Gaudapada and Shankara say: the world is imagined by the jiva through avidya

[V Subrahmanian]

In the 2nd chapter of the Mandukya karika, in the following verses, Gaudapada and Shankara say that the world, both inner and outer, are imaginations of the jiva.  Shankara is refuting the objection that it amounts to vijnanavada (Buddhism) by giving the reason: in Vedanta the imagination is on the adhishthana of the Atman whereas in vijnanavada it is not on the basis of the eternal atman.  

A couple of years ago, there was a seminar on Buddhism, organised jointly by the Maha Bodhi Society and the Karnataka Sanskrit University, at the Institute of World Culture, B.P. Wadia Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. Speaking at the seminar, senior Madhva scholar  Dr. D. Prahladachar (who is now the head of the Vyasraja Matha) observed: "Both Buddhists and Advaitins admit the mithyatva of the world. The Advaitins say the substraturm of the world, which is but a superimposition, is Brahman as propounded by Vedanta. Buddhists do not admit any eternal substratum."

Here is a file containing an essay by Sri SSS on the comparative study of Advaita and Buddhism.  Gaudapadacharya's Karika and Nagarjuna's work are the texts.  This is in English:  

https://adbhutam.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/advaita-and-buddhism-sss.pdf

Here are the Karika and Bhashya on the topic of 'Jiva imagining the world':

उभयोरपि वैतथ्यं भेदानां स्थानयोर्यदि ।

क एतान्बुध्यते भेदान्को वै तेषां विकल्पकः ॥ ११ ॥

चोदक आह — स्वप्नजाग्रत्स्थानयोर्भेदानां यदि वैतथ्यम् , क एतानन्तर्बहिश्चेतःकल्पितान्बुध्यते । को वै तेषां विकल्पकः ; स्मृतिज्ञानयोः क आलम्बनमित्यभिप्रायः ; न चेन्निरात्मवाद इष्टः ॥

कल्पयत्यात्मनात्मानमात्मा देवः स्वमायया ।

स एव बुध्यते भेदानिति वेदान्तनिश्चयः ॥ १२ ॥

स्वयं स्वमायया स्वमात्मानमात्मा देवः आत्मन्येव वक्ष्यमाणं भेदाकारं कल्पयति रज्ज्वादाविव सर्पादीन् , स्वयमेव च तान्बुध्यते भेदान् , तद्वदेवेत्येवं वेदान्तनिश्चयः । नान्योऽस्ति ज्ञानस्मृत्याश्रयः । न च निरास्पदे एव ज्ञानस्मृती वैनाशिकानामिवेत्यभिप्रायः ॥ 

(Here is where Shankara is refuting the objection that Vedanta is Buddhism)

विकरोत्यपरान्भावानन्तश्चित्ते व्यवस्थितान् ।

नियतांश्च बहिश्चित्त एवं कल्पयते प्रभुः ॥ १३ ॥

सङ्कल्पयन्केन प्रकारेण कल्पयतीत्युच्यते — विकरोति नाना करोति अपरान् लौकिकान् भावान् पदार्थाञ्शब्दादीनन्यांश्च अन्तश्चित्ते वासनारूपेण व्यवस्थितानव्याकृतान् नियतांश्च पृथिव्यादीननियतांश्च कल्पनाकालान् बहिश्चित्तः सन् , तथा अन्तश्चित्तो मनोरथादिलक्षणानित्येवं कल्पयति, प्रभुः ईश्वरः, आत्मेत्यर्थः ॥

Who imagines the world? Shankara answers: It is the Atma. As to how does he do this? The answer is: svamaayayaa. 

