anirvacaniyaanivacaniya endanivacaniya end truthanivacaniya end truth with self

anirvacaniyaCommon arguments I see against Dvaita in these forums - Hiof information about God and it is totally unnecessary to classify this as an imagination and yet hold on to doctrines relying on anivacaniya.Advaita Vedantha: Serious Attention Required: Part II [Archivof the world is un-understandable and this characteristic of the world he expresses in terms like Maya, Anivacaniya, Sad-Asat vilakshna etc.Achintya Bheda Abheda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIts is clearly distinguished from the concept of anivacaniya (inexpressible) of Advaita Vedanta. There is a clear difference between the two concepts as the two .Achintya-Bheda-Abheda (acintya bhedābheda in IAST) is a school of Vedanta representing the philosophy of inconceivable one-ness and difference,[1] in relation to the power creation and creator, (Krishna), svayam bhagavan.[2][3] and also between God and his energies[4] within the Gaudiya Vaishnava religious tradition. In Sanskrit achintya means 'inconceivable',[1] bheda translates as 'difference', and abheda translates as 'one-ness'. It is believed that this philosophy was taught by the movement's theological founder Chaitanya Mahaprabhu[5](1486 - 1534) and differentiates the Gaudiya tradition from the other Vaishnava Sampradayas.Caitanya's philosophy of acintya-bhedābheda-tattva completed the progression to devotional theism. Rāmānuja had agreed with Śaṅkara that the Absolute is one only, but he had disagreed by affirming individual variety within that oneness. Madhva had underscored the eternal duality of the Supreme and the Jīva: he had maintained that this duality endures even after liberation. Caitanya, in turn, specified that the Supreme and the jīvas are "inconceivably, simultaneously one and different" (acintya-bheda-abheda). He strongly opposed Śaṅkara's philosophy for its defiance of Vyāsadeva's siddhānta.

– Satsvarupa dasa GoswamiHistorical perspectiveHistorically, within Hinduism there are two conflicting philosophies regarding the relationship between living beings (Jiva or Atma) and God (Ishvara, Brahman or Bhagavan). Advaita schools assert the monistic view that the individual soul and God are one and the same[7], whereas Dvaita schools give the dualistic argument that the individual soul and God are eternally separate[8]. The philosophy of Achintya-bheda-abheda includes elements of both viewpoints. The living soul is intrinsically linked with the Supreme Lord, and yet at the same time is not the same as God - the exact nature of this relationship being inconceivable to the human mind.

Philosophy

The theological tenet of achintya-bheda-abheda tattva reconciles the mystery that God is simultaneously "one with and different from His creation". In this sense Vaishnava theology is not

pantheistic as in no way does it deny the separate existence of God (Vishnu) in His own personal form. However, at the same time, creation (or what is termed in Vaishnava theology as the 'cosmic manifestation') is never separated from God. He always exercises supreme control over his creation. Sometimes directly, but most of the time indirectly through his different potencies or energies (Prakrti).

"One who knows God knows that the impersonal conception and personal conception are simultaneously present in everything and that there is no contradiction. Therefore Lord Caitanya established His sublime doctrine: acintya bheda-and-abheda-tattva -- simultaneous oneness and difference." (A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada)[4] The analogy often used as an explanation in this context in the relationship between the Sun and the Sunshine.[9] For example both the sun and sunshine are part of the same reality, but there is a great difference between having a beam of sunshine in your room, and being in close proximity to the sun itself. Qualitatively both, the Sun and the Sunshine are the same, but in terms of quantity they are very different. This analogy is applied to the living beings and God - the Jiva being of a similar quality to the Supreme being, but not sharing the qualities to an infinite extent, as would the Personality of Godhead himself[10]. Thus there is a difference between the souls and the Supreme Lord.

Difference in concept to Advaita Vedanta

Its is clearly distinguished from the concept of anivacaniya (inexpressible) of Advaita Vedanta. There is a clear difference between the two concepts as the two ideas arise for different reasons. Advaita concept is related to the ontological status of the world, where as both Svayam bhagavan and his shaktis (in Lord himself and his powers) are fully real, and they are different from each other, but at the same time they are the same. But that does not negate the reality of both.[1] Mayavadi concept is a direct opposite and a contradicting concept to an early Krishna-theism. [11]

Exceptions

While it applied to relations between Purusha (the Lord) and shakti (be it material, marginal and spiritual powers), in the theology of the concept there are areas of exceptions. Jiva Goswami also accepts that any object and its energy are non-different, such as fire and power of burning. While some maintain that its only a secondary extension of the principle that it is primarily applied to Svayam bhagavan and his powers. It does not however apply to differences between avatars of Svayam bhagavan and Lord Himself, so the difference between Vishnu and his origin, is not covered by the concept of acintya bhedabheda, i.e. it can not be applied in cases where different levels of purusha are compared. [1]

Advaita Vedantha: Serious Attention Required: Part II [Archivf the world is un-understandable and this characteristic of the world he expresses in terms like Maya, Anivacaniya, Sad-Asat vilakshna etc.Full text of "Panchapadika Vivaranam Of Prakasatma Yati"0 Panchapadika This 'mithyajnana9 is neither true nor false; and hence ^ is called 'anivacaniya'. Objection from akhyativadin : When there is the contact of the ...

