[Advaita-l] Re: brahma satyaM, jaganmithyA

[Anbu sivam2]

You have said: Ishvara is defined to be nirguNa brahma (the underlying
spirit, consciousness) in combination with the triguNAtmika mAyA. In
clarification you said: The nirguNa spirit becomes the saguNa in combination
with mAyA.

 My contention is as follows:  Nirguna Brahman is Absolute and it does not
combine with Maya or otherwise.  The world of multitudes is in inferred as
the play of Maya and Maya is anirvachaneeya as it cannot be defined.  Since
Nirguna Brahman alone is the reality we infer that the multitudes cannot be
anything other than Nirguna Brahman that is presented as multitudes, a trick
of Maya.  This conclusion is based on the logic that Absolute alone is
logical and multitudes of relatives are illogical.

 The idea of Easwara is our attempt to explain the order of multitudes – a
point quite irrelevant for an Advaithi.


On 8/24/06, Annapureddy Siddhartha Reddy <annapureddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> praNAM Anbuji,
>        Please see my comments below:
>
> >
> > In my understanding Iswara is Saguna Brahman and not Nirguna Brahman.
>
>
> This is exactly what I said. The nirguNa spirit becomes the saguNa in
> combination with mAyA.
>
> It is
> > not right to say that Maya is dependent on Nirguna Brahman for that
> would
> > contradict the fact that Maya is anirvachaniya.
>
>
> mAyA is anirvachanIya only in the sense that it is not real (existing at
> all
> three times, being conscious, being all-pervasive etc.), nor is it unreal
> (in the sense of a dream world).
>
> Another angle to look at it is that vEda asserts that nirguNa brahma is
> the
> only reality, but we still see the mAyA in our empirical lives. It's not
> unreal like the dream world. Hence, mAyA is anirvachanIya.
>
> I do not see how mAyA being dependent on nirguNa brahma would contradict
> mAyA being anirvachanIya.
>
> Also it would contradict
> > Nirguna Brahman as being Absolute.
>
>
> Absolute in the sense of being the ONLY reality. For example, if we take
> nirguNa brahma out of mAyA, nothing remains.
>
> A Videha Mukta merges with Nirguna Brahman and not Saguna Brahman.
>
>
> What does this merging mean (I was sticking to the definitions of tattva
> bOdha and vEdAnta sAra)? This merging seems to mean different things in
> different sub-schools. Could you let me know what merging means for you?
>
> A Mukta
> > never comes back, that is the assertion of our Vedas.
>
>
> Ishvara, also, being nityamukta should never come back then. But we see
> shrI
> rAma and shrI kR^iShNa amongst us. How is this explained?
>
> All jeevas are
> > subject to the Maya of Easwara and if Videha Mukta should reincarnate
> then
> > Mukthi and liberation will have no meaning.
>
>
> In the version I presented, mukti has the meaning that AvaraNa no longer
> deludes the jIva.
>
>
> > A Mukta is not parallel to
> > Easwara as Mukta is one without a second.
>
>
> Hmm...it seems like the theory of advaita vEdAnta you are talking about
> starts with different premises. Could you maybe, if possible, present a
> short summary of what the definition of jIva, Ishvara, mOkSha are? Thanks.
>
> A.Siddhartha.
>
> A Jeevan Mukta has no identity with the body and no interest in the
> > body.  So
> > he neither wishes to stay in Samadhi nor otherwise. What the body of
> > Jeevan
> > Muktha undergoes is of the predestination of a karmic body and Jeevan
> > Muktha
> > has nothing to do with it.
> >
> >
> > On 8/23/06, Annapureddy Siddhartha Reddy <annapureddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > praNAM all,
> > >         I have a few questions on the tenets of advaita vEdAnta
> > vis-a-vis
> > > the tattva bOdha (attributed to shaN^karAchArya) and the vEdAnta sAra
> > (of
> > > sadAnanda, translated by Hiriyanna). I will first present a brief
> > overview
> > > of the theory presented in these two works (as per my understanding,
> > > please
> > > feel free to correct me) to give the context, and then formulate my
> > > questions. Thanks a lot.
> > >
> > > The theory in these works is as follows. Ishvara is defined to be
> > nirguNa
> > > brahma (the underlying spirit, consciousness) in combination with the
> > > triguNAtmika mAyA. mAyA is fully dependent on nirguNa brahma for its
> > > existence, while nirguNa brahma is fully independent (adhyArOpa
> > apavAda).
> > > Hence is asserted the ontological superiority of nirguNa brahma and
> its
> > > sole
> > > reality.
> > >       The jIva is, by definition, the nirguNa brahma in combination of
> > > avidyA. avidyA is again triguNAtmika and hence, part of mAyA. Thus,
> the
> > > relationship between the jIva and Ishvara is a unique
> > > identity-cum-difference. For an unrealized jIva, the sattva component
> > > comprising his avidyA is dominated by the rajas.h and
> tamas.hcomponents,
> > > while for a realized jIva, the sattva shines without being sullied by
> > the
> > > rajas.h and tamas.h components (This is called sattva shudhdi).
> > >       mAyA has two powers -- vikShEpa and AvaraNa. vikShEpa is what
> > > results
> > > in the manifestation of variety, while AvaraNa results in the covering
> > up
> > > of
> > > the real nature of the Atma (hence, mAyA is called bhAva rUpa).
> > >
> > > Given this background, I have the following questions:
> > > -- Please let me know if the above understanding is correct, and let
> me
> > > know
> > > of any corrections. Thanks.
> > >
> > > -- A curious comment in Hiriyanna's book is that Ishvara is very much
> > > aware
> > > of this vikShEpa, but being omniscient is obviously not affected by
> > > AvaraNa.
> > > Is this admissible in advaita vEdAnta? Because if we were to extend
> this
> > > to
> > > a jIvanmukta, he too gets past the AvaraNa, but presumably he should
> > still
> > > see the vikShEpa. To extend this still further, a vidEhamukta should
> be
> > > able
> > > to assume a body if he wills (by the vidEhamukta, I mean the avidyA
> > which
> > > has undergone the sattva shudhdi). You might ask why would a
> vidEhamukta
> > > want to do that. It could be the same reason why Ishvara takes the
> form
> > of
> > > shrI kR^iShNa -- out of compassion for the jIvas suffering in saMsAra.
> > Are
> > > the above deductions acceptable to advaita vEdAnta?
> > >
> > > -- Is compassion the reason why Ishvara takes form on Earth to teach
> the
> > > jIvas, to set dharma right etc.? Can the same principle be extended to
> a
> > > jIvanmukta, i.e., the reason a jIvanmukta stays in the world. I have
> > seen
> > > prArabdha karma being given as a reason, but a jIvanmukta could have
> as
> > > well
> > > just stayed in samAdhi until his prArabdha is exhausted. What need
> does
> > he
> > > feel to teach his disciples etc.? In fact, if the above vikShEpa
> theory
> > is
> > > not to be believed, we cannot even say that the jIvanmukta can
> perceive
> > > anything different from him. The vivaraNa school seems to attribute it
> > to
> > > a
> > > trace of "I"-ness that is still left in a jIvanmukta. What is the
> > accepted
> > > doctrine in the tradition on this issue?
> > >
> > > -- In general, on a bunch of issues, the bhAmati and the vivaraNa
> > schools
> > > seem to have different positions, on the theory of what constitutes a
> > > jIva,
> > > what is the nature of a jIvanmukta etc. Is it the tradition that all
> > these
> > > theories are acceptable in as far as they do not contradict the three
> > > fundamental tenets:
> > >         brahma satyaM jaganmithyA
> > >         jIvO brahmaiva nAparaH
> > >
> > > -- gauDapAdAchArya proposed the ajAti vAda where the only tenet would
> be
> > > "brahma satyaM", i.e., he does not even bother defining a jIva and its
> > > identity with brahma (I am not too familiar with this vAda. Please let
> > me
> > > know if something's wrong). Is shaN^karAchArya's insistence on the
> > > vyAvahAra, for example, admitting multiple jIvas etc. supposed to be
> > only
> > > for the sake of mandAdhikArIs? Or is he disagreeing with
> gauDapAdAchArya
> > > in
> > > his metaphysics?
> > >
> > > -- Similarly, it seems like prakAShAnanda sarasvati in his vEdAnta
> > > sidhdAnta
> > > muktAvaLi proposes the notion of ekajIva vAda, and dismisses the
> notion
> > of
> > > jIvanmukta. I am not even sure what life/death means in this theory,
> and
> > > if
> > > the notion of jIvanmukta even makes sense. Could someone clarify this
> > > theory
> > > vis-a-vis these issues? And btw, even in this case, is it supposed to
> be
> > > another attempt to reconcile our logic to what the shAstra is saying?
> In
> > > the
> > > sense that these different theories are meant for different adhikArIs,
> > the
> > > final word being that of the vEdas (interpreted "correctly" of
> course)?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > A.Siddhartha.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > >
> > > For assistance, contact:
> > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 14
> > Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: venkata subramanian <venkat_advaita at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Re: smarthas
> > To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> >         <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> > Message-ID: <20060824134616.32771.qmail at web60712.mail.yahoo.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> >
> > The Kanchi Paramacharya in his Deivathin Kural mentions as follows:-
> >
> >   Vaishnavas, Madhvas have become a separate sect each, having his own
> > Tantra / Agama as the pramana.  this includes practices like
> Samashrayana
> > etc. etc. which are performed in addition to what is ordained in the
> Sroutha
> > and Smartha Sutras.
> >
> >   Everyone originally were Smarthas ..following Only the smrithis -
> (this
> > terms is comprehensive and means that a smartha is a Sroutha +
> > Smartha).  when later these sects sprang up, they all became separate
> titles
> > like Achar etc.   but the Original smartha title - Sharma was continued
> by
> > the traditional smarthas who continuted to remain so - without alluding
> to
> > Ramanuja or Madhva sidhantha.
> >
> >
> >   Further, i am told that the present srichurna + white nama was
> > introduced by Ramanuja only ( i am not sure of this), and this urdwa
> pundra
> > was different from the smartha urdhva pundra of mere chandan - which
> many
> > smartha families continue to this day.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Abhishek RK <rkabhi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Such a division called "smArta" sect is not found in the shAstras. It
> > is a modern convenience to name non-vaiShNavas as "smArtas".
> >
> > On 8/23/06, s kothandaraman wrote:
> > > Sorry for the interruption in the serious discusions going on. I would
> > like
> > > to know why the smarthas are so called. Is it because they follow the
> > > smRtis? Does it imply that the other group, the vaishnavas do not
> accept
> > the
> > > smRtis but stick to the sruthis only?
> > > S.Kothandaraman
> > >
> > --
> > satyena dhAryate pR^ithvi satyena tapate raviH|
> > satyena vAti vAyushca sarvaM satye pratishThitam||
> >
> > calA lakShmIshcalAH prANAshcalaM jIvita yauvanaM|
> > calAcale ca saMsAre dharma eko hi nishcalaH||
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Venkat.
> >
> > Sadgurubhyo Namah.
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+
> > countries) for 2�/min or less.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> >
> > End of Advaita-l Digest, Vol 40, Issue 24
> > *****************************************
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>
>