Maya

[Ekam One]

Pranams,

How does Advaitha explain the "order",  "continuity"  and constancy in the apparent world ?

A dream (Swapna) is

a) random  and does not follow any rules of physics / time etc (no "order"),

b) one dream does not continue with another ("lack continuity") and

c) personal to each individual (Not consistent between two dreamers)

Where does Maya get these qualities?

a) The world as Jiva's experience follows certain rules always and everywhere  ( laws of physics, chemistry and time )

b) world as the Jivas in human form know, has been continuing with explainable changes for billions of years

c) the laws of nature are (more or less) the same for all Jivas. 

If the jagath is due to Maya, Where does Maya get these qualities from? and Why?

Pranams

Ekam.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Ekam-ji,

My understanding:

We may understand Maya as the intrinsic shakti of Brahman. Brahman/Consciousness in conjunction with this upadhi maya-shakti is called Ishvara. Ishvara is self-determining his projection/appearance as ishvara-jiva-jagat. How does He determine? The basis for his perpetuating the projection is the present state, and His determination is reflected in both the Order (jagat) and the play of self-will (jiva) that we identify. 

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/5b781c65-2777-4e11-8e5e-d3df5a36ed7an%40googlegroups.com.

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar:

With the presence of Space and time, Maya is always present and one has to go beyond space and time to KNOW THE BRAHMAN.  The presence of Maya confirms the presence of Avidya or ignorance and they are in separable.  Dream confirms that your experiences are within the boundaries of space and time.  The true advaitin has the vision of seeing the "Me in You through the You in Me."  But we see a multiple of jivas with a multiple of perceptions which is caused by the Maya.  The duality of Discrete and continuity confirms the presence of Time and the Maya.  The Maha Vakyas and all the statements that can not be disputed are part of what is known as tautology (the saying of the same thing twice in different words without providing real clues!) For example, if I say that the post office is next to the grocery store and also saying that the grocery store is next to the post office.  These statements are true but still we don't know where is the post office or the grocery store is located.  If you go back and review all the statements such is "Atman is the same as Paramatman," but we still need to find the Paramatman.  We still need to find the "True Happiness" and until we cross the spell of Maya, we will be ignorant and Adi Sankara suggests us that our fundamental root of the problem is Avidya!

Did I answer your questions clearly? The answer is no and that is also because of Maya!!

with my warm regards,

Ram Chandran

[srivathsan edapam veetil]

Dear Sri Putran,

Namaste.

I always find it difficult to understand the statement , “ Maya is the intrinsic shakti of Brahman”.

I understand the meaning of word "shakti “ as the capacity to do something.

By definition , Brahman is Akarta and Abhokta.

Then, what do we mean by “His shakti”  here?

Regards

Srivathsan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-qAuzSZbgJnW%3Dc-mB%3DknYiHR1UCx-KRydeFSkRnmuTC6A%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Srivathsan-ji,

Here is my understanding or thinking on this.

The question is on duality, causality, order and change. So this is the seen and the questioner is the seer posing the question. So the discussion is within the seer-seen duality or vyavaharika context. 

Who sees? The seer. Who is the seer? Two choices: 1. the Self or 2. a superimposition/appearance/projection on the Self

What does the seer see? The seen. What is the seen? Two choices: 1. the Self or 2. a superimposition/appearance/projection on the Self.

If the seer and seen are Self and the Self as the seer sees the Self as the seen, then the connective seeing is or is indicative of Maya. The seeing is by Self (since seer is Self) of Self (since seen is Self), hence the fact of seeing the seer-seen duality postulates an intrinsic maya-shakti in the Self, its power to see/project as seer and seen. By this shakti, the Self projects/appears as ishvara-jiva-jagat. So when we take the vyavaharika standpoint and seek to know Brahman, it is appropriate to know Brahman as Ishvara, not the God in the movie but the God who manifests the movie of ishvara-jiva-jagat. Remember our question is about this movie, the seen, having Order in jagat and self-will in jiva. Within the movie there is ishvara who maintains the order, grants karmaphala etc. There is internal appearance of causality: mickey mouse punched donald duck who fell down. When we seek the knowledge of Brahman while still relating to this movie duality, He will be known as the self-determining Ishvara, whose determinations we deem as order and free-will in the seer-seen duality.

The other answer, that the seer-seen duality is superimposition on Brahman, seeks the standpoint of the Self beyond all separation and duality. There is no place for question (and technically even consideration) of duality, its order and causality. It is only Brahman that in the lower standpoint is identified variously and ultimately as Ishvara. These identifications however are superimposition like snake on rope; there is no bat hit ball and ball went 40 feet, why!?! It is Brahman above, below, behind; the Self of all, the Self in all, the Self is All. All nama-rupa has only Brahman as referent, so where is the question of change and order? 

I don't see this as a negation of the seen or that the seer alone is real and seen unreal. That word usage is mixing contexts (although such may be used for particular purposes). It is transcending the seer-seen divide which is the superimposition. Either you are in vyavaharika standpoint, or in paramarthika knowledge. You always saw only the Rope, never the snake. When you think it is snake, you respond like it is. Negation of snake is not negation of what you saw but what you imagined (of Self). Likewise it is wrong to say the Self is the Dreamer and not the dream. What is the dream if not Self? The realization is that Dreamer-dream is all the same Self appearing in the dream-standpoint as if two. 

What is an appearance will vanish in Knowledge: the snake is gone when rope is known. So in Knowledge of Brahman, the seer-seen duality vanishes in and as Brahman, beyond change no matter the appearance. This appearance is therefore mithya. It is maya. It is anirvachaneeya. 

(I think there are standard debates on the nature of maya vs avidya vs ajnana.)

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/60A72383-FA01-4006-9C60-365AFBC10B78%40yahoo.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

 

 Remember our question is about this movie, the seen, having Order in jagat and self-will in jiva. Within the movie there is ishvara who maintains the order, grants karmaphala etc. There is internal appearance of causality: mickey mouse punched donald duck who fell down. When we seek the knowledge of Brahman while still relating to this movie duality, He will be known as the self-determining Ishvara, whose determinations we deem as order and free-will in the seer-seen duality.

This is not to mean that we are imaginations and Ishvara is elsewhere doing puppet control. "I am that Self" - except from vyavaharika the final reduction is Brahman+mayashakti, the self-determining Reality. In the context of ishvara, the Self manifests/determines as the Lord, the karmaphaladata, etc. In the context of jiva, it is manifest within the bounds of manifest body-mind and ajnana. Just that the statement "ball hit bat" reduces to Brahman projects as if ball hitting bat, and Brahman as "i" determines and projects as if hand going to catch ball. Etc.

thollmelukaalkizhu

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

Excellent post, Putran-ji! Just to be clear, however, your last para states:

 

“What is an appearance will vanish in Knowledge: the snake is gone when rope is known. So in Knowledge of Brahman, the seer-seen duality vanishes in and as Brahman, beyond change no matter the appearance. This appearance is therefore mithya. It is maya. It is anirvachaneeya.”

 

I believe you are NOT saying that the world disappears on gaining Self-knowledge. It is known that there is no duality, that sarvam khalvidam brahma, but even so the appearance of the world continues. (At least, I hope this is what you are saying!)

 

There is an ongoing discussion at my site, with over 100 comments, in which others have been trying to argue that the world DOES disappear. Three posts beginning https://www.advaita-vision.org/ignorance-goes-but-maya-remains/, followed by https://www.advaita-vision.org/the-disappearing-world/ and most recently https://www.advaita-vision.org/ignorance-and-the-world/. In the middle post, I referred to the rope snake metaphor:

 

“To speak of the snake disappearing when knowledge of the rope is gained is incorrect. Since the snake never existed in the first place, it cannot go away. Similarly, the world never existed, so to speak of it going away upon enlightenment is wrong. A non-existent thing neither comes nor goes away. (The world is, of course, mithyA, being neither real nor unreal but having brahman as its substratum.) So, what actually goes away upon obtaining j~nAna is not the perceived dualistic universe but the error (bhrama) that we made in thinking that there was a dualistic world.” 

 

Would you agree with this?

 

Incidentally, it would be good to post your summary (with clarification of the above point) if that is ok with you.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of putran M
Sent: 05 October 2020 23:24
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Maya

 

Namaskaram Srivathsan-ji,

 

Here is my understanding or thinking on this.