That even here, maya is the one that does this is confirmed in the Gita bhashya by Shankara:  5.14:

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

न कर्तृत्वं स्वतः कुरु इति नापि कर्माणि रथघटप्रासादादीनि ईप्सिततमानि लोकस्य सृजति उत्पादयति प्रभुः आत्मा । नापि रथादि कृतवतः तत्फलेन संयोगं न कर्मफलसंयोगम् । 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 ॥

Om tat sat

[সপ্ত Rishi]

On this topic i wanted to share a short passage from a long chapter (Whether Gaudapadacharya was a buddhist ?)from a gem of a vedanta text ,written by Pandit Ashutosh Shastri Vedantatirtha in Bangla (Bedantadarshan adaitabad vol 1),here goes the rough translation,

"After Gaudapadacharya,we come across Vasumitra,Dharmakirti,Jnanashri etc.propagating a flavour of Buddhism which had some similarity with Vedanta(eg;Prapancha mithyatvam,jnana-jneya abheda),however real buddhism did not had any similarity with what our Acharya had propagated in his text.(ref.mandukya karika)

Acharya uses in his text multiple times these words to describe ultimate reality,"अज परमार्थ सत् निरावरण नित्य विज्ञान".Do we have any such references in the works of Dharmakirti,Kamalashila,Vasumitra ?

By observing partial similarity,if we start concluding (like SN Dasgpta,MM.Vidushekhar Bhattacharya),our acharya as buddhist,then what is stopping us from saying that dharmakirti,vasumitra were vedantins ?

11th century Bengali Buddhist philosopher Advayavajra in his Tattvaratnavali,similar to us vedantins criticises Dharmakirti,Vasumitra,

परमार्थसन्नित्यसाकारविज्ञानसमाधौ भगवतः संस्थितवेदान्तवादिमतानुप्रवेशः।.........एवं निराकारवादिनाऽपि नित्य निराभास निष्प्रपञ्च स्वसंवेदनविज्ञानभावनायां भास्करमतस्थितवेदान्तवादिमतानुप्रवेश प्रसंगः।

At last the truth is,Vedanta and Buddhism in some parts may seem similar,yet on the subject of नित्य परमार्थ सत् विज्ञान vedantins and buddhists have demonstrated huge differences."

--
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/CAKk0Te3R4shO%3DthnYt19SiTaUqGZfn_%3DF2rVO_ku4O%2BEhePN7g%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Copying here an old post by Sri Venkataraghavan:

This discussion seems to be suffering from a case of post-hoc fallacy. The works of advaita vedAnta, based on the ones available today, historically occur after mAdhyamaka Buddhism, therefore where the two are similar, the former must have borrowed from the latter. 

An interesting counterpoint can be found in the work mAdhyamakahridaya by Bhavya, a sixth century mAdhyamaka buddhist. Prof VV Gokhale in a paper titled "The Vedanta-Philosophy described by Bhavya in his Madhyamakahrdaya" (Indo-Iranian Journal, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1958) presents a description of Vedanta (pre-Sankaran) that was available during Bhavya's time. He also refers to a situation where the mahAyAna school is criticised as being similar to vedAnta. In reply, Bhavya generously says that whatever is good in the upaniShads has also been taught by the Buddha.

In one of the chapters of the Madhyamakahridaya dealing with the hInayAna objections to mahAyAna, the hInayAna-buddhist criticises the mahAyAna buddhist saying;

न बुद्धोक्तिर्महायानं सूत्रान्तादावसंग्रहात् |

मार्गान्तरोपदेषात् वा यथा वेदान्तदर्शनम् ||

The mAhAyAna teaching was not spoken of by the Buddha, either because it is not included in the sUtrAntas, or because like the vedAnta darshana, it teaches heretic paths to salvation. 

To this attack, the mahAyAnist replies 

वेदान्ते च हि यत् सूक्तम् तत् सर्वं बुद्धभाषितम् |

दृष्टान्तन्यूनता तस्मात् संदिग्धं वा परीक्ष्यताम् ||  

Whatever is well said in the vedAnta (upaniShads) has been taught by the Buddha. The various examples cited by the hInayAna are faulty and what is doubtful must be examined. 

Here is an example of pre-Sankaran Buddhist work where the opponent criticises the mahAyAna school as being similar to vedAnta! The reply of the mahAyAna buddhist is even more remarkable - there is a concession that the best elements of the upaniShads have been taught by the Buddha himself. 

