Shankara compares and contrasts Prātibhāsika, Vyāhārika and Pāramārthika

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Prasthāna traya Bhāshya we find Shankara with great accuracy making a compare-contrast of the three types of reality.  A sample of this is presented below.

In the Taittiriyopanishad bhAShyam, while commenting on the Satyam 'attribute' of Brahman:

 // यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं न व्यभिचरति, तत् सत्यम् ।  यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं व्यभिचरति, तदनृतमित्युच्यते । अतो विकारोऽनृतम्, ’वाचारंभणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’, एवं सदेव सत्यम् इत्यवधारणात् ।

//As for satyam, a thing is said to be satyam, Real, when it does not change the nature that is ascertained to be its own; and a thing is said to be unreal when it changes the nature that is ascertained to be its own.  Hence a mutable thing is unreal, for in the text, ‘All transformation has speech as its basis, and it is name only.  Clay as such is the reality.’ (Chandogya Up. 6.1.4), it has been emphasized that, that alone is true that Exists (Ch.Up. 6.2.1)  //

Shankara states what is Absolutely real, Pāramārthika, and contrasts it with the vyāvaharika/prātibhasika.

In the Chandogya Upanishad, while delineating the clay-pot analogy, Shankara mentions the rope-snake analogy. Both for the Upanishad and Shankara, the creation by Brahman with sankalpa, etc. is no more than the creation of the snake in the rope substratum by the individual.   

In the very Adhyāsa bhashya Shankara, after stating the Atma-Anātma adhyāsa, gives the shell-silver analogy to demonstrate it:

आह — कोऽयमध्यासो नामेति । उच्यते — स्मृतिरूपः परत्र पूर्वदृष्टावभासः । तं केचित् अन्यत्रान्यधर्माध्यास इति वदन्ति । केचित्तु यत्र यदध्यासः तद्विवेकाग्रहनिबन्धनो भ्रम इति । अन्ये तु यत्र यदध्यासः तस्यैव विपरीतधर्मत्वकल्पनामाचक्षते । सर्वथापि तु अन्यस्यान्यधर्मावभासतां न व्यभिचरति । तथा च लोकेऽनुभवः — शुक्तिका हि रजतवदवभासते, एकश्चन्द्रः सद्वितीयवदिति ॥

Translation by Swami Gambhirananda:

If it be asked, “What is it that is called superimposition?"— the answer is: It is an awareness, similar in nature to memory, that arises on a different (foreign) basis as a result of some past experience. With regard to this, some say that it consists in the superimposition of the attributes of one thing on another. But others assert that wherever a superimposition on anything occurs, there is in evidence only a confusion arising from the absence of discrimination between them. Others say that the superimposition of anything on any other substratum consists in fancying some opposite attributes on that very basis. From every point of view, however, there is no difference as regards the appearance of one thing as something else. And in accord with this, we find in common experience that the nacre appears as silver, and a single moon appears as two.

In the above, Shankara equates the vyavaharika life experience to the pratibhasika shell-silver illusion. Shankara draws the similarity: अध्यासो नाम अतस्मिंस्तद्बुद्धिरित्यवोचाम ।  Adhyāsa is perceiving one as the other. And goes on to demonstrate how one takes the ups and downs of one's kith and kin as one's own and suffers the consequences.    

A feature that is outstanding in Shankara's Bhashya-s is: He gives prātibhāsika analogies to impress upon the unreality of the vyāvahārika. So, that way he makes a comparison of the two, thereby making them identical. Yet, he also brings out the fundamental difference between the two too, as for example:

 In BSB 3.2.4, the section that discusses dream, Shankara makes a phenomenal statement:

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

Translation:

But what we want to show is only this much that in truth, this creation in dream is not of the same order of reality as the creation of the world with the elements ether, etc.. And yet the creation of space etc. also has no absolute reality; for under the aphorism, "The effect is non-different from the cause since terms like 'origin' etc. are met with" (II. i. 14), we showed that the whole creation is but Maya. But before the realization of the identity of the Self with Brahman, creation counting from space etc., continues just as it is, whereas the creation within dream is abrogated every day. Hence the statement that dream is merely Maya has a special significance.

Noteworthy features:  Contrary to the misunderstanding of scholars such as Alston, Shankara does dwell on the 'orders or reality.' In the above sample bhashya, Shankara compares the dream world reality with the waking world reality. He says that the former is 'abrogated every day' while the latter is abrogated upon the Brahman realization. Naturally, the former is of a lower order than the latter and Brahman is of the highest order. 

Thus the rule that we see in the PSA - the prātibhāsika' rope-snake, dream type illusions, do not require Brahman realization for their annulment while the 'vyavahārika' illusion does require Brahma-knowledge - has extremely strong basis in the Shankara Bhashya. 

In conclusion of the study of the above sample instances we say that none can prove that the PSA (Post-Shankara Advaitins) have said anything that is not explicitly said or implied by Shankara/Gaudapada/Sureshwaracharya.  Everything that the PSA have said has a grounding in the Prasthana Traya Bhashya. Even the apparently contradicting Bhāmati-Vivarana concepts have their moorings in the Shankara bhashya. It's only those who have not recognized this that have deviated from Shankara.

We can find many such instances where Shankara asserts the 'degrees of reality'. We don't require Chat GPT to tell us that 'it's only pedagogical and not absolute' since it is well known that it's the given.  Shankara himself has said the ultimate: The very Veda, the Supreme Pedagogue, the means to the higher quality enjoyments and even liberation, is operating in the realm of avidya. Gaudapada too has said this. 

warm regards

subbu    

  

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sir, 

I'm sorry, but I don't find adequate support for your claim of three sattas in the provided texts.
Your Tait selection does not explicitly distinguish *pratibhasika* from *vyavaharika*, nor does your Chandogya nor Adhyasa Bhasya selection.
Kindly clarify.

Your BSB 3.2.4 example had me stumped but with consultation from Chatgpt, that claim of three sattas also fell through.  BSB 3.2.4 does not create a third reality; it only says: among equally unreal appearances, some are negated daily (dream) and some only by knowledge (waking). Ontologically both remain equally non-real, so LEM and the sat/asat binary remain intact.  

Instead, my reading suggests alternative views on occasion rather than three states: pramartika, pratibhasika and vyavaharika drsti. Understanding the text in this way, protects against establishing a hierarchy of reality and maintain Paramarthika as the only real entity. 

Further References from synoptic studies rather than cherry picked stretched proofs:

Sankara’s distinction between the standpoint of nescience and
the standpoint ofknowledge is not the same as that between different
grades of reality (pratibhasika, vyavaharika, paramarthika) set up by
his later followers. Anything experienced in the state of nescience
is a superimposition on the Absolute and has no reality whatever
except as the Absolute. This holds equally true of waking exper¬
ience, dream and sense-illusion. For there can be no perception
without a perceiver, and the perceiver himself, as we have seen,63 is
the result ofan erroneous mutual superimposition of the Self and the
not-self. Alston Sourcebooks v.1p105

Hacker, "Degrees of Reality" chpt 6 in Halbfas, Philology and Confrontation
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tnePwj0aVba2gpU5WhRdvQQIypdolnYo/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115262902008900337610&rtpof=true&sd=true

And finally SSS from Sankara's Clafification p23ff

--
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/CAKk0Te1gjvFQpmBRSsWbPfVHEoT7AQSEb4zPcBGK1Sxy%2BxDV5w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Michael

Agreed - it is not a gradation in reality. 

The only reality is Brahman. Rather it is a classification in the appearance of reality. vyAvahArika satya is that which appears unreal until the rise of brahmajnAna, when it is sublated. prAtibhAsika satya is that which appears real until the rise of a jnAna capable of sublating it, and not necessarily brahmajnAna. 

This distinctiom does not confer a gradation in their reality, nor is conveying such a gradation the intent of the shAstrakAra-s. 

Rather, the aim is to use the sublatability of prAtibhAsika, which is a matter of common empirical experience, as an example to illustrate the sublatability of vyAvahArika - ie as something that is possible if the right knowledge arises.

Kind regards

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvEeLKGe%3DiRohBPq6K7%3DZ2Wb7MtgQieuyTZP5Yhn6tDw_g%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Anything experienced in the state of nescience

is a superimposition on the Absolute and has no reality whatever
except as the Absolute.

I read this and asked myself "are there two opinions on this?" But then, there are two components to this statement:

"Anything .. in state of nescience ... superimposition" and "no reality except ... Absolute".

imu 

Once we reference "anything" as a cognition, superimposition, conditioned knowledge of the Absolute (which is the reality), then the world of our "anythings" has to be classified as mithya. In this "state of nescience", the Absolute appears (is known, identified) as knower and known, and such a dualistic knowledge is vyavaharika satya (mithya). Paramartha jnana is of the paramarthika standpoint of the Absolute where this division of knower vs known, Absolute vs anything, is non-existent - again, resulting in the realization that the world of anythings is mithya.

This holds equally true of waking exper¬
ience, dream and sense-illusion. For there can be no perception
without a perceiver, and the perceiver himself, as we have seen,63 is
the result ofan erroneous mutual superimposition of the Self and the
not-self. Alston Sourcebooks v.1p105

il.com.

Yes, but to point out that "knower distinct from known" is adhyasa, he is bringing in duality of Self (Absolute) and not-self (anything). When there is reference to not-self, the Self (the reality, Absolute) becomes known as the (non-Absolute) Knower of that not-self. That again is vyavaharika satya (mithya).

thollmelukaalkizhu 

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Venkatraghavan,
The three sattas are not simply epistemological as you suggest; rather, they are described somehow as indescribably neither real nor unreal which Hegde compares to "(absolute) statements about motion without a fixed point of reference." 

I've attached a link below to Dr Hedge's paper and would be interested in your response.  Perhaps you will find the purvapaksa of interest. 🙏🙏🙏

s

from: https://drive.google.com/file/d/179YcpOFTuMImrG0JTNuuTmsVU1EqWFlK/view?usp=sharing

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEkgmTmYQiEMj7G4bAqq1pJq1NHV%3Dk%3D9Pta95CSOJGra_g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

This statement of Dr Hegde that "PSA attempt to absolutely - i.e. without reference to standpoints -- establish the ontological status of the world as 'indeterminable as real or unreal" shows that she has no idea what AchAryAs have said.

Sir, it is only from the frame of reference of avidyA, that the world is stated as mithyA i.e. sat-asat-vilakshaNa, illusion etc. From the frame of reference of Brahman, avidyA is tuchchhA, i.e. horns of hare. 

So, world is sat-asat-vilakshaNa/anirvachanIya is from the frame of reference of avidyA.

World is tuchchhA (horns of hare) from the frame of reference of Brahman.

Dr. Hegde has not studied PSA properly. I feel surprised at such statements made by her which are liable to be rejected by even a primary student of Advaita.

Please refer to the PanchadashI shlOka 6.130

Please refer to Tejobindu Upanishad commentary by Upanishad Brahman Yogi. स्वाज्ञदृष्टया सत्यत्वेन, स्वज्ञदृष्टया मिथ्यात्वेन अनुभूतोऽपि परमार्थदृष्टया शशविषाणवत् निष्प्रतियोगिकाभाव रूप एव। It is all about frames of reference. 

Of course, Sankshepa ShArIraka 2.84 explains the same in great details.

Commenting on PSA by reading about them from SSSS Ji's works is an illustration of one blind man leading another blind man. Both fall in ditch. Let some good sense prevail. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvEwctthkPw4E9LaEPYYB98uxbNQUeouXA7VnugYwiHFiQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

namaste Sudhanshuji,
Hegde's further distinction from the same source:

This initial distinction between the pre- and the post-gnosis ‘states’—is similar to—not the same as—the PSA’s definition of vyāvahārika as that which is sublated (only) by brahmajñāna (vyāvahārika-tvam ca brahmajñānetarabādhyatvam na tv abādhyatvam) (Advaitasiddhi [AS] p. 433) and pāramārthika as that which is [absolutely] un-sublatable (abādhyatvarūpapāramārthikatvasya) (AS p. 116). Of importance here is the fact that SSS does not concede to the PSA’s conception of different ‘degrees’ of reality (Alston 2004a, p. 105; Barua 2015; Hacker 1995; Saraswati 1996b, p. 23). According to the PSA, the vyāvahārika is an illusory change (vivarta) of brahman, [and] an effective change (pariṇāma) of māyā/avidyā (tatra brahma vivartamānatayā upādānam avidyā pariṇāmamānatayā) (Siddhāntaleśasaṅgraha [SLS] p. 74). Because pariṇāma is [understood to be] the emergence of an effect with the same level of reality as its material cause (pariṇāmo nāma upādānasamasattākāryāpattiḥ), and vivarta is [understood to be] the emergence of an effect with a different level of reality from its material cause (vivarto nāma upādānaviṣamasattākāryāpattiḥ) (Vedāntaparibhāṣā [VP] pp. 85–86), the vyāvahārika is accorded a ‘lesser degree’ of reality than brahman: it is characterised as sadasadbhyām anirvacanīya (indeterminable as real or unreal) (na bhidyante na cābhinnaḥ na vā bhinnābhinnaḥ kintv anirvacanīya eva) (Bhāmatī 1.4.27). "