 

The question is on duality, causality, order and change. So this is the seen and the questioner is the seer posing the question. So the discussion is within the seer-seen duality or vyavaharika context. 

 

Who sees? The seer. Who is the seer? Two choices: 1. the Self or 2. a superimposition/appearance/projection on the Self

 

What does the seer see? The seen. What is the seen? Two choices: 1. the Self or 2. a superimposition/appearance/projection on the Self.

 

If the seer and seen are Self and the Self as the seer sees the Self as the seen, then the connective seeing is or is indicative of Maya. The seeing is by Self (since seer is Self) of Self (since seen is Self), hence the fact of seeing the seer-seen duality postulates an intrinsic maya-shakti in the Self, its power to see/project as seer and seen. By this shakti, the Self projects/appears as ishvara-jiva-jagat. So when we take the vyavaharika standpoint and seek to know Brahman, it is appropriate to know Brahman as Ishvara, not the God in the movie but the God who manifests the movie of ishvara-jiva-jagat. Remember our question is about this movie, the seen, having Order in jagat and self-will in jiva. Within the movie there is ishvara who maintains the order, grants karmaphala etc. There is internal appearance of causality: mickey mouse punched donald duck who fell down. When we seek the knowledge of Brahman while still relating to this movie duality, He will be known as the self-determining Ishvara, whose determinations we deem as order and free-will in the seer-seen duality.

 

The other answer, that the seer-seen duality is superimposition on Brahman, seeks the standpoint of the Self beyond all separation and duality. There is no place for question (and technically even consideration) of duality, its order and causality. It is only Brahman that in the lower standpoint is identified variously and ultimately as Ishvara. These identifications however are superimposition like snake on rope; there is no bat hit ball and ball went 40 feet, why!?! It is Brahman above, below, behind; the Self of all, the Self in all, the Self is All. All nama-rupa has only Brahman as referent, so where is the question of change and order? 

 

I don't see this as a negation of the seen or that the seer alone is real and seen unreal. That word usage is mixing contexts (although such may be used for particular purposes). It is transcending the seer-seen divide which is the superimposition. Either you are in vyavaharika standpoint, or in paramarthika knowledge. You always saw only the Rope, never the snake. When you think it is snake, you respond like it is. Negation of snake is not negation of what you saw but what you imagined (of Self). Likewise it is wrong to say the Self is the Dreamer and not the dream. What is the dream if not Self? The realization is that Dreamer-dream is all the same Self appearing in the dream-standpoint as if two. 

 

What is an appearance will vanish in Knowledge: the snake is gone when rope is known. So in Knowledge of Brahman, the seer-seen duality vanishes in and as Brahman, beyond change no matter the appearance. This appearance is therefore mithya. It is maya. It is anirvachaneeya. 

 

(I think there are standard debates on the nature of maya vs avidya vs ajnana.)

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Dennis-ji, 

Yes I am pretty sure that is how I meant as well, though it does not necessarily mean I know what I mean :). Advaita is not easy for body-identified ‘person’! 

Seems I meant the same in “ You always saw only the Rope, never the snake. When you think it is snake, you respond like it is. Negation of snake is not negation of what you saw but what you imagined (of Self).” 

Feel free to post elsewhere with necessary clarification or correction.

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/002201d69c9f%241f017290%245d0457b0%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[davesx]

Re-sending due to misdirected transmission in cyberspace:-)

Namaste - There is a saying the Omnipresent Brahman was alone and decided to dream up this ever changing world for his own fun and entertainment but characters in the play take it seriously and suffer the consequences. 

So Sri Krishna does his rasa leela with the Gopis knowing fully well they don’t exist except as expressions of his own infinitude, playIng the role of teacher, poet, king, friend, lover and so on.

Enlightenment means to lighten up the burden of mistaking Dysam for real (or unreal), relax, press the pause button on the mind’s private nightmares and fall in alignment with Brahman‘s script for the experience of ananda-delight, before mankind became smitten by the embedded trojan virus during the transmission of borrowed knowledge or rather ignorance from generation to generation. This science was taught to the sun god, revived periodically along the lineage but seems to be completely lost in the modern Kali yuga.

So if only 100 monkeys can emulate this, the collective dream superimposed and dominated by misery, greed, aggression, violence etc can begin to transform. 

:-) dave

[davesx]

So here is my few cents on the specifics of the question .Feel free to disagree or comment.

Pure awareness, the Drik, is everpresent and can exist on its own without Dsyam  including thoughts and objects but the latter cannot exist without the former. This is the flashes the Kena Up mentions glimpsed between thoughts and  perceptions during training. 

From the standpoint of naked awareness, free of thoughts, concepts, time and space, it is like nothing is seen, nothing is heard, nothing is known since thoughts are required to frame, overlay concepts and impute meaning to what is perceived. One cannot function in the world from this Pure state.

That does not mean the single world disappears, it is the world of diversity that disappears. The senses continue to perceive, hear and see but now it is no longer limited and begins to functions expansively as panoramic or whole seeing, listening and sensing as the intermediary of the thought filter is absent so there is no division or fragmentation of the perceived whole.

One doesn’t know what is perceived; it is like listening to the sounds of dogs barking way down yonder valley but unable to distinguish the particular sound from the contrasting environmental background. One can’t recognize a single note to even make a definite statement it is dogs barking. Sounds are echoing within ones own consciousness and not out there as there is no division or duality.

That is why I resonate with Mandukya; “Like an echo, mirage, rainbow, magic, city of Gandhavas in the sky, so do the knowers of Vedanta established in naked Awareness see the world”. 

Gradually as the Drik or naked Awareness becomes settled and inclusive, Dysam and  thoughts inspired by whole seeing start springing up spontaneously, creatively as the situation demands and one learns to function intelligently and sanely in the conventional world once again but now from the natural state of Sahaj, in complete alignment with Brahman, the Totality.

-dave

--
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/694380432.341102.1602109280482%40mail.yahoo.com

.

[davesx]

Namaste - I posted a similar version of this on another list and someone critiqued stating Drik, naked Awareness, cannot be equated with the senses which are impermanent.

My reply was that may be true for seeing (fire), tasting (water), touching (air), smelling (earth) but listening which has the tattva of space (Akash) being indestructible never leaves the corpse.

That is why Gyana starts with Shravana or hearing as the bija-seed of listening  is embedded.

Brahman in his game has designed Drik, his own pure Consciousness, to automatically and habitually turn outwards listening to the dictates of the robot mind which is filled with programming downloaded by the controllers of deceptive maya.

The initial Sadhana is to see this trick, break the bad habit, and for Consciousness (Drik) to reverse this process by listening instead to the wisdom and Intelligence of itself; to know and rely on Itself. Sita is captivated by the enchantment of Ravana but Lord Rama comes to the rescue.

-dave

[davesx]

Namaste - There is a saying the Omnipresent Brahman was alone and decided to dream up this ever changing world for his own fun and entertainment but characters in the play take it seriously and suffer the consequences. 

So Sri Krishna does his rasa lilla with the Gopis knowing fully well they don’t exist except as expressions of his own infinitude, playIng the role of teacher, poet, king, friend, lover and so on.

Enlightenment means to lighten up the burden of mistaking Dysam for real (or unreal), relax, press the pause button on the mind’s private horror movie and be in alignment with Brahman‘s super hit script meant for having ananda-delight in His original garden before smitten by the serpent of borrowed knowledge or rather ignorance.

So if there could be just 100 monkeys emulating this, the dominating collective dream superimposed of misery, greed, aggression, violence... can start being transformed.  

:-) dave

Sent from iPhone

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-oMZF9Lp9B1ec%2BBG2Umj_ZeE%2Bik531ofQoqDswRVUrOLw%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dennisji,

I think what Putranji means is that the one who realises what maya is, then his transient world disappears as he becomes one with the Brahman, but the world of the others can remain, till they als attain the Jnana. 

Regards,

Sunil KB

--

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/002201d69c9f%241f017290%245d0457b0%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

PraNAms to all

Tomorrow I am giving a talk to Durga Temple - Geeta Study group on "Transcendental Truth" - 

Transcendental Truth

Based on the 2^nd Chapter of Bhagavat Geeta, By Sadaji

Krishna starts the teaching with the statement, addressing all of us through Arjuna, “You are crying where there is no real reason for you to cry. Those who are Wise do not cry for those who have died or for those who are eventually going to dye, since nobody dies while every body dies. Recognize that you are not the body, but that which enlivens this body. Does anyone cry for changing a dilapidated dress to a new dress?”

