PanvhadashI 2.35
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
After seeing subject line ‘Panvhadashi’ I thought this is one more prakaraNa 😊 And then I realized it is paNchAdashi after reading the same in mail 😊 BTW, it is very strange scholar of Sanskrit like you asking for the understanding of members before sharing your understanding 😊 Any special agenda prabhuji???
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
|
BHASKAR YR |
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Sudhanshu Shekhar
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2025 8:49 AM
To: Advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: [advaitin] PanvhadashI 2.35
|
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 visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDt-jzPWMUuuhE7ksxhkbyay-PTnX%3DQckygn6DJGXMzWg%40mail.gmail.com.
Aravinda Rao
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625F99034430E4E375CADB7841C2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
After seeing subject line ‘Panvhadashi’ I thought this is one more prakaraNa 😊 And then I realized it is paNchAdashi after reading the same in mail 😊
BTW, it is very strange scholar of Sanskrit like you asking for the understanding of members before sharing your understanding 😊 Any special agenda prabhuji???
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
I could sense the intention behind asking members’ understanding especially with regard to the second line : kutreti niradhiṣ ṭhAno na bhramaḥ kvatcit ekṣhyate 😊 A potential source of reference to prove the non-existence is also some sort of existence ( even abhAva is also bhAvarUpa 😊) is it not??
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
No agenda other than learning.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
I could sense the intention behind asking members’ understanding especially with regard to the second line : kutreti niradhiṣ ṭhAno na bhramaḥ kvatcit ekṣhyate 😊 A potential source of reference to prove the non-existence is also some sort of existence ( even abhAva is also bhAvarUpa 😊) is it not??
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
No. It is regarding the usage सतः नामरूपे. And regarding the conclusion of this verse.
- Before other members jump in to ‘force’ the interpretation I would like to say : sataH nAmarUpe is rather proving the satyatvaM that is behind nAma rUpa, the substance or adhishtAnaM behind the perceived nAma rUpa. For example, when we say the jagat is an existing one, we utter being the part and parcel of the same jagat but assuming that we are vishayi and seeing the jagat as Vishaya. We are under the impression that we are the cognizer of something which is not our own selves, this is what is called parichinna drushti or restricted / conditioned upAdhi drushti. Taking the existence of jagat aloof from us and labelling it as the world as if it is something entirely outside of us. This is, nothing but granting of externality to the nAma rUpa jagat which is in reality not external to ourselves. The jagat is not an external object. It is not outside of us, and yet we see it outside. But the seer, seen the act of seeing everything is within ourselves …karaNaM, kAraNam, karta is THAT only. In this sense what we see outside of us as nAma rUpa as anAtma is not anAtma but Atma only, that same nirvishesha Atma appearing to us in a vishesha nAma rUpa. Infact bhAshyakAra himself says this somewhere in some bhAshya. In the araMbhaNAdhikaraNa sUtra bhAshya somewhere confirms even the nAma/rUpa effects are indeed of the nature of the cause the brahman, it is just because of the fact that there cannot be an effect coming into existence, if it is not of the nature of the cause.
- I know you don’t agree to all this and pushing aside as secondary teaching. But since you asked member’s understanding I dared to share my thoughts 😊
H S Chandramouli
Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,
Context for verse 35 is a debate between SidddhAnti and SunyavAdin. Verse 34 concludes by SiddhAnti wishing well for SunyavAdin to have arrived at the same conclusion as SiddhAntin by his anumAna pramANa. SiddhAnti , in verse 35, raises a possible counter anumAna by the SunyavAdin in the first line, and responds to the same in the second line.
The counter by the SunyavAdin is this ;; सतोऽपि नामरूपे द्वे कल्पिते चेत् (sato.api nAmarUpe dve kalpite chet) Why not both सत् (sat) and नामरूप (nAmarUpa) be considered as अध्यारोप (adhyAropa) (superimpositions) or mithyA ?. SiddhAntin asks तदा वद (tadA vadA) ( then answer).
Second line of the verse ;; Any anumAna should be based on a vyApti (invariable concomitance). This vyApti itself must be based on multiple instances of pratyaksha pramANa. Thus the SiddhAntin asks the SunyavAdin to present illustrations where भ्रमः (Bhramah) (superimposition) takes place in the absence of a अधिष्ठान (adhiShThAna) (Base or Support).
