anand.natampalli at gmail.com
Sun Aug 14 05:24:07 EDT 2022
Thank you for your answers. My doubts are cleared!
Shri Gurubhyo Namaha🙏🏼
Om Namo Narayanaya
On Fri 12. Aug 2022 at 17:28, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Namaste Anandji,
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 7:32 PM Anand N via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > But I have also heard that Sankara rejects this in the final analysis.
> Now I want to understand the context in which it is being rejected.
> The rejection is of pratyavAya as a new doSha generated by the absence of
> something, meaning non-performance of nityakarma, as it is understood by
> the pUrvamImAMsaka. The rejection is not of pratyavAya itself. It can be
> understood in the following manner: pratyavAya accrues in such a manner
> that the nityakarma acting as a kavacha against some pApa earned earlier,
> can no longer act as kavacha and that pApa fructifies bringing duHkha. This
> is misconstrued by the pUrvamImAMsaka as a fresh pApa, whereas vedAntI says
> that it is old accumulated pApa acting out since it has no counter of
> protective nityakarma. In other words, positive pApakarma has resulted in
> pApaphala that is waiting to act out, unless countered by nityakarma. With
> no nityakarma, it acts out and that is pratyavAya-doSha.
> Is it because, from no action being done, there cannot be a negative effect
> > of Pratyavaha?
> Yes, it something like not wearing an armour in the battlefield. That mere
> absence of wearing the armour won't hurt the person, but the arrows shot
> (by others) is the cause for hurt. There is a huge difference between them.
> A positive pApa cannot be born out of a zero karma, else Vedanti will have
> no argument against shUnyavAdIs.
> > Is it like saying, I did not do anything either right or wrong, hence
> > can be no effect of
> > dosha being born out of it?
> It is not as simple as that, technically. The RNas which are there are to
> be paid back. Loosely, Chaitra's mere absence of not paying money to a bank
> is not the cause of legal action in the world, as Maitra is also not paying
> any money to the bank. However, the former has taken the money from the
> bank that they want back, while latter has taken no money.
> > Is there a clear standpoint as to if it is accepted or rejected by
> > Advaitins?
> I hope this is clarified in the above.
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
> Archives: https://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