In essence, ‘you are the subject, a conscious-existent entity and anything that you are conscious of is an object, starting from your body, mind, and intellect which are inert and subject to continuous change’. One who knows this simple truth is a Pandita or a wise man, and therefore he does not cry for the changing things due to their intrinsic nature. He is happy by himself and does not depend on the ephemeral things for his happiness.

For those who want to join the talk, here is the information.

Talk Scheduled from 12:00 to 1:00 PM EST Saturday, Oct. 10, 2020

Join the Zoom Meeting

https://zoom.us/j/97472298472

 

[Ekam One]

Thank you everyone for the extremely insightful messages on the question. Feeling blessed to be in this group.  

एकम

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

Sunilji,

 

This interpretation does not make sense either. Does each jIva live in his/her separate world? The multiple universe theory of modern science?

 

Or does a jIva ‘drop out of vyAvahArika existence’ in the shared world upon gaining enlightenment? This does not accord with reason or perception. We access the teachings of Shankara, for example, presumed to have been written post-enlightenment. Also, there is the problem of all other jIva-s being in the world of the one being enlightened. I.e. ‘disappearing world’ entails eka-jIva-vAda.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB99afDo0Gjs6GG4WiM071PSGQzrgWtSg7UBxiJs755qQrQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dennisji 

When we consistently remain aware of the anitya aspect of the sense objects and try to dissociate from them we are on the bottom of the ladder of self realization 

Then we concentrate on the Brahman Lord Ram told Hanumanji  to concentrate on Ramji’s avyaya state  Then we go to a step higher than before  - - -

Eventually the Prakriti will try to hide from us like a shy maiden and we become free and realize the goal 

Jai Shri  Krishna 

Sent from my iPhone

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/000601d69f22%24ab982e30%2402c88a90%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dennisji,

One thing I forgot to add. What I wrote may not be that easy, but Lord Krishna gave us a tip. For example, if we want to shun the sense objects, we are not going to succeed in a day, but if we make it a habit, it is only a question of time, before we succeed. We will be on the right track and sure to succeed in course of time. Also let us not forget that  Lord Krishna is with us to help.

Jai Shri Krishna.

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

Sorry, Sunilji. We do not seem to be communicating. No one was taking about ‘shunning sense objects’. One accepts the appearance as mithyA – its substrate is still Brahman. (sarvam khalvidam brahma). ‘Concentration on’ is not ‘gaining Self-knowledge’ from shravaNa with a qualified teacher. Sounds more like Yoga. Also talk of prakRRiti sounds more like sAMkhya. You have not responded to my original comment at all.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB98pJ-Jy7PfQhqCQtvhba0PL0QPcifuNNbszhxxGsPc-0Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dennisji,

You seem to have misunderstood me. I am not discounting the need of Svadhaya and of Learning at Feet of the Guru. After acquiring the knowledge we have to imbibe the knowledge within. The Original Bhagavad Gita says in chapter 2 as follows:

आदावन्ते च यन्नास्ति वर्तमानेऽपि तत्तथा ।

वितथैः सदृशाः सन्तोऽवितथा इव लक्षिताः ॥ 
A thing, which does not exist in the beginning and nor in the end, cannot be really existent in the present,What we see an object  is just
illusory, though regarded as real (by the ignorant)

After acquiring the knowledge through Shravana from the Guru and the Shruti-texts, we have to do the Manana and Dhyana and reach 
the Samadhi state and never forgetting the  illusoriness of the manifested world. We have to begin  our spiritual life with the Pratyahara. 
That is why  Lord Krishna, while telling us who is Sthitaprajana, starts with the one who is adept in PRATYAHARA.  Of course, in the 
eight-limbed Yogasutra, PRATYAHARA is the fifth limb.

Hope I could clarify well.. I am a student of the Shankara-school of Advaita in an indirect way, as I am from the Ramakrishna subschhol. May
be Sadaji would like to say something on this.

Jai Shri Krishna

Sunil kb

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/000f01d6a262%24f5f531b0%24e1df9510%24%40advaita.org.uk.

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

Sunilji,

 

The book I am currently writing is about ‘Confusions’ in Advaita Vedanta, how they have arisen and what Shankara says ‘definitively’ on the related topic. I’m afraid that many of these confusions stem from the misguided teaching of Vivekananda, ‘corrupting’ the original teaching with elements of Christianity, Yoga and science and diverting the seeker from gaining Self-knowledge into looking for some sort of ‘experience’. Whilst aShTA~Nga yoga has undoubted value in preparing the mind, its value stops there and samAdhi has no place at all. Whilst I respect your views, and of course they are likely to differ on this topic, I do not wish to continue the discussion since committed views - on both sides! 😉 – are unlikely to change.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB9_K49KREe6YAhBj7kaYFat4VcPZZ-sPTMoyuK%3DkUsQxXQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dennisji,

May I suggest that you read the 2nd Chapter of the Original Bhagavad Gita of 745 verses. and It will be revealing to you.

As regards your statement on Swami Vivekananda, may I clarify that  though I don't demean Swami Vivekananda, my allegiance is to Shri Ramakrishana Paramhamsa and Shri Adi Shankaracharya. I consider Lord Krishna, the Paripurna Brahman, as the Paramguru. Shri Ramakrishna's "Mother Kali" is the same as the "Lord Krishna" in the Male Form.

Many among the followers of Adi Shankara, who could not have the opportunity of seriously looking at the date of Adi Shankara, continue to  believe that the Shankara-bhashya of the Bhagavad Gita was written by Adi Shankara and that is a grave injustice (albeit done through ignorance)  to Adi Sankara. Had Adi Shankara written the Bhagavad Gita bhashya, he would not have committed the crime of removing the 45 verses of the Original Bhagavad Gita. He would have written the bhashya on the Original Bhagavad Gita with 745 verses. Removing the 45 verses from the Original Bhagavad Gita was done by one Kashmiri scholar Bhatta Bhaskara, of the Bhedabheda school, in the 8th century CE. Later on, in  the 15th century, Keshava Kashmiri Bhatta, of the same Bhedabheda school, tried to amend the mischief of Bhatta Bhaskara by saying that Original Bhagavad Bhashya had 745 verses. The manuscript of the Original Bhagavad Gita of 745 verses has been always available in Varanasi.

The great Abhinava Shakara, born in Chidambaram, the 8th century CE, saw through the game of Bhatta Bhaskara, who removed the 45 verses of the Original Bhagavad Gita and  tried to attack Adi Shankara's Advaita, by attempting to show as if the trunkated version of the Bhagavad Gita of 700 verses, advocated superiority of the Jana-Karma-samucchaya over the Jnana. Abhinava Shankara, accepted this challenge from his contemporary Bhatta Bhaskara, and by referring  to some relevant verses from the Anugita, he showed that  that the  Bhagavad Gita does show the superiority of Jnana over Jnana-Karma- samucchaya. Eventually, Bhatta Bhaskara, out of shame, changed his own name.  Later on the Bhedabheda school  even withdrew the last nine chapters of his commentary, leaving only the first nine chapters of his Bhatta Bhaskara's commentary. What I wrote may go over the head of those who love attributing the 8thcentury date to Adi Shankara.

Regards,

skb

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/002b01d6a300%2458f2c140%240ad843c0%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[v.subrahmanian]

This is a reply to Dennis ji from Sri Sunderrajan: (posted on his behalf by Subbu)

Pranams Dennis-ji,

>>

Does each jIva live in his/her separate world? The multiple universe theory of modern science?

>>

In a very recent Q&A session, someone asks Swami Sarvapriyananda a very similar question “Why do we believe there is only one consciousness even though there are innumerable bodies and minds”

You can listen to the answer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liHSgzovE9Y&feature=youtu.be&t=55m45s

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Subbuji,

Yes, swami Sarvapriyanandaji made it very simple to understand. But finally, one can say all this in in just one sentence as follows: When one understands consisstently that everything in the world is anitya and has no real existence, then one's mind is left with no job to do, and he becomes mindless (Manah-Shunya) towards the worldly objects, i.e., one develops the "Pratyahara" and becomes the Sthtaprajna and the Advaita jnana imparted by one's Guru along with one's manana and Dhyana takes one to being one with the Brahman.

