[Advaita-l] Fwd: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} couple of questions regarding "bramha satyam jagan-mithya"

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

Reg  << Here again, the idea is that the kAraNa,  Bhava rupa ajnana, is not
perceived in the world, as we see it. We do not see the world as 'ajnana'
but as something endowed with various objects. So, the statement Sastrigal
made in the speech/article, that jagat is 'ajnana vilakshanam' stands. It
is not kAraNa  salakshaNa. If it had been so, we would perceive 'ajnana' in
jagat. However, we do not see the world as 'ajnana' >>,

salakshaNa and vilakshaNa is with reference to the basic nature/svarUpa
namely jada (insentient)  and Chetana (sentient). Every object no doubt is
different from every other object. To call them vilakshaNa on that count
while talking of Sidhanta is to be very simplistic. A technical term like
vilakshaNa is perhaps not needed. The term vilakshaNa has a very specific
connotation in sidhAnta. Similarly kArya is nothing other than kAraNa is
the SidhAntic position.  It becomes untenable if kArya is also said to be
kAraNa vilakshaNa.

Regards

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 4:16 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 3:49 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste.
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification.
>>
>> The original question we discussed is copied below.
>>
>> <<  // Therefore, the jagat becomes ajñāna-vilakṣaṇam, that which is
>> produced
>> through bhāva-rūpa-ajñāna.//
>>
>> I request members to comment/clarify/verify the above sentence, especially
>> the first part there.  Is it 'ajnana vilakshanam' or anything else?  >.
>>
>> The clarification you have now given is jagat to be Brahma vilakshanam.
>> Not 'ajnana vilakshanam'. That is definitely so as per Advaita
>> Sidhanta.That was what I had pointed out.
>>
>
> Actually, what I have clarified, through Sri Sastrigal's words, is that it
> is  'ajnana vilakshanam'.
>
>>
>> Reg   the other part of your discussion with Sri MDS, copied below
>>
>> << Regarding the above I had a conversation with Sri Mani Dravid
>> Sastrigal.  He explained thus:  Ajnana is the kaaraNam and jagat is kaaraNa
>> vilakshaNam. How? he gave this example: even though clay is the karanam for
>> pot, yet, we perceive pot as an object with a rotund shape, etc.and not as
>> clay. Similarly jagat is perceived not as ajnanam but as endowed with so
>> many objects, giri, nadi, etc. He cited the Mundaka mantra  …यथोर्णनाभिः
>> सृजते गृह्णते च यथा पृथिव्यामोषधयः सम्भवन्ति । यथा सतः पुरुषात्केशलोमानि
>> तथाक्षरात्सम्भवतीह विश्वम् ॥ ७ ॥   to drive home the point that 'the
>> karyam can be kaaraNa vilakshanam too.' And in the Bhashya it is said, this
>> mantra gives examples for both 'the karyam is of the nature / form that is
>> non-different from kaaranam and also quite different, vilakshanam, from the
>> kaaraNam.' >>,
>>
>> The Bhashya considers both entities as kAraNam for Jagat, namely both
>> sentient (Chaitanya/Akshara/B*rahman*) and insentient(ajnAna)  (for
>> which पृथिवी pRthivI is taken as upalakshaNa) entities. With reference
>> to Chaitanya considered as kAraNa, jagat as kArya is kAraNa vilakshaNa.
>> When ajnAna is taken as kAraNa, jagat is not kAraNa vilakshaNa but
>> salakshaNa.
>>
>
> Here again, the idea is that the kAraNa,  Bhava rupa ajnana, is not
> perceived in the world, as we see it. We do not see the world as 'ajnana'
> but as something endowed with various objects. So, the statement Sastrigal
> made in the speech/article, that jagat is 'ajnana vilakshanam' stands. It
> is not kAraNa  salakshaNa. If it had been so, we would perceive 'ajnana' in
> jagat. However, we do not see the world as 'ajnana'.
>
> regards
>
>
>
>> <<  यथैते दृष्टान्ताः, तथा विलक्षणं सलक्षणं च निमित्तान्तरानपेक्षाद्य……>>
>>
>>
>> <<  yathaite dRRiShTAntAH, tathA vilakShaNaM salakShaNaM cha
>> nimittAntarAnapekShAdya………>>.
>> This is my understanding.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free.
>> www.avast.com
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>> <#m_647891511673377532_m_1404980826257540581_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 3:13 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 3:07 PM H S Chandramouli <
>>> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:57 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> << And regarding the sadasadvilakshanam aspect we discussed, he
>>>>> agreed that the understanding that all vaadins hold the jagat to be
>>>>> unchanging, vilakshanam from Brahman and also different from asat
>>>>> vastu >>.
>>>>>
>>>>> Namaste.
>>>>>
>>>> A quick clarification before I respond to the whole post. In the above,
>>>>  ** vilakshanam from Brahman and also different from asat vastu ** is
>>>> fine. However is there a typo (error)  in the portion ** he agreed
>>>> that the understanding that all vaadins hold the jagat to be unchanging
>>>> ** ??. Please clarify.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, a typo, a horrible one:  I wanted to say  //Brahman to be
>>> unchanging.//  Thanks for pointing out.
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free.
>>>> www.avast.com
>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>>> <#m_647891511673377532_m_1404980826257540581_m_4260776288961983978_m_6223070530826812787_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>
>>>