Namaste.
While Michael Ji has given the title * Does the mukta/jnani see the world? *, the citation from Sugama of Sri SSS does not appear to address this question directly in my understanding. There is a text in kannada by Sri SSS, titled ** Shankara VedAnta Sara ** which addresses the question explicitly. This text has been translated into English by his follower Sri DB Gangoli titled ** The essential Adi Shankara ** which can be accessed at the following link
Section 212 refers.
Relevant portion of the translation/commentary by Gangoli is copied below.
// Here in this context the true, genuine spiritual teaching is : By virtue of jnaana, Avidya is completely falsified, sublated (Baadhita), – meaning, the seeker gets the conviction that Avidya does not really exist at all ; only this much, and not that jnaana does actually and literally destroy Avidya, like an axe cutting asunder a tree or like fire burning away or consuming firewood. Therefore, even after they become Baadhita by virtue of jnaana, categories like Avidya-Kaama-Karma as also the physical body, which is caused as a result of ‘Praarabdha Karma’ and which is the supporting adjunct (Aashraya) all of them carrying on their respective functions, just as when a potter rotates the wheel fast and allows it to turn on its own momentum (in consonance with the *Law of Inertia*) till its speed of rotation is destroyed – becomes quite but natural. There is no defect or blemish whatsoever in Mithyaa Jnaana (misconception,delusion) etc – to wit, all the three types of Ajnaana, Mithyaa jnAAna (Adhyaasa) and Samshaya – which are falsified by virtue of Jnaana ( Jnaana Baadhita) remaining effective for some time – just like a second moon (Dwiteeya Chandra), the false notion or misconception of sea-shell-silver (Shuktirajataabhaasa) or the confused notion as regards the cardinal directions of east, west, north, and south (Dik Moaha) etc. By virtue of or as a result of this Baadhitaanuvritti (falsified mental concepts) there does not arise any flaw or lapse whatsoever in so far as a Jnaani’s KritaKrityata (the Realized soul’s fulfillment of life’s goal, its consummation) is concerned //.
Regards
On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 8:48 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Michael Chandra Cohen ji.
>
> avidyA appears only from the frame of reference of avidyA. From the frame
> of reference of Brahman, there has never been avidyA, never been any
> appearance of avidyA.
>
> The teaching "avidyA is mithyA"is from the frame of reference of avidyA in
> which VedAs or teacher-disciple transaction takes place. From the frame of
> reference of Brahman, it is ajAta.
>
> Whether jnAnI sees the world -- in answered in Advaita as per the model SDV
> or DSV. These being two prakriya with the former ultimately leading one to
> latter.
>
>
> In SDV, avidyAlesha and jIvanmukti are accepted.
>
> In DSV, neither avidyAlesha nor jIvanmukti are accepted.jIvanmukti
> reference in shAstra is accepted to be arthavAda.
>
> Questions need to be posed in a model, a prakriyA.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listm...@advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listm...@advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0Hh4h-NaJWHT10T6Mk71prsC490-YJ3w%3D%3D2uzo0FoTRA%40mail.gmail.com.
Namaste Subbu ji -- What does it mean when you say, "the released jiva, a Jnani"? Is this jiva now celebrated as Enlightened as a Jnani or is this jiva now "released" from jiva-hood? If the former, duality persists; if the latter, who is to see/know the world or to teach as there is no individuality?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2xN1AHJVpBo9zEQBw10oT953tQshDWuyT6KuxvYe6Ojw%40mail.gmail.com.
Please expand the abbreviations SDV and DSV. I have some ideas about these
two. But wanted to be sure.
*Best Regards,*
*Krishna Kashyap*
On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 8:48 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Michael Chandra Cohen ji.
>
> avidyA appears only from the frame of reference of avidyA. From the frame
> of reference of Brahman, there has never been avidyA, never been any
> appearance of avidyA.
>
> The teaching "avidyA is mithyA"is from the frame of reference of avidyA in
> which VedAs or teacher-disciple transaction takes place. From the frame of
> reference of Brahman, it is ajAta.
>
> Whether jnAnI sees the world -- in answered in Advaita as per the model SDV
> or DSV. These being two prakriya with the former ultimately leading one to
> latter.
>
>
> In SDV, avidyAlesha and jIvanmukti are accepted.
>
> In DSV, neither avidyAlesha nor jIvanmukti are accepted.jIvanmukti
> reference in shAstra is accepted to be arthavAda.
>
> Questions need to be posed in a model, a prakriyA.
>
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023, 19:47 Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l, <
> adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/f5521f6a-ede2-490f-b1ec-f83b8a3f7921n%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvE0X79mV7ETUFT2itUPbQoRxifTcuJXE5MV0HEiHUiBqw%40mail.gmail.com.
Namaste Michael Ji,
If you still believe that your understanding of Sugama cited by you does not contradict the statement by Sri SSS I had cited, then it is fine. I thought they were contradictory and hence my post.
Regards
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvEwBy8h_Y5YXhn0wMpLK2j1Aq3o0_a%3DMFygKo1RgjVqMQ%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdObaHN2UvwMwCZQRxPAY9Y4mdg98AEGNdQ8iEn4r6M8ew%40mail.gmail.com.
