Advaita dictionaries

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Tried to find advaita dictionaries rather than general sanskrit ones. There is a whole list of sanskrit terms (bhava, pratiyogi, jnapaka etc.) from the recent discussions for which I don't think translations were given. Unfortunately the dictionaries below don't seem to cover all of them, nor are they likely to give the precise vivarana understanding. But they may be useful for the general reader.

One which seems scholarly in this link online: https://estudantedavedanta.net/A_Dictionary_of_Advaita_Vedanta.pdf

Another one from my files, attached.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

One which seems scholarly in this link online: https://estudantedavedanta.net/A_Dictionary_of_Advaita_Vedanta.pdf

The introduction on Vedanta seems very good and mentions several terms and references that have been discussed in our forum. However I was surprised by two things which he mentions of bhamati which vivarana scholars here had upheld: Madhusudana interprets Vachaspati as DSV, or that Vachaspati was the one who refers to mula-avidya (?) - see page 11-12. Maybe there is some overlap in these things.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Putran Ji,

Just one quote from the Bhashya on kArikA 1-6 wherein the word bhAva is stated as applicable to the entire Creation

// यथा रज्ज्वां प्राक्सर्पोत्पत्तेः रज्ज्वात्मना सर्पः सन्नेवासीत् , एवं सर्वभावानामुत्पत्तेः प्राक्प्राणबीजात्मनैव सत्त्वमिति । //.

// yathA rajjvAM prAksarpotpatteH rajjvAtmanA sarpaH sannevAsIt , evaM sarvabhAvAnAmutpatteH prAkprANabIjAtmanaiva sattvamiti |//.

Translation (Swami Gambhirananda)  // Just as the snake surely had its existence as the rope before its illusory appearance as the snake, so also all positive entities, before their manifestation, had certainly existence in the form of their cause, PrANa //.

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/CAKqm3-p9Zj%2BQzto-TxvUB9%2BJO9iDYOceyKTPpm%2BtAhVFZkSbjQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Chandramouli-ji,

First I want to get an understanding for the phrase "positive entity" that appears in these translations. My interpretation is that a "positive entity" is a composite, of Sat associated (identified, superimposed, conditioned) with a namarupa (a limiting adjunct that projects/corresponds to a particular cognition or knowledge within a world of such cognitions), and this namarupa rooted in Sat is cognized/known through some valid pramana (possibly only shabda). Sat is the root, adhishtanam of all positive entities including the causal avidya=maya, so when we are identifying a positive entity, we are identifying Sat through a superimposed namarupa. Sat appears to create when identified by the association of maya or avidya.

(Not sure if this is a bhamati interpretation or fits within vivarana, or neither).

Is Brahman considered among the positive "entities", or is It the distinct positive adhishtanam for all positive entities?

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdN6XGz7pt3Gxpx1ob9juP633vzXdxuSGnUPzUM063MPrA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

(Not sure if this is a bhamati interpretation or fits within vivarana, or neither).

If my interpretation would not be the vivarana understanding when we read "positive entity" in these commonly-used translations, then others can give the meaning, as precisely as possible, that they think is best-fit for that sub-school. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

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

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

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

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

I request members who are well versed in Sanskrit to define the important terms, as used in the advaita tradition - especially those that form the focus of our discussions, so that others can refer to the definition and explanation here and follow/correspond better. This can be done in this thread, or someone can start another for the purpose and others can continue there.

Some format like:

Word

Concise definition

Elaboration with examples, compare-contrast, right vs wrong understanding etc.

---------

Some from the recent threads:

Sat, asat, sat-asat-vilakshana; bhava, abhava, bhava-abhava-vilakshana; bhavarupa; pratiyogi ...

thollmelukaalkizhu 

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

There is a fairly extensive dictionary, with short definitions of many terms at my old website - https://www.advaita.org.uk/sanskrit/sanskrit.htm. Click on the appropriate section. There are 22 pages of definitions. There are more pages of specific definitions of more fundamental terms at https://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/definitions/definitions.htm.

 

Dennis

--

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/CAKqm3-pYwtfLRjd8Ya6j2MbALvMYwdH7MKpB-Y7Tp_kuvbwbdQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Thanks. I wanted something more fine-tuned to ongoing discussions in our forum. So, it would have to be members who supply the content if they wish, keeping in mind how their usage of the word. For example, your dictionary says "bhava = state or condition of mind" but that would not make sense in the present threads.

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/003101dafc8a%2447c15570%24d7440050%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

As I recall, all these definitions were provided by members of the group, albeit over 12 years ago. I agree that they are certainly rather short and probably not (always) useful for some of the discussion that now take place! But I suggest they are often better than nothing. I believe a number of dictionaries are available for download (including Chakraborty, Octavian Sarbatoare, Krishnananda, one from the Sanskrit site and Monier-Williams).

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-oS4OTc5v3NSwO2Ec%2BhjejSev2a4Tub0UWE62_5ivs9tw%40mail.gmail.com.