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--
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/2b27224a-cf48-4617-95e9-f588d53fe17cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar:

Whenever there is a discussion between a wise man and an intelligent man, the discussion will always always be more interesting. The intelligent man knows what to say and how to say wisely. The wise man on the other hand knows what not to say and stops the discussion intelligently and avoid confusions.  In the present context, the discussion is focused on the spell of Maya which is clear from more than ONE perceived notions on the World of The Brahman.  The suble conclusion is ‘Brahman only knows the Brahman’ is the truth.  The rest may be attributable to the spell of Maya!!

With warm regards

Ram Chandran

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends 

Before the thread closes permit me to remind you that according to Upanishad Maya is Prakriti 

Regards

SKB

Sent from my iPhone

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/533c7050-0d46-4d16-8c62-17cee8a2e081n%40googlegroups.com.

[Sundar Rajan]

Namaskaram Dennis-ji,

>>

Does each jIva live in his/her separate world? The multiple universe theory of modern science?

>>

In a very recent Q&A session, someone asks Swami Sarvapriyananda a very similar question “Why do we believe there is only one consciousness even though there are innumerable bodies and minds”

You can listen to the answer..

Ask Swami with Swami Sarvapriyananda | October 11th, 2020 

Ask Swami with Swami Sarvapriyananda | October 11th, 2020 By Vedanta New York

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB9_K49KREe6YAhBj7kaYFat4VcPZZ-sPTMoyuK%3DkUsQxXQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[VIJAY KUMAR]

Hari om All

This is reply to Sunil ji's mail. The reference he quoted is not from Bhagavad Gita Chapter 2, it is from Mandukya Upanishad, Bhagavan Sankara's commentary, on Karika 6

आदावन्ते च यन्नास्ति वर्तमानेऽपि तत्तथा ।

In karika 6, another reason is given to establish the unreality of waking objects: आदावन्ते च यन्नास्ति वर्तमानेSपि तत्तथा aadavante-cha-yannasti-vartamanepi-tat-tatha i.e. that which does not exist in the beginning and the end is equally so in the present (or middle).

Thank You

Hari om

Vijay Kumar

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/002b01d6a300%2458f2c140%240ad843c0%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[davesx]

Dennisji - Apart from Yogananda and Vivekananda making Vedanta palatable to the west by diluting with elements from western culture, Shankara also made concessions or compromises for those who could only understand analog reasoning.

Gaudapada blasted this line of thinking by making radical and outrageous declarations based on instantaneous digital switching over from the confines of the conditional to the freedom of the unconditional which cannot be comprehended by conventional linear thinking based on cause and effect. Hence Ajatavata of the Mandukya Karika is grasped by very few with sharp intellects.

Hope someone can revive this particular Upanishad to the western audience expounding its original glory and status.

-dave

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/002b01d6a300%2458f2c140%240ad843c0%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar Dear Sunilji:

Before we end the discussions on the subject of Maya, let me try to clarify your most recent post equating Maya with the Prakriti and mentioned that it came from the Upanishads.  Your statement that Maya is Prakriti comes from the Svetasvatara Upanishad.  The referenced statement was subject to different interpretation by Acharyas Sankara and Ramanuja. According to Ramanujacharya, Ishwara the creator is the magician or Mayavi and Maya represents His power.  This interpretation is from the school of VishishtAdvaita philosophy theorized by Ramanujacharya. The explanations and interpretations of Prakriti and Maya as observed by Ramanuja and Sankar may be highlighted by the following.

 Here are the viewpoints of VishistAdvaita:

1.     Prakriti is real and it is not unreal or indeterminable.

2.     The knowledge of Prakriti as the Universe is true

3.     Most importantly the world is real and ever existent.

4.     The moola Prakriti is in subtle seed form and with this Ishwara creates the world.

5.     The world is nothing but the final form of Prakriti, just like the tree originated from the seed.

 The viewpoints of Sankara Advaita can be summarized as:

1.     Maya is neither real nor unreal

2.     Knowledge of Maya as the Universe is illusionary and not real

3.     Upanishads also confirms that multiplicity (duality) is unreal

4.     Maya is the power of Ishwara but it doesn’t exist in Ishwara even in seed form

5.     Creation visualized by the Jivas appears to those who see the world different from the Brahman

6.     Most importantly, the World is not Maya and only the magical power of Ishwara makes the Brahman to appear in the form of the World.  Same as saying that the Universe is the illusion of the Brahman.

It may be useful to know that Svetasvatara Upanishad’s statement is the context to overcome the dualism of Purusha and Prakriti of the Sankhya philosophy. It says that pradhana or nature is not an independent entity but belongs to the Self of the Divine Sakti. God is the mayavi, the maker of the world, which is maya attributed to Him. These features of the Svetasvatara Upanishad make Ramanuja and other theistic Acharyas to debate to establish the Personal God as the Ultimate Reality. But Adi Sankara uses the very same words to interpret non-dualistic meaning. Sankara further emphasizes that that the goal of this and other major Upanishads is to prove the sole reality of the non-dual Brahman and the un-substantiality of the jiva and the phenomenal universe. In his commentary of this Upanishad, Sankara’s introduction is a grand illustration of his broad canvas of arguments quoting lavishly from the srutis, smritis, puranas and Bhagavad Gita to establish his view.

 There are still doubters expressing whether Sankara wrote the commentary which can never be resolved. Leaving these controversies to the scholars, this Upanishad does serve as a guide using a simple and lucid language provides a compelling logic.  Dr. Radhakrishna in his book points out that this Upanishad  “teaches the unity of the souls and the world in the one Supreme Reality treating it as an attempt to reconcile the different philosophical and religious views which prevailed at the time of its composition”.

 With my warm regards,

Ram Chandran

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Vijaykumarji,

I quoted the verse from the Original Bhagavad Gita, which was spoken by Lord Krishna himself to Arjuna, on the Kartika Shukla Ekadashi day in 3139 BCE (or -3138 Julian), i.e., 5158 years ago.There is a verse in the Mahabharata,clearly saying  that tne original Bhagavad Gita has 745 verses. Please read it if you like. Prof. Belvalkar, in all his wisdom, omitted that verse in the Critical Edition of the Mahabharata,

It is obvious date Shri Gaudapadacharya around 6th century BCE,  took that Ajativada verse  from the Bhagavad, to use it in  his Karika  on the 12 verses of the Madukya Upanishad.

Thank you

Jai Shri Krishna

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1457424311.746064.1602773695159%40mail.yahoo.com.

[VIJAY KUMAR]

Hari om Sunil ji

I am sorry. I apologize for my ignorance. As far as I remember, that sloka did not come to my mind., in Chapter 2. That is why

I am only familiar with 700 Slokas (or 701 Slokas including the one in 13 th chapter 1St sloka Arjuna Uvacha: Prakritim....) Different editions have 700 and 701 slokas.

You did not specifically mention that this is from Old Gita with 745 Verses. so I got confused

Sorry

Vijay Kumar

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB99zVZLdqu5-sP151BHsC0e00s-8FHA__mbzwf%2Bt0pOkDw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar dear Acharya Vijayji:

Most of the Vedantins other than Sunilji will fall into the category labelled as "ignorant" and hence no apology is necessary.  Also Sunilji may not be aware that you have gone through a systematic Vedantic Course developed by Chinmaya Mission by Swami Chinmayananda and have completed to become an Acharya of Chinmaya Mission in the Virginia Side of Washington DC. Sunilji may not also be aware that you have been teaching and conducting Bhagavad Gita Satsangh for Chinmaya Mission for over 20 years. It is quite unfortunate that Sunilji still makes the claim that his quotation is very authentic because he has taken it from a version of Bhagavad Gita which is not universally accepted!  

The list is quite fortunate to have you as a member and we want your continue to post and educate the members that HUMILITY is much more important than Intellectual schalarship full of arrogance,.  During our stay in Washington area, our family was quite fortunate to know you and learn from you since you are one of the sincerest person that we know in Chinmaya Mission.   Also we have heard from our friends at Chinmaya Mission who have attended your discourses have very high regards for you. 

I know that you may not like me writing all this but I am obligated to do so knowing your noble character and service to the humanity and will others in this group lo learn from you.  Chinmaya Mission and the World community of spiritual seekers have great to look from you in learning Vedanta as well as humility which is quite essential for spiritual seekers.