Namaskar:
The question that Michealji has posed is not knew and the question and similar questions have been posted by others in vedantic discussions. At Paramarthika level there can’t be any discussions nor the senses such as seeing, touching, tasting, smelling, etc have no roles! Our senses and sense injected notions, theorems, discussions are only possible at the Vyavaharika level. One has to go beyond the senses to realize and merge with the Brahman! This is what explained through the statement, "(Nevertheless, in case you think that) when the one unconditioned Brahman is realized as the only reality, there is neither instruction nor instructor nor the result of comprehending the instruction (BrUP 2.1.20 Bh. Sw. MADVH)."
The saying, “Brahman Only Knows the Brahman!” provides the clue that why we who have not understood the Brahman will not be able to know the Brahman. The question, “Can the Brahman see the Brahman?” is never a question to the Brahman but question was raised by the one who is not a Brahman! Similarly, the question, “Does the mukta/jnani see the world?” is posed not by Jnani but by an ajnani! All theorems, notions and validation of those theorems and notions do not belong to the Brahman but only to the ajnani who wants to become the Brahman.
The bottom line is that at the Vyavaharika level (our discussions here!) we can ask all questions that are relevant to our level of understanding. Asking questions beyond our level requires us to go beyond our senses to find the answers!
With my warm regards,
Ram Chandran
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/a61bc4ad-f690-447d-8204-21bc4837c6c2n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/b5700603-10e3-4949-a0cb-08d0385f8e4dn%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65810ADE27FB2ED0A8F3B62184B0A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Bhaskarji - PraNAms
First, your arguments are very sound.
I see a lot of discussions on Jnaani with DSV vs SDV arguments - and the classification of Jnaanis.
Here is my understanding.
1. When you are in the deep sleep state, there is no world, no other Jeevas, no Iswara, no space and time, also. You are beyond any apparent duality. Granted that you do not know your true nature also. Yet the fact is you are one without a second. From that reference, eka Jeeva Vaada (EJV) sounds correct.
When you get up from the deep sleep state, the mind gets unfolded and you have the waking world with Jeevas and Jagat. In the dream state, the world and the Jeevas of the dream world are all created by your mind. Now what you call the dream world - DSV or SDV? - from the point of the waking mind that created the dream world - sounds like DSV. From the point of the you who is now a Jeeva in the dream world which is the real world for you as a dream subject - it is SDV. Is it DSV or SDV - depends on from what reference the discussion is made.
Now we can extend the same arguments to the waking world. Which is correct DSV or SDV? It depends on the reference state from which the discussion is made.
Now look at the situation - when you get up from your dream -there is no more dream world, dream Jeevas. You are one without a second. You are now Jnaani with reference to the dream world.
Now examine the waking state. In this case, for the realization of the truth, you can do so while being still in the waking state. This you cannot do for the dream world since the discriminative intellect (Viveka) needed for realization is not there when you are dreaming. The reason is if it is there you will not be able to dream.
Hence from the point of waking state, a realized master with his body, mind, and intellect (BMI) understands using his Viveka that he is Brahman - one without a second. (you can call that EJV).
He with local BMI, transacting in the world, now having understood the truth that he is Brahman, can see many Jeevas.
His BMI will remain due to his praarabda as well as due to the desires of the other Jeeves who want a teacher, who is a Jnaani. All our Advaitic masters come under this category.
The Guru-Sishya relation and Guru parampara all are valid with reference to the waking state. For the unrealized Jeevas, the world is real and DSV is valid. The Vedas, the Puranas, and Getta all are real.
From the realized Jnaani - from the point of truth, there are no Jeevas, no disciples, no world - He is Brahman without a second. Yet from the point of the waking world, as long as his BMI is there he plays his role (the world becomes a drama or jagannatakam).
Hence Shankara and Guruparampara are all valid from the point of the waking world since all these discussions are taking place from that reference.
From the point of realized state - there is only Brahman or paaramarthika view.
Only confusion can happen about having one step in the waking state and one step in the trureeyam. Which is valid SDV or DSV?
Such discussions, from my understanding (without offending anybody), will not be of much help in terms of Self-Realization.
In essence, we need to keep in mind from what reference the discussion is relevant.
My 2C.
Hari Om!
Sadananda
praNAms
Hare Krishna
In eka jIva vAda, who is that one jIva? Is it correct, for me, to consider myself as that one jIva? Please clarify.
Ø Eka jeeva is eka Chaitanya and that Chaitanya is parabrahman itself ( now second Chaitanya accepted in AV), So IMO eka jeeva means eka Chaitanya i.e. brahman only and in SDV also there is no multiple Chaitanya-s but due to association of upAdhi this Chaitanya treated as different that is again due to avidyA. Now the question is in SDV, multiple jeeva-s (Chaitanya-s) accepted ?? definitely I don’t think so.
praNAms
Hare Krishna
And in SDV this ekAtma is both upAdANa and antaryAmi as well, tat srushtvA tadevAnuprAvishat, so I don’t think in SDV Advaita is diluted.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
From: 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 9:44 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world?