Conclusion being that such भ्रमः (Bhramah) (superimposition) without a अधिष्ठान (adhiShThAna) (Base or Support) is impossible to find. Hence such an anumAna by the sUnyavAdin is wrong.
This is my understanding of the verse in brief.
Regards
Bhaskar YR
Conclusion being that such भ्रमः (Bhramah) (superimposition) without a अधिष्ठान (adhiShThAna) (Base or Support) is impossible to find. Hence such an anumAna by the sUnyavAdin is wrong.
praNAms Sri ChandramouLi prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Is this not clarified by bhAshyakAra in adhyAsa by giving the example of talamalanAdi parikalpitam?? There is no need for invariable existence of adhishtAnaM to get the bhrAnti jnAna. Atma is not pratyaksha gOchara where as adhyArOpita deha is pratyaksha, so anyonyAdhyAsa is not a possibility is the doubt, but bhAshyakAra clarifies this with another example that Atman is ahaM pratyaya gOchara.
H S Chandramouli
--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625F95EFE9F76DF08359887841C2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri ChandramouLi prabhuji
Hare Krishna
For Sri Bhagavatpada, Brahman is the ever **existing** adhishthAna. Subject to this only, any **other** adhishthAna may or may not be essential. That is exactly what the verse under discussion states. Are you saying Sri Bhagavatpada does not insist on even Brahman being necessary as adhishthAna for bhrAnti?
Ø I agree that brahman is sarvAdhishtAna, but here in this context of saMbhAvana bhAshyam in adhyAsa bhAshya, we have to also address the objection that the brahman being nirvishesha, apratyaksha the very inner self which is not an object as we advaitins speak about the non-objectness of the Atman, which is outside the notion of thou. So pUrvapaxi here says everyone will do the reality transfer (sarvO hi purOvasthite ‘eva’ vishaye vishayAntaraM adhyasyati) one object only on another object which is right in front of him (pratyaksha gOchara) how then can there be adhyAsa of objects and their attributes on the inner self?? Vishaya-vishayi anyOnyAdhyAsa…for this only bhAshyakAra gives the example of ground and dirt in the sky. So in this light the panchadashi siddhAnti’s assertion that भ्रमः (Bhramah) (superimposition) without a अधिष्ठान (adhiShThAna) (Base or Support) is impossible to find. What I am trying to say here is for bhrama the adhishtAnam is not necessarily a pratyaksha gOchara adhishtAnaM, and for Vishaya-vishaya adhyAsa bhAshyakAra gives explanation that self is not invariably a non-object for it is an object of the notion of “I” (ahaM pratyaya gOchara) and for vishaya-avishaya adhyAsa he gives the example of tala-mala in sky.
H S Chandramouli
--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625F60AD6E30FCF93FE1A5A841C2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Bhaskar YR
Are you saying Sri Bhagavatpada does not insist on even Brahman being necessary as adhishthAna for bhrAnti?
praNAms
Hare Krishna
After reading the above statement I am getting one more doubt, as per our experience, for getting the bhrAnti sarpa jnAna we need the adhishtAna rajju, here rajju is pratyaksha and an existing thing so that we get the sarpa bhrAnti jnAna in place of existing rajju or garland or crack on the groud or something object should be there. But when we say jagat as a whole itself is bhrAnti, what is the adhishtAna for that ?? for that matter, as per advaita brahman is not pratyaksha, nor he is an objective reality, so without clear adhishtAna as an existing thing we may get the bhrAnti jnAna of anything at any point of time, without pratyaksha adhishtAna one may get the bhrAnti jnAna without any external stimulation one may get sarpa jnAna in place of nacre or silver in place of rajju etc. So, to avoid this anishta tarka, for the Kalpita jagat (sarpa) some adhishtAna should be there in concrete form (rajju) if that is not there the sAdrushyata between adhyArOpita and adhishtAna will fall on his head. Hence it has been said for getting the sarpa bhrAnti jnAna, Ishwara srushti rajju (vyAhahArika nAma-rUpa jagat) should be there. And for the rajju (nAma rUpa jagat) brahman (the sarvAdhishtAna) is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa.
Bhaskar YR
There is no reference to AdhyAsa BhAshya
praNAms
Hare Krishna
Yes, there is no reference to adhyAsa bhAshya in the verse 2-35 but bhrama and its adhishtAna prompts me or reminds me to think in the light of adhyAsa bhAshya where bhAshyakAra addresses this in sambhAvana bhAshya.