Re: [Advaita-l] Doubts in Gita-BG-2-12

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste

All the objections raised can be answered by the following scriptural statements themselves, that Shankara cites widely across his bhashyas:

1.  In the Mahabharata Bhagavan Narayana displays His vishwarupa to Narada, by making a 'disclaimer':  Whatever I have displayed to you, the entire vision of Creation, is through My Maayaa.  Hence, do not take it to be real.' Shankara has cited this verse twice: 1. to show that the BhagavadrUpam is mAyA kalpitam, and 2. to show the mithyAtva of the creation:

In Brahma sutra bhashyam 3.2.17:  Shankara cites several Shruti passages and the Mahabharata for the purpose:  The Shruti teaches Brahman by negating all non-Brahman:  

दर्शयति चाथो अपि स्मर्यते ॥ १७ ॥

दर्शयति च श्रुतिः पररूपप्रतिषेधेनैव ब्रह्म — निर्विशेषत्वात् — ‘अथात आदेशो नेति नेति’ (बृ. उ. २ । ३ । ६) ‘अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि’ (के. उ. १ । ४) ‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह’ (तै. उ. २ । ४ । १) इत्येवमाद्या । बाष्कलिना च बाध्वः पृष्टः सन् अवचनेनैव ब्रह्म प्रोवाचेति श्रूयते — ‘स होवाचाधीहि भो इति स तूष्णीं बभूव तं ह द्वितीये तृतीये वा वचन उवाच ब्रूमः खलु त्वं तु न विजानासि । उपशान्तोऽयमात्मा’ इति । तथा स्मृतिष्वपि परप्रतिषेधेनैवोपदिश्यते — ‘ज्ञेयं यत्तत्प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वामृतमश्नुते । अनादिमत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते’ (भ. गी. १३ । १२) इत्येवमाद्यासु । तथा विश्वरूपधरो नारायणो नारदमुवाचेति स्मर्यते — ‘माया ह्येषा मया सृष्टा यन्मां पश्यसि नारद ।’ (म. भा. १२ । ३३९ । ४५) ‘सर्वभूतगुणैर्युक्तं नैवं मां ज्ञातुमर्हसि’ (म. भा. १२ । ३३९ । ४६) इति ॥ १७ ॥

So, from the statement of Bhagavan to Narada what follows is:

1.Bhagavan has the knowledge of the mithyAtva of jagat.  This implies he has knowledge of his own Brahmatvam, Advaita jnanam.  Yet he is seen teaching Narada the para tattvam.  There is no contradiction here:  Bhagavan knows that the difference: you, Narada and Me, the Lord and This jagat - all three, duality, is in the realm of avidya/maayaa and it is perfectly possible to use bahuvachanam with reference to the bodies, of Himself and of Narada and all the jivas in that maayaa-created jagat, and yet holding that the Atma is only one which alone appears as all this maayaa-created jagat in which alone this very vishva rupa darshanam to Narada also is included. Here the Paratattvam is Bhagavan in his Nirguna svarupam which alone remains after the maaya crated vishvarupam and Narada's body-mind complex, which is part of the maya created vishvarupam, are negated. 

2.  It is perfectly possible for the duality of Guru - Shishya and the ShikshA (teaching) in the Advaita model, amply demonstrated by the Lord in the Mahabharata cited above. 

3. Swami Vidyaranya, in the Panchadashi, has said:  Jagat mithyAtva jnAnam does not demand the coming to the end of perception of duality.  In fact in the absence of such a perception of duality for the Jnani, jivanmukti is impossible. This is because jivanmukti means the experience of prarabdha bhoga which can happen only when the jagat is there which gives bhoga to the body mind complex. 

The Shruti accepts jivanmukti by showing to us countless examples:  Yajnavalkya doing so much vyavahara, Uddaalaka who taught Tattvamasi to son Shvetaketu, Yama who taught neha nAnAsti kinchana = there is no duality at all in Brahman - to Nachiketas, AjAtashatru the King of Kashi teaching Baalaaki, the brahmana, in the Brihadaranyaka upanishat, Sanatkumara to Narada, Prajapati to Indra, Indra to Pratardana (Kaushitaki upanishad and discussed in the Brahma sutra bhashya), etc.  In all these cases the teacher of the Para Tattva is a Jnani, jivanmukta, and the teaching to some person occurs.  

There are instances in the Bhagavatam where the world is given the rope-snake analogy. The brahmatmaikatva jnanam of Parikshit is taught , 'BrahmAham' for kaivalya mukti. The very beginning of the Bhagavatam, the first shloka itself, has the mRShAtvam of srishTi. Brahman alone appearing of the jiva and jagat is also in the Bhagavatam.  Vishnu Purana has its own quota of Advaita. Prahlada's Advaitic realization is detailed there.

All these only contradict non-Advaitic schools. 

Thus the objections raised by Ramanuja and Vedanta Desika are all addressed already by the Shruti, Smriti and Shankara Bhashya.  A correct study and understanding of these would not have resulted in these objections. 

warm regards

subbu   

On Wed, Jan 1, 2025 at 2:10 PM Sangeerth P via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Namaskaram

I am herewith attaching the questions asked from the purvapaksha from
Vishishtadvaita Darshana for the Gita sloka-

न त्वेवाहं जातु नासं न त्वं नेमे जनाधिपाः ।
न चैव नभविष्यामः सर्वे वयमतः परम् ॥ १२ ॥
Here I am attaching the link
<https://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/srimad?language=dv&field_chapter_value=2&field_nsutra_value=12&scsh=1&scram=1&scvv=1>
which
will display the commentaries of both Sri Ramanujar (Gita Bashya[GB]) and
Swami Vedanta Desikar's (Gita Bashya Tatparya Chandrika[TC]).

Now moving to Ramanuja's and Desikar's arguments:

   1. अज्ञानमोहितं प्रति तन्निवृत्तये
   पारमार्थिकनित्यत्वोपदेशसमयेअहम्त्वम्इमेसर्वेवयम् इति व्यपदेशात्।-[GB-2-12]
   1. In this line Ramanujar clearly tells that this is the time of advice
      (all the acharyas atleast to the least knowledge which I have,
had accepted
      to the fact that the Gita shastra has come to remove the
delusion). During
      this time of advice, Krishna teaches him using the specific words - I
      (aham), you (tvam), these (ime), we all (vayam) have been used.
This bedha
      is *पारमार्थिक*.
      2. I think this is the reply which he wants to give to Adishankara
      who in his Gita bashya tells देहेभेदानुवृत्त्या बहुवचनं
नात्मभेदाभिप्रायेण।
      (the multiplicity is told because of beda in the deha and not
the atma beda)
       

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Sangeerth ji,

https://archive.org/download/visishtadvaita-sbg-2-12-advaita-comments/Visishtadvaita_SBG-2_12-Advaita_comments.pdf

Couple of years ago there was an occasion for me to review and share my opinion on the criticisms offered by Swami Ramanujacharya against Advaita siddhanta in SBG verse 2.12. The opinions were added as 'comments' in the PDF file extracted from the Sri Ramakrishna Math publication. This was an exercise of self-reflection, and I just uploaded and shared above. If interested, kindly download the file and open in a PDF reader to view the comments.

Feedback and corrections are earnestly solicited and most welcome.

prostrations,

Vikram

--
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/CAKk0Te02nhshcLwM5_f46J43UVnrSNwD9tCAOercfm%3DkoXbDqg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyan]

Namaste Vikramji

I have previously raised this issue in good faith, and I raise it again in good faith now because this is not clear to me. 