Vishishtadvaita

It is clearly distinguished from the concept of anivacaniya (inexpressible) of Advaita Vedanta. There is a clear difference between the two concepts as the two ...SUMADHWA SEVA   or Yaska's Niruktis) but in the very centrality of idea of Anivacaniya (with respect to Purusha (Godhead) and also Apaureshyatva of the Vedas.Re: Sub: 11: visnureva vijijnasyah pro isistha: - Word operational thagalu:

vijayendra acharyaSep 21, 2014Very pertinent points here indeed, in understanding Panini's rules of grammar - as to how kriya (verbs) are transformed into nama (noun) and further into sarvanama (pronoun). A simple but critical element to understand a long series of Sanskrit compositions .

Instructive to note that the whole body of language has to be constantly self-aware of this basic relationship at all stages of its development and manifestation through speech-acts. However, while the rules of grammar can impart certain integrity to constructions of language, we cannot strictly bind the vak kriyas (speech-acts) by such rules, as they tend to move somewhat in unpredictable directions !!

Such traditional concepts such as vak-shudhi (purity of speech), vak-pramanya (integrity of speech) and vak siddhis (competency in speech acts) were thus emphasized in the traditions of gurukula pedagogy.

I am however, inclined to the view that the real bedrock of sruti pramanya (i.e. semantic and syntactical integrity) of Vedic compositions in particular, consist not merely in ANY rules of grammar or Vak siddhis (be it of Panini or Yaska's Niruktis) but in the very centrality of idea of Anivacaniya (with respect to Purusha (Godhead) and also Apaureshyatva of the Vedas. These are not just simple affirmative statements about the authenticity of Vedas but the sookshma tattvas (or latent meta-heuristic principles) that find their perennial application in the construction and deconstructions of all humanly devised meanings.

We cannot therefore, LIMIT our understanding of Vedic compositions by attributing it to any particular exposition of rules grammar or particular way of chanting Vedic slokas. This is of course not to deny the efficacious contributions of extant rules of grammar and vak siddhis but to simply nurture and let flourish our understanding and realization of the purport of Vedas.

We say - "anoraneeyam, mahato maheeyam" i.e HE the almighty GOD is smaller than the smallest of atoms and while subdued as an atom to the atom, still rises to being the mighty infinite among unfathomable infinities - all at once the larger than the largest of cosmos. Such paroxysm of language are not only to demystify and free us from our empirical certainties but to also truly elevate us to a higher level of understanding.

Oral and literary traditions in various Sanskrit compositions over times have thus, followed distinct and ingenious grammatical and interpretative traditions to keep alive the spirit of Vedas. While the Vedic

compositions for instance, have existed even much prior to Panini; we have no basis to say that later-day refinements and understanding is necessarily better than earlier traditions of understanding and interpretation. They may be still better and useful because they are the only purveyors of understanding available to us. So be it, but why should we be alarmed by intrinsic diversity of our spiritual striving.

There has been much brouhaha lately on some of these matters among learned scholars and seers - and often unmindful of its deleterious consequences for the simple devout folks even forcing them into half-baked partisanship of sorts.

anivacaniya end

VishishtadvaitaAt the end of the period of exile, Arjuna sends for his wife and son. .... It is clearly distinguished from the concept of anivacaniya (inexpressible) of Advaita Hindu PhilosophyKnowledge, however, is the highest end (for which one strives). ...... from the concept of anivacaniya (inexpressible) of Advaita Vedanta.Panchapadika Vivaranam of PrakasatmaAny con1mand refers to some conation and the realization of an end which ...... This 'mithyajnana' is neither true nor false; and hence It IS called 'anivacaniya'.Advaita Vedantha: Serious Attention Required: Part IIthis characteristic of the world he expresses in terms like Maya, Anivacaniya, Sad-Asat vilakshna etc. .... Fighting is not an end to any means.For your information, I have not gone through advaita literatures vigorously.The total advaita philosopy is explained in terms of perception out of some examples. It is surprising that the whole philosophy of Mayabad is explained in terms of some perception involving some examples only.

The science of the absolute called advaitha vedantha is preached on the basis of three major elements or its methodological procedures of inquiry into the truth includes three major factors Viz.

1) Shruthi: Authority of the shruthi passages, or intuitive experience of the ancient sages.

2)Logic and Reasoning: Though shruti�s are the ultimate authority, Sankara uses his full reasoning power as well, therefore logic and reasoning is an essential requisite for comprehending his true Vision and accomplish a successful philosophical contemplation.

3) Anubhuthi: Sankara takes man as the centre of discussion and analyses his individual experiences. This is clear from the fact that Sankara calls his Brahmasutra Bhashya as �Saareerika mimaamsa bhaashya�. In the upothghatha of this unparalleled piece of work he neither speaks of Brahman nor about the reality of the world but only of man and his experience.

May be we are not having the required intellect to understand the reasoning of some the happeings of this world. Does it mean they are all false ?

Thats right, the doctrine of Sankara has been as much subjected to criticism as the doctrine regarding the world, many critics even today take him to be an illusionist. Let�s examine what Sanakra says on the appearance of this world..