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBQZvfy4GcJ0pnaO_y8LXyPuSEn6M%2BmEo%3DNiZX%3DUCxPtQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Hegde's clarification ... continued....
Accordingly, the world cannot be characterised
as ‘sat’ because of its ultimate sublation post-gnosis; it cannot be characterised as ‘asat’ because of its apparent manifestation pre-gnosis. Combining the two perspectives
of vyāvahārika (pre-gnosis) and pāramārthika (post-gnosis), the PSA attempt to
absolutely—i.e., without reference to standpoints—establish the ontological status of the
world as ‘indeterminable as real or unreal’

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Hegde's further distinction from the same source:

Read it. Does not add any value at all. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

  SSS keeps the distinction epistemic (before vs after knowledge), whereas PSA ontologizes it into graded levels of being; but once reality is graded, the world is no longer “indeterminable,” so the three-sattā theory collapses into a covert hierarchy of reality rather than a standpoint-based method.  

--

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%2BBAyH29M8jQkr%3Dj-7jJp72y1daErzRuCLJ-pqh4%3DDESHsQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

One question. 

You have admittedly not studied any of post-Shankara AchAryAs. 

It is clear that the persons, whose write-ups you rely upon for knowing PSA, viz. Dr Hegde and SSSS ji etc have no idea of what PSA teach either. Even a beginner student of PSA would explain to you that SSSS Ji did not understand PSA.

Why are you then interested in refuting PSA without even knowing what they said? What benefit are you getting? Your whole series of depictions about PSA are erroneous. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Sudhanshuji, It is not true that I have not studied PSA - I have not studied like you have no doubt but that is hardly the point. 

--

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%2BBCwko%2BXTkkHRph0R2F-UM75Hnq%2BZ%2Bz01-kjEaxRV_8UeA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Also - if one is a student of Sri SSS, by all means study his works and I hope you get brahmajnAna and make this life worthwhile. What is to be gained by this ceaseless tirade against post Shankaran Acharyas? 

Think of Brahman and free yourself - why are you wasting your time on splitting hairs whether avidyA is abhAvarUpa or bhAvarUpa?

We are not interested in refuting Sri SSS in the slightest. We have found answers to his objections which we find to be convincing. If you do not think they convince you, that is totally fine - we are not looking for converts to our cause!

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

--

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCwko%2BXTkkHRph0R2F-UM75Hnq%2BZ%2Bz01-kjEaxRV_8UeA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

It is not true that I have not studied PSA - I have not studied like you have no doubt but that is hardly the point. 

The tell me, how do you agree with Dr Hegde that PSA postulate the ontological reality for world without any standpoint. I have given citation of PanchadashI and Tejobindu commentary which clearly postulate that avidyA/world are mithyA from avidyA-drishTi, and tuchchhA from Brahma-drishTi. There are hundreds other supporting citations. I don't want to flood the mail. It is actually common sense. Snake is illusory from the frame of reference of non-rope. Snake is tuchchha from rope-frame-of-reference.

How can you not know this basic postulate of PSA and venture to refute them by relying on half-baked articles of Dr Hegde and incorrect understanding of SSSS ji. 

Just appreciate what you are doing. In the name of some shuddha-ShAnkara-prakriyA, you are contradicting common sense as well as omniscient SAyaNAchArya, the commentator of VedAs. For what purpose? For what use?

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Venkataraghavan sir, 

SSS's only interest is presenting PTB as intended. Further, purvapaksa based on tarka and sabda is the traditional manana to arrive at that intention. There is no one to converted here - we all have the same interest. However, endowing vyvarhara with a relative reality is contrary to PTB, illogical and an anirmoksa position, as SSS points out.🙏

--

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%2BBAAu_epyGo3a9FrZWyaJ8V-%3DWKE9ztQRmyGQBv-Lqns%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji

//The tell me, how do you agree with Dr Hegde that PSA postulate the ontological reality for world without any standpoint. I have given citation of PanchadashI and Tejobindu commentary which clearly postulate that avidyA/world are mithyA from avidyA-drishTi, and tuchchhA from Brahma-drishTi. //

I don't believe Dr. Hedge denies the standpoints presented in your citations (though I could not access SLS reference). Rather, she is pointing elsewhere:
By redefining vyāvahārika and pāramārthika not merely as standpoint-relative conditions of cognition but as effects standing in different relations of sameness or difference of reality to their causes (sama-sattā / viṣama-sattā), the PSA converts an epistemic distinction into an ontological hierarchy. Once that move is made, the world can no longer coherently be described as anirvacanīya, since it has already been assigned a determinate, though lower, degree of reality. Thus the three-sattā scheme ceases to be merely methodological and becomes a graded metaphysics, introducing precisely the “degrees of reality” that SSS rejects.🙏

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

I don't believe Dr. Hedge denies the standpoints presented in your citations (though I could not access SLS reference). Rather, she is pointing elsewhere:

I think you are going beyond her written words and are somehow able to access what she has in mind. Some supernatural power I must say. She has categorically erroneously written that PSA assign ontology to world without any standpoint. 

By redefining vyāvahārika and pāramārthika not merely as standpoint-relative conditions of cognition but as effects standing in different relations of sameness or difference of reality to their causes (sama-sattā / viṣama-sattā), the PSA converts an epistemic distinction into an ontological hierarchy.

Bhai sahab. //Conditions of cognition// - is itself non-Brahman and has to fall within either vyAvahArika or prAtibhAsika. //Epistemic// has to be within vyAvahArika/prAtibhAsika. 

Sir, again repeating, both vyAvahArika/prAtibhAsika have no sattA. They don't exist. SattA appears belonging to them. That sattA is of Brahman. 

Once that move is made, the world can no longer coherently be described as anirvacanīya, since it has already been assigned a determinate, though lower, degree of reality.

Sir, you have problems with the word sattA? That sattA is of Brahman. The sattA appearing in snake is of rope. That sattA is not of snake. 

Why it cannot be described as anirvachanIya? 

Thus the three-sattā scheme ceases to be merely methodological and becomes a graded metaphysics, introducing precisely the “degrees of reality” that SSS rejects.🙏

These are all useless stuff. 

I am amazed that whole lot of other darshanAs such as VishishTAdvaita, Dvaita etc criticize us that we treat world to have no existence being illusory. And here SSSS Ji and his followers think that PSA ascribe reality to the world. 

Sir, SSSS ji has got it terribly wrong. The Tejobindu reference and the PanchadashI reference which I mentioned has the potential to clear all possible doubts. I don't have anything further to say. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Michael,

Thanks, but I am not interested in continuing a discussion where a person makes erroneous assumptions about my position and then concludes that what follows from such a position is wrong.

Illogical and anirmoksha you say? So be it.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvE%3DLxTC6gJqCJs_yA6NMOugFd3f6Pkkwr%2BF4w8_Oexrmg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji & Venkataraghavan, Your questions are better answered in the linked paper and/or her full dissertation, not yet public. SSS and Dr. Hegde have a scholarly consensus and are not just some social media critique that can be easily dismissed. 

Here's a link to an upcoming Academic Conference on SSS's restorations: 

https://www.vedantaforum.org/events

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEn-9e-Reqe4XqSEG%3DZK%3DGNCO-D7oR1i%2BAFVU48n%3D0OTww%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Indeed. Which is why I have mostly stopped participating in forums such as these for some time now. At one stage I found them useful for manana, but since then, the repetitiveness of the arguments started to get in the way of nididhyAsana.

Thanks everyone - hopefully will join at a later date.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

On Sat, 31 Jan 2026, 23:57 Raja Krishnamurti, <rajakris...@yahoo.com> wrote:

It is a waste of time trying to convince someone at age 60 or 70. Vedanta, whether Advaitha or whatever. It. That is why it is said Shravanam, mananam and niddidyasam. While it is nice to discuss, now is the time to buy the book or listen to the knowledge of great Rishi’s and dwell on it and the realization comes automatically. Only needed as per my Guru is always faith always.Vedanta has to be practiced not just talked about. If any of you have something related to Vedanta, just put the link so we can do mananam and shravanam and niddhayasam. No one need to be convincing as everyone in this group is mature to do the right thing, I believe. With Om and Prem, Raja Krishnamurti

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAAu_epyGo3a9FrZWyaJ8V-%3DWKE9ztQRmyGQBv-Lqns%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>

>> .
>>
> --
> 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/CAAz9PvE%3DLxTC6gJqCJs_yA6NMOugFd3f6Pkkwr%2BF4w8_Oexrmg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvE%3DLxTC6gJqCJs_yA6NMOugFd3f6Pkkwr%2BF4w8_Oexrmg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>

> .
>
_______________________________________________
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