With warm regards,

Ram Chandran

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Vijay Kumar - PraNAms

As you know there is a sloka in Geeta with a somewhat similar meaning. 

avyaktaani bhuutani vyakta madhyaani bhaarataa|

avyakta nidhanaanyeva tatra kaa paridevanaa|| 2-28

My 2c.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1298926727.381903.1602954758121%40mail.yahoo.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Ramchandranji,

You said

<< It is quite unfortunate that Sunilji still makes the claim that his quotation is very authentic because he has taken it from a version of Bhagavad Gita which is not universally accepted!  >>

Permit me to clarify that I consider myself blessed that  ,early in my studies on the Advaita,  I came to know that the Bhagavad Gita had 745 verses, as given in the Gita Press version of the Mahabharata as well as in the South Indian version of the Mahabharata. With the blessings of Lord Krishna I could find the 745 verses and published the Original Bhagavad Gita of 745 verses. I wanted to share my good fortune with the friends in the Advaitin group. If that has affronted you, I am sorry.

Some people may think that Adi Shankaracharya, born 2,500 years ago,  was the first to write commentary on the Bhagavad Gita with 700 verses, indirectly implying that he had removed the 45 verses from the Original Bhagavad Gita of 745 verses, and I can tell you that the Great Adi Shankaracharya would no have stooped that low to commit such a  horrendous crime. My studies told me that it was Bhatta Bhaskara, who was the first to commit that crime of removing the 45 verses from the Bhagavad Gita. Later on when Bhata Bhaskara realized his folly, he changed his name to Nimbarka. Later on Keshava Kashmiri Bhatta from the Nimbarka school of philosophy of Bhedbheda, admitted, in his bhashya on the Bhagavad Gita, that the Bhagavad Gita indeed had 745 verses.

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/4ed26fd8-ad4f-46d2-a734-497f10fd6d55n%40googlegroups.com.

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

Sorry, Sundar-ji. These were not serious questions. I was being provocative because I  did not accept the answer given by Sunil-ji. I expected readers to realize that.

 

From: 'Sundar Rajan' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: 15 October 2020 06:20
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Maya

 

Pranams Dennis-ji,

 

>>

Does each jIva live in his/her separate world? The multiple universe theory of modern science?

>> 

 

In a very recent Q&A session, someone asks Swami Sarvapriyananda a very similar question “Why do we believe there is only one consciousness even though there are innumerable bodies and minds”

 

You can listen to the answer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liHSgzovE9Y&feature=youtu.be&t=55m45s

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/995948963.853975.1602739186572%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Sundar Rajan]

Sometimes mithya questions produce real results! You should listen to the link anyway, it is informative..

Sent from my iPhone 11

On Oct 17, 2020, at 12:55 PM, dwa...@advaita.org.uk wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/004b01d6a4bf%2480b2d240%24821876c0%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[VIJAY KUMAR]

Hari om Ramchandran ji, and Sadaji ( I got his mail too)

Thank you for the elaborate letter. A big garland with words. Appreciated. I am not sure I deserve all those. Like our Acharya in Sandeepany Swami Bodhatmananda said, consider all appreciations are for "Ahamkara" . Not for "Atma". Atma doesnt need any. Ahamkara feels happy when someone praises you and also feels sad when one criticize you. Both are not happening in Atma

Both Atma and Ahamkara are so intertwined, it is hard to separate. Like Milk and Water. Very difficult. You have to be a 'Hamsa' - to do the separation. He told be a Hamsa. I am trying.

Blessed to be a part of this Forum. So many learned Vedantins Like Sada ji, Dev ji are answering most difficult questions from public, feel happy to read those. The more you learn the more you realize how much you don't know.

Sankara says Mano Buddhya -Ahamkara Chitha Ni naham ( Na Aham) . I am none of these. Our Gurudev Swami Chinmayananda says, 'You use them as Pole, in Pole vault jumping. lt' . After raising to the bar with the help of the Pole, jump across and leave the pole. The Pole includes all, Mana, Budhi, Chittam, and Ahamkara, and also all Bondages, relations, including our own "Guru". I felt sad when our teacher told that.

Many many thanks for keeping me in the group

Hariom and Pranams

Vijay Kumar

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/4ed26fd8-ad4f-46d2-a734-497f10fd6d55n%40googlegroups.com

.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Dennisji,

You might have found that I am somewhat unconventional, in approach. During my studies on comparative philosophy I found that, the advaita teachers do not encourage the  studying of the upanishads other than the 12 major upanishads and the other Vedic texts. When Madhvacharya claimed that Adi Shankara was a demon reborn and that Chandogya Upanishad talks of "atattvam asi", his advaita guru was dumbfounded and left advaita and reverted to Dvaitavada. But I I found that there was another Upanishad, where Lord Ram clearly teaches "'tattvam asi' to Hanumanji and there is also the Fifth Veda text of the Brahmanda purana, where too Lord am teaches 'tattvam asi'. It is a pity that none of contemporary advaitns of the time of Madhvacharya could face Madhvacharya. But, the great advaitins Adi Shankaracharya never ran away from the opponents of the Advaitavada.

It is a pity that most of the Advaitins are unaware of the Upanishadic Advayavada of Lord Buddha's Mahayana teachings, which is not any different from the Advaita vada taught by Adi Shankara. You will find many advaitins calling the ninth avatara, Lord Buddha, as a nihilist and condemn him.

There are several Yoga Upanishad and  there is also one Sankhya upanishad, yet the many Advaitins are against Yoga and Sankhya upanishads, as advaita students are not encouraged to read those upanishads.

I am sorry if some of my approaches have perturbed you. Please feel free to correct me when you feel I am wrong.

Thanking you in anticipation

Sunil KB

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/004b01d6a4bf%2480b2d240%24821876c0%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[Ram Chandran]

Namaste Satsanghis:

 We have been discussing the topic of Maya for several weeks with great participation and useful insights.

 Here are my observations as a fellow member (definitely not as a moderator) with respect to discussions with the focus to understand Maya in the context of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy. Everything that we all want to hear has been repeated with various scriptural references. Instead of discussing the subject matter for our spiritual progress, some have used most of their energy to engage in unresolvable arguments. It is a known fact that no agreeable position can ever be established through argumentative intellectual debates in a Cyber Satsangh.  Few years back I have posted a message in this forum (as a part of Yahoogroup) to convey my thoughts.

 In general, in any intellectual debates, we like to take positions that are usually opposite to each other. While engaging in an argument we tend to think that we are always more "right" than those who take a different position. The persons making the arguments most often have their own framework of thoughts (model) with unique parameters and assumptions that others don't agree or believe. Arguments arise when we are not willing to consider others' position as a potential possibility. Such a position is known as the right/wrong paradigm. The right/wrong paradigm in general can produce three possible outcomes: (1) proven right, (2) proven wrong, or (3) avoiding to be wrong.

While there may be a short term feeling of satisfaction when we think that we have convinced someone else is wrong, arguments rarely will lead us to long term gratification. Everyone in an argument wants to be "right" and tries hard to avoid being "wrong." This may explain why no one is actually listening. It is inevitable that we like to choose one of these two options: We either feel obligated to forfeit our position, or we refuse to give in and will fight harder and harder. The first option leads to resentment because though we gave in, we are not totally convinced of the other position. The winner also feels at a loss because the winner also was not fully "convinced."

 The second option leads to "polarization," where two opposing parties find themselves in an egoistic self-fulfilling vicious cycle and take shelter at opposite end of the "pole." The more one party insists on a position, it encourages the other party to fight harder to be right and to resist being proven wrong. After several cycles of this polarization, arguments escalate and can become hurtful. This is when people say and do things they later regret. There is certainly no winner here. In the world of "right/wrong," there will be never any real winners. And if there can be no real winner, then why should we choose to get involved in a losing game?

 Problems are best resolved when we agree to discuss together in a creative capacity to find useful insights that can benefit all. Creativity is only possible when we conduct our discussion that avoids escalating patterns of polarization. Arguments can only be effective if and when we force ourselves not to get caught up and trapped in right/wrong paradigm. An agreeable resolution will become feasible when the "right/wrong" paradigm gets transcended. If this doesn't happen within a reasonable time, we should be wise to put off our discussion and observe silence for few days until we cool down. We should take this time to train our mind to agree to listen to each other's points of view and look for a resolution that provides more insights.

