त्रिक/प्रत्यभिज्ञा-मत-खण्डनं श्रीवैष्णवदृष्ट्या

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

सन्तः -

श्रीमद्-अभिनव-गुप्तो वदति तन्त्रसारे - 

आत्मा प्रकाश-वपुर् एष शिवः स्वतन्त्रः,
स्वातन्त्र्य-नर्म-रभसेन निजं स्वरूपम् ।
(विकल्पेषू) सञ्च्छाद्य, यत् पुनर् अपि प्रथयेत पूर्णं -
तच् च क्रमाऽक्रम-वशाद्, अथवा (शाम्भव-शाक्ताणव+उपायानां) त्रिभेदात् ॥५॥

The Self with the body of light is Śiva, [who is] free.
He, by the delightful sport of his power of autonomy, veils his innate nature and opens up his perfect form again, either with sequence or without it, or by three distinct means.

अयं तर्हि प्रसिद्धः ब्रह्म-परिणामवादः , यन्निरस्तं रामानुजार्येण विस्तरतः -

उपाधि-ब्रह्म-व्यतिरिक्त-वस्त्व्-अन्तरानभ्युपगमाद्
ब्रह्मण्य् एवोपाधि-संसर्गाद्
औपाधिकाः सर्वे (दुःखादि-)दोषा
ब्रह्मण्य् एव भवेयुः ।

/...

यथा देवदत्तस्यैकस्मिन् हस्ते  
चन्दन-पङ्कानुलेप-केयूर-कटकाङ्गुलीयालंकारस्  
तस्यैवान्यस्मिन् हस्ते  
मुद्गराभिघातः कालानल-ज्वालानुप्रवेशश् च  
तद्वद् एवेश्वरस्य स्याद्  
इति ब्रह्माज्ञान-पक्षाद् अपि  
पापीयान् अयं भेदाभेदपक्षः -   
अ-परिमित-दुःखस्य पारमार्थिकत्वात्  
संसारिणाम् अनन्तत्वेन दुस्तरत्वाच् च ।

पुनस् तत्र ब्रह्माज्ञानवादो ऽपि वर्तते - स्व-स्वातन्त्र्येण ब्रह्म स्वीयैकदेशे ऽज्ञानम् आरोप्य बद्धो भवतीति।

अप्य् अस्योत्तरं किञ्चिद् वर्तते प्रत्यभिज्ञादर्शने?

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

अथवा त्रिकशैवैर् अप्य् अवयवावयविरूपा  जीवेश्वरभिदोच्यतय् एव, यथाह स्थानेश्वरार्यः - 

You feel pain and pleasure because you are finite. I feel pure pleasure, no matter what happens. I do not have the nerves to translate some sensation as pain and the others as pleasure. I am the totality experiencing all the experiences as blissful. 

अयम् परिहारस् तदीयशास्त्रेषु क्वोक्तः?

[Hari Parshad Das]

Why have I been added without consent to these groups where all darśanas are being challenged only from a Śrī-Vaiṣṇava perspective?

Previously too there was a question raised on the Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇava understanding of nitya and naimittika karma. There it was proclaimed that Gauḍīyas follow "bhakti" and their understanding of karma-tyāga is complex, whereas Śrī-Rāmānuja's path of "prapatti" is much easier. That post was made without considering the finer nuances of "vidhi" and "rāga" in Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇavism. Just because those finer nuances don't exist in other paths doesn't mean that we start measuring a particular darśana with our limited yardsticks and prejudices.

It is easy to make similar uncharitable remarks on Śrī-Vaiṣṇavism without understanding its finer nuances. Why do we need to add the complexities of having a separate Tamil Vedānta when the entirety of bhārata-bhūmi has only one Sanskrit Vedānta? How is it possible for Śrī-Rāmānuja to take sannyāsa directly from Bhagavān's mūrti? There are enough topics for contention in this way.

Is there even a practicing sādhaka of Trika-darśana in these groups who is willing to reply to this current thread of khaṇḍanam? Or are we in a prejudiced chamber?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "चेतो-देव-जीवादि-तत्त्व-विचारः" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cheto-deva-jiv...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cheto-deva-jivadi/CAFY6qgGp8LEbDbdi_nD0b2h1YtDx8k3RowpwMfdc5xsAui8%3D1w%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Automatically Inserted Signature: Dear receiver. In case I am not able to reply to your emails due to lack of time, kindly do not take it negatively. In the age of the internet and social media, it is almost impossible to respond to hundreds of individuals who are simultaneously communicating with us using these platforms. My attempt is to try and respond to every email, but it is simply not possible sometimes due to work overload etc. Kindly understand my predicament and excuse me if I do not respond back.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 at 13:52, Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why have I been added without consent to these groups where all darśanas are being challenged only from a Śrī-Vaiṣṇava perspective?

Dear shrI hari-pArshada dAsa, 

1. Records show that you have been a member of this mail-stream since 24 Jan 2023. I don't think you were added without consent, but invited - though I don't have records to prove the same. There is no force on anyone to remain subscribers to this mail stream.

2. This mail-stream welcomes varied perspectives - and indeed it has seen pro-chArvAka and pro-trika arguments from shrI lokesh and pro-shAnkara messages from shrI subrahmaNian as well. So, it is false that all dashana-s are callenged from shrI-vaiShNava perspective. Anyone interested in the topics of deva, jIva, chetas etc.. is very welcome to post their learned perspectives (that's in the spirit of https://groups.google.com/g/cheto-deva-jIvAdi/c/kE0EoZlme1o ). At the same time, there is no forcing anyone to do so. It is nobody's fault if only a shrIvaiShNava is makes such effort.

 

Previously too there was a question raised on the Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇava understanding of nitya and naimittika karma. There it was proclaimed that Gauḍīyas follow "bhakti" and their understanding of karma-tyāga is complex, whereas Śrī-Rāmānuja's path of "prapatti" is much easier. That post was made without considering the finer nuances of "vidhi" and "rāga" in Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇavism. Just because those finer nuances don't exist in other paths doesn't mean that we start measuring a particular darśana with our limited yardsticks and prejudices.

As was stated in that email thread ( "स्वावगतौ कशन दोषोऽस्ति चेत् सदयं सूचयन्तु" etc..) - gauDIya-s (or others, for that matter) are welcome to point out such nuances, or post counters.
Such corrections are most welcome.  

However, I refute that there was any prejudice involved - I (the poster in that thread) made good effort to go through quite a few views of gauDIya AchArya-s, and interacting with gauDIya-s.

Furthermore, if you think that that thread proclaimed that "proclaimed that Gauḍīyas follow "bhakti" and their understanding of karma-tyāga is complex, whereas Śrī-Rāmānuja's path of "prapatti" is much easier", you haven't even understood it. bhakti vs prapatti was no where discussed - rather, the notion of karma-tyAga / dharma-tyAga was discussed therein. Hence, you would do well to drop your apparent prejudice about rAmAnujIya-s being fixated on prapatti even when discussing specific topics unrelated to it; and make better effort at understanding what's posted.

 

It is easy to make similar uncharitable remarks on Śrī-Vaiṣṇavism without understanding its finer nuances. Why do we need to add the complexities of having a separate Tamil Vedānta when the entirety of bhārata-bhūmi has only one Sanskrit Vedānta? How is it possible for Śrī-Rāmānuja to take sannyāsa directly from Bhagavān's mūrti? There are enough topics for contention in this way.

Sure, these are valid topics for discussion, and posts pertaining to it are very welcome - albeit in separate threads. 

 

Is there even a practicing sādhaka of Trika-darśana in these groups who is willing to reply to this current thread of khaṇḍanam? Or are we in a prejudiced chamber?

That's absurd given the gentlemen specifically cc-ed in this thread - shrI sthAneshvar is an AchArya of the sarvAmnAya tradition encompassing trika (look up vimarsha foundation); and shrI shankar has mentioned subscribing to it as well. They're both well known to me; and have graced me with their wisdom in the past.

[Hari Parshad Das]

On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 9:03 PM विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 at 13:52, Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why have I been added without consent to these groups where all darśanas are being challenged only from a Śrī-Vaiṣṇava perspective?