To argue that advaita borrowed from Buddhism, or Buddhism borrowed from advaita is missing the larger point - the two schools are similar in many respects, but different too. Similarity does not imply that one created and the other borrowed, nor does difference imply the absolute absence of common ground.  

Om 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B%3Dj2w8CYu9O3sM%2B6wtHGuriy_QuzZdxu0bXK8pEw_KZAsuE_w%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Says Dr.A.V.Nagasampige, noted scholar of Dvaita Vedanta and Director, pUrNaprajna samshodhana mandiram, Bangalore, in his very popular Kannada book 'mata traya sameekShA':

On page 51 it carries a heading: Is AdvaitavAda Bauddhadarshana?
On page 54 there is a heading : Bauddhas are pracchanna vaidikas.  It says:

The charge that Advaita has been influenced by Buddhist thinking has been stiffly refuted by Shankara, Vachaspatimishra, SarvajnAtmamuni, ShrIharsha, Anandabodha etc.  They have brought out the doctrinal differences between the two schools.  This section goes on to substantiate this statement by several quotes from these Advaita Acharyas' works.  It concludes: 
//Therefore since Buddhists accepted the Vedic formulation of NirviShesha Chaitanya they are 'pracchanna vaidika-s.'  //

// ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ವೇದದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ನಿರ್ವಿಶೇಷ ಚೈತನ್ಯದ ಪರಿಕಲ್ಪನೆಯನ್ನು ಒಪ್ಪಿದ ಬೌದ್ಧರು ’ಪ್ರಚ್ಛನ್ನವೈದಿಕರು.’//

Vidwan K.P. Babudas of Kalady, Kerala, while delivering his talk at the annual vdiwat sadas at Sringeri last year, 2011, said:

// यदुक्तं शून्यवादिनः सकाशात् मायावादिनः वैलक्षण्यं नास्तीति तत्रोच्यते । वस्तुतः एते बौद्धाः उपनिषदः अवलम्ब्यैव स्वसिद्धान्तं चक्रुः । किन्तु तेषां कापट्यात् औपनिषदोऽयं सिद्धान्त इति तैर्नोक्तम् । वयं तु श्रौतोऽयम् इत्युक्त्वैव  अस्मद्दर्शनं प्रदर्शयाम इति वैलक्षण्यं तेषां सकाशात् । उभयोः दर्शनयोः अधिष्ठानं उपनिषद एव इत्यतः क्वचित् क्वचित् साम्यमिव भवति । // 

The word 'shUnya' is listed as one of the names of Brahman by Sri Paramashivendra Saraswati (the preceptor of Sri Sadashivendra Saraswati of Nerur) in his work:

वेदान्तनामरत्नसहस्त्रम्’ [a book of a thousand names of Brahman culled out from the Vedanta']:
शून्यम् - पारतत्त्र्यादिदोषरहितं निर्विशेषं वा ।  तदुक्तं वासिष्ठे -

शून्यं तत् प्रकृतिर्माया ब्रह्म विज्ञानमित्यपि ।
शिवः पुरुष ईशानो नित्यमात्मेति कथ्यते ॥ इति ।

स्वप्रकाशमानन्दघनं शून्यमभवत् इति श्रुतिः ।  उक्तं च पाद्मे पुराणे - 
यं दृष्ट्वा योगिनो नित्यं सन्तृप्ताः स्वात्मसंस्थितम् ।
अक्षरं सदसच्छून्यं परमात्मानमीश्वरम्॥ इति ।  

There is also the verse from the मत्तविलासप्रहसनम् -

वेदान्तेभ्यो गृहीत्वार्थान् यो महाभारतादपि ।
विप्राणां मिषतामेव कृतवान् कोशसञ्चयम् ॥ 

Mahendravarman in his work 'mattavilAsaprahasanam' says this about the coming into being of the Buddhistic system:

//Taking material from the UpaniShads and also from the MahAbhArata (which includes the BhagavadgItA), Buddha, even as the brAhmaNa-s (vaidika-s) were wide awake, accomplished a great fortune - literally filled up his coffers - (of establishing a vibrant system).// 

Thus, in order to sustain a system, there has to be a kriyA/karma/anuShThAna aspect which too has been derived by the Buddhists from the sanAtana dharma that is the vedic religion. 

