[Advaita-l] Nyayasudha Objections 1
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Tue Mar 1 11:35:16 CST 2016
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> praNAms Sri Ananda prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
> If the absolute brahman (nirvishesha / nirguNa / nirupAdhika brahman) is
> not graspable / reachable by any upAdhi-s (karaNa-s) and even shAstra
> (shabda pramANa) then what is the proof that it exists??
The first pramana for the existence of Brahman comes from the Veda itself:
'asti ityeva upalabdhavyah....tasya bhvaḥ prasīdati' says Kathopanishat.
One should start by first taking Brahman to be, 'It exists' (on the shāstra
pramāṇam) and only to such a person Brahman will reveal itself.
Also, the Taittiriya says: asanneva sa bhavati asat brahmeti veda chet.
asti brahmeti ched veda, santam enam tato viduriti..He who says 'Brahman is
non-existent', himself becomes non-existent (that is, he becomes unfit to
aspire for any purushartha, says Shankara). He who knows, ultimately by
aparoksha jnanam, 'Brahman exists', he is seen as a satpurusha by other
'Shraddhatsva somya' says Chandogya. Shraddhāvān labhate jnānam says the
BG. So, it is by shraddhā in the shāstra/guru vākya that 'brahman exists'
one starts and his spiritual journey ends by his realizing himself to be
> Is it not something similar to shUnya?? Were the questions usually raised
> by dvaitins when it has been said that parabrahman is agrAhya and
> aprameya. Anyway, it has been clarified by shankara that jneya brahman is
> paraM whereas upAsya brahman is aparaM (sOpAdhika) paraM chet jnAtavyaM
> aparaM chet prAptavyaM. How can this brahman (jneya brahman) be known,
> when it is categorically said by shruti that IT is beyond the reach of
> mind and speech?? Shankara clarifies adhyArOpita nAmarUpakarma dvAreNa
> brahma nirdhishyate, vijnAnamAnandaM brahma, vijnAnaghana eva, brahma,
> Atma ityevamAdhi shabdaiH. And this brahma to be realized in mana only
> since there is no other instrument to realize this truth. But this
> mana/buddhi should be ati sUkshma, svaccha and atyanta nirmala and this
> nirmala buddhi would take the shape (!!) of Atma Chaitanya clarifies
> shankara in geeta bhAshya. Atyanta nimalatva, atisvacchatva, ati
> sUkshmatva upapaatterAtmanaH, buddhescha AtmasamanaiH nirmalAt upapatteH,
> AtmachaitanyAkAra abhAsatvOpapattiH. It is this Nirmala mana that can
> 'see' the Atman and it is this mana that has been insisted by shruti when
> it is said : manasaivAnudrashtavyaM nehanAnAsti kiMchana. If we deny the
> role of upAdhi (manObudyahankAra) in brahma jignAsa / realization we cannot
> establish the upanishat pratipAdita para brahman through adhyArOpa apavAda
> Just my few thoughts on this thread.
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> 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