Dear shrI hari-pArshada dAsa, 

1. Records show that you have been a member of this mail-stream since 24 Jan 2023. I don't think you were added without consent, but invited - though I don't have records to prove the same. There is no force on anyone to remain subscribers to this mail stream.

Here are the emails where I was added without even being asked:

 

2. This mail-stream welcomes varied perspectives - and indeed it has seen pro-chArvAka and pro-trika arguments from shrI lokesh and pro-shAnkara messages from shrI subrahmaNian as well. So, it is false that all dashana-s are callenged from shrI-vaiShNava perspective. Anyone interested in the topics of deva, jIva, chetas etc.. is very welcome to post their learned perspectives (that's in the spirit of https://groups.google.com/g/cheto-deva-jIvAdi/c/kE0EoZlme1o ). At the same time, there is no forcing anyone to do so. It is nobody's fault if only a shrIvaiShNava is makes such effort.

Perspectives are good, but to label something as "khaṇḍanam" needs you to have proper vāda and prativāda with a proper nyāyādhīśa. Otherwise it's a khaṇḍanam in an echo-chamber.

 

 

Previously too there was a question raised on the Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇava understanding of nitya and naimittika karma. There it was proclaimed that Gauḍīyas follow "bhakti" and their understanding of karma-tyāga is complex, whereas Śrī-Rāmānuja's path of "prapatti" is much easier. That post was made without considering the finer nuances of "vidhi" and "rāga" in Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇavism. Just because those finer nuances don't exist in other paths doesn't mean that we start measuring a particular darśana with our limited yardsticks and prejudices.

As was stated in that email thread ( "स्वावगतौ कशन दोषोऽस्ति चेत् सदयं सूचयन्तु" etc..) - gauDIya-s (or others, for that matter) are welcome to point out such nuances, or post counters.
Such corrections are most welcome.  

However, I refute that there was any prejudice involved - I (the poster in that thread) made good effort to go through quite a few views of gauDIya AchArya-s, and interacting with gauDIya-s.

Furthermore, if you think that that thread proclaimed that "proclaimed that Gauḍīyas follow "bhakti" and their understanding of karma-tyāga is complex, whereas Śrī-Rāmānuja's path of "prapatti" is much easier", you haven't even understood it. bhakti vs prapatti was no where discussed - rather, the notion of karma-tyAga / dharma-tyAga was discussed therein. Hence, you would do well to drop your apparent prejudice about rAmAnujIya-s being fixated on prapatti even when discussing specific topics unrelated to it; and make better effort at understanding what's posted.

Nothing was said about "bhakti vs. prapatti". The words in that thread very clearly said that Śrī Rāmānuja's method of understanding karma-adhikāra is much easier than the Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇava understanding (which appears to be complex). 

 

 

It is easy to make similar uncharitable remarks on Śrī-Vaiṣṇavism without understanding its finer nuances. Why do we need to add the complexities of having a separate Tamil Vedānta when the entirety of bhārata-bhūmi has only one Sanskrit Vedānta? How is it possible for Śrī-Rāmānuja to take sannyāsa directly from Bhagavān's mūrti? There are enough topics for contention in this way.

Sure, these are valid topics for discussion, and posts pertaining to it are very welcome - albeit in separate threads. 

 

Is there even a practicing sādhaka of Trika-darśana in these groups who is willing to reply to this current thread of khaṇḍanam? Or are we in a prejudiced chamber?

That's absurd given the gentlemen specifically cc-ed in this thread - shrI sthAneshvar is an AchArya of the sarvAmnAya tradition encompassing trika (look up vimarsha foundation); and shrI shankar has mentioned subscribing to it as well. They're both well known to me; and have graced me with their wisdom in the past.

Are they initiated in the trika tradition from a guru and practicing sādhanā related to that tradition? Did they volunteer to defend trika-darśana in this regard? If no, how can this be a kathā and how can the thread be confidently named "khaṇḍanam" ? Isn't it better to name it "vimarśa"? There are so many one-sided "khaṇḍanam" literature from the past century and rarely have they been able to convince anyone except for those who belong to the echo-chamber.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 at 21:26, Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 9:03 PM विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 at 13:52, Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why have I been added without consent to these groups where all darśanas are being challenged only from a Śrī-Vaiṣṇava perspective?

Dear shrI hari-pArshada dAsa, 

1. Records show that you have been a member of this mail-stream since 24 Jan 2023. I don't think you were added without consent, but invited - though I don't have records to prove the same. There is no force on anyone to remain subscribers to this mail stream.

Here are the emails where I was added without even being asked:

Ok - I concede the point - subject to "मौनं सम्मतिलक्षणम्" and 1.75+ years being rather late to claim that it does not apply.

 

2. This mail-stream welcomes varied perspectives - and indeed it has seen pro-chArvAka and pro-trika arguments from shrI lokesh and pro-shAnkara messages from shrI subrahmaNian as well. So, it is false that all dashana-s are callenged from shrI-vaiShNava perspective. Anyone interested in the topics of deva, jIva, chetas etc.. is very welcome to post their learned perspectives (that's in the spirit of https://groups.google.com/g/cheto-deva-jIvAdi/c/kE0EoZlme1o ). At the same time, there is no forcing anyone to do so. It is nobody's fault if only a shrIvaiShNava is makes such effort.

Perspectives are good, but to label something as "khaṇḍanam" needs you to have proper vāda and prativāda with a proper nyāyādhīśa. Otherwise it's a khaṇḍanam in an echo-chamber.

No - khaNDanam merely means negation (in this case by rAmAnuja in his concise work linked in the original post, which adds essential details). 

In tradition, we see such written back-and-forth without the vAda with nyAyadhIsha you imagine.

  

Previously too there was a question raised on the Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇava understanding of nitya and naimittika karma. There it was proclaimed that Gauḍīyas follow "bhakti" and their understanding of karma-tyāga is complex, whereas Śrī-Rāmānuja's path of "prapatti" is much easier. That post was made without considering the finer nuances of "vidhi" and "rāga" in Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇavism. Just because those finer nuances don't exist in other paths doesn't mean that we start measuring a particular darśana with our limited yardsticks and prejudices.

As was stated in that email thread ( "स्वावगतौ कशन दोषोऽस्ति चेत् सदयं सूचयन्तु" etc..) - gauDIya-s (or others, for that matter) are welcome to point out such nuances, or post counters.
Such corrections are most welcome.  

However, I refute that there was any prejudice involved - I (the poster in that thread) made good effort to go through quite a few views of gauDIya AchArya-s, and interacting with gauDIya-s.

Furthermore, if you think that that thread proclaimed that "proclaimed that Gauḍīyas follow "bhakti" and their understanding of karma-tyāga is complex, whereas Śrī-Rāmānuja's path of "prapatti" is much easier", you haven't even understood it. bhakti vs prapatti was no where discussed - rather, the notion of karma-tyAga / dharma-tyAga was discussed therein. Hence, you would do well to drop your apparent prejudice about rAmAnujIya-s being fixated on prapatti even when discussing specific topics unrelated to it; and make better effort at understanding what's posted.

Nothing was said about "bhakti vs. prapatti".

Agreed as far as the thread is concerned. I was referring to your misstatement - "There it was proclaimed that Gauḍīyas follow "bhakti" and their understanding of karma-tyāga is complex, whereas Śrī-Rāmānuja's path of "prapatti" is much easier." 

 

The words in that thread very clearly said that Śrī Rāmānuja's method of understanding karma-adhikāra is much easier than the Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇava understanding (which appears to be complex). 

Certainly true. Disagreements and nuances are of course, welcome 

 

That's absurd given the gentlemen specifically cc-ed in this thread - shrI sthAneshvar is an AchArya of the sarvAmnAya tradition encompassing trika (look up vimarsha foundation); and shrI shankar has mentioned subscribing to it as well. They're both well known to me; and have graced me with their wisdom in the past.

Are they initiated in the trika tradition from a guru and practicing sādhanā related to that tradition?

Yes, as far as the former is concerned.

 

Did they volunteer to defend trika-darśana in this regard?

No - just their views were sought - "अप्य् अस्योत्तरं किञ्चिद् वर्तते प्रत्यभिज्ञादर्शने?".

 

If no, how can this be a kathā and how can the thread be confidently named "khaṇḍanam" ?

Isn't it better to name it "vimarśa"? There are so many one-sided "khaṇḍanam" literature from the past century and rarely have they been able to convince anyone except for those who belong to the echo-chamber.

Misunderstanding as to what a khaNDanam means was already addressed above; and this was a request for comment from learned insiders.

[Sthaneshwar Timalsina]

i would love to engage but my time commitment is making me dizzy. besides full time job, i run Vimarsha Foundation through which i have taught more than 10 courses and have over 15000 students have benefited from it. besides that i am personally mentoring 350 students on sadhana. i am happy that i am included in the thread but at this point i am not able to contribute more.

Om namah sham have

[Hari Parshad Das]

On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 9:37 PM विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 at 21:26, Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 9:03 PM विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 at 13:52, Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why have I been added without consent to these groups where all darśanas are being challenged only from a Śrī-Vaiṣṇava perspective?

Dear shrI hari-pArshada dAsa, 

1. Records show that you have been a member of this mail-stream since 24 Jan 2023. I don't think you were added without consent, but invited - though I don't have records to prove the same. There is no force on anyone to remain subscribers to this mail stream.

Here are the emails where I was added without even being asked:

Ok - I concede the point - subject to "मौनं सम्मतिलक्षणम्" and 1.75+ years being rather late to claim that it does not apply.

I can add you to a group and post neutral content for some years and then suddenly start posting śrī-vaiṣṇava-mata-khaṇḍanam threads and say that you agreed to it. Maunaṁ sammati-lakṣaṇam is not unconditional as you have incorrectly quoted here. There is a big difference between mauna when your opinion is solicited vs. when your opinion is not solicited, otherwise many individuals who are keeping silent on thousands of terrorist activities daily around the world will become passive supporters of those acts simply by such maunam.

 

 

2. This mail-stream welcomes varied perspectives - and indeed it has seen pro-chArvAka and pro-trika arguments from shrI lokesh and pro-shAnkara messages from shrI subrahmaNian as well. So, it is false that all dashana-s are callenged from shrI-vaiShNava perspective. Anyone interested in the topics of deva, jIva, chetas etc.. is very welcome to post their learned perspectives (that's in the spirit of https://groups.google.com/g/cheto-deva-jIvAdi/c/kE0EoZlme1o ). At the same time, there is no forcing anyone to do so. It is nobody's fault if only a shrIvaiShNava is makes such effort.

Perspectives are good, but to label something as "khaṇḍanam" needs you to have proper vāda and prativāda with a proper nyāyādhīśa. Otherwise it's a khaṇḍanam in an echo-chamber.

No - khaNDanam merely means negation (in this case by rAmAnuja in his concise work linked in the original post, which adds essential details). 

In tradition, we see such written back-and-forth without the vAda with nyAyadhIsha you imagine.

After being added unsolicited to the groups, we are supposed to know definitions specific to śrī-vaiṣṇava-sampradāya? Better would've been for me to know in advance before I was added.

 

  

Previously too there was a question raised on the Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇava understanding of nitya and naimittika karma. There it was proclaimed that Gauḍīyas follow "bhakti" and their understanding of karma-tyāga is complex, whereas Śrī-Rāmānuja's path of "prapatti" is much easier. That post was made without considering the finer nuances of "vidhi" and "rāga" in Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇavism. Just because those finer nuances don't exist in other paths doesn't mean that we start measuring a particular darśana with our limited yardsticks and prejudices.

As was stated in that email thread ( "स्वावगतौ कशन दोषोऽस्ति चेत् सदयं सूचयन्तु" etc..) - gauDIya-s (or others, for that matter) are welcome to point out such nuances, or post counters.
Such corrections are most welcome.  

However, I refute that there was any prejudice involved - I (the poster in that thread) made good effort to go through quite a few views of gauDIya AchArya-s, and interacting with gauDIya-s.

Furthermore, if you think that that thread proclaimed that "proclaimed that Gauḍīyas follow "bhakti" and their understanding of karma-tyāga is complex, whereas Śrī-Rāmānuja's path of "prapatti" is much easier", you haven't even understood it. bhakti vs prapatti was no where discussed - rather, the notion of karma-tyAga / dharma-tyAga was discussed therein. Hence, you would do well to drop your apparent prejudice about rAmAnujIya-s being fixated on prapatti even when discussing specific topics unrelated to it; and make better effort at understanding what's posted.

Nothing was said about "bhakti vs. prapatti".

Agreed as far as the thread is concerned. I was referring to your misstatement - "There it was proclaimed that Gauḍīyas follow "bhakti" and their understanding of karma-tyāga is complex, whereas Śrī-Rāmānuja's path of "prapatti" is much easier." 

 

The words in that thread very clearly said that Śrī Rāmānuja's method of understanding karma-adhikāra is much easier than the Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇava understanding (which appears to be complex). 

Certainly true. Disagreements and nuances are of course, welcome 

 

That's absurd given the gentlemen specifically cc-ed in this thread - shrI sthAneshvar is an AchArya of the sarvAmnAya tradition encompassing trika (look up vimarsha foundation); and shrI shankar has mentioned subscribing to it as well. They're both well known to me; and have graced me with their wisdom in the past.

Are they initiated in the trika tradition from a guru and practicing sādhanā related to that tradition?

Yes, as far as the former is concerned.

He has clearly said that he doesn't have the time. So where does that leave us as far as getting a proper response from a pāramparika-dīkṣita-vidvān is concerned?

 

 

Did they volunteer to defend trika-darśana in this regard?

No - just their views were sought - "अप्य् अस्योत्तरं किञ्चिद् वर्तते प्रत्यभिज्ञादर्शने?".

 

If no, how can this be a kathā and how can the thread be confidently named "khaṇḍanam" ?

Isn't it better to name it "vimarśa"? There are so many one-sided "khaṇḍanam" literature from the past century and rarely have they been able to convince anyone except for those who belong to the echo-chamber.

Misunderstanding as to what a khaNDanam means was already addressed above; and this was a request for comment from learned insiders.

It is not a misunderstanding to take the standard nyāya-based meaning of khaṇḍanam. The misunderstanding is to assume that everyone will accept a very specific meaning of khaṇḍanam.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 at 00:42, Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok - I concede the point - subject to "मौनं सम्मतिलक्षणम्" and 1.75+ years being rather late to claim that it does not apply.

I can add you to a group and post neutral content for some years and then suddenly start posting śrī-vaiṣṇava-mata-khaṇḍanam threads and say that you agreed to it.

Certainly you can - I would gauge the purpose of the mail-stream by its title, description, messages posted therein. In this case, there was no off-topic post or change in pattern of examination of various darshana - unless of course you mean that gauDIya views specifically were also eventually included among them.
Furthermore, unlike you, I would welcome criticisms - especially - of any mata I subscribe to; and would be happy to discard any item found wanting after good investigation.

 

Perspectives are good, but to label something as "khaṇḍanam" needs you to have proper vāda and prativāda with a proper nyāyādhīśa. Otherwise it's a khaṇḍanam in an echo-chamber.

No - khaNDanam merely means negation (in this case by rAmAnuja in his concise work linked in the original post, which adds essential details). 

In tradition, we see such written back-and-forth without the vAda with nyAyadhIsha you imagine.

After being added unsolicited to the groups, we are supposed to know definitions specific to śrī-vaiṣṇava-sampradāya? Better would've been for me to know in advance before I was added.

No - this is not tradition specific - just the dictionary meaning of the word; and universally accepted. 

You may refer to usages in n number of books, such this one on nyAya-sUtra-s

३.१.३२ कृष्णसारे सति उपलम्भात्व्यतिरिच्य च उपलम्भात्संशयः
{सिद्धान्तसूत्र}
३.१.३३ महदणुग्रहणात्
{साङ्ख्यमतखण्डनम्}
३.१.३४ रश्म्यर्थसन्निकर्षविशेषात्तद्ग्रहणम्
{सिद्धान्तसूत्र}
३.१.३५ तदनुपलब्धेः अहेतुः
{सिद्धान्तसूत्र}

 

Yes, as far as the former is concerned.

He has clearly said that he doesn't have the time. So where does that leave us as far as getting a proper response from a pāramparika-dīkṣita-vidvān is concerned?

I'll keep trying to get satisfactory answers, of course! The Gods send in more information such as the follow-up to this thread 1 month after the original post.

[Hari Parshad Das]

On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 7:01 AM विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 at 00:42, Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok - I concede the point - subject to "मौनं सम्मतिलक्षणम्" and 1.75+ years being rather late to claim that it does not apply.

I can add you to a group and post neutral content for some years and then suddenly start posting śrī-vaiṣṇava-mata-khaṇḍanam threads and say that you agreed to it.

Certainly you can - I would gauge the purpose of the mail-stream by its title, description, messages posted therein. In this case, there was no off-topic post or change in pattern of examination of various darshana - unless of course you mean that gauDIya views specifically were also eventually included among them.

Once again, after incorrectly quoting maunaṁ sammati-lakṣaṇam, you are going to lengths to defend yourself instead of accepting a simple fact that it is incorrect to add people to groups without consent, especially if they are not sa-hṛdaya.

 

Furthermore, unlike you, I would welcome criticisms - especially - of any mata I subscribe to; and would be happy to discard any item found wanting after good investigation.

So I should become like you just because you added me without consent to your groups?

 

Perspectives are good, but to label something as "khaṇḍanam" needs you to have proper vāda and prativāda with a proper nyāyādhīśa. Otherwise it's a khaṇḍanam in an echo-chamber.

No - khaNDanam merely means negation (in this case by rAmAnuja in his concise work linked in the original post, which adds essential details). 

In tradition, we see such written back-and-forth without the vAda with nyAyadhIsha you imagine.

After being added unsolicited to the groups, we are supposed to know definitions specific to śrī-vaiṣṇava-sampradāya? Better would've been for me to know in advance before I was added.

No - this is not tradition specific - just the dictionary meaning of the word; and universally accepted. 

You may refer to usages in n number of books, such this one on nyAya-sUtra-s

Apte: khaṇḍana — Refuting in argument, destroying, annihilating.

If you are okay with khaṇḍanam, you should also be okay with vitaṇḍā in this group. Don't mind me taking that route in that case.

 

 

Yes, as far as the former is concerned.

He has clearly said that he doesn't have the time. So where does that leave us as far as getting a proper response from a pāramparika-dīkṣita-vidvān is concerned?

I'll keep trying to get satisfactory answers, of course! The Gods send in more information such as the follow-up to this thread 1 month after the original post.

I am yet to see any satisfactory prati-khaṇḍanam of the alleged Śrī-vaiṣṇava khaṇḍana in this thread. The least likely person to deliver such a prati-khaṇḍanam is your good self.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 at 20:09, Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com> wrote:

Once again, after incorrectly quoting maunaṁ sammati-lakṣaṇam, you are going to lengths to defend yourself instead of accepting a simple fact that it is incorrect to add people to groups without consent, especially if they are not sa-hṛdaya.

I respond to your thought experiment, and you say I'm sidestepping this heretofore unstated generalization above. 
Well anyway - no approach is perfect (including adding folks without "consent", misjudging their nature and capacity) - you're welcome to correct it.

Furthermore, unlike you, I would welcome criticisms - especially - of any mata I subscribe to; and would be happy to discard any item found wanting after good investigation.

So I should become like you just because you added me without consent to your groups?

No - you do what you think is best. I just responded to your hypothetical scenario where you tried to put me in your place (obviously assuming that I am like you).

Apte: khaṇḍana — Refuting in argument, destroying, annihilating.

If you are okay with khaṇḍanam, you should also be okay with vitaṇḍā in this group. Don't mind me taking that route in that case.

 

Sounds scary! Doesn't seem to gel with the stated objective of the mail-stream - 

• उद्देशः - नाना-दर्शन-जिज्ञासा, तत्त्वेषु स्व-स्व-निश्चयार्थं स्पष्ट-ज्ञान-प्राप्तिः।

 

I am yet to see any satisfactory prati-khaṇḍanam of the alleged Śrī-vaiṣṇava khaṇḍana in this thread. The least likely person to deliver such a prati-khaṇḍanam is your good self.

So? At least I try, ask good people for help and offer the universe a chance. 

[लोकेश]

> उपाधि-ब्रह्म-व्यतिरिक्त-वस्त्व्-अन्तरानभ्युपगमाद्
ब्रह्मण्य् एवोपाधि-संसर्गाद्
औपाधिकाः सर्वे (दुःखादि-)दोषा
ब्रह्मण्य् एव भवेयुः ।

उपाधयः मिथ्या न तु वास्तविकाः । अविचारेण ते उपलभ्यन्ते । अतः नात्र बह्मणि दोषप्रसङ्गः ।

यथा स्वप्ने अज्ञानवशाद् कायच्छेदनभेदनादीनि कष्टानि अनुभूयन्ते ।‌ अनविच्छिन्नचिद्रूपोऽस्मीति ज्ञाने सति शान्तिः नानुभूयते । तथैव दृष्टव्यम् ।

वस्तुतः नास्ति ज्ञानस्य अज्ञानस्य वा कापि सत्त्वा ब्रह्मणि । ब्रह्म मनसा अगोचरम् । पारमार्थिकानुकूलमतिस्थापनाय व्याजेनोच्यते यत् ब्रह्म ज्ञानमयं, निराकरं, आनन्दरूपमित्यादि । नास्ति वस्तुतः किमपि तादृशं ब्रह्मणि । मौनमेव वरं तत्र उत तदपि न ।

[लोकेश]

> शान्तिः नानुभूयते

शान्तिरनुभूयते - इति भवितव्यम् ।

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 09:52, लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> उपाधि-ब्रह्म-व्यतिरिक्त-वस्त्व्-अन्तरानभ्युपगमाद्
ब्रह्मण्य् एवोपाधि-संसर्गाद्
औपाधिकाः सर्वे (दुःखादि-)दोषा
ब्रह्मण्य् एव भवेयुः ।

उपाधयः मिथ्या न तु वास्तविकाः । अविचारेण ते उपलभ्यन्ते । अतः नात्र बह्मणि दोषप्रसङ्गः ।

अयं तु मायावादः खलु (यत्र वर्तते ह्य् प्रमात्रि मायामोहितत्वदोषः) - नाभिनवगुप्त-सम्मतम्। 

स्वच्छन्दतस् स्वस्वरूपं सञ्छाद्य संसारम् अनुभवतीति भूयोऽपि ब्रह्मणा ऽज्ञानपीडाद्य्-अङ्गीकार इति दोषः। 

यथा स्वप्ने अज्ञानवशाद् कायच्छेदनभेदनादीनि कष्टानि अनुभूयन्ते ।‌ अनविच्छिन्नचिद्रूपोऽस्मीति ज्ञाने सति शान्तिः नानुभूयते । तथैव दृष्टव्यम् ।

वस्तुतः नास्ति ज्ञानस्य अज्ञानस्य वा कापि सत्त्वा ब्रह्मणि । ब्रह्म मनसा अगोचरम् ।  पारमार्थिकानुकूलमतिस्थापनाय व्याजेनोच्यते यत् ब्रह्म ज्ञानमयं, निराकरं, आनन्दरूपमित्यादि । नास्ति वस्तुतः किमपि तादृशं ब्रह्मणि । मौनमेव वरं तत्र उत तदपि न ।

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "चेतो-देव-जीवादि-तत्त्व-विचारः" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cheto-deva-jiv...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cheto-deva-jivadi/CA%2BksRZd7C094s%2BfT4x64mJkeg%2BT0QZcMNLHjt%3D7P3Sras2bgMg%40mail.gmail.com.

[लोकेश]

> अयं तु मायावादः खलु (यत्र वर्तते ह्य् प्रमात्रि मायामोहितत्वदोषः) - नाभिनवगुप्त-सम्मतम्। 

अत्रापि मोह एव कारणं यथोच्यते प्रत्यभिज्ञायाकारिकायाम् -

 
किन्तु मोहवशादस्मिन् दृष्टेऽप्यनुपलक्षिते | (ईश्वरप्रत्यभिज्ञाकारिका - १.३)

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 11:22, लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

  
किन्तु मोहवशादस्मिन् दृष्टेऽप्यनुपलक्षिते | (ईश्वरप्रत्यभिज्ञाकारिका - १.३)

सत्यम् उभयत्र मोह उच्यते, मिथ्यात्वं तु शाङ्कराणाम् एव। 

 

On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 10:00 AM विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 09:52, लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> उपाधि-ब्रह्म-व्यतिरिक्त-वस्त्व्-अन्तरानभ्युपगमाद्
ब्रह्मण्य् एवोपाधि-संसर्गाद्
औपाधिकाः सर्वे (दुःखादि-)दोषा
ब्रह्मण्य् एव भवेयुः ।

उपाधयः मिथ्या न तु वास्तविकाः । अविचारेण ते उपलभ्यन्ते । अतः नात्र बह्मणि दोषप्रसङ्गः ।

अयं तु मायावादः खलु (यत्र वर्तते ह्य् प्रमात्रि मायामोहितत्वदोषः) - नाभिनवगुप्त-सम्मतम्। 

स्वच्छन्दतस् स्वस्वरूपं सञ्छाद्य संसारम् अनुभवतीति भूयोऽपि ब्रह्मणा ऽज्ञानपीडाद्य्-अङ्गीकार इति दोषः। 

यथा स्वप्ने अज्ञानवशाद् कायच्छेदनभेदनादीनि कष्टानि अनुभूयन्ते ।‌ अनविच्छिन्नचिद्रूपोऽस्मीति ज्ञाने सति शान्तिः नानुभूयते । तथैव दृष्टव्यम् ।

वस्तुतः नास्ति ज्ञानस्य अज्ञानस्य वा कापि सत्त्वा ब्रह्मणि । ब्रह्म मनसा अगोचरम् ।  पारमार्थिकानुकूलमतिस्थापनाय व्याजेनोच्यते यत् ब्रह्म ज्ञानमयं, निराकरं, आनन्दरूपमित्यादि । नास्ति वस्तुतः किमपि तादृशं ब्रह्मणि । मौनमेव वरं तत्र उत तदपि न ।

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "चेतो-देव-जीवादि-तत्त्व-विचारः" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cheto-deva-jiv...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cheto-deva-jivadi/CA%2BksRZd7C094s%2BfT4x64mJkeg%2BT0QZcMNLHjt%3D7P3Sras2bgMg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

[लोकेश]

> मिथ्यात्वं तु शाङ्कराणाम् एव।

मिथ्यात्वम् अत्रापि भोः । प्रकाशमयशिवाद् अन्या सत्ता नाङ्गीक्रियते अत्र प्रकाशमानानाम् उपाधीनाम् । यत् स्वभावेन नास्ति अन्यहेतुना संभवति सा मिथ्यैव । अतः मिथ्यात्वं समानमत्र ।

अभिनवगुप्तपादेन यथोच्यते अनुत्तराष्टिकायाम् - 

भावानां न समुद्भवो ऽस्ति सहजस्त्वद्भाविता भान्त्यमी
निःसत्या अपि सत्यतामनुभवभ्रान्त्या भजन्ति क्षणम्  ।
त्वत्सङ्कल्पज एष विश्वमहिमा नास्त्यस्य जन्मान्यतः
तस्मात्त्वं विभवेन भासि भुवनेष्वेकाप्यनेकात्मकः ॥७॥

निःसत्या अपि अमी भावाः सत्यताम् अनुभवभ्रान्त्या भजन्ति इति द्रष्टव्यम् । पुनः तत्रैवोच्यते -

संसारो ऽस्ति न तत्त्वतस्तनुभृतां बन्धस्य वार्तैव का
बन्धो यस्य न जातु तस्य वितथा मुक्तस्य मुक्तिक्रिया  ।
मिथ्यामोहकृदेषरज्जुभुजगश्छायापिशाचभ्रमो
मा किञ्चित्त्यज मा गृहाण विहर स्वस्थो यथावस्थितः ॥२॥

संसारोस्ति न तत्त्वतः । एष मिथ्यामोहकृद् इति द्रष्टव्यम् ।

[लोकेश]

> भुवनेष्वेकाप्यनेकात्मकः
भुवनेष्वेकोऽप्यनेकात्मकः इति स्यात् ।

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

 On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 17:14, लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> मिथ्यात्वं तु शाङ्कराणाम् एव।

मिथ्यात्वम् अत्रापि भोः । प्रकाशमयशिवाद् अन्या सत्ता नाङ्गीक्रियते अत्र प्रकाशमानानाम् उपाधीनाम् । यत् स्वभावेन नास्ति अन्यहेतुना संभवति सा मिथ्यैव । अतः मिथ्यात्वं समानमत्र ।

साधु बोधितम् - संसारस्य, बन्धस्य, मोक्षस्य च मिथ्यात्वम्। उपाधीनां त्रिकाल-वर्तित्वाभावान् मिथ्यात्वम् उक्तत्वम् इत्य् अपि कामं स्वीक्रियताम्। 

किञ्च, किम् अनेन? उपाधेर् मिथ्यात्वेऽपि तन्नाङ्गीकृतम् इति न वक्तुं शक्यते। यावद् उपाधिर् वर्तते, तावत् तु "उपाधि-ब्रह्म-व्यतिरिक्त-वस्त्व्-अन्तरानभ्युपगमाद्

ब्रह्मण्य् एवोपाधि-संसर्गाद् …" इत्याद्य् आक्षेपो घटतय् एव । अत्यन्ताभावे ह्य् उपाधेः "अतः नात्र बह्मणि दोषप्रसङ्गः" इति वक्तुम् उचित। 

[लोकेश]

> किञ्च, किम् अनेन? उपाधेर् मिथ्यात्वेऽपि तन्नाङ्गीकृतम् इति न वक्तुं शक्यते। यावद् उपाधिर् वर्तते, तावत् तु "उपाधि-ब्रह्म-व्यतिरिक्त-वस्त्व्-अन्तरानभ्युपगमाद्
ब्रह्मण्य् एवोपाधि-संसर्गाद् …" इत्याद्य् आक्षेपो घटतय् एव । अत्यन्ताभावे ह्य् उपाधेः "अतः नात्र बह्मणि दोषप्रसङ्गः" इति वक्तुम् उचित।

उपाधीनां मिथ्यात्वे सत्यपि कल्पनारूपेण तदङ्गीक्रियते । सत्यमेतत् । तथापि भवतः आक्षेपो न घटते अत्र यतः ईश्वरः उपाधिभिर् अस्पृष्टः । उपाधयश्च तच्छक्त्यैव कल्पिताः । कल्पितं वस्तु वस्तुतः स्वेन रूपेण अपरमार्थिकं सदसदेव । ततः कथं तद् अकल्पितं पारमार्थिकं तत्त्वं स्पृशेत् ? यथा मरीचिकाजलं कल्पितत्वेनैवाभासमानं सत् नैव किमपि विद्यमानं वस्तु स्प्रष्टुं शक्यते तथा कल्पिता उपाधय अपि अकल्पितं परमेश्वरं नैव स्प्रष्टुम् अलम् ।

अतः ब्रह्मण्येवोपाधिसंसर्गाद् इति दोषः न घटते कल्पितवस्तुनः परमार्थे तत्त्वे ब्रह्मणि संसर्गसामर्थ्याभावात् ।

आत्मविलासे यथोक्तम् -

यैरेव किरणैः सूर्यो गाङ्गमम्बु स्पशत्यहो ।
विष्ठामपि स्पृशँस्तैस्तु स्वप्रायत्यं जहाति किम् ।।

पवित्रमपवित्रं वा ज्वलनः सर्वमप्यदन् ।

सर्गपूतः पावकाख्यां वहन् लोके विराजते ।।

सुगन्धं दुष्टगन्धं वा मारुतः सर्वतोदिशम् ।

नयन्नपि स्वयं स्वीयं पावित्र्यं विजहाति किम् ।।

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 19:36, लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> किञ्च, किम् अनेन? उपाधेर् मिथ्यात्वेऽपि तन्नाङ्गीकृतम् इति न वक्तुं शक्यते। यावद् उपाधिर् वर्तते, तावत् तु "उपाधि-ब्रह्म-व्यतिरिक्त-वस्त्व्-अन्तरानभ्युपगमाद्
ब्रह्मण्य् एवोपाधि-संसर्गाद् …" इत्याद्य् आक्षेपो घटतय् एव । अत्यन्ताभावे ह्य् उपाधेः "अतः नात्र बह्मणि दोषप्रसङ्गः" इति वक्तुम् उचित।

उपाधीनां मिथ्यात्वे सत्यपि कल्पनारूपेण तदङ्गीक्रियते । सत्यमेतत् । 

तथापि भवतः आक्षेपो न घटते अत्र यतः ईश्वरः उपाधिभिर् अस्पृष्टः । उपाधयश्च तच्छक्त्यैव कल्पिताः । कल्पितं वस्तु वस्तुतः स्वेन रूपेण अपरमार्थिकं सदसदेव ।

युष्मद्-अस्मत्-कल्पितं नेदम् "कल्पितमात्रम्" इत्य् उपेक्षितुम्। 

सर्वम् ईश्वरकल्पितम् इति प्रायेण सर्वेऽङ्गीकुर्वन्ति। सृष्टि-प्रलयाङ्गीकारो न त्रैकालिकम् इत्यपि। तद् एवापारमार्थिकम्, मिथ्येति वोच्यताम्। 

ततः कथं तद् अकल्पितं पारमार्थिकं तत्त्वं स्पृशेत् ? यथा मरीचिकाजलं कल्पितत्वेनैवाभासमानं सत् … 

किम् मरीचिकाजलेन तृषितो न बाध्यते? न वा सर्पभ्रमेण भीतो जनः? तर्हि, जात एव कल्पितस्याप्य् उपाधेः संसर्गः। 

उपाधिकल्पनावस्थाविशिष्टस्य ब्रह्मणो अहो दुर्दशा!

 

यैरेव किरणैः सूर्यो गाङ्गमम्बु स्पशत्यहो ।

न  हि सूर्यकिरणवद् अचेतनम् ब्रह्म। तेनेमे श्लोका विकलदृष्टान्तबोधकाः। 

[लोकेश]

यन्मया पूर्वमुक्तं तत् विस्मरत। त्रिकदर्शने जगति प्रतीयमानपदार्थानां असत्त्वं नास्ति शांकराद्वैतदृशि इव।

> अयं तर्हि प्रसिद्धः ब्रह्म-परिणामवादः

न। उक्तं राजानकक्षेमराजेन स्पन्दनिर्णये — "अवस्थाप्रपञ्चो यदि चिन्मात्रात् परिणामतया मनागप्यतिरिच्येत, चिद्रूपं वा तत्परिणतौ मनागतिरिच्येत तन्न किंचिच्चकास्यादिति। तावन्न परिणामोऽस्ति।"

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 at 13:33, लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

यन्मया पूर्वमुक्तं तत् विस्मरत। त्रिकदर्शने जगति प्रतीयमानपदार्थानां असत्त्वं नास्ति शांकराद्वैतदृशि इव।

> अयं तर्हि प्रसिद्धः ब्रह्म-परिणामवादः

न। उक्तं राजानकक्षेमराजेन स्पन्दनिर्णये — "अवस्थाप्रपञ्चो यदि चिन्मात्रात् परिणामतया मनागप्यतिरिच्येत, चिद्रूपं वा तत्परिणतौ मनागतिरिच्येत तन्न किंचिच्चकास्यादिति। तावन्न परिणामोऽस्ति।"

तावन् न परिणामो ऽस्तीत्य् एवोक्तम्।  

किञ्च तेन - अस्त्य् एव परिणाम इति सिध्यति। सर्वं चिन्मयम् इति स्ववगतम्। तथा सत्य् अपि रामानुजपरिहासस् तिष्ठति। 

 

On Tue, 8 Oct, 2024, 7:54 pm विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki), <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 19:36, लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> किञ्च, किम् अनेन? उपाधेर् मिथ्यात्वेऽपि तन्नाङ्गीकृतम् इति न वक्तुं शक्यते। यावद् उपाधिर् वर्तते, तावत् तु "उपाधि-ब्रह्म-व्यतिरिक्त-वस्त्व्-अन्तरानभ्युपगमाद्
ब्रह्मण्य् एवोपाधि-संसर्गाद् …" इत्याद्य् आक्षेपो घटतय् एव । अत्यन्ताभावे ह्य् उपाधेः "अतः नात्र बह्मणि दोषप्रसङ्गः" इति वक्तुम् उचित।

उपाधीनां मिथ्यात्वे सत्यपि कल्पनारूपेण तदङ्गीक्रियते । सत्यमेतत् । 

तथापि भवतः आक्षेपो न घटते अत्र यतः ईश्वरः उपाधिभिर् अस्पृष्टः । उपाधयश्च तच्छक्त्यैव कल्पिताः । कल्पितं वस्तु वस्तुतः स्वेन रूपेण अपरमार्थिकं सदसदेव ।

युष्मद्-अस्मत्-कल्पितं नेदम् "कल्पितमात्रम्" इत्य् उपेक्षितुम्। 

सर्वम् ईश्वरकल्पितम् इति प्रायेण सर्वेऽङ्गीकुर्वन्ति। सृष्टि-प्रलयाङ्गीकारो न त्रैकालिकम् इत्यपि। तद् एवापारमार्थिकम्, मिथ्येति वोच्यताम्। 

ततः कथं तद् अकल्पितं पारमार्थिकं तत्त्वं स्पृशेत् ? यथा मरीचिकाजलं कल्पितत्वेनैवाभासमानं सत् … 

किम् मरीचिकाजलेन तृषितो न बाध्यते? न वा सर्पभ्रमेण भीतो जनः? तर्हि, जात एव कल्पितस्याप्य् उपाधेः संसर्गः। 

उपाधिकल्पनावस्थाविशिष्टस्य ब्रह्मणो अहो दुर्दशा!

 

यैरेव किरणैः सूर्यो गाङ्गमम्बु स्पशत्यहो ।

न  हि सूर्यकिरणवद् अचेतनम् ब्रह्म। तेनेमे श्लोका विकलदृष्टान्तबोधकाः। 

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

[लोकेश]

> पुनस् तत्र ब्रह्माज्ञानवादो ऽपि वर्तते - स्व-स्वातन्त्र्येण ब्रह्म स्वीयैकदेशे ऽज्ञानम् आरोप्य बद्धो भवतीति।

इदं भवेद् यदि ब्रह्म शिवो वा चित्तमयो भवेत् यस्मिन् दुःखस्पर्शस्य अनिष्टत्वं स्यात् किन्तु तथा न। शिवोऽस्ति निर्विकल्पः चिन्मयः प्रकाशरूपः। दुःखे सत्यपि स एव प्रकाशते न किमप्यन्यत्। अज्ञानप्रकाशने अपि स एव प्रकाशते न त्वन्यः। अतो न तस्य निरोधः क्वचिदपि।

यथोक्तं राजानकक्षेमराजेन

अख्यातिर्यदि न ख्याति ख्यातिरेवावशिष्यते।

ख्याति चेत् ख्यातिरूपत्वात् ख्यातिरेवावशिष्यते॥

अख्यातिः = अज्ञानम्

ख्याति = प्रकाशते

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 at 14:37, लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> पुनस् तत्र ब्रह्माज्ञानवादो ऽपि वर्तते - स्व-स्वातन्त्र्येण ब्रह्म स्वीयैकदेशे ऽज्ञानम् आरोप्य बद्धो भवतीति।

इदं भवेद् यदि ब्रह्म शिवो वा चित्तमयो भवेत् यस्मिन् दुःखस्पर्शस्य अनिष्टत्वं स्यात् किन्तु तथा न। शिवोऽस्ति निर्विकल्पः चिन्मयः प्रकाशरूपः।

नैवम् - स्वस्वातन्त्र्येण बद्धताम् आपन्नस्य तस्यैवास्ति दुःखम्, दुःखानुभवश् च।

 

दुःखे सत्यपि स एव प्रकाशते न किमप्यन्यत्। अज्ञानप्रकाशने अपि स एव प्रकाशते न त्वन्यः। अतो न तस्य निरोधः क्वचिदपि।

इदम् अप्य् अलीकम्।  

दुःखे सति, तद्-विषयोऽपि स्यात्, तद्-अनुभवश्च।

 

यथोक्तं राजानकक्षेमराजेन

अख्यातिर्यदि न ख्याति ख्यातिरेवावशिष्यते।

ख्याति चेत् ख्यातिरूपत्वात् ख्यातिरेवावशिष्यते॥

अख्यातिः = अज्ञानम्

ख्याति = प्रकाशते

ख्यानमात्रेण किं दुःखख्यातिस् सुखख्यातिर् भवति ?

 

On Thu, 18 Jun, 2026, 1:33 pm लोकेश, <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

यन्मया पूर्वमुक्तं तत् विस्मरत। त्रिकदर्शने जगति प्रतीयमानपदार्थानां असत्त्वं नास्ति शांकराद्वैतदृशि इव।

> अयं तर्हि प्रसिद्धः ब्रह्म-परिणामवादः

न। उक्तं राजानकक्षेमराजेन स्पन्दनिर्णये — "अवस्थाप्रपञ्चो यदि चिन्मात्रात् परिणामतया मनागप्यतिरिच्येत, चिद्रूपं वा तत्परिणतौ मनागतिरिच्येत तन्न किंचिच्चकास्यादिति। तावन्न परिणामोऽस्ति।"

On Tue, 8 Oct, 2024, 7:54 pm विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki), <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 19:36, लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> किञ्च, किम् अनेन? उपाधेर् मिथ्यात्वेऽपि तन्नाङ्गीकृतम् इति न वक्तुं शक्यते। यावद् उपाधिर् वर्तते, तावत् तु "उपाधि-ब्रह्म-व्यतिरिक्त-वस्त्व्-अन्तरानभ्युपगमाद्
ब्रह्मण्य् एवोपाधि-संसर्गाद् …" इत्याद्य् आक्षेपो घटतय् एव । अत्यन्ताभावे ह्य् उपाधेः "अतः नात्र बह्मणि दोषप्रसङ्गः" इति वक्तुम् उचित।

उपाधीनां मिथ्यात्वे सत्यपि कल्पनारूपेण तदङ्गीक्रियते । सत्यमेतत् । 

तथापि भवतः आक्षेपो न घटते अत्र यतः ईश्वरः उपाधिभिर् अस्पृष्टः । उपाधयश्च तच्छक्त्यैव कल्पिताः । कल्पितं वस्तु वस्तुतः स्वेन रूपेण अपरमार्थिकं सदसदेव ।

युष्मद्-अस्मत्-कल्पितं नेदम् "कल्पितमात्रम्" इत्य् उपेक्षितुम्। 

सर्वम् ईश्वरकल्पितम् इति प्रायेण सर्वेऽङ्गीकुर्वन्ति। सृष्टि-प्रलयाङ्गीकारो न त्रैकालिकम् इत्यपि। तद् एवापारमार्थिकम्, मिथ्येति वोच्यताम्। 

ततः कथं तद् अकल्पितं पारमार्थिकं तत्त्वं स्पृशेत् ? यथा मरीचिकाजलं कल्पितत्वेनैवाभासमानं सत् … 

किम् मरीचिकाजलेन तृषितो न बाध्यते? न वा सर्पभ्रमेण भीतो जनः? तर्हि, जात एव कल्पितस्याप्य् उपाधेः संसर्गः। 

उपाधिकल्पनावस्थाविशिष्टस्य ब्रह्मणो अहो दुर्दशा!

 

यैरेव किरणैः सूर्यो गाङ्गमम्बु स्पशत्यहो ।

न  हि सूर्यकिरणवद् अचेतनम् ब्रह्म। तेनेमे श्लोका विकलदृष्टान्तबोधकाः। 

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

[लोकेश]

> तावन् न परिणामो ऽस्तीत्य् एवोक्तम्।  

किञ्च तेन - अस्त्य् एव परिणाम इति सिध्यति।

कः स तर्कः? अज्ञानमयः उपाधिस्तु त्रिकदर्शने न स्वीकृता।

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 at 15:02, लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> तावन् न परिणामो ऽस्तीत्य् एवोक्तम्।  

किञ्च तेन - अस्त्य् एव परिणाम इति सिध्यति।

कः स तर्कः?

"स तर्कः" इत्यत्र सर्वमाम-शब्देन किम् उच्यते?

 

अज्ञानमयः उपाधिस्तु त्रिकदर्शने न स्वीकृता।

अज्ञानाख्योपाधिम् अन्तरैव स्वातन्त्र्यमात्रेण ब्रह्म संसारी भवतीति खलु भणन्ति?

[लोकेश]

> "स तर्कः" इत्यत्र सर्वमाम-शब्देन किम् उच्यते?

किंच तेन इत्यदुक्तं तत्र केन तेन तर्केण? इति अभिप्रायः।

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 at 15:19, लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "स तर्कः" इत्यत्र सर्वमाम-शब्देन किम् उच्यते?

किंच तेन इत्यदुक्तं तत्र केन तेन तर्केण? इति अभिप्रायः।

अस्तु। तेन भवद्-अभिमत-राजानकेन "तावच्"-छब्द-प्रयोगेण परिणाम-विशेष एव तिरस्कृतः - चिन्मयपरिणामो ऽङ्गीकृत एव। 

[लोकेश]

> परिणाम-विशेष एव तिरस्कृतः - चिन्मयपरिणामो ऽङ्गीकृत एव।

परिणामविशेषो तिरस्कृतः किन्तु चिन्मयपरिणामो न इति कः अर्थः भवद्वाक्यस्य न ज्ञातं मया।

> नैवम् - स्वस्वातन्त्र्येण बद्धताम् आपन्नस्य तस्यैवास्ति दुःखम्, दुःखानुभवश् च।

यदुक्तं भवता नैवमिति तस्य उत्तरं ददामि - यदि एवं नास्ति तर्हि शिवः अप्रतिहितानन्दरूपः कथं स्याद् इति भवता स्वयं चिन्तनीयम्।

यदुक्तं स्वस्वातन्त्र्येण बद्धताम् आपन्नस्य तस्यैवास्ति दुःखम्, दुःखानुभवश् च इति तत्र वदामि - पुर्यष्टके दुःखसुखादि अनुभवं अनुभूयते। न तु चिदानन्दघने शिवे। यथोक्तं राजानकेन क्षेमराजेन - "अहं सुखीत्यादिसंविदो यास्ता अन्यत्रेति पुर्यष्टकस्वरूपे प्रमातरि सुखाद्यवस्थाभिरनुस्यूते ओतप्रोतरूपे स्फुटं लोकप्रतीतिसाक्षिकं वर्तन्ते तिष्ठन्ति, न त्वस्मदभ्युपगतेऽस्मिंश्चिदानन्दघने शङ्करात्मनि स्वस्वभावे।"

यदन्यत्रोक्तं पुर्यष्टक एव शिवः इति तत् पुर्यष्टकस्य प्रकाशैकात्म्येनोक्तम्।

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 at 16:27, लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> परिणाम-विशेष एव तिरस्कृतः - चिन्मयपरिणामो ऽङ्गीकृत एव।

परिणामविशेषो तिरस्कृतः किन्तु चिन्मयपरिणामो न इति कः अर्थः भवद्वाक्यस्य न ज्ञातं मया।

यद् आहाभिनवगुप्तपादः - 

स एव स्वातन्त्र्याद् आत्मानं सङ्कुचितम् अवभासयन्न् अणुर् इति उच्यते ।  
पुनर् अपि च स्वात्मानं स्वतन्त्रतया प्रकाशयति येन +अनवच्छिन्न-प्रकाश-शिव-रूपतयैव प्रकाशते । 

अयम् परिणामः। 

तद् अन्तरा सर्वं दृश्यं चिद् एवेति तेषाम् प्रलापः। 

 

> नैवम् - स्वस्वातन्त्र्येण बद्धताम् आपन्नस्य तस्यैवास्ति दुःखम्, दुःखानुभवश् च।

यदुक्तं भवता नैवमिति तस्य उत्तरं ददामि - यदि एवं नास्ति तर्हि शिवः अप्रतिहितानन्दरूपः कथं स्याद् इति भवता स्वयं चिन्तनीयम्।

सरलम् - स्वव्याघातपूर्णं तदीयं शास्त्रम्, प्रच्छन्नप्रकटबौद्धमतानाम् इव। 

यदुक्तं स्वस्वातन्त्र्येण बद्धताम् आपन्नस्य तस्यैवास्ति दुःखम्, दुःखानुभवश् च इति तत्र वदामि - पुर्यष्टके दुःखसुखादि अनुभवं अनुभूयते। न तु चिदानन्दघने शिवे। यथोक्तं राजानकेन क्षेमराजेन - "अहं सुखीत्यादिसंविदो यास्ता अन्यत्रेति पुर्यष्टकस्वरूपे प्रमातरि सुखाद्यवस्थाभिरनुस्यूते ओतप्रोतरूपे स्फुटं लोकप्रतीतिसाक्षिकं वर्तन्ते तिष्ठन्ति, न त्वस्मदभ्युपगतेऽस्मिंश्चिदानन्दघने शङ्करात्मनि स्वस्वभावे।"

यदन्यत्रोक्तं पुर्यष्टक एव शिवः इति तत् पुर्यष्टकस्य प्रकाशैकात्म्येनोक्तम्।

ब्रह्माभिन्नं न वेदम् पुर्य्-अष्टम्? न चेत् कथम् उद्भवति?  
एवञ्चचासौ प्रमाता यस्य सुखाद्य्-अवस्था भवन्ति?  
कथं नष्ट आच्छादितो वायं चिद्-आनन्द-घनः स्व-स्वभावस् तत्र?

[लोकेश]

> स एव स्वातन्त्र्याद् आत्मानं सङ्कुचितम् अवभासयन्न् अणुर् इति उच्यते ।

आभासयन् इति पदं प्रयुक्तमत्र। तत्र विशेषोऽयं यत् स्वस्वरूपम् अनुज्झन्नेव आभासः प्रवर्तते यथा दर्पणे प्रतिबम्बः प्रवर्तते तेन दर्पणस्य परिणामो न भवति। दर्पणो यथावत् तिष्ठति।

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 at 06:10, लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> स एव स्वातन्त्र्याद् आत्मानं सङ्कुचितम् अवभासयन्न् अणुर् इति उच्यते ।

आभासयन् इति पदं प्रयुक्तमत्र।

साधु। कस्मै त्व् अवभासयति? स्वस्माय्  एव खलु? तर्हि स्वात्मानम् एव सङ्कटे पातयति। ब्रह्माज्ञानम् एवोक्तम् अत्र, यथा कश्चन बुद्धिपूर्वकं मदिरादिपानेनात्मानम् मूर्खं कुरुते। 

तत्र विशेषोऽयं यत् स्वस्वरूपम् अनुज्झन्नेव आभासः प्रवर्तते यथा दर्पणे प्रतिबम्बः प्रवर्तते तेन दर्पणस्य परिणामो न भवति। दर्पणो यथावत् तिष्ठति।

दर्पणमात्रस्याभाससम्पादनेनैव कामम् उच्यताम् परिणामः। निष्कलङ्कम् ब्रह्म कलङ्कितम् इति हासो ऽनुवर्तते हि। 

[लोकेश]

> साधु। कस्मै त्व् अवभासयति? स्वस्माय् एव खलु? तर्हि स्वात्मानम् एव सङ्कटे पातयति।

आत्मने अवभासयते। यथा नाटकं दर्शकाय भवति। न तेन दर्शक एव नाटकान्तर्गतं पात्रोचितं दुःखम् अनुभवति स्वात्मानं वा तत्र पातयति।

> दर्पणमात्रस्याभाससम्पादनेनैव कामम् उच्यताम् परिणामः।

भवदिष्टं श्रीरामानुजाचार्यस्य सिद्धान्तं ज्ञातुं इच्छामि। तत्र कथं भवति जगदुत्पत्तिः परमात्मनः परिणामं विना।

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 at 07:29, लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> साधु। कस्मै त्व् अवभासयति? स्वस्माय् एव खलु? तर्हि स्वात्मानम् एव सङ्कटे पातयति।

आत्मने अवभासयते। यथा नाटकं दर्शकाय भवति। न तेन दर्शक एव नाटकान्तर्गतं पात्रोचितं दुःखम् अनुभवति स्वात्मानं वा तत्र पातयति।

किन्त्व् अत्र पात्रम् अपि प्रेक्षकाद् अभिन्न एव। पात्रेण च दुःखाद्य् अनुभूयते - तत्र भवान् एव प्रमाणम्। 

 

> दर्पणमात्रस्याभाससम्पादनेनैव कामम् उच्यताम् परिणामः। 

भवदिष्टं श्रीरामानुजाचार्यस्य सिद्धान्तं ज्ञातुं इच्छामि। तत्र कथं भवति जगदुत्पत्तिः परमात्मनः परिणामं विना।

प्रकृतिश् च जीवाश् च भगवच्-छरीरभूता एव परिणमन्ते, किञ्च सर्वथा भिन्ना परमात्मापेक्षया। अतो जीवगतदोषा जीवस्यैव, न परमात्मनः। 

[लोकेश]

एकत्रोक्तं यत् भगवच्छरीरं जीवादयः अन्यत्रोक्तं यत् संपूर्णतया भिन्नाः एव भगवदपेक्षया। भिन्नाः सन्ति चेत् शरीरवत् संबन्धः  कथं भगवज्जीवयोः?

पुनर् जगदुत्पत्तेः कारणं किमत्र भगवदिच्छा वान्यत्? उपादनमपि किमत्र विशिष्टाद्वैते?

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 at 22:50, लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

एकत्रोक्तं यत् भगवच्छरीरं जीवादयः अन्यत्रोक्तं यत् संपूर्णतया भिन्नाः एव भगवदपेक्षया। भिन्नाः सन्ति चेत् शरीरवत् संबन्धः  कथं भगवज्जीवयोः?

शरीरात् सम्पूर्णतया भिन्नो न वा चार्वाकादिभिन्नानाम् इतरेषाम् आत्मा? तथापि तयोश् शरीरि-शरीर-भावो ऽपि नास्ति?

 

पुनर् जगदुत्पत्तेः कारणं किमत्र भगवदिच्छा वान्यत्?

तद्-इच्छैव। किञ्च जीवदुःखादि न तत्-कर्तृकम् - अपि तु जीवसङ्गतानादिकर्मकृतम्। 

 

उपादनमपि किमत्र विशिष्टाद्वैते?

उक्तम् एव ननु "प्रकृतिश् च जीवाश् च भगवच्-छरीरभूता एव परिणमन्ते" इति?

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Sat, 20 Jun 2026 at 06:11, विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

उपादनमपि किमत्र विशिष्टाद्वैते?

उक्तम् एव ननु "प्रकृतिश् च जीवाश् च भगवच्-छरीरभूता एव परिणमन्ते" इति?

https://youtu.be/9q2edN0xFSI इत्य् उपादानकारणे रामानुजाभिप्रायस्य कश्चन विस्तारः।