[Advaita-l] NOTES ON MANDUKYA UPANISHAD AND KARIKA: INTRODUCTION 3
vishy1962 at yahoo.com
Sun Mar 26 23:11:20 CST 2006
What you have said here and in reply the question on Maya are absolutely true and nothing beyond.
When craving for any sort of experiences stops the mind disappears, when that happens all dualities (good/bad, birth/death, day/night....)disappear. The point thus you reach is the pinacle of Advaitha.
But even your craving for that experience would be an obstacle to reach there....just drop every desire/ thought/what all you stored as knowledge ...everything, it will happen automatically at the point of 'shoonya'
mwadhwa at uwm.edu wrote:
All the reasoning will slowly die down when you will find the antithesis of this
causal relation of sat-chit-aananda swaroopa as another hysteria or
diplopia.....Advaita Vedanta is to take beyond causality...and Causality is in
the field of time-space model....
Keep practicing...it has to die...the causality part also...for slowly you
will reach where you will wonder, "Is there really any Cause!!!" The cause is
only of ignorance and that too is ignorance...otherwise there is no cause......
Where dharma-adharma..causal-non-causal...theism-atheism all lose meanings....
then... THAT ART THAT.. to which you are ascribing the causal source...
Quoting kuntimaddi sadananda :
** Shree Ram Garib - PraNAms
** Thanks for your mail.
** Creation cannot be done by inert material. Scripture defines Brahman as
** ananda as well as chaitanya swarUpa also - satyam, jnaanam, anantam
** brahma or sat chit ananda, brahman. sAnkya states that inert prakRiti
** is the cause for creation just like the way you have presented.
** Brahmasutra tries to dismiss that theory saying that Brahman who is
** conscious entity is the cause for creation. If it is just existence,
** alone it could be inert. Scripture also says about creation - atmaaana
** akaasha sambhuutaH , akaaShaat vayuH, vayoH agniH, agneH aapaH, apaH
** pRithivii, etc. Hence, Atma, the self, which is of the nature of sat
** chit ananda is the cause for creation. 'Sa kaamayata' - He desired and
** He created. Hence, Shankara says - abhinna nimitta upAdAna kArana -
** Undifferentiated efficient and material cause as Brahman. ManDukya is
** going to tell us more about this. I will be coming to the Upanishad
** portion slowly. I felt that unless some of the epistemological issues
** are ironed out, it is difficult to follow the Upanishad.
** Hari OM!
** --- Ram Garib wrote:
** > Thanks Sri Sadananda for your analysis of karika in
** > layman's language. I understand that you have
** > expressed reluctance for entering into arguments, and
** > it is not my intention either. Just some doubts that
** > cropped up:
** > --- kuntimaddi sadananda
** > wrote:
** > > a). Brahman is
** > > all pervading
** > > existence and b) Brahman is the material cause for
** > > Jagat, which includes
** > > all objects. Shruti says yatOvA imAni bhUtAni
** > > jAyante, yena jAtAni
** > > jIvanti, yat prayam tyabhisam vishanti,
** > > brahmeti That from which
** > > the whole universe arises, by which it is sustained
** > > and into which it
** > > goes back is Brahman Thus Brahman becomes
** > > adhiShTAnam or substantive
** > > for all objects.
** > It seems that the demands of this shruti are fulfilled
** > by taking Brahman to be just the material cause of
** > jagat.
** > A pot is jAyate from earth, jIvati from earth and
** > finally vishati into earth. Therefore material cause
** > fulfills this shruti completely.
** > If we test efficient cause on the criteria of this
** > shruti, we find that a pot is jayate from potter, but
** > niether jIvati from potter, nor vishati into it.
** > Therefore based on this shruti, we should be justified
** > in concluding that Brahman is only the material cause
** > of jagat. There seems to be no need to stretch
** > efficient cause also into brahman.
** > > Confirming this sruti says existence alone was there
** > > in the beginning
** > > and it is one without a second.
** > Since "existence" cannot "not exist", saying that
** > "existence alone existed" is a tautology. Therefore,
** > this meaning fails mimamsaka's "apurvata" criteria.
** > Why do I need a shruti pramana, which could otherwise
** > be derived from the structure of the language itself?
** > Shruti would make sense only if it meant "existence
** > of..." instead of an abstraction like pure existence.
** > With regards,
** > Ram Garib
** > __________________________________________________________
** > Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner now. Go to
** > http://yahoo.shaadi.com
** > _______________________________________________
** > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
** > 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
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
Jiyo cricket on Yahoo! India cricket
Yahoo! Messenger Mobile Stay in touch with your buddies all the time.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list