 How do we get out from the trap of the "right/wrong" paradigm? This is not easy and we need the will-power to invoke our true divine nature and open our mind to listen. We must determine to take a stand that our care for the other members is much more important than the cheap payoff of winning the debate. We must be willing to reach for something more fulfilling than the predictable mediocrity of proving ourselves right. And we need to have the courage to be the one willing to make this change, even in the face of those who desperately want to prove us wrong! When one of us rise above the right/wrong paradigm, the length of the pole will become smaller and ultimately the argument will likely end.

 No matter how much someone else wants to "win," if we refuse to enter into the world of right and wrong, we will not get trapped in any argument. But we should recognize the fact that we cannot rise above this paradigm and avoid an argument if we entertain the thought that the person is wrong. If we do, we will likely back in that right/wrong world again. This is tricky and it is a bit of a paradox. No amount of wanting an argument to stop will ever stop, if our inner mind silently engages in judging the other person's intentions. We must take a stand that we will no longer participate in any endeavor that tears down others' beliefs and thoughts. When those who want to fight can't find a willing partner, they will be left only to face themselves. The argument will slowly disintegrate we will no longer be engaging in the losing game of arguing.

  Here is a list of argument stoppers that we can employ:

 You may be probably right.

 What you have said is one way of looking at it.

 I am more than happy to take your point into consideration.

 I want to take little more time and I do plan to get back to you.

 Thanks for sharing your thoughts and I respect what you have said.

 Let's postpone and talk about this when both of us are calm.

 I am able to see the subtlety of your thoughts.

 I have come to the conclusion that arguing just isn't worth it.

 Let's respect each other's position and agree to disagree.

 Our opinions may differ but we can gain more by listening.

 I have come to the conclusion that we don't gain by arguing.

With my warm regards,

 Ram Chandran

Note: Please be assured that this message is not aimed at any person in particular. These are suggestive comments to warn me not to engage in endless debates! 

[davesx]

Ramji - Apart from injecting some measure of diplomatic guidance into the discussion, this one caught my eyes "Our opinions may differ but we can gain more by listening".

 It is said Shankara was a great debater skillfully using ideas to neutralize other ideas and as the mind falls silent, the continuum of listening is reactivated.

Listening  from silence is free from self intention. Usually we listen selectively through the filter of our own past ideas, prejudices, fancies, expectations i.e. looking  for a specific future results, but in silent listening nothing is objectified! One is simply open, multi-directional, in communion with intimations from the Brahmic whole - call it Bhakti or Divine love - and acting in accordance  to these promptings.

-dave

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/18db0c29-ed56-4335-9ee3-c7f90929441fn%40googlegroups.com.

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

Dave-ji,

 

Someone has revived Mandukya and Gaudapada kArikA-s for a Western audience – see http://www.advaita.org.uk/extracts/a_u_m_unreal.html.

 

(Thanks for prompt for a bit of marketing!) 😉

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/639193705.119374.1602777811901%40mail.yahoo.com.

[davesx]

This is simply amazing Dennisji..... Right in our own own backyard :-).

Read the excellent book review and just a few comments which probably were dealt within the book content.

Advaitins are famous for flaunting the presumption of reality as Atman or Consciousness prior to actually knowing this. Although Gaudapada's 3rd chapter is devoted to proving the existence of Atman in order to distinguish it from the changeable (Khyara), in 4th chapter verse 83, he discards this position entirely and rejects even the idea of Atman or Consciousness. Only Silence, the wordless is implied.

Just as the sound AUM arises from soundlessness, so all the states originate and return in Turiya - the flash of Silence between two successive moments -- when an idea has come to an end but another has not yet sprung up. By merging waking into dreams, then dream into deep sleep, finally sleep is merged into the wakeful Silence of Turiya. Again, it is Turiya that reappears and objectifies itself as the three mind states of waking, dream and sleep.

-dave

[VIJAY KUMAR]

Hari om Dennis Ji

Wonderful Book. I clicked on the link you provided. Thanks. I read it from beginning to end. If I may, one slight correction to he heading

It says. "Third objection to world being unreal", I think it should be "Third Objection to work being Real" Because all the reasoning he is brining is in support of world being REAL.

Objection to "UNREAL" is, that it is "REAL".

Also on extreme top he says " Waking World is Unreal"- Dennis Waite. And he says the reverse at top left

"The World Appearance- Third objection to world being unreal" . One might get turned off, and not to read this article as a vedantin. I first thought it too, but I continued reading. Then I realized, he is with us not against us. He is one of us. Well explained. Wonderful explanation.

My Pranams to you

Vijay Kumar

--
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/104095036.648434.1603056672121%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar Vijayji:

Dennisji is the author of the book and probably didn't notice that carefully.  He was reluctant to give that reference as you can see his comments to Daveji. I will allow him to answer your question and he can articulate it better than me!

regards,

Ram Chandran

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

Hi Vijay-ji,

 

This entire chapter is about ‘The World Appearance’. It covers the second chapter of Gaudapada’s kArikA-s, which is essentially expanding on the word prapa~nchopashamaM from the 7^th mantra of the Upanishad. Gaudapada uses the word vaitathya as a synonym for mithyA and means that the world is not real ‘in itself’ – its real substrate is Brahman. The way he approaches this is by first showing that dreams are mithyA and then extrapolating that to the waking state. But the seeker has difficulty accepting this and puts forward a number of objections, which Gaudapada then shows to be unfounded. These objections are 1) that the waking world has utility, 2) that the dream world itself is real, being created by God and 3) that the waking world has objective reality, unlike dreams which only have apparent existence for the dreamer. It is this third objection that is being addressed by the extract at the link.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

From: 'VIJAY KUMAR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: 18 October 2020 23:43
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Maya

 

Hari om Dennis Ji

Wonderful Book. I clicked on the link you provided. Thanks. I read it from beginning to end. If I may, one slight correction to he heading

It says. "Third objection to world being unreal", I think it should be "Third Objection to work being Real" Because all the reasoning he is brining is in support of world being REAL.

Objection to "UNREAL" is, that it is "REAL".

Also on extreme top he says " Waking World is Unreal"- Dennis Waite. And he says the reverse at top left

"The World Appearance- Third objection to world being unreal" . One might get turned off, and not to read this article as a vedantin. I first thought it too, but I continued reading. Then I realized, he is with us not against us. He is one of us. Well explained. Wonderful explanation.

My Pranams to you

Vijay Kumar

.

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

Thanks for your kind comments, Dave!

 

There are a number of other extracts from the Appendices of the book available on-line.

 

1) Symbolism of the chin mudrA (the image on the cover of the book) - https://www.advaita-vision.org/chin-mudra/

 

2) A series of posts on the metaphor of chidAbhAsa - https://www.advaita-vision.org/chidabhasa/

 

3) Article showing that the concept of manonAsha is not intended to be taken literally - https://www.advaita-vision.org/manonasha-not-the-literal-death-of-the-mind/

 

There is also a review of the book at https://www.advaita-vision.org/a-u-m-awakening-to-reality-review-of-book/.

 

Some other, related posts are on eka-jIva-vAda – https://www.advaita-vision.org/the-devils-teaching-part-1/

and the number of ‘states of consciousness’ - https://www.advaita-vision.org/states-of-consciousness-2-3-4-and-1-2/

and the symbolism of OM - https://www.advaita-vision.org/om/

 

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

From: 'davesx' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: 18 October 2020 22:31
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Maya

 

This is simply amazing Dennisji..... Right in our own own backyard :-).

--

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/104095036.648434.1603056672121%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Rammohan Subramaniam]

Here is a document attached which lists the reference of Maya in various Upanishads.

This may help fellow sadhaka. 

On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 8:29:40 PM UTC+5:30 quad.4...@gmail.com wrote:

Pranams,

How does Advaitha explain the "order",  "continuity"  and constancy in the apparent world ?

A dream (Swapna) is

a) random  and does not follow any rules of physics / time etc (no "order"),

b) one dream does not continue with another ("lack continuity") and

c) personal to each individual (Not consistent between two dreamers)

Where does Maya get these qualities?

a) The world as Jiva's experience follows certain rules always and everywhere  ( laws of physics, chemistry and time )

b) world as the Jivas in human form know, has been continuing with explainable changes for billions of years

c) the laws of nature are (more or less) the same for all Jivas. 

