Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Digest for bvparishat@googlegroups.com - 9 updates in 5 topics

553 views
Skip to first unread message

Kesava Tadipatri

unread,
Jun 8, 2022, 9:26:26 PM6/8/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Respected members,

Please show one scriptural evidence to show that there are two kinds of truth - vyAvahArika satya and Paaramaarthika satya apart from the works of Advaita - the entire canon of literature - Itihasas, Puranas, Shutis. Did Vedavyasa or Valmiki ever mention that there are two truths. What is meant by two levels? Some one can come up with arbitrary 10 levels and say that there are ten truths. naiSha tarkena matirApaneyA. 

Sorry. I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings,

Regards,
Kesava Tadipatri

On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 4:11 PM <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Aravinda Rao <karav...@gmail.com>: Jun 08 09:59AM +0530

Sri Vishal Agarwal's note is in accordance with scriptures and so is the
note of Sri Lokesh. Yet they seem to be clashing because Sri Vishal is
talking at the level of empirical reality (vyavaharika satta) and sri
Lokesh is talking from the point of absolute reality (paramarthika satta)
that we find in the karikas of Gaudapada. Both are right at
different levels.
Aravinda Rao
 
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 6:09 PM Krishna Kashyap <kkashy...@gmail.com>
wrote:
 
Lokesh Sharma <lokeshh...@gmail.com>: Jun 08 03:58PM +0530

नमस्ते अरविन्द आचार्य जी
 
भवतः भगवद्गीतायाः व्याख्यानि मया श्रुतानि। बहु सम्यक् सन्ति।
 
मम मतेन तु व्यवहारिकजगति अपि पुनर्जन्मस्य सत्ता संशययुक्ता एव। स्पष्टं
दृश्यते खलु यदा कस्यचिद् शरीरं मृत्युं प्राप्नोति सः अपि न जीवति।
 
यदि प्रत्यक्षानुमानानि प्रमाणानि त्यक्त्वा शास्त्रस्य बलेन भवन्तः वदन्ति
पुनर्जन्म अस्ति तर्हि शास्त्रबलेन आत्मनः असन्दिग्धसत्ता किमर्थं न
अङ्गीकुर्वन्ति जीवस्य सत्तां त्यक्त्वा?
 
ॐ
 
Madhav Gopal <mgop...@yahoo.com>: Jun 08 01:55PM

Respected Scholars,Pranams!!
I wish to submit the following on this subject. Your kind comments will help me to bring more clarity on this topic.
 
 
Rebirth is very simpleto understand in the light of our Sanskrit shastras. Various shastras believein the concept of sthoola shareera, sukshma shareera and karana shareera. Sukshmashareera is the entity that travels from one body to another following thekarma siddhanta. When we die, we die personally, not the whole humanity. Itmeans we have an individual existence. This individual existence is looselycalled ‘atman’ which is technically wrong. Technically it is ‘jiva’. It issukshma shareera which common people call ‘atman’, but they are wrong from theview point of shastras. People should call it only sukshma shareera, not atman, because atman is only one whereas sukshmashareeras are many.
 
 
 
So, when a person dies,his sukshma shareera is separated from the sthula shareera. The sthula shareerais cremated and thus finished, or we can say the five elements are nowdissolved into their original sources. The sukshma shareera that has justseparated from the sthula shareera is also made up of those five elements.Thus, we can say that in the event of death some part of panchabhutas isdisowned and some part of panchabhutas continue to be with the jiva in form ofsukshma shareera.
 
 
 
Now, what will happento this sukshma shareera? This sukshma shareera, when things are ok accordingto its karmas, will undergo to rebirth, otherwise will keep on waiting to getsuitable circumstances. Thus, this sukshma shareera through the body of amother will acquire again a sthula shareera.
 
 
 
This cycle of rebirthwill continue till the time of ultimate liberation. In the event of death afterrealizing ultimate liberation, the sukshma shareera of that jiva will finally dissolveinto the original sources. Thus causing the dead end of the cycle of therebirth of that jiva.
 
Thank you.
Best Regards,Dr. Madhav GopalUniversity of Delhi On Wednesday, 8 June, 2022, 04:14:38 pm IST, Lokesh Sharma <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

नमस्ते अरविन्द आचार्य जी
भवतः भगवद्गीतायाः व्याख्यानि मया श्रुतानि। बहु सम्यक् सन्ति।
मम मतेन तु व्यवहारिकजगति अपि पुनर्जन्मस्य सत्ता संशययुक्ता एव। स्पष्टं दृश्यते खलु यदा कस्यचिद् शरीरं मृत्युं प्राप्नोति सः अपि न जीवति।
यदि प्रत्यक्षानुमानानि प्रमाणानि त्यक्त्वा शास्त्रस्य बलेन भवन्तः वदन्ति पुनर्जन्म अस्ति तर्हि शास्त्रबलेन आत्मनः असन्दिग्धसत्ता किमर्थं न अङ्गीकुर्वन्ति जीवस्य सत्तां त्यक्त्वा?
ॐ
On Wed, Jun 8, 2022, 9:59 AM Aravinda Rao <karav...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Sri Vishal Agarwal's note is in accordance with scriptures and so is the note of Sri Lokesh. Yet they seem to be clashing because Sri Vishal is talking at the level of empirical reality (vyavaharika satta) and sri Lokesh is talking from the point of absolute reality (paramarthika satta) that we find in the karikas of Gaudapada. Both are right at different levels.Aravinda Rao
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 6:09 PM Krishna Kashyap <kkashy...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
namaste lokesh Ji,
It was interesting reading your views. Though I disagree with you quite strongly, I have no intention to spend time defending one position over other. I think learning and understanding the sources such as the 14 vidya sthanas, though there are different interpretations possible, is a good exercise in shravana and manana. Of course, nidhidhyasana and higher levels of yoga are important. Only if someone can go there and find out about punarjanma finally we know the truth. However, this is an internet medium for exchange of ideas. For this medium shastra charcha is essential and valuable. 
Those who can go to a different level of yoga and find out truth directly need not read this internet info!Best Regards,
Krishna Kashyap
 
 
 
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 6:02 PM Lokesh Sharma <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
नमस्ते श्री नागराज जी
This game of quoting scriptures to defend and assert our position is unending and often fruitless unless the intention is of learning rather than just winning. Dualists took the same scriptures and came to conclusion of duality, opposite to that of Advaitins. Many centuries have gone by, times totally changed, countries created and destroyed but the debate hasn't settled and probably never will till प्रलय.
I believe a meaningful debate is only possible if both parties realize within themselves the core philosophy of Vedanta and then debate with the intension of learning rather than winning. Without that it is of no use.
There are hundred citations which prove there's no पुनर्जन्म and there are hundred others which don't. How will quoting scriptures back and forth will help? Instead we should ask within ourselves if पुनर्जन्म is real, why does Vedanta tell us that merely through ज्ञानं we can attain मुक्ति? Why does Vedanta say that ज्ञानं turns कर्म to ashes? If one reflects on this point, it becomes clear that पुनर्जन्म is just another अज्ञानं. When this life in front us is itself a false notion of ours, how can previous lives which no one has seen be real?
नमोनमः
 
On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 9:12:27 AM UTC+5:30 Nagaraj Paturi wrote:
 
Dear Sri Lokesh Sharma,
Please share references from the three major sources of Vedanta in support of your claims. 
Those talking about punarjanma , karmaphala are quoting from the sources of Vedanta only in support of their claims. 
If you can quote statements to the effect of no punarjanma, no karmaphala or prove that the sources quoted for punarjanma or karmaphala from the major sources of Vedanta as in fact not to be found in those sources, then you can effectively substantiate your claims. 
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:14 AM Lokesh Sharma <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
नमस्सर्वेभ्यः
 
I'm offering my viewpoint here -
पुनर्जन्म as in some entity travelling from one body to another is impossible from perspective of वेदान्त which again and again teaches us the reality of one and only one आत्मा. Even कर्म सिधान्त can't be real in view of वेदान्त for there is no individual जीव to being with.
नमोनमः
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 7:42:07 PM UTC+5:30 Nagaraj Paturi wrote:
 
Sharing the message by Sri Vishal Agarwal to another group 
Namaskar,
I am attaching a brief compilation that I did on the topic of Atmagati and Punarjanma from a Hindu perspective - looking at our Shaastric as well as modern views/findings. Kindly take a look and revert to me privately with any corrections and edits (thanks to Nithin Sridhar for his corrections - I have not incorporated them yet in this PDF but will do so).
Note that this touches the topic of Karma; and also the question of 'Who am I' only tangentially because these are covered in two separate compilations. Therefore, phenomena like NDE, OBE, Brain Plasticity, ESP, Reiki etc., are not covered in this compilation.
The note of these compilations is to provide a Hindu framework to discuss these topics. They are not exhaustive and cannot be. Otherwise each compilation will be a mini-encyclopedia. Interfaith perspectives are provided and I do not shy away from them.
With regards
Vishal Agarwal
 
 
 
 
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/8dbf000b-6281-4208-b5f2-f062244fb23cn%40googlegroups.com.
 
 
 
--
Nagaraj Paturi Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.
 
Senior Director, IndicABoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, MaharashtraBoS Kavikulaguru Kalidasa Sanskrit University, Ramtek, MaharashtraBoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.
Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, BengaluruBoS Rashtram School of Public LeadershipEditor-in-Chief, International Journal of Studies in Public LeadershipFormer Senior Professor of Cultural Studies, FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education, Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.   
 
 
 
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/4b3294e9-82a9-42f3-a5cf-0a98962d6fc4n%40googlegroups.com.
 
 
 
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANkLSM%3DDee3L%3DcDDLZxaaOL88g9QZGrsamextn%3D%2BA3F3G43COQ%40mail.gmail.com.
 
 
 
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/CzgkG22v_-0/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAGwUMpS64p6jRW1Aq6pHdLTJOMOg-Pd_LzzdhYRcYZwF%2BN%3DvTQ%40mail.gmail.com.
 
 
 
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2BksRZcKjK15MXK7DLLQPzW65mwRBThsueu%2BMNkrHTOgm%2B9M_w%40mail.gmail.com.
Aravinda Rao <karav...@gmail.com>: Jun 08 09:21PM +0530

Namaste,
Generally in religions we see blind beliefs and logical beliefs. Beliefs of
the second category are like hypotheses to explain certain observed facts.
The blind beliefs are such as saying, 'our God X is the only true god and
believers of X alone go to heaven and all others are roasted in hell' etc.
Logical beliefs arise in order to explain certain phenomena. For instance,
if we say that God has created human beings, a question arises as to why
someone is created rich and someone is created poor; someone is handsome
and someone is lame or blind. Such disparity has to be explained. Otherwise
god would be held as kind to some and unkind to some others. We are aware
of the vaishamya-nairghrunya adhikaranam in the Brahma Sutra-s which says
that God has equal love for all. No favourites and no enemies. He is a
karma-phala-daataa.
 
One more reason is that the human being has to be held accountable for the
good or bad karma he does. It is the basic law of cause and effect. Mere
belief in god does not take away the good or bad karma-phala. If religion
says that God takes away all your sins if you merely believe in him, then
it is like a political party promising doles to people for keeping it in
power.
 
Hence the Indian philosophers proposed the idea of karma and karma phala.
As the karma phala cannot be experienced in one lifetime, they proposed the
idea of rebirth. Such rebirth and death continues so long as the jiva is
identified with the body-mind-complex. It is the linga-sarira which is said
to transmigrate and the most important part of the linga sarira is the ego,
ahamkara. Rebirth continues as long as the ego exists and stops only when
the ego is dissolved in the knowledge of Brahman. The mechanism of rebirth
is also discussed in the Brahma sutras. Of course, this is what the
non-dual system says and it may not be accepted by other branches of
Hinduism.
 
Anyway all Hindu schools accept rebirth and all schools accept that god is
neutral. God merely gives good buddhi to do good karma and helps the human
being to neutralize the bad result; he himself does not take away the sin.
Shastra itself talks at two levels for two levels of people and so we
cannot debate on it.
Aravinda Rao
 
On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 7:27 PM 'Madhav Gopal' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <
Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com>: Jun 08 12:55PM -0700

Not only Sanatana Dharama ,(at least the major philosophical schools within
Sanatana accepts Law of Karma. Even Buddhists schools accept Karma and
rebirth. The answer is not simple if one reads various schools of Vednata
and sub schools within Advaita Vedanta. If One says there is end to the
cycle of births and deaths is possible, accommodating concepts of pralaya,
Mahapralya, cyclic concepts of time, Isvawara, puranic statements become
quite perplexing and difficult. For Adavita escapes answering Law of Karma
simply by saying it is at Vyavaharic level. If there is only one truth then
why bother about Karma. lf one accepts the concept of Avatara then the law
of Karma breaks down. If an Avatara is free from Law of Karma then why does
an Avatara get again into the cycle of Karma.
​Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
 
Website: https://www.indoscripts.org/
View our Digitized Collections
​https://archive.org/details/indo-script-raksha-trust
<https://archive.org/details/@sri_gargeshwari_digital_foundation>
​https://archive.org/details/@sri_gargeshwari_digital_foundation
<https://archive.org/details/@sri_gargeshwari_digital_foundation>
https://archive.org/details/karnatakasamskritauniversity
 
On Wednesday, 8 June 2022 at 21:21:34 UTC+5:30 Aravinda Rao wrote:
 
Arun Kakhandaki <arunkak...@gmail.com>: Jun 08 06:34PM +0530

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः
गादाधरीपक्षतायाः कृष्णम्भट्टिव्याख्यां उपलिप्सुना मया सर्वत्रप्रयत्नो
विहितः । क्वापि तदलभमानेन इदानीं विदुषां परिषदियमाश्रियते । तदत्र भवन्तः
विद्वद्वर्याः संगृहीतापूर्वग्रन्थजाताः तस्य ग्रन्थस्यच्छायां दत्वा
उपकुर्वन्त्विति सप्रश्रयं प्रार्थना । यद्यस्ति
*वामाचरणभट्टाचार्यव्याख्यानसहिता* पक्षतापि अपेक्षिता। दात्रे
प्रयत्नविधात्रे च कोटिशो नमांसि ।
Raja Roy <rajarammo...@gmail.com>: Jun 08 09:08AM -0400

Dhanyavada Prof. Korada. From the verse by Varahamihira, hora will be the
same as one day and night. Still, not clear how it came to denote an hour.
Raja
 
On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 7:56 AM Subrahmanyam Korada <kora...@gmail.com>
wrote:
 
Manish Rajan Walvekar <manishwa...@gmail.com>: Jun 07 09:11PM +0530

Namaste.
 
There is a vacancy at Amrita Darshanam International Centre for Spiritual
Studies, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham. The requirement can be detailed as
follows-
 
Name of the Post: Research Associate
 
No. of Post: 1
Duration- 2 years
 
Name of the Project: Critical Editions of some Sanskrit Grammar texts
Campus: Bangalore
Nature: Offline.
 
Essential Qualifications:
i. PG in Sanskrit (preferred Sanskrit Grammar)
ii. Excellent command over the Pāṇinian Sanskrit Grammar
iii. Command over the scripts like- Grantha, Newari, Sharada, Nandinagari
(the names and numbers of the scripts known may differ for everyone)
iv. Certification(s) of the course(s) on Manuscriptology
v. Basic knowledge of English
 
Desired Qualifications:
i. Ph.D. in Sanskrit Grammar
ii. NET
iii. Research or work experience in Manuscriptology
 
Salary: INR 35000/mo.
 
Apply at: Send your updated CV to ammasp...@gmail.com and CC to
r_ma...@blr.amrita.edu & b_na...@cb.amrita.edu
 
Last date of application- 25/06/2022
 
--
Regards,
Manish Rajan Walvekar
Assistant Professor and Centre Coordinator
Amrita Darshanam International Centre for Spiritual Studies
Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham
Bangalore.
 
|| तस्मै पाणिनये नमः ||
Shefali Arvind <she...@chinfo.org>: Jun 08 09:08AM +0530

This New Year, tune your ears to the timeless Wisdom of antiquity. Prefer
to learn by listening? We have just the right thing for you. Shravana
Mangalam is an audio-video on demand platform which will help you enrich
your ears and enhance your mind.
­
­
[image: Shravana Mangalam: Listen to the Auspicious]
­ ­
­
­
­
 
Hari Om. Salutations.
 
 
 
There are different ways of learning and all of us have our own ways of
acquiring knowledge. Are you a person who prefers to learn by listening?
What if you get an exciting opportunity to choose something of your
interest?
 
 
*Shravana Mangalam* is the online audio-video on demand streaming gallery
of Chinmaya International Foundation. It is the repository of extensive
knowledge from different streams of Indian knowledge systems.
­ ­
­
­
­
 
Why Shravana Mangalam?
­
­
­
­
 
*✓* *Audio-Video Albums*
­
­
 
*✓* *Self Paced*
­ ­
­
­
 
*✓* *Virtual Learning*
 
 
­
­
 
*✓* *Variety of Choices*
­ ­
­
­
 
*✓* *Easy to Access*
­
­
 
 
 
*✓* *Inspirational*
­ ­
­
­
­
 
Here are our bestselling picks from a variety of topics!
­
­
­
­
[image: Vedanta Decoded by Swami Advayananda]
<https://4n6cc.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/mk/cl/f/R3yMfVbaK_0S3nz30YLD8N0ZeLJDfuvjfbrlrHXjnG3HDg3Cm5KuyzI1aGnkUQCju_yLUR6gGO3dC5xs81wTPsTjGWkgGZWYD8vf78rF3o_cMizxTLpwIO1ANY98vyEKh-EgorCZIt_-MXPORcR4pkN1gjLboRw1T-YMepK4vybtPft0vvvkZA9OKgN7hkv_orbKYc7SYfDKdgJxaT1QdT2z8Yr-GgTRs5ags9fq_PoIPaQZQEcBhQvBrclctEDPB3sBO0SDRQ>
­
[image: Devi Mahatmyam]
<https://4n6cc.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/mk/cl/f/FeFtGigmsruP0fOQLvbE3UcGJ9s72pBpHxbWSyNPdk0d8eF3nA7EuPeUhLcattZ41B7oDyFOBON1v21Zu1SwwxWRofn-cE7xiBuSrM_OcwdZao0YzNr91hR4Mcjx6is4585WuyOM-SRyBDHAbLzkn1Xc6B8Fakcco3F0qXRSyKeO7X7FJ3TN6rRTri-JDZllDtv9yha6vG7z63nlHYfzC6U9lmxTsXwt6MLHmTOwgPi_dh985aQifjipkUrTGuXHrgGgb5VxGw>
­ ­
­
­
[image: Dashashloki]
<https://4n6cc.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/mk/cl/f/hFY9FaT52brSwvBUJRlvcUKbRF4dRBybOzC7t5zt9dDnEznrKyORZjJuRPFDd3imA7k--k192_hhHbL1Cj-c4BjlJpfOlYAxS8j-pSC9a73zJtIYJ-HUoUxkdTt2PiZqOJRS-po7vMb3zcHtgGe6IwayTXXlksCrC-hPDXYjiLdEEwBv6jbZC-qS47XdszYqn9-KcTBMZ7t6MYBWnf2DZ6g8XbskVmD4rT3nyJVNFFV6b0hjQfrv0-m8RuDFxO5XwnSuG1e6sg>
­
[image: Life Management & Leadership Lessons]
<https://4n6cc.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/mk/cl/f/O7XYdXu3AEdUIRcvz096Ahzf_pdx5GS5FYJcLHY20aPjYNYtojiMx5p2YzrM8c5AmdsSfnPBfkZPGh2vDq_nfHYgTCDbiIgXIFFe0nROaf7PeYBCK1n91TuP486sVjoMgyIzwj16hVRk7n0ti60d3_0UWnCDFwydq3Qi6WEEENDDzQmHcsNmjsB1AOK6RDvXS4jYuhgOwWxtNE_NSVInvjU3HW2X_vbrRyXcuERMrq4Qsoa8W4es6XiEuTkKSFO4RyDMyanCcA>
­ ­
­
­
[image: Manisha Panchakam]
<https://4n6cc.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/mk/cl/f/xLbSJ0ufsnEKQ-Kc8F4QfGJkBvg47NVUUvjnn-uqK0CQdYwXODtx4uFgBLCot_i-LUWujOg7Th2LwegyPeKLWiQ4CQRhLaAuWSiIlNi8OXG6dCe7qn6kjAD1mkv3DCDw0TRrxY0rRYue8eooCMPhRw6qZP91MEjbYGTyNe2wSTr14HcMDPgINCjDJGJBMU7S2EjuuA6_MjibAvUl1vXfzfuhgRYCGoxJ1JwDDdizI75aZnx8-NLgfoAyjENwsY8yk-XLPmYuuA>
­
[image: Bhakti in Gita]
<https://4n6cc.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/mk/cl/f/eTPvOoZeuUAYUfj9JYeidivTCRmDNYqSABF_lfcwZFbLzunu-0vsOQzZ20I5JLL9C0-dxzV6fhJ_xdBB2hAsXJX8sW5Oe8IKX0_kCpPW8Khe2SB_exW4WKU7l77edAuB3yfIXj5d0MaT03EM3hyMjqXxvr6etp6a4VUvSC4w-awIavYSXIXXJRsFWkk6csLcFpCbWkj6Kv5ReRxWxt0eVSmZ-LxQE6Z4GIXmKGSPMImv6k97T1b2zDY1Rx3QOtTmtoxsTR0Eng>
­ ­
­
­
­
­
 
Watch Sample Videos
<https://4n6cc.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/mk/cl/f/3c54KmViIQ7EiWI1jVPwKOS0hFaoiiy8DwamQzLrcQG__VI4w4GjxwLyaSUqVnb-ZqKQN5Ad9ne1KG56onGwWZI4SKJDv1bgrkzXkMtTed_3R_Qbjti9uQf2uEsHiRq10PjEU8csiEJRebe7HZyd_eUJ4rCFjiM0jPhgCCTc_Zb8kStV_PM7JPV3-gSCzUfalLpDJxiW1ifMhQP3-e2CFf89W-tAagRDGAKAa17ujLZ_UuqLw_yxEeJhZLk-eKgG>
­ ­
­
­
­
­
 
Shravana Mangalam invites you to a virtual journey through ancient Wisdom.
­ ­
­
­
­
­
 
*You are 3 steps away*
 
1. Listen to the sample lecture
 
2. Subscribe
 
3. Listen wherever you go
­
­
 
Explore more
<https://4n6cc.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/mk/cl/f/FbXFQoZqn-HQmCpj34bU4bU-qq9_8mD5dncK_D3P1AwvR4GXSsMmZ-txmmlqxYQKBaHbi8ZssjCIh7QzPTDS6wfqkSBtYmcasVeFXqTVv7JFfDFE3UM7CVBOkog7BFuXbgAdXNKPFw87H2qOA-CBctAI3e8IDEzzC-mIm9z4xYHzS4uRZt54Y2c2_1iJqherIO8uxJVROLT9-FW68HBKdQ>
­ ­
­
­
­
­ ­
­
­ ­ ­
­
­ ­
<https://4n6cc.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/mk/cl/f/MgewsJXPkM1PeqfDkD5gK3DjykDyiK60Bgx8a6cvwFRdHHdB9xQ3Nwa63lbi3jXFuc3yEhGpJTGpqhTiXiMB2cwekd4CYVTRoRx3MJklUzavPdtlZYYimy3kifm50-O1f0cqk_UVuoXO4ZUxAk7QjILj_uHhis535p5FgXWnHrQRlcXL1wuhyfz6wLO6h0yWSY38IKqTD8CIXrs6>
­
 
­ ­
­ ­
<https://4n6cc.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/mk/cl/f/WVmlcmCfFt17mDyW04Ne3pnqtqLK-Lj7sLZsjT7CFwv2v793ph2oKTHiITq_ndnlm2dl2cFL9kAcqz6mXi2u_8eJcNzsk9o_SNBe-tPj3-JFy5KBSY5lrfUH7su536Aay69YIPUWjZH1U05CqH6uyPV5Fr744Tz4axGjHvMYt__VmEUcrFbNEMePT_r-s-slMSrmPQO37_AOTNvKLHI15A8EveMQhtg>
­
 
­ ­
­ ­
<https://4n6cc.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/mk/cl/f/Toj0GoU_sHnBbCB8MO7Z1khIpt49ZsU4bZ9hg21QDHhF0JNxYb01dBLILxD4PaxcwhUlE1bg3RMbz63Y4421aXROvCUAbe2QeycDlVMROn0uwl7w2fAJUJsmo_8UOltnrTXCx7yHU31NBq4tGHC2-nC0th2-dJYPvToARGtF>
­
 
­ ­ ­
­ ­ ­
­
­ ­
<https://4n6cc.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/mk/cl/f/X8y1sEsqOG-0YYRbmDNE9lpMcdH76VF1Pid506QlVhNsxztFQdiLBPILkil6aPhC2yimI779DGIs5zhebttQG1VFmD8DTzT05N4Ph-8cvGR_Y9W2P4oOxnVehb7EhwmeugL3RD9DQ3BkeG0cL1T3wdUblK8iu-inh9ego9x5HPb32bXTgevE5sZpdBXYzI6bGMKaltQN3ds6batB>
­
 
­ ­
­ ­
<https://4n6cc.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/mk/cl/f/ezA69CJGblnj6HW8xEOlpNVfrPXmWINk68KxoDZGv9y9N1DiT5qAlwADTY9J8NDqpLxtxJ6Qo1O26yL6yZx9aQ-17Bo0hprvU8xU1updrQPbVaKd2BN7eC3RwopQH6dgB6VUzfDz1LqUx7Quq2yTwmMOUnCfuGBQ5CNhIhpjIXHTeTg5iqPlsSVvrnzgfnZsfUf3Zwak0SiNHM24aH8fvXAlpQgancY>
­
 
­ ­
­ ­
<https://4n6cc.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/mk/cl/f/yON55fs4bpdZxpGzQAHA9GsZ1V0y8Vw841RKDi_GaTreEfbjArm6hqlVGirvGw3ToK2PHslXLwOFMyepFA_pZpZtVdo29nqRBVUbaFAHTjkNzpoJaHz8xpZCwmDFU7xyPgrxkdL3PXeqlCbTymUXJO_gt5vpyU1SF0gLDUTA>
­
 
­ ­
­ ­
­
­
­
­
 
*Chinmaya International Foundation*
 
Adi Sankara Nilayam, 682313, Kochi
­
 
 
­
­
 
 
--
 
With Prem & Om,
In Shri Guru Seva,
 
Shefali Arvind
Design & Website Coordinator
[image: Cif logo-05.png]
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

Venkatakrishna

unread,
Jun 9, 2022, 12:19:02 AM6/9/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste



1. The TRUTH (SATYA-DARSHANA) is One and Final At ONE POINT-ONE VIEW.
(DARSHANA-STHANA).

Gita ‘ Nirdvandva’ ( 2-45) holds the key term for understanding this.
Gita :13-12 makes elaboration

using the terms ‘ Jnana- Ajnana’ to differentiate ‘Satya (Truth)’-
‘Satta (State ) ’ – at progressive levels of

seeking.

Example: If ‘elephant’ is seen from back, the first thing one sees
is tail; This is not final understanding of elephant.

if seen from front, the first thing seen is
trunk. This is not final understanding of elephant.

The debate on ‘Truth from Tail view point of
view’ cannot be challenged from ‘Trunk-point’.

In gita terms, 16th chapter framework, ‘daiva
–aasura –sampath’ based Truth is ‘Vyaavaharika’.

The 18-26 pointed truth in the term ‘ anahm-
vaadi’- leads to ‘Paaramaarthika’. Acharya Madhwa and Jayateertha

has not commented on this Gita-verse



2. Acharya Shankara explains: निर्द्वन्द्वः सुखदुःखहेतू सप्रतिपक्षौ
पदार्थौ द्वन्द्वशब्दवाच्यौ ततः निर्गतःनिर्द्वन्द्वो भव।



Acharya Madhwa and Jayatirtha do not comment / explain this term
‘ Nirdvandva’. They focus on ‘How to live this state’

‘ Nirdvandvataa’ is Experiential State and Status at ‘Sarva-Moola-
Yukta- Mukta-Sthiti.

