[Advaita-l] Eka jiva vada and nana jiva vada.
vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Thu May 9 23:27:33 CDT 2013
Namaste Sri Sadananda
When you are seeing a Snake in Rope you will say I am seeing a Snake. Ayam
Sarpaha. In this Ayam is Brahma or Sat only. Sarpa is Asat.
When you seeing a Rope you will say I am seeing a Rope. Iyam Rajju. In this
Iyam is Brahma or Sat. Rajju is Asat.
Any imagined and seen object will be Sat only. You can imagine something.
You can see something. Something is imagined. Something is seen. That
Something is Sat. But if describe it with Qualities it becomes Asat.
Because Sat will not have any Qualities.
If you are seeing a table. You can say I am seeing something. It is true.
If you are saying I am seeing a teak wood table with four legs it is False.
Like this any imagined object or seen object is Sat because it is
Something. But if you describe Qualities it is False. Something is True
always. It is Brahma or Sat.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:06 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Shree Venkatesh -PraNAms. Just for some clarification since you are
> referring to my words.
> What I said is if you create an object it is jiiva's creation, using of
> course the components from the memory which is stored from the past
> experiences. That is praatibhaasika - this includes the snake on the rope.
> Knowledge of the adhiShTaanam eliminates the projection.
> If you see the Iswara's creation as part of the table etc which is
> vyavahaarika satyam. It is assembled using the panca bhuutas that are
> created by Iswara only. That is the rope itself. It also includes the
> mirajwaters, sunrise and sunset, crystal appearing as red due to proximity
> of red flower, etc. Knowledge of the fact does not eliminate the
> appearences. This includes the knowledge of the Brahman also - the
> appearence of the Iswara sRiShTi continues.
> Everything is self-consistent.
> Both are mithyaa since they are experienced - It is, therefore I see it
> - mostly vyaavahaarika; vs I see it, therefore it is - mostly
> Please note bhrama is different from Brahman. bhramaa is false knowledge
> in contrast to pramaa, valid knowledge - Pramaa is gained by pramaaNa and
> it is well defined. See Vedanta Paribhaasha analysis in my website.
> Any experience is mithyaa, by definition - since it is experienced.
> The definitions are precise.
> Hari Om!
> > From: Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>
> >To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> >Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2013 12:54 PM
> >Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Eka jiva vada and nana jiva vada.
> >Sri Sadananda has said if you imagine hare's horns it is Mithya for you
> >like the seen objects. Then hare's horns and seen objects like table are
> >Mithya. But Brahma is everything. The Mithya things also have Brahma
> >only. The Mithya things are also Brahma only.
> >Adi Sankara has said in Mundaka 2 - 2 -11 - Brahmaivedam Jagat
> >Jagad Varishtham Varatamam. Abrahma Pratyayaha Sarvopyavidyamatraha
> >Rajjvamiva Sarpa Pratyayaha. Brahmaivaikam Satyamiti Vedanushasanam.
> >If you think of any Abrahma 'Not Brahma' thing it is Avidya only like a
> >Snake in Rope. That Abrahma thing is not there any where in the Universe.
> >If you think of hare's horns it is Brahma only. If you are seeing a table
> >it is Brahma only. If you are seeing Snake in a Rope the Snake is Brahma
> >and Rope is also Brahma.
> >On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
> >> Namaste
> >> 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.
> >> 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.
> >> praNAms
> >> Hare Krishna
> >> I think you are applying the siddhAnta at the wrong place!! The tattva
> >> that says brahmaikatva or all pervasiveness (sarva vyApakatva) does not
> >> there to prove that sarpa which is wrongly perceived in rajju is also
> >> satya...
> >> BTW, if everything is satya as per your above statement, on what basis,
> >> all these days you were arguing that both waking and dream state
> >> cognition and experiences are mithyA?? By the way I hope you have
> >> yourself those bhAshya quotes (tattvAnyatva) and convinced that there
> >> something available in shankara bhAshya to that line of thinking.
> >> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> >> bhaskar
> >Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >To unsubscribe or change your options:
> >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