I  am looking at an answer from the perspective of SDV and not DSV.

Does Krishna know Arjuna is mithya? Yes.

Why bother teaching Arjuna then?

To give a modern analogy - If I am Ishwara, why will I bother to impart brahma-jnAna to chatGPT?

Best Regards

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Kalyan ji,

My comments are from SDV perspective. (The DSV perspective is actually more intriguing and nuanced.)

Let's take it step-by-step; and I am simplifying it for easier understanding.

<< Does Krishna know Arjuna is mithya? Yes. >>

The one-word answer is 'yes'. Bhagavan Shri Krishna knows that Shri Arjuna is mithya. 

But, let's take this further. Does Shri Krishna know that Shri Krishna is mithya? Please pause and consider.

If you say that the answer is 'no' - Shri Krishna is real and not mithya, then this is Advaita Vedanta misunderstood.

If you say that the answer is 'no' - Shri Krishna does not know that Shri Krishna is mithya, then Shri Krishna is an ajnani, again Advaita Vedanta misunderstood.

The correct answer is 'yes' - Shri Krishna knows that Shri Krishna is mithya too! Hence, a mithya Bhagavan Shri Krishna is teaching a mithya Shri Arjuna. The teaching itself is mithya too. So far there is no logical contradiction / impropriety here.

Let's delve deeper. When it is said that Shri Arjuna is mithya, what aspect of Shri Arjuna is actually categorized as mithya in Advaita? Is Shri Arjuna in entirety categorized as mithya? Not so. Shri Arjuna comprises a self-identified individualized BMI (gross + subtle + causal bodies) conditioning the pure Chaitanya. The individualized BMI and the self-identification with it are mithya. But the pure Chaitanya is real. When Shri Krishna considers Shri Arjuna as mithya, the consideration is only with the individualized BMI and its identification as "I am Arjuna". Similarly in the case of Shri Krishna, the individualized BMI whom others consider as Shri Krishna alone is mithya. However there is no misunderstood self-identification for Shri Krishna. Hence the whole transaction boils down to one mithya BMI with the correct understanding teaching this understanding to another mithya BMI who has an incorrect understanding. Please pause to reflect that both Shri Krishna and Shri Arjuna are mithya. The one pure Chaitanya alone is absolutely real; and this Chaitanya does not teach.

<< Why bother teaching Arjuna then? >>

Rather, why not? Does one BMI think that it is real and the other BMI is mithya to not bother teaching to the mithya BMI? Then alone your contention is valid; and this is Advaita Vedanta misunderstood. I will not bother to teach my child's video footage on a computer since there is a difference in the level of reality between me and my child's video footage. Similarly if, and if alone, Shri Krishna's BMI is believed to be real whereas Shri Arjuna's BMI is mithya, then there is no point bothering to teach Shri Arjuna.

But this is not the case. One mithya BMI is teaching another mithya BMI on what is the correct understanding at the BMI level. The purpose of the teaching is to remove the misunderstood self-identification with the BMI. This is called adhyasa and is the error or ignorance. Shri Krishna as a jnani does not have this incorrect self-identification. But Shri Arjuna as an ajnani has this incorrect self-identification. This is the purpose of the teaching.

An example is with mirage. It is indeed proper and appropriate for a person who perceives water in a desert, but knows it as a mirage, to teach this knowledge to another person standing next to him, who also sees the water, but takes it to be real water and does not yet know it as a mirage. The person who sees the water but knows it as a mirage is a jnani and the person who sees the water and considers that to be actual water is an ajnani. Could you please explain what is inappropriate here?

A jnani's (or Bhagavan's) upadesha is purely for loka anugraha, out of sheer unconditional compassion to others. Please pause to reflect on the role and utility of teaching between two same levels of reality.

<< To give a modern analogy - If I am Ishwara, why will I bother to impart brahma-jnAna to chatGPT? >>

The analogy is incorrect. Here 'I' and 'chatGPT' do not have the same level of reality of consciousness / sentience. However, please tell me what is wrong for me to leverage chatGPT to train another GenAI module like Gemini? The teacher Shri Krishna has the same level of reality as the student Shri Arjuna. Again, it is not that one real BMI is teaching a mithya BMI.

If anything is unclear, please feel free to pause and question.

prostrations,

Vikram

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/c3a4d841-24d1-44c3-88fc-18b52e0ced28n%40googlegroups.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

This is regarding the cited Shvetashvatara mantra:

नित्यो नित्यानां चेतनश्चेतनानामेको बहूनां यो विदधाति कामान् । 6.13

Brahman is the Eternal among eternals and the Consciousness/Sentience among sentients....

The above line appears in the Kathopanishat too 2.2.13

For the Kathopanishat mantra Shankara's bhashyam is: किञ्च, नित्यः अविनाशी नित्यानाम् अविनाशिनाम् । चेतनः चेतनानां चेतयितॄणां ब्रह्मादीनां प्राणिनाम् । अग्निनिमित्तमिव दाहकत्वमनग्नीनामुदकादीनामात्मचैतन्यनिमित्तमेव चेतयितृत्वमन्येषाम् ।  It's Brahman that lends etnerality to those which are eternal. It is the Consciousness principle inherent in sentient entities such as Brahmaa, etc. For this the analogies given by Shankara are: the burning power in various manifestations of fire is due to the basic fire. It's due to Brahma Chaitanyam that entities are able to display/manifest possibilities of grasping, knowing, etc.

Thus, the Shwetashvatara mantra does not teach jiva - Ishwara difference. As per Shankara's interpretation of the KaTha and Shwetashwatara mantras, the body-mind complex which is a product of prakriti, cannot have the power to perform what all functions they are designed to perform by Prakriti. Thus, the body-mind is insentient, jaDa. For it to function the Consciousness power form Brahman is required. Just like the various electrical gadgets we have, while designed to perform specific functions, are able to perform their functions only when power, current, is connected to them. The consciousness that has the wrong identification with the body-mind complex is called jiva. The consciousness aspect is Brahman. Hence, there is no question of jiva-Ishwara bheda that is absolute.

From the Kenopanishat initial mantras and from Dhruva's prayer in the Bhagavatam -

श्रीमद्भागवतपुराणम्/स्कन्धः ४/अध्यायः ९

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

ध्रुव उवाच -

योऽन्तः प्रविश्य मम वाचमिमां प्रसुप्तां

संजीवयत्यखिलशक्तिधरः स्वधाम्ना ।

अन्यांश्च हस्तचरणश्रवणत्वगादीन्

प्राणान्नमो भगवते पुरुषाय तुभ्यम् ॥ ६ ॥

Here we see Dhruva acknowledging the Power of Brahman in activating/enlivening the organs such as speech. hands, feet, touch, and other organs (which are all evolutes of Prakriti and therefore jaDa).

From this we conclude that only jaDa requires Chetana/chaitanya to function. Chaitanya/chetana does not require chaitanya to function. From this rule, the teaching of the Vedanta, Puranas, etc. is that the jiva, when divested of the identification with jaDa, is Brahma Chaitanya alone.

Dhruva confirms this in these verses:

एकस्त्वमेव भगवन् इदमात्मशक्त्या

मायाख्ययोरुगुणया महदाद्यशेषम् ।

सृष्ट्वानुविश्य पुरुषस्तदसद्‍गुणेषु

नानेव दारुषु विभावसुवद्विभासि ॥ ७ ॥

You, One alone, due to Maya endowed with Sattva, etc. gunas, are appearing as mahat, etc. in creation and have 'entered' into them as the sentient principle and are appearing as though multifold/many. Dhruva gives the analogy of fire appearing latent in combustible objects.