‘ Nitya-Satvasthah- Niryogakshemah- Atmavan’ is worldly living of
the ‘Nirdvandvataa’ state as ‘ Paramahamsa- Parivrajaka-

Acharya as ‘Yoga-Sanyasta-Karmaanam (Gita :4-41). Post or Pre-
this ‘nirdvandvataa’ phase is ‘नित्यसत्त्वस्थः – निर्योगक्षेमः

– आत्मवान् ‘- This is for Worldly actions as ‘ Veda-
Chodita-Dharma-Acharana’.

Post Phase is for Yogi in – action ( aarrodha- muni). Pre-Phase
is < aarurukshu- muni>.

The ‘ultimate state’ experienced –seen- articulated differ for
‘aaroodha – muni ’ and aarurukshu - muni’.



Who is < muni>? Gita :2-56 and 5-26: Sthita-dheeh muniruchyate;
kaama-krodha-viyuktaanaam, yateenam, yata-chetasam

Gita: 5-28 <
munir-moksha-parayanah>.



How Gita distinguishes Two level Truth-‘technicality in the terms
‘muni –yati – yogi’?

It is a deep subtlety connected issue with ‘nirdvandva’
explanation. It is also much confused practice in ‘social debate of

traditional vedanta’. The ‘nirdvandva’ technicality is basis for
Two level Truth- postulation, explanation and practice.

Additional term to contemplate in ‘advaitha’ is ‘maayaa’ for
paramarthika phase’ and ‘Vishnu-maayaa’ for ‘vyaavaharika

phase term. In both cases ‘vimohitaah’ (made to see the shortened
truth (a-satya/ alpa –satya) with a ‘three- guna’

achromatized lens’ and ‘shortened language and logic use of ‘
bhashaa ( Shabda/ Akshaar- Brahma-Sutra- pada : Gita:13-4)

to understand –vision – practice ‘Chandas (=Brahma- pada
/Aksharam Brahma Paramam ’).



In social practice, the technical difference between < muni- yati-
yogi – peethadhipati - dharmadhikari > is effaced ; like the

‘Gita Varna Identity of Dharmik People is effaced and rebranded as
‘Generic Hindu’ in the backdrop of ‘World Religions’.

The unfair, extended claim of traditional terms is made for
social glory seeking and loose usage.



When a collection of fruits (dharma- kula/ jati/ varna
–communities) are placed in a basket (Nation- Governance –

Constitution- Common law code framework) and called ‘Fruit basket’
(Citizens), the individual identity of fruits is

Masked (as people of religion- Faith and Culture); unless one
specifically looks for it, by need and compulsion’.



This subtle difference at looking ‘People Communities ( Jana-
Gana) and Individuals ( Purusha-Vyakti) for Samskara –

Vyavahara is the foundation of ‘Vyaavaharika Sattaa and
Paramaarthika Sattaa [ where sattaa- means ‘Regime/ Rajya /

Dominion]. Vyaavaharika satta needs ‘ Yogi-Raja / Raja-Yogi’ at
top for governance and guidance in society. Paaramarthika –

Satta needs ‘ Shrotriyam- Brahmanishtahm –Aachaarya’ for grooming
and guiding the ‘mokshaarthaa’.



This technicality seems to be the reason for two different ‘Purusha
–anushaasana - Shaastra disciplines’ as ‘ Dharma-Shaastra (for Samskara:
Regulated by Dharma-Guru) and Artha-Shaastra for Vyavahara: Regulated by
Rajaa). Gita is providing the root basics of Yoga-Shaastra for
‘Purushartha-Shaastra’ in ‘Varnasharama Vibhaga ( Gita:4-13), further
detailed as ‘ Moksha-shaastra –anushaasana’ in 18th chapter.



In terms of commentary reg. Vyaavaharika and Paramarthika satta: Acharya
Shankara seems to be explaining the root condition needed for < karma-yoga>
base of < नित्यसत्त्वस्थः – निर्योगक्षेमः – आत्मवान् > :
नित्यसत्त्वस्थः सदा सत्त्वगुणाश्रितो भव। तथा निर्योगक्षेमः अनुपात्तस्य
उपादानं योगः उपात्तस्य रक्षणं क्षेमः योगक्षेमप्रधानस्य श्रेयसि
प्रवृत्तिर्दुष्करा इत्यतः निर्योगक्षेमो भव। आत्मवान् अप्रमत्तश्च भव। एष तव
उपदेशः स्वधर्ममनुतिष्ठतः।। सर्वेषु वेदोक्तेषु कर्मसु यान्युक्तान्यनन्तानि
फलानि तानि नापेक्ष्यन्ते चेत् किमर्थं तानि ईश्वरायेत्यनुष्ठीयन्ते इत्युच्यते
श्रृणु



Achayra Madhwa seems to be explaining the Post and Pre-Phase on how a ‘
Yukta-Mukta -Saadhaka = Bhakta’ has to function in world. : तां
योगबुद्धिमाह त्रैगुण्यविषया इत्यादिना। इतरदपोद्य वेदानां
परोक्षार्थत्वात्ित्रगुणसम्बन्धिस्वर्गादिप्रतीतितोऽर्थ इव भाति। परोक्षवादो
वेदोऽयं इति ह्युक्तम्। अतः प्रातीतिकेऽर्थे भ्रान्तिं मा कुर्वित्यर्थः।वादो
विषयकत्वं च मुखतोवचनं स्मृतम् इत्यभिधानात्। न तु वेदपक्षो निषिध्यते। वेदे
रामायणे चैव पुराणे भारते तथा। आदावन्ते च मध्ये च विष्णुः सर्वत्र गीयते।
सर्वे वेदा यत्पदम् कठो.2।15वेदोऽखिलो धर्ममूलं स्मृतिशीले च तद्विदाम्।
आचारश्चैव साधूनामात्मनो रुचि(नस्तुष्टि) रेव च मनुः2।16 वेदप्रणिहितो धर्मो
ह्यधर्मस्तद्विपर्ययः। भाग.6।1।40 इति वेदानां सर्वात्मना
विष्णुपरत्वोक्तेस्तद्विहितस्य तद्विरुद्धस्य च धर्माधर्मोक्तेश्च।



Regards

BVK Sastry



From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Kesava Tadipatri
Sent: 09 June 2022 05:26
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Digest for bvpar...@googlegroups.com -
9 updates in 5 topics



Respected members,



Please show one scriptural evidence to show that there are two kinds of
truth - vyAvahArika satya and Paaramaarthika satya apart from the works of
Advaita - the entire canon of literature - Itihasas, Puranas, Shutis. Did
Vedavyasa or Valmiki ever mention that there are two truths. What is meant
by two levels? Some one can come up with arbitrary 10 levels and say that
there are ten truths. naiSha tarkena matirApaneyA.



Sorry. I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings,



Regards,

Kesava Tadipatri



On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 4:11 PM <bvpar...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com> > wrote:



<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/
bvparishat/topics> bvpar...@googlegroups.com


<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overv
iew> Google Groups


<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overv
iew>

Topic digest

<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/
bvparishat/topics> View all topics

* " Punarjanma and Atmagatividya" , a compilation by Sri Vishal
Agarwal - 5 Updates

* ग्रन्थप्रार्थना - 1 Update

* Derivation of Hora from Ahoratra - 1 Update

* Vacancy: Research Associate at Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham - 1
Update

* Listen to the Auspicious and See Your Life Transform - 1 Update


<http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/t/b38241b6dafffed?utm_source=dige
st&utm_medium=email> " Punarjanma and Atmagatividya" , a compilation by Sri
Vishal Agarwal


Aravinda Rao <karav...@gmail.com <mailto:karav...@gmail.com> >: Jun 08
09:59AM +0530

Sri Vishal Agarwal's note is in accordance with scriptures and so is the
note of Sri Lokesh. Yet they seem to be clashing because Sri Vishal is
talking at the level of empirical reality (vyavaharika satta) and sri
Lokesh is talking from the point of absolute reality (paramarthika satta)
that we find in the karikas of Gaudapada. Both are right at
different levels.
Aravinda Rao

On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 6:09 PM Krishna Kashyap <kkashy...@gmail.com
<mailto:kkashy...@gmail.com> >
wrote:



Lokesh Sharma <lokeshh...@gmail.com <mailto:lokeshh...@gmail.com>
>: Jun 08 03:58PM +0530

नमस्ते अरविन्द आचार्य जी

भवतः भगवद्गीतायाः व्याख्यानि मया श्रुतानि। बहु सम्यक् सन्ति।

मम मतेन तु व्यवहारिकजगति अपि पुनर्जन्मस्य सत्ता संशययुक्ता एव। स्पष्टं
दृश्यते खलु यदा कस्यचिद् शरीरं मृत्युं प्राप्नोति सः अपि न जीवति।

यदि प्रत्यक्षानुमानानि प्रमाणानि त्यक्त्वा शास्त्रस्य बलेन भवन्तः वदन्ति
पुनर्जन्म अस्ति तर्हि शास्त्रबलेन आत्मनः असन्दिग्धसत्ता किमर्थं न
अङ्गीकुर्वन्ति जीवस्य सत्तां त्यक्त्वा?

ॐ



Madhav Gopal <mgop...@yahoo.com <mailto:mgop...@yahoo.com> >: Jun 08
<mailto:bvparishat%2B...@googlegroups.com> .
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/8dbf000b-6281-4208-b5f2-f062244
fb23cn%40googlegroups.com.



--
Nagaraj Paturi Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

Senior Director, IndicABoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune,
MaharashtraBoS Kavikulaguru Kalidasa Sanskrit University, Ramtek,
MaharashtraBoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.
Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, BengaluruBoS
Rashtram School of Public LeadershipEditor-in-Chief, International Journal
of Studies in Public LeadershipFormer Senior Professor of Cultural Studies,
FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of Liberal Education,
Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.




Aravinda Rao <karav...@gmail.com <mailto:karav...@gmail.com> >: Jun 08
<mailto:ajit.gar...@gmail.com> >: Jun 08 12:55PM -0700

Not only Sanatana Dharama ,(at least the major philosophical schools within
Sanatana accepts Law of Karma. Even Buddhists schools accept Karma and
rebirth. The answer is not simple if one reads various schools of Vednata
and sub schools within Advaita Vedanta. If One says there is end to the
cycle of births and deaths is possible, accommodating concepts of pralaya,
Mahapralya, cyclic concepts of time, Isvawara, puranic statements become
quite perplexing and difficult. For Adavita escapes answering Law of Karma
simply by saying it is at Vyavaharic level. If there is only one truth then
why bother about Karma. lf one accepts the concept of Avatara then the law
of Karma breaks down. If an Avatara is free from Law of Karma then why does
an Avatara get again into the cycle of Karma.
​Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari



On Wednesday, 8 June 2022 at 21:21:34 UTC+5:30 Aravinda Rao wrote:


Back to top


<http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/t/bf241adc6c64dfd8?utm_source=dig
est&utm_medium=email> ग्रन्थप्रार्थना


Arun Kakhandaki <arunkak...@gmail.com <mailto:arunkak...@gmail.com>
>: Jun 08 06:34PM +0530

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः
गादाधरीपक्षतायाः कृष्णम्भट्टिव्याख्यां उपलिप्सुना मया सर्वत्रप्रयत्नो
विहितः । क्वापि तदलभमानेन इदानीं विदुषां परिषदियमाश्रियते । तदत्र भवन्तः
विद्वद्वर्याः संगृहीतापूर्वग्रन्थजाताः तस्य ग्रन्थस्यच्छायां दत्वा
उपकुर्वन्त्विति सप्रश्रयं प्रार्थना । यद्यस्ति
*वामाचरणभट्टाचार्यव्याख्यानसहिता* पक्षतापि अपेक्षिता। दात्रे
प्रयत्नविधात्रे च कोटिशो नमांसि ।

Back to top


<http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/t/c9827fdf608c0a16?utm_source=dig
est&utm_medium=email> Derivation of Hora from Ahoratra


Raja Roy <rajarammo...@gmail.com
<mailto:rajarammo...@gmail.com> >: Jun 08 09:08AM -0400

Dhanyavada Prof. Korada. From the verse by Varahamihira, hora will be the
same as one day and night. Still, not clear how it came to denote an hour.
Raja

On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 7:56 AM Subrahmanyam Korada <kora...@gmail.com
<mailto:kora...@gmail.com> >
wrote:





<http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/t/b29333f8c6332fd1?utm_source=dig
est&utm_medium=email>



~WRD000.jpg

kesava.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 9, 2022, 4:44:51 AM6/9/22
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Namaste.

Nirdvandva has nothing to do with two truths and there is no such mention anywhere in Gita. For understanding “nirdvadva” in 2-45, Gita 13-12 is not the one you have to see. Just a few verses before that in 2-38, you get elaboration for that - sukhaduHkhe same kR^itvA lAbhAlAbhau jayAjayau |

That is dvandva elaboration.

13-12 primarily  says – The true j~nAna is being always absorbed in ParamAtma tatvaj~nAna and doing shAstra-chintana for aparokShaj~nAna and everyhing opposed to that is aj~nAna.

Please do not get mixed up levels of progress to levels of truth. Just because different people in an organization have different levels and their knowledge is at different levels, there will not be several truths. The truth iis vastu sthiti and that is only one.

It is meaningless to look at differengt levels of j~nAna regarding elephant or any object as from Paramatma’s point of view, who is the creator of all and who knows the vastu sthiti of all things in the universe, there is only one truth and only one vastu sthiti.

In 16th chapter, in asura sampatti is decribed as -

“asatyamapratiShTham te jagadAhuranIshvaraM’.

That means saying that this world is unreal is as demonic as saying that there is no Lord of the universe.

There is no “vyAvaharika satya” anywhere in 16th chapter or anywhere in Gita or anywhere in Mahabharata, Ramayana or Shrutis. If vyAvahArika satya is asura based, then this entire population on Earth is asura-based? This vyAvahArika satya term is not used by Sri krishna or Vedavyasa or Valmiki and is as good as shAsha-viShAna or gagana-puShpa or vandhyAputra. There is vyavahAra alright. Do not call it vyAvahArika satya. Among vyavahAra things, some are truths, some are not and some are convenience-based, etc. Do not attach truth for any thing every thing.

If there is a white ball and 10 people where 10 different colored glasses and say that there are 10 truths and make a claim “Do not challenge anyone”, that is meaningless. Please note the difference between view points and truths. View points can be many. Truth is just one – vastu sthiti. Rajju-sarpa bhranti and shukti-rajata bhranti can happen to the ignorant ones, but for the All-creator, there is no bhranti at all and from His point of view, there is only one truth.  

Like many Advaitins, you seem to be aware of only Gita bhAshya of MadhvAchArya and not aware of Gita-tAtparya by Acharya Madhva. There is another work by Acharya Madhva called Gita-tAtparya. Just as Sri JayatIrtha has written PrameyadIpeka on Gita-BhAshya, he has also written NyAyadIpika on Gita-tAtparya.

Further even Shankaracharya, in his Bhashya, never used the word ParamArthika satya while commenting on 18-26. Shankaracharya did not say “anahamvAdi” leads to ParamArthikasatya. Where did you come up with this term in this verse?

All that Shankaracharya says is - anahaMvAdI na ahaMvadanashIlaH.

That is not so clear. Acharya Madhva says in tAtparya – sarvasya bhagavadadhInatvaj~nAnAdeva anahaMvAdI. Note that “bhagavadadhInatva-nishchayAdeva ahaM karteti na vadati.”. such a person is anahaMvAdI. Where is pAramArthika satya?

There is a huge issue with this VyAvahArika and ParamArthika approach as one has to now determine the following.

Sri Krishna’s teachings in BhagavadgIta – what are they? VyAvahArika satya or ParamArthika satya?

Can some thing be both or only one of the two?

A. All the teachings VyAvahArika

What good is it? Sri Krishna should concentrate on ParamArthika satya only as that is more important.

B. All are pAramArthika satya.

That is not possible as is obvious about war, killing etc are there.

C. There is a mix of the two. Then Sri krishna should classify and say “now I am going to say VyAvahArika satya” and “Now I am going to say Paramarthika satya”.

There is no such thing. Of course, Advaitins can come and claim “Oh it is pretty obvious. We know that.” First of all Gita is not written only for Advaitins, for one thing. Secondly it is completely “kalpanA gaurava”. That is their own imagination. Such terminology is totally absent in the entire literature. Just as the “MahavAkya” term is coined and only their imagination, these terms are also complete imagination.

2. Acharya did not comment of nirdvandva as just a few verse before itself, the term has been explained as mentioned above in 2-38.

The explanation of Shankaracharya “nirgatadvandva is nirdvandva” is not a good enough explanation. It is obvious etymology. Knowing Acharya’s mind, Sri Raghavendra tIrtha explains in Gita vivRuti.

“nirdvandvaH ‘sukhaduHkhe same kRutvA’ ityatroktadishA samaduHkhasukhAdiriti vA, sukhaduHkhAdiprAptAvutsekAnutsekahIna iti vA.arthaH |” A complete picture can be seen here. No multiple truths of any kind.

त्रैगुण्यविषयाः त्रैगुण्यं संसारो विषयः प्रकाशयितव्यः येषां ते वेदाः त्रैगुण्यविषयाः। त्वं तु निस्त्रैगुण्यो भव अर्जुन, निष्कामो भव इत्यर्थः। निर्द्वन्द्वः सुखदुःखहेतू सप्रतिपक्षौ पदार्थौ द्वन्द्वशब्दवाच्यौ, ततः निर्गतः निर्द्वन्द्वो भव। नित्यसत्त्वस्थः सदा सत्त्वगुणाश्रितो भव। तथा निर्योगक्षेमः अनुपात्तस्य उपादानं योगः, उपात्तस्य रक्षणं क्षेमः, योगक्षेमप्रधानस्य श्रेयसि प्रवृत्तिर्दुष्करा इत्यतः निर्योगक्षेमो भव। आत्मवान् अप्रमत्तश्च भव। एष तव उपदेशः स्वधर्ममनुतिष्ठतः॥ सर्वेषु वेदोक्तेषु कर्मसु यान्युक्तान्यनन्तानि फलानि तानि नापेक्ष्यन्ते चेत्, किमर्थं तानि ईस्वरायेत्यनुष्ठीयन्ते इत्युच्यते  शृणु --

In the above, even Shankaracharya does not define two truths in the commentary of 2-45 and reading too much into it is not desirable. Even if there are two states, both are true at two different points of time.

Regards,
Kesava Tadipatri

Venkatakrishna

unread,
Jun 9, 2022, 11:39:57 AM6/9/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Namaste

 

1. I do  not desire to make this exchange a ‘Vaada- thread’.  That was not the intention in my response.

 

     The semantic pedagogy of ‘Language: Samskrutham’ by Panini rules is many times tricky, slippery by scholarly

     creativity and  intentional pliability ; therefore understanding Gita, more so as ‘Yoga-Shaastra’ (not explicitly

      articulated  by Acharya Madhwa  as  a tool to understand Gita)  becomes challenging. Please don’t hit back telling ‘

      all the texts covered under the technical definition of ‘Shaastra’ are ‘Yoga-Darshana’; therefore there is no need for

      explicit articulation !

 

     Someone needs to make an extensive linguistic survey for continuity of ‘Language: Samskrutham’ as ‘ Bhashaa

     used to explain ‘ Suktas / Chandas ( Way back placed on time line of 6000 BCE or before)’ .

     The yuga-scale of ‘ Loka’s - cyclic time line gets crunched to linear time line of flat earth and we get a narrow

      ‘vyaavahaarika view’ pointing to ‘ Paaramarthika goal’.

       Gita: circa 3139 BCE – to Panini –circa 700 BCE ( Buddha and Mahavira to get accommodated somewhere here) –

       to Bhattoji Deekshita 17th-century Maharashtrian Sanskrit grammarian, who happens to be the  anchor of today’s

       scholars.

 

     I do not stake claim to know all writings of Acharya Madhwa and sub-commentaries. Others could respond better.   

       

     For me this entire debate is < Samjnaasu kevalam ayam vidushaam vivaadah>.

 

     The ‘semantics and specific use of term’,  totally ignoring the ‘Taatparya – Tattva – Vinirnaya’  coming from the text.

 

The claim < This vyAvahArika satya term is not used by Sri krishna or Vedavyasa or Valmiki and is as good as shAsha-viShAna or gagana-puShpa or vandhyAputra >  is fighting to locate a  specific term and say non-use of the term is ‘proof’ of claim ! Not good logic.

  

2. Your last line should be good enough to catch the essence of the debate  and put a hold on further extension on this  thread of < Sataa: Paaramarthiak and Vyaavaharika>.  

 

We are not debating about ‘HIS View Point’. That is ‘Paaramarthika Sattaa’.

We are talking about the ‘ignorant ones view point’. That is ‘Vyaavaharika Sattaa’.

 

Your response/s confirm this :

 

< Even if there are two states, both are true at two different points of time >

 

< Please note the difference between view points and truths. Viewpoints can be many. Truth is just one – vastu sthiti. Rajju-sarpa bhranti and shukti-rajata bhranti can happen to the ignorant ones, but for the All-creator, there is no bhranti at all and from His point of view, there is only one truth. >

 

3. On < The explanation of Shankaracharya “nirgatadvandva is nirdvandva” is not a good enough explanation. It is obvious etymology.  > I am not interested in rating ‘Language Schoalrship of Acharyas’.

I am too small a person to address this issue.

 

4. On < First of all Gita is not written only for Advaitins  >  Agreed.

 

The prime framework of ‘Prasthana-Traya’  is used by Acharya Shankara’s system. Acharya Madhwa uses  ‘Shaastra- Tattva – Vinirniya’  by specifically defining ‘What constitutes Shaastra’ (which seems to pitch towards Gita : 16-24). The two frames do carry different resolutions and achromatized lens to understand ‘Gita’. The texts come in different historic contexts and time lines;  and so  are the commentaries. Yet in Yoga-Vednata/ Yoga-Vijnana, Gita points to the SAME TRUTH from Vedas and Brahma sutra.

 

   As ‘Acahrya Dayananda Saraswati once remarked: ‘I am happy with ‘Gita as it was ( given in Mahabharata ).  I have difficulty with ‘Bhagavad-Gita : as –it-is’ and ‘ claims on ‘what should have been the ‘words from Sri Krishna’s mouth to Arjuna’.

 

5.  On < There is a huge issue with this VyAvahArika and ParamArthika approach as one has to now determine the following. Sri Krishna’s teachings in BhagavadgIta – what are they? VyAvahArika satya or ParamArthika satya? Can something be both or only one of the two? > :  Let the exercise continue, on ‘What Gita means to me’  than ‘ deliberating ‘ What Gita might have meant to Acharyas’. We here are the ‘ less blessed – partial Arjuna’s’ living in ‘Vyaavaharika Sattaa’.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/9d1c22a1-f527-41bc-8e9e-85af74fe50ddn%40googlegroups.com.

Kesava Tadipatri

unread,
Jun 10, 2022, 3:15:10 AM6/10/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste.

Nor do I desire to make it a “vaada thread”. That was not my intention either. The issue is this. There are Advaita lists, where Advaita is presented as the accepted philosophy and there are Dvaita lists where Dvaita is presented as accepted philosophy. This list is supposed to deal with Sanskrit related topics, but sometimes as per the interest of some people certain views may be presented. In such cases, it becomes necessary to emphasize that those views are not universally acceptable views. To that end, if some friendly discussions take place, then it should be fine, I guess.

To that end, I am presenting responses to your queries.

Firstly Panini does not present any philosophical affinities in his grammar presentation. So Paninian grammar may be used as a tool for explaining their individual philosophical presentation. So, it is irrelevant as to how tricky or slippery, etc it is. Secondly it is completely a false notion that Acharya Madhva has not explicitly articulated Yoga shaastra as a tool to understand Gita. It is Shankaracharya, who has missed Gita’s main teaching itself, as will be pointed out below. Thirdly, it is irrelevant as to how you like to link Shaatra and Yoga darshana. Do what ever you like. That is irrelevant to current discussion of illogical presentation of two truths. Finally, it boils down to what the correct position is how effectively it is presented.

When a strong scriptural evidence is present that goes against one’s philosophical position, one of the following techniques is adopted by the affected position.

1. Those responding to the challenge and wishing to answer the objections, use the grammar and Sanskrit flexibility to handle and reinterpret the position in an effective way.
(People wrongly think that because Sanskrit is a flexible language, one can use linguistic prowess to reinterpret any which way. That is not true. Proof of the pudding is in its eating. In many places that is impossible to achieve and so people resort to the following methods as well.)

2. Those who respond, can just skip that topic and talk about something totally unrelated and create so much verbosity and confusion that it becomes even a little difficult to notice that it has flaws like “asangati”, “Adhikya”, “kAlAtyayApadiShTa”, “satpratipakShatA”, “anukti” and “apasiddhAnta”.
(So, what happens is that those who are affected with PurvAgraha do not even accept that it is happening that way. The other side points out those flaws effectively, which will be ignored by the obedient followers).

3. Those who respond, can directly talk about the topic, but in an illogical fashion, which is directly visible with very little effort.
(Even this is ignored by the obedient followers).

Shankaracharya was a great scholar and did the best for his times. His replies convinced many of his time. But in Gita he faced challenges, hard to handle. In his Gita bhAshya, there are big time issues. pramAdo dhImatAmapi|

For example, let us take the verse -

सर्वधर्मान्परित्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज।
अहं त्वा सर्वपापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि मा शुचः॥ १८-६६॥

It gave two big challenges. Sri Krishna is promising mokSha to Arjuna. This can not be stated as vyAvahArika satya as it is dealing with mokSha. It can not be stated as pAramArthika satya as the difference between Krishna and Arjuna continues in mokSha. While this is a blow for Advaita, “sarvadharmAn parityajya” is a riddle too much for him to handle. How can all dharmas be gibven up. He fumbles and says all dharmas includes adharmas also and so adharmas have to be given up. How does this help? Still what is the answer for giving up “all” dharmas. Unable to handle two tough nuts to crack, he went on talking about so many other things, but just ignoring these two main issues. These are nigrahasthanas - “asangati”, “Adhikya”, “virodha”, etc. The commentary for this verse runs pages, but skips the main.

Any amount of Paninian grammar does not come to the rescue. The flexibility of Sanskrit does not come to the rescue. No amount of yoga-darshana comes to the rescue.

Now take the Gita verse -

न त्वेवाहं जातु नासं न त्वं नेमे जनाधिपाः।
न चैव न भविष्यामः सर्वे वयमतः परम्॥ २-१२॥

Note the trikAlaabAdhita plurality. In other words, the plurality is pAramArthika satya. This is a direct blow on advaita. Any amount of Paninian grammar does not come to the rescue. The flexibility of Sanskrit does not come to the rescue. No amount of yoga-darshana comes to the rescue.

Here too much wandering also does not help as the issue is direct. So an escape argument was presented. But the flaw hits one directly hits one’s face, unless one is completely possessed by PurvAgraha. Look at Shankaracharya’s commentary -

त्रिष्वपि कालेषु नित्या आत्मस्वरूपेण इत्यर्थः। देहभेदानुवृत्त्या बहुवचनम्, नात्मभेदाभिप्रायेण॥ तत्र कथमिव नित्य आत्मेति दृष्टान्तमाह |

Are you kidding? Where is Sri Krishna talking about bodies here? He is talking about the eternity of the plurality. The bodies are not eternal. “There will never be any time in future, when we all will not exist”. meaning “We all will exist eternally” meaning “the plurality is pAramArthika only”.. That is about Atmas only and not bodies. One can twist and spin, but all in vain.

Your argument of linguistic survey, etc are only meant to put someone in wild goose chase. That has no relevance for the current topic and discussion.

You do not have to know all the writings of Acharya Madhva. You show where you have issue with any statement of Madhva and there will be many people, who will be glad to help and here I will answer them, even though I am no scholar and a very small person. Likewise, I have given a small sample of issues and pls explain to the satisfaction of any neutral person or any open-minded person.

