

திருமூலர் 8-21
http://www.thevaaram.org/thirumurai_1/s ... rtLimit=21


(In a wooden statue of an elephant, the view of just the elephant and just the wood, is possible for the respective viewer who may focus of either of these where the other remains in the background. Similarly the pancha bhuta prapancha 'conceals' the world and the proper view is where the prapancha resolves in Brahman.)

Shankara has used the simile in his Svatmanirupanam: 

दन्तिनि दारुविकारे दारु तिरोभवति सोऽपि तत्रैव |
जगति तथा परमात्मा परमात्मन्यपि जगत्तिरोधते || 28 ||

svAtmanirUpaNam (Page 94) Adi Sankara

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=F6i ... ru&f=false

This comparison was brought out by Maha Periava in his discourse on Adi Sankara (Dec 23, 1957) published in Acharya's Call (Part 1) (Page 115-119)

0 x 

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.

H S Chandramouli

unread,
Dec 13, 2022, 7:55:05 AM12/13/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com, putr...@gmail.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Namaste Subrahmanian Ji,

That is right. But that is only part of the story as far as Advaita Sidhanta is concerned. Serves a limited purpose, to show how you can understand external duality/multiplicity as unitary. That represents **tat** part of **tatvamasi**. But as far as a jnAni is concerned, it has to be extended to **tattvamasi**. That is what I have covered.

Regards

putran M

unread,
Dec 13, 2022, 10:09:32 AM12/13/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

Neither me nor as far as I understand, the traditionalists are contradicting you on this. The adhishtana of all identifications is Brahman. I had given the light-movie analogy. Not different from water does not mean we are not differentiating, concurrent with our knowledge and awareness of only water, the water as foam, bubble, wave etc. Such acknowledgment of even name-form duality does not belong in Turiya or the paramarthika standpoint; it should still be considered vyavaharika albeit the ignorance of adhyasa has been removed. In my opinion, differences in these further technicalities are not contradicting the above advaita knowledge that we are in agreement about.

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.

putran M

unread,
Dec 13, 2022, 2:14:26 PM12/13/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaskaram Chandramouli-ji,

I understand your point and nothing wrong in your further clarification since people can misconstrue the analogy I used. 

However the way I look at it, as Subbu-ji pointed out, such analogies are used even in shastras meant to teach advaita. As far as advaitins are concerned, these analogies are not meant to learn E=mc^2 but to support the mananam for what we know from sravanam (like tattvamasi). I said stone & statue; the shastra may say water & foam or clay & pot. If needed one can provide further explanation; but otherwise there should be no confusion that we are not merely talking about reducing nama-rupa to Maya but rather indicating by Stone or Clay or Water the Brahman that is adhishtana for tat and tvam. 

As for lower and higher order of Reality, this is my understanding. 

The paramarthika or tuirya standpoint is the standpoint of Brahman where there are no identifications of "tat" and "tvam", of "seer" and "seen", of a nama-rupa duality that is opposed to a sakshi. The other standpoint is vyavaharika which begins with the seer-seen duality as a fact of experience. When we say the jnani has realized the truth but has cognition of duality, that is still vyavaharika. What is this truth he has realized? That the tat and tvam/aham are nondifferent, simply denotations of Brahman. But we can still take the lower standpoint where the cognition of tat and tvam as if distinct is admitted.

It is like a waker explaining what happens in a dream. He says it is unitary nondual Consciousness (ie. himself as Dreamer) projecting the duality of seer-seen in the dream. In this standpoint, automatically the fundamental corollary is that the Dreamer has the capacity (or maya-shakti) to project the dream. 

Is the Dreamer-dream duality standpoint asat? No. It is a factual description of manifest existence/experience to the waker. 

But the waker jnani's highest advaitic knowledge points to something more fundamental than this description of Consciousness/Self as Dreamer of dream. The entire duality based on splitting Consciousness as "Dreamer dreaming dream" is negated from the standpoint of that Consciousness that alone IS. The effect is nondifferent from cause and all causality negated from the standpoint of the substratum Reality.

In both cases, Consciousness is the foundation, the sathya. In paramarthika, there is naught else but Consciousness; in vyavaharika, this Consciousness is realized as Dreamer having capacity to dream. The latter is not asat but it is mithya as it stands negated in the higher knowledge/standpoint.

thollmelukaalkizhu

putran M

unread,
Dec 13, 2022, 3:09:49 PM12/13/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com

In both cases, Consciousness is the foundation, the sathya. In paramarthika, there is naught else but Consciousness; in vyavaharika, this Consciousness is realized as Dreamer having capacity to dream. The latter is not asat but it is mithya as it stands negated in the higher knowledge/standpoint.