It is thus only in Advaita that the jiva is not jaDa. In other systems the jiva is essentially jaDa as those systems accept that the jiva is eternally dependent on Brahman for sentiency too.

The Bh.Gita 13th chapter verses 5 and 6 clearly teach that the entire created world of objects, called kShetram, Prakriti, here, including the body mind and the emotions/reactions like desire, etc. and the world of objects outside the body, are all jaDa requiring the Kshetrajna, Brahman, to validate them. The Gita at the end of this chapter gives the analogy of the One Sun illuminating the entire world, to drive home the point that Kshetrajna, the sentient Principle, is the one that illuminates/knows/perceives the entire created world.

Om Tat Sat

      3. So Ramanujar point, to my understanding is that if the
      multiplicity is told for the deha, and in the case of Advaita paksha, the
      upadhi deha itself is false(अतात्त्विकत्वेन), then showing the
beda is not
      apt. (तत्त्वोपदेशसमये भेदनिर्देशो न संगच्छते)
      4. Ramanujar provides pramana from the Swetashvatara Upanishad -
      नित्यो नित्यानां चेतनश्चेतनानामेको बहूनां यो विदधाति कामान्। (श्वेता0
      6।13). This sentence is clearly mentioning about paramarthika beda and
      Adisankara's vada contradicts to this Shruti.  You can also refer to
      Ramanujar's Vedanta Sangraha (Aphorism-81)
      2. अथ परमपुरुषस्य अधिगताद्वैतज्ञानस्य बाधितानुवृत्तिरूपम् इदं
   भेदज्ञानं दग्धपटादिवत् न बन्धकम् इति उच्येत न एतद् उपपद्यते-[GB-2-12]
   1. Here Desikar poses a valid question that If Krishna has attained this
      knowledge by hearing or seeing? He says in both the cases Krishna having
      attained Advaitic jnana is not apt because, if the person is able to see
      some beda then doesn't it mean that he has attained the Advaitic jnana.
      2. In this case Ramanuja gives an Advaitic Purvapakshi on the
      standpoint of *Badhitaanuvruti*.
      3. But Ramanujar argues that If one sees a mirage and now, he
      understands that it's not a mirage then he will not take any
action to get
      the water from the mirage. But in case of Krishna, if Krishna is said to
      have attained the Advaitic knowledge by hearing or seeing then Krishna
      should not have advised because, if he takes an action then it means that
      he has not understood abheda and then Krishna will become ineligible for
      giving this advise which in any way is not true as per Advaitins.
      4. What i felt was that Ramanujar asks questions to the Advaitins
      that *Vyavahara *must be in accordance with *Tatvanishchaya *and not
      two different things.
      3. किं च परमपुरुषश्च इदानीन्तनगुरुपरम्परा च अद्वितीयात्मस्वरूपनिश्चये
   सति अनुवर्तमाने अपि भेदज्ञाने स्वनिश्चयानुरूपम् अद्वितीयम् आत्मज्ञानं कस्मै
   उपदिशति इति वक्तव्यम्।-[GB-2-12]
   1. He gives multiple examples
      1. He goes to the level of asking to whom Krishna will teach if the
      teacher has got Advaita Jnana. If one says that he is teaching to his own
      reflection (प्रतिबिम्बवत्प्रतीयमानेभ्यः) मणिकृपाणदर्पणादिषु
logic cannot be
      applied here is what Ramanujar states.
      2. Karana (Dosha) and Karya (Branti) - this karanakarya bhava cannot
      be applied to Krishnar.
      3. द्विचन्द्रज्ञानादौ- A person if he has an eye problem and sees 2
      moons and get a knowledge from his teacher that only one moon exist,
      because of this knowledge his eye disease will not be cured. If this
      example is true then Ramanujar points out *Bedhabrama (*wrong
      knowledge*) *and *Bhedabramabadaka*(knowledge of no multiplicity)
      will come to picture and say previously I had a wrong knowledge and now I
      have a correct knowledge, then there is one another truth apart from
      Brahman which is this Bhedabramabadaka jnana which is second to
Brahman and
      Advaita does not give place to this.
      4. If these jnana are there for Krishna then he will not a an
      eligible person for Upadesha. And if this bedha is not there then Krishna
      should not have given advised because then it will raise a
question of whom
      is Krishna advising to? This is dealt greatly by Desikan
      4. गुरुः तज्ज्ञानं च कल्पितम् इति चेत् शिष्यतज्ज्ञानयोः अपि
   कल्पितत्वात् तदपि अनिवर्त्तकम्।-[GB-2-12]
   1. If Krishna is giving advice as guru, imagining a Jagat as in dream,
      then also this logic can be applied to the student as well that
the student
      is there in the dream and the dream can collapse anytime and let him come
      out of the dream anytime and removing the need for Upadesha.


To whatever I understood from their commentary I have jotted a few points
here. Please feel free to point out my mistake in their understanding. The
main purpose of listing these are as

   1.  To get an idea of how the Advaitins as Uttarapaksha reply to these
   Purvapaksha replied by Ramanujar and Desikar.
   2. Does Shankara himself reply to these questions asked by Ramanuja and
   Desikar, in any of his granthas beforehand only. If yes, please attach
   references.
   3. What is the reply of the acharyas post-Shankara. Give references
   4. I would like to specifically here if Bellamkonda Ramaraya Kavi takes
   any of these pakshas and discuss in his granthas as he himself is from a
   SriVaishnava family. Give references.


Regards
Sangeerth
8608658009
_______________________________________________
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

[Kalyan]

Namaste Sri Vikram ji

Let me thank you for taking the trouble to answer my question. Once again, to reiterate, this is not an argument or challenge but a question in good faith. 

I tried reading and re-reading your message, but I could not understand the answer. 

I think this is the analogy that Sri Ramanuja mentions. 

When one knows a mirage as a mirage, will there be any effort made to fetch water from it?

Bhagavan Krishna as Ishwara, knows that there is no bondage, no liberation, no one suffering bondage, none achieving liberation. He knows duality does not exist. (The upAdhis of Krishna and Arjuna are unreal.) I think the analogy of trying to teach brahmajnAna to chatGPT is valid here. I am not sure how you are able to dismiss the analogy. Nevertheless, at least the analogy given by Sri Ramanuja is appropriate here. Will there be an effort to fetch water from a mirage after knowing its a mirage? In fact, why would Bhagavan Krishna even bother to take incarnation to establish dharma? 

I think the answer from DSV perspective is very simple. Its all part of your dream, including Bhagavan Krishna. That answer is acceptable to me. However, I am not sure I found any convincing answer from SDV perspective so far. 

Best Regards 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

I think the answer from DSV perspective is very simple. Its all part of your dream, including Bhagavan Krishna. That answer is acceptable to me. However, I am not sure I found any convincing answer from SDV perspective so far. 

 

Ø     IMO, in SDV there is obviously  jeveshwara vibhAga, in Advaita too we have provision to take the jeeveshwara vibhAga as real at transactional level.  jeeva is avidyAvanta and Ishwara is nitya Shuddha mukta svarUpa, hence in geeta itself Lord says I have somany previous janma-s and I remember it likewise you too but you don’t remember it etc.  So here Ishwara is karma phala dAta and jeeva is kartru and bhOktru, it is only through Ishwaraanugraha jeeva would get the mOksha or through Ishwaraanugraha only he ( the jeeva) would get the ‘advaita vAsana / saMskAra).  kArikA 3-5 and tatsambandha bhAshya would be more relevant here I reckon.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Kalyan ji.