I am not talking about locating the specific term “vyAvaharika satya” or “pAramArthika satya”. Find anything even remotely close to them even in concept, not mere wording. In fact there are hundreds which go counter to those terms.

Rigveda says -

2.24 (varga 3) verse 12a
vishvaM satyaM maghavAnA yuvoridApashcana pra minanti vrataM vAm |\\

Here it clearly says Vishva is satya. It does not have to say “vyAvahArika satya”. Did it qualify satya in any way like “ABC” satya? Did it say mithya?

Absolutely not.

All the round about explanations from Upanishadic statements using “dvaitamiva bhavati” “advaitam paramArthataH” do not have any satya word at all and they are so round about explanations ignoring the context completely.

Note what Advaita did. Whatever have to be two – like Jiva and Parmatma – it made one. Whatever have to be one – like Brahman and satyam. It made them into two – like saguna brahma and nirguna brahma and vyAvahArika satya and pAramArthika satya. In other words popular Advaita philosophy became Upansidhadic Dvaita. Popular Dvaita philosophy became Upanishadic Advaita.

Regards,
Kesava Tadipatri

Raghavendra

unread,
Jun 10, 2022, 11:46:52 PM6/10/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Greetings of the day,


<<, therefore, understanding Gita, more so as ‘Yoga-Shaastra’ (not explicitly articulated  by Acharya Madhwa as a tool to understand Gita) becomes challenging>>


This is borne out of a gross misunderstanding that the gītā is viewed through the 'prism' of 'sānkhya & yôga' of 'Kapila & Patanjali' by Shankara, (not by Madhva and hence the challenge of understanding the text through the latter's bhāshya). 


First of all,

Neither Shankara nor for that matter Madhva approach knowledge (sānkhya) and the means (yōga) of attaining it, through the 'prism' of 'sānkhya & yōga' of 'Kapila & Patanjali'. 


Secondly, 

The 'system of knowledge' developed by Shankara and Madhva is 'independent' of 'sānkhya & yōga' of 'Kapila & Patanjali'.


The terms viz., 'sānkhya & yôga' as understood by Madhva is given below for ready reference, 


◆सम्यक् ख्यातिर्ज्ञानं साङ्ख्यम् 

◆'मोक्षोपायो योग' इति 


Srī Rāghavendra Swāmin in his 'gītāvivrutti' puts the term 'yôga' succinctly as युज्यते प्राप्यते फलमनयेति करणव्युत्पत्या उपायपरः।


Also, Madhva understands 'yoga' as (jñānapōrvaka) 'nishkāma-karma-yôga, which is also a means to release. 


If gīta is to be understood "more so as ‘Yoga-Shaastra’, then, what was the need for the refutation of its knowledge system in the 'Samaya-Pāda' of the Brahmasūtra by Srī Védavyāsa? (who is also the same person who recorded the gīta itself)


Shankara is untiring in refuting the knowledge systems of Kapila (and Patanjali) throughout his works, If gīta is to be understood "more so as ‘Yoga-Shaastra’, then what was the need for Shankara's refutation of it?


Mādhva is crystal clear about it when he says - नेतरौ साङ्ख्य-योगौ उपादेयत्वेन विवक्षितौ कुत्रचित्। 


There may be 'similarities' in 'thought' in certain respects, but it doesn't mean that 'one represents the other in its entirety. 


Thank you & Best regards, 

=================

bvparishat/topics> bvpar...@googlegroups.com


<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overv
iew> Google Groups


<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overv
iew>

Topic digest

<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/
bvparishat/topics> View all topics

* " Punarjanma and Atmagatividya" , a compilation by Sri Vishal
Agarwal - 5 Updates

* ग्रन्थप्रार्थना - 1 Update

* Derivation of Hora from Ahoratra - 1 Update

* Vacancy: Research Associate at Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham - 1
Update

* Listen to the Auspicious and See Your Life Transform - 1 Update


<http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/t/b38241b6dafffed?utm_source=dige
st&utm_medium=email> " Punarjanma and Atmagatividya" , a compilation by Sri
Vishal Agarwal


Aravinda Rao <karav...@gmail.com');" >karav...@gmail.com <mailto:karav...@gmail.com> >: Jun 08

09:59AM +0530

Sri Vishal Agarwal's note is in accordance with scriptures and so is the
note of Sri Lokesh. Yet they seem to be clashing because Sri Vishal is
talking at the level of empirical reality (vyavaharika satta) and sri
Lokesh is talking from the point of absolute reality (paramarthika satta)
that we find in the karikas of Gaudapada. Both are right at
different levels.
Aravinda Rao

On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 6:09 PM Krishna Kashyap <kkashy...@gmail.com
<mailto:kkashy...@gmail.com> >
wrote:



>: Jun 08 03:58PM +0530

नमस्ते अरविन्द आचार्य जी

भवतः भगवद्गीतायाः व्याख्यानि मया श्रुतानि। बहु सम्यक् सन्ति।

मम मतेन तु व्यवहारिकजगति अपि पुनर्जन्मस्य सत्ता संशययुक्ता एव। स्पष्टं
दृश्यते खलु यदा कस्यचिद् शरीरं मृत्युं प्राप्नोति सः अपि न जीवति।

यदि प्रत्यक्षानुमानानि प्रमाणानि त्यक्त्वा शास्त्रस्य बलेन भवन्तः वदन्ति
पुनर्जन्म अस्ति तर्हि शास्त्रबलेन आत्मनः असन्दिग्धसत्ता किमर्थं न
अङ्गीकुर्वन्ति जीवस्य सत्तां त्यक्त्वा?

ॐ



Madhav Gopal <mgop...@yahoo.com');" >mgop...@yahoo.com <mailto:mgop...@yahoo.com> >: Jun 08

Aravinda Rao <karav...@gmail.com');" >karav...@gmail.com <mailto:karav...@gmail.com> >: Jun 08

>: Jun 08 06:34PM +0530

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः
गादाधरीपक्षतायाः कृष्णम्भट्टिव्याख्यां उपलिप्सुना मया सर्वत्रप्रयत्नो
विहितः । क्वापि तदलभमानेन इदानीं विदुषां परिषदियमाश्रियते । तदत्र भवन्तः
विद्वद्वर्याः संगृहीतापूर्वग्रन्थजाताः तस्य ग्रन्थस्यच्छायां दत्वा
उपकुर्वन्त्विति सप्रश्रयं प्रार्थना । यद्यस्ति
*वामाचरणभट्टाचार्यव्याख्यानसहिता* पक्षतापि अपेक्षिता। दात्रे
प्रयत्नविधात्रे च कोटिशो नमांसि ।

Back to top


<http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/t/c9827fdf608c0a16?utm_source=dig
est&utm_medium=email> Derivation of Hora from Ahoratra


Raja Roy <rajarammo...@gmail.com
<mailto:rajarammo...@gmail.com> >: Jun 08 09:08AM -0400

Dhanyavada Prof. Korada. From the verse by Varahamihira, hora will be the
same as one day and night. Still, not clear how it came to denote an hour.
Raja

On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 7:56 AM Subrahmanyam Korada <kora...@gmail.com
<mailto:kora...@gmail.com> >
wrote:





<http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/t/b29333f8c6332fd1?utm_source=dig
est&utm_medium=email>


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

V Subrahmanian

unread,
Jun 11, 2022, 2:52:57 AM6/11/22
to BHARATIYA VIDVAT
Note:  This post is in reply to a discussion that was included in a 'Digest of BVP'.  Since the topic was not clear, I have given the above subject line in tune with the topic being discussed:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 6:56:26 AM UTC+5:30 kesava.t...@gmail.com wrote:
Respected members,

Please show one scriptural evidence to show that there are two kinds of truth - vyAvahArika satya and Paaramaarthika satya apart from the works of Advaita - the entire canon of literature - Itihasas, Puranas, Shutis. Did Vedavyasa or Valmiki ever mention that there are two truths. What is meant by two levels? 


These verses of Vishnu Purana uphold the Paramarthika – Vyavaharika’ premise:

विष्णुपुराणम्/षष्टांशः/अध्यायः ७

https://sa.wikisource.org/s/1smd

तद्भावभावमापन्नस्ततोऽसौ परमात्मना ।

भवत्यभेदी भेदश्च तस्याज्ञानकृतो भवेत् ॥ ६,७.९५ ॥

विभेदजनके ज्ञाने नाशमात्यन्तिकं गते ।

आत्मनो ब्रह्मणो भेदमसंतं कः करीष्यति ॥ ६,७.९६ ॥

इत्युक्तस्ते मया योगः खाण्डिक्य परिपृच्छतः ।

संक्षेपविस्तराभ्यां तु किमन्यत्क्रियतां तव ॥ ६,७.९७ ॥

खाण्डिक्य उवाच

कथिते योगसद्भावे सर्वमेव कृतं मम ।

तवोपदेशेनाशेषो नष्टश्चित्तमलो यतः ॥ ६,७.९८ ॥

ममेति यन्मया चोक्तमसदेतन्न चान्यथा ।

नरेन्द्र गदितुं शक्यमपि विज्ञेयवेदिभिः ॥ ६,७.९९ ॥

अहं ममेत्यविद्येयं व्यवहारस्तथानयोः ।

परमार्थस्त्वसंलाप्यो गोचरो वचसां न सः ॥ ६,७.१०० ॥

तद्गच्छ श्रेयसे सर्वं ममैतद्भवता कृतम् ।

यद्विमुक्तिप्रदो योगः प्रोक्तः केशिध्वजाव्ययः ॥ ६,७.१०१ ॥

It is vyavaharika state to say 'I am mine', due to  Avidya. The ‘paramarthika’ state is beyond words; cannot be articulated.  


The purport of these lines of Buddhist texts cited by Madhva in Tattvodyota  – 

सत्यं तु द्विविधं प्रोक्तं सांवृतं पारमार्थिकम् ।

सांवृतं व्यावहार्यं स्यान्निवृत्तौ पारमार्थिकम् ॥

शून्यं तत्त्वमविज्ञेयं मनोवाचामगोचरम् ॥   (beyond words)

is conspicuous in the Vishnu Purana cited above.

In another chapter of the same Vishnu Purana:https://www.transliteral.org/pages/z90413234954/view 

ज्योतींषि विष्णुर्भुवनानि विष्णुर्वनानि विष्णुर्गिरयो दिशश्च ।

नद्यः समुद्राश्च स एव सर्वं यदस्ति यन्नास्ति च विप्रवर्य ॥ २,१२.३८ ॥

ज्ञानस्वरूपो भगवान्यतोसावशेषमूर्तिर्न तु वस्तुभूतः ।

ततो हि शैलब्धिधरादिभेदाञ्जानीहि विज्ञानविजृम्भितानि ॥ २,१२.३९ ॥

यदा तु शुद्धं निजरूपि सर्वं कर्मक्षये ज्ञानमपास्तदोषम् ।

तदा हि संकल्पतरोः फलानि भवन्ति नो वस्तुषु वस्तुभेदाः ॥ २,१२.४० ॥

वस्त्वस्ति किं कुत्राचिदादिमध्यपर्यन्तहीनं सततैकरूपम् ।

यच्चान्यथात्वं द्विज याति भूयो न तत्तथा तत्र कुतो हि तत्त्वम् ॥ २,१२.४१ ॥

मही घटत्वं घटतः कपालिका कपालिकाचूर्णरजस्ततोऽणुः ।

जनैः स्वकर्मस्तिमितात्मनिश्चयैरालक्ष्यते ब्रूहि किमत्र वस्तु ॥ २,१२.४२ ॥

ज्ञानं विशुद्धं विमलं विशोकमशेषलोभादिनिरस्तसङ्गम् ।

एकं सदैकं परमः स वासुदेवो न यतोऽन्यदस्ति ॥ २,१२.४४ ॥

सद्भाव एवं भवतो मयोक्तो ज्ञानं यथा सत्यमस्तयत्यमन्यत् ।

एतत्तु यत्संव्यवहारभूतं तत्रापि चोक्तं भुवनाश्रितं ते ॥ २,१२.४५ ॥

 The variety in the world spoken of in these verses is nothing more than vyavaharika.  
There is only one true paramarthika substance. The vyavaharika is said to be untrue in the above verses. 
The purport of these verses is also reflected in the Buddhist texts mentioned above. 

In the Skanda Purana:

https://sa.wikisource.org/s/h1n

213b


सर्गस्थित्यप्यया यत्र रजःसत्त्वतमोगुणैः ।।
लीलैवं द्विविधा तस्य वास्तवी व्यावहारिकी ।। २५ ।।
वास्तवी तत्स्वसंवेद्या जीवानां व्यावहारिकी ।।
आद्यां विना द्वितीया न द्वितीया नाद्यगा क्वचित् ।। २६ ।।
आवयोर्गोचरेयं तु तल्लीला व्यावहारिकी ।।

 The creation, etc. of the world is due to the three gunas of prakriti, it is only the leelaa, playful expression, of the Lord, that it is real, paramarthika and vyavaharika. 

The Paingalopanishat:

पैङ्गलोपनिषत्

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paingala_Upanishad

https://sa.wikisource.org/s/wrb

विज्ञानात्मा चिदाभासो विश्वो व्यावहारिको जाग्रत्स्थूलदेहाभिमानी कर्मभूरिति च विश्वस्य नाम भवति । ईशाज्ञया सूत्रात्मा व्यष्टिसूक्ष्मशरीरं प्रविश्य मन अधिष्ठाय तैजसत्वमगमत् । तैजसः प्रातिभासिकः स्वप्नकल्पित इति तैजसस्य नाम भवति ।....प्राज्ञोविच्छिन्नः पारमार्थिकः सुषुप्त्यभिमानीति प्राज्ञस्य नाम भवति । अव्यक्तलेशाज्ञानाच्छादितपारमार्थिकजीवस्य तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्यानि ब्रह्मणैकतां जगुः नेतरयोर्व्यावहारिकप्रातिभासिकयोः ।

 Pangolopanishad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paingala_Upanishad 

The true nature of the jiva, individual soul, is to be realized in a state of deep sleep (when he is united with Brahman, where his samsaric nature and other forms of the world of variety are not experienced). The vyavaharika, pratibhasika and the paramarthika states are spoken of. It has similarities to the Mandukya system. 

The Vishnu Purana:http://satsangdhara.net/vp/adhyaya-02-14.htm

This is the story of Ribhu - Nidagha: this story is also in the Narada and Agni Puranas.

ध्यानं चैवात्मनो भूप परमार्थार्थशब्दितम् ।
भेदकारि परेभ्यस्तु परमार्थो न भेदवान् ॥ २६ ॥
परमात्मात्मनोर्योगः परमार्थ इतीष्यते ।
मिथ्यैतदन्यद्‌द्रव्यं हि नैति तद्द्रव्यतां यतः ॥ २७ ॥
तस्माच्छ्रेयांस्यशेषाणि नृपैतानि न संशयः ।
परमार्थस्तु भूपाल संक्षेपाच्छ्रूयतां मम ॥ २८ ॥
एको व्यापी समः शुद्धो निर्गुणः प्रकृतेः परः ।
जन्मवृद्ध्यादिरहित आत्मा सर्वगतोव्ययः ॥ २९ ॥
परज्ञानमयो सद्‍भिर्नामजात्यादिभिर्विभुः ।
न योगवान्न युक्तोऽभून्नैव पार्थिव योक्ष्यते ॥ ३० ॥
तस्यात्मपरदेहेषु सतोऽप्येकमयं हि यत् ।
विज्ञानं परमार्थोऽसौ द्वैतिनोऽतथ्यदर्शिनः ॥ ३१ ॥
वेणुरन्ध्रप्रभेदेन भेदः षड्जादिसंज्ञितः ।
अभेदव्यापिनो वायोस्तथास्य परमात्मनः ॥ ३२ ॥
एकस्वरूपभेदश्च ब्राह्मकर्मावृत्तिजः ।
देवादिभेदेऽपध्वस्ते नास्त्येवावरणे हि सः ॥ ३३ ॥
इति श्रीविष्णुमहापुराणे द्वितीयेंऽशे चतुर्दशोऽध्यायः (१४)

In these verses, Advaita's doctrinal points alone stand out. It repeatedly says that the vyavaharika duality is not true and that the non-dual Paramarthika is the Truth. It is said here that those who perceive bheda, difference, as real, do not see the Truth. 

Narada Purana:

नारदपुराणम्- पूर्वार्धः/अध्यायः ४९

https://sa.wikisource.org/s/4zc

भेदकारि परेभ्यस्तु परमार्थो न भेदवान् ।।
परमार्थात्मनोर्योगः परमार्थ इतीष्यते ।। ४९-२७ ।।

मिथ्यैतदन्यद्द्रव्यं हि नैतद्द्रव्यमयं यतः ।।
तस्माच्छ्रेयांस्यशेषाणि नृपैतानि न संशयः ।। ४९-२८ ।।

परमार्थस्तु भूपाल संक्षेपाच्छ्रूयतां मम ।।
एको व्यापी समः शुद्धो निर्गुण प्रकृतेः परः ।। ४९-२९ ।।

जन्मवृद्ध्यादिरहित आत्मा सर्वगतो नृप ।।
परिज्ञानमयो सद्भिर्नामजात्यादिभिर्विभुः ।। ४९-३० ।।

न योगवान्न युक्तोऽभून्नैव पार्थिवः योक्ष्यति ।।
तस्यात्मपरदेहेषु सतोऽप्येकमयं हि तत् ।। ४९-३१ ।।

विज्ञानं परमार्थोऽसौ वेत्ति नोऽतथ्यदर्शनः ।।
वेणुरंघ्रविभेदेन भेदः षङ्जादिसंज्ञितः ।। ४९-३२ ।।

 

Agni Purana:

http://www.aa.tufs.ac.jp/~tjun/data/gicas/ap3_frame.html

नान्यस्माद्द्वैतसंस्कारसंस्कृतं मानसं तथा । 62ab
ऋभुः प्राह निदाघन्तं ब्रह्मज्ञानाय चागतः । 62cd
परमार्थं सारभूतमद्वैतं दर्शितं मया ॥ 62॥ 62ef

इहागतोऽहं यास्यामि परमार्थस्तवोदितः ॥ 53cd
एकमेवमिदं विद्धि न भेदः सकलं जगत् । 54ab
वासुदेवाभिधेयस्य स्वरूपं परमात्मनः ॥ 54cd

The Paramatma Tattva is Advaita and is not bheda, difference. The Supreme Lord, called Vasudeva is of the nature of Advaita. 


The term 'Mahavakya':   
Sri Subrahmanyam Korada has written a paper on the concept of 'Mahavakya' in different Shaastras. 

Here is one example from the Sahitya/Kavya shAstra:  तदेवंध्वनेः पूर्ब्बोक्तेष्वष्टादशसु भेदेषु मध्ये शब्दार्थशक्त्युत्थोव्यङ्ग्यो वाक्यमात्रे भवन्नेकः । अन्ये पुनः सप्तदश वाक्येपदे चेति चतुस्तिंशदिति पञ्चत्रिंशद्भेदाः” वृत्तिः ।“प्रबन्धेऽपि मतो धीरैरर्थशक्त्युद्भवो ध्वनिः” मू० ।“प्रबन्धो महावाक्यम् ।   Cited in the वाचस्पत्यम्/कालयोग

In the Purvamimamsa shaastra too the concept of Mahavakya (and avanatara vakya) is there:

उभाभ्यां वा न हि तयोर् धर्मशास्त्रम् // MS_६,४.२५ //   शबरभाष्यम् ६-७ अध्यायाः
उभाभ्यां वा निमित्ताभ्यां भक्षयेत्. न भक्षणं होमाभिषवयो[६८९]{*६/८६*}र् धर्मो विधीयते. किं हि स्याद् यदि तयोर् धर्मो विधीयेत. होमाभिषवौ{*६/८७*} प्रधानम् इति भक्षणं गुणः प्रतिप्रधानं भिद्येत. अथ पुनर् उभाभ्यां निमित्ताभ्यां भक्षणं विधीयते. तस्मिन् विहित एको ऽर्थो विहितो भवति. तेनैकं वाक्यम्, तद् एतावति पर्यवसितं भवति, अभिषुत्य हुत्वा भक्षयन्तीति. तत्रैतद् अवान्तरं वाक्यम्, हुत्वा भक्षयन्तीति. न च महावाक्ये सत्य् अवान्तरवाक्यं प्रमाणं भवति, पदान्तरस्य बाधनात्, यथा, नोद्यन्तम् आदित्यम् ईक्षेतेति प्रतिषेधो गम्यते महावाक्यात्, अवान्तरवाक्याद् ईक्षणविधानम्. तस्माद् अन्यतरनिमित्तं भक्षणम् अश्रुतम्. महावाक्याद् इदम् अवगम्यते द्वे निमित्ते भक्षणस्येति. भक्षणं चान्यथा कुर्वञ् छ्रुतं परित्यजेत्. तस्माद् उभाभ्यां भक्षणम्{*६/८८*} इति.

अत्राकाङ्क्षायोग्यतयोरात्मार्थधर्मत्वेऽपि पदोच्चयधर्मत्वमपचारात् ।      वाक्योच्चयो महावाक्यम्      योग्यताकाङ्क्षासत्तियुक्त इत्येव ।  

सूदयिष्यामि समरे पापचेतनम् । देवानां च विशेषेण मम मायापचारितम् १३। एवमुक्ते महावाक्ये नहुषेण महात्मना ।
 अथायातः स्वयं देवः शंखचक्रगदाधरः १४। चक्राच्चक्रं समुत्पाट्य   

तत्प्रामाण्यान्मया चोक्तं तस्मान्मां मन्तुमर्हथ ॥८१॥ यदि प्रमाणं तान्येव महावाक्यानि वै द्विजाः ! ।।     

There are many such occurrences in different disciplines. 

अध्यात्मरामायणम्

अविच्छिन्नस्य पूर्णेन एकत्वं प्रतिपाद्यते ।
तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्यैश्च साभासस्याहमस्तथा .. ४९..

ऐक्यज्ञानं यदोत्पन्नं महावाक्येन चात्मनोः ।

तदाविद्या स्वकार्यैश्च नश्यत्येव न संशयः .. ५०..  

This text, Adhyatmaramayanam, is regarded as authentic by the Vaishnavas of the North:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambhadracharya%27s_literary_style   //After examining his Sanskrit thesis titled Adhyātmarāmāyaṇe Apāṇinīyaprayogānāṃ Vimarśaḥ (Deliberation on the non-Paninian usages in the Adhyatma Ramayana),//  


'Tattvamasi' Mahavakya - in Shiva Puranam 
In the Shiva Puranam https://sa.wikisource.org/s/t6f there is a stuti of Brahma and Vishnu of Shiva. In this context it is stated that Vishnu secured five mantras and performed the japa of the same:
पुनर्मृत्युंजयं मन्त्रं पञ्चाक्षरमतः परम् ।। 
चिंतामणिं तथा मंत्रं दक्षिणामूर्ति संज्ञकम् ।। ४८ ।।
 ततस्तत्त्वमसीत्युक्तं महावाक्यं हरस्य च ।।
 पञ्चमंत्रांस्तथा लब्ध्वा जजाप भगवान्हरिः ।। ४९ ।।

Śukarahasya Upaniṣad

 https://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_upanishhat/shuka.html    The word 'mahavakya' occurs several times. 

महावाक्यान्युपदिशेत्सषडङ्गानि देशिकः । 

केवलं न हि वाक्यानि ब्रह्मणो वचनं यथा ,, १५॥

एवं महावाक्यषडङ्गान्युक्तानि ॥

अथ महावाक्यानि चत्वारि । यथा ।

ॐ अस्य श्रीमहावाक्यमहामन्त्रस्य हंस ऋषिः । अव्यक्तगायत्री छन्दः । 

परमहंसो देवता । हं बीजम् । सः शक्तिः । सोऽहं कीलकम् |

मम परमहंसप्रीत्यर्थे महावाक्यजपे विनियोगः ।

श्रीशुक उवाच

देवादिदेव सर्वज्ञ सच्चिदानन्द लक्षण ।
उमारमण भूतेश प्रसीद करुणानिधे ॥ ९॥

उपदिष्टं परब्रह्म प्रणवान्तर्गतं परम् ।
तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्यानां प्रज्ञादीनां विशेषतः ॥ १०॥

regards

subrahmanian.v

Om Tat Sat 

Nagaraj Paturi

unread,
Jun 11, 2022, 4:29:13 AM6/11/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
There is an older post


by Sri V Subrahmanian avaru 

where he said :

This post is solely aimed at providing the information requested by the above member along with some links for more references. 


One significant place where Shankaracharya has used both the words 'paramarthika' and 'vyāvahārika'  is the Taittiriyopaniṣad bhāṣya for the mantra segment: सत्यं चानृतं च सत्यमभवत्’ -

While commenting on the mantra सत्यं च अनृतं च सत्यमभवत् ”satyam cha anRtam cha Satyam abhavat’ (Taittiriya Up. II.6) Sri Shankaracharya says: satyam = vyavaharavishayam since this is being mentioned in the context of ‘sRishti’ of the world. He adds: this is not paramArthasatyam (absolute reality) since Brahman alone indeed is paramArtha satyam. This vyavaharavishayam satyam is only Apekshikam, relative, empirical.
He explains: when compared to the water in a mirage, the water (that we actually use for drinking, etc.) is real. This is what is meant by ‘vyavaharika satyam’.
That which is not thus real is anRtam, unreal.
सत्यं च व्यवहारविषयम्, अधिकारात्, न परमार्थसत्यम्; एकमेव हि परमार्थसत्यं ब्रह्म । इह पुनः व्यवहारविषयमापेक्षिकं मृगतृष्णिकाद्यनृतापेक्षया उदकादि सत्यमित्युच्यते । अनृतं च तद्विपरीतम् । किं पुनरेतत् सर्वं सत्यमभवत् परमार्थसत्यम् ।//satyam cha vyavahaaraviShayam, adhikArAt, na paramaarthasatyam; ekameva hi paramaarthasatyam Brahma. iha punaH vyavahaaraviShayamaapekShikam mRgatRShNikAdyanRtaapekShayA udakAdi satyamucyate. anRutam cha tadvipareetam. kim punaretat sarvam satyamabhavat paramArthasatyam…//


In this link you will find a number of uses of the terms 'pāramārthika' and 'vyāvahārika' in its several variations:

http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/search-result.php

http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/search-result.php

http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/search-result.php


regards
subrahmanian.v


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te1Br0j-fYPCEp3AwGqkiTCSxT0pWQ%3DgjYPQLOEOddNhhg%40mail.gmail.com.

Nagaraj Paturi

unread,
Jun 11, 2022, 5:30:31 AM6/11/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Nagaraj Paturi

unread,
Jun 11, 2022, 5:40:07 AM6/11/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
https://groups.google.com/g/bvparishat/c/dI1QgECjvCk/m/c0MP0UIGuxkJ

Namaste

Although Shankaracharya has not mentioned the term 'sattātraividhya' or 'prātibhāsika sattā' in the prasthānatraya bhāṣya, there is a clear mention of all the three sattās in one place: The Taittiriyopanishad bhāṣya: 2.6:

'सत्यं च अनृतं च सत्यमभवत्' -

He comments on the above mantra:


सत्यं च व्यवहारविषयम्, अधिकारात्, न परमार्थसत्यम्; एकमेव हि परमार्थसत्यं ब्रह्म । इह पुनः व्यवहारविषयमापेक्षिकं मृगतृष्णिकाद्यनृतापेक्षया उदकादि सत्यमित्युच्यते । अनृतं च तद्विपरीतम् । किं पुनरेतत् सर्वं सत्यमभवत् परमार्थसत्यम् ।

He does not name the third as 'prātibhāsikam' but simply says 'the word 'anṛtam' of the mantra means 'that which is of the nature of the mirage-water'.  Sureshwaracharya, in the vārtika to the above bhāṣya says:

व्यावहारिकमेवात्र सत्यं स्यादधिकारतः ।     (सत्यं च व्यवहारविषयम्, अधिकारात्, Bhashya)

पारमार्थिकसत्यस्य वाक्यान्ते समुदीरणात् ॥ 407  (परमार्थसत्यम् bhashya)

[The word satyam which occurs at the beginning of the sentence means empirical truth because of the context and also because of the fact that the absolute truth is spoken of at the end of the sentence.]

