[Advaita-l] Fwd: Re: "VEDA IS NO MORE veda "

[sreenivasa murthy]

Dear friends,    "Veda is no more veda" when a mumukshu realizes that HIS TRUE svarUpa is prior to the appearances of the words which are Veda pointing out at one's true nature. Sri Shankara writes thus :      yEnAtmanA vilIyanta udBavanti ca vRuttayaH |      nityAvagatayE tasmai namO dhIpratyayAtmanE || Upadeshasahasri; Chapter 18 Shloka 1When this is cognized / realized within oneself by oneself , Veda is nolonger Veda but Atman itself. So instead of indulging in the   wordly duel with others why not one utilize the time and energy to realize that truth Viz. one's true svarUpa, as taught  by Sri Shankara?
With respectful namaskars,Sreenivasa Murthy


 

    On Wednesday 7 March 2018, 4:24:53 PM IST, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:  
 
 Namaste Subbuji,
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 6:48 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thank you Venkat ji for the detailed explanation bringing out the various
> dimensions involved.  That the need for artha (object) as a contributory
> factor, along with jnana, to bring about an effect is well presented. Do
> you think this is the basis on which Shankara has refuted the
> vijnanavadin's theory in the BSB?
>

That is a very interesting parallel, I had not considered it. Reading the
bhAShya of BSB 2.2.28 today, I found a line there which echoes the
arguments raised in the advaita siddhi. The bhAShyakAra says: अपि च घटज्ञानं
 पटज्ञानमिति विशेषणयोरेव घटपटयोर्भेदः, न विशेष्यस्य ज्ञानस्य — यथा शुक्लो
गौः कृष्णो गौरिति शौक्ल्यकार्ष्ण्ययोरेव भेदः, न गोत्वस्य । That is, the
differentiation between ghaTa jnAna and paTa jnAna, is not on account of
the jnAna, but on account of the artha. ShankarAchArya goes on to call
these as visheShaNa, qualifiers of the jnAna which is the visheShya. Here
differentiation (vyAvaritti) is the outcome that is sought, and that is on
account of the objects.


> Could you please make a post bringing out the concepts of: visheshana,
> upadhi and upalakshana with their technical definitions with analogies?
> That would be very useful to understand and appreciate several
> texts/arguments.
>

Yes, will do soon.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan



> In fact in the Chandrika Vakyartha last year, Sri MDS started his reply
> with this prelude that these three are there and their consideration will
> generate a reply to the Dvaitin's objection.  But unfortunately he could
> not elaborate on it as the discussion went off in different directions.
>
> regards
> subbu
>
_______________________________________________
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