[V Subrahmanian]

Sri Polagam Rama Sastrigal has stated in a work that the four schools of Vedanta: Advaita, Shiva Vishistadvaita, Ramanuja's and Madhwa's system, all have some 45 common tenets.  

So, to say that on grounds of some similarities the two schools are the same is naive. No school can claim complete uniqueness.  

regards

subbu

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 6:49 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

In the 2nd chapter of the Mandukya karika, in the following verses, Gaudapada and Shankara say that the world, both inner and outer, are imaginations of the jiva.  Shankara is refuting the objection that it amounts to vijnanavada (Buddhism) by giving the reason: in Vedanta the imagination is on the adhishthana of the Atman whereas in vijnanavada it is not on the basis of the eternal atman.  

विकरोत्यपरान्भावानन्तश्चित्ते व्यवस्थितान् ।

नियतांश्च बहिश्चित्त एवं कल्पयते प्रभुः ॥ १३ ॥

In his translation of this shloka and Bhashya, Sri SSS makes a special heading: 

 

   ಒಳಗಿನ ಹೊರಗಿನ ವಸ್ತುಗಳೆರಡೂ ಕಲ್ಪಿತವೇ  (Both the internal and external objects are illusory/imagined)

Om Tat Sat

[সপ্ত Rishi]

Many a times,we have seen some people trying to buddha as a vaidika by pointing many verses,often from mahayana texts,but while reading a text of great tibetan madhyamaka philosopher tsong khapa,he says on these apparent sutras which speak of a non perishable atman this is his view,

the Mahaparinirvana Sutra uses the term "Self" in order to win over non-Buddhist ascetics. He quotes from the sutra:

The Buddha-nature is in fact not the self. For the sake of [guiding] sentient beings, I describe it as the self.

In the later Lankāvatāra Sūtra it is said that the tathāgatagarbha might be mistaken for a self, which it is not.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te17XJ1SMv%2B60pcNZ%3DfUemj%2BtNt0eNfUHhfWB0azumCdig%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

In his translation of this shloka and Bhashya, Sri SSS makes a special heading: 

 

   ಒಳಗಿನ ಹೊರಗಿನ ವಸ್ತುಗಳೆರಡೂ ಕಲ್ಪಿತವೇ  (Both the internal and external objects are illusory/imagined)

 

• Whenever talks like this (i.e. imagination of external and internal things) in PTB there is suffix (if not everywhere at least most of the times) like independently from brahman, brahma vyatirikta, brahma vilakshaNa etc. to prove there exists nothing independently from brahman.  Sri SSS too emphasized this bhAshya pratijnA at somany places.  Just for your ready reference, in one of his kannada works after quoting mundaka shruti 2-2-11 : brahmaivedamamrutaM purastAt, brahma pashchaat brahma dashiNatashchOttareNa…brahmaivedaM vishvaM idaM varishTaM, he explains ( please read this in Kannada as I cannot type any other language other than English in my official laptop)  : avidyAdrushtiyinda namma munde enenu kaaNisuttiruvadO edellavu brahmave, hindiruvudu brahmave, balakku, edakku, mele, keelage  ellavu varishTavAda brahmave, hinde, munde emba deshavu, andu, indu emba kAlavU Addarinda emba ‘kArya-kAraNa bhAvavu ‘nijavaagi brahmave.  Brahmavallavendu naavu ariyuvudellavu haggadalliruva haavinarivinante avidyeyindaada vikalpa maatrave.  Edannu manavarike maaduvudakke shAstravu ‘edalla’ edalla’ endu allagaLeyuvudu.  And then He quotes kArika 2-38 and further explains : OLage deha, indriya, manassu muntaagi kANuva AdhyAtmika vikalpavellavannu ‘paramAtma tattvave endu aritukoLLabeku, horage kaaNuttiruva pruthivAdi vikalpagaLannu tattvavende kaNdukOllabeku.  tAnU tattvave, etc.  And at the bottom he insisted his stand by saying :  ede shAstra bOdhaneya krama, ede shAstrAThavannu aritu kOlluvadembudu.  ( English translation :  This is the way in which shAstra/scripture teaching us, and this is how we have to understand the scriptural meaning) If you agree what Sri SSS says here then only quote Sri SSS in support of your understanding of shAstra otherwise kindly stop quoting Sri SSS. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Bhaskar ji,

