[Advaita-l] looking for a comparative study on these two topics
kkashyap2011 at gmail.com
Sat Apr 15 00:12:06 EDT 2023
Namaste Subrahmanian Ji, Chandramouli Ji, Sadananda Ji, Vikram Ji
Thanks for all your input. I still have to do some research on my own. I
will let you know if I have more questions.
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 5:56 PM H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> I stop here. We have anyway presented our respective understandings. Hope
> this discussion has been of some use for Krishna Kashyap Ji.
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 4:27 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> > On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 2:31 PM H S Chandramouli <
> hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Namaste.
> >> The difference between pot-clay and rope-snake illustrations is
> >> broughtout in your note itself.
> >> // kArya, are mere names, and the upAdAna kAraNam in the effects alone
> >> is satyam //
> >> // This is akin to the rope-snake, where the superimposed snake has no
> >> existence separate from the substratum rope //.
> >> In the first case, kArya, pot, has clay as the upAdAna kAraNam. In the
> >> second case, snake does not have rope as its upAdAna kAraNam. Snake is a
> >> superimposition on the substratum, rope. The two are entirely
> >> The two are not **akin**.
> > In the case of the snake, the rope is admitted to be the vivartopadana
> > karanam for the snake.
> >> Reg // The word 'bhrAntyA pashyati' applies to all the three things
> >> stated there: clay-pot, shell-silver and Brahman-jivatvam //,
> >> Yes. But the nature of bhrAnti is different in the three cases. This
> >> bhranti is not removed by bAdha in all cases of bhrAnti. That bAdha is
> >> what is under discussion not bhrAnti per se. In pot-clay illustration,
> >> understanding kArya (pot) to be different from its kAraNa (clay) is
> >> bhrAnti. But it is admitted that kAraNa (clay) is different from its
> >> (pot). Pot is no doubt same as clay. But clay is not same as pot. Hence
> >> this bhrAnti is not removed by bAdha. Were it to be so, bAdha
> (negation) of
> >> pot would automatically mean bAdha (negation) of clay as well, because
> >> is nondifferent from clay.
> > This need not be so. bAdhA of pot need not result in the bAdha of the
> > clay. The bAdha of the snake does not result in the bAdha of the rope.
> > BhrAnti in this case is to be removed by laya of kArya (pot) in karaNa
> >> (clay). That is, understanding pot to be nondifferent from clay. That
> >> laya in this instance. It is an understanding. It does not deny
> >> of pot. ** one no longer sees a pot in clay ** is not exactly correct.
> >> all continue to see pot and make use of it as well. In fact for uses
> >> clay itself is not useful In its form say as a lump of clay.
> > BhAmati has said: न खल्वनन्यत्वमित्यभेदं ब्रूमः, किन्तु भेदं व्यासेधामः,
> > ततश्च नाभेदाश्रयदोषप्रसङ्गः । He says: by kArya-kAraNa ananyatva we do
> > mean abhEda (of the kArya and kAraNa) but only deny bhEda between them.
> > This takes care of the arthakriyAkAritvam, practical utility, that you
> > point out above: the utility of a pot like holding water or grains is not
> > met by clay.
> > For that matter, even with the prapancha mithyatva, even after realizing
> > its mithyAtva, where bAdha of the prapancha has happened due to
> > brahma jnanam, the world is continued to be seen and experienced; only
> > satyatva bhrama has gone, as stated by the Panchadashi. The same with the
> > jivatva too as per the Aparokshanubhuti verse I cited. So with the
> > bhrama. The bAdha does not destroy or annihilate the ghaTa, one continues
> > to use it for its desired purposes.
> > regards
> 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