Warning |
|
This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you
verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments.
|
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65818A699BE7DF9459DDD49284B7A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
praNAms
Hare Krishna
What is jeeva here apart from Chaitanya?? I mean what is the svarUpa of this jeeva apart from Chaitanya in SDV & DSV??
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Kalyan
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 9:52 AM
To: advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world?
Warning |
|
This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you
verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments.
|
Sri Bhaskar-ji, Namaskaaram
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/183f8b9f-b1d8-46dd-ba90-14f105121a11n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1276473353.2597924.1700196180539%40mail.yahoo.com.
Pranams Sadananda Ji,
// On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 10:13 AM 'Kuntimaddi Sadananda' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Look at it this way. One who sees himself as eka jeeva, he must have understood that the other Jeevas that he sees are not really real but only apparently real.
From this, it follows that a Jnaani who has understood aham brahmaasmi should consider Jeeva-Jagat-Iswara, the triad is only apparent and not real. That is what is implied by Jnaanam, is it not? Hence from his reference, EJV seems to be correct //
In my understanding a Jnaani does not see himself as eka jIva either. All jIvAs, including himself, are seen as jIva AbhAsAs only.
DSV/EJV is a prakriyA for vichAra for an ajnaani only, though an advanced sAdhaka. The adhikAri for this is one who is at the nidhidhyAsana stage, after completing shravaNa and manana. DSV/EJV is recommended by some at this stage for a sAdhaka as a preferred prakriyA. The adhikAri would correspond to वेदान्तविज्ञानसुनिश्चितार्थाः, ब्रह्मसंस्थ as explained in BSB 3—20 etc.
This is my understanding.
RegardsTo view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1276473353.2597924.1700196180539%40mail.yahoo.com.
praNAms Sri Sada prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Hope your eye sight is good now after cataract surgery and nice to see your active participation in list. If you could permit me I shall share my observations.
Look at it this way. One who sees himself as eka jeeva, he must have understood that the other Jeevas that he sees are not really real but only apparently real.
Ø In that sense IMO his eka jeevatva is also ONLY apparently real and not an absolute reality is it not?? The knowledge is not something like OK I am bhAskar, as eka jeeva is the only jeeva all other jeeva-s are mere imagination character, na, I don’t think so, eka jeevatva is also part and parcel of this apparent reality. Moreover, in bhAshya as you know the eka jeevatva has been attributed to hiraNyagarbha who is having samashti (macrocosm) antaHkaraNa by giving the example of dream state. In vyAvahArika as you have rightly pointed out this bhAskar is different jeeva from that Sri Sada prabhuji jeeva ( jnAtru, pramAtru, bhOkta, karta etc.) And these both jeeva-s know there is another noble jeeva called shankara bhagavatpaada who clarifies there is no jeeva as such it is only an imagination just as normal people see the surface of AkAsha and pasting the dirt on it (talamalAdi parikalpitaM).
From this, it follows that a Jnaani who has understood aham brahmaasmi should consider Jeeva-Jagat-Iswara, the triad is only apparent and not real. That is what is implied by Jnaanam, is it not? Hence from his reference, EJV seems to be correct.
For ajnaani the many Jeevas that he sees are really real. That is what ajnaani means, right?
Ø Yes prabhuji. And as per siddhAnta it is pure being alone that is spoken of as a individual jeeva due to his association with upAdhi-s. sUtra 3-2-9 and bhAshya would be relevant here I reckon.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1288674979.3021919.1700324248364%40mail.yahoo.com.
Namaskar:
Your statement, “Gnyani sees the world exactly the same as all of us” is quite true and there is very little to dispute. The question is how we and Gnyani differs after seeing the world? I believe that the Gnyani accepts the world as it is where as we do not agree on everything that we see! One of the classical example often used is seeing a movie on the movie screen. Though everyone sees the movie, some perceive that they are integral part of the movie and get emotionally involved. One of the point that we need to recognize is the status of ‘Gnyani’ is evolved over time and the growth depends on one’s background and mind setup!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and they are quite insightful,
Ram Chandran
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/629ef244-177f-49e2-955a-d395b1493c7dn%40googlegroups.com.
praNAms Sri Ganesh prabhuji
Hare Krishna
panchadasi kara beautifully simplifies the topic as 1.iswara srshty and 2. jeeva srshty. there are infinite jeeva srshtys based on each ones set of likes and dislikes, whereas iswara srshty is one common to all.
The gnanis by transcending their raga dveshas see the iswara srhty alone and are thus objective. So even though the gnani lives in the same world and sees the same objects, he is able to remove the extra mental projections by his mano nasha!
Your statement, “Gnyani sees the world exactly the same as all of us” is quite true and there is very little to dispute. The question is how we and Gnyani differs after seeing the world?
praNAms Sri Ramachandra prabhuji
Hare Krishna
How ajnAni sees the world?? bhAshykAra replies for the ajnAni jagat is asarvaM, abrahmam, parichinnam and existing aloof from him
How jnAni sees / realizes the nature of the world ?? again bhAshyakAra clarifies for the jnAni jagat is sarvaM, brahmam, pUrNam and the jagat is brahmamayaM, AtmaivedaM vishvaM, brahmaivedaM vishvaM,
You write :"So even though the gnani lives in the same world and sees the same objects, he is able to remove the extra mental projections by his mano nasha!"
And afterwards he(gnani) will live like a vegetable, is it not so? Will he exist after manonasha? Who is the entity that will do the manonasha? Can anyone sit on his own shoulder?
With respectful pranams,
Sreenivasa Murthy
praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Now, this framework is certainly present in bhAshya everywhere in addition to the common default framework wherein waking is given more reality to dream. Therefore, in the default framework, waking Shruti is more reliable than dream Shruti and waking Shankara is more authentic than dream Shankara. Is it not? The waking sampradAya is much more required for liberation than dream sampradAya.
This whole approach of putting more reality to waking is a default position. ShAstra uses this and postulates shrishTi, Ishwara who does this srishTi, Ishwara whom we should pray for kArUNyam etc etc. This is a distinct framework. This is called SDV.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/142426016.3301144.1700468155959%40mail.yahoo.com.
Namaste.
For those who are interested, here is an excerpt from the article ** THE PLACE OF REASON IN ADVAITA ** by Prof Hiriyanna which is relevant to the topic under discussion.
// There are two types of reasoning generally recognized in Indian philosophy. The first of them is what is familiarly known as syllogistic inference, and is illustrated by the example of inferring the presence of fire from observing smoke. We shall have an instance of the second type of reasoning if, fromthe observed fact that an effect like a jar requires for its production a competent agent like the potter, it is concluded that the world, as an effect, should also have been brought into existence by a competent Being, God. It is called sAmAnyato-drstAnumAna and corresponds to what in modem logic is known as analogicalreasoning. There are important differences between the twotypes of inference in their logical character; but it will suffice, for the present, to state that while the first is applicable only to cases falling within the sphere of common experience, the second applies to those that lie beyond it.
Since Brahman, the chief theme of the Vedanta, as so oftenstated by Samkara , transcends the sensuous, it is only the second type of reasoning that can have a bearing upon it. But the view that it is a pramANa for establishing extra-empirical truths is only of some Indian thinkers; and the advaitin, like the other Vedantins, does not share it. The reason why he excludes it from the category of pramANa will be seen by examining one of the stock examples by which it is illustrated : Qualities like odour and colour are found to inhere in substances like earth and fire; and it is said that we may deduce from it that the quality of touch or temperature (sparsha) also implies as its ground a substance, viz., air (vAyu) . Here the qualities of odour, colour, etc., and the substances which they respectively characterize, viz., earth, fire, etc., are all perceivable; but air is not so, although the qualityof touch may be. That is, we are extending here a principle verified in experience to something beyond it; and such an extension according to Advaita, is not legitimate for in it we virtual jump from one particular to another, without passing through general truth based upon actual observation, as we do in ordinary inference. It is, as the name given to it indicates, an inference which is based not on perception but on what is ‘seen from likeness’ (sAmAnyato-drashsta). Adapting the words which Samkara uses in a similar context, we may say: If air also were perceivable like earth or fire, we might discover that touch was a quality of it. But, as a matter of fact, it is only touch that is perceived; and we cannot therefore decide whether it is. connected with air as its quality, or with something else. Hence this variety of reasoning, the advaitin says, cannot be a pramANa in the strict sense of the term.
The outcome of such a view, it may appear, is to exclude reasoning altogether so far as the truth of Advaita is concerned But it would be wrong to think so, for the advaitin does assign a definite place to the second variety of inference, if not to the first For, although he denies to it the rank of pramANa or means to valid knowledge, he admits that it may indicate the probability of a conclusion which has been otherwise reached; and where sufficient care has been exercised, the degree of probability indicated by it may, indeed, be quite high. That is, it may support the truth, though it may not establish it. For this reason, he designates it as yukti or tarka which has no independent logical value, but is only a help to a pramANa. It is in this form, i.e., as ancillary to scriptural testimony that the advaitin utilises reason. Thus as regards the question, already mentioned, of the existence of God as the author of the universe, this kind of reasoning may be used, provided it is not forgotten that the belief in it is primarily based upon Shruti or revelation //.
The full article is available in the following link
// https://archive.org/details/IndianPhilosophicalStudies/page/n5/mode/2up //
Regards
Namaste Acharya Sada ji.
//Dream is not a dream for a dreamer who is in the dream. That dream world
is real for him.
He realizes that it is not real only when he wakes up.
The dream example is used to show that waking world is not absolutely real.
Goudapaada negation of the waking world is only from the point of absolute
truth - with the statement - adou antecha yat naasti, vartamaanepi
tatttadaa. //
From the point of view of absolute truth, there is no world, there is no
dream, there is no waking, there is no deep sleep. Absolute truth negates
everything which is seen.
The identity of dream and waking is derived from logic which is pretty much
within the domain of dream/waking.