If the jagath is due to Maya, Where does Maya get these qualities from? and Why?

Pranams

Ekam.

[VIJAY KUMAR]

Hari om Ramachandran ji

Thanks for the mail. I did not know that our Dennis Ji is Dennis Waite. Sorry

I received a mail from him too. He thought I got confused with the content. I fully agree with the content. It is the heading which was stated incorrectly. It did not match the contents

Hari om

Vijay Kumar

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/245d6331-b7a5-40a7-aa0e-c6050bb9b5b0n%40googlegroups.com

.

[VIJAY KUMAR]

Dear Dennis Ji

Thanks for the detailed letter. Yes, I agree

The thing I pointed out was the "heading'. I have no problem with the contents. I fully agree. You explained it very well.

Only thing is the heading did not match what was explained. That is all. It is minor thing.

Best regards

Vijay

--

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/001901d6a5ec%240071a100%240154e300%24%40advaita.org.uk

.

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Vijaya Kumar, PraNAms

Dennis has written many books on Advaita, edited my book on Introduction to Vedanta, and also the 'Critical Analysis of Vedanta Paribhasha' that he posted on his website, has been the moderator and also Chief moderator of this list, for many years. 

I visited him and stayed with him when I had some conferences related to Material Science. He and his wife took care of me so much, I still remember even though it is more than 20 years ago. 

Hari Om!

Sada

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/2036324078.710516.1603114555069%40mail.yahoo.com

.

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

Dear Vijay-ji,

 

I still do not understand what you are saying about the heading, I’m afraid. I did not see anything wrong. This is the heading that occurs in the book. As I said, it is addressing the third reason why people claim that the waking world is real. I.e. the pUrvapakShin’s objection to Gaudapada’s assertion that it is unreal. The overall heading ‘Waking World is Unreal’ is the colloquial statement of the actual truth – that the waking world appearance is mithyA; it is really only name and form of Brahman. I.e. brahma satyam, jaganmithyA, jIvo brahmaiva nAparaH.

 

Best wished,

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/654128812.708483.1603114768648%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ram Chandran]

Pranams Dennisji:

It was just a misunderstanding and he didn't read the entire content and the context.  All of us fall into this pitfalls while making quick assessments without getting all facts one time or more!  In your book you have articulated clearly how the objections were handled and proved to be without substantial validity.  It is nice of you to share part of the book and many references to the list. 

thanks and warm regards,

Ram Chandran  

[Ravindra Shivde]

Humble Pranams to all Advaitins,

Thanks Dennisji. The book is available on Scribd.

Dr Ravindra S. Shivde
Shivde Hospital, Old Pandit Colony, 
Gangapur Road, Nashik 422002, Maharashtra, India.
Phones- (O) 0253-2578019 (R)0253-2570519
Telefax-0253-2570519. Mobile 9823053441
E-Mail: shi...@hotmail.com;ravis...@yahoo.com;ra...@shivde.com

Website:  www.shivde.com  

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of dwa...@advaita.org.uk <dwa...@advaita.org.uk>
Sent: 18 October 2020 22:22
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [advaitin] Maya

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/004101d6a56f%240bf05120%2423d0f360%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[Rammohan Subramaniam]

Hari Om

I looked one of the the links that was shared on Eka Jiva vada by Dennis and came across the last paragraph as

"And that is the start of a ‘slippery slope’ because, if you follow the idea further, you really start to get bogged down! We have recognized that the ‘objects’ in the world are only forms of Brahman, to which we assign names, thereby giving an appearance of duality where there is none. But logic dictates that this has to apply to other people as well (and to our own body-mind) – it means that ‘I’ am the only jIva. This, in turn, means that the world (and ‘other people’) will disappear as soon as I get enlightened. This theory has its own name – eka jIva vAda – and is not explicitly referred to until later still, principally in the work siddhAntalesha-saMgraha by Appaya DikShita in the 16th century CE."

"This, in turn, means that the world (and ‘other people’) will disappear" should have been rephrased as "This, in turn, means that the world (and ‘other people’) would now be discovered as one large projection on me" I am Brahman."

Then this would be acceptable understanding of the eka-jiva-vada.

Om and With Prem
In his Seva
Shri Rammohan

On 21-11-2020 06:02, 'Akhil Garg' via advaitin wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/002001d6a5fb%2427b75930%2477260b90%24%40advaita.org.uk.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/advaitin/XLqeHPFsTMI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/490711125.48249.1605918778051%40mail.yahoo.com.

-- 
Thank You
Rammohan.Subramaniam
Gmail.

[davesx]

Namaste Sri Rammohan-ji:

"This, in turn, means that the world (and ‘other people’) will disappear" should have been rephrased as "This, in turn, means that the world (and ‘other people’) would now be discovered as one large projection on me" I am Brahman."

That it's "one large projection me and I am Brahman" is still an idea...no?

If Brahman is Infinite all finite ideas about Brahman get dissolved in Infinitude....correct?

Om

dave

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/f67f0a7b-127e-72e2-70e1-6b8572a19246%40gmail.com

.

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

Dear Shri Rammohan,

 

I don’t disagree with your rewording. This is precisely the point I have been making throughout the very long discussions at Advaita Vision – namely that the world ‘appearance’ continues after enlightenment. It is realized to be simply name and form of Brahman (‘Me’) but, nevertheless, it does NOT literally disappear. And, more particularly, the ‘other jIva-s’ in this appearance continue to function autonomously and the j~nAnI treats them as such, even though knowing that they are not separate entities. And I have pointed out that eka-jIva-vAda is the most egotistical belief imaginable because it is saying that ‘I am the only jIva in this illusory world and, once I am enlightened, all of the rest of you will be proved to be the result of my imagination’.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Rammohan Subramaniam
Sent: 25 November 2020 13:54
To: 'Akhil Garg' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Maya

 

Hari Om

[davesx]

Namaste 🙏 Dennis-ji,

Upon investigation it is realized that the narrow egoistical view, the cause of human conflict and suffering, was based on nescience and false imagination. 

A fresh universal view (Ishwara Drishti) opens up upon realization the apparent world is not separate or external but arises in you and is in fact you. No longer will the earth, the air, the rivers, the one common life in general be mistreated, violated and abused. Human and global problems are reduced or eliminated. 

To summarize, the Gyani established in the non-objective Self sees objects or rather the apparent world as creative, universal and transformative ideas within his own transcendental Consciousness of which he is free to play, act on or refrain.

This is hinted in Gaudapada’s Mandukya Karika: The world is seen as a magical appearance by those versed in Vedanta.

Om

Dave

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

--

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/002b01d6c56c%2435d4b2c0%24a17e1840%24%40advaita.org.uk

.

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

Quite! I am carefully differentiating between the eka-jIva-vAda belief prior to realization and the knowledge that ‘I am Brahman’ after realization.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

From: 'davesx' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/531967414.2176207.1606583944966%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Dennis - PraNAms

Yes, from my understanding, it is the question of the reference state from which these statements are made. 

The pouranic example of Rama and Krishna helps us to understand this. They lived in the world making sure that Dharma is maintained. At the same time, Krishna shows his viswaruupam in the 11th Ch. 

Krishna states – mayaa tata midam sarvam jagat avyakta muurthinaa| mastaani sarva bhuutani na chaaham tesvavastitaH

I pervade this entire universe in an unmanifested form. All beings are in Me, and I am unaffected by them.  

And in the very next sloka he says – na cha mastaani bhuutani pasya me yogoamaiswaram. No beings are in Me – look at my glory, apparently contradicting His own statement. In the sense that there is no reality to the experiencial plurality. 

As long as BMI is there, the plurality is experienced and thus relatively real as all the relationships are transactionally valid. 

From the point of jeevas there appears to be many and from the point of the absolute, there are no jeeva in Me. Look at my glory.

In the deep-sleep, everyone experiences the advaitic state – even though there is no knowledge of that state since instruments for knowledge at the individual level, the mind, is folded.

Hence Eka (jeeva) vaada is from the understanding of the absolute truth.

One can drop the word ‘Jeeva’ in that understanding. Hence Mandukya mantra 7 states that clearly as – prapanchopashamam, advaitam, chaturtam manyante – sa aatmaa – sa vijneyaH.