When one knows a mirage as a mirage, will there be any effort made to fetch water from it?

But the effort-maker is part of the mirage. So, where is the incomgruity?

 

Bhagavan Krishna as Ishwara, knows that there is no bondage, no liberation, no one suffering bondage, none achieving liberation. He knows duality does not exist. (The upAdhis of Krishna and Arjuna are unreal.) I think the analogy of trying to teach brahmajnAna to chatGPT is valid here. I am not sure how you are able to dismiss the analogy. Nevertheless, at least the analogy given by Sri Ramanuja is appropriate here. Will there be an effort to fetch water from a mirage after knowing its a mirage? In fact, why would Bhagavan Krishna even bother to take incarnation to establish dharma? 

The taking of avatAra, protecting dharma, teaching are within the domain of upAdhi. And hence within the domain of mirage. So, no incongruity.

I think the answer from DSV perspective is very simple. Its all part of your dream, including Bhagavan Krishna. That answer is acceptable to me. However, I am not sure I found any convincing answer from SDV perspective so far. 

Both SDV and DSV agree on illusoriness of seen. Bhagvan's body transacting with Arjuna is within the domain of seen. Both unreal. So, it is like two characters of movie. One is acting as Bhagvan and the other is shishya. The transaction, i.e. fetching water, is within mirage.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 3:53 PM Kalyan <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sri Vikram ji

Let me thank you for taking the trouble to answer my question. Once again, to reiterate, this is not an argument or challenge but a question in good faith. 

I tried reading and re-reading your message, but I could not understand the answer. 

I think this is the analogy that Sri Ramanuja mentions. 

When one knows a mirage as a mirage, will there be any effort made to fetch water from it?

Dear Kalyan ji,

Actually that analogy is given by Shankara himself in the BGB 5.9.  The context is:  The Jnani, till the fall of the body, will be living out a life of the body mind complex. Then his realization will be of this nature:  When all the activities of the sense/motor organ - outside objects happen, his conviction will be: the organs are contacting the organs, and I the Atman am doing nothing:  

प्रलपन् विसृजन्गृह्णन्नुन्मिषन्निमिषन्नपि ।
इन्द्रियाणीन्द्रियार्थेषु वर्तन्त इति धारयन् ॥ ९ ॥

नैव किञ्चित् करोमीति युक्तः समाहितः सन् मन्येत चिन्तयेत् , तत्त्ववित् आत्मनो याथात्म्यं तत्त्वं वेत्तीति तत्त्ववित् परमार्थदर्शीत्यर्थः ॥

कदा कथं वा तत्त्वमवधारयन् मन्येत इति, उच्यते — पश्यन्निति । मन्येत इति पूर्वेण सम्बन्धः । यस्य एवं तत्त्वविदः सर्वकार्यकरणचेष्टासु कर्मसु अकर्मैव, पश्यतः सम्यग्दर्शिनः तस्य सर्वकर्मसंन्यासे एव अधिकारः, कर्मणः अभावदर्शनात् । न हि मृगतृष्णिकायाम् उदकबुद्ध्या पानाय प्रवृत्तः उदकाभावज्ञानेऽपि तत्रैव पानप्रयोजनाय प्रवर्तते ॥ ९ ॥ 

While saying this Shankara says: For such a realized one, there is nothing to act and achieve; he is fit to renounce all action.  He gives the analogy: For someone who is thirsty, has commenced to reach the water source, which is in truth a mirage, would not continue the action despite knowing there is no water.

The analogy only says: the purpose of the world is to provide this or that goal to be achieved. Self realization puts an end to any such search.

But the Gita also teaches that the Jnani is engaged in action: of the order of uplifting the world, for the sake of others, etc.. Shankara has amply discoursed on these verses: All such action of the Jnani is non-action, says Shankara: the Gita too says: karmaNi abhipravrutto'pi naiva kinchit karoti saH - even if he is excessively engaged in action, he has done nothing.

Thus, Krishna's perception of 'others', the need for uplifting them, teaching them, etc. despite having the knowledge of the unreality of the world and the jivatvam, etc. is quite in place and is not any 'unreasonable' as Ramanuja, etc. would make it to be. The mirage analogy is perfectly fine: the Jnani will not approach the mirage water to quench his thirst. He has no personal purpose to be served. But as the jagadguru he engages in teaching, etc.  In all this, he knows that he is not acting but only the body-mind acts.   

In the third chapter he says:

सक्ताः कर्मण्यविद्वांसो यथा कुर्वन्ति भारत । कुर्याद्विद्वांस्तथासक्तश्चिकीर्षुर्लोकसङ्ग्रहम् ॥ २५ ॥ 

Let the Jnani, while in the midst of ajnanis, perform all actions they perform just as they perform, but with just this difference: they are desirously engaged but the Jnani is devoid of the desire/attachment. 

So, Krishna doing exactly that will not contradict the Advaitic tenets of jagat mithyAtva, etc. 

regards

subbu        

 

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Sri Subbu-ji,

I now have a fundamental doubt. Is the teaching of jaganmityAtva considered real?

Look forward to your clarification  

Namaste,
Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2025 5:56 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: [Advaita-l] Doubts in Gita-BG-2-12

 

--

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/CAKk0Te1CEVB1cCkuk5DeJkwhfe64pbBj4p5%3DrpwEyJjnW0vhFw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Kalyan ji,

I believe there is a disconnect of the fundamentals to begin with. We can take the time to clarify the fundamentals before proceeding further. In the spirit of positive discussion, and to ensure we are on the same page, I have requested you to answer some questions. Kindly indulge in answering them as we go along. If any of the points / questions are unclear, please pause there and do not proceed further until we clear that.

<< In fact, why would Bhagavan Krishna even bother to take incarnation to establish dharma? >>

As I understand, you are questioning why Bhagavan, who has Brahma-jnana, should even care to take an incarnation to come to the mithya jagat to teach a mithya Shri Arjuna. Or in other words, why would a jnani, who has Brahma-jnana, bother to interact in the world as a jivanmukta?
Believing that you familiar with Advaita definitions of satya, mithya, asatya, could you please answer and explain from your perspective:
1. Is Ishvara / Bhagavan satya or mithya or asatya?
2. Is Bhagavan's incarnation as Shri Krishna satya or mithya or asatya?
3. Is Shri Arjuna & entire jagat satya or mithya or asatya?
4. Is Brahma-jnana satya or mithya or asatya?
5. Is Shri Krishna's teachings of Brahma-jnana to Shri Arjuna satya or mithya or asatya?
6. Are the activities seen to be performed by Shri Krishna or a jnani satya or mithya or asatya?
7. Would you agree that a satya entity performing a mithya activity is actually incongruous? If not, please explain.
8. But would you agree that a mithya entity performing a mithya activity is not incongruous? If not, please explain.

<< When one knows a mirage as a mirage, will there be any effort made to fetch water from it? Nevertheless, at least the analogy given by Sri Ramanuja is appropriate here. Will there be an effort to fetch water from a mirage after knowing its a mirage? >>

Agreed; No, there will not be any effort made to fetch water after knowing it as a mirage. Advaita siddhanta too says the same point, as Subbu ji has pointed out quoting SBG-5.9 bhashyam.
Just as a person who knows the mirage will not put any effort to fetch water from it, a jnani who knows the mithyatva of the world will not put any effort to harbor any likes-dislikes or derive any pleasure or have any desires from the world. Advaita does not say that a jnani will put forth the effort or perform an action for them to derive something from the mithya world.
9. But please answer, what is incongruous for one person who knows the mirage, to teach that knowledge to another person who does not yet know that the seen water is a mirage?
Similarly, a jnani has the knowledge of mithyatva of the world. Why shouldn't the jnani teach that knowledge to an ajnani? In the course of the teachings, a jnani does not expect to derive anything from the mithya transactions.
Advaita siddhanta says that Ishvara and jnani are set in position to play their natural leela in the jagat due to the presence and influence of Maya. But neither are affected by Maya.

<< Bhagavan Krishna as Ishwara, knows that there is no bondage, no liberation, no one suffering bondage, none achieving liberation. He knows duality does not exist. (The upAdhis of Krishna and Arjuna are unreal.) >>

Of course, Bhagavan Shri Krishna (or any other jnani) knows that there is no absolute reality in bondage / liberation / people suffering in bondage / people achieving liberation / entire perception of duality / upadhis.
10. Agreed; but please answer, when you say "does not exist" or "unreal" do you mean to say that the above are all asatya or mithya per Advaita definition? The english translation could mean either and hence asking for explicit clarification.
11. If you say asatya, then this is Advaita misunderstood. For Shri Krishna and the jnanis the jagat is not asatya; it is only mithya. It is asatya only from pure Chaitanya's paramarthika perspective. Please pause and consider. This is a big mistake.
12. If you say mithya, then the next question is what about an ajnani? Clearly the jagat is not asatya for an ajnani. Hence it has to be either satya or mithya. It cannot be mithya either since that is the knowledge of a jnani. Therefore for an ajnani the jagat is considered as satya.
In summary we have, for Shri Krishna and jnani the jagat is mithya and for ajnani the jagat is satya.
13. Now please answer, what is incongruous for Shri Krishna or the jnani to teach the mityatva of the jagat, out of unconditional compassion, to an ajnani who considers the jagat as satya?

<< I think the analogy of trying to teach brahmajnAna to chatGPT is valid here. I am not sure how you are able to dismiss the analogy. >>

The analogy is inaccurate in both a literal and figurative sense.
In a literal sense, Brahma-jnana can only be gained by an entity possessing a subtle body (sukshma sharira comprising the antahkarana).
There is no indication that chatGPT possesses a subtle body / antahkarana. It is thus impossible for chatGPT to gain Brahma-jnana. Hence the analogy is inaccurate.
In a figurative sense, the person teaching Brahma-jnana to chatGPT has a different level of reality / consciousness / sentience than that of chatGPT. But in the case of a jnani teaching an ajnani, the jnani and ajnani are both in the same level of reality. Hence the analogy is inaccurate.

But please answer a more fundamental question:

14. What is this Brahma-jnana and where is it actually gained?
15. Is it the atman that is gaining the Brahma-jnana or is it the antahkarana gaining the Brahma-jnana as special type of vritti-jnana?

prostrations,
Vikram

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Suresh ji,

I recognize your question is directly addressed to Shri Subbu ji and I will await his response.

But given the similarity of your question with the questions I raised in the discussion with Kalyan ji, if you are interested, I would request and encourage you to share your opinion on the other thread as well.

prostrations,

Vikram

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB45167BB386AD7C5F4658DE39A9142%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[Kalyan]

Namaste Vikram ji

I try to answer your questions to the best of my understanding.

1. Is Ishvara / Bhagavan satya or mithya or asatya?

Mithya or Asatya (either one is fine, despite the differences of definitions)

2. Is Bhagavan's incarnation as Shri Krishna satya or mithya or asatya?

Mithya or Asatya (either one is fine)

3. Is Shri Arjuna & entire jagat satya or mithya or asatya?

Mithya or Asatya (either one is fine)

4. Is Brahma-jnana satya or mithya or asatya?

By brahma-jnAna, I assume you mean, the acquiring of brahma-jnAna. This is Mithya or Asatya (either one is fine). But by brahma-jnAna, if you mean brahman itself, then this is satya. 

5. Is Shri Krishna's teachings of Brahma-jnana to Shri Arjuna satya or mithya or asatya?

Two types of teachings exist. The vyavahArika is mithya or asatya. Brahman itself is satya. The act of teaching is mithya or asatya.

6. Are the activities seen to be performed by Shri Krishna or a jnani satya or mithya or asatya?

Mithya or Asatya (either one is fine)

7. Would you agree that a satya entity performing a mithya activity is actually incongruous? If not, please explain.

A relatively satya entity like a human being can dream, which is relatively mithya. So a satya entity can perform a mithya activity. Yes, the firing of neurons for the dream would be relatively satya, but the product of that firing, the dream itself, is relatively mithya. Or one can say that a satya entity can generate something mithya, if one is more comfortable putting it that way. 

8. But would you agree that a mithya entity performing a mithya activity is not incongruous? If not, please explain.

A dream tiger can fight a dream lion. This is fine. Mithya entity can perform a mithya act.

9. But please answer, what is incongruous for one person who knows the mirage, to teach that knowledge to another person who does not yet know that the seen water is a mirage?

A jnani teaching others is not logically incongruous. Krishna as Ishwara teaching others is not logically incongruous. It is just that I do  not see what would be the motivation to teach. If I were Ishware, (why) would I try to impart brahma-jnAna to chatGPT? Or (why) would I try to impart brahma-jnAna to Tom and Jerry characters? There is nothing logically incongruous about trying to impart brahma-jnAna to Tom and Jerry or chatGPT. I just do not understand why I would do that? 

10. Agreed; but please answer, when you say "does not exist" or "unreal" do you mean to say that the above are all asatya or mithya per Advaita definition? The english translation could mean either and hence asking for explicit clarification.

I do not make a big deal of the differences between mithya and asatya. Yes, the definitions are different but either choice is ok for me as long as brahman alone is treated as satya. For hair-splitting arguments, yes, we may need to differentiate between them, but this current discussion is not a hair-splitting one (in my humble opinion). 

11. If you say asatya, then this is Advaita misunderstood. For Shri Krishna and the jnanis the jagat is not asatya; it is only mithya. It is asatya only from pure Chaitanya's paramarthika perspective. Please pause and consider. This is a big mistake.

As I mention above, this is not a very important point for me. Mithya or asatya are both fine.

12. If you say mithya, then the next question is what about an ajnani? Clearly the jagat is not asatya for an ajnani. Hence it has to be either satya or mithya. It cannot be mithya either since that is the knowledge of a jnani. Therefore for an ajnani the jagat is considered as satya.

jnAni or ajnAni, brahman is the only satya. satya will not change from person to person. Or, I think we are moving into semantics here. An ajnani "considers" the jagat as satya, but ajnani himself/herself is either mithya or asatya.

13. Now please answer, what is incongruous for Shri Krishna or the jnani to teach the mityatva of the jagat, out of unconditional compassion, to an ajnani who considers the jagat as satya?

There is no logical incongruity in the act of teaching. But as I mentioned above, there would be no motivation to teach. It is like sympathizing with cartoon characters like Tom and Jerry or sympathizing with chatGPT. I disagree that the analogy is inaccurate. It is accurate to the extent that neither Arjuna not chatGPT is truly conscious. Yes, both Krishna and Arjuna are at one level of reality - mithya or asatya. But Krishna's knowledge is at an other level of reality. This knowledge of Krishna is synonymous with brahman. With knowledge at a higher level of reality, the question of motivation arises. Again, one needs to see what is the motivation to fetch water from a mirage, when one knows it as a mirage (Yes, this is Sri Shankara's analogy as Sri Subbuji mentions).

14. What is this Brahma-jnana and where is it actually gained?
15. Is it the atman that is gaining the Brahma-jnana or is it the antahkarana gaining the Brahma-jnana as special type of vritti-jnana?

I have not studied advanced advaita, but I will hazard a guess here. Atman already has brahma-jnAna. There is nothing for it to gain. Antahkarana is jada or insentient. It cannot gain jnAna. If you think antahkarana is like reflected consciousness, then yes, antahkarana "gains jnAna" in the same way in which chatGPT might "learn" that brahman is satya when you give it good amount of training data. But in reality antahkarana is not chaitanya. A jaDa vastu cannot have brahma-jnAna. 

Warm Regards

Kalyan

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaskaram Vikram-ji,

I may be wrong, but personally I think Dvaita and VishishtAdvaita could easily be accommodated as vyAvahArika satya. AchArya Shankara has accepted plurality based on the body - देहभेदानुवृत्त्या बहुवचनम् , नात्मभेदाभिप्रायेण. 

But this acceptance of body based bheda - would make jagat a dependent reality on the Atman. So, I was wondering how to reconcile this with the Advaitic teaching of jaganmithyAtva. If everything is mithya, then the Advaitic teaching also would end up as mithya right?

I look forward to clarification from other knowledgeable members.

Namaste,
Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Vikram Jagannathan <vikky...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2025 10:57 PM

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLddfqJOiweVV33bmW5PO-KtxXadcz_MpurvervQ8hpRhQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 4:03 AM suresh srinivasamurthy <sure...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sri Subbu-ji,

I now have a fundamental doubt. Is the teaching of jaganmityAtva considered real?

Look forward to your clarification  

The Advaita Siddhi has the reply: mithyAtva of mithyAtva. That doesn't affect the efficacy of Advaita sadhana, etc. In the broader context the Upanishad itself has said: vedAH avedAH - meaning that the Veda which teaches the means for the purusharthas itself is not absolutely real. Shankara has in the BSB 2.1.14 dealt with this question:  He reasons, by giving many analogies like dream water, deluded by the thought that one has consumed poison, resulting in death, etc. that:  

The Upanishads teach: Shvetaketu attained realization, so did Nachiketas.  But nowhere does the Upanishad teach that those who attained liberation by upanishadic jnAnam, despite the upanishads being not absolutely real, returned to samsara.

In other words, the pramANa for the inefficacy of the not-absolutely real upanishads should have been taught by the upanishads themselves.  But such is not the case. So, these things clinch the Advaitic position and make it unshakable. 

warm regards

subbu   

Namaste,
Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2025 5:56 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: [Advaita-l] Doubts in Gita-BG-2-12

 

R0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Dhanyosmi Suresh ji. I will let other knowledgeable members chip in.

prostrations,

Vikram

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB4516ED1F00A84D6D728050A6A9152%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Kalyan ji,

The crux of the confusion has been called out in the last paragraph. Let's discuss that in more detail in good faith.

<< I disagree that the analogy is inaccurate. It is accurate to the extent that neither Arjuna not chatGPT is truly conscious. >>

I beg to disagree here. Could you please explain how Shri Arjuna is not truly conscious? Shri Arjuna (Chaitanya conditioned by an individualized BMI) is a conscious entity and is exactly as conscious as Shri Krishna. There is no difference between them in terms or levels of consciousness. ChatGPT on the other hand does not exhibit any consciousness due to the absence of antahkarana.

 
<< Yes, both Krishna and Arjuna are at one level of reality - mithya or asatya. But Krishna's knowledge is at an other level of reality. This knowledge of Krishna is synonymous with brahman. >>

I beg to disagree here as well. 'Knowledge of' Shri Krishna is not synonymous with Brahman. Any 'Knowledge of' or knowledge possessed by a person (or even Bhagavan) is only objective knowledge (vritti jnana) and is not the same as the very svarupa of Chaitanya which is pure jnana or Brahman Itself. There is a clear distinction between the mithya vritti jnana (which is a modification of antahkarana) versus the satya jnana svarupam Brahman. The jnana svarupam Brahman is the same in Shri Krishna and Shri Arjuna. But Shri Krishna possesses a specific mithya vritti jnana called Brahma-jnana which is not possessed by Shri Arjuna. This Brahma-jnana per-se is not synonymous with Brahman although the content pointed by this knowledge is Brahman itself. In other words, brahmakara-vritti-jnana is not synonymous / identical with Brahman.

<< With knowledge at a higher level of reality, the question of motivation arises. >>

While the content of or the entity pointed by the Brahma-jnana is the svarupa of higher level of reality, the knowledge itself is not at another level of reality. The knowledge that is being possessed or gained is only within the mithya realm. Shri Arjuna as an ajnani is also capable of gaining this Brahma-jnana within this mithya realm itself through a mithya teacher and mithya teaching. But the uniqueness of this teaching is that it points the student to realize the very nature of the ever existing higher level reality within the student themself.

Again, the teacher, the student, the teachings and the knowledge are all exactly in the same level of reality - mithya - and not in any relatively higher/lower levels. But your analogies of chatGPT or Tom & Jerry characters are clearly in relatively different levels of reality. Motivation is a valid question only in the latter but not in the former.

Please ponder and feel free to ask further questions. Perhaps other more learned members in this group will clarify.

Just to close out some of the other points -

The definition of asat (asatya) is that the entity never exists / experienced anywhere across all periods of time. Keeping aside the paramarthika perspective for our current discussion, and considering vyavaharika:
#1, #2, #3 and #6 are mithya. This means Ishvara is mithya; Ishvara's avatara as Shri Krishna is also mithya.
#4 - Brahma-jnana refers to the knowledge of oneness of Brahman-Atman (Brahman-Atman-ekatvam). This is a special type of jnana (technically called as brahmakara-vritti-jnana) gained by the antahkarana. Since this is something that is / can be gained, this Brahma-jnana is mithya too.
#5 - Since teaching involves a change in knowledge and is objective in nature, this is mithya too.
#7 - There is no relatively satya entity. Satya in Advaita has a very specific definition. Pure Chaitanya (Brahman / Atman / Self) alone satisfies the definition and hence alone is satya. Satya is immutable and cannot perform any activity onto Itself or others. What is commonly referred to as relatively real is mithya alone. Those entities that are considered as either vyavaharika satya or pratibhashika satya are mithya alone. Except for Maya (or avidya) there cannot be anything produced from / by satya. And, yes, Maya (or avidya) itself is incongruous. Hence your examples of relative satya producing relative mithya are actually only examples of mithya producing another mithya. If you disagree, please explain.
#8 - Agreed; as explained above.

At this juncture, we have Ishvara as mithya and Ishvara's avatara as mithya. Shri Arjuna, as an ajnani, is also mithya. We are within the same realm of reality - namely mithya. Satya entity is out of context at this juncture.
Now, while Ishvara or Bhagavan Shri Krishna is aware of the mithyatva of jagat, Shri Arjuna as an ajnani believes the jagat to be satya. This is a misunderstanding and is the root cause of bondage, fear, desire and transmigration of Shri Arjuna. Just as the ajnani considers jagat to be satya, bondage, transmigration and liberation are taken to be satya as well. Tha ajnani feels to be suffering from satya fear, desires, likes-dislikes, joys-sorrow and earnestly seeks freedom from these in the form of liberation.