The quote that I have given from Sri SSS is certainly contradicting your stance on the subject. He clearly says: it is kalpita.  You do not agree with that stand. Even in the quote that you give it is the same message: kalpita.  //AdhyAtmika vikalpavellavannu //  vikalpa is the word that means: kalpita. For the word vikalpa in the Karika, Shankara says:

विकल्पो विनिवर्तेत कल्पितो यदि केनचित् ।
उपदेशादयं वादो ज्ञाते द्वैतं न विद्यते ॥ १८ ॥

ननु शास्ता शास्त्रं शिष्य इत्ययं विकल्पः कथं निवृत्त इति, उच्यते — विकल्पो विनिवर्तेत यदि केनचित्कल्पितः स्यात् । यथा अयं प्रपञ्चो मायारज्जुसर्पवत् , तथा अयं शिष्यादिभेदविकल्पोऽपि प्राक्प्रतिबोधादेवोपदेशनिमित्तः ; अत उपदेशादयं वादः — शिष्यः शास्ता शास्त्रमिति । उपदेशकार्ये तु ज्ञाने निर्वृत्ते ज्ञाते परमार्थतत्त्वे, द्वैतं न विद्यते ॥

For vikalpa he gives the analogy of rajju sarpa, magic, etc. If the dvaita prapancha were real, as you hold, Shankara should not have given that analogy. He equates that to the shaastaa-shishya etc. vyavahara too, signifying that even this vikalpa is unreal, like rajju sarpa alone. 

Another vikalpa word in the Karika with rajju sarpa example in the karika itself:  

निश्चितायां यथा रज्ज्वां विकल्पो विनिवर्तते । रज्जुरेवेति चाद्वैतं तद्वदात्मविनिश्चयः ॥ १८ ॥ 

So the quote you give from Sri SSS is also consistent with the one I provided.

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581D2E33DB65285098310AD8406A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I hope you can understand Kannada which I have typed in English 😊 vikalpavellavannu brahma tattvavAgiye tiLidu kollabeku emba maatinalli dvaitavaagi vikalpadinda kaaNuttiruvudannu ‘ekarUpavaagi’ brahma tattvavAgi tilidu kola beku endu baayibittu heluttiddare Sri SSS adannu tiruchi neevu nimmade arthavannu aa vakyagaLalli tumbuttiddira…I cannot help it but to stop this discussion with you.  Anyway final attempt from my side what Sri SSS said in Kannada :

 

1. ‘kArya-kAraNa bhAvavu ‘nijavaagi brahmave ( the ‘bhAva’ if kArya-kAraNa in reality brahman only)
2. ‘avidyAdrushtiyinda namma munde enenu kaaNisuttiruvadO edellavu brahmave’ ( those which you are cognizing in front of you as dvaita in reality it is brahman only)
3. ‘hindiruvudu brahmave, balakku, edakku, mele, keelage  ellavu varishTavAda brahmave’ ( behind, front, right, left, top bottom all these are supreme brahman only (varishTa brahma)
4. ‘.  Brahmavallavendu naavu ariyuvudellavu haggadalliruva haavinarivinante avidyeyindaada vikalpa maatrave’ ( that which we are perceiving deciding as NOT brahman (abrahma vastu / anAtma vastu) is due to avidyA vikalpa like wrongly ‘seeing’ the snake in place of rope)
5. OLage deha, indriya, manassu muntaagi kANuva AdhyAtmika vikalpavellavannu ‘paramAtma tattvave endu aritukoLLabeku, horage kaaNuttiruva pruthivAdi vikalpagaLannu tattvavende kaNdukOllabeku ( those which are residing inside and those which are existing outside everything needs to be understood ‘paramArtha tattva only)

 

Compare these with what you are interpreting as Sri SSS’s perspective.  Please note I am not denying the meaning of vikalpa here but I am quoting Sri SSS how he is telling us that those vikalpa-s should be understood as ekatatva (tattva / varishTa brahma) and seeing the duality in it is like seeing the sarpa in rajju.  With this I rest my case. 