Sāyanāchārya’s commentary

In his commentary to the Kṛṣṇayajurvediya taittiriya āraṁyakam wherein occurs the passage that we are now considering, Sayanacharya says:

सत्यम् – लोकव्यवहारे बाधरहितं शुक्तिरज्जुस्थाण्वादि । अनृतं  तु व्यहारदशायामारोपितं रजतसर्पचोरादि । …उपरितनसत्यशब्देन ब्रह्म उच्यते ।

[satyam – that which does not undergo sublation in the common parlance namely shell, rope, pillar, etc.  anRtam, however, refers to the cases of silver, snake, thief, etc. that undergo sublation in the empirical state itself.  The other word ‘Satyam’ refers to Brahman.]

Even he does not use the word 'prātibhāsikam' to comment on the mantra-word 'anṛtam.'

Sri AchyutakrishNAnanda Tirtha, the author of the popular and lucid subcommentary named ‘VanamAlaa’ on the Bhashyam of Bhagavatpada says:

’सत्यं चानृतं च’ इत्यत्र सत्यशब्देन व्यवहारसत्यमेवोच्यते न तु परमार्थसत्यमित्यत्र हेतुः – अधिकारादिति । सच्च त्यच्च इत्यादीनां व्यवहारविषयाणामेव विकाराणां प्रकरणादित्यर्थः । किं च ’सत्यं च’ इत्यत्र परमार्थसत्यग्रहणे परमार्थद्वयं प्रसज्येत, ’सत्यमभवत्’ इत्यत्रापि परमार्थसत्यस्य गृहीतत्वात् ।…. किमपेक्षया उदकादिलक्षणस्य सत्यस्य आपेक्षिकत्वमित्याकाङ्क्षायामाह –मृगतृष्णिकादि इति । ‘सत्यं चानृतं च ’ इत्यत्र व्यावहारिकं वस्तु सत्यशब्दार्थः, प्रातिभासिकं वस्तु अनृतशब्दार्थ इति निष्कर्षः ।

The purport of the above passage is:

In the mantra under consideration the reason to hold the word ‘satyam’ as denoting the vyAvahArika reality alone and not the pAramArthika  is the ‘context’ in which this word occurs in the Shruti.  Any created entity has to be less real than the Absolutely Real Brahman.  This word ‘satyam’ occurs in the context of the entities that undergo transformation – विकारः.  Further, if the word ‘satyam’ is understood as the ParamArtha satyam (Brahman), then there will be the contingency of two Absolutely Real entities existing since the other word ‘Satyam’ has been taken to be the Absolutely Real.  Related to what is the water and the like taken to be vyAvahaarika? It is relative to the water perceived, in a mirage, due to ignorance.   In the passage ‘satyam cha anRtam’, the ‘vyaavaahrika  satyam ‘ is  what is specified by the word ‘satyam.’ The word ‘anRtam’ denotes  anything that is just an appearance.  This is the considered conclusion.

That word 'prātibhāsika' is used by the Vedānta Paribhāṣā:

यद्वा त्रिविधं सत्त्वम् पारमार्थिकं व्यावहारिकं प्रातिभासिकं चेति । पारमार्थिकं सत्त्वं ब्रह्मणः व्यावहारिकं सत्त्वमाकाशादेः प्रातिभासिकं सत्त्वं शुक्तिरजतादेः ।

However Shankara has made unambiguous references to the concept of prātibhāsika satya, one example is already shown above in the Taittiriya bhāṣya.  The other, for example is:

BSB 3.2.4:

पारमार्थिकस्तु नायं सन्ध्याश्रयः सर्गः वियदादिसर्गवत् — इत्येतावत्प्रतिपाद्यते  | न च वियदादिसर्गस्याप्यात्यन्तिकं सत्यत्वमस्ति ; प्रतिपादितं हि ‘तदनन्यत्वमारम्भणशब्दादिभ्यः’ (ब्र. सू. २-१-१४) इत्यत्र समस्तस्य प्रपञ्चस्य मायामात्रत्वम् । प्राक् तु ब्रह्मात्मत्वदर्शनात् वियदादिप्रपञ्चो व्यवस्थितरूपो भवति ; सन्ध्याश्रयस्तु प्रपञ्चः प्रतिदिनं बाध्यते — इत्यतो वैशेषिकमिदं सन्ध्यस्य मायामात्रत्वमुदितम् ॥ ४ ॥

He says: In reality the this dream-creation is not on par with the created world of ether etc. Nor is the created world of ether etc. is absolutely real. This has been established in the BSB 2.1.14. The entire world is māyic alone. Prior to Brahmajnānam the created world of ether, etc. is not annulled (vyavaharika). However, the world perceived in a dream gets sublated everyday. Therefore the status of the dream-world is of a different order (vaiśeṣikam), even though māyā alone (just as the vyavaharika).

Here he makes a clear distinction in the status between the vyāvahārik world and the dream-world (prātibhāsika), though both belong to the category of māyā. The lakṣaṇa of the prātibhāsika satyam is: it is annulled even within the vyāvahārika reality.  The lakṣaṇa of the vyāvahārika is: it is annulled only by brahmajnānam.  

Thus, as already pointed out from the Gita bhāṣya 2.16, etc. the lakṣaṇa is very clear.  Several terms used to indicate the prātibhāsika too have been shown.  

In the Panchapādikā of Padmapāda too the term is used to give the same meaning:

प्रतिभासमानस्य रजतस्य एव अवलम्बनत्वात् । अतः मायामयं रजतम् ।  And the lakṣaṇam is also stated:  ...अरजतस्वरूपस्य मिथ्यारजतसम्भेद एव अवभासमानमङ्गीकृत्य । मिथ्यात्वमपि रजतस्य आगन्तुकदोषनिमित्तत्वात् अनन्तरबाधदर्शनात् च कथ्यते, न पुनः परमार्थाभिमतात् रजतात् अन्यत्वमाश्रित्य । 

The term 'pratibhāsa' is alternated by 'avabhāsa'.  In the Bhāsyam too we have: अन्यत्रान्यधर्मावभासः to define adhyāsa.

regards

subrahmanian.v 

Nagaraj Paturi

unread,
Jun 11, 2022, 5:44:35 AM6/11/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com

In his Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashya Vartika, while commenting, in verse form, the Bhashya of Bhagavatpada, for the mantra: ‘सत्यं च अनृतं च सत्यमभवत्’, the VArtikakAra says:

व्यावहारिकमेवात्र सत्यं स्यादधिकारतः ।     (सत्यं च व्यवहारविषयम्, अधिकारात्, Bhashya)

पारमार्थिकसत्यस्य वाक्यान्ते समुदीरणात् ॥ 407  (परमार्थसत्यम् bhashya)

[The word satyam which occurs at the beginning of the sentence means empirical truth because of the context and also because of the fact that the absolute truth is spoken of at the end of the sentence.]

It can be seen beyond doubt that Sri Sureshwaracharya unambiguously uses the words ‘pAramArthika satyam’ and ‘vyAvahArika satyam’ to comment upon Bhagavatpada’s words: ‘paramArthasatyam’ and ‘vyavahAra-vishayam’.

It becomes certain that Sri Sureshwaracharya has initiated the use of the two terms:  ‘pAramArthika satyam’ and ‘vyAvahArika satyam’ that have been popularly used by the Advaita Acharyas of the Sampradaya initiated by Shankara Bhagavatpada.

This brings us upto the the two terms : vyaavahaarika and paaramaarthika.

Extracting of praatibhaaasika from Shankara's works, adding it to these two and forming the set of three seems to have happened later to Sureshwaracharya.

Kesava Tadipatri

unread,
Jun 11, 2022, 7:24:49 AM6/11/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com

The famous adage goes – for a person with a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. Where ever the words paramArtha and vyavahAra come, one cannot just attach “satya” to it and claim that there are two satyas.

All the quotes, you have given go quite aginst MaayavAada and thus results in “apasiddhAnta” as will be shown herewith.

Even at the very outset, ask yourself a simple question – Are your statements “pAramArthika satya” or “vyAvahArika satya”. If they are vyAvahArika satya, then they are worth ignoring. If they are pAramArthika satya, then you found anothet pAramArthika satya”, making your position itself as apasiddhAnta.

In the VishnupurANa, the pior verses give the context. ६,७.९५  tells how bhedAbhEda(which is seeing both difference and non-difference at the same time) is bad.

In fact similar to this VishnupurANa vAkya, there are similar statements in other purANas. In fact Sri Jayatirtharu takes up a quote which is even lot more beneficial to drive Advaita meaning -

विभेदजनके ज्ञाने नाशमात्यन्तिकं गते ।
आत्मनो ब्रह्मणो भेदमसंतं कः करीष्यति ॥

Then two lines – not listed by Sri V.Subramanian, but probably found in another purANa -

यावन्मोक्षं तु भेदः स्याज्जीवस्य परमस्य च
ततः परं न भेदोऽस्ति भेदहेतोरभावतः॥

The key in all these arguments is very simply this. When Jiva and Brahma are talked about the aikya vAkyAs can be matyakya and sthAnaikya. It need not be svarUpaikya as there are several statements that oppose svarUpaikya.

AchArya Madhva takes all kinds of objections and typical of his style in a very condensed capsule lays out everything. To understand that clearly Sri JayatItttha’s Tika has to be resorted to.

Acharya Madhva’s statements -

image.png
 
The Sri Jayatirtha elaborates these – and in that explanation, he takes up the above quote from Puranas and prsents very powerful and irrefutable arguments.

image.png
image.png

Now let us put aside all these. From your own posting, let us go.

vyAvahAra is behavior. ahaMkAra and maamkAras that result in the nehavior have got to be true. Otherwise, where is the question of trying to get rid of them? No one would try to paint the hare’s horn with blue paint or red paint. ParamArtha is ultimate goal and not a different kind of truth. One will not walk or journey from one truth to another truth, but journey from one state to another statre and both have got to be true. It is just this state of ahaMkAra and mamakAra for things which are anitya and heya, but not asatya. Note “asatyamaparatiShTham te jagadAhuranIshvaram”. Note that vyavahAra and paramArtha – two different words are there – not to represent two kinds of truths, but two states – one has to strive to journey from one to another.

The second quote from VishnupurANa also emphasizes that the pure (vishuddha, vimala) knowledge (jnAna) is in here only and that is also satya only - भवतो मयोक्तो ज्ञानं यथा सत्यम् |


एकं सदैकं परमः स वासुदेवो न यतोऽन्यदस्ति

Saguna brahma Vasudeva is Parama – meaning there is no separate Nirguna brahma. “There is nothing else other than him” is not sarva itara vastu nishedha, but niShedha of a superio vastu only, as mentioned by Sri Krishna in Gita “mattaH parataraM nAnyat kiMchidasti dhanaMjaya”. Otherwise the word “parataM” becomes futile.

Now coming to tatvodyota quote from Acharya Madhva – that is PurvapakSha – not siddhAnta. Secondly that is from set of quotes of maayaavAdi. Afterr all those bunch of statements, Acharya saya “iti cha maayaavAdi”. After that AchArya quotes shUnyavaadi(Buddhist).

“nAsya sattvamasattvaM vA na doSho guNa evA vA |
heyopAdeyarahitaM tachChUnyaM padamakShayam” iti cha shUnyavAdI |

Interestingly maayaavaada is quite close to this also and that is why it is also called “prachChannabauddha” vaada.

Even SkandapurANa quote does not say that they are two kinds of truths, but they are two kind of things. If only ParamArhika satya is satya, then it should say only one exists. Both have same truth level, but not same importance. There is no one without the other. Both are true. And even VyavahArika is BhagavllIla, which is very undeniable satya. One must know what is needed and what is not needed. There is no appendage of satya here also, as both are satya.

पैङ्गलोपनिषत् also  does not say anything about three kinds of “satyas” -  vyAvahArika, prAtibhAsika, and pAramArthika.

It tells how Vishva nAmaka Paramatma controls all our activities/ vyavahAra during wakeful state (jAgradavasthA), TaijasanAmaka ParamAtma makes the dream-imagination appear to us (svapnAvastha) and prAjna nAmaka paramAtma, who is suShuptyabhimAni or niyAmaka controls deep sleep.

All other quotes also do not carry any levels or types of satya with the terms vyAvahArika and ParamArthika. They are not levels of truths, but they are equally true, but not equally important. And where the aikyata is talked about, from the above quote of Acharya and Sri Jayatirtharu, it is pretty obvious that hey are either matyakya or sthAnaikya.

It is as simple as that.

Regards,
Kesava Tadipatri

V Subrahmanian

unread,
Jun 11, 2022, 10:17:06 AM6/11/22
to BHARATIYA VIDVAT
On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 4:54 PM Kesava Tadipatri <kesava.t...@gmail.com> wrote:



Even at the very outset, ask yourself a simple question – Are your statements “pAramArthika satya” or “vyAvahArika satya”. If they are vyAvahArika satya, then they are worth ignoring.

This is the proverbial misunderstanding of the opponent's position:  The Advaitin does not consider the vyavaharika satya 'worth ignoring.'  All bandha-moksha vyavahara is seriously taken up by the Advaitin. Hence the following conclusion does not arise:    
 
If they are pAramArthika satya, then you found anothet pAramArthika satya”, making your position itself as apasiddhAnta.

In the VishnupurANa, the pior verses give the context. ६,७.९५  tells how bhedAbhEda(which is seeing both difference and non-difference at the same time) is bad.

So what?  


In fact similar to this VishnupurANa vAkya, there are similar statements in other purANas. In fact Sri Jayatirtharu takes up a quote which is even lot more beneficial to drive Advaita meaning -

विभेदजनके ज्ञाने नाशमात्यन्तिकं गते ।
आत्मनो ब्रह्मणो भेदमसंतं कः करीष्यति ॥

Then two lines – not listed by Sri V.Subramanian, but probably found in another purANa -

यावन्मोक्षं तु भेदः स्याज्जीवस्य परमस्य च
ततः परं न भेदोऽस्ति भेदहेतोरभावतः॥

Even this is anathema to the bheda vadin. He does not admit bheda abhava in mukti.  

The key in all these arguments is very simply this. When Jiva and Brahma are talked about the aikya vAkyAs can be matyakya and sthAnaikya. It need not be svarUpaikya as there are several statements that oppose svarUpaikya.
 
The discussion in the verses I cited are about the two states of reality and not aikyam. So, the above need not be considered here.  


AchArya Madhva takes all kinds of objections and typical of his style in a very condensed capsule lays out everything. To understand that clearly Sri JayatItttha’s Tika has to be resorted to.

Acharya Madhva’s statements -

image.png
 
The Sri Jayatirtha elaborates these – and in that explanation, he takes up the above quote from Puranas and prsents very powerful and irrefutable arguments.

image.png
image.png

The above is not an explanation that the Avaitin would agree to. The very second verse denies bheda ततः परं न भेदोऽस्ति. Thus, the 'asat' in आत्मनो ब्रह्मणो भेदमसंतं has to be about bhU sattaayaam and not abhadram. 

Now let us put aside all these. From your own posting, let us go.

vyAvahAra is behavior. ahaMkAra and maamkAras that result in the behavior have got to be true. Otherwise, where is the question of trying to get rid of them? No one would try to paint the hare’s horn with blue paint or red paint.

This again is a misunderstanding of Advaita. I have said above that 'vyavahara is not something that is to be ignored' as you put it. Such is not the Advaitin's stand on vyavaharika.   
 
ParamArtha is ultimate goal and not a different kind of truth. One will not walk or journey from one truth to another truth, but journey from one state to another state and both have got to be true. It is just this state of ahaMkAra and mamakAra for things which are anitya and heya, but not asatya. Note “asatyamaparatiShTham te jagadAhuranIshvaram”. Note that vyavahAra and paramArtha – two different words are there – not to represent two kinds of truths, but two states – one has to strive to journey from one to another.

Actually there is no difference between 'two states' and 'two truths'.  What the Advaitin means by 'two truths' is only two states.   

The second quote from VishnupurANa also emphasizes that the pure (vishuddha, vimala) knowledge (jnAna) is in here only and that is also satya only - भवतो मयोक्तो ज्ञानं यथा सत्यम् |

एकं सदैकं परमः स वासुदेवो न यतोऽन्यदस्ति

Saguna brahma Vasudeva is Parama – meaning there is no separate Nirguna brahma. “There is nothing else other than him” is not sarva itara vastu nishedha, but niShedha of a superio vastu only, as mentioned by Sri Krishna in Gita “mattaH parataraM nAnyat kiMchidasti dhanaMjaya”. Otherwise the word “parataM” becomes futile.

Vasudeva is stated to be Ekam, One, paramah.  And apart from That  न अन्यदस्ति -  It is quite clear. 


Now coming to tatvodyota quote from Acharya Madhva – that is PurvapakSha – not siddhAnta.

I have not said that the verses cited by Madhva are siddhanta. 

 
Secondly that is from set of quotes of maayaavAdi.

No, not at all. This is what the Tattvodyota says:

न च शून्यवादिसकाशात् वैलक्षण्यं मायावादिनः । व्यावहारिकसत्वस्य तेनाप्यङ्गीकारात् ।
सत्यं तु द्विविधं प्रोक्तं सांवृतं पारमार्थिकम् । सांवृतं व्यावहार्यं स्यान्निवृत्तौ पारमार्थिकम् ॥
विचार्यमाणे नो सत्त्वं सत्त्वं चापि प्रतीयते । यस्य तत्सांवृतं ज्ञेयं व्यवहारपदं च यत् ॥ इत्यादिना ।
 Madhva cites these verses to substantiate his premise that the व्यावहारिकसत्वस्य तेनाप्यङ्गीकारात् । The 'tena' here is the Buddhist. 

On page 146 of the Book  ‘The History of the Dvaita school of Vedanta and its literature’ in the footnote are given by BNK Sharma, the eight verses quoted by Sri Madhvacharya in the work ‘Tattvodyota’:


सत्यं तु द्विविधं प्रोक्तं सांवृतं पारमार्थिकम् ।
सांवृतं व्यवहार्यं स्यान्निवृत्तौ पारमार्थिकम् ॥१
विचार्यमाणे नोऽसत्त्वं सत्त्वं चापि प्रतीयते ।
यस्य तत्सांवृतं तत्स्यात् व्यवहारपदं च यत् ॥ २
निर्विशेषं स्वयंभातं निर्लेपमजरामरम् ।
शून्यं तत्त्वमविज्ञेयं मनोवाचामगोचरम् ॥ ३
जाड्यसंवृतिदुःखान्तपूर्वदोषविरोधि यत् ।
नित्यभावनया भातं तद्भावं योगिनं नयेत् ॥ ४
भावार्थप्रतियोगित्वं भावत्वं वा न तत्त्वतः ।
विश्वाकारं च संवृत्या यस्य तत्पदमक्षयम् ॥ ५
नास्य सत्वं न वा सत्वं न दोषो गुण एव वा ।
हेयोपादेयरहितं तच्छून्यं पदमक्षयम् ॥ ६
अवाच्यं सर्वशब्दैस्तल्लक्ष्यतेऽखिलैः पदैः ।
अज्ञेयं ज्ञानलक्ष्यं च तच्छून्यं पदमक्षयम् ॥ ७
यदखण्डं पदं लक्ष्यं सर्वैरपि विशेषणैः ।
सर्वैर्विशेषणैर्मुक्तं तच्छून्यं पदमक्षयम् ॥ ८

BNK says that Madhva has not given the source of these verses and that it is confirmed from other researchers’ works that these are genuinely Buddhistic ones.  These verses are quoted by Madhva to demonstrate the point that Advaita is no different from Bauddha darshana.

So, these verses are not Advaitic verses. 

After all those bunch of statements, Acharya saya “iti cha maayaavAdi”.  

This one line alone is from the Sankshepa shariraka, an advaitic work, that Madhva has cited there:  

अनृतजडविरोधिरूपमन्तत्रयमलबन्धनदुःखताविरुद्धम्  

 
After that AchArya quotes shUnyavaadi(Buddhist).

“nAsya sattvamasattvaM vA na doSho guNa evA vA |
heyopAdeyarahitaM tachChUnyaM padamakShayam” iti cha shUnyavAdI |

Interestingly maayaavaada is quite close to this also and that is why it is also called “prachChannabauddha” vaada.

That is exactly what the Vishnu Purana and many other sources deny. 

Even SkandapurANa quote does not say that they are two kinds of truths, but they are two kind of things. If only ParamArhika satya is satya, then it should say only one exists.

No, it says two: one is vAstavI and the other is vyAvahAriki.  
 
Both have same truth level, but not same importance. There is no one without the other. Both are true. And even VyavahArika is BhagavllIla, which is very undeniable satya. One must know what is needed and what is not needed. There is no appendage of satya here also, as both are satya.

It says one to be vAstavI and the other as vyAvahAriki.  

पैङ्गलोपनिषत् also  does not say anything about three kinds of “satyas” -  vyAvahArika, prAtibhAsika, and pAramArthika.

It tells how Vishva nAmaka Paramatma controls all our activities/ vyavahAra during wakeful state (jAgradavasthA), TaijasanAmaka ParamAtma makes the dream-imagination appear to us (svapnAvastha) and prAjna nAmaka paramAtma, who is suShuptyabhimAni or niyAmaka controls deep sleep.

It does not use the word 'satya' but concludes saying: अव्यक्तलेशाज्ञानाच्छादितपारमार्थिकजीवस्य तत्त्वमस्या-दिवाक्यानि ब्रह्मणैकतां जगुः नेतरयोर्व्यावहारिकप्रातिभासिकयोः ।  The sushupti jiva is paramarthika and the other two are not. The aikya through mahavakya is of the third one and not of the other two.   

 
All other quotes also do not carry any levels or types of satya with the terms vyAvahArika and ParamArthika. They are not levels of truths, but they are equally true, but not equally important. And where the aikyata is talked about, from the above quote of Acharya and Sri Jayatirtharu, it is pretty obvious that hey are either matyakya or sthAnaikya.

It is as simple as that.

The quotes that I have provided have not helped you in proving any apasiddhanta as claimed.

regards
subrahmanian.v  

Regards,
Kesava Tadipatri

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

G S S Murthy

unread,
Jun 11, 2022, 11:43:19 AM6/11/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Does this look relevant?
जनानामस्मिता माया जगत्यस्मिन्निरर्थके ।
हन्तेयं भणितिश्चापि कल्पिता मायया तया ॥
“In this meaningless world, man’s consciousness is an illusion.”
“Alas! even this statement is generated from that illusion.”
ThThanks and Regards,
MMurthy

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te1bvh1O0jmC%3Dvv1AUjJuk0zY3gyzdXp%3D65mAiP52nHmmA%40mail.gmail.com.

Kesava Tadipatri

unread,
Jun 11, 2022, 11:24:20 PM6/11/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com

>> This is the proverbial misunderstanding of the opponent's
>> position:  The Advaitin does not consider the vyavaharika satya
>> 'worth ignoring.'  All bandha-moksha vyavahara is seriously taken
>> up by the Advaitin. Hence the following conclusion does not arise:    

Getting out of the so-called “proverbial misunderstanding” will nly tale you from frying pan to fire. How? See the following video presented by one popular Advaitin -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwjN47at5CY

He clearly explaining the 3 kinds of reality -
(which Advaita calls prAtibhAsika satya, vyAvahArika satya and pAramArthika satya – which he translated as projected reality, empirical reality and absolute reality). He himself did not real;ize the hole he is going to fall into because Advaita did not realize that hole either.

What is that hole? (There are several logical errors. Our goal is not to talk about those. It has to be limited only to these realities, which is current discussion. SO only that hole is dealth with here.)

If the three-way division of reality is true, then the following two things are true.

1. Any thing that is true in one level of reality is true in that level of reality only.

2. Nothing from one level of reality can move into another level of reality.

For example the pot in empirical reality can not move into the projected reality (our dream) and vice versa. The effort to acquire water in the dream can not quench the thirst in the empirical reality.

The wood in the empirical reality alone can be the cause for the table in empirical reality. The material in one reality cannot be the cause for anything in another reality. You can not create a pot in your dream from the mud in empirical reality nor can you create a pot in empirical world from mud in your dream.

So, all of us, who are in this empirical reality can not move into absolute reality. The dream gets melted away. So we all get melted away into this empirical world itself.

The Brahman, who is in absolute reality can not be the cause for anything in empirical reality or projected reality.

The Advaita teaching that is given in empirical reality is applicable in empirical reality only and is not valid in absolute reality.

To make you understand even better, suppose one does regularly exercise in his dreams (projected reality), will he gain lot of muscle in his empirical reality? Absolutely not.

Your-quote:

The Advaitin does not consider the vyavaharika satya
>> 'worth ignoring.'  All bandha-moksha vyavahara is seriously taken
>> up by the Advaitin.
unquote.

What a disaster? The Advaitin takes all that so seriously (but just like above exrcise), the whole thing is waste, as it can not go into absolute reality.

I mentioned “from frying pan to fire”. Imagine a person who does not work at all “as he ignores – do the work” and the person who does all the work and does not get paid. Who is worse off? Got it. Of course. I know you will bring another twist and I will be ready.

>> So what?  

That is called “prakaraNa” and gives the uddesha or purpose. Where did you get the purpose that it is talking two realities? Differentiate between two situations and two realities.


In fact similar to this VishnupurANa vAkya, there are similar statements in other purANas. In fact Sri Jayatirtharu takes up a quote which is even lot more beneficial to drive Advaita meaning -

My-Quote:

विभेदजनके ज्ञाने नाशमात्यन्तिकं गते ।
आत्मनो ब्रह्मणो भेदमसंतं कः करीष्यति ॥

Then two lines – not listed by Sri V.Subramanian, but probably found in another purANa -

यावन्मोक्षं तु भेदः स्याज्जीवस्य परमस्य च
ततः परं न भेदोऽस्ति भेदहेतोरभावतः॥
end-my-quote.


>> Even this is anathema to the bheda vadin. He does not admit bheda
>> abhava in mukti.  

Who said that it is anathema? Like badhira-shankha, all my explanation has gone waste. mata-bheda and sthAna-bheda are not there in Mukti.

My-quote:

The key in all these arguments is very simply this. When Jiva and Brahma are talked about the aikya vAkyAs can be matyakya and sthAnaikya. It need not be svarUpaikya as there are several statements that oppose svarUpaikya.
end-quote.


>> The discussion in the verses I cited are about the two states of
>> reality and not aikyam. So, the above need not be considered here.  

Are you kidding? aikyam is opposite of bheda and vice versa. So abheda is aikya. There are three usages for bheda/abheda in the following two verses and not one usage for reality.

Your quote:

तद्भावभावमापन्नस्ततोऽसौ परमात्मना ।
भवत्यभेदी भेदश्च तस्याज्ञानकृतो भवेत् ॥ ६,७.९५ ॥
विभेदजनके ज्ञाने नाशमात्यन्तिकं गते ।
आत्मनो ब्रह्मणो भेदमसंतं कः करीष्यति ॥ ६,७.९६ ॥
end-quote.

My-quote:

AchArya Madhva takes all kinds of objections and typical of his style in a very condensed capsule lays out everything. To understand that clearly Sri JayatItttha’s Tika has to be resorted to.

Acharya Madhva’s statements -
etc.
Unquote.


>> The above is not an explanation that the Avaitin would agree to.
>> The very second verse denies bheda ततः परं न भेदोऽस्ति. Thus, the
>> 'asat' in आत्मनो ब्रह्मणो भेदमसंतं has to be about bhU sattaayaam and not
>> abhadram.

You are missing the point. I know you will not agree to our interpretation and we will not agree to your interpretation. The purpose was to show that those verses have been taken up by our commentators and they did not miss our radar.


>> This again is a misunderstanding of Advaita. I have said above
>> that 'vyavahara is not something that is to be ignored' as you put
>> it. Such is not the Advaitin's stand on vyavaharika.  

And I have explained above that it is like going from frying pan to fire. Much worse off situation.


>> Actually there is no difference between 'two states' and 'two
>> truths'.  What the Advaitin means by 'two truths' is only two
>> states.  

Then call them states and not truths. That is close of chapter. Using wrong terminology confuses hell out of the people.


The second quote from VishnupurANa also emphasizes that the pure (vishuddha, vimala) knowledge (jnAna) is in here only and that is also satya only - भवतो मयोक्तो ज्ञानं यथा सत्यम् |

एकं सदैकं परमः स वासुदेवो न यतोऽन्यदस्ति

Saguna brahma Vasudeva is Parama – meaning there is no separate Nirguna brahma. “There is nothing else other than him” is not sarva itara vastu nishedha, but niShedha of a superio vastu only, as mentioned by Sri Krishna in Gita “mattaH parataraM nAnyat kiMchidasti dhanaMjaya”. Otherwise the word “parataM” becomes futile.

Vasudeva is stated to be Ekam, One, paramah.  And apart from That  न अन्यदस्ति -  It is quite clear.

As a Sanskrit student, you are aware that a word can have multiple meanings. Ekam has other meanings - single of its kind , unique , singular , chief , pre-eminent , excellent. Then automatically your anyat takes the perfect shape – no other thing of its kind. He controls all. Everything follows Him. He is All-Supreme. That is the purpose of all the scriptures. The heart of scriptures is not to say “nothing else exists”. You are a very smart person. See this truth with open mind. Look at NiravakAsha shruti vAkyas like “dvA suparnA sayujA sakhAyA..” and smruti vAkyas like “dvAvimau purushau loke ksharashchAkShara eva cha”, “na chaiva na bhaviShyAmaH sarve vayamataH param”, etc. using which and in accordance with these the sAvakAsha vAyas of both shruits and smRutis can be understood.

KT line >> Secondly that is from set of quotes of maayaavAdi.

VS lines -
>> No, not at all. This is what the Tattvodyota says:

>> न च शून्यवादिसकाशात् वैलक्षण्यं मायावादिनः । व्यावहारिकसत्वस्य तेनाप्यङ्गीकारात् ।
>> सत्यं तु द्विविधं प्रोक्तं सांवृतं पारमार्थिकम् । सांवृतं व्यावहार्यं स्यान्निवृत्तौ पारमार्थिकम् ॥
>> विचार्यमाणे नो सत्त्वं सत्त्वं चापि प्रतीयते । यस्य तत्सांवृतं ज्ञेयं व्यवहारपदं च यत् ॥ इत्यादिना ।
>>  Madhva cites these verses to substantiate his premise that the
>> व्यावहारिकसत्वस्य तेनाप्यङ्गीकारात् । The 'tena' here is the Buddhist.

Yes “tene” here refers to Buddhist. Read further below for more details.


>> On page 146 of the Book  ‘The History of the Dvaita school of
>> Vedanta and its literature’ in the footnote are given by BNK
>> Sharma, the eight verses quoted by Sri Madhvacharya in the work
>> ‘Tattvodyota’:

>> सत्यं तु द्विविधं प्रोक्तं सांवृतं पारमार्थिकम् ।
etc.
>> सर्वैर्विशेषणैर्मुक्तं तच्छून्यं पदमक्षयम् ॥ ८

>> BNK says that Madhva has not given the source of these verses and
>> that it is confirmed from other researchers’ works that these are
>> genuinely Buddhistic ones.  These verses are quoted by Madhva to
>> demonstrate the point that Advaita is no different from Bauddha
>> darshana.

>> So, these verses are not Advaitic verses.

My line >> After all those bunch of statements, Acharya saya “iti cha maayaavAdi”.  


>> This one line alone is from the Sankshepa shariraka, an advaitic
>> work, that Madhva has cited there:  

>> अनृतजडविरोधिरूपमन्तत्रयमलबन्धनदुःखताविरुद्धम्  

You got to be careful with printed books. For one thing, there can be printing mistakes. Secondly, there may be some human errors, which get corrected in following edition.

You have to learn these from traditional scholars. There are three types in this work. In this part also there are three types. There are statements from Acharya which speak about the point that Advaita is no different from Buddha. Then he quotes some from Advaita and some from Buddha darshana. One upto preceding part to nirvisheShaM are Acharya’s words. “nirvisheShaM svayaM bhAtaM” upto “duHkhatA-viriddham” are quoted from Advaita. “nAsya sattvaM” to “padamakShayaM” quoted from Buddists.  

The following is accurate.

image.png

My quote:

Interestingly maayaavaada is quite close to this also and that is why it is also called “prachChannabauddha” vaada.
end-quote.


>> That is exactly what the Vishnu Purana and many other sources
>> deny.

How can VishnupuraNa deny the similarities pointed out between mAyAvAda and shUnyavaada? That can only be denied by the counter arguments. Vishnu puraNa does not do any arguments.

My quote:

Even SkandapurANa quote does not say that they are two kinds of truths, but they are two kind of things. If only ParamArhika satya is satya, then it should say only one exists.
end-quote.


>> No, it says two: one is vAstavI and the other is vyAvahAriki.  
 
My quote:

Both have same truth level, but not same importance. There is no one without the other. Both are true. And even VyavahArika is BhagavllIla, which is very undeniable satya. One must know what is needed and what is not needed. There is no appendage of satya here also, as both are satya.
end-quote.


>> It says one to be vAstavI and the other as vyAvahAriki.  

vAstavI also means substantial, genuine, etc. vyAvahArika also means practical, actual, real. There is difference in importance, not reality.


>> It does not use the word 'satya' but concludes saying:
>> अव्यक्तलेशाज्ञानाच्छादितपारमार्थिकजीवस्य तत्त्वमस्या-दिवाक्यानि ब्रह्मणैकतां जगुः
>> नेतरयोर्व्यावहारिकप्रातिभासिकयोः ।  The sushupti jiva is paramarthika and the
>>  other two are not. The aikya through mahavakya is of the third
>>  one and not of the other two.  

“the other two” what? Jivas? How nmany Jivas are you talking about here? Three Jivas? What Aikya is present here? Where is aikya here? And then Mahavakyas? Who defined these Mahavakyas? What I like is my Mahavakya and what you like is yours? Each school can come up with their own favorite ones and label them as Mahavakyas?


>> The quotes that I have provided have not helped you in proving any
>>  apasiddhanta as claimed.

You wanted to speak about aikya and end up with one Paramarthika Jiva and other two non-pAramArthika Jivas? Is that not apasiddhAnta?

Btw, I will be traveling for about a week and will be offline. Sorry.

Regards,
Kesava Tadipatri

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/TTpeCOsAP44/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te1bvh1O0jmC%3Dvv1AUjJuk0zY3gyzdXp%3D65mAiP52nHmmA%40mail.gmail.com.

Venkatesh Murthy

unread,
Jun 12, 2022, 11:03:24 AM6/12/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste

On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 8:54 AM Kesava Tadipatri <kesava.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>If the three-way division of reality is true, then the following two things are true.

>1. Any thing that is true in one level of reality is true in that level of reality only.

>2. Nothing from one level of reality can move into another level of reality.

This is ridiculous. When you dream for some time and then wake up will you say the person who had the dream is not the person who woke up?

Think carefully what you are saying and correct it. The One who dreams is the same as One who wakes up. 

Similarly One who is in Vyavahara can move to Paramartha when and if enlightened.


Raghavendra

unread,
Jun 13, 2022, 1:26:09 AM6/13/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Dear Nagara Ji,


Svasti, 


Thank you for sharing the relevant links to the earlier discussions on the above subject matter, which contains copious quotations drawn from various source texts.


A couple of observations, 


Firstly, the question of, whether or not, Srī Shankara used the terms viz., prātibhāsika, vyāvhārika, and pāramarthika is wrong. 


Trying to find them in his works or finding their equivalent/s (vyavahāravishayam) is also wrong. 


Why? 


Because it is the prerogative of the philosophical system builder to use it or not, yet communicate the philosophical position around the tripartite classification, as deemed fit by him. This independence of a philosopher is beyond the question mark. 


Secondly, the provisional reality is a stated position in the philosophical system of Srī Shankara (and in Buddhism, it varies in detail, though)


Vyāvahārika is provisioned to account for the practical life, (a meaningful practical life), this is the stated position in the philosophical system of Srī Shankara. 


Thirdly, what is vyāvahārika is sublatable at the dawn of knowledge (that knowledge being absolute knowledge / pāramarthika), this is again the stated position in the philosophical system of Srī Shankara.


Srī Shankara is pledged to the idea of self-validity of knowledge (स्वतस्त्वम्) and it is in the backdrop of this position that tests need to be carried out concerning the provisional validity or vyāvahārika prāmānyam of what is thought of as vyāvahārika Satyam.


What is vyāvahārika cannot be Satyam, the other way round is also equally true, what is Satyam cannot be vyāvahārika. Therefore, the test of prāmānya or validity of vyāvahārika fails. 


Bhāmatikāra puts the स्वगोचर (स्वतस्त्वम्) idea of  प्रमाणानि nicely,


… नह्येयं सर्वप्रमाणप्रसिद्धो लोकव्यवहारोऽन्यत्तत्त्वमनधिगम्य शक्यतेऽपह्नोतुम् । *प्रमाणानि हि स्वगोचरे प्रवर्तमानानि तत्त्वमिदमित्येव प्रवर्तन्ते*। अतात्त्विकत्वं तु तद्गोचरस्यान्यतो बाधकादवगन्तव्यम् । न पुनः सांव्यवहारिकं नः प्रामाण्यं न तु तात्त्विकमित्येव प्रवर्तन्ते …


The objection to the vyāvahārika is in the backdrop of  स्वगोचर (स्वतस्त्वम्) idea of प्रमाणानि or self validity of knowledge. 


How is it that the provisional validity of vyāvahārika has truth value today when it is bound to be invalid tomorrow?


To come back and say that it is the sacred texts which talk of provisional validity of vyāvahārika and its unreality upon the dawn of knowledge, which is backed up by inference is not correct till such time we do not convincingly answer the penetrating objection to the idea of vyāvahārika itself. 


Srī Madhva asked that pertinent and penetrating question in the back of self-validity of knowledge (स्वगोचर or स्वतस्त्वम्) 


प्रामाण्यस्य च मर्यादा कालतो व्यहता भवेत् । कालान्तरे$प्यमानं चेत् इदानीं मानता कुतः? 


To say, vyāvahārika is *māna* at one time and *amāna* at another time is a contradiction, which goes against the very concept of स्वगोचर or स्वतस्त्वम् of knowledge. 


Thus, the objection to vyāvahārika is based on sound logic and reasoning in the backdrop of the sound premise of स्वगोचर or स्वतस्त्वम् idea of knowledge accepted in the Vedanta thought, not sentimental at all. 


A note on adducing support to philosophical positions from the source texts. Our forefathers always followed the method of discussing the subject matter first and then citing texts in support thereof. We live in the age of the internet which brings with it *the problem of many*. The term vyavahāra in all instances culled out from those sources cannot be the one that is thought of getting sublated tomorrow as per the conception of it by Srī Shankara. 


Over the 3 email chains you have shared, which contain copious details on the discussions had in the past on the tripartite classification of the reality of the conception of Srī Shankara, it is conspicuous to note that the texts from various purānas have been relied upon. None forthcoming from the principal Upanishads and the four Vedas. Reliance on the texts which are outside the fold of principal Upanishads and the four Vedas is also conspicuous about mahāvākya. 


I am sure, you may have answers, but thought sharing with the group the background to objection
Idea of vyāvahārika or provisional reality from the standpoint of realism and that background is the unassailable self-validity or स्वगोचर or स्वतस्त्वम् concept of knowledge. 

Thank you & Best regards

Raghavendra. B

=================
From: Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 15:14:42 GMT+0530
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} About 'Vyavaharika - Paramarthika'

तद्भावभावमापन्नस्ततोऽसौ परमात्मना ।

भवत्यभेदी भेदश्च तस्याज्ञानकृतो भवेत् ॥ ६,७.९५ ॥

विभेदजनके ज्ञाने नाशमात्यन्तिकं गते ।

आत्मनो ब्रह्मणो भेदमसंतं कः करीष्यति ॥ ६,७.९६ ॥

इत्युक्तस्ते मया योगः खाण्डिक्य परिपृच्छतः ।

संक्षेपविस्तराभ्यां तु किमन्यत्क्रियतां तव ॥ ६,७.९७ ॥

खाण्डिक्य उवाच

कथिते योगसद्भावे सर्वमेव कृतं मम ।

तवोपदेशेनाशेषो नष्टश्चित्तमलो यतः ॥ ६,७.९८ ॥

ममेति यन्मया चोक्तमसदेतन्न चान्यथा ।

नरेन्द्र गदितुं शक्यमपि विज्ञेयवेदिभिः ॥ ६,७.९९ ॥

अहं ममेत्यविद्येयं व्यवहारस्तथानयोः ।

परमार्थस्त्वसंलाप्यो गोचरो वचसां न सः ॥ ६,७.१०० ॥

तद्गच्छ श्रेयसे सर्वं ममैतद्भवता कृतम् ।

यद्विमुक्तिप्रदो योगः प्रोक्तः केशिध्वजाव्ययः ॥ ६,७.१०१ ॥

It is vyavaharika state to say 'I am mine', due to  Avidya. The ‘paramarthika’ state is beyond words; cannot be articulated.  


The purport of these lines of Buddhist texts cited by Madhva in Tattvodyota  – 

सत्यं तु द्विविधं प्रोक्तं सांवृतं पारमार्थिकम् ।

सांवृतं व्यावहार्यं स्यान्निवृत्तौ पारमार्थिकम् ॥

पैङ्गलोपनिषत्

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paingala_Upanishad

This text, Adhyatmaramayanam, is regarded as authentic by the Vaishnavas of the North:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambhadracharya's_literary_style   //After examining his Sanskrit thesis titled Adhyātmarāmāyaṇe Apāṇinīyaprayogānāṃ Vimarśaḥ (Deliberation on the non-Paninian usages in the Adhyatma Ramayana),//  
Regards,
Kesava Tadipatri



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

Venkatesh Murthy

unread,
Jun 13, 2022, 2:04:19 AM6/13/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste


On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 10:56 AM 'Raghavendra' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>To say, vyāvahārika is *māna* at one time and *amāna* at another time is a contradiction, which goes against the very concept of स्वगोचर or >स्वतस्त्वम् of knowledge. 

Let us suppose a person is witnessing a snake instead of a rope - a case of Bhrama.

At time say 10 PM he is witnessing the snake and he is convinced it is real and its reality cannot be questioned because of स्वतस्त्वम् of knowledge of the snake.

After some time say at 10:05 PM a passer by will tell him it is not a snake but a rope. This is when he realizes the snake he is thinking is not a snake but a rope. This happens at time 10:05 PM which is later than 10 PM.

What do you say now? At time 10 PM the snake was real and at time 10:05 PM it is not real.

The same happens to Vyavaharika objects. They are real now but at the time of dawn of knowledge they will lose reality.

But you can still argue the snake was real at one time and so it cannot be false absolutely. Yes we agree it is not absolutely false but it cannot be absolutely real also. We call it Anirvachaniya because it is neither real nor false nor both real and false.










govindapoduval kg

unread,
Jun 13, 2022, 2:16:50 AM6/13/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Below the sutra Shashti Seshe an example has been given 'mathu:smarathi. "But there are usages like "Madhavam smarami"Can anybody elucidate how the second usage becomes permissible. Thanks for all. K G Poduval.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CADHCXMUQGKyzjDUtyYf3Q4cciyeuQRU_oxGKvUO-zt4u7tze%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

V Subrahmanian

unread,
Jun 13, 2022, 2:53:22 AM6/13/22
to BHARATIYA VIDVAT
In this post I am addressing just the issue of the identity of the verses cited by Madhva in the Tattvodyota while discussing the 'Bauddha - Advaita sameness'.

On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 8:54 AM Kesava Tadipatri <kesava.t...@gmail.com> wrote:


You got to be careful with printed books. For one thing, there can be printing mistakes. Secondly, there may be some human errors, which get corrected in following edition.

You have to learn these from traditional scholars. There are three types in this work. In this part also there are three types. There are statements from Acharya which speak about the point that Advaita is no different from Buddha. Then he quotes some from Advaita and some from Buddha darshana. One upto preceding part to nirvisheShaM are Acharya’s words. “nirvisheShaM svayaM bhAtaM” upto “duHkhatA-viriddham” are quoted from Advaita. “nAsya sattvaM” to “padamakShayaM” quoted from Buddists.  

The following is accurate.

image.png

My response to the above observation:

The following are images from the book which has the commentary of Jayatirtha to the Tattvodyota of Madhva:

Image 1:

Tattvodyo Jaya 1.png

In this page, the highlighted line is of Jayatirtha: He introduces the discussion, the set of verses Madhva cites:  

 व्यावहारिकसत्वस्य तेनाप्यङ्गीकारात् ।  This is the line of Madhva which is in the top of the above image. 

सत्यं तु द्विविधं प्रोक्तं सांवृतं पारमार्थिकम् । सांवृतं व्यावहार्यं स्यान्निवृत्तौ पारमार्थिकम् ॥
विचार्यमाणे नो सत्त्वं सत्त्वं चापि प्रतीयते । यस्य तत्सांवृतं ज्ञेयं व्यवहारपदं च यत् ॥ इत्यादिना ।   These are the verses Madhva cites. 
Introducing these verses, Jayatirtha says:  To the question 'How is it known that the  vyavaharika satya of jagat is admitted by the Shunyavadin?' Madhva cites the very words of the Shunyavadin: तद्वाक्यादेवेति तदुदाहरति - Thus it is clear that the above verses are of the Shunyavadin. 

Image 2:
Tattvodyo Jaya 2.png

These are Madhva citing the further verses:  निर्विशेषं स्वयंभातं निर्लेपमजरामरम् । शून्यं तत्त्वमविज्ञेयं मनोवाचामगोचरम् ॥

For this verse too Jayatirtha says these are of the Shunyavadin. 

Image 3:

Tattvodyo Jaya 3.png


जाड्यसंवृतिदुःखान्तपूर्वदोषविरोधि यत् । नित्यभावनया भातं तद्भावं योगिनं नयेत् ॥
भावार्थप्रतियोगित्वं भावत्वं वा न तत्त्वतः । विश्वाकारं च संवृत्त्या यस्य तत्पदमक्षयम् ॥ इत्यादि तद्वचः ।  These verses Madhva cites, with the note: इत्यादि तद्वचः  are evidently of the Shunyavadin.  With this all the first batch of Buddhistic verses are over.  That this batch is over is evident from Jayatirtha's comment: Let this be what the Shunyavadin says. So what? In answer to this question, Madhva cites the line of the Mayavadin to say that 'Mayavadins too hold their Brahman (akin to what the Shunyavadin holds)'.   

Thus, the first batch of the verses Madhva cites up to the point before the line of the Mayavadin, are undoubtedly of the Shunyavadin as clearly stated by Jayatirtha who has actually bracketed those verses by his opening comment and the closing comment.
The rest of the verses Madhva cites (see below) are unambiguous as he himself says they are of the Shunyavadin: 
नास्य सत्त्वमसत्त्वं वा न दोषो गुण एव वा ।
हेयोपादेयरहितं तच्छून्यं पदमक्षयम् ॥ इति च शून्यवादी ।
सत्त्वादयो धर्माः परमार्थतो मायावादिनापि नाङ्गीक्रियन्ते । सर्वविशेषविनिर्मुक्तत्वाङ्गीकारात् ।
अवाच्यं सर्वशब्दैस्तल्लक्ष्यते चाखिलैः पदैः ।
अज्ञेयं ज्ञानलक्ष्यं च तच्छून्यं पदमक्षयम् ॥ इति च शून्यवादी ।
न चाखण्डत्वेन कश्चिद्विशेषः ।
यदखण्डपदं लक्ष्यं सर्वैरपि विशेषणैः । सर्वैर्विशेषणैर्मुक्तं तच्छून्यं पदमक्षयम् ॥ इति च शून्यवादी ।  

Thus, only one line of the Mayavadin (from the Sankshepashariraka of Sarvajnatman)  has been cited by Madhva.

warm regards
subrahmanian.v  
  
Regards,
Kesava Tadipatri


Kesava Tadipatri

unread,
Jun 13, 2022, 5:41:51 AM6/13/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste

Replying in the small window during my travel. So, pardon me for my brief reply.

Start-my-msg-quote:

>> If the three-way division of reality is true, then the following
>> two things are true.
>> 1. Any thing that is true in one level of reality is true in that
>> level of reality only.
>> 2. Nothing from one level of reality can move into another level
>> of reality.
End-quote.


> This is ridiculous. When you dream for some time and then wake up
>  will you say the person who had the dream is not the person who
> woke up?

> Think carefully what you are saying and correct it. The One who
> dreams is the same as One who wakes up.

> Similarly One who is in Vyavahara can move to Paramartha when and
> if enlightened.

Forget about thinking carefully. Are you even thinking? Even a 5 year old illiterate kid from a remote slum in Ghana or Ethiopia or India or Thailand knows that one who dreams is the same as one who wakes up. You do not need Upanishads to tell you that. Upanishds explain what happens in the dreams and how they are misunderstood. You seem to have no clue about what we are discussing even. First please note the difference between the person dreaming and the person in the dream. The dreaming person is one who is in flesh, blood and bones. The person in the dreams is one who is made of vAsanas (or mental impressions). To understand what we are discussing, first watch the youtube link that I sent in my prior mail. There the famous advaitin Tadatmananda explains Advaita position and justifies the Advaiita and tries to explain how non-Advaitins make mistakes. There he explains that the water on the table in this wakeful world will not quench the thirst of the person in the dream even if this reality is higher than dream reality. The water in the dream will not quench the thirst of a person in this wakeful world. Every reality stands by itself.

In such a case what happens? That is what I was referring to.

Also note that you as a dreamer and wakeful person and deep sleep-person are the same, it does not mean that you walked into your dream and when the dream ended, you came back to yourself. You were in bed all the time. So, why do you get confused? When you say that you move from wakeful(vyAvahArika) to Paramartha, are you saying that you moved from dream to wakeful state, because you as dreamer is same as you as wakeful person? What a heavy confusion?

Because millions of people also are susceptible to the kind of confusion you are going through, people like Sarvapriyananda are having a gala time drowning themselves and many others in utter confusion. They spread false stories like Ashtavakra telling King Janaka “vo bhi sach nahi, ye bhi sach nahi”(referring to Janaka’s dream that he is deprived of even a fistful of food and suffers hell and wakes up startled and waits for Ashtavakra to tell him that.)
Did Janaka(a great knowledgeable king) not even have the common sense that what he saw in his dream is not himself but only his mental image? Just as everyone knows that the dreaming person is the same as one who wakes up, everyone also knows that the person in the dream is not himself, but only a mental impression. You delve deeper into this episode and discussion, several flaws get revealed.

Perhaps their thinking is like this. When Janaka woke up, the Janaka in the dream stopped to exist. So, when someone else wakes up this Janaka in a wakeful state also stops to exist. The dreaming jIva is same as wakeful jIva, same as deep-sleep jIva, same as liberated jIva (who is supposed to be Brahman). So they use it like this? When the dream interface happened, The wakeful Jiva somehow walked into his dream and when he woke up, his dream ended, he walked back into a wakeful state, and his dream proved false. So, when some upAdhi/maaya interface happened, Brahma from paramArtha, walked into this world in the form of so many Jivas and when Brahman wakes up, all these walk back into that Paramartha state? OK, Jiva was helpless and so walked into dream and back from dream? What happened to Brahman? He is a victim of maaya and succumbed to it and became so many helpless jIvas and has to wait till what time to get back?

It is fine that these personalities like Sarvapriyananda get confused and confuse others also. Why pass on this confusion to King Janaka and AshTAvakra with the fake works like AshTAvakra Gita?

Our scriptures are crystal clear about the dream and wakefulness, etc. and so did not label them as truths, but as states – jAgradavasthA, svapnAvasthA, suShuptyavasthA and turyAvasthA.

And in spite of all this, some people were having the weird notion that this world is like a dream. So, Brahma sutras clearly stated -
OM vaidharmyAchcha na svapnAdivat OM | (For being completely different-kind, the visible world is not like a dream) – This is to completely flush out the losing argument of rope-snake analogy and nacre-silver analogy.

Regards,
Kesava Tadipatri

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CADHCXMViwYXPu_1apfY3h0r3Wgiyj3jf-vQ_b4GWuwjRJ9ZSLA%40mail.gmail.com.

Venkatraghavan S

unread,
Jun 13, 2022, 7:11:23 AM6/13/22
to भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Sir,

Re: "What is vyāvahārika cannot be Satyam, the other way round is also equally true, what is Satyam cannot be vyāvahārika. Therefore, the test of prāmānya or validity of vyāvahārika fails. "

On what basis is the above assertion made? Is it your undestanding that such a view that is acceptable to the advaitin, or is there some other basis which makes it true? The former is not true. Please see the Advaita Siddhi, where the advaitin's position on the basis of a verse from samkshepa shAriraka is mentioned:

अत एवोक्तम् 'आकाशादौ सत्यता तावदेका प्रत्यङ्मात्रे सत्यता काचिदन्या । तत्सम्पर्कात् सत्यता तत्र चान्या व्युत्पन्नोऽयं सत्यशब्दस्तु तत्र ॥' इति । यथा प्रतिभासिकरजते ज्ञातैकसदेकं रजतत्वम् । लौकिकपरमार्थरजते चाज्ञातसदपरं रजतत्वम्, तदुभयानुगतं चारोपितानारोपितसाधारणं रजतत्वं रजतशब्दालम्बनम् , एवमाकाशादावारोपितैका सत्यता, चिदात्मनि चानारोपिताऽपरा, तदुभयसाधारणी चान्या व्यावहारिकी सत्यता, सत्यशब्दालम्बनमिति भावः । 

"How is it that the provisional validity of vyāvahārika has truth value today when it is bound to be invalid tomorrow?"
The position espoused in advaita is svatah prAmANya, paratah aprAmANya - the validity of a cognition is intrinsic to the cognition itself; however, its falsification can only occur from something extrinsic to the cognition. That being the case, the validity being conferred to vyAvahArika pramANa today is intrinsic, whereas its falsification tomorrow can only occur on the basis of an equally valid pramANa. From this position, the advaitin says that for the individual who has not had aparoksha brahma sAkshAtkAra, the veda-s and its karma kANDa are valid pramANa-s - precisely because of pramANya svatastvam. The occurrence of a future bAdha is no grounds to invalidate scripture today - that is not how the advaitin understands prAmANya svatastvam, aprAmANya paratastvam in any case.

If the dvaitin chooses to infer such an implication, why should the advaitin by answerable to such a supposition drawn based on an incorrect understanding of his position?

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan

V Subrahmanian

unread,
Jun 13, 2022, 12:36:23 PM6/13/22
to BHARATIYA VIDVAT


On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 6:56:26 AM UTC+5:30 kesava.t...@gmail.com wrote:
Respected members,

Please show one scriptural evidence to show that there are two kinds of truth - vyAvahArika satya and Paaramaarthika satya apart from the works of Advaita - the entire canon of literature - Itihasas, Puranas, Shutis. Did Vedavyasa or Valmiki ever mention that there are two truths. What is meant by two levels? 