#9 - So to your question, what motivation does Bhagavan have to teach? Let me ask this question - is there any benefit of this teaching to Shri Arjuna (or an ajnani) or not?
Although it is accepted that this teaching is indeed mithya alongside the distinctions of teacher & student, please tell me whether the teaching has any benefit for the student or not. If not, kindly explain.
If this teaching has some benefit to an ajnani, then this benefit itself is the motivation for the jnani. This motivation is called karuna or compassion. If and only if the teaching does not have benefit to an ajnani, that the motivation of the teacher can be questioned.
Your analogies of "I trying to impart Brahma-jnana to chatGPT or Tom & Jerry characters" implies a different level of reality for "I" versus "chatGPT or Tom & Jerry characters". Would you agree that the teaching of Brahma-jnana has no benefit to chatGPT and the Tom & Jerry characters? If yes, then your question is valid that I do not have any motivation to teach here.
But this is not the case with a jnani teaching Brahma-jnana to an ajnani. Here there is a benefit to the ajnani and that itself is the motivation to the jnani. The jnani is not looking to gain anything out of this transaction. This critical point is where there has been a disconnect in our discussion.

#10 - The clear distinction between the definition of satya, mithya, asatya is of paramount importance in Advaita siddhanta. A misunderstanding of these terms is a sure-shot cause of confusions and apparent contradictions & inconsistencies of Advaita system. One cannot criticize Advaita for one's lack of proper understanding of these terms.
There is a significant difference between a jnani considering jagat as mithya versus a jnani considering jagat as asatya. A jnani being mithya has a valid interaction with a mithya jagat, but not so with an asatya jagat. A criticism of why is a jnani interacting with an asatya jagat is valid, the interaction with a mithya jagat is not subject to any criticism.
In my opinion, if I may say so, the reason for your confusion and question is because you incorrectly believe the jnani has a different level of reality than the jagat. To me it seems that you feel the jnani with Brahma-jnana is a higher level of reality than the jagat or even an ajnani. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

#11 - Sorry, but this distinction is important. One cannot attempt to condense the three terms - satya / mithya / asatya - into two terms in vyavaharika parlance. This is a big mistake in understanding Advaita Vedanta. A mithya entity has relative validity & utility; whereas an asatya entity has no validity whatsoever.

#12 - Agreed; what is Satya will not change, but what a person believes to be satya can change based on their ignorance and knowledge. Agreed that an ajnani 'considers' themself and the jagat as satya, but the fact is that the ajnani and jagat are both mithya. They are not considered as asatya within the context of our discussion as they do not satisfy the definition of asatya.

prostrations,

Vikram

--

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/87949e6c-6808-47cf-86ce-a66afe34ed55n%40googlegroups.com.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Sri Subbu-ji,

<

In other words, the pramANa for the inefficacy of the not-absolutely real upanishads should have been taught by the upanishads themselves.  But such is not the case. So, these things clinch the Advaitic position and make it unshakable. 

>

Actually, the use of double negatives makes it positive right? Though Atman does not need any pramAna to prove its existence, the aikya of Atman with Brahman (which is everywhere) needs Vedic pramAna.

I am still wondering about the "reality" of jaganmthyAtva! May be, it means jagat is not a separate reality apArt from the Atman/Brahman??!!

Namaste,
Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>

Sent: Friday, January 3, 2025 5:13 AM

To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: [Advaita-l] Doubts in Gita-BG-2-12

On Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 4:03 AM suresh srinivasamurthy <sure...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sri Subbu-ji,

I now have a fundamental doubt. Is the teaching of jaganmityAtva considered real?

Look forward to your clarification  

The Advaita Siddhi has the reply: mithyAtva of mithyAtva. That doesn't affect the efficacy of Advaita sadhana, etc. In the broader context the Upanishad itself has said: vedAH avedAH - meaning that the Veda which teaches the means for the purusharthas itself is not absolutely real. Shankara has in the BSB 2.1.14 dealt with this question:  He reasons, by giving many analogies like dream water, deluded by the thought that one has consumed poison, resulting in death, etc. that:  

The Upanishads teach: Shvetaketu attained realization, so did Nachiketas.  But nowhere does the Upanishad teach that those who attained liberation by upanishadic jnAnam, despite the upanishads being not absolutely real, returned to samsara.

In other words, the pramANa for the inefficacy of the not-absolutely real upanishads should have been taught by the upanishads themselves.  But such is not the case. So, these things clinch the Advaitic position and make it unshakable. 

warm regards

subbu   

Namaste,
Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2025 5:56 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: [Advaita-l] Doubts in Gita-BG-2-12

 

R0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2B7Gz3%2Bk2xJp0vDsj5zL8xj2VP-%3DmUHy4mtjjhkts%3D%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyan]

Namaste Sri Vikramji

I saw your message. I think each paragraph in your message will by itself branch out into separate extensive discussions.

I am not sure I have the time to carry out extensive discussions now. Please pardon me for that. 

I thank you sincerely for the time you have given to me and beg your forgiveness once again for closing this discussion here. 

Best Regards

Kalyan

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Suresh ji.

Actually, the use of double negatives makes it positive right? Though Atman does not need any pramAna to prove its existence, the aikya of Atman with Brahman (which is everywhere) needs Vedic pramAna.

The aikya of Brahman is not a dharma inherent in Brahman for which we need Vedic pramANa. Rather, Vedic pramANa is a pramANa needed to remove the illusion of dvayatva in Brahman. So, aikya of Brahman is Brahman itself. It is self-luminous. However, being covered by ignorance, it does not shine. So, Vedic pramANa removes this ignorance. It is not that aikya of Brahman is being known like a Prameya.

I am still wondering about the "reality" of jaganmthyAtva! May be, it means jagat is not a separate reality apArt from the Atman/Brahman??!!

MithyAtva, located in jagat, cannot be satya. If it is satya, the non-duality of Brahman is compromised. Hence, mithyAtva, located in jagat, has to be mithyA. This means that there is traikAlika-abhAva i.e. atyanta-abhAva of mithyAtva in world.

However, this does not imply that world becomes satya. That is, we cannot say that since there is traikAlika-abhAva of mithyAtva in world (as mithyAtva itself is mithyA), hence world becomes satya.

Why can we not say this?

Because satyatva-seen-in-the-world and mithyAtva, both have common nishedhyatA-avachchhedaka named drishyatva. So, satyatva-seen-in-the-world and mithyAtva are not paraspara-viraha-rUpa, nor paraspara-viraha-vyApaka-rUpa. Rather, like cowness and horseness, they are paraspara-viraha-vyApya-rUpa.

Thus, both (satyatva-seen-in-the-world)-abhAva and mithyAtva-abhAva will co-appear in world just as both cowness-abhAva and horseness-abhAva co-appear in elephant. This happens because there is common nishedhyatA-avachchhedaka. In our case, it is drishyatva.

Thus, the summary is:

1. MithyAtva cannot be satya because that would contradict the non-duality of Brahman.

2. MithyAtva has to be mithyA.

3. The mithyAtva of mithyAtva does not imply satyatva of world because satyatva-seen-in-the-world and mithyAtva are paraspara-viraha-vyApya-rUpa-dharma and their abhAva can co-appear in world.

4. Thus, world will have neither satyatva-seen-in-the-world not mithyAtva.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Sudhamshu-ji,

Thanks very much for your explanation!

It will surely take a while for me to digest what you have written.

But based on BSB we are not supposed to do Brahma drushti in the pratIka of jagat?

There is also Bhashya vAkya to accept plurality of jagat based on Brahma shareera.

So, non-duality of Brahman as the Atma of jagat will not be compromised right.

How can our own body/mind/speech be mithya if it is dependent on the atman which is satya?

I am not challenging Advaita, but I am sincerely trying to understand the Advaitic truth!

Namaste,
Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2025 5:28 PM
To: Advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: [Advaita-l] Doubts in Gita-BG-2-12

--

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%2BBCBCjzz%3Dm83vqGP6Rk1V3fTAuuDS_7gFK6-xhFe5pn2XA%40mail.gmail.com.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Sudhamshuji and Subbuji,

Thank you very much for your explanation and here is the summary:

Whether "jagan mityAvAda" is real or not, Jagat will always remain mithya. The same is the case with all worldly dualities like dharma/adharma, vaidhika/avaidhika and so on. The non-dual Atman alone is real and that alone is Brahman, the absolute!

Is the above understanding, correct?

Namaste,
Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of suresh srinivasamurthy <sure...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2025 9:17 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB45166C0A7C4C99744D0E9808A9152%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Jan 5, 2025 at 3:55 AM suresh srinivasamurthy <sure...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sudhamshuji and Subbuji,

Thank you very much for your explanation and here is the summary:

Whether "jagan mityAvAda" is real or not, Jagat will always remain mithya. The same is the case with all worldly dualities like dharma/adharma, vaidhika/avaidhika and so on. The non-dual Atman alone is real and that alone is Brahman, the absolute!

Is the above understanding, correct?

Yes.  All the Vada-s are there only to help grasp that Ultimate Truth.  Once the realization is had, the vAda-s disappear. 

regards

subbu 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY0PR0101MB4516136185810E7AE55E68F1A9162%40TY0PR0101MB4516.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Suresh ji.

Whether "jagan mityAvAda" is real or not, Jagat will always remain mithya.

There is no scope of ambiguity on jagat-mithyAtva. Jagat-mithyAtva is mithyA. Full stop. Both jagat and Jagat-mithyAtva are mithyA.

The same is the case with all worldly dualities like dharma/adharma, vaidhika/avaidhika and so on. The non-dual Atman alone is real and that alone is Brahman, the absolute!

True.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Suresh prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I am still wondering about the "reality" of jaganmthyAtva! May be, it means jagat is not a separate reality apArt from the Atman/Brahman??!!

 

• Only bhrAntivAdins, vijnAnavAdins say jagat is a play of mind, but shruti says jagat is abhinna from brahman and jagat as effect never ever deviates from its cause.  Just see what shankara says in sUtra bhAshya 2-1-16 :  Just as brahman the cause never deviates from existence in all the three periods of time, SO ALSO the effect, the jagat never ever deviates from existence in all the three periods.  And existence against is ONLY ONE so for this reason also, the effect is NONE other than the cause ekaM chga punaH sattvaM athOpyananyatvaM kAryasya.  To see the bhrAnti Kalpita sarpa which is mithyA we need the Ishwara srushti rajju hence elsewhere mAyAkAra is the Aspada for the bhrAnti. 

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Sri Bhaskar ji,

I guess what you are saying is that jagat as an effect is existentially same as the Atman/Brahman which is the cause.

All differences in jagat due to gunas is mithya.

Another way of saying the saying the same thing is to identify the Atman with everything!

When we are identifying ourselves, with everything we are not identifying with anything in particular!

Is the above understanding correct? 

Namaste,
Suresh

---

From: 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 9:43 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [advaitin] Re: [Advaita-l] Doubts in Gita-BG-2-12

 

--

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/AM7PR06MB6625970437DF360651F19B7C84112%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Suresh prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I guess what you are saying is that jagat as an effect is existentially same as the Atman/Brahman which is the cause.

All differences in jagat due to gunas is mithya.

 

• Yes, nAmarUpAtmaka jagat what we are seeing now in vyAkruta rUpa is nothing but brahman which was there in brahman even before the creation in avyAkruta rUpa (unmanifested form).  Hence bhAshyakAra says like cause (brahman) the effect (jagat) too trishvapi kAleshu abAdhitaM.  The power which makes avyAkruta into vyAkruta is also nothing but HIM and for this vyAkruta prapancha brahman in the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa.  The power is the brahman, that is I confirms Lord in geeta. The Power and who is having this power are not different. brahmaNo hi pratishtAham amrutasyAvyayasya cha ‘shAshvatasya cha dharmasya sukhasyaikAntikasya clarifies Lord in geeta 14.27.

 

Another way of saying the saying the same thing is to identify the Atman with everything!

When we are identifying ourselves, with everything we are not identifying with anything in particular!

 

Ø     This is what is called Atmaikatva jnAna or sarvAtma bhAva or samyagdarshana. Sarveshu brahmAdisthAvarAntareshu vishameshu sarvabhUteshu samaM nirvishesham brahmAtmaikatva vishayaM darshanaM jnAnam yasya saH sarvatra samadarshanaH…explains bhagavatpAda in geeta and infact teaching this Atmaikatva vidyA is the main aim of all vedAnta / Upanishad and that is what I am going to show you clarifies bhAshyakAra in his preamble (adhyAsa bhAshya) to brahma sUtra bhAshya.  Identifying vishesha in sAmAnya in avidyA parichinna vyAvahArika drushti like seeing the nAma rUpa pot without giving any heed to clay.  Whereas seeing the clay (kAraNa) in every nAma rUpa (effect) is paripUrNa drushti.  Apart from this there is one more i.e. bhrAnti drushti where there is absolutely no existence to the object.  Seeing the snake in place of rope is this type of bhrAnti drushti.  Treating the jagat as  abrahman, asarvam, aparipUrNam is also this type of bhrAnti drushti clarifies bhAshyakAra in muNdaka shruti.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar

 

[Syama Kund das]

Dear Shri Bhaskar Ji,

Hare Krishna. 

May I know a suggested list of books with Sanskrit text and English commentaries (& authors/translators/commentators) that would help me to understand Advaita Siddhanta as propounded by Sripada Shankaracharya, Padmapada and Sureshvaracharya at various levels (beginner to advanced)? I have a background in Vaishnava Siddhanta, but would like to learn more about Advaitha Siddhanta. Can you please help? 

Sorry for troubling you? 

Thanking you,

Syama Kunda Das

--

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/AM7PR06MB662538BF3D53DFE7DFE92B28841C2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Syama Kund Das

Hare Krishna

 

You could have addressed this query directly to the group moderators or to the group without mentioning my name, my name, my guru’s name, my way of understanding of Advaita not so palatable here, hence nil reply to your query 😊 Had it been done like this before, by this time there would have been plenty of suggestions / replies from members / moderators.  Anyway, if you ask me, please find a good teacher in Advaita sampradaya and take guidance from him before trying anything or understanding anything on your own based on reading material available in web / printed versions😊 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

May I know a suggested list of books with Sanskrit text and English commentaries (& authors/translators/commentators) that would help me to understand Advaita Siddhanta as propounded by Sripada Shankaracharya, Padmapada and Sureshvaracharya at various levels (beginner to advanced)? I have a background in Vaishnava Siddhanta, but would like to learn more about Advaitha Siddhanta. Can you please help? 

[aham brahmaasmi]

नमो नम: !  

महोदय ! 

अत्राद्वैतवेदान्ताध्ययनार्थे  कानिचन मूलानि प्रस्तूयन्ते !  विलम्बार्थे क्षमां याचे ! 

Please find here some links for studying advaita vedanta.  sorry for the delay. 

https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/  

https://arshaavinash.in/ 

https://www.youtube.com/@AdiShankaraBrahmavidyaPeeth  

https://samvitsamvaad.org/   

https://dakshinamurtimath.com/

https://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_z_misc_major_works/laghutattvasudhA.html

https://stotranidhi.com/en/stotras-list-english/

https://www.shankaracharya.org/ 

प्रणमामि ! 

साक्षी ! 

--
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/AM7PR06MB6625257447BED4278D5DF6F0841F2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.