Sankara does not start with the assumption that the world is existing. It is treated as an �appearance�(very important to note). So strictly speaking the enquiry in vedantha is not about the reality of the world, but about what is presented to us by sense-perception. The world always appears �to� the individual souls , if the individual souls were not existing there would not have been this appearance. And individual notion of �I� is placed due to avidya/adhyasa as a conditioning factor. That is, the world appears as long as avidya prevails in the individual souls. By avidya one mistakes Brahman for this world. When it dispels with the grace of a Guru or intense mediation upon the scriptural perception, one realizes one�s own identity with Brahman, and �world appearance� diminishes and the question of the reality of the world does not arise.

As you said Uttam, our knowledge is limited to our experience; we perceive only what appears to us. It cannot be real for it is sublated by the knowledge of Brahman. It cannot also be considered as non being, for it is a reality in our day-to-day experience. This is why Sankara holds that the nature of the world is unknowable and therefore indefinable. Apart from the sense data we have no proof of the world existing, all the 6 senses have no absolute existence and experience from it is found to be variable(anithya), and can be listed as examples of illusory experiences too. Knowledge accumulated through sense data cannot be, thus, relied upon as a perfect source of valid knowledge. Is it?

According to the Sankara, the nature of the world is un-understandable and this characteristic of the world he expresses in terms like Maya, Anivacaniya, Sad-Asat vilakshna etc...

We cannot criticise a philosophy merely for the reason we do not understand it or just because we have been taught to dislike it. Think independently, we must think our own, with our intellect wide open.Namaste Brahman,

I am really sorry. How can I commit mistake again and again in understanding your intentions in your posts ? It is the third time when this has happened. :(

Actually, if you read the sentence, "Does this indirectly means that you have been a class-VIII’s physics student earlier and then qualified for the advanced physics called quantum mechanics." ... it can be interpreted in the way I saw it. I always value your posts and your views on Advaita VedAnta and I am glad that I was proved wrong again.

Now to answer your questions :

I was never a child who would accept things just because it was written in a book or told by someone. I was a sort of rebellious child who would accept only logical arguments. So, my head was always full of questions on spirituality even at a very young age. My parents, though non-sectarian Hindus, were

inclined towards Vaishnavism so naturally I was drawn towards that initially. However, reciting texts from RAmAyANa, singing bhajans etc. didn't answer my questions. I asked these questions :

a) Why God needs to be worshipped at all for being pleased ? Does He have human weakness as being pleased with praise etc. ? My conscience answered, "No. God cannot have such weaknesses.".

b) Why should we place so much importance on image worship ? Is God concentrated in the image alone ? My Conscience told me, "No. It can't be.".

c) What are we doing with indulging in bhajans and kirtans, offering him/her flowers ? God cannot encourage sycophancy.

d) How can Mantras do any favour to us ? Just repeating some words which have no meaning in any other language than Sanskrit ... how can it accrue any merit ? I chanced upon the writings of Acharya Rajneesh on this issue but it didn't satisfy me.

e) I could not get any answer from any one for my this most difficult question : If this all is created by some entity called God, why did He create it at all ? This horrible world ! How can He create this world and expect us to praise Him for giving us this horrible "existence" ?

However, the reality was that "I existed", "this world existed" and there was certainly some intelligent system working behind all this. This all cannot be just by chance. It was not possible. ... so, the questions existed and kept bothering me. My father encouraged me to read Bhagwad Gita. This book made immense sense to me. Most of questions got answered. However, I had no clue what the Advaitic verses in chapter 13 meant, if Krishna (some super-human God) was behind all this mystery. There were other verses in chapter 6, chapter 2 also which remained foggy to me. It appeared to me that Lord Krishna is just playing with words in those verses talking impossible combinations at the same time like "It is neither sat nor Asat", "I am not in those beings though all beings are in me" etc.

But this book left a deep impression on me. I accepted Lord Krishna as my Guru and God.In around year 2006-2007 I came into contact with some friends on internet who discussed Advaita. Much of this was not clear to me. I initially thought that it was all jugglery of words. Once I had a long discussion with one of the friends and that left me shocked for quite a few days. I felt that I was just a kid picking up pebbles on the side of the vast ocean of spirituality. There was so much to know and understand. I started reading RamaNa Maharishi who was my first favourite on Advaita, then Nisragadatta Maharaj, Wei-Wu-Wei, VivekAnanda on JnAn yoga, MahAyAn Buddhism, Sufism and then finally to Upanishads. Upanishads proved to be the treasure of knowledge I was looking for. I soon became an avid reader of Upanishads with Shankaracharya's commentaries. Slowly I also started reading Upanishads which were not commented upon by Shankara. To avoid any confusion due to mistranslation, I bought original books of Upanishads in Sanskrit with Hindi translation so that I should get the exact meaning of the message of the Upanishads. I also read, "Man's eternal Quest" and "Divine Romance" written by Paramhansa Yogananda which explained things in a logical and scientific way. During this entire period, I was thinking, thinking and finding answers to my questions which bugged me for so long since my childhood. I am an engineer and I found that Advaita was supported by my analysis of atomic structure, Laws of Nature etc. I found that MAyA was indeed the cause of this world when I was able to visualise how a Solid Wall had actually nothing solid within it in reality.

*****************

By this time, Bhagwad Gita, Mantras, bhajans, kirtans etc. all started making sense to me. I theoretically understood how it all fitted together and made perfect sense.

***************** So, this is what I wanted to say. Understanding Advaita for me was a long journey before it started to make perfect sense to me. I didn't start from Class VIII as you see. I started in KG without any knowledge of real physics if that explains my state in the beginning.

People come here. Learn a thing or two about Advaita and start bashing Advaita based on their half-cooked knowledge about it. That is what Uttam was doing. He ridiculed not only Advaita but also tried to show the greatest of Advaita teachers, Adi Guru Sri ShankarachArya in poor light as if He was actually a fraud who came to delude human beings of this world who were all bound to be liberated but for teachings of Shankara !! OMNamaste devotee,

Pardon me for butting in, but this really caught my attention. I'm curious to know why you thought these questions were so difficult to answer. It seems to me that many of your questions are based on false premises. For example, question (a) seems to presuppose some "need" on the part of God aka Brahman to be worshipped. Whereas I think a Vedaantist would say that He is completely satisfied in and of Himself and does not require our worship. Our worship is beneficial for us. Question (b) seems to suggest that icon-worship implies not being all-pervasive. I've never seen any such claim by any Vedaanta tradition. In fact, one could argue that, if God is all-pervasive, then He is in the icon also - so why so much skepticism about it? Question (c) again seems based on the false premise motivating question (a) - God does not need these things because He has everything - we offer for our own benefit. I am reminded of the famous Gita verse "patram pushpam phalam toyam..." - God is self-satisfied, but when a devotee out of pure love offers something to Him, even if it is some little thing, then He gets attracted to it as if it were something He did not have. Question (d) - how can mantras have benefit? Well, how can any meditation have benefit? If you believe meditation is beneficial, then why would meditation with mantras not be beneficial? Doesn't it seem logical to assume that meditation carried out with more of the senses engaged (i.e. speaking and hearing) will allow greater concentration? Finally Question (e) seems to be asking two questions - why did He create this world and why did He create us? First, He did not "create" us - we are existing eternally as the Upanishads say - nityo nityANAm chetanas chetanANAm..... In the shAstras it is mentioned that before pralaya we exist along with matter in an unmanifest state, dormant, and that when all this is brought forth (i.e. the creation) then we get bodies according to our previous karma. So, creation is an opportunity for the souls to perform activity, especially those activities that lead to liberation.Brahman

anivacaniya end truth

Paradvaita Doctrine of Kashmiri Shaivism of Siddhanta-shaivas, despite some loose ends in their metaphysics, ... This has been answered both by Sarabhanga Ji and Truth seeker Ji above. .... And we need not forget the famous anivacanIya khyAti of advaita, which ...Who are these most "scholars"? Please enlist a hundred names here. ( Indian and western)

If most people acknolwledge the metaphysical, logical, spiritual supremacy of Paradvaita, why there very few followers?

"In Shaivism, Vasugupta's Ishvaradvaya-vada advocated the concept of Shiva which was wider than Shankara's concept of Brahman. Maya of Shankarite philosophy was superfluous in KSh, as Shiva possessed both prakasha and vimarsha powers. But pluralistic realism of Siddhanta-shaivas, despite some loose ends in their metaphysics, appealed to the masses in Tamilnadu."

(G.V. Tagare, "Shaivism: Some Glimpses." P. 85)

The reason is simple: Paradvaita is too complicated and advanced (and moreover, it isn't well advertised ).BTW Advaita-vedanta, one of the most close to PA schools, is not accepted by each and every person as well. Why?

riginally Posted by Atanu BanerjeeBut no Arjuna. You only keep stating that Abhinavgupta and others refuted Advaita. I am sorry that I may not be able to go through the whole thread. Would you be kind enough to please state succintly, point wise the differences?

Namaste Atanu,

I cannot repeat all the stuff again, excuse me please.

Abhinavagupta never refuted Advaita, for he himself was a pure Monist. The issue was Maya or Avidya status, which was unclear in AV of Shankara. Consequently, the Absolute in AV got almost reduced to unsentient and inactive being, hardly distinguishable from a void.Paradvaita holds Advaita of course to be true, and if Maya is accepted as one with Brahman, then AV becomes virtually identical to PA. This was stated by Abhinava in his commentary upon Malinivijaya-tantra.The issue was Maya or Avidya status, which was unclear in AV of Shankara. Consequently, the Absolute in AV got almost reduced to unsentient and inactive being, hardly distinguishable from a void.Paradvaita holds Advaita of course to be true, and if Maya is accepted as one with Brahman, then AV becomes virtually identical to PA. This was stated by Abhinava in his commentary upon Malinivijaya-tantra.So, it was really a storm over a tea cup. Hair splitting arguments will always reveal spurious differences and separation. That is the function of mind (and that itself is Maya).

This has been answered both by Sarabhanga Ji and Truth seeker Ji above. I reiterate Maya is Maya � non existent. It resides in mind, which is not the Self, which alone is eternal truth.

That Advaita makes the absolute being insentient and inactive is a Dvaita and VA view, who judge truth from the view point of untruth --- first deciding that Brahman is a person (must have a body). The moot point is what is an infinite body? Can a body be infinite that Brahman is? So, this point needs no refutation or no modification should be required in Advaita because of this faulty realization of Advaita. I just have a wish to use my favourite example to elucidate a point about the truth.

The consciousness of I (aham bhavana) has become ALL -- Ishwara, Jiva, and Universe. But the being that has this aham bhavana is the Turiya truth which is neither consciousness nor non-consciousness. If the mind wishes to see the truth as all powerful then that is a desire and not the truth itself. Deciding a proiri that the truth cannot be so dull is an impediment to realise the truth, as is any desire. Why not take the shruti as it is and desist from adding colour of preferences and desires?

It is very subtle. I am aware that I exist but who is this I? My favourite example is the three rupas of water: ice, lquid, and vapour. Who knows what water really is? Similarly, Mandukya teaches that the truth is neither consciousness nor non-consciousness but its three matras include all pervading consciousness and further manifests -- subtle (as in thoughts and dreams, which is called intermediate Taijassa) and gross (called the prathama Agnivaisvnaro).

Elsewher I have noted that Lordship is not the main criteria of the truth but is only incidental. Mandukya assgins Lordship to Pragnya (which has not been declared as the Self in individual capacity). On the other hand, Turiya, which has been called the Self has not been equated to Lordship.

It appears unglamorous to many that the truth has no cares. But let it be. Does the truth care? The truth simply IS. Some people give it a name -- Bholenath.ut it is also true from Rig Veda that prayers to Rudra are answered by Aditi and others.Om Namah ShivayyaJust find the word Nirguna defining Brahman in 13th chapter of Gita and in Svet. Up. (and many other Upanishads. That is all. VA just tortures the definition.

Similarly, find the word advaita defining Self in Mandukya and other upanishads, which also say This Self is Brahman. Those who know, know that without the Self (seer) there is no Brahman. Lord Krishna says :I am the Self and He also says I am Brahma yoni.

Brahman is from the Self. Without the seer in you cognising there would be no Brahman.

I repeat: Without the cognition there would be no Brahman.Precisely. In every place Nirguna is mentioned, it always means only devoid of "prakriti gunas" and not like Advaita which denies all attributes. VA does not torture the defintion. By taking nirguna to mean "absence of prakriti gunas" and taking saguna to mean "the glorious qualities of Brahman beyond prakriti" it has done justice to both these views. Advaita relegates these saguna aspects to the plane of vyAvahArika without any scriptural basis. Note the term guna-bhoktr as used in 13.15 which rules any possibilites of guna and gunavAn being one and the same.

Brihad Aranyaka defines Turiya as darshatam as I mentioned earlier, which means it is handsome or visible. This rules out all possibilities for Turiya to be NB as per advaita's definition of it. Not only that visibility indicates that Turiya is an object( of realization) and not a subject as advaita would like to have it. When we have subject and object dualty in Turiya, Advaita's strict definitions of non dualty dont hold.

Again, we have so many passsages that describe Brahman as desiring and willing to create - how can NB devoid of all gunas and power ever will? And why? These are the classical examples of text torturning to bring out advaita. And we need not forget the famous anivacanIya khyAti of advaita, which assumes

inexplicability to anything that it cannot explain - including mAya, avidya etc. How can you build a structure on a foundation of so many inexplicable entities? Dont tell me that adviata does not use inexplicability - the very anivachniYa kyAti( Theory of Error) used in Advaita means that.Fantastic. You mean that the rose (in your example is God whereas red colour is Jiva? Isn't it?

Does Red colour possess any independent identity (wrt to Brahman example) that you are creating two entitities artificially?

VA is artefact of mental experiences.atanuRed rose is one entity, and has no internal differences in it. My idea is to suggest that though the Red Rose is one unified entity( Brahman), the red(jiva) itself can never be equated to the red rose, which is what advaita is trying to do. If Brahman alone exists according to advaita, where from did the jiva come in the first place? So Red rose must have existed since eternity and the redness cannot disappear. You must realize this is no fantasy or imagination, such ideas of Brahman are found extensively in Brihad Aranyaka and other Upanshads, which explain Brahman as a being and jiva and jagat as attributes.

yaha atmani tishtan atmanaam antharo yamayatiyam atma na veda yasya atma sareeram

You will find that Shankara also commentates on these passages under vyavahAra daSa, which has no scriptrual basis. The classiciations of vyavahArika and paramArtika are creations of advaitins, and I suggest you provide a scriptural basis for this. Infact you can easily trace this to Buddhism not vedanta. The advaitam simply means unity, and not oneness, which you try to prove. There is a unity of essence which is Brahman, but Brahman is not oneess, which can never explain any phenomenon.n that case Jiva is an independent entity with independent mind etc. Dvaita is better really than this. What as per you is Ignorance? And what (as per you ) happens before anf after removal of ignorance?atanuI wonder why you asked this question. Isnt the above example of rose sufficient to answer this question? The redness has no indepenent existance on its own other than the red rose. Jiva's ignorance is due to the Maya of Brahman, and what is the reason according to advaita? I am yet to see a good explanation of how any multiplicity can ever arise from advaita's NB. The only answer you ever give is from advaita's framework, and not based on scripture.

I would like to ask the same question back to you. Who are you in advaita? What is the "I" inside you? For How long did you have this "I"? Why different people have different "I" if Brahman has no multiplcity of any kind. I have not seen one satisfactory explanation other than to say that this "I" is an illusion(of Brahman!). No proof for this, nor any logical reasons provided for the cause of this illusion.( and wrongly expalined as power of Brahman or as self concealment). My answer obviously is that this "I" ness is an intrinsic property of jiva just like redness is different from the rose, yet has no existance apart from it.

What is the cause of jiva - avidya. What is the cause of avidya - jiva who imagined a non existant truth. That is advaita for you.

To get to the point, shruti says that Brahman is Nirguna in very few places. In other places, it describes Brahman in all kinds of glorious attributes. It is advaita's opinion that these two Brahman's are different ( already self contradicting) with one "higher" Brahman devoid of all gunas, and one "lower"

Brahman(who is a product of Maya of inexplicability) with these gunas. What is the basis for such a theory? Others think that the same Brahman is referred to in these two passages, one depiciting his "without flaws or defects" (nigunatvam) and the other describing his glory, his Lordship, his omniscience etc. This definition of nirgunatvam is easuly justifiable. for eg take nirgunam guna bhotkr cha(Sevta Up), where Nirguna is clealy mentioned in the context of a being that wields gunas. There are other verses that explicitly equate nirgunatvam with absence of flaws, but there is no scriptural evidence for equating nirguna with nirvishesha or devoid of all gunas - you are free to provide a proof.Guard your Dharma, Burn the Myth, Promote the Truth, Crush the superstition.And i already have shown what are the logical faults noted by Utpala and Abhinavagupta. For details, see "Specific Principles of Kashmiri Shaivism" by B.N.Pandit.

AV might have had developed plausible explanations (as TruthSeeker stated), but that was considerably later that Shankara's and Somananda's time. And having done so it came close to Paradvaita viewpoint.

This ONE "I" shines as pure Consciousness and this is established as the truth of Monism.There are no "many I-s", but one Ahanta.

Anu or "individual soul" can be explained only as deliberate self-concealment of Brahman in his lila. Every anu is essentially the same one I.The very issue with avidya is a logical fault of Advaita-vedanta. Having failed to explain it, vedantins said the matter is "inexplicable." Somehow the thing which is given in experience and obviously must be existent happened to be inexplicable

Paradvaita answers, that apparent avidya is a function of Consciousness. For nothing apart from Consciousness does exist.Yes, it is impossible to explain how and why gunas appear if the only Reality is lacking of them!Only when Brahman is accepted and independent, free, active and self-aware, then Nirguna and Saguna become perfectly explicable and have their place as two phases of Spanda, vibration of Consciousness.Wrong, there is nothing other than Brahman( Vishnu) in VA, which is of course not the NB of advaita, but the SB who weilds the power of Maya and everything contained in him with all jiva and jada. This is why Paradvaita is equal to Vishistadvaita.

That is what I meant too - Paradvaita certainly has traces of dualism.Since there are several variants of so called Vishishtadvaita, let me ask two things:

1. What type of it U represent? Ramanuja's VAV?2. Why is it called "vishishta" and what is its metaphysical summary (just in a few words)?

Then we can examine what differences does it have with PA of Shaivism.

Allright, we wil examine this on another thread and note similarities and differences. Mine is Ramanuja's system. Perhaps ramkish can join too.

Only in Dvaita we have something apart from Brahman. No other Hindu system accepts a second principle to Brahman ( except Mayavada if Maya is held to be inexplicable), and with only various models of this Brahman. I could very well end up agreeing with most of what you say - we will see.

Brahman being consciousness is not a direct teaching of VA, but I think it can be accepted on the basis of Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma. Jnanam is what you call consciousness isn't it?Namaste Atanu --- Dont want to go through the whole drill exercise every time. Just some points.

Precisely. In every place Nirguna is mentioned, it always means only devoid of "prakriti gunas" and not like Advaita which denies all attributes. Well. Again:6804382843: 'Devoid of Prakriti Guna' for Nirguna is your interpretation.o, Guna is another being? And can Guna be outside Brahman who is ONE and ALL?Red rose is one entity, and has no internal differences in it. My idea is to suggest that though the Red Rose is one unified entity( Brahman), the red(jiva) itself can never be equated to the red rose, which is what advaita is trying to do.That is the crux. Guna is not a being. VA and Dvaita equate Guna to Jiva. This is ridiculous. Jiva may be true as a guna but as a being Jiva does not exist. This is what Advaita teaches: The ignorance is equating Guna to the I. Like a General Manager may think "I am a General Manager" today and "I am a CEO" tommorrow. Very few know the unchanging "I"Oh, I agree. The problem is that I do not consider the attribute to be a being at all. I think we have understood the different premises used by Dvaita, VA, and Advaita.

I have always believed that if the premises were equal then all three schools would mean the same thing. Yes.

As an attribute a Jiva can never be equated to Brahman. How can my darkness be Me?Yes. As stated above, the redness is very wrongly associated/equated with the awareness of being in VA. And this is ignorance arising out of non-enquiry of one's true nature.Please do not ask me, since this my main spiritual exercise. If interested, then enquire yourself. Since, without knowing your SELF you cannot know Brahman.

"I" inside me is the awareness (AHAM Bhavana) residing in Turiya. And this is Vishnu -- all pervading and ONE. Narayana -- Same everywhere. The ignorance is the thought that I as Atanu -- this body-mind has independendent cognition and existence.

Dear Sudarshan Ji, only thing one has to do is to enquire: what and where is the cognitive power in me -- a so-called individual? Remember that your brain is incapable of proclaiming "I exist" when life force exits. And remember that "I" has not changed in anyone anytime. And remember Mahavakya that "Thou I art".

One shruti is enough. And Lord Krishna says Param Brahman is Nirguna.om namo narayanaPlease read again. Pragnya is Sarvesvara (Mandukya) and From Brahman proceeds the acts of creation, maintenance, and destruction (Brahma Sutras) are Shruti and not post Shankara. Sorry. Please read in full.atanuHow do you know without experiencing it? Please keep aside loose comments. Self becomes ONE being in Nirvikalpa samadhi and becomes ALL In Sahaja Samadhi, since Turiya is ONE AND ALL.Oh yes. If you knew the true deep sleep. But that is not possible without knowing Turiya -- the Self.

You yourself point out shruti of great importance without realising it. Ask yourself why entering Pragnya you lose your Pragnya?WILL I GET A STRAIGHT ANSWER TO THIS?Om Namah ShivayyaNot mine, it has scriptural authority. I pointed this earlier.No, Guna is that of Bhagavan. I have given you example and even scriptural evidence - the relationship between Lord and his guna is like that between the red and red rose again. If there were no gunas in the first place like NB, no guna can come out of it too.Guna is not Jiva but is another kind of attribute. Try defining a big wrestler. People will say that the wrestler is big, he is strong, he has power and so on. They are essentially the definitions of the wrestler, and he has no claims to be a wrestler without these. Similarly, God is only a void without any qualities assigned to it. The qualities and the being, make the complete being. Advaita is saying that the wrestler is just his physical body sans his qualifications as a wrestler.:1cool:

The same evading tactics - answer the question. Who are you? And how did you come into being? Does avidya exist because of you, or do you exist because of avidya. This is called the logical fallacy of interdependence.Sorry, but this same Krishna is defined to very glorious, the Lord of all etc. How can anybody be Lord if there is oneness? How can he be Nirguna or Nivishesha? Please show me where shruti mentions God to be nirvishesha, not nirguna. That is just one interpretation that corrupts the entire message of the rest of the scripture. And please tell me how the Nirguna Krishna incarnated on earth. Is it like God himself imagines himself to be bonded in some and goes himself to "save" them? No logic here.Turiya is Lord of all, and is even handsome. Why dont you still get the fact that it is not your NB? Yes, from Brahman proceeds all creation, maintanence and destruction - no objections. Brahman, the great Narayna orders activities with other Gods(abhimani devatas) like Brahmac, and hence it is mentioned to be "proceeded from".Have you experienced it? It is only advaita that says there is no experience of anything, as knowledge or experience itself is mithya because of the dualty between the seer and seen. I have not added anything to this. Read Shankara's commentaries. No lose comments. If you say that knowledge is expereinced in samAdhi, your version of advaita is gone. Difference betwen Knowledge and the Knower is a dualty.

Turiya according to you is undivided. How can you experience Prajna in Turiya. That is a self contradiction. Since Prajna is not reality, and if Turiya is not sublated, no one can experience anything other than Turiya here - not Lordship or anything, which are just mithya or Prajna.

Prajna is Sankarshana Murti ( read Gopala Tapini Up) , who is seen in Prajna and is the giver of absolute bliss. Nothing like what you describe. Prajna defines two entities, the experiencer who is the jiva ( of bliss) and the Lord who controls it, Lord Sankarshana. Lord Sankarshana is the Lord of all - not the jiva. Your interpretation says that the deep sleeper becomes the Lord of all!!

dvaita says it correctly but you do not even try to understand. Self is true whereas ego self is false. Self knows Self only since Self is the eternal truth.

Ayamatma Brahma means This Atma is Brahman. Self is Brahman and awareness is from it. It is the very source of awareness and it cannot be thus correct to say that it has awareness. The correct is to say that

the Self is pure awareness. Do you understand this subtle point? And you repeatedly ignore that only proof of it is in identity with it. So, in Turiya there cannot be an awareness of another.

From Gopala Tapaniya Upanishad I had shown that you do not understand what self is. You think that self is I and you. Surely, Turiya does not know I and You. And you have formed a preconcieved notion that for Turiya to not know I and You is inconcievable. This is your idea. Turiya has no such requirement or bondage.

This is well exemplified in Bhagavatam but only deeply discerning one will understand this. Lord Shiva is commonly known to have destroyed yagnas and done other fierce acts. But Bhagavatam says: Lord the destruction of Daksha yagna cannot be a subject of praise or prayer to you, since you do not even know how these things happen.

In Upanishads also shantam Shiva is the term used. Turiya is unchanging whether snakes crawl on Him, since He does not know any other. He is ONE ALONE. Shantam.

But as I have mentioned elsewhere prayers to Him are answered by Aditi -- the ALL including the Devas within ADITI.

Extracts from Gopala Tapaniya

18. Taste is contained within the element of water, although taste and water are different. Taste is contained within water. This water does not know. I am spirit. How can I be a materialistic enjoyer?

---------- (please read other containers and contents also)

21. When spirit is everything how does one think? Where does one go? I am spirit, how can I be a materialistic enjoyer?

You have assumed that spirit, which is ONE and which appears to be MANY, has to know/think/lead etc and be a super hero of your mental concept. Spirit has no such inclination, else beggars and thiefs and rapists would not manifest (which you consider as reality). Om Namah Shivayya

Oh I see, that reference is not Mahabaratha, but BrihadAranyaka Up . I cited the verse number itself on this thread and in your enthusiasm to hold on to your illogical beleifs, you bypassed that. Read a few posts before this again.

You do not appear to have read any classics of advaita. Nor have you read the prastAna works of either advaita or VA. You do not know proper scripture and simple things such as quotes from Brihad Aranyaka. This discussion is pointless and this is my last post on this thread. Ignorance is bliss.

I also note that you did not address 16.8, nor the Svet up mukti, which should speak for itself. Rest are just irrelvant rehashes.

prāṇo'pāno vyāna ityaṣṭāvakṣarāṇi |aṣṭākṣaraṁ ha vā ekaṁ gāyatryai padam |etadu haivāsyā etat |sa yāvadidaṁ prāṇi tāvaddha jayati yo'syā etadevaṁ padaṁ veda |athāsyā etadeva turīyaṁ darśataṁ padaṁ parorajā ya eṣa tapati |yadvai caturthaṁ tatturīyam |darśataṁ padamiti dadṛśa iva hyeṣaḥ |parorajā iti sarvamu hyevaiṣa raja uparyupari tapati |evaṁ haiva śriyā yaśasā tapati yo'syā etadevaṁ padaṁ veda ||5.14.3||

The Prana, the Apana, and the Vyana, form eight syllables.One foot [one third] of the Gayatri consists of eight syllables.This [one foot] of it is that [i.e. the three vital breaths].And he who thus knows that foot of it, conquers as far as there is anything that breathes.And of that [Gayatri] this indeed is the fourth, the bright foot, shining high above the skies.What is here called Turiya [the fourth] is meant for Caturtha [the fourth];what is called Darshatam Padam [the bright foot] is meant for him who is as it were seen [i.e. the person in the sun ~ Surya Narayana];and what is called Parorajas [he who shines high above the skies] is meant for him who shines higher and higher above every sky.And he who thus knows that foot of the Gayatri, shines thus himself also with happiness and glory.

Darshata means �visible, conspicuous, or beautiful�, and it particularly indicates �the Sun�.

Darshata Pada is the very basis of visibility and beauty ~ the �soul of the sun� and the �light of all lights� ~ Narayana, as the undivided source of all inspiration and illumination.

The Turiya is the foundation of visibility ~ i.e. the Turiya is Conciousness itself!

sa ya imāṁstrīṁ lokānpūrṇānpratigṛhṇīyātso'syā etatprathamaṁ padam āpnuyāt |atha yāvatīyaṁ trayī vidyā yastāvatpratigṛhṇīyātso'syā etaddvitīyaṁ padam āpnuyāt |atha yāvadidaṁ prāṇi yastāvatpratigṛhṇīyātso'syā etattṛtīyaṁ padam āpnuyāt |athāsyā etadeva turīyaṁ darśataṁ padaṁ parorajā ya eṣa tapati |naiva kena canāpyam |kuta u etāvatpratigṛhṇīyāt ||5.14.6||

If a man [a teacher] were to receive as his fee these three worlds full of all things, he would obtain that first foot of the Gayatri.And if a man were to receive as his fee everything as far as this threefold knowledge extends, he would obtain that second foot of the Gayatri.And if a man were to receive as his fee everything whatsoever breathes, he would obtain that third foot of the Gayatri.But �that fourth bright foot, shining high above the skies�cannot be obtained by anybody ~whence then could one receive such a fee?

(3) = ? (A) = Vaishvanara = Tamas = Vishnu-Maya = Vimarsha

? (2) = ? (U) = Taijasa = Rajas = Shiva-Shakti = Prakasha? (1) = ? (M) = Prajna = Sattva = Brahm?-Br?hm? = Anuttara

? (4) = ? (AUM) = Turiya = Nirguna = Brahma = ?

Kala Brahman is Saguna ~ the Anuttara Satya of Pravritti and Bhakti.Akala Brahman is Nirguna ~ the Uttama Satya of Nivritti and Jnana.

Advaita Vedanta takes the ultimate perspective of Akala Brahman (the Caturtha or �Turya�).Paradvaita (just as Vishishtadvaita) takes the penultimate perspective of Kala Brahman (the Tritiya or �Trika�).

Paradvaita is Trayimaya, and surely depends on the ancient triple Veda.Advaita is entirely devoid of Maya, and relates primarily to the Atharvangirasa

In fact,A, Tamas would be Kriya-shakti.U, Rajas would be Jnana-shakti.M, Sattva would be Iccha-shakti.AUM, Turiya would be Ananda-shakti or Vimarsha (Saguna)together with Cit-shakti or Prakasha (Nirguna).? � Anuttara, Paramasamvit, which is beyond Saguna and Nirguna, and encompasses both

Nope, I did not say that Turiya is not advaitam. It is indeed Advaitam but I showed you why it is not the NB of Advaita. Your Nirguna definition is a logical fallacy. You did not show one evidence to prove that Nirguna means Nivishesha while there are so many pramANAs for showