Gaudapada and Shankara hold the waking objects to be mithya

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Karika: 2.6  it is stated that 'that which is nonexistent at the beginning and also at the end, is so even in the middle'.  They are akin to mithya objects but appear to be real.  In the Bhashya, Shankara adds: they are perceived to be existent by the ignorant, mooDha..  What are they ignorant of? They are ignorant of the Atma. Thus, for Gaudapada and Shankara the waking world is perceived and believed to be real only by ajnanis.   Jnanis hold it to be mithya. 

आदावन्ते च यन्नास्ति वर्तमानेऽपि तत्तथा ।
वितथैः सदृशाः सन्तोऽवितथा इव लक्षिताः ॥ ६ ॥

इतश्च वैतथ्यं जाग्रद्दृश्यानां भेदानाम् आद्यन्तयोरभावात् , यदादावन्ते च नास्ति वस्तु मृगतृष्णिकादि, तन्मध्येऽपि नास्तीति निश्चितं लोके ; तथेमे जाग्रद्दृश्या भेदाः आद्यन्तयोरभावात् वितथैरेव मृगतृष्णिकादिभिः सदृशत्वाद्वितथा एव ; तथापि अवितथा इव लक्षिता मूढैरनात्मविद्भिः ॥

Om tat sat

[sreenivasa murthy]

Dear Sri Subramanian and other learned mrmbers of this group,

I have no clear idea about who a Jnani is and who an ajnani is.

I request you all to help me by clearly revealing the answer to the above.

With respectful pranams,

Sreenivasa Murthy

--
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/CAKk0Te3AVB-stC%2BW5dK11sUh8VR53r9Cq%2BCsE4B8RVqS-TPB6A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

I have no clear idea about who a Jnani is and who an ajnani is.

 

praNAms Sri Srinivas prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I know the intention behind your question.   In short jnAni is Samyak darshi, he is avidyA vinirmukta, he is having the sarvAtma bhAva.  bhAshyakAra explains Samyak darshanaM / Atmaikatva darshanaM is itself mOkshAvasthA.  And very importantly there is absolute absence of saMsAra and saMsAritva.  The very purpose of brahma vidyA is avidyA nivrutti and as a result ‘athyanta abhAva of samsAra.  ( prayOjanaM chAsyA brahmavidyAyA avidyA nivtuttiH  and what is that vidyA that is being taught in shruti??  bhAshyakAra answers : sarvAtmabrahmaNa Atmatva darshanena vidya.  Vidye is the correct knowledge (yathArtha jnana) of what is existing.  jnana is seeing what it is, it does not create which is not existing.  There is no anAtma vastu / mithyAvastu in the brahma jnAni for him there exists nothing but brahman.  Brahman is left, right, top, bottom, inside, outside etc. 😊 So jnAni’s drushti is not mithyA drushti it is satyatva buddhi in what really existing.  Hence jnAni’s drushti is called satya drushti, mala rahita drushti, ekatva drushti, samadarshitvaM etc.  And ajnAni is the one who does not have this paripUrNa drushti but only parichinna drushti. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms
Hare Krishna

The purpose of rope-snake analogy would be served by knowing the real nature of rope. And it is not meant to teach/ show the non existent sarpa. IOW, its purpose is to remove the ignorance of what really existing (rope) and give its right knowledge i.e. rope only during avidyA period appearing as snake. I think this is very important point to be remembered to know the real nature of jagat. Like knowing the real nature of jeeva after getting rid of jeevatva or jeeva bhAva. The kArikAkAra in his subsequent kArika-s explains the same thing. Just as only the rope remains after negating all the imaginations of snake etc., when shruti teaches neti, neti, when all the imaginations are eliminated one comes to know that all this is Atman and nothing but Atman. Just see kArika 2-38, tattvaM AdhyAtmikaM drushtvA tattvaM drushtvA tu bAhyataH, tattveebhutastadArAmastatvAdaprachyutO bhavet. When jeeva loses his jeevatva his prAtrutva also gets sublated and what remains for him is brahman and brahman only. If we ignore the existing rope and say both rope and snake are mere imagination of mind it is nothing but the assertion of Buddhists vijnAnavAda. It is tureeya only appearing as Vishwa, taizasa, prAjna, if Vishwa (the conditioned jeeva) thinks that he is seeing ONLY jagrat it is his ajnAna janita parichinna drushti and through that drushti whatever he perceives is his imagination only, when this jeeva realizes AtmajnAna, his jeevatva/bhava would go and he realizes that he is tureeya. Likewise, the world during ajnAna dasha appearing different from brahman but after jnana he realizes what has been stated in kArika 2-38. So, we have to be careful while explaining the real nature of jagat otherwise no wonder we will be labelled as pracchanna bauddha-s.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Bhaskar ji,

Your objections are against Gaudapada and Shankara, to say it plainly.  You are refuting what Gaudapada and Shankara have said in no uncertain terms in the karika and bhashya and are citing a different verse which is not what is being discussed. Even there, the verse you cite, it is the message that the Jnani aught to see the Tattva by giving up what is 'atattva', which has been termed 'avitathaa' in the verse under discussion. 

If Gaudapada and Shankara should be saying what you are suggesting, then they should not have uttered the words: 

avitathaa iva lakshitaaH:  (the waking world of objects) it is wrongly understood as real

and Shankara should not have said: तथेमे जाग्रद्दृश्या भेदाः आद्यन्तयोरभावात् वितथैरेव मृगतृष्णिकादिभिः सदृशत्वाद्वितथा एव ; तथापि अवितथा इव लक्षिता मूढैरनात्मविद्भिः ॥

Thus, you are faulting Gaudapada and Shankara for not presenting the Vedanta as per your understanding and liking. And you are suggesting what they aught to have said instead. 

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65819BCB618DF1E2D2CC4CB08401A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Your objections are against Gaudapada and Shankara, to say it plainly. 

 

• This conclusion from your side is not at all new to me prabhuji 😊

 

You are refuting what Gaudapada and Shankara have said in no uncertain terms in the karika and bhashya and are citing a different verse which is not what is being discussed.

 

• I hope I don’t have to remind you that one kArika is pUraka to another and it is not mAraka 😊

 

 

Even there, the verse you cite, it is the message that the Jnani aught to see the Tattva by giving up what is 'atattva', which has been termed 'avitathaa' in the verse under discussion. 

 

Ø     It has been already explained in kArika and bhAshya what is atattva and what is tattva from the jnana paripUrNa drushti and how atatva is mere imagination ONLY in the conditioned mind of ajnAni.  There is no anAtma vastu that can be called and recognized aloof from Atman.  If that is the case (Atma and anAtma) shruti would have asserted you are sAkshi to anAtma vastu and you are Atman / sAkshi to that anAtma vastu and stopped there itself.  But shruti does not stop there!! It also says AtmaivedaM sarvaM, brahmaivedam vishwaM, satyanchAnrutaM cha satyamabhavat yadidaM kiMcha etc.  So if one ignores these crystal clear declarations of shruti holds some references selectively to prove the whole universe is mere imagination of conditioned jeeva,  I don’t think they are doing any justice to veda mAta in general and bhagavatpAda vAkya in particular.  And to say the least they are fit to be branded as vijnAnavAdins. 

 

If Gaudapada and Shankara should be saying what you are suggesting, then they should not have uttered the words: 

 

avitathaa iva lakshitaaH:  (the waking world of objects) it is wrongly understood as real

 

and Shankara should not have said: तथेमे जाग्रद्दृश्या भेदाः आद्यन्तयोरभावात् वितथैरेव मृगतृष्णिकादिभिः सदृशत्वाद्वितथा एव ; तथापि अवितथा इव लक्षिता मूढैरनात्मविद्भिः ॥

 

Ø     Multiplicity in pratyagAtman due to conditioning adjuncts holds the key here to understand the jAgrat prapancha, Svapna prapancha, sushupti avastha and avasthAteeta tureeya and to the best of my ability I have already explained how the waking world is imaginary when it is perceived from upAdhi parichinna drushti.  Anyway, you being a saMpradAyin better know how to do samanyavaya of these statements keeping the Atmaikatva drushti. 

 

Thus, you are faulting Gaudapada and Shankara for not presenting the Vedanta as per your understanding and liking. And you are suggesting what they aught to have said instead. 

 

Ø     All these perceptions and subjective opinions on others who are not singing their song according to the tunes of tradition are quite natural prabhuji since these socalled traditionalists have already declared themselves as authorities and sitting in judgmental seat and freely passing the verdicts on others 😊 I am not at all offended by your verdict prabhuji.  You have every right to pass your opinion on me 😊 And finally please note the ekatva of brahman and realizing this ekatvaM in everything is not my own invention, it is shruti, shankara and shankara sampradaya knowers from 1% saying this 😊

[সপ্ত Rishi]

So you are saying that the prapancha is satya just like atman is,hmmm.If this is the siddhanta,then there would be no debate between us and pushtimargis( sampradaya of mahaprabhu sri vallabhacharya),since they propound what you are speaking of.

And before you make the statement,that this is due to not sankara but later acharyas,sorry but in his anubhashya,patravalamban and tattvartha nibandha he has quoted none besides bhagavatpada,and criticised what he said to prove his own thesis of brahman being the prapancha.

Also,as far as I know vijnanavadins do not think of jagat as mithya but asat vastu,unlike us advaitins.

• I hope I don’t have to remind you that one kArika is pUraka to another and it is not mAraka 😊

 But that karika,is siddhantam,that is not a puraka to the siddhanta.vaitathya prakaran verse 6.

--

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/AM7PR06MB65812831712CC45B9AEC840C8401A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

So you are saying that the prapancha is satya just like atman is,hmmm.

 

• Prapancha is satya in accordance with jeeva and Ishwara satyatva.  When jeeva’s jeevatva / jeeva bhAva goes what remains is jeeva / Shuddha Chaitanya call it by any name likewise when prapancha’s prapanchantvaM (its independent existence) goes and when jnAni realizes mruttiketyeva satyaM what remains is again brahman only so call it by any name hardly matters for the tattva nirUpaNaM.  The bottom line is AtmaivedaM sarvaM, sarvaM khalvidaM brahma.  It is anna, annada and shlokakarta. 

 

If this is the siddhanta,then there would be no debate between us and pushtimargis( sampradaya of mahaprabhu sri vallabhacharya),since they propound what you are speaking of.

 

Ø     I am sorry I don’t know anything about this ‘mArga’, I don’t know how they interpret shruti’s  brahman’s abhinna nimittOpadAna kAratvaM which ultimately  leads to brahma ekatvaM etc. 

 

And before you make the statement,that this is due to not sankara but later acharyas,sorry but in his anubhashya,patravalamban and tattvartha nibandha he has quoted none besides bhagavatpada,and criticised what he said to prove his own thesis of brahman being the prapancha.

 

Ø     As I said above, I don’t know anything about these works ( and frankly,  it is of least interest to me ) so don’t know the basis of these refutation etc.  And please note there is hell a lot of difference between jagat is brahman AND brahman is jagat.  Jeevo brahmaiva na apara it is not other way round 😊

 

Also,as far as I know vijnanavadins do not think of jagat as mithya but asat vastu,unlike us advaitins.

 

Ø     We are talking about vijnAnavAdins with respect to existence of external objects and its perception.  If anyone say its all mind game there exists nothing outside just all these are imagination in the conditioned mind of tiny jeeva, without giving any heed to Ishwara srushti, IshwarAstitva etc.  it is not Advaita but it is buddhist’s vijnAnavAda which deserved to be negated.     

 

• I hope I don’t have to remind you that one kArika is pUraka to another and it is not mAraka 😊

 But that karika,is siddhantam,that is not a puraka to the siddhanta.vaitathya prakaran verse 6.

• Even if you say that verse itself is siddhAnta and self sufficient to prove Advaita paramArtha, the verse which I quoted what exactly is that siddhAnta enshrined in that kArika.  I hope you agree two different kArika-s donot advocating two entirely different siddhAnta-s 😊

[V Subrahmanian]

The Shankara bhashya uses the word samskaara, for which alone the word avidyalesha has been given by the Ratnaprabha. So, it is only samskara (which is not avidya) that is the contributing factor for the continued perception, pratiti, of the dvaita prapancha which includes the body-mind complex of the Jnani.  

Also Shankara has given the dvichandra jnana example in the 4.4 of the BSB where the Jnani's perception of the dvaita prapancha is analogous to a person having an eye defect because of which things appear as many, like the moon appears to him as two/three..  Here, there is no bhrama for the person; he knows for sure that there is only one moon even though his eye shows him two.  Similarly the Jnani, knowing that it is the advaita Brahman that is the truth, perceives the dvaita prapancha shown to him by the body-mind apparatus that is a product of avidya.  

In the adhyasa bhashya itself Shankara has settled beyond doubt that the very phenomenon of perception is due to adhyasa: atma-sharira, atma-manah and atma-indriya adhyasa.  If this adhyasa had not been there, there was no way there was any world-perception at all. So, on the pramana of arthapatti (anyathaanupapatti) Shankara concludes that all pratyakshadi vyavahara, laukika and shaastriya, including mosksha shaastra, operate in the domain of avidya/adhyasa. 

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65816664F4CB5431E842F7C38406A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.