[Advaita-l] Eternal Loka
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Mon Jul 29 13:07:45 CDT 2013
Dear Shrinivas ji,
The reply posted by Sri Sadanandaji is quite in order in conveying the
Advaitic position. Here is a A significant bhAShya sentence in this regard
is: At the very end of the bhashya for the kArikA 1.2 we have: ...’नेति,
नेति’ इत्यादिना वीजवत्त्वापनयनेन व्यपदेशः । तामबीजावस्थां तस्यैव
प्राज्ञशब्दवाच्यस्य तुरीयत्वेन देहादिसम्बन्धरहितां पारमार्थिकीं
पृथग्वक्ष्यति । [...and It is referred to, by refuting Its causal state, in
such Vedic texts as, ....Not this, not this etc. That supremely real state,
* free from causality*, relation with body, etc. and modes of waking etc,
of that very entity that is called prAjna, will be spoken separately in its
aspect as the Turiya.]
The Turiya of the Mandukya upanishad is kArya-kAraNa vilakShaNam. That
means: It is neither an effect of anything nor the cause of anything. The
causehood is positied on it, adhyAropa, by the shAstra, just to make the
aspirant turn towards it. Otherwise, the totally attributeless entity,
brahman, can easily be dismissed as not existing at all. Just in order to
give it an attribute the shAstra calls it the cause of the world. But when
it has been recognized to exist, then the causehood is dropped. It is like
the identification mark, the crow, sitting on a house that one is looking
for amidst many houses of the same type. Once he has identified the house,
it is not necessary that the crow should be there. After all, the crow is
not an integral part of the house. In the same way, the causehood is not
an integral part of Brahman. Brahman can and does exist without that
attribute. Just as the house can and does exist without the crow upon it.
If understood in this manner, as Shankaracharya has shown above, one can
appreciate that the NirguNa brahman has no connection whatsoever with the
creation. That it is the substratum for the superimposed world is also a
concession, for the sake of helping the seeker. When the Vedanta siddhAnta
is that the sole non-dual reality is Brahman, the talk of creation,
creatorhood, etc. is only an 'as if'.
Trust this helps.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Shrinivas Gadkari
<sgadkari2001 at yahoo.com>wrote:
> Namaste Shri Jaldhar,
> These are somewhat hand waving answers and will take lot
> more time and effort to formulate them in a much more
> rigorous manner using more precise technical terms. They
> nevertheless should capture the essence of what I wanted to convey.
> Paradigm 1: nirguNa brahma reached the state of
> "nirguNa brahma" by perfecting and transcending every possible
> aspect vyavahAra.
> Paradigm 2: nirguNa brahma is completely disconnected from
> The parama-purushArtha (PP) common to both paradigms is :"strive
> to get as close as possible to the highest state of nirguNa
> When one interprets the PP, in light of paradigm2, there is no
> clear directive about how one should go about activities in
> vyavahAra. This directive is got in via back door entry:
> - do your daily activities in a selfless manner to attain
> chitta shuddhi. Then on a sufficiently shuddha mind, brahma
> will reveal itself ...
> Here, perfecting activities in vyavahAra is not necessary. This
> paradigm does not oppose it, but it also does not actively support it.
> In other words we have given the spiritual licence to enable
> progressive degradation of vyavahAra (by making the perfection of
> activities in vyavahAra optional).
> Now coming to interpretation of PP in the light of Paradigm 1. Here
> achieving perfection in the assigned karma and then transcending it
> given utmost importance. Note transcending a particular karma
> means moving on the next set of karma for which the karma you have
> perfected is only a building block.
> Here, the answer to the question on how one should go about in
> activities in vyavahAra follows naturally.
> Even if you look at the charitra of Shri Adi Shankara, you will
> not miss that he has perfected and then risen above every activity
> in vyavahAra that he had to deal with.
> Hope I have not been too vague.
> One more point that will help clarifying issues here:
> One should not mix "duality" with "plurality". In fact
> "infinite plurality" can coexist with "absolute non-duality".
> And THIS is the advaita that appeals, atleast to me.
> Namaste Shri Subrahmanian,
> I VERY STONGLY disagree with your statement below. On the
> contrary, nirguNa brahma has EVERYTHING to do with EVERY
> single aspect of creation.
> I do not know when this devastating paradigm entered into
> the Indian spiritual thinking? At least I do not sense this
> being around from the overall outlook of main characters
> in mahabhArat and ramayana.
> It is however true that in last 1000-1200 years this thought
> seems to be around. I would give this paradigm (and its
> devastating implications) almost all the "credit" of
> briging Hinduism/ Vedic religion from "the glory that
> it was", to "the glory that it is".
> I would request anyone who is interested in restoring glory
> of the Vedic religion, to carefully note this.
> One can subscribe to a-dvaita flavour of Vedanta wherein
> nirguNa brahma is interested in creation. I do.
> Hari om,
> Please explain exactly what you mean and why you think it is so
> Jaldhar H. Vyas
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list