[Advaita-l] Please Learned Scholars answer these doubts about Advaitha Sidhanta..
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 3 09:29:56 CDT 2015
Shree Harsha Bhat - PraNAms
Here is my understanding.
Gunas belong to finite objects. The creation itself is defined in terms of naama and ruupa where ruupa stands of attributes. The substantive of the creation is Brahman only as the scriptures define - bahushyaam, prajaayeyeti and yatova imani bhuttani ... etc
Any description therefore is only indicatory defitions to uplift the mind of the seeker to the truth that is imperceptible yet that is positively existing and knowable not as object but as the very subject which cannot be objectified - hence term aparoxa anubhuti.
Sat negates non-existence or suunyam, chit negates the inertness since Brahman is defined as pure consciousness and ananda negates the limitations since limitless alone is happiness.
These are indicatory since Brahman cannnot be defined as the scripture itself says so -yato vaacho nivartante apraapya manasaa saha; na vaak gachchati na manaH.. etc.
nitya negates all changing entities. Only infinite-ness alone can be changeless. shanta is no perturbations, etc.
In the positive note - Madukya mantra 7 defines after negations - naantaH prajnam ... shantam, shivam, adviatam. chaturtam manyante sa aatma sa vijneyaH. Shivam here is auspiciousness as mangalanaacha mangalam since its presence the very life in the subtle body pulsates.
In the Advaita Makaranda Lakshidhara (forgot the sloka) says - sat is not an attribute -The logic is, if sat is an attribute then it should be locussed in an object, since attribute must have a locus and the locus must be different form the attribute as in blue lotus where blueness is different from lotusness. The only thing different from sat is asat. Therefore it implies that sat is attribute of asat, which is self contradictory.. Hence sat cannot be an attribute. The fact is scripture says sat eva idam agra aseet - existence alone was there before creation and it is ekam, eva, adviteeyam - one without a second. Shankara defines this as sajaati, vijaati swagata bheda rahitam.
Hope this helps
On Fri, 7/3/15, Harsha Bhat <harsha9519 at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Please Learned Scholars answer these doubts about Advaitha Sidhanta..
To: "kuntimaddi sadananda" <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>, "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Friday, July 3, 2015, 9:29 AM
You saidAll the terms you have
stated are only negation of all objects that can be
definable. They describe the indescribable using pointers
(lakshyaartha) for a seeker who has tuned his
How sat-chit-ananda is
negation of Gunas......
It says Directly as
ananda is Brahman's attribute
trupta and Shanta....how they support neti-nethi..they say
asthi -asthi..righ?t as these as
How the subject
shanta,nithya trupta and sat-chit -ananda are
When we say
sat-chit-ananda ...as brahman...how can we call avarchaneeya
Vasthu as sat-chit -ananda??
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 7:03
PM, Harsha Bhat <harsha9519 at gmail.com>
Thank you sir...
For you for your wonderful
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at
3:41 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
Bhatji - PraNAms
Your emails further proves that Vedanta has to be studies
systematically under a competent teacher . A competent
teacher is one who himself studied Vedanta under another
Just for short. Brahman means infinite-ness - anantam. Guna
or attributes define an object and differentiate one object
from the other. Hence Guna's belong to finite object.
Infinite cannot be an object hence it is undefinable - hence
Infinite itself is not an attribute of infinite - all it
means is it negates all finite and therefore attributable
objects as not Brahman. All the terms you have stated are
only negation of all objects that can be definable. They
describe the indescribable using pointers (lakshyaartha) for
a seeker who has tuned his mind.
Brahman itself is indefinable as stated by the scriptures -
na vaak gachchati, na manaH.
Similarly the subject I, cannot be defined. Only definition
that one can provide is the subject is that which cannot be
objectified. It is a negative definition, negating whatever
can be objectified cannot be the subject - neti neti says
On Sat, 6/27/15, Harsha Bhat via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: [Advaita-l] Please Learned Scholars answer these
doubts about Advaitha Sidhanta..
To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Date: Saturday, June 27, 2015, 5:02 AM
In advaitha Brahman is
Termed as Nirguna....the
same brahman is called as
Nishkala meas indivisible,,,,
Nirvikaara meas never changing...
Nithya Truptha...means Self Satisfied..
Nishkriya...without any activity...
These are not Brahman's attribute???
If these are brahman's attribute definitely brahman is
And even we cannot say brahman as avarchaneeya...because
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list