[Advaita-l] Eka jiva vada and nana jiva vada.
vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Sat May 4 12:10:55 CDT 2013
Brahma is Sat and Brahma is everything. Everything is Sat. Where is Mithya?
Where is Asat? Everything is Sat only. If I say hare's horns it is Sat. If
I say Rajju Sarpa it is Sat only. Why? Because all words are expressing
Brahma only. If you use any word that word is Brahma and Sat only.
In Srikantha's Bhashya he has said -
'Thus, all the Scriptures unanimously prove that the Supreme Lord is none
else but Siva, who has entered into all sentient beings and non-sentient
objects as their Soul;
who has thus, the whole Universe as His body; and who is accordingly
denoted by all words'. 1 - 4 - 22 Sutra Bhashya.
We should not fight about words.
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 8:11 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > From: Venkatesh Murthy vmurthy36 at gmail.com
> You said -
> The word asat is used in
> the scriptures and in prakaraNa granthaas in the
> sense of mithyaa.
> I agree with this but
> Gaudapada and Adi Sankara have nowhere said this
> Mithya is Not Sat and Not
> Asat or Sat Asat Vilakshana. This is purely
> invented by Advaitis
> afterwards to confuse Purva Pakshis like Naiyayikas
> and Dvaitis. Mithya is
> also Asat only. There is no other meaning for
> Mithya. This is my final
> conlusion and I will stop.
> Shree Venkatesh – PraNAms
> You can have your conclusions. Noone can change them other than your self.
> However, your otherstatements are not true. I am giving an
> example of Shankara’s Brahmajnaanvali slokas which are meditative slokas
> starts with... asangoham asangoham asangoham punaH puNaH ..etc.
> In that one sloka points out the essence of adviatia vedanta and also the
> use of mithyaa for the
> brahmasatyam jaganmithyaa jiivobrahmaiva naaparaH|
> anena vedyam sachchhaastramiti Vedanta DinDimaH||
> Jagat is mityaa is emphasized as the very essence of
> Vedanta. Mityaa word is not invented by post Shankara advaitins – although
> is a appropriate word for that which is sat asat vilakshaNam. In the Viveka
> Chudamani there are two slokas defining maaya by Shankara – that says it
> is sat
> asat vilakshanma.
> sannnapya sannaa ubhayaatmikaano
> bhinnaapyabhinnaa ubhayaatmikaano
> saangaapyanangaa ubhayaatmikaano
> mahatbhuuta anirvacaniiya ruupa|
> It is neither sat or asat or sat and asat put together, etc.
> I leave you with your conclusions. Wish you all the best.
> Hari Om!
> 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