Hence understanding involves Ekatvam as the absolute truth.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Shri Dennis ji,

To clarify, ekajIvavAda, at least in Shri Madhusudana Sarasvati's conceptualisation, is slightly different.

As he clarifies in the Advaita Siddhi:

अविद्यावशाद् ब्रह्मैवैकं संसरति। स एव जीवः। तस्यैव प्रतिशरीरमहमित्यादिबुद्धिः।

Due to ignorance, it is Brahman alone that is under samsAra. He alone is the jIva. It is that Brahman that has the notion of "I" in each body.

Later, he goes on to say:

अनेकशरीरैकजीववादस्याङ्गीकारात्। What is meant (by ekajIvavAda) is that it is one jIva who pervades many bodies.

And:

अन्तःकरणावच्छिन्नेनाविद्यावच्छिन्नेन वा? नाद्यः। तत्र परस्परं भेदात्। न द्वितीयः इष्टापत्तेः। 

Are you objecting (the opponent) assuming the jIva to be consciousness delimited by the mind or by ignorance? It is not (i.e we do not mean) the former, because that would mean there are many jIvas, as minds are different from each other. You cannot object to unity of jIvas citing the latter alternative, because that would be desirable to us (advaitins).

That is, ekajIvavAda is postulated from the standpoint that primal nescience, avidyA, is one, and therefore, the jIva, who is none other than Brahman delimited by that one ignorance, is one alone. It is that one jIva who appears as "I" in multiple bodies and considers each such "I" to be different, on account of erroneous identification with each particular body.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

--

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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/002b01d6c56c%2435d4b2c0%24a17e1840%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[Rammohan Subramaniam]

Hari Om DAVE JI:

That it's "one large projection on me and I am Brahman" is still an idea...no?

No.  One belongs to  realm of truth other belongs to realm of illusion , they cannot be connected by 'idea' because the term 'ideas'  belong only to the illusory realm. The term 'dissolves' also belongs to the realm of illusion . The only thing that transfers from Brahman to the World is  Infinity, Existence,Consciousness which becomes as though limited in the illusion. Thus limitation is the illusion. What is dissolved is the illusory limitation which also belongs to the illusory realm.

Trust this makes sense.

Om and with Prem
Shri Rammohan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1484032729.2061886.1606515906362%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Rammohan Subramaniam]

Hari Om Dave Ji

The correct example would be a long lost prince who was believed to be a beggar and then realizes his true nature realizes the "beggar" in him is an illusion even when contra-thoughts arise, he falsifies them using his awareness of his true nature.

OM and with Prem
Shri Rammohan

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Venkataraghavanji,

We are breathing to live and as long as we breathe we are living. I read quite some years ago, where Lord Krishna Himself says that he is visiting each of us when we breathe in, and that certainly seems to say that we think ourselves as individual jivas, till we realise that we are no different from Lord Krishna.

Jai Shri Krishna

Sunil KB

Namaste Shri Dennis ji,

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/002b01d6c56c%2435d4b2c0%24a17e1840%24%40advaita.org.uk.

--

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/CAL34aE%3DwwiFr6bsL8TG7y9ADmnxb%2B-3fcJ-QYAt2hus11q_rpA%40mail.gmail.com.

[davesx]

Dear Shri Rammohan-ji

Every statement about Brahman is merely to form an idea i.e. a drsyam (an object) while Drg remains untouched. Knowledge of Brahman is being the all inclusive Brahman so where is there an outsider to utter "I am Brahman"?

The Shrutis use such words or mantras only to help aspirants rise along the steps. Each dualistic statement is used to demolish or point out the absurdity of another, as one thorn is used to pull out another, so the guru may utilize statements to help students rise to non-duality which must remain unspoken.

Maybe we should agree to disagree and move on else we'll be circling with semantics. Ultimately semantics show the futility of all words in the quest for the ultimate truth thus transcending words and launching into silence where alone Brahman can be realized.

Om Shanti

dave

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/a18da781-fd43-019b-2ac9-de33e2607ebf%40gmail.com

.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Daveji,

One think I am convinced that the Dvaita school of Shri Madhvacharya was full of hatred for the Advaita school. In fact, Shri Madhvacharya, wanted his disciples only to read his partial commentary on the Bhagavatam and not the Bhagavatam as it is. Shri Madhvacharya said that nobody can understand the Bhagavatam without his commentary. This is really a very dangerous view and is against what was Vedavyasa's view. Vedavyasa wrote the Bhagavatam for one and all. As Shri Madhvacharya created problem forthe  readers of the Bhagavatam, Shridharacharya had to write  a commentary so that the Advaita views are clearly shown to the readers.

Jai Shri Krishna

skb

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1552805834.2372888.1606697587847%40mail.yahoo.com.

[davesx]

Namaste Sunil-ji

A true Advaitin can blend into any forum because he understands the ladder and the limitations. He might perform dualistic worship in a temple with a congregation of devotees in the morning and by afternoon even refute the existence of God in the company of other Advaitins!

The power of imagination of the mind is incredible, just look at the monstrosity of the conceptual world we have created :-).

Mystics, yogis and visionaries from every traditions have created all these spiritual ideas about soul, the seven planes, hells like Naraka loka, the heaven lokas of Hindu and Judo-Christianity cosmology, the voyage of the soul of the Radha Soamis, astral traveling.... it's endless.

But it's all pure speculation, fantasies. The mind engine is so powerful that these fantasies crystallize on a metaphysical layer of reality and seekers get fanatically attached to them. But they were all created by one's imagination. So first concepts are created, then real-ized, then justify as true leading to infighting among religions and competing sects for superiority.

When the Buddha was asked how the world could be a mental idea, he illustrated the story of an old hag in a village of Bengal whom the villagers hated. She continually and passionately imagined herself as a tiger and hey presto, eventually all the villagers saw her as a tiger and vacated the village, so she lived happily thereafter :-). Think about the creative power, the imagination of the collective Mind - Ishvara - manifesting this entire universe!

Traditions like Advaita Vedanta, Dzogchen and Mahamudra known as the "direct path"  simply bypass all this drama. They cut through all these fabricated paths of creation, these mind created phenomenal experiences and target the ultimate Subject directly; the Self or Drk to whom all these experiences occur.

So bear with Shri Ramanuja and Shri Madhavacharya's creative fictions, maybe it benefited the mindset of his followers.

Om

Dave

[davesx]

Dear All - See any similarities in these words: 'i-magi-nation' and 'I-maya-nation'?

Om

dave

--
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/642265838.2409839.1606709344883%40mail.yahoo.com

.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear daveji,

Yes, Advaitins should be able to  see all the approaches, like the great Advaitin Shri Hanumanji said that in his "deha bhava" he is a servant of the Lord, in his jiva bhava he is the amsha of the Lord and spiritually he is the Lord Himself. That is why the replies of the Advaitins should not be towards the endless argumentations, but it should be to the point and should be based on the Uapnishadic teachings.

Sometimes even the knowledgeable advaitins like the great Madhusudana Saraswati (MS), who was a great expert on Navya-Nyāya or Neo-Logics, preferred to fight with the disciples of Shri Madhvacharya, without taking recourse to the strictly Vedantic principles. MS should have quoted the other Vedic and Vedantic sources to show that Shri Madhvacharya was utterly wrong in claiming the "Atattvamasi" in the Chandogya Upanishad. MS should have quoted from the Yoga-Vashishtha Maharamayana, as the Ramayana has the status of theVeda, as Ramayana itself says "Ramayanam Vedasamam".  Or he could have quoted from the other Fifth Veda texts, so that the transactions could have been shorter.

You may not be aware that two of the dvaita persons of the dvaita camp approached MS for learning his approaches and he gladly took them as his disciples. At the end of the teachinfg those two imposters  challenged MS, with a big write-up, and MS was so frustrated that he didn't even look at their write-up and  threw that write-up into  a river.

That is why, while the Advaitins should be tolerant, and yet be careful,  not to waste time by trying to be over-receptive to non-vedantic argumentation. If a non-advaitins approaches an advaitin, it would probably be wiser for the latter to recommend the primers like the "Tattvabodha" and other such texts, in the beginning, as well as the various courses  offered by the some advaitin teachers, either personally or through the Internet. 

Jai Shri Krishna

skb

--
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/642265838.2409839.1606709344883%40mail.yahoo.com.