What exactly is this "waking up"? A pramAtA can get anumiti pramA that
waking world is dream. He is not bound to bear the burden of truth-ness of
waking world despite having the anumiti pramA from the faultless anumAna of
bhAshyakAra - जाग्रद्दृश्यानां भावानां वैतथ्यमिति प्रतिज्ञा । दृश्यत्वादिति
हेतुः । स्वप्नदृश्यभाववदिति दृष्टान्तः । यथा तत्र स्वप्ने दृश्यानां भावानां
वैतथ्यम् , तथा जागरितेऽपि दृश्यत्वमविशिष्टमिति हेतूपनयः । तस्माज्जागरितेऽपि
वैतथ्यं स्मृतमिति निगमनम् ।
Where is the need to hold the requirement of "waking up". anumiti pramA
happens to pramAtA and not to shuddha Brahman. The anumAna of bhAshyakAra
is capable of giving pramA to pramAtA, which is very much within waking,
that waking is identical to dream. Where is the need to "wake up".
//But there is difference between the two states. In the dream world, a
dreamer cannot realize it as a dream while he is in the dream - for
realization viveka or discriminative intellect is needed which he does not
have. If has, he will not able to dream.//
Waker alleges this to the dreamer disregarding the fact that dreamer had
done so to the dreamer within his dream. When identity of waking and logic
is established by anumAna, giving rise to pramA to pramAtA, how can such a
statement be made.
//In contrast, in the waking state, the seeker can develop the required
Viveka to recognize the unreality of the waking world while still
remaining in the waking world. Hence all the nine yards that you mentioned
are important to develop the needed qualifications to discriminate what is
real and what is apparently real. Study of Vedanta under a competent
teacher, sampradaayic teaching, and required sadhana for the mind to
develop the necessary qualifications - all are important. //
Untenable in view of the anumAna presented. The waking-guru,
waking-samrpadAya are identical to dream-guru and dream-sampradAya. Any
preference given to either is violative of anumAna.
//DSV vs SDV all intended to help in the sadhana only.//
Sequentially to the same sAdhaka. One graduates from SDV to DSV.
//In the final analysis there is shrushti and no vadas too when one
realizes aham brahmaasmi.//
I think, in the final analysis, there is no srishTi and no vAda. DSV and
SDV are both before that.
Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.
--
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune
sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org
Namaskaaram Michael-jiThe questions raised are very interesting. I too wondered from a long time, why a jnAni would bother to teach an ajnAni, having come out of notions of duality. Even if we assume that a jnAni has a small trace of avidyA left, this is not true for Bhagawan teaching Arjuna, as we accept that BhagavAn is completely free from avidyA.However, I did not understand Swami-ji's answer to these questions.Best Regards
On Sunday, 12 November, 2023 at 7:47:38 pm UTC+5:30 michaelc...@gmail.com wrote:
Does the mukta/jnani see the world?
from: Sri Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati (SSSS), Sugama (SKT - Version); Section 71 (tr. Hishi Ryo ji):(English tr. follows)विनष्टत्वात् कथं भेदज्ञानानुवृत्तिः ? तदभावे च कथं शिष्येभ्यस्तत्त्वज्ञानोपदेशः ? तदनुवृत्तौ स्वयमज्ञस्य कथमाचार्यत्वम् ?बाधितानुवृत्तिस्वीकारेऽपि कथं मिथ्याविषयत्वनिश्चये सत्युपदेशाय प्रवृत्तिः ? कथं च नित्यनिवृत्ताज्ञानस्य भगवतोऽर्जुनं प्रति गीतोपदेशः ? तस्माद्विद्याविद्यास्वरूपविभागोऽयमसमञ्जस एवेति न प्रतिभातिति चेत् । अत्र प्रष्टव्यो भवान् । किं द्वैतसत्यत्वबाधकमद्वैतज्ञानमङ्गीकृत्येदं प्रश्नजालं प्रतायतेऽथवा अनभ्युपगम्येति । तत्र प्रथमे कल्पे तावन्न प्रश्नो नापि चोत्तरम् । न ह्यद्वितीय तत्त्वज्ञाने सति पुनरपि किञ्चित् चोद्यम् भवति । द्वितीये तुकल्पेऽज्ञदृष्ट्या सर्वोऽप्ययं व्यवहारोऽवकल्पत एवेति न कस्यचिदाक्षेपस्यावकाशः ।न ह्यद्वैतसिद्धान्ते ज्ञानोत्पत्त्यज्ञानबाधगुरुशिष्यभेदोपदेशादिकं परमार्थ इत्यभ्युपगम्यते प्रपञ्चसद्भावतनिवृत्ती वा पारमार्थिके इति । द्वैतज्ञानसन्दूषितचित्तानां तु शिष्याणा क्रमेण बोधनायेदं सर्वं प्रक्रियारचनमिति नात्र किंचिदसामञ्जस्यम् यथाऽऽह भगवान् भाष्यकारः "एकस्मिन्ब्रह्मणि निरुपाधिके नोपदेशः, नोपदेष्टा, न च उपदेशग्रहणफलम्"इति।