In the Bhagavata tatparya nirnaya Madhva cites a verse while commenting on this verse of the Bhagavata:

यदुपादाय पूर्वस्तु भावो विकुरुते परम् ।
आदिरन्तो यतो यस्मिंस्तत् सत्यमभिधीयते ॥ १८ ॥

 'पारमार्थिकसत्यत्वं स्वातन्त्र्यमभिधीयते । तद्विष्णोरेव नान्यस्य तदन्येषां सदाऽस्तिता''॥ इति च ॥ यद्ब्रह्मोपादाय । पूर्वः प्रकृत्यादिः । आदिरन्तश्च यद्ब्रह्मणि यस्मात् तस्मात् तह्म परमार्थसत्यम् ॥ १८ ॥ 
He has cited this verse for the previous verse's commentary:
'प्रकृतेस्तु विकाराणां कोट्यंशोऽभेद इष्यते । तथैवैकांशतो भेदः सोऽपि नाभेदवर्जितः । भेदाभेदमतः प्राहुरभेदं वा तयोर्बुधाः''॥ इति विवेके ॥ १७ ॥
Hence, the 'पारमार्थिकसत्यत्वं स्वातन्त्र्यमभिधीयते ।..verse is from the same text 'viveka'.
In the verse under consideration the word clearly says that Vishnu alone has paramarthika Satyatvam, Absolute reality, and all else does not have that paramarthika satyatvam. The second half of the verse says that everything else is is endowed with 'eternal existence'. In any case it is evident from the terminology employed here that there are two types of satyatvam that is admitted in this verse: Paramarthika satyatvam (Vishnu who alone is Swatantra (Independent) as per Madhva, and the other is paratantra (dependent) as per the Tattvasankhyana of Madhva).
On page 142 of the Book History of the Dvaita School of Vedanta and its Literature - B.N.K.Sharma  says:
// The TattvasankhyAna (11 granthas) enumerates the categories recognized
by Madhva.  Here*reality* is *dichotomized* into ‘Swatantra’ (Independent)
and ‘paratantra’ (dependent).  This is the highest metaphysical and
ontological classification in Madhva’s system, whence his system derives
its name ‘Dvaita’.  God Vishnu is the One Highest Independent Real.  All
else is dependent on Him, including the Goddess Lakshmi, the presiding
deity of a-cit prakRti.  // (emphasis mine)

//Everything in finite reality is grounded in the Infinite reality and
needs it for its *being and becoming*.//  p.62

The dependence of the world of matter and the souls on Brahman is in the
sense that both are functioning at His will, which is the *essential
condition and sustaining principle* that invests them with their reality *and
without which they would be but void names and bare possibilities.* //
(emphasis mine) (page 67)
Thus we see two types of reality are admitted by Madhvacharya. Going by the verse cited by him we can conclude that this Swatantra Satya corresponds to the Paramarthika Satya and the paratantra Satya is this same as vyavaharika satya. It is obvious that Madhva would not hold the latter to be unreal as Advaita does. 
Here is another verse cited by Madhva, in the Bhagavata Tatparya Nirnaya:
श्रीशुक उवाच–
नमः परस्मै पुरुषाय भूयसे
सदुद्भवस्थाननिरोधलीलया ।
गृहीतशक्तित्रितयाय देहिनाम्
अन्तर्ध्रुवायाऽनुपलभ्यवर्त्मने ॥ १२ ॥ (Bhagavatam)
गृहीतशक्तित्रितयायेति, 'इच्छा ज्ञानं क्रिया चेति नित्याः शक्तय ईशितुः । स्वरूपभूता अपि तु भेदवद्व्यावहारिकाः''॥ इति प्रकाशसंहितावचनान्नित्यगृहीतशक्तित्वमेव ॥ १२ ॥
The three powers - Iccha, Jnana and Kriya - of Brahman stated to be vyavaharika even though they are inalienable from Brahman. He cites other verses too that have the term 'vyavaharika' that distinguish it from Vishnu.  
Thus, we have, in Madhva's own works evidence for 'Paramarthika satyatvam' and the other category 'vyavaharika (satyatvam)'.  
In the light of the above, one can revisit the various textual evidences presented in the earlier post (shown below) for the terms 'paramartha' and 'vyavahara'. 
regards
subrahmanian.v

Kesava Tadipatri

unread,
Jun 13, 2022, 1:10:00 PM6/13/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste.

I am not sure what you are trying to achieve here. I have pointed to one place and you are talking about prior ones. 

You yourself said "anRutajaDavirodhirUpa..." is maayavaadi quote. 

Then "naasya sattvamasattvaM vA..." is shunyavaadi quote obviously. 

All this is currently not even relevant. Acharya paraphrases some times and quotes as is some times. 

But obviously the context is that both maayavaada and shUnyavaada have a lot of similarity. 

Is that true or not is a separate discussion altogether. Here the discussion is about the validity of maayavaada especially regarding two kinds of truth.

Is that the case or not?
 
Regards,
Kesava Tadipatri

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/TTpeCOsAP44/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te3KZX14DQGbnetEMP%3DrLqO_qDj%2B7S8sw15WKTeGHU1Xgw%40mail.gmail.com.

V Subrahmanian

unread,
Jun 13, 2022, 1:48:08 PM6/13/22
to BHARATIYA VIDVAT
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 10:39 PM Kesava Tadipatri <kesava.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
Namaste.

I am not sure what you are trying to achieve here. I have pointed to one place and you are talking about prior ones. 

Namaste.

That post of mine was in response to your original statement //Secondly that is from set of quotes of maayaavAdi. Afterr all those bunch of statements, Acharya saya “iti cha maayaavAdi”. After that AchArya quotes shUnyavaadi(Buddhist). //

Since you had said that Madhwa cites 'a set of verses of the Advaitin'  I showed from Jayatirtha's commentary to clarify that Madhva has cited only one line of a verse of the Advaitin and all the other verses prior and after that line are clearly Buddhist verses.  

regards
vs

 
  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAMH4yMHm5L7V_TLne-inTp%2BwDhhkFE%2BCr12Y7_EnjNK5G-4acQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Venkatesh Murthy

unread,
Jun 14, 2022, 1:13:31 AM6/14/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 3:11 PM Kesava Tadipatri <kesava.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Also note that you as a dreamer and wakeful person and deep sleep-person are the same, it does not mean that you walked into your dream and when the >dream ended, you came back to yourself. You were in bed all the time. So, why do you get confused? When you say that you move from wakeful(vyAvahArika) >to Paramartha, are you saying that you moved from dream to wakeful state, because you as dreamer is same as you as wakeful person? What a heavy >confusion?

There is no confusion. What you are saying regarding not walking into a dream, and so on is also obvious to any child. There is  no great revelation by you. Everybody knows the dreamer does not walk into his dream or waking state. I wrote the same person moves from one state to another only in a figurative sense and not literally. In summary the same person experiences dream, waking and deep sleep states. It is the same person on the dawn of Jnana who experiences the Turiya also where Vyavaharika objects will not exist. This is the Paramarthika reality. 


Raghavendra

unread,
Jun 14, 2022, 2:17:00 AM6/14/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Hello Sir,

Greetings of the day,

Knowledge is self valid, not perceptual error.

At 10pm, perceptual error occurred on the part of the perceiver due to prevailing conditions which impacted contact of his sensory apparatus with the object, {which in this case is a 'rope'}.

At 10.05pm, *the rope was seen as a rope as it is* and it's validity was on account of the following, 

◆it was seen by flawless senses,
◆there was certainty of it, that it was not due to defective senses,
◆the rope seen had pragmatic efficiency (that it could be used to tying purposes),
◆there was an agreement with the perception of such rope on an earlier occasion / earlier day,
◆there was absence of disagreement,
◆and more importantly, the rope was seen as rope *as it is*. 

This means, under normal conditions the knowledge of rope carried with itself, *it's own (self) validity*. 

The question is, how provisional reality (vyāvahārika status) is assigned to objects seen under normal conditions which carry with them their own (self) validity.  

I am asking this question in the backdrop of Srī Shankara agreeing to self validity of knowledge as his siddhānta position. 

This is my jigñāsā, answer to this question is highly appreciated, 

Thank you & best regards,
Raghavendra. B

Sent from RediffmailNG on Android
=============================
From: Venkatesh Murthy <vmur...@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 11:34:25 GMT+0530
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} About 'Vyavaharika - Paramarthika'

Namaste


On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 10:56 AM 'Raghavendra' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>To say, vyāvahārika is *māna* at one time and *amāna* at another time is a contradiction, which goes against the very concept of स्वगोचर or >स्वतस्त्वम् of knowledge. 

Let us suppose a person is witnessing a snake instead of a rope - a case of Bhrama.

At time say 10 PM he is witnessing the snake and he is convinced it is real and its reality cannot be questioned because of स्वतस्त्वम् of knowledge of the snake.

After some time say at 10:05 PM a passer by will tell him it is not a snake but a rope. This is when he realizes the snake he is thinking is not a snake but a rope. This happens at time 10:05 PM which is later than 10 PM.

What do you say now? At time 10 PM the snake was real and at time 10:05 PM it is not real.

The same happens to Vyavaharika objects. They are real now but at the time of dawn of knowledge they will lose reality.

But you can still argue the snake was real at one time and so it cannot be false absolutely. Yes we agree it is not absolutely false but it cannot be absolutely real also. We call it Anirvachaniya because it is neither real nor false nor both real and false.









From: Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 15:14:42 GMT+0530
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} About 'Vyavaharika - Paramarthika'

https:roups.google.com/g/bvparishat/c/dI1QgECjvCk/m/PMv0JzghE8sJ

 

Sri Sureshwaracharya concurs with the Acharya’s Bhashya!!

In his Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashya Vartika, while commenting, in verse form, the Bhashya of Bhagavatpada, for the mantra: ‘सत्यं च अनृतं च सत्यमभवत्’, the VArtikakAra says:

व्यावहारिकमेवात्र सत्यं स्यादधिकारतः ।     (सत्यं च व्यवहारविषयम्, अधिकारात्, Bhashya)

पारमार्थिकसत्यस्य वाक्यान्ते समुदीरणात् ॥ 407  (परमार्थसत्यम् bhashya)

[The word satyam which occurs at the beginning of the sentence means empirical truth because of the context and also because of the fact that the absolute truth is spoken of at the end of the sentence.]

It can be seen beyond doubt that Sri Sureshwaracharya unambiguously uses the words ‘pAramArthika satyam’ and ‘vyAvahArika satyam’ to comment upon Bhagavatpada’s words: ‘paramArthasatyam’ and ‘vyavahAra-vishayam’.

It becomes certain that Sri Sureshwaracharya has initiated the use of the two terms:  ‘pAramArthika satyam’ and ‘vyAvahArika satyam’ that have been popularly used by the Advaita Acharyas of the Sampradaya initiated by Shankara Bhagavatpada.

This brings us upto the the two terms : vyaavahaarika and paaramaarthika.

Extracting of praatibhaaasika from Shankara's works, adding it to these two and forming the set of three seems to have happened later to Sureshwaracharya.


On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 3:09 PM Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:
Namaste

Although Shankaracharya has not mentioned the term 'sattātraividhya' or 'prātibhāsika sattā' in the prasthānatraya bhāṣya, there is a clear mention of all the three sattās in one place: The Taittiriyopanishad bhāṣya: 2.6:

'सत्यं च अनृतं च सत्यमभवत्' -

He comments on the above mantra:

सत्यं च व्यवहारविषयम्, अधिकारात्, न परमार्थसत्यम्; एकमेव हि परमार्थसत्यं ब्रह्म । इह पुनः व्यवहारविषयमापेक्षिकं मृगतृष्णिकाद्यनृतापेक्षया उदकादि सत्यमित्युच्यते । अनृतं च तद्विपरीतम् । किं पुनरेतत् सर्वं सत्यमभवत् परमार्थसत्यम् ।

He does not name the third as 'prātibhāsikam' but simply says 'the word 'anṛtam' of the mantra means 'that which is of the nature of the mirage-water'.  Sureshwaracharya, in the vārtika to the above bhāṣya says:

व्यावहारिकमेवात्र सत्यं स्यादधिकारतः ।     (सत्यं च व्यवहारविषयम्, अधिकारात्, Bhashya)

पारमार्थिकसत्यस्य वाक्यान्ते समुदीरणात् ॥ 407  (परमार्थसत्यम् bhashya)

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 6:56:26 AM UTC+5:30 kesava.t...@gmail.com wrote:
Respected members,

Please show one scriptural evidence to show that there are two kinds of truth - vyAvahArika satya and Paaramaarthika satya apart from the works of Advaita - the entire canon of literature - Itihasas, Puranas, Shutis. Did Vedavyasa or Valmiki ever mention that there are two truths. What is meant by two levels? 


These verses of Vishnu Purana uphold the Paramarthika – Vyavaharika’ premise:

विष्णुपुराणम्/षष्टांशः/अध्यायः ७

https://sa.wikisource.org/s/1smd

तद्भावभावमापन्नस्ततोऽसौ परमात्मना ।

भवत्यभेदी भेदश्च तस्याज्ञानकृतो भवेत् ॥ ६,७.९५ ॥

विभेदजनके ज्ञाने नाशमात्यन्तिकं गते ।

आत्मनो ब्रह्मणो भेदमसंतं कः करीष्यति ॥ ६,७.९६ ॥

इत्युक्तस्ते मया योगः खाण्डिक्य परिपृच्छतः ।

संक्षेपविस्तराभ्यां तु किमन्यत्क्रियतां तव ॥ ६,७.९७ ॥

खाण्डिक्य उवाच

कथिते योगसद्भावे सर्वमेव कृतं मम ।

तवोपदेशेनाशेषो नष्टश्चित्तमलो यतः ॥ ६,७.९८ ॥

ममेति यन्मया चोक्तमसदेतन्न चान्यथा ।

नरेन्द्र गदितुं शक्यमपि विज्ञेयवेदिभिः ॥ ६,७.९९ ॥

अहं ममेत्यविद्येयं व्यवहारस्तथानयोः ।

परमार्थस्त्वसंलाप्यो गोचरो वचसां न सः ॥ ६,७.१०० ॥

तद्गच्छ श्रेयसे सर्वं ममैतद्भवता कृतम् ।

यद्विमुक्तिप्रदो योगः प्रोक्तः केशिध्वजाव्ययः ॥ ६,७.१०१ ॥

It is vyavaharika state to say 'I am mine', due to  Avidya. The ‘paramarthika’ state is beyond words; cannot be articulated.  


The purport of these lines of Buddhist texts cited by Madhva in Tattvodyota  – 

सत्यं तु द्विविधं प्रोक्तं सांवृतं पारमार्थिकम् ।

सांवृतं व्यावहार्यं स्यान्निवृत्तौ पारमार्थिकम् ॥

पैङ्गलोपनिषत्

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paingala_Upanishad

This text, Adhyatmaramayanam, is regarded as authentic by the Vaishnavas of the North:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambhadracharya's_literary_style   //After examining his Sanskrit thesis titled Adhyātmarāmāyaṇe Apāṇinīyaprayogānāṃ Vimarśaḥ (Deliberation on the non-Paninian usages in the Adhyatma Ramayana),//  


'Tattvamasi' Mahavakya - in Shiva Puranam 
In the Shiva Puranam https://sa.wikisource.org/s/t6f there is a stuti of Brahma and Vishnu of Shiva. In this context it is stated that Vishnu secured five mantras and performed the japa of the same:
पुनर्मृत्युंजयं मन्त्रं पञ्चाक्षरमतः परम् ।। 
चिंतामणिं तथा मंत्रं दक्षिणामूर्ति संज्ञकम् ।। ४८ ।।
 ततस्तत्त्वमसीत्युक्तं महावाक्यं हरस्य च ।।
 पञ्चमंत्रांस्तथा लब्ध्वा जजाप भगवान्हरिः ।। ४९ ।।

Śukarahasya Upaniṣad

 https://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_upanishhat/shuka.html    The word 'mahavakya' occurs several times. 

महावाक्यान्युपदिशेत्सषडङ्गानि देशिकः । 

केवलं न हि वाक्यानि ब्रह्मणो वचनं यथा ,, १५॥

एवं महावाक्यषडङ्गान्युक्तानि ॥

अथ महावाक्यानि चत्वारि । यथा ।

ॐ अस्य श्रीमहावाक्यमहामन्त्रस्य हंस ऋषिः । अव्यक्तगायत्री छन्दः । 

परमहंसो देवता । हं बीजम् । सः शक्तिः । सोऽहं कीलकम् |

मम परमहंसप्रीत्यर्थे महावाक्यजपे विनियोगः ।

श्रीशुक उवाच

देवादिदेव सर्वज्ञ सच्चिदानन्द लक्षण ।
उमारमण भूतेश प्रसीद करुणानिधे ॥ ९॥

उपदिष्टं परब्रह्म प्रणवान्तर्गतं परम् ।
तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्यानां प्रज्ञादीनां विशेषतः ॥ १०॥

regards

subrahmanian.v

Om Tat Sat 

Some one can come up with arbitrary 10 levels and say that there are ten truths. naiSha tarkena matirApaneyA. 

Sorry. I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings,

Regards,
Kesava Tadipatri



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.


--
Regards
 
-Venkatesh

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

Kesava Tadipatri

unread,
Jun 14, 2022, 7:01:14 AM6/14/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste.

Your-quote:

There is no confusion. What you are saying regarding not walking into a dream, and so on is also obvious to any child. There is  no great revelation by you. Everybody knows the dreamer does not walk into his dream or waking state. I wrote the same person moves from one state to another only in a figurative sense and not literally. In summary the same person experiences dream, waking and deep sleep states. It is the same person on the dawn of Jnana who experiences the Turiya also where Vyavaharika objects will not exist. This is the Paramarthika reality.
End-quote.

Agreed that regarding not walking into dream, it is obvious to you and even the child that no revelation is needed for that as it is in pratyakSha realm. The discussion here is about the turya state, which is in non-pratyakSha realm. Either you did not watch the video or did not understand the video. If you did not understand the video, watch it again and again until you understand it. It gives precisely the Advaita position.

Claiming that Jiva is same as Brahma in wakeful state here, which is vyAvahArika satya, but Jiva did not realize it, but when Jiva realizes it, it enters the ParamArthika satya and pAramArthika state is bAlisha vAk based upon the video explanation and you gave exactly that statement -

Your-Quote:
Similarly One who is in Vyavahara can move to Paramartha when and if enlightened.
End-quote.

The video says -

1. svapna prapaMcha – prAtibhAsika – projected reality
2. This prapaMcha – vyAvahArika – empirical reality
3. Turya stage – pAramArthika – absolute reality

A1. What ever is 1, remains in 1. Period. It will not go into 2
A2. What ever is in 1, will not go into 3.
B1. Similarly, whatever is in 2, remain in 2. Period. It will not go into 1.
B2. What ever is in 2, will not go into 3.
C1. Similarly, whatever is in 3, remain in 3. Period. It will not go into 1.
C2. What ever is in 3, will not go into 2.

You wrote that there is no confusion. But you have terrible amount of confusion.

P1: Whatever is obvious to the child and also to you and also to all, and no revelation is needed are only A1 and B1. For all others, viz. A2, B2, C1 and C2, either revelation is needed or perfect ability to logically analyze is needed. You have no clarity on these.

P2: You are so confused that you wrote this time -

Your-Quote:
I wrote the same person moves from one state to another only in a figurative sense and not literally.
Unquote.

In fact that is not true. The same person does move from one state to another literally.

Actually you wrote earlier not about the states, but that the same person moves from one world to another literally – like from actual dream to wakeful world and vice versa. That is what is objected to.

P3: The confusion is between states and worlds and between worlds and truths and between states and truths. Dream world and our actual world are two different kinds. States are fully fine. There are no multiple truths.

The problem is that instead of saying “a person moves from dream state to wakeful state and vice versa”, Advaitins say things like -

P3-1: A person moves from one world to another world.

and in another breath

P3-2: Nothing moves from one world to another.

P4. You bring some figurative stuff to justify some other situation. But this figurative stuff itself is confusing and unacceptable. You do not make conclusions in shaastras based on figurative stuff. The conclusions are made from actual things or logical things and not figurative things.  

Unable to handle your confusion, you accuse me that I am doing some revelations. I am not doing any revelations, but pointing your own absurdities and confusion, which you vehemently deny.

P5. You are able to realize that objects do not go from vyavahAra to Turiya, but not able to realize that Jivas can not go from vyavahAra to Turiya and as you face this quandary, you pull a fast one that it is figurative.

Virus-free. www.avast.com

Raghavendra

unread,
Jun 14, 2022, 1:03:07 PM6/14/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
V. Subramanian Ji,

Svasti,

On many counts, your assessment of paramarthika and vyavaharika vis-à-vis the system of Sri. Madhva is 100% wrong. 

Before, I elaborate, why you are wrong, where you are wrong, I would like to capture the following, 

◆Recently, a question was addressed to you to show evidence (scriptural or otherwise) for paramarthika and vyavaharika truths. 

◆Your articles written, earlier on, on the subject matter, which were posted on the BVP platform and outside of it, were re-posted such that the questioner could get all of it, in one place.  

◆Your survey covered quite a large span of literature, it had quotations from numerous sources, and they were enlisted in support of the classification of truth (paramarthika and vyavaharika), but, it had not covered the works of Sri Madhvacharya.

◆On June 9, 2022, you presented few quotes from the writings of Sri Madhvacharya, ^which according to you, supported the classification of truth (paramarthika and vyavaharika) as we find them in the works of Sri Shankara and his school^.  

◆Your conclusion was this: ^Madhva’s works also have evidence concerning the paramarthika and vyavaharika classification of truth^. 

Firstly, the ontology of Shankara and Madhva are not the same.

Let’s take the conception of paramarthika for a *quick litmus test*, 

The highest ontological reality (paramarthika) of Madhva is a *द्रव्य*. 

The highest ontological reality (paramarthika) of Shankara is *not a द्रव्य*.

The contention that the paramarthika conception of both the Acharyas’ is the same is thus wrong, because there a huge difference between what is a द्रव्य and what is not a द्रव्य.  

Because, the highest ontological reality (paramarthika) of Madhva is a द्रव्य, the सविशेष, सगुण, साकार and other innumerable auspicious qualities of the Vedantic Brahman naturally follows *as qualities can only inhere in a द्रव्य*. 

Because the highest ontological reality (paramarthika) of Shankara is ●not a dravya●, the question of the Vedantic Brahman (shuddha-brahman) having qualities doesn’t arise at all. *Qualities cannot inhere in what is not a dravya and hence the Vedantic Brahman is निर्विशेष निर्गुण, and निराकार* here. 

Secondly, Sri Madhva has 10 ontological categories which make up this universe, द्रव्य is one among them, the द्रव्य has 20 classifications, Shri Hari is प्रधान-द्रव्य, 

द्रव्य सामान्यतः परः is what Sri. Madhva himself says. 

Sri Jayateertha makes it abundantly clear when he says: द्रव्यं भगवान् इति in his celebrated Nyaya Sudha commentary. This is to be borne in mind when one understands the conception Svatantra reality of Sri Madhva, it is exclusive, the rest (paratantra) is metaphysically dependent on the Svatantra reality and thus DR. BNK Sharma used the term *dichotomy*, which means exclusivity on the side of Svatantra reality, because, the being and becoming of the rest (paratantra) is under his metaphysical control. 

Thus, the ‘correspondence’ you tried to make out between the ontological conceptions of Madhva and Shankara is strikingly wrong. 

Coming to the quote from the Bhagavata-tatparya-nirnaya and the term व्यावहारिकाः  which you have highlighted in yellow is not the व्यावहारिक of the conception of Shankara at all.

स्वरूपभूता अपि तु भेदवत् व्यावहारिकाः – Here Sri Madhvacharya is discussing the concept of Vishesha which is a self-differentiating mechanism, which didn't strike to you at all. You seem to have taken that term on the face value and hurried up to a hasty conclusion not realising what is behind it. The term भेदवत् is key here. 

The इच्छा, ज्ञान, क्रिया belong to Him eternally but they are not separate from HIM, they are स्वरूपभूत, yet the vyavhaara (vishehsa) brings in the semblance of difference (भेदवत् व्यावहारिकाः) among those qualities. Thus, your english translation of it is 100% wrong and it happily misrepresents the force behind it. 

In Madhva’s conception, the इच्छा-शक्ति of Sri Hari can function as ज्ञान-शक्ति, and क्रिया-शक्ति as इच्छा-शक्ति and so on *mutually*, though, there is absolutely no difference in His bosom, yet the differentiation is possible amongst those स्वरूपभूत qualities through the functioning of the visheshas. Please note that vishesha as a differentiating mechanism can work in a dravya.     

I am placing on record the *right-angle view of the ontology of Sri Madhva* such that the misrepresentation which created thick air is cleared.

Scholars from the तत्ववाद school of Sri. Madhva, who are on the group, are requested to take note of it, such that the correct view gets presented to the group at large and beyond it. 

Sir - You are a scholar of eminence in your own school of thought, I respect it, here I have no intention of pointing the misrepresentation happened deliberately, we live in an age where everything has to happen in nano-seconds and in real time, when hurried up it happens sometimes. The intention is just to place the record straight. 

Thank you 
Raghavendra. B
=============
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 22:06:26 GMT+0530
To: BHARATIYA VIDVAT <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} About 'Vyavaharika - Paramarthika'





On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 6:56:26 AM UTC+5:30 kesava.t...@gmail.com wrote:
Respected members,

Please show one scriptural evidence to show that there are two kinds of truth - vyAvahArika satya and Paaramaarthika satya apart from the works of Advaita - the entire canon of literature - Itihasas, Puranas, Shutis. Did Vedavyasa or Valmiki ever mention that there are two truths. What is meant by two levels? 

These verses of Vishnu Purana uphold the Paramarthika – Vyavaharika’ premise:

विष्णुपुराणम्/षष्टांशः/अध्यायः ७

https://sa.wikisource.org/s/1smd

तद्भावभावमापन्नस्ततोऽसौ परमात्मना ।

भवत्यभेदी भेदश्च तस्याज्ञानकृतो भवेत् ॥ ६,७.९५ ॥

विभेदजनके ज्ञाने नाशमात्यन्तिकं गते ।

आत्मनो ब्रह्मणो भेदमसंतं कः करीष्यति ॥ ६,७.९६ ॥

इत्युक्तस्ते मया योगः खाण्डिक्य परिपृच्छतः ।

संक्षेपविस्तराभ्यां तु किमन्यत्क्रियतां तव ॥ ६,७.९७ ॥

खाण्डिक्य उवाच

कथिते योगसद्भावे सर्वमेव कृतं मम ।

तवोपदेशेनाशेषो नष्टश्चित्तमलो यतः ॥ ६,७.९८ ॥

ममेति यन्मया चोक्तमसदेतन्न चान्यथा ।

नरेन्द्र गदितुं शक्यमपि विज्ञेयवेदिभिः ॥ ६,७.९९ ॥

अहं ममेत्यविद्येयं व्यवहारस्तथानयोः ।

परमार्थस्त्वसंलाप्यो गोचरो वचसां न सः ॥ ६,७.१०० ॥

तद्गच्छ श्रेयसे सर्वं ममैतद्भवता कृतम् ।

यद्विमुक्तिप्रदो योगः प्रोक्तः केशिध्वजाव्ययः ॥ ६,७.१०१ ॥

It is vyavaharika state to say 'I am mine', due to  Avidya. The ‘paramarthika’ state is beyond words; cannot be articulated.  


The purport of these lines of Buddhist texts cited by Madhva in Tattvodyota  – 

सत्यं तु द्विविधं प्रोक्तं सांवृतं पारमार्थिकम् ।

सांवृतं व्यावहार्यं स्यान्निवृत्तौ पारमार्थिकम् ॥

पैङ्गलोपनिषत्

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paingala_Upanishad

तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्यानां प्रज्ञादीनां विशेषतः ॥ १०॥

regards

subrahmanian. v

Om Tat Sat 


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https:roups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te3zutTROubd_Ye7h29OUDhv5tgqi+4zitNBns4=dJU...@mail.gmail.com.

Venkatesh Murthy

unread,
Jun 14, 2022, 3:01:57 PM6/14/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste

Though some scholars have attempted to show Svatantra and Paratantra reality as Paramarthika and Vyavaharika reality respectively the traditional Dvaita scholars have not accepted it. No point in forcing it. Vyavaharika reality is provisional but Paratantra reality is not provisional though it depends on Svatantra. And Svatantra is not Nirguna like Paramarthika. 


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

Kesava Tadipatri

unread,
Jun 14, 2022, 11:43:06 PM6/14/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste.

You claim that you do not have confusion?

My friend,

At 10 pm also there was no snake. For a millionth time, try to differentiate between view point and reality. bhrAnti does not create satyatva. prAmAnya-svatastva is only when there are no doShas like bhrAnti. bhrAnti is a dosha.

At 10 pm, you did not know that “At 10:05 pm, my bhranti is going to go away”. At 10 pm, you did not even know that you have bhranti. But the weird thing is that now you know that you have bhranti that this world is real. You are also assuming that this bhranti will go away some time in future. Don't even know when it will go away. Funny part is that you are Brahman and you have one bhranti that this world is real and another bhranti that you are different from Brahman. You have no clue that you are Brahman (The passer by told that it is not a snake and it helped that person. But a passer-by told you that you are Brahman and still it didn't dawn on you. This world is like a nonexistent snake – someone told you and still you are waiting for one wrong knowledge to go away and one right knowledge to come in some time in future).

There is no point repeating something like a parrot. Think at least a little bit.

Regards,
Kesava Tadipatri

Virus-free. www.avast.com

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/TTpeCOsAP44/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CADHCXMUQGKyzjDUtyYf3Q4cciyeuQRU_oxGKvUO-zt4u7tze%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

Virus-free. www.avast.com

Kesava Tadipatri

unread,
Jun 14, 2022, 11:43:06 PM6/14/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste.

It is very strange that you try to derive Advaita sense from the works of Madhva and madhva scholars as well like “gumma of Purandara dasa” is avidya of Advaita and now “Paramarthika and vyAvahArika satyatva” from Madhva’s commentary. But I can assure you that your efforts will be futile only.

You are quoting Madhva and ignoring his own comments, which are not only clear, but consistent with all his works and all the works of Sri Vedavyasa.

“पारमार्थिकसत्यत्वं स्वातन्त्र्यमभिधीयते ।"

pAramarthikasatyatva is defined as svAtantrya or independence. So, this is a warning removing any scope for Advaitic way of interpreting
pAramarthikasatyatva ( they say - absolute reality, which is that Brahman alone is satya). The fact is that Brahma alone is svatantra. Has to be. So, this is classification of entities and not at all classification of satya or truth. Only one is svatantra.

Tattvaviveka and tattvasankhyAna do the same. tattvasankhyAna says -

svatantramasvatantram cha dvividham tatvamiShyate |
svatantro bhagavAn viShNurbhAvAbhavau dvidhetarau ||

So, Paramarthika satyatva is not absolute reality in Advaita sense.

Bhagavan Vishnu alone is svatantra. Of course it has to be like that. Right? There can not be two svatantra entities. All others are paratantra only.

He is not only svatantra, He is also sarvapradhAna (eka) and sarvottama (Supreme). If nothing else exists, where is the question of sarvapradhAna and sarvottama?

tattvas are of two kinds and not satyatva is of two kinds. Note what is divided. You are quoting tattvasaMkhyAna, but not getting it right. What is objected to is Advaita way of vyAvahArika satya, which is also called mithya. There is no mithyAtva at all. All the rest(other than Paramatma) are paratantra tattva. They are not atattva or asatya or mithya or vitatha or vaitathya or anRuta.

Here ** reality ** is not dichotomized. Real entities are dichotomized. nityo nityAnAm, cetanashcetanAnam – all these indicate plurality – that is eternal and undeniable.

Go all the way down on tattva-saMkhyAna – then you get the picture. Here dependent Reality is still reality only. Subdivision of real entities should not be mixed up with subdivision of reality. Reality is vastusthiti. Do not get mixed up between view points and the facts. What ever is in the sankalpa of Paramatma is what is given in our scriptures and those are satya as there as per satya-sankalpa. All the discussions of rajju-sarpa bhranti, shukti-rajata bhrAnti are pointing out the view points of the deluded.

There is lot of difference between statements –

1. There is vyavahAra of all these.

2. All these are vyAvahArika satya, which is actually mithya.

1. is fully acceptable. (So, jnAna, ichCha and kriya all are explained as to how we think, desire and conduct).
2. is not at all acceptable.

The following is what Advaita says - yes or no ? -
Maya made Saguna Brahma come out of NirguNa brahma. SaguNa Brahma created this universe, which is mithya. The Brahman is like rajju. The universe is like sarpa. The Brahman was affected by upAdhi/avidya and appeared to be many Jivas. Each Jiva is Brahman, who was affected by the amnesia and does not know that He is Brahman. So, we are all the same Brahmans and yet arguing with each other, due to our ignorance We are all seing Brahman (rajju) and mistaking for sarpa (world). When the light of knowledge dawns all Jivas realize that they are Brahman and this world (sarpa) does not exist.

So the question is why in the first place Brahman got the delusion and should all the Jivas come out of delusion at the same time or different times? After all Jivas realize that they are all same Brahman, where is the guarantee that Brahman wont get deluded again and multiply Himself into many Jivas? Why should He go thru all that granting that He is svatantra?

Regards,

Kesava Tadipatri

Virus-free. www.avast.com

V Subrahmanian

unread,
Jun 15, 2022, 12:53:48 AM6/15/22
to BHARATIYA VIDVAT
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 10:33 PM 'Raghavendra' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
V. Subramanian Ji,

Svasti,

On many counts, your assessment of paramarthika and vyavaharika vis-à-vis the system of Sri. Madhva is 100% wrong. 

Before, I elaborate, why you are wrong, where you are wrong, I would like to capture the following, 

◆Recently, a question was addressed to you to show evidence (scriptural or otherwise) for paramarthika and vyavaharika truths. 

◆Your articles written, earlier on, on the subject matter, which were posted on the BVP platform and outside of it, were re-posted such that the questioner could get all of it, in one place.  

◆Your survey covered quite a large span of literature, it had quotations from numerous sources, and they were enlisted in support of the classification of truth (paramarthika and vyavaharika), but, it had not covered the works of Sri Madhvacharya.

◆On June 9, 2022, you presented few quotes from the writings of Sri Madhvacharya, ^which according to you, supported the classification of truth (paramarthika and vyavaharika) as we find them in the works of Sri Shankara and his school^.  

Namaste

My response was for this question:  

//Please show one scriptural evidence to show that there are two kinds of truth - vyAvahArika satya and Paaramaarthika satya apart from the works of Advaita - the entire canon of literature - Itihasas, Puranas, Shutis. Did Vedavyasa or Valmiki ever mention that there are two truths. What is meant by two levels? //

This is what Madhva cites and says:

'पारमार्थिकसत्यत्वं स्वातन्त्र्यमभिधीयते । तद्विष्णोरेव नान्यस्य तदन्येषां सदाऽस्तिता''॥ इति च ॥ यद्ब्रह्मोपादाय । पूर्वः प्रकृत्यादिः । आदिरन्तश्च यद्ब्रह्मणि यस्मात् तस्मात् तह्म परमार्थसत्यम् ॥ १८ ॥ 

The word 'पारमार्थिकसत्यत्वं ' is from a source that Madhva cites. Hence it qualifies to be an answer to the question: 
//itihasas, Puranas, Shutis. Did Vedavyasa or Valmiki ever mention that there are two truths. //  

Can you deny that a non-Advaitic source has not ever mentioned Paramarthikasatya?  That Madhva does not take it in the same sense that Advaita takes it is obvious, it does not need to be told to an Advaitin by a Dvaitin. It is as clear as sunlight. So your fundamental thesis underlying your response is flawed. 

So with the term 'vyavaharika'.  The numerous sources I have cited for both the words, sometimes occurring together, and the instance/s cited by Madhva,  also go to prove that the claim behind the original question ///itihasas, Puranas, Shutis. Did Vedavyasa or Valmiki ever mention that there are two truths. // is not founded on truth. 

That Swatantra and Paratantra/vyavaharika are classified as two 'realities' as stated by BNK is also undeniable.

//// The TattvasankhyAna (11 granthas) enumerates the categories recognized
by Madhva.  Here*reality* is *dichotomized* into ‘Swatantra’ (Independent)
and ‘paratantra’ (dependent). // 
and 
//The dependence of the world of matter and the souls on Brahman is in the
sense that both are functioning at His will, which is the *essential
condition and sustaining principle* that invests them with their reality *and
without which they would be but void names and bare possibilities.* //

Thus the very 'sattaa' of the dependents is dependent on the Swatantra, the Paramarthika satya.

The only analogy for a case of 'dependent reality' is the rope-snake.  The superimposed snake has no reality of its own; it has to depend on the reality of the underlying rope which alone has, in the analogy, a reality of its own.  That Madhwa would not agree to the mithyatva of the dependent is another matter. 

 So, reality = satyatva, is what is dichotomized. 

That they do  not mean the same as what they mean to the Advaitin is also as clear as sunlight that it did not need your alerting other Madhvas.  I have never claimed that they mean the same to Madhva. I have also explicitly stated this. 

All I have done is to show that there does exist the classification of reality as Paramarthika and Vyavaharika outside the Advaitic works. For that I cited their usage, from the citing, by Madhva too from an external text. After having challenged originally without this knowledge and now trying to watering it down is only an exercise in futility. 

Hence, what you have gone on to 'clarify' below is also not really a response to what I have said by citing Madhva. 

warm regards
subrahmanian.v


◆Your conclusion was this: ^Madhva’s works also have evidence concerning the paramarthika and vyavaharika classification of truth^. 

Firstly, the ontology of Shankara and Madhva are not the same.

etc.... 


Venkatesh Murthy

unread,
Jun 15, 2022, 1:52:39 AM6/15/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste

On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 9:13 AM Kesava Tadipatri <kesava.t...@gmail.com> wrote:


At 10 pm also there was no snake. For a millionth time, try to differentiate between view point and reality. bhrAnti does not create satyatva. prAmAnya-svatastva is only when there are no doShas like bhrAnti. bhrAnti is a dosha.

The world or Vyavahara is a Bhranti is the central point of Advaita. This Bhranti is Naisargika and the Dosha is identification of Brahman-Atman with the body, family, status, and so on. This Bhranti will end only with Jnana got by Mahavakyas like Tatvamasi through a Guru. 

At 10 pm, you did not know that “At 10:05 pm, my bhranti is going to go away”. At 10 pm, you did not even know that you have bhranti. But the weird thing is that now you know that you have bhranti that this world is real. You are also assuming that this bhranti will go away some time in future. Don't even know when it will go away. Funny part is that you are Brahman and you have one bhranti that this world is real and another bhranti that you are different from Brahman. You have no clue that you are Brahman (The passer by told that it is not a snake and it helped that person. But a passer-by told you that you are Brahman and still it didn't dawn on you. This world is like a nonexistent snake – someone told you and still you are waiting for one wrong knowledge to go away and one right knowledge to come in some time in future).

Like I said above the knowledge has to come from a  Guru who is himself a Brahmanishtha. If some random person tells you the same thing a million times the Bhranti will not end.

V Subrahmanian

unread,
Jun 15, 2022, 4:48:10 AM6/15/22
to BHARATIYA VIDVAT
A typo in my earlier email:   // well known Madhava scholar //  The correct word:  Madhva. 

vs

On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 2:15 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:


On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 11:22 AM Venkatesh Murthy <vmur...@gmail.com> wrote:
Namaste

On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 9:13 AM Kesava Tadipatri <kesava.t...@gmail.com> wrote:


At 10 pm also there was no snake. For a millionth time, try to differentiate between view point and reality. bhrAnti does not create satyatva. prAmAnya-svatastva is only when there are no doShas like bhrAnti. bhrAnti is a dosha.

The world or Vyavahara is a Bhranti is the central point of Advaita. This Bhranti is Naisargika and the Dosha is identification of Brahman-Atman with the body, family, status, and so on.

In this connection one can view this short video clip where the earlier Pejawar Swamiji is explaining the fundamental bhrama of taking the body to be oneself and how it leads to raga - dvesha, and punya papa and, implicitly, samsara and, the need to know the truth.  Please see the attachment.

In a short audio clip the well known Madhava scholar Shri Haridasa Bhattacharya talks about the body superimposition and the effects it causes. Please see the attachment.

Vyavaharika satya (Mithya) - An example

Here is an example devised by the noted Madhva scholar  Shri A.V. Nagasampige Acharya and delivered in Kannada during a talk in a Sukla Yajur Veda assembly a few years ago at the venue of the Kannada Sahitya Parishat, Bangalore.  I am giving the English gist of the same:

A man went to a doctor for a health check. A number of tests, such as of the heart, were done and he was told that the results would come about a week later. The man spent the week worrying about the various ailments he could be having. The report came in and the doctor said there was no cause for concern. What the man imagined and believed as true is vyavaharika satya while it was in contradiction to his true state of health, the paramarthika satya.

warm regards
subrahmanian.v
 

Kesava Tadipatri

unread,
Jun 15, 2022, 6:52:07 AM6/15/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
There is many a slip between the cup and the lip. There is no guarantee that he was right. There is no guarantee that you understood right. There is no guarantee that you translated correctly. There is no guarantee that you presented correctly. If there is a link to his full audio/video, pls share it. A partial clip may not be right as we dont even know if it was presented as pUrvapakSha or siddhAnta. If all you told is correct, then I would not even hesitate to tell right in his presence that he is not right and challenge his position. But before that, prove your point that he did say as siddhAnta what you claim.

That is one thing. Secondly, you can not establish a siddhanta from examples as any one can give any number of examples for any which way. If people give examples of mistaking a snake for a rope or silver for a nacre, there are also examples that a ghaTa is truly a ghaTa and paTa (cloth) is truly a paTa. That is what is called prakaraNa-sama. vishvam mithyA dRushyatvAt, then vishvaM satyaM dRushyatvAt also. 

Regards,
Kesava tadipatri

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/TTpeCOsAP44/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te1H52xq9_Ona457TCGLATQUyAdyfvAWADYacwdm2JX-EA%40mail.gmail.com.

Venkatesh Murthy

unread,
Jun 15, 2022, 9:13:39 AM6/15/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste

On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 at 11:47 AM 'Raghavendra' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Hello Sir,

Greetings of the day,

Knowledge is self valid, not perceptual error.

Worldly knowledge or Vyavaharic knowledge is invalidated exactly like perceptual error at the dawn of Jnana is the most important conclusion of Vedanta. The example of perceptual error like serpent-rope, shukti-rajata and so on exactly fit the worldly illusion and exactly why they are given for illustration purpose. No doubt, the world is an illusion. 

How is the perception of the world an illusion aka Bhrama but not Prama is the central question.  In answer Adi Shankaracharya has explained in very clear terms in the Adhyasa Bhashya at the beginning of the Brahma Sutra Bhashya. Kindly read it. एवमनादिरनन्तो नैसर्गिको अध्यासो मिथ्याप्रत्ययरूप: कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वप्रवर्तक: सर्वलोकप्रत्यक्ष:। अस्य अनर्थहेतो: प्रहाणाय आत्मैकत्वविद्याप्रतिपत्तये सर्वे वेदान्ता आरभ्यन्ते। 
--
Regards
 
-Venkatesh

Raghavendra

unread,
Jun 15, 2022, 9:52:22 AM6/15/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Clarification,

The term pAramArthika-satya is used in different source texts and it is not denied, but, for Madhva, its import is quite different from what it is for Shankara, this fact is agreed by both of us. What is the basis for the difference in its import? It is a dravya for Madhva, not a dravya for Shankara. 

The terms pAramArthika-satya and vyAvahArika-satya are used severally and together in many works of literature are not denied. What is denied is that they have the same connotation, we have agreed to this point already.     

Now comes the use of the term ‘dichotomy’ by Dr. BNK Sharma. He has used that term and it is not denied.

This requires a little bit of explanation which I will try to the best of my understanding.

The starting point is the thinking self (selves). They are reals as they have an existence in a definite Spatio-temporal setting. Similarly, there is matter confined within a definite Spatio-temporal setting. There is something beyond these two.  

So, we have, real-A, real-B, and real-C. What pulsates in and through these three reals is the reality. The generic property these three reals have is tattva-tva dharma. What is to be noticed is that the generic property tattva-tva is samAna in all three. (in other words, they possess sAmAnya-dharma) It is through this sAmAnya-dharma that the grouping of real-A, real-B, and real-C is done. 

Now, we are required to name (uddesha) this group, and that name of this group is tattvam (tattva-tva rUpa sAmAnya dharmam = prameyatvam)  

According to Sri Madhva, the term tattvam (=prameyatvam) also serves the purpose of lakshaNa, and thus he proceeds with vibhAga into svatantra and paratantra, this is sAmAnya-vibhAga.

Thus, the highest metaphysical and ontological conception of Sri Madhva is Independence and reality. 

Independence in all its bearings exclusively belongs to Sri Hari alone, the rest of the reals have Spatio-temporal relations and their being and becoming are due to Him. This point you have captured as: ‘the very sattaa of the dependents is dependent on the Swatantra, the Paramarthika satya’. 

You have given a snake-rope analogy for the explanation of dependent reality. This is where we straight away depart. By the term tattvam, what is understood is anArOpitattvam pramitivishyayaH or prateetivishayatvavishishta anArOpitattva. 

Therefore, the one which has metaphysical independence for its sattA-traividyA viz., svarUpa-pramiti-pravrutti, is svatantra-tattva and the others which are dependent on svatantra-tattva for their sattA-traividyA viz., svarUpa-pramiti-pravrutti is asvaantra-tattva or paratantra-tattva. This is a classification of reality not the division of reality. It is with this background that the learned professor used the expression: dichotomized.   

Thus, I conclude that the svatantra-tattva of Sri Madhva has no correspondence with the pAramAthika-satya of Sri Shankara. The asvatantra-tattva  or paratantra-tattva of Sri Madhva is by no stretch of the imagination the vyAvahArika-satya of Sri Shankara.  

Thank you
Raghavendra B
=============
From: V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 15 Jun 2022 10:23:51 GMT+0530
To: BHARATIYA VIDVAT <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} About 'Vyavaharika - Paramarthika'

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https:roups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te1gXF6a0Suv1erWeVQH...@mail.gmail.com.

V Subrahmanian

unread,
Jun 15, 2022, 2:45:58 PM6/15/22
to BHARATIYA VIDVAT
On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 6:43 PM Venkatesh Murthy <vmur...@gmail.com> wrote:
Namaste

On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 at 11:47 AM 'Raghavendra' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Hello Sir,

Greetings of the day,

Knowledge is self valid, not perceptual error.

Worldly knowledge or Vyavaharic knowledge is invalidated exactly like perceptual error at the dawn of Jnana is the most important conclusion of Vedanta. The example of perceptual error like serpent-rope, shukti-rajata and so on exactly fit the worldly illusion and exactly why they are given for illustration purpose. No doubt, the world is an illusion. 


Rope-snake analogy [Brahma satyam jagan mithya]:


Srimad Bhagavatam 4.22.38 [There is Sridhara Swamin's (1378-1414) commentary for these verses]


यस्मिन्निदं सदसदात्मतया विभाति
माया विवेकविधुति स्रजीवाहिबुद्धिः ।
तं नित्यमुक्तपरिशुद्धविशुद्धतत्त्वं
प्रत्यूढकर्मकलिलप्रकृतिं प्रपद्ये ॥३८॥


आत्मानमेव आत्मतया अविजानतां
तेनैव जातं निखिलं प्रपञ्चितम् ।
ज्ञानेन भूयोऽपि च तत्प्रलीयते
रज्ज्वां अहेर्भोगभवाभवौ यथा ।। 10.14.25 


अन्तर्भवेऽनन्त भवन्तमेव
ह्यतत्त्यजन्तो मृगयन्ति सन्त: ।
असन्तमप्यन्त्यहिमन्तरेण
सन्तं गुणं तं किमु यन्ति सन्त: ॥ २८ ॥ 10.14.28

Skanda Purana:  https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2022/04/08/the-world-is-mithya-skanda-purana/

संसृतिः कल्पनामूलं कल्पना ह्यमृतोपमा॥
यैः कल्पना परित्यक्ता ते यांति परमां गतिम्॥ ३१.५६ ॥

Bondage is born of imagination. Those who give up this imagination attain the Supreme.

शुक्त्यां रजतबुद्धिश्च रज्जुबुद्धिर्यथोरगे॥
मरीचौ जलबुद्धिश्च मिथ्या मिथ्यैव नान्यथा॥ ३१.५७ ॥

Like the shell-silver, rope-snake, mirage-water, bondage is unreal.   

regards
subrahmanian.v

Vichitra Thandava

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 12:24:53 AM6/16/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Jun 11, 2022, 12:22 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:
Note:  This post is in reply to a discussion that was included in a 'Digest of BVP'.  Since the topic was not clear, I have given the above subject line in tune with the topic being discussed:

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 6:56:26 AM UTC+5:30 kesava.t...@gmail.com wrote:
Respected members,

Please show one scriptural evidence to show that there are two kinds of truth - vyAvahArika satya and Paaramaarthika satya apart from the works of Advaita - the entire canon of literature - Itihasas, Puranas, Shutis. Did Vedavyasa or Valmiki ever mention that there are two truths. What is meant by two levels? 
This text, Adhyatmaramayanam, is regarded as authentic by the Vaishnavas of the North:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambhadracharya%27s_literary_style   //After examining his Sanskrit thesis titled Adhyātmarāmāyaṇe Apāṇinīyaprayogānāṃ Vimarśaḥ (Deliberation on the non-Paninian usages in the Adhyatma Ramayana),//  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

Kesava Tadipatri

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 12:24:54 AM6/16/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Namaste.

The main thing in adhyAsabhAshya is that just as one mistakes a snake for a rope (snake is superimposed on rope), all (here do they mean the gods and human beings or all living beings or some other?) are mistaking the Brahman (counterpart of rope) as this world (counterpart of snake).

This adhyAsa-bhAshya can be completely routed and rejected. I am giving below in simple terms, which any open-minded Advaitin can understand.

Just think about what is happening in the rope-snake analogy.

Will a one year-old baby mistake a rope for a snake? Absolutely not. Right? Why? Because that child is not aware of any snakes and so does not have the knowledge of a real snake.

Look at the pitiable state of adhyAsa-bhAShya/vaada or super-imposition theory. Their goal is to establish the unreality of the world. For that they bring the analogy of a snake superimposed on the rope. To show the unreality of something, they have to accept more real things.

There are 8 golden factors for superimposition (adhyAsa) and sublation (apavAda) to happen.

1. There must be two real entities (R and S).
2. There must be a third entity (P), which is sentient and which perceives one of the two entities (R).
3. There must be striking similarities between the two real entities.
4. The sentient entity must be aware of the existence of both the entities and also know about the striking similarity. This leads to superimposition (adhyAsa) by the subject in question.
5. The sentient entity must have the memory of S.
6. There must be a scope for verification by the subject, leading to  the sublation (apavAda) of the S by the subject.
7. The process of superimposition must be quite feasible for other-way around as well. (like a person mistaking a snake for a rope or real silver for a nacre, etc)
8. The other sentient entity (say J), who presents this picture must not have this confusion and also must know that the subject(P), subjected to superimposition can succeed in sublating the wrong thought.
In conclusion -
  - both J and P must have seen both the entities(the real entity R
      and the superimposed entity S).
  - both(J and P) remember both of them (R and S)
  - both (R and S) must have striking similarities to the extent of
      leading to a confusion.
  - P yields to the confusion
  - J does not yield to the confusion
  - J is aware of the P getting confused.

Now, using the Rope-snake analogy, the Advaitin/adhyAsa-bhAshya claims that all of us are seeing Brahman (counterpart of rope) and confusing that it is this world (counterpart of snake). This means that all of us have seen Brahman before and all of us have seen the Real world elsewhere and there is striking similarity between the two and we have not only the knowledge of both, but also the similarity between the two. So for rejecting the reality of this world, you have to accept the reality of another world, you are fully aware of.

I know you people have no answer for this and will just avoid this, or wander off, or keep repeating the same or bring some other quotes, just beat around the bush.

Regards,
Kesava Tadipatri

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/TTpeCOsAP44/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CADHCXMVOXL1nYqQjhJqN3UFCot0X5fb-0hp1EwLdgQn91gKUZQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Nagaraj Paturi

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 12:39:50 AM6/16/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Both the preceding mails by Sri Kesava Tadipatri and Sri Vichitra Tandava were awaiting approval at the same time and got approved at the same time and appeared here simultaneously. So these two mails are not conversing with each other. Sri Vichitra Tandava is not responding to Sri Kesava Tadipatri. 

I request Sri Vichitra Tandava to clarify which contradiction he is referring to in the mail below. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJFXi17ndAkqOXZ0mysUrHB%2BNOEnZrAZRicTTJq-0B6gra1vQw%40mail.gmail.com.

V Subrahmanian

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 2:39:33 AM6/16/22
to BHARATIYA VIDVAT
On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 4:22 PM Kesava Tadipatri <kesava.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
There is many a slip between the cup and the lip. There is no guarantee that he was right. There is no guarantee that you understood right. There is no guarantee that you translated correctly. There is no guarantee that you presented correctly. If there is a link to his full audio/video, pls share it. A partial clip may not be right as we dont even know if it was presented as pUrvapakSha or siddhAnta. If all you told is correct, then I would not even hesitate to tell right in his presence that he is not right and challenge his position. But before that, prove your point that he did say as siddhAnta what you claim.

If you are talking about the health check example, it was not presented as a purvapaksha.  The Acharya was simply saying that the idea of the 'vyavaharika satya' can be appreciated well through this example. The event was not any vaada.  Of his own accord he said this after an Advaitin scholar had presented his talk on an aspect of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (Shukla Yajur Veda). I do not have any record of it.  I was present in the audience.  

Regarding Sri Haridasa Bhattacharya's audio clip, it is from this larger video:    A debate organized in Vidyapeetha (Bangalore). It is in the form of a dialogue, question by Sri Haridasa Bhatta and the reply by Dr.Prabhanjanacharya.  The clip starts from 27.40 in the video.  When the cause of our misery is body-self identification, where is the need for an Ishwara in remedying the situation?  The reply is: The cause of our misery is not body-self identification, not knowing Ishwara.     


Regarding the video clip of the Pejawar Swamiji, I do not have access to the full video. In any case, it is quite evident from the clip that it is not stated as a purvapaksha.  It is said as a matter of fact by the Swamiji.  In this way, there is no contradiction between what was stated by Sri Haridasa Bhatta and the Pejawar Swamiji. 

In the Sanskrit booklet ‘apaccheda nyāya vaiṣamyam’ authored by Vidwan Vāsudevāchārya Sattigeri and published by the Pūrṇaprajña samśodhana mandiram, Bengaluru 560028, at the end, on page 41, is stated the opinion expressed by Śri Viśveśa Tirtha Swaminaḥ, the head of the Pejawar Maṭha:


Pejawar bhrama bhagavata.png

The above translated: //This aspect remains to be deliberated upon: The perceptions ‘I am a human, I am a Brāhmaṇaḥ’, etc. when had with the knowledge that ‘I am the one residing in the human body’, are clearly not errors. On the other hand, if such perceptions are had with the idea of a direct identification (with the body), then that they (those perceptions) are bhrama (erroneous perceptions) is clearly established in works such as the Bhāgavatam.//

 

An instance of such a perception is seen in the Śrimadbhāgavatam 7.1.22,23:


निन्दन स्तव सत्कार न्यक्कारार्थं कलेवरम् ।
प्रधानपरयो राजन् अविवेकेन कल्पितम् ॥ २२ ॥
हिंसा तदभिमानेन दण्डपारुष्ययोर्यथा ।
वैषम्यं इह भूतानां ममाहं इति पार्थिव ॥ २३ ॥
यन्निबद्धोऽभिमानोऽयं तद् वधात् प्राणिनां वधः । 


The commentary on this part by Sri Vijayadhvaja Tirtha, of the Dvaita school is:


Body adhyasa vijayadhwaja.png


Here is a similar usage found in Shankaracharya’s words:

 

केचित्तु यत्र यदध्यासः तद्विवेकाग्रहनिबन्धो भ्रम इति । [Adhyāsa bhāṣya] [‘Bhrama’ is the non-discrimination pertaining to the thing there.]