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Bhaskar ji,

What you are saying as the words of Sri SSS is not new to Shankara.  He has already said that in the BG bhashya; 

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 ।

Shankara says: Just as one would see the abhaava of silver in shell, here too the Jnani's drushti will be: the abhaava of the dvaita prapancha in Brahman. He gives the equation: that which is silver is shell.

This equation is called: baadhaayaam saamaanaadhikaranyam.  Thus, the mithya dvaita prapancha is equated to Brahman only upon negating, baadhaa, of the mithya prapancha. 

Sri SSS has also said this alone.  The explicit expression of the mithyatva of the world cannot be avoided at any cost in Shankara and Gaudapada's texts.  Shankara invariably gives the rajjusarpa, shuktirajata, svapna, magician analogies while saying this. Thus you can see that I have not misrepresented or twisted Sri SSS's statements. 

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/AM7PR06MB6581A3490195A615C77AD7B08406A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Let us get more clarity on this instead of mere statements.  Would you please explain in detail what exactly is baadhaayaam saamaanaadhikaranyam in the context of baadha (sublation) of mithyA prapancha and how it is relevant in this discussion of ‘kevala Kalpita prapancha’ ??

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of V Subrahmanian
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 1:56 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: Gaudapada and Shankara say: the world is imagined by the jiva through avidya

 

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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2W3gJvU%3DX6WU%3DfNSt8RHQ90JBM_4ENLtsmJ6VBMfjCyw%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 2:48 PM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Let us get more clarity on this instead of mere statements.  Would you please explain in detail what exactly is baadhaayaam saamaanaadhikaranyam in the context of baadha (sublation) of mithyA prapancha and how it is relevant in this discussion of ‘kevala Kalpita prapancha’ ??

As stated in the Gita bhashya I cited, the equation 'that which is silver = shell'.  The equation will make no sense unless it is explained. 'That which I wrongly saw as silver is actually the shell.'  In other words 'Instead of knowing the object in front of me as a shell, I wrongly perceived it as silver.'  With this explanation, the equation makes sense: silver = shell.  In the shruti example: brahma pashcaat, brahma purastaat, uttaratah, dakshinatah... this equation will translate to: sarvam khalvidam brahma, atmaivedam sarvam, brahmaivedam sarvam, etc. The 'this, that, etc.' that I perceived as real before the shruti taught me, now I say 'All this that etc. is actually Brahman.'  This is possible only if Brahman was wrongly seen as this, that etc.   So,the right knowledge is expressed as 'sarvam brahma' etc. after negating/sublating the this, that, etc. This negating part is called 'baadhaa'. The saamaanaadhikaranyam is possible only after the baadhaa of the mithya jagat.  Thus, it is not 'kevala' mithya jagat but the Brahman-alone-wrongly-perceived-jagat. The adhishthanam remains after the baadhaa of the aropita. Hence alone this is not vijnanavada. Shankara has clarified this. 

regards

subbu  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581538DAE97947727E5754D8406A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

Most of the Indian scholars are not aware that Lord Buddha himself told that after one thousand years of his departure, his teachings will get corrupted, particularly so if bhilshunis are included in the sangha.

He further said that there will be an avatars after one thousand years, who will take the corrective steps. Lord Buddha died towards the end of the 19th century BCE, and that means anew avatar was expected from the 7th century BCE onwards, and rightly in the 6th century BCE (in 509 BCE, to be exact) that Adi Shankaracharya, the concealed Buddha did appear.

My 2 cents

Sunil KB

Sent from my iPhone

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B%3Dj2w8CYu9O3sM%2B6wtHGuriy_QuzZdxu0bXK8pEw_KZAsuE_w%40mail.gmail.com.