Interpretation/Translation:How can there be a continuance of duality (knowledge of difference, bhedajñānānuvṛttiḥ)) after it has been sublated ('eliminated')? And because it has been sublated (i.e. absence of wrong knowledge), how can there be any instruction of knowledge of reality to students? And in the case (bhedajñānānuvṛttiḥ) continues, how can such an ignorant assume to be a teacher? Even when such a continuation of what has been sublated (bādhitānuvṛtti) is accepted, how can there be an engagement ('activity) of teaching the Truth when the subject matter has been (already) determined to be wrong? And how was the teaching in Bhagavad Gita by the Lord to Arjuna possible who is eternally devoid of it [i.e. ignorance]? Therefore, one should ask if this division of knowledge and ignorance is (itself) proper. (Consequently), are these questions (objections) from the perspective of Non-Duality ('by acceptance of non-reality) that contradicts duality, or is (non-duality) not at all accepted? In the former, there is no need for a question or response, as there is no question or response from the perspective of Non-Duality/Brahman. In the second case, however, all these questions are conceived from the perspective of ignorance, so there is (also) no room for these (valid) questions (or objections).According to Advaita SiddhAnta, i.e. from the perspective of ultimate reality (paramArtha), [concepts such as] liberation, avidyA gets (really) eliminated, a distinction between teacher and disciple etc. is certainly not accepted. Rather, the cessation (sublation) of understanding the world/duality (as 'real') is considered the ultimate truth.(However) for disciples whose minds are (still) influenced by dualistic notions (i.e. ignorants), this prakriyA (i.e. adhyAropApavAda) is gradually shaped towards their liberation. There is nothing inappropriate, as the revered bhAShyakAra says:"(Nevertheless, in case you think that) when the one unconditioned Brahman is realized as the only reality, there is neither instruction nor instructor nor the result of comprehending the instruction (BrUP 2.1.20 Bh. Sw. MADVH)."
praNAms Sri Srinath Vedagarbha prabhuji ( just typing your name ‘vedagarbha’ gives me goosebumps, I don’t know why!!)
Hare Krishna
avasthAtraya mithyatva or adhyArOpitatva is drive home the point that Atman / brahman is neither antaHprajna nor bahirprajna etc. and he is avasthAteeta. It is in this sense there is similarity between jaagrat prapancha and Svapna prapancha and both are adhyArOpita on brahman as he is ultimately nirguNam, shAntaM, advaitam and prapanchOpashamanaM. It is in this sense again the dream world too presents an exact replica of waking world. Anyway queries with regard to this is countered by asking : you are asking this question in dream or waking?? You may / will do same things in dream also without doubting that you are in dream!! KathOpanishad mantra : svapnAntaM jAgaritAntaM chObhaU yenAnupashyati etc. supports this view point. But it is not at all there to belittle the Ishwara srushti which we experience in jAgrat Avastha. To experience the mithyatva of jagrat Avastha and relevant prapacha we have to ‘wake up’ to the higher reality insists bhAshyakAra. It is in this sense only bhAshyakAra explains there is paramArtha in Ishwara srushti whereas jeeva mAnasa Kalpita Svapna prapancha there is not even an iota of paramArtha!!...But some pundits are of the opinion that these things have been said maNdAdhikAri-s keeping in mind SDV and they have to elevate themselves to next level i.e. DSV and finally ajAtavAda etc. So each and every quotes/siddhAnta in bhAshya according to them is ranked and anything that said in SDV is not good for mOksha 😊
praNAms
Hare Krishna
I am just wondering after reading all these (ku) tarka about similarity between jAgrat & svapna, why on the earth bhAshyakAra considers vijnAnavAdins as pUrvapaxi and taken all the troubles to prove him wrong in abhAvadhikaraNa, especially in sutra bhAshya-s like in nAbhAva upalabdeH & vaidharmyAccha na svapnAdhivat etc. (2-2-28 & 29) !! If at all he himself saying all is just mind game in kArika bhAshya!! Has bhAshyakAra contradicted himself in sUtra bhAshya and kArikaa bhAshya!!?? Or we ourselves deluded and quoting both bhAshya-s out of context?? If at all bhAshyakAra-s perception about bAhya jagat is in complete agreement with that of vijnAnavAdins’ vAda why on the earth bhAshyakAra attacked them and passionately proved them wrong (infact he attacks them personally and warns them that they don’t have control on their tongue and speak whatever they want !! And again, to our surprise, in kArika bhAshya all of a sudden advocated the same vijnAnavAdins’ vAda ‘mind all’ theory!!?? Perhaps pundits here would say when bhAshyakAra writing sUtra bhAshya, he was writing so keeping SDV module and mandAdhikAri-s in mind and while writing kArikAbhAshya he was addressing the applicants in DSV, the mumukshu-s in super league 😊
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB6592CDEEF3A147AF481426E08494A%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji
Hare Krishna
You need to acquaint yourself of the difference between vijnAnavAda and mukhya-vedAnta-siddhAnta namely DSV.
Perhaps, you can then appreciate that the tarka adduced are not ku-tarka rather heart and soul of VedAnta.
Ø If the heart and soul of vedAnta is mere DSV and SDV is inferior to DSV not fit for mOksha, again you have to prove DSV is entirely different from Advaita pUrvapaxi vijnAnavAdi who endorses the view upalabdhi itself Vishaya (both jnana and Artha) and this upalabdhi itself comes and goes (kshaNika) etc. Till that time you don’t have any valid point to defend your stand as shrutyanugraheeta tarka/yukti.
In any case, labelling the argument as ku-tarka without any counterargument is worthy of being ignored.
Ø That is what is expected from you as usual, hence I ignored your mails 😊
Before running to BhAshyakAra, we need to understand our own experience. That there was a BhAshyakAra who wrote PTB, said this and that in MANDukya and BSB -- are not sufficient to indicate non-dream-hood of waking -- on the solitary ground that you told exactly same thing in dream also. There was a dream-Shankara and dream-BSB saying these things and yet it was only a dream.
Ø This is where the traces of kutarka I can find!! with the same logical inference why don’t I say even dream world also as real as waking world and both are capable of giving me mOksha and right place of doing sAdhana!! Why on the earth I should ignore and tag it as illusory instead using the same logic I can treat both states are as reality only. Anyway in kArika itself kArikAgaara agreed that the worlds of Vishwa, taijasa and prAjna’s world are real!! And again, to assert and prove the oneness of Atman why should I reject the existence of world ( for which Ishwara is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa) as non existent for me it is clear sign of immaturity and illogical coz. Knowingly or unknowingly you are attributing some existence to ‘something’ apart from Atman and asking us to negate it as illusory. Oneness is not at the cost of duality but it is the very essence of duality, the jnAni-s realization is I am myself in many forms but they are not in me (see Lord’s declaration in geeta) and is the bhUma drushti or Samyak drushti of jnAni-s as well and please note they are not the poor students in the module of SDV as you reckon. Even an idiot (dehAtmavAna) does feel his ‘oneness’ despite the existence of his different body parts!! You should first realize in shankara’s Advaita vedAnta : perception of dvaita is not opposed to Advaita jnana, coz. Of the simple fact dvaita perception is pratyaksha pramANita and Advaita darshana is shAstra pramANita and shAstra janita vyavahAra bAdhita jnana and NOT vyavahAra abhAva jnana both pramANa-s are not mutually contradicting and advocating what is valid in its own sphere of pramANa.
Namaste Bhaskar ji.
I will answer all your questions. First you explain what is the difference
between vijnAnavAda and drishTi-srishTi-vAda.
//If you want to argue that what is being refuted here is ‘entirely’
different from your superior DSV module you have to be clear in your
assertion before giving higher rank to DSV and contrasting the same from
vijnAnavAda, is it not!!?? I doubt I have seen anything of this order in
your mails, OTOH elsewhere in one of your statements, you said ( I may be
wrong) in this particular issue (mind is all) shankara is in agreement
with vijnAnavAdins//
Sir, there are agreements between SDV and DSV also. So? Does it mean that
DSV and SDV are same? VijnAnavAda has got nothing to do with VedAnta or
DSV. In some respect, there may be identity of conclusion in both. That
does not prove that they are same.
//If the heart and soul of vedAnta is mere DSV and SDV is inferior to DSV
not fit for mOksha, again you have to prove DSV is entirely different from
Advaita pUrvapaxi vijnAnavAdi who endorses the view upalabdhi itself
Vishaya (both jnana and Artha) and this upalabdhi itself comes and goes
(kshaNika) etc. Till that time you don’t have any valid point to defend
your stand as shrutyanugraheeta tarka/yukti.//
You learn about the difference of DSV and vijnAvAda from texts if you feel
like. If you think they are same, carry on with the idea.
//with the same logical inference why don’t I say even dream world also as
real as waking world and both are capable of giving me mOksha and right
place of doing sAdhana!! Why on the earth I should ignore and tag it as
illusory instead using the same logic I can treat both states are as
reality only.//
Sir ji. The illusoriness of dream is well-accepted to both parties. Hence,
it is eligible to become an example in logic to deduce inference. The
reality of waking world is not acceptable to both parties. Hence, you
cannot take that as an example. This is Logic101.
//Anyway in kArika itself kArikAgaara agreed that the worlds of Vishwa,
taijasa and prAjna’s world are real!! //
News!!
//And again, to assert and prove the oneness of Atman why should I reject
the existence of world ( for which Ishwara is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa)
as non existent for me it is clear sign of immaturity and illogical coz.//
Your dream world was created by abhinna-nimitta-upadan-kAraNa Ishwara? Test
your conclusion on the litmus test of identity of waking and dream.
//Knowingly or unknowingly you are attributing some existence to
‘something’ apart from Atman and asking us to negate it as illusory.//
There is no existence to anything except Atman. Illusion ka definition hi
hai -- traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitvam.
//Oneness is not at the cost of duality but it is the very essence of
duality, the jnAni-s realization is I am myself in many forms but they are
not in me (see Lord’s declaration in geeta) and is the bhUma drushti or
Samyak drushti of jnAni-s as well and please note they are not the poor
students in the module of SDV as you reckon. Even an idiot (dehAtmavAna)
does feel his ‘oneness’ despite the existence of his different body
parts!! You should first realize in shankara’s Advaita vedAnta :
perception of dvaita is not opposed to Advaita jnana, coz. Of the simple
fact dvaita perception is pratyaksha pramANita and Advaita darshana is
shAstra pramANita and shAstra janita vyavahAra bAdhita jnana and NOT
vyavahAra abhAva jnana both pramANa-s are not mutually contradicting and
advocating what is valid in its own sphere of pramANa.//
Pehle aap ye prove kijiye ki you are not in a dream, then we can see what
Gita says and what shAstra says. Your reliance on Shruti and Gita is same
as your reliance on dream-Shruti and dream-Gita.
//Anway, all these things said umpteen times just to hear the concluding
illogical statements like : ‘to be ignored or just stepping stone and good
only in some initial stages / module etc.’’.//
You try your level best to distinguish dream and waking. If you cannot
distinguish, then appreciate the implication of their identity.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te09DVaQx3bd2NtST%2BkpYxMLCuvpnoK3RBi5V5LJbBTDfw%40mail.gmail.com.
Namaste.
It is difficult to understand the discussion. Avoiding the words waking/dream, if in any state one is able to recollect that there are other states different from the one he is in at that time, it certainly means different states of awareness are admitted by the person. It is quite another matter as to which is more real or less real, or which is dream/waking. There cannot be any controversy about the existence of different states themselves.
RegardsNamaste V Subramanian ji.
Sent the screenshot of reference along with Sridhari TIkA.
On Fri, 22 Dec 2023, 15:06 V Subrahmanian, <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 3:01 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <
> sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste V Subramanian ji.
>>
>> Nice references.
>>
>> In fact BhAgavAta PurANa 6.16.53-54 takes the example of dream within
>> dream and avers complete identity of waking, dream and deep sleep.
>>
>
> Nice, could you pl. produce the Bhagavata verses? Thanks
>
> subbu
>
>>
>> Regards.
Dear Sada,
I’m not really ‘joining in’ with this discussion but, like you, ‘could not resist’ commenting on a few of your points. (Great that you have now recovered sufficiently to participate, incidentally!)
Point 1: Nature has provided??
Second Point 3 and 6: This is not true. With lucid dreams, one IS aware that one is dreaming whilst the dream continues. I know this from personal experience as well as books on the subject. It is possible then to direct the content and development of the dream. You can’t really say that it is the ‘waker’ who is now directing because the dreaming continues. I don’t know of an Advaitic explanation for the mechanism. I think we actually have to concede that these are only teaching prakriyA-s and drop them when they start to fall apart. Also, since one is able to recognize that one is dreaming and take action, the intellect cannot be ‘at a minimum’. Indeed, it is possible to train the mind to be able to dream lucidly so that means the intellect must be very much present.
Points 5 and 7: When I hear this argument, I always suggest that, if someone truly believes that the world disappears when they are in deep sleep, how about if I place a bomb under their bed before they go to sleep? (A slightly less provocative comment is to ask how they explain the effectiveness of an alarm clock.)
Best wishes,
Dennis
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1431474474.2507620.1703223699438%40mail.yahoo.com.
praNAms
Hare Krishna
svapnatvaM ( for example trayee svapnaaH) is to convey the sAdrushyam not to strike the absolute similarity. Svapna being internal and confined to individual and waking world being wide and outside but the sAdrushyaM is both are seen and changing, bhAshyakAra clarifies somewhere in kArikA bhAshya itself.
अन्तःस्थानात्तु भेदानां तस्माज्जागरिते स्मृतम् ।
यथा तत्र तथा स्वप्ने संवृतत्वेन भिद्यते ॥ ४ ॥
स्वप्नजागरिते स्थाने ह्येकमाहुर्मनीषिणः ।
भेदानां हि समत्वेन प्रसिद्धेनैव हेतुना ॥ ५ ॥
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB6592F7C063FFFD0C115946688494A%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
praNAms
Hare Krishna
Yes the supreme personality is the original creator of these conditions. Sri SSS somewhere says Atmanu tanna vishesha shaktiyondige tOrikoLLUvude vividhAvastagaLu haageye avanu avasthegaLannu meeridavanu aagiddaane. The waking world is karma bhUmi though changing not illusory. And subsequent lOka-s obtained through karma phala (taught by the veda-s karma kAnda) too not illusory but satyam clarifies bhAshyakAra elsewhere. Hence it is not called as bhrAnti but satya ( a transactional reality) the stage of reality provided by parabrahman for the sake of karmi-s to experience their karma phala.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
When a person is in deep sleep, he dreams and sees in himself many other objects, such as great mountains and rivers or perhaps even the entire universe, although they are far away. Sometimes when one awakens from a dream he sees that he is in a human form, lying in his bed in one place. Then he sees himself, in terms of various conditions, as belonging to a particular nationality, family and so on. All the conditions of deep sleep, dreaming and wakefulness are but energies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. One should always remember the original creator of these conditions, the Supreme Lord, who is unaffected by them.