Madhva cites in the Bhagavata tatparya nirnaya:



'आत्मभावः शरीरे तु द्रव्यभ्रम उदाहृतः ।  क्रियाभ्रमस्त्वहं कर्ता मदीयानीन्द्रियाणि तु ॥



This is what Shankara has said in the Adhyasa bhashya: अहमिदम्, ममेदम् इति नैसर्गिकोऽयं लोकव्यवहारः |


 

 

regards

vs  

V Subrahmanian

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 2:55:43 AM6/16/22
to BHARATIYA VIDVAT
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 9:54 AM Kesava Tadipatri <kesava.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste.

The main thing in adhyAsabhAshya is that just as one mistakes a snake for a rope (snake is superimposed on rope), all (here do they mean the gods and human beings or all living beings or some other?) are mistaking the Brahman (counterpart of rope) as this world (counterpart of snake).


This is your fundamental misunderstanding of the Adhyasa bhashya. This document is not about a person taking Brahman for the world.  On the other hand, it is about taking oneself to be not self that consists of the body, organs etc.Please read that document once again.  This 'I am the body' adhyasa is accepted by all schools. Since Dvaita also holds this adhyasa to be anAdi, your question 'there has to be a real body first in order for one to mistake it for oneself' is addressed not only to the Advaitin but to all schools.  Also, about that 'real' body, a further question would be:  Who created that real body, Ishwara or Prakruti, and kept it before the jiva and enabled the adhyasa? In order to make a mistake, the jiva has to have a mind. But when there is no body to start with, how can there be a mind?  And what body was that, human, deva, asura, animal, insect, plant....?  If someone chooses one among these, what caused that choice to the exclusion of the others? If there is no papa or punya without a body, why would one get any of these bodies? Why would Ishwara or Prakruti produce such a body and display it before the jiva? When the jiva can't even see it, without a body mind, etc. how can such an adhyasa ever take place? There is no answer to any of these questions. The default reply is: such a body is imagined due to anAdi avidya.  The remedy, fortunately, is there in the Upanishads: know your true nature.  
   
regards
vs
 


Vichitra Thandava

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 2:58:32 AM6/16/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
I was referring to the mail opening this thread from V Subramanian.

The BVP group for some reason doesn't seem to add the name of the person whose communication is being responded to, unlike other groups. 

Vijaender 



Kesava Tadipatri

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 3:47:48 AM6/16/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste


यस्मिन्निदं सदसदात्मतया विभाति
माया विवेकविधुति स्रजीवाहिबुद्धिः ।
तं नित्यमुक्तपरिशुद्धविशुद्धतत्त्वं
प्रत्यूढकर्मकलिलप्रकृतिं प्रपद्ये ॥4-22-३८॥
(vibuddhatattvaM is a preferred pATha. When parishuddha is told, no point repeating it as vishuddha)

How can anyone comment this wonderful verse in Advaita sense? For doing such an act, one ignored many things told in this verse and picks up couple of words like asat and maaya and ignores all the rest and comments in a totally weird way?

The true and great meaning of this is as follows -

Every Advaita sense is washed away in this verse.

prapadye = I seek refuge in, I surrender to -

tam = Him
(Just see what kind of Lord He is).

If the PurvapakSha says -
“Brahman only is going thru sukha-duHkha in mAyA-built paMchabhUtAtma body, Brahman is in saMsAra now and Brahman will be eventually liberated”, then such is refuted by the following.

only a vimukta(already liberated one) will liberate others -
“vimuktashcha vimuchyate”.  He is svAmy and others are Bhrutyas – this has to be accepted because of that expression – yasmin, etc.

yasmin = One in whom
idaM = This whole universe (comprising of).
sat = physically noticeable bhutas (like Prithivi, etc.)
asat = physically non-perceivable (sky, etc.)
AtmatayA vibhAti = appears as non-different from Lord.
(such)
mAyAvivekavidhutiH = mAyayoH jnAna-prakRutyabhidheyayoH vivekAt (viveka is discriminating power) vidhuti = vidhvaMsa.
The ayogirAddhAnta is destroyed. How? Example is shown.
sraji = rajjau = in rope. ahirbuddhiH vA = thinking that it is rope.

This is total purport.

Just as – due to lack of proper knowledge of rajju and snake-jnAna  is formed in rope, such wrong knowledge is removed by correct knowledge from GurUpadesha, containing info of crawling, hood of snake, soft and smooth touch, etc. similarly the identity knowledge between God and the rest is removed.
pramANabAhulyAdarshanAt-tattvajnAnopadeShTra-AchArya-vAkyAdvA brahmaNo jagadAtmatvaM vidhUyate.

From nityamukta word Brahman being in the saMsAra as Jiva is ruled out. nityamuktatvAdi-lakShaNAnAm ananyaSadAraNAnAm sattvAt na brahmaNaH saMsAro yukta iti spaShTayan -

Brahman is nityamukta and ananyasAdhAraNa lakShanas in Him. So, no question of saMsAra for Him. Attributing saMsAra to Brahman is a blasphemy.

Note starts with yasmin and connects with taM (to such).
He is nityamukta, He is parishuddha and He is vibuddha-tattva. That means that tattva is anAropita tattva.

He is pratyUDhakarmakalilaprakR^itiH = pratyUDhe niraste karmapuNyapApa-lakShaNam adR^iShTam sattvAdiguNakalilA prakR^itiShcha yena saH = One who is devoid of the bondage of adR^iShta in the form of puNya and pApa and prakRuti consisting of satvAdi guNas.

yatsvarUpatayA bhAtamajnAnAm gaganAdikam vivekajnAninA rajjau sarpamAvidvidhUyate taM nityamuktabhAvena nirasta-pApapuNyAkhya-karmam
nirasta-prakRutim bhajet |

The wrong knowledge of identifying the world consisting of sky, etc. with the Lord is removed just as wrong knowledge of snake for rope is removed by  the vivekajnAna, surrender to such Lord, with the awareness that He is ever-liberated and has no bondage of karma and PrakRuti.

For this PramANas are given -

\"na bhrAntirjagato dR^iShTirna bhrAntirharidarshanam | anyo.anyAtmatayA dR^iShTirbhrAntirityavadhAryatAm | mAyeti j~nAnanAmA syAnmAyeti prakR^itistathA | j~nAnasvarUpaM viShNostu prakR^itirna harestanuH | evaM vivekino vishvaM brahmarUpeNa neShyate | paMcha-bhUtAtmakaM dehaM viShNoH pashyantyayoginaH | tathA na yogirAddhAnto j~nAnadeho yato hareH\" iti pramANa-bAhulyAnmAyAdishabdAnAmukta evArtho na durvAdikalpita iti niravadyaM, sarpamAvat sarpaj~nAnavat |

"न भ्रान्तिर्जगतो दृष्टिर्न भ्रान्तिर्हरिदर्शनम्। अन्योऽन्यात्मतया दृष्टिर्भ्रान्तिरित्यवधार्यताम्। मायेति ज्ञाननामा स्यान्मायेति प्रकृतिस्तथा। ज्ञानस्वरूपं विष्णोस्तु प्रकृतिर्न हरेस्तनुः। एवं विवेकिनो विश्वं ब्रह्मरूपेण नेष्यते। पंच-भूतात्मकं देहं विष्णोः पश्यन्त्ययोगिनः। तथा न योगिराद्धान्तो ज्ञानदेहो यतो हरेः" इति प्रमाण-बाहुल्यान्मायादिशब्दानामुक्त एवार्थो न दुर्वादिकल्पित इति निरवद्यं सर्पमावत् सर्पज्ञानवत्।

Every new argument and new quote you bring in will take you deeper and deeper into the quagmire. Also such thoughts against the All Supreme and flawless Lord is not advisable at all.

Regards,
Kesava Tadipatri

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/TTpeCOsAP44/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te2XwzookBKkRjOiXa_YYY_N%3Djzj6wh1YDQA1tun5QKfKg%40mail.gmail.com.

V Subrahmanian

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 4:49:50 AM6/16/22
to BHARATIYA VIDVAT
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 1:17 PM Kesava Tadipatri <kesava.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
Namaste

यस्मिन्निदं सदसदात्मतया विभाति
माया विवेकविधुति स्रजीवाहिबुद्धिः ।
तं नित्यमुक्तपरिशुद्धविशुद्धतत्त्वं
प्रत्यूढकर्मकलिलप्रकृतिं प्रपद्ये ॥4-22-३८॥
(vibuddhatattvaM is a preferred pATha. When parishuddha is told, no point repeating it as vishuddha)

Yes, Sridhara Swamin takes that word as vibuddhatattvam and not as it appears in some other editions.

But the purva paksha that you conceive of does not even arise there:  The previous verse says that Brahman shines in the heart of all beings. So, it may be concluded that Brahman is endowed with the attributes  of those beings, high and low. To ward off such a conclusion the present verse says that the selfhood of Brahman is not real; maayaa.  This word is taken as a separate word.  It is the adjective for the rope-snake. Upon right knowledge of the Tattvam, one will know that the world-connection of Brahman is only a seeming and not real.   It is so simple and does not complicate things.  And this interpretation does not even consider the word asat the way you imagined.  sat and asat mean only utkrustha and nikrushta bhavas in the world. 

regards
vs


 

Venkatesh Murthy

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 11:57:04 AM6/16/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste 


On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 at 9:54 AM Kesava Tadipatri <kesava.t...@gmail.com> wrote:



There are 8 golden factors for superimposition (adhyAsa) and sublation (apavAda) to happen.

1. There must be two real entities (R and S).
2. There must be a third entity (P), which is sentient and which perceives one of the two entities (R).
3. There must be striking similarities between the two real entities.
4. The sentient entity must be aware of the existence of both the entities and also know about the striking similarity. This leads to superimposition (adhyAsa) by the subject in question.
5. The sentient entity must have the memory of S.
6. There must be a scope for verification by the subject, leading to  the sublation (apavAda) of the S by the subject.
7. The process of superimposition must be quite feasible for other-way around as well. (like a person mistaking a snake for a rope or real silver for a nacre, etc)
8. The other sentient entity (say J), who presents this picture must not have this confusion and also must know that the subject(P), subjected to superimposition can succeed in sublating the wrong thought.
In conclusion -
  - both J and P must have seen both the entities(the real entity R
      and the superimposed entity S).
  - both(J and P) remember both of them (R and S)
  - both (R and S) must have striking similarities to the extent of
      leading to a confusion.
  - P yields to the confusion
  - J does not yield to the confusion
  - J is aware of the P getting confused

This is faulty reasoning because there is a big problem. You are not differentiating what happens in Bhramakaala and what happens in Bhramottarakaala viz after Bhrama has ended. In Bhramakaala the affected person will see a snake and he will be thinking only of snake but not rope. He is ignorant of the rope. In Bhramottarakaka he will see the rope. 

The question now is if the snake is real? Your explanation in Point 1 above says it is real. This is absurd. How can a real snake appear in an illusion? If you say it is real till the Bhrama ends we accept it. But it is not absolutely real. 

If you say the snake is absolutely false also you are wrong. How can an absolutely false snake be seen by anyone? Therefore we have to conclude the snake is Anirvachaniya or Mithya. 

Coming to world illusion also the person will think the world is real as long as he is ignorant of Brahman.  Learning at the feet of a Guru that the world is not real but Brahman is the reality he will overcome the illusion. 
--
Regards
 
-Venkatesh

Kesava Tadipatri

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 1:35:00 PM6/16/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Your  grammatical interpretation is completely unacceptable. Just use some vibhakti knowledge. 

yasmin is in saptamI vibhajti. sadsasdAtmatayA is in tRutIyA vibhakti. "selfhood of Brahman" is in prathamA vibhakti. it does not say sadasadtmatva of Brahman. Your anvaya does not even arise here. Sridharaswamy's interpretation can completely be refuted. 

Secondly the claim that selfhood of Brahman is not real, it is just maaya, finds no place and no support anywhere. That is total blasphemy on the glory of the Lord.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/TTpeCOsAP44/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te3sSO4ev2a74C7B%3DucmPUOLiaGjKVjd%3DXNcfi%2BG84iANA%40mail.gmail.com.

V Subrahmanian

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 1:55:13 PM6/16/22
to BHARATIYA VIDVAT
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 11:05 PM Kesava Tadipatri <kesava.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
Your  grammatical interpretation is completely unacceptable. Just use some vibhakti knowledge. 

yasmin is in saptamI vibhajti. sadsasdAtmatayA is in tRutIyA vibhakti. "selfhood of Brahman" is in prathamA vibhakti. it does not say sadasadtmatva of Brahman. Your anvaya does not even arise here. Sridharaswamy's interpretation can completely be refuted. 

 sadsasdAtmatayA is in tRutIyA vibhakti. Yes. What it means is: since Brahman is the self of everything, and since Brahman is the one in which everything is contained, Brahman is the sadasadAtmataka. This is what is denied: it is a false appearance in Brahman and when the advitiya asanga nature of brahman is realized, the wrong idea goes, like the serpent idea goes upon the rope knowledge. 

If Sridhara swamin's interpretation can be refuted, even your interpretation can.  In fact the former is already a refutation of the latter. 


Secondly the claim that selfhood of Brahman is not real, it is just maaya, finds no place and no support anywhere. That is total blasphemy on the glory of the Lord.

neha nanasti kinchana, ekameva advitiyam and a host of Shruti passages are in support of that idea. That these are given a completely different interpretation by others is another matter. 

regards
vs 


V Subrahmanian

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 2:12:03 PM6/16/22
to BHARATIYA VIDVAT
Rope-snake, shell-silver and mirage water analogies in Skandapurana:

स्कन्दपुराणम्/खण्डः ४ (काशीखण्डः)/अध्यायः ०१०


विश्वानर उवाच ।। ।।

एक ब्रह्मैवाद्वितीयं समस्तं सत्यं सत्यं नेह नानास्ति किंचित् ।।
एको रुद्रो न द्वितीयोवतस्थे तस्मादेकं त्वां प्रपद्ये महेशम् ।। २६ ।।

Here we find some unmistakable references to some Upanishadic passages. 
एक ब्रह्मैवाद्वितीयं   is a reference to the popular Chandogya 6.2.1 passage: सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम् । 

नेह नानास्ति किंचित्  - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad ‘नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ४ । १९) [Advaita conforms to this Puranic interpretation of this mantra.]

एको रुद्रो न द्वितीयोवतस्थे   -  Shvetashvataropanishad:  एको हि रुद्रो न द्वितीयाय तस्थुर्य 3.2

एकः कर्ता त्वं हि सर्वस्य शंभो नानारूपेष्वेकरूपोऽस्य रूपः ।।
यद्वत्प्रत्यप्स्वर्क एकोप्यनेकस्तस्मान्नान्यं त्वां विनेशं प्रपद्ये ।।२७।।

  नानारूपेष्वेकरूपोऽस्य  - Kathopanishad 2.5.12  एको वशी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा एकं रूपं बहुधा यः करोति ।  

‘एको देवो बहुधा सन्निविष्टः’ (तै. आ. ३ । १४ । १) ‘एकः सन्बहुधा विचार’ (तै. आ. ३ । ११ । १) ‘त्वमेकोऽसि बहूननुप्रविष्टः’ (तै. आ. ३ । १४ । १३) ‘एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा’ (श्वे. ६ । ११) 

रज्जौ सर्पः शुक्तिकायां च रूप्यं नैरःपूरस्तन्मृगाख्ये मरीचौ ।।
यद्वत्तद्वद्विष्वगेष प्रपंचो यस्मिञ्ज्ञाते तं प्रपद्ये महेशम् ।। २८ ।।

The three analogies: snake in a rope, silver in shell and water in mirage - when the knowledge of the Supreme arises, the world will be known to be a superimposition. 

 यथा शुक्तिकायां रजताभावं पश्यति ; तदुच्यते ब्रह्मैव अर्पणमिति, यथा यद्रजतं तत् शुक्तिकैवेति ।  Gita bhashya 4.24 shell-silver.

न हि निरास्पदा रज्जुसर्पमृगतृष्णिकादयः क्वचिदुपलभ्यन्ते केनचित् । Mandukya karika bhashya: 1.6 There is no superimpostion without a substratum.  

A few 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 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."

.......

त्वत्तः सर्वं त्वं हि सर्वं स्मरारे त्वं गौरीशस्त्वं च नग्नोऽतिशांतः ।।
त्वं वै वृद्धस्त्वं युवा त्वं च बालस्तत्त्वं यत्किंनास्यतस्त्वां नतोस्मि ।। ३३ ।।

Here we see the Shvetashvataropanishat 4.3 paraphrased: त्वं वै वृद्धस्त्वं युवा त्वं च बालस्तत्त्वं  -  

That everything/everybody is indeed Brahman is taught in this mantra. 

त्वं स्त्री त्वं पुमानसि त्वं कुमार उत वा कुमारी।
त्वं जीर्णो दण्डेन वञ्चसि त्वं जातो भवसि विश्वतोमुखः॥ 

Thou art the woman and Thou the man; Thou art a boy and again a young virgin; Thou art yonder worn and aged man that walkest bent with thy staff. Lo, Thou becomest born and the world is full of thy faces.

The Aham Brahma asmi is explained in these two chapters of the Garuda Purana (with English translation):

Here, in five chapters, the Garuda purana gives an explanation of Advaita:


Although the above file is in Kannada, yet, one can read just the Sanskrit verses/passages alone and get to know the purport.

Om    
 

Kesava Tadipatri

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 11:09:12 PM6/16/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com

>> neha nanasti kinchana, ekameva advitiyam and a host of Shruti
>> passages are in support of that idea. That these are given a
>> completely different interpretation by others is another matter.

It is not another matter. It is the central point of the matter.

We went thru this kind of statements and neither we agree with your interpretation nor you agree with ours. We will be going in circles

neha nanasti kinchana = There is not even a little bit of manyness here (in His case) = There is no difference between His one guNa and another guNa, His one shakti and another shakti, His one form and another form, etc = He is svagata-bheda-vivarjita.

ekameva advitIyam = He is unique, All-Supreme, Most important and He is peerless.

This is simple straight forward. Your round-about explanation goes against many scriptural statements and goes against our own common sense and conscience. It goes against not only Dvaita, but even every other religion in the world excluding Advaita. Being unique is one thing and being absurd is yet another.

The host of shruti statements are pulled out-of-context, taking partial statements and bearing no support anywhere and going against the Supremacy of the Lord. Such an act is a blasphemy in every which way.


Kesava Tadipatri

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 11:09:12 PM6/16/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Where is your anvaya? Where is sadasadAtmakatA ? 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/TTpeCOsAP44/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te2-RJ4Dj376jVV86ms_hNLFKLVHDkme4Rxe5TmCtkdCGQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Kesava Tadipatri

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 11:09:12 PM6/16/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Oh my God, that garuDapurANa commentary can be routed and refuted line by line, It is absurdity at its peak. I will do that in a couple of months. Leave alone the wrong interpretation. That person does such bad self-contradictions, that it is ridiculous and laughable.

On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 1:44 PM Kesava Tadipatri <kesava.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
The kannada Garuda purana itself starts with assumption and an absurd statement. It says - Here Vishnu is not Lakshmipati BhagavaMta, but nirguNa brahma having sarvavyApitva. One has to decide whether this commentator is lying or Lord Sri Krishna is lying. 

NirguNa brahma having sarvavyApitva? SarvavyApitva itself is a guNa. This is like saying "black that is white". People must have some basic common sense.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/TTpeCOsAP44/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te3gJZ_%3D%2BYhtta%2BBzL2qYsr0F1NQ7deiy-h0wU7GQHEL8A%40mail.gmail.com.

Kesava Tadipatri

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 11:09:12 PM6/16/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
The kannada Garuda purana itself starts with assumption and an absurd statement. It says - Here Vishnu is not Lakshmipati BhagavaMta, but nirguNa brahma having sarvavyApitva. One has to decide whether this commentator is lying or Lord Sri Krishna is lying. 

NirguNa brahma having sarvavyApitva? SarvavyApitva itself is a guNa. This is like saying "black that is white". People must have some basic common sense.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/TTpeCOsAP44/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te3gJZ_%3D%2BYhtta%2BBzL2qYsr0F1NQ7deiy-h0wU7GQHEL8A%40mail.gmail.com.

Kesava Tadipatri

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 11:09:13 PM6/16/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Namaste

Your reasoning is ridiculous and absurd. You don’t even understand what you are saying. You have humongous problem.

>> You are not differentiating what happens in Bhramakaala and what
>> happens in Bhramottarakaala viz after Bhrama has ended.

First state who is having bhrama? God is the one who created everything and he can not have any bhrama. If you claim that God did not create anything, then there is no scope for bhrama. One who can create all this has to be sarva~jna (satyam j~nAnamamanMtaM brahma). Such Omniscient Being can not have any bhrama. The bhrama is all yours. And it is the sole property of you people.


>> In Bhramakaala the affected person will see a snake and he will be
>> thinking only of snake but not rope.

Who is the affected person here. You blabber something without even thinking.


>> He is ignorant of the rope.

Who is that “He” you are talking about?

>> In Bhramottarakaka he will see the rope.

Who is that “He”?

>> The question now is if the snake is real? Your explanation in
>>  Point 1 above says it is real. This is absurd.

You don’t even understand the basics. The snake does not exist in the rope. The snake does exist somewhere else. Otherwise, there is no scope for confusion. Read the whole piece. I mentioned memory here. If you are talking about the snake in the rope only, then there is no need for the memory.


>> How can a real snake appear in an illusion?

None of us said that the snake appeared in an illusion. You are the one who said that. The snake appeared before and after realization the snake disappeared.

For the ones, who lack basic knowledge and common sense, there is real snake somewhere else, the person has full knowledge of the real snake, it is present in his memory, his eyes saw only the rope, the image formed on his retina is that of a rope only, his mind interpreted it as snake using the memory, and so the bhrama arose because of the doSha/fault of the mind – interpretational issue.


>> If you say it is real till the Bhrama ends we accept it. But it is
>>  not absolutely real.

Understand the basics. First realize what is real and what is not real so that your bhrama first has to go away.


>> If you say the snake is absolutely false also you are wrong.

What is absolutely real and what is absolutely false, have some clarity. If you have issues understanding that, have a lesson from someone who understands that. Let me repeat for you one more time (I have no hope that you will ever get it, but I'm still attempting.)

The snake elsewhere is absolutely real. There is no snake at all in the rope. The person has been perhaps affected by fear. His mind has gone berserk and interpreted the rope as a snake. Another absolute reality is that there is the flaw of mental interpretation in the person.


>> How can an absolutely false snake be seen by anyone?

You have a tremendous problem and create ambiguity either intentionally or out of sheer ignorance. First make up your mind, which snake you are talking about. There is a real snake elsewhere and the person has a memory of that snake. Whatever memory he has about – that snake is real. Then he interprets the rope as a snake and there is no snake at all in the rope. Do not be brainwashed by some interpretation. Brainwashing happens when one does not use one’s brain.


>> Therefore we have to conclude the snake is Anirvachaniya or
>>  Mithya.

You can not talk about an anirvacanIya thing at all. There is no such thing. If someone asks – does “tattukkamaajjobbi” exist? What will you say? I don't know what you are talking about – what is that “tattukkamaajjobbi”?

The snake is not anirvachanIya – you are creating terrible ambiguity for yourself and for all the folk of your ilk by mixing up the snake, of which the person has the memory and the mental interpretation of the person and the “never existing snake in the rope”.


>> Coming to world illusion also the person will think the world is
>> real as long as he is ignorant of Brahman.

Another blooper. Who is ignorant here? Is Brahman ignorant? For Brahman, is the world an illusion or not? If you say for Brahman, the world is illusion, then he must be a “total mental case”, that he created the world and then thought that it is an illusion or He never created the world, but hallucinated that He created the world and then thought that it is an illusion or he never created and never hallucinated that He created the world, but hallucinated that the never created world is an illusion. Poor Brahman has now to depend upon maaya to take out His hallucinations! What are you doing to yourself and to all the folk of your ilk?


>>  Learning at the feet of a Guru that the world is not real but
>> Brahman is the reality he will overcome the illusion.

What a pity! Learning at the feet of a guru is not real! Now you have to figure out if the Guru is real and you know “brahma satyam” and nothing else is satyam, but gururbrahma and guru has to be neither real nor unreal and the connection between guru and Brahman is neither real nor unreal. How to handle all this mess – simple solution – make everything anirvachanIya and mithya!! no one can save a person, who is unwilling to be saved.

God bless you all! - Oh no – is that blessing real or unreal or both or neither or anirvachanIya or mithya or all of those or none of those. Never ending discussion- right?

And you accuse others of tarka – naiShaa tarkena matiraapaneyaa.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/TTpeCOsAP44/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CADHCXMVNYkE6epjgWmRRGuwif%3DGgG_Q_5uyhsVE5Avi5G22QGg%40mail.gmail.com.

Kesava Tadipatri

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 11:09:19 PM6/16/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Quote:

संसृतिः कल्पनामूलं कल्पना ह्यमृतोपमा॥
यैः कल्पना परित्यक्ता ते यांति परमां गतिम्॥ ३१.५६ ॥

Bondage is born of imagination. Those who give up this imagination attain the Supreme.
unquote.

Why do you people go with partial translation, when it actually grabs your neck.

If kalpanA here means imagination, what about kalpanA hyamRutopamA?

Here what do you mean by imagination? How is that amRutopamA? What do you mean by giving up the imagination? If it is amrUtopamA, why give it up? What imagination is meant here?

Answer that.

Kesava Tadipatri

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 11:09:19 PM6/16/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Oh yeah ?

How do you retrofit "nityamukta" paramAtma and amukta jIva being same? 

If you say it is vyAvahArika - nityamukta can not be vyAvahArika as mukta is turya only. If you say pAramArthika, then you are accepting the difference in pAramArthika also? 

Anybody can refute anyone. Even Christians can refute all veDantins and even a caveman can refute all vedantins. There is something called honesty and common sense as well.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/TTpeCOsAP44/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te2-RJ4Dj376jVV86ms_hNLFKLVHDkme4Rxe5TmCtkdCGQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Vichitra Thandava

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 11:09:19 PM6/16/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
The claim of no selfhood of Brahman is a shunyavadi argument, or at least a Charaka one.  Buddhists have been incorrectly labeled as zero - Vadis in popular understanding but shuya in Buddhism is not zero or nothing.  Jaina don't agree there is even a Brahman or singularity. 

A University of California at Irvine professor has for several years now been lecturing on the simulated iterative experiments he had been conducting on cognition.  He says the simulation makes it clear, even after several hundred avataric sequential iterations, time and space are not independent variables.  In fact, even Quantum particles, which seemingly exist sometimes and not other times, aren't independent according to his research.  Therefore, he says according to the Neti Neti principle, the only thing left to be the sole independent variable is Consciousness. That is, nothing would exist without it. And if space time and quantum particles are all dependent on it, consciousness itself must be a great, indivisible singularity. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Euh15hxNA8U.  Interview with Professor Don Hoffman. 

UC, Irvine also has a programmed study of Consciousness:

"The three quarters of this First-Year Integrative Program offers many different ways of exploring consciousness.  This first quarter presents an initial overview of ways of thinking about the problem and then focuses in particular on neuroscientific models.  The final weeks of the term then consider several philosophical approaches to consciousness through the perspectives we have learned from the neuroscientific research."

Vijaender 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAKk0Te2-RJ4Dj376jVV86ms_hNLFKLVHDkme4Rxe5TmCtkdCGQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Nagaraj Paturi

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 11:42:05 PM6/16/22
to bvpar...@googlegroups.com
"  It is not another matter. It is the central point of the matter.

We went thru this kind of statements and neither we agree with your interpretation nor you agree with ours. We will be going in circles "

-------- Sri Kesava Tadipatri 

Words of great wisdom.

So this going in circles can be stopped at some point. 

Let us stop it here. 

The thread is being closed. 

I request members not to post further. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJFXi14B7hGQqV9NYrbpj-5a7rn1rXmpt4wVBtH_MWHasvA%2BWQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages