[Advaita-l] What is Krishna's 'tattva'?
H S Chandramouli
hschandramouli at gmail.com
Wed Nov 22 03:27:30 EST 2017
Reg << 2) names and forms, which are as though conjured by ignorance, are
seeds of the world, and are part of Ishvara.
Perhaps " which are as though conjured by ignorance " should read as "
which are conjured by ignorance " and "are part of Ishvara" should read
as " are as though part of Ishvara" ?
2017-11-22 13:50 GMT+05:30 H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>:
> Reg << Why does Shankara say that names and forms are sarvajnasya
> AtmabhUta (ie they are part of him), and later say sarvajna: Ishvara:
> tAbhyAm anya: (ie he is different from them)?
> The important word
> appears to be
> misssing from
> he translation.
> I think t
> his leads to the question mark.
> 2017-11-22 12:40 GMT+05:30 Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>:
>> Yes, the effect is non different from the cause. However it does not mean
>> the cause is same as the effect.
>> Please read the full bhAShya of 2.1.14.
>> Especially: सर्वज्ञस्येश्वरस्यात्मभूते इवाविद्याकल्पिते
>> संसारप्रपञ्चबीजभूतेसर्वज्ञस्येश्वरस्य मायाशक्तिः प्रकृतिरिति
>> चश्रुतिस्मृत्योरभिलप्येते ; ताभ्यामन्यः सर्वज्ञ ईश्वरः,
>> Why does Shankara say that names and forms are sarvajnasya Ishvarasya
>> AtmabhUta (ie they are part of him), and later say sarvajna: Ishvara:
>> tAbhyAm anya: (ie he is different from them)?
>> *Thus, the effect is non different from the cause, but the cause is
>> different from the effect.*
>> एवमविद्याकृतनामरूपोपाध्यनुरोधीश्वरो भवति,
>> व्योमेवघटकरकाद्युपाध्यनुरोधि ; स च
>> जीवाख्यान्विज्ञानात्मनः प्रतीष्टेव्यवहारविषये ;
>> सर्वज्ञत्वंसर्वशक्तित्वं च, न परमार्थतो विद्यया
>> अपास्तसर्वोपाधिस्वरूपेआत्मनि ईशित्रीशितव्यसर्वज्ञत्वादिव्यवहार
>> उपपद्यते ; *
>> He is saying that Ishvara's omniscience, etc are contingent upon the
>> avidyAtmaka upAdhi, and without such an upAdhi there is no rulership,
>> omniscience etc.
>> To summarise, the same bhAShya passage says
>> 1) the world is non different from Brahman
>> 2) names and forms, which are as though conjured by ignorance, are the
>> seeds of the world, and are part of Ishvara.
>> 3) However Ishvara is different from them.
>> 4) His omniscience depends on the upAdhi conjured up ignorance.
>> 5) Free of upAdhi, there is neither ruler, nor ruled, nor omniscience etc.
>> The only way these multiple statements can simultaneously hold true is if
>> they are being said from two frames of reference. In vyavahAra, you have
>> names and forms from ignorance, out of which this world appears. Such a
>> world is non different from Brahman. However Ishvara, whose omniscience
>> stems from an upAdhi conjured up by ignorance, is different from them.
>> In paramArtha, there is no ignorance, thus no upAdhi, nor names and forms
>> and no world. Talk of non difference with Brahman is absurd here, because
>> there is only one entity, so there is neither difference nor non
>> It is knowledge of such a upAdhi rahita Brahman that is moksha, thus there
>> is no point holding on to ananyatvam of kArya, look at the kArya kAraNa
>> atIta vastu.
>> On 22 Nov 2017 4:26 a.m., "Durga Prasad Janaswamy via Advaita-l" <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> > Hari Om,
>> > Pranams.
>> > Everything not Brahman is asat.
>> > mithyA is non-difference from, i.e.non-existence in isolation from,
>> > Brahman.
>> > Brahma Sutra: 2.1.14
>> > अभ्युपगम्य चेमं व्यावहारिकं भोक्तृभोग्यलक्षणं विभागम् ‘ स्याल्लोकवत्’
>> > परिहारोऽभिहितः ; न त्वयं विभागः परमार्थतोऽस्ति, यस्मात्तयोः
>> > कार्यकारणयोरनन्यत्वमवगम्यते । कार्यमाकाशादिकं बहुप्रपञ्चं जगत् ; कारणं
>> > ब्रह्म ; तस्मात्कारणात्परमार्थतोऽनन्यत्वं व्यतिरेकेणाभावः
>> > कार्यस्यावगम्यते ।
>> > Swami Gambhirananda's translation:
>> > Assuming, for the sake of argument, an empirical difference between the
>> > experiencer and the things experienced, the refutation (under the
>> > aphorism) was advance by holding that "the distinction can well exist as
>> > observed in common experience". But in reality, this difference does not
>> > exist, since a non-difference between those cause and effect is
>> > The effect is the universe, diversified as space etc. and the cause is
>> > supreme Brahman. In reality it is known that the effect has
>> > from, i.e.non-existence in isolation from, that cause.
>> > regards
>> > -- durga prasad
>> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
>> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> > > Namaste Sri Sreenivasa Murthy,
>> > > To clarify, all my email is saying that there is nothing beyond you -
>> > > nothing outside, nothing inside. The methodology given in shruti -
>> > > neti is also saying that. There is nothing to memorize, nothing to
>> > > interiorize, only stuff to be given up. Every conception of Brahman is
>> > not
>> > > Brahman. Everything not Brahman is mithyA. Everything mithyA is to be
>> > given
>> > > up.
>> > >
>> > > Kind regards,
>> > > Venkatraghavan
>> > >
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>> > For assistance, contact:
>> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>> 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