Clarification: for the jnani in vyavaharika as well, there is only Consciousness or Brahman, the Reality of all. But alongside is admitted the reflected awareness and cognition of self and nama-rupa duality. This brings in Maya through which Brahman+Maya appears dual. We are therefore in Dreamer-dream standpoint. The jnani however has realized or knows the paramarthika standpoint of Brahman as well, hence may also speak or refer to this higher advaitic truth of Brahman.

sunil bhattacharjya

unread,
Dec 13, 2022, 10:01:13 PM12/13/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com, putr...@gmail.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Dear Chandramouliji, 

In the Jnanayoga section of the Uddhava Gita, Lord Krishna said very clearly that what was not there in the past and will not be there in future is as good as not there in the present. This short and sweet message is the summary, as to how the Vyavaharika appears to the jnani.
My two cents.
Jai Jagadguru Krishnaki  Jai
Sunil KB

Sent from my iPhone

Satyan Chidambaran

unread,
Dec 13, 2022, 11:08:01 PM12/13/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaste Putranji,

I am perhaps just restating what you and Subbuji have already stated in a different language:

There is a distinction between bAdha (sublation) and nAsha (destruction) that the tradition makes.

To know that a Pot is not real, and only clay alone is real, one shouldn’t need to destroy (engage in nAsha of) the Pot appearance. One just needs to know clearly that the Pot is just a name and form and Clay alone really exists. Therefore even when seeing a Pot, a "Clay GYAnI" knows clearly that the Pot is mithyA nAma rUpa and Clay alone is satyam. This is bAdha of the Pot. In bAdha, one knows that there never was a Pot, there is no Pot even now as one sees it, nor will there ever be a Pot in future. One doesn’t need to powder the Pot and erase its name and form (which is nAsha) to dismiss the Pot. Moreover, with nAsha, one may still incorrectly conclude that there was a Pot before that has now been powdered into Clay, and the Pot can re-emerge later,  which would only be a perpetuation of ignorance of the fact that there is no second entity called Pot in reality. Only with bAdha, one knows rightly and clearly that there is no second entity called Pot at all whether the Pot appearance is there or not. Also, in bAdha, there cannot be any relationship (sambandhaH) between Clay and Pot because any sambandhaH is possible only between two things in the same order of reality and Clay and Pot don’t belong to the same order of reality with bAdha (A waker can never get married to the girl in his dream, nor can mirage water ever wet the sand).

Similarly, non-duality is not the absence of duality. Non-duality is in spite of duality. An AtmaGYAnI even in the midst of all names and forms, and all appearances of duality can assert knowing well that AtmA alone is Satyam, and AtmA is asangaH (sarva sambandha rahitaH, relationless) because there is nothing else other than AtmA (in that higher order of reality) that AtmA can be related to or be affected by.  “As AtmA/Brahman, I alone Really am".

This doesn’t prevent the GYAnI from acting in the lower order of reality (vyAvahArika), much like an actor who knows that he is an actor can continue to play roles in a drama. So also, a GYAnI can put on the vyAvahArika nAma rUpa body-mind costume and seemingly act and enjoy/suffer in vyavahara (the consequences of vyAvahArika prArabdha), even though he (being really AtmA), knows that he doesn’t really do anything being akartA, nor does he  enjoy/suffer anything being abhoktA, nor is he as AtmA subject to any prArabdha.

Regards,
—Satyan

Bhaskar YR

unread,
Dec 13, 2022, 11:44:55 PM12/13/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com

praNAms Sri Satyan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I was about to write about nAsha, bAdha & laya in Advaita with regard to existence and continuance of duality.  Thanks for explaining it. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

Bhaskar YR

 

 

From: 'Satyan Chidambaran' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 9:38 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Analysis of Standpoints

 

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.

H S Chandramouli

unread,
Dec 14, 2022, 12:32:56 AM12/14/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com, sunil bhattacharjya, putr...@gmail.com
Namaste Sunil Ji,

Reg  <<  Lord Krishna said very clearly that what was not there in the past and will not be there in future is as good as not there in the present. This short and sweet message is the summary, as to how the Vyavaharika appears to the jnani   >>,

Yes. Quite so. That is one of the definitions of Mithya.

Regards

_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

putran M

unread,
Dec 14, 2022, 12:23:20 PM12/14/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaskaram,


Compiled some thoughts. Attaching as a file.


I added as "Notes", from my replies in this discussion. Thanks to Chandramouli-ji and others for the inputs.

thollmelukaalkizhu

 
Analysis of different standpoints of cognition and knowledge-1.pdf

Raman_M

unread,
Dec 16, 2022, 1:40:50 AM12/16/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com

namaste,

now that the dust has settled could some one help me with knowing

between the two schools of thoughts bhamati and vivarna, which of them is more prevalent?

which of these are the 4 mutts aligned to?

(excuse me if what I am stating isnt right)

thanks

Raman

--
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.

sunil bhattacharjya

unread,
Dec 16, 2022, 2:59:12 PM12/16/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Dear friends,

Truly speaking, Adi Shankara should be considered as the  author of the Vivarana. It happened like this: Padmapadacharya lost his manuscript and when he told this sad story to Adi Shankara, the latter  volunteered to dictate the Vivarana himself.

Any comment?

Regards,
Sunil KB

sreenivasa murthy

unread,
Dec 16, 2022, 6:24:21 PM12/16/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Dear Sunil Bhattachariya,

Can you ever get an authentic answer for your question?

Even if answer is given how are you going to verify
whether it is correct or not?

The question and answer ,both activites  are idle and fruitless ones.

The only useful activity  is
to discover / find out for oneself by oneself who was
present before these activities commenced
and who remains when these activities end.

If you conduct this experiment within yourself
by yourself you will certainly be a Brajmajnani
or Atmajnani.

Best of luck!
With respectful namaskars,
Sreenivasa Murthy


sunil bhattacharjya

unread,
Dec 16, 2022, 11:54:10 PM12/16/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Dear sreenivasa murthy,

Anybody who (i) has read about the episode, where Shri Padmapadacharya reportedly told Adi Shankata that he  lost (presumably some relative of him was behind that) the copy of his commentary and (ii) has also some sense, should not have problem in seeing the authentic answer. It is that easy.

What must have happened is that some jealous relative of Padmapadacharya  wanted to play mischief with him and hid or destroyed the commentary of Padmapadacharya and sadly he (Padmapadacharya) broke down and appeared to have lost his self - confidence, if he would be able to rewrite the entire commentary once again. Probably under that situation a person like you or me (I) would have rewritten the commentary once again, come what may.

Jai Bhagavan Shri Krishnajeeki
Sunil KB

putran M

unread,
Dec 17, 2022, 9:52:55 PM12/17/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaskaram,

I found this quote attributed to Sri Ramakrishna which seems similar to this topic; not sure if people will agree with everything quoted below, but am giving for general read.

"Advaita, Visishtadvaita, and Dvaita are true at different states of mind. Accept all. When we are experiencing the Absolute, it is Advaita. When we come down, Visishtadvaita is true. Still down, it is Dvaita.

Again, Brahman and Shakti are non-different. When creation, etc. goes on, it is Shakti at work. When it is One only, it is Brahman. When the jnani comes down from the highest state he sees the universe, true; but as Brahman. This is the Vijnani state, a state after Advaita experience." (from pg 67 in Insights into Vedanta Tattvabodha, Swami Sunirmalananda RKM)

Also, Pg 66 has a flowchart on "Different opinions on Creation"

The Vedas: Several opinions on creation to suit different minds.
Acharya Gaudapada: Creation is like a dream. It is not real. Brahman is eternal.
Shankara: Creation is real upto Self-realization. It is not unreal like the hare's horn. It has some practical reality. Creation proceeds from Brahman and merges in Him. Brahman uses His maya to create.

[Advaita Schools]
1. Mandana Misra or Suresvaracharya: Drishti-srishti: There is only one soul. Until it sees, there is creation.
2. Citsukhacharya and others: Srishti-drishti: Atman creates this universe and sees it.


thollmelukaalkizhu 

Bhaskar YR

unread,
Dec 19, 2022, 1:31:33 AM12/19/22
to adva...@googlegroups.com

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

ONLY advaitins would agree to these type of observations / conclusions 😊

 

"Advaita, Visishtadvaita, and Dvaita are true at different states of mind. Accept all. When we are experiencing the Absolute, it is Advaita. When we come down, Visishtadvaita is true. Still down, it is Dvaita.

 

Ø     Dvaitins, our tattvavAdins immediately jump on our neck after seeing them in the third best pedestal 😊 As per them Advaita ends its query at jeeva level and makes the wrong conclusion by twisting and turning the upanishadic siddhAnta.  So as per them it is lowest level of philosophical enquiry or not vaidika enquiry at all !! 😊

 

Again, Brahman and Shakti are non-different. When creation, etc. goes on, it is Shakti at work. When it is One only, it is Brahman.

 

  • Yes as per Advaita.  But as per dualists shakti and shakta are entirely different entities and everything else dependent on ONE though it is different. 

 

When the jnani comes down from the highest state he sees the universe, true; but as Brahman. This is the Vijnani state, a state after Advaita experience." (from pg 67 in Insights into Vedanta Tattvabodha, Swami Sunirmalananda RKM)

 

Ø     Then what is that absolute Advaita experience before descending to ‘see’ jagat as brahman??  I think the answer is NS!!...is it not??

 

Shankara: Creation is real upto Self-realization. It is not unreal like the hare's horn. It has some practical reality. Creation proceeds from Brahman and merges in Him. Brahman uses His maya to create.

 

Ø     Yes shankara says jagat is not like ‘snake’ on the rope, in chAndOgya bhAshya. 

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages