bhakti

[Venkatraman.Chandrasekaran at NOKIA.COM]

> Sri Sadananda wrote:
>only.  Interestingly for Ramanuja the silver in the
>shell is real which is reflected in the shell as a

Sri Ramanuja's philosophy doesn't agree that "anything 
that has a beginning and an end must be unreal", which 
is the crux of Advaita. That's why per Visistadvaita 
even when someone mistakes rope for a snake, the snake 
is real in the eyes of the person for that much time 
since the effects like "sweating", "screaming" are all 
real and just in the same fashion the jagat is *real* 
since it's experienced as is.

Regards,
chandrasekaran.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext kuntimaddi sadananda [mailto:kuntimaddisada at YAHOO.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 3:45 AM
> To: ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG
> Subject: Re: bhakti
> 
> 
> --- "Subrahmanian, Sundararaman V [IT]"
> <sundararaman.v.subrahmanian at CITIGROUP.COM> wrote:
> > Ms. SS,
> >
> > I think the usage of the word jnAna is getting a
> > little confusing in your
> > mail.  I will explain what I know:
> >
> > mA in Sankrit means knowledge, knowledge of anything
> > - apple, pen, calculus,
> > poetry etc.  The prefix "pra" accentuates the noun
> > it precedes.  So the word
> > pramA means knowledge.  For knowledge to happen
> > there have to be three
> > entities: pramAta (knower), pramEya (known) and
> > pramANa (means of
> > knowledge).  When all three are in alignment, then
> > pramA takes place in
> > other words knowledge or jnAna takes place.
> >
> > Example:  You have pen in hand (object to be known),
> > eyes are open (means of
> > sensing color/form) and the mind is attentive
> > (knower), then the knowledge
> > of the presence of pen happens.
> >
> > In brahmavidya, pramAta and the pramEya are the same
> > - one's Self.  Sruti is
> > the pramANa.  So if the Sruti is understood properly
> > then pramAta and
> > pramEya will be known to be the same.  If it is not
> > understood properly,
> > pramEya will seem to be something different than
> > pramAta ie., brahman as
> > something different from one's self - which is
> > ignorance ie., jnAna has not
> > taken place.
> >
> > Regards,
> > SVS
> 
> If I can add to the explanation of Shree SVS, Pramaa
> also is used specifically in the Vedantic terminology
> -as  the valid knoledge in order to sepearate it from
> bhramaa - illusory knowledge. Valid knowledge is that
> which stands un-negated. There have been extensive
> discussions in the Vedanta following nyaaya what
> constitutes a valid knowledge and what constitutes
> invalid knowledge.  Each of the achaarya-s have
> differed in their defintions and interpretations -
> these are considered as khyati vaada-s.  The famous
> examples of vision of snake where rope is or silver in
> a shell etc are examples taken to separate what is
> pramaa and what is brhamaa.  Bhagavaan Shankara
> discusses this aspect only in the Adhyaasa bhaashya -
> how the error of superimpostion occurs - ultimately
> relates this to perception of the world on Brahman as
> bhramaa only - which Ramanuja interpretes as pramaa
> only.  Interestingly for Ramanuja the silver in the
> shell is real which is reflected in the shell as a
> shining part.
> Shree Madhva provides another explanation - It is
> pramaa when it is not invalidated by Sakshii
> knowledge.  All experiences for example come under
> valid knowledge since sakshii experiences these.
> Hence experience of snake and associted fears are real
> even when the object that turned out to be rope
> instead of snake. The point is each one approched the
> problem from different perspective and one has to be
> carefull when disussing these acrosses the -isms since
> the definitions in each system is different.
> 
> Hari OM!
> Sadananda
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
>