[Advaita-l] Fwd: Knowledge of Brahman

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Namaste,
The Upanishada does talk about the five Koshas. After the Jiva  leaves behind the Sthula sarira, which consists of the Annamaya Kosha and the Pranamaya Kosha, it is left with Sukshma sarira, which consists of the three finer Koshas. The Jiva will have to leave the Sukshma sarira too, to become Videha-mukta, in order to become free from the Maya. It is Maya, which creates the false division between the Jiva and Brahman. 

Regards,Sunil KB
 


     On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 6:46 AM, Harsha Bhat via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
   

 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Harsha Bhat <harsha9519 at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Knowledge of Brahman
To: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at braincells.com>


Jaldar sir,
                        Completely understood,
But the very next mantra says...

samane vrikshe purusho nimagno

    hy anishaya shocati muhyamanah

jushtam sada pashyaty anyam isham

    asya mahimanam eti vita-shokah


Which says ,even in mukthi there is this (Two birds beda ) right?...

That means this suksha sharira is still there in moksha ??which is against
advaitha which says only brahman is there in moksha..

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sri Subrahmanian,
> Very fine observations, indeed. Thanks for sharing.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On 11 Nov 2015 06:42, "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > A few years ago, Vidwan Sri Mani Dravid Sastrigal, in a Tamil talk on
> the references to 'bheda' in the Brahma sutras had made an interesting
> observation:
> >
> > In the Dvṣ suparṇa mantra the word 'tayoḥ anyaḥ pippalam svādvatti' does
> not show any real difference between the two: jiva and Ishvara.  For a true
> bheda to be indicated there is a vyakarana requirement, as per a sutra,
> that a panchami has to be used. Hence, the mantra, if it wanted to show
> jiva as different from Ishvara would have to say: tasmāt anyaḥ.  The tayoḥ
> anyaḥ only means 'of the two, one is doing this....and the other
> is...doing...'
> >
> > And in the subsequent mantra: the word 'anyam īśam' there is the word
> anya which means 'other'.  Here too, the reference is not to show any
> difference between the jiva and Ishvara but only that jiva who is
> identified with the body, now identifies himself with the 'other' that is
> Atma, which is only 'other' than/from the body.
> >
> > So, there is no place anywhere in the Veda where there is a real (as per
> the non-advaitins) difference-indicating word is present.  On the other
> hand, there are several aikya-teaching sentences in the Veda which alone
> have become the problematic ones for the non-advaitins forcing them to
> labor giving convoluted and extremely artificial explanations to them.
> >
> > regards
> > vs
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sri Harsha,
> >>
> >> You said:
> >>
> >> "In dwe suparne matra says even in moksha there are two
> birds,So,according
> >> to vedas only second bird (Bhudhi) exists even in moksha"
> >>
> >> This is not true. Not every statement in VedA is a mahAvAkya talking
> about
> >> paramArtha satyam. The dvA suparNa mantra refers to vyavahAra only,
> where
> >> the second bird (chidAbhAsa) is apparently engaged in activities, while
> the
> >> first (kUtastha) is the the silent sAkshi. This mantra does not talk
> about
> >> their aikyam explicitly, but that doesn't mean that their aikyam is not
> >> true.  There are several other vAkyams that talk about aikyam, which is
> the
> >> ultimate reality, or as you say, "what exists in moksha".
> >>
> >> In general, bheda vAkyas can be reconciled with abheda (the former as
> >> vyAhArika satya, and the latter being the pAramArthika satya), but if
> you
> >> take bhedA as ultimate reality, the abhedA vAkyas will be rendered
> >> meaningless, and no VedA vAkya can be dismissed as meaningless.
> >>
> >> In interpreting Veda mantras one needs to consider the VedA as a whole,
> >> because if one statement/mantra is taken in isolation it may lead only
> to a
> >> partial understanding, sometimes even a wrong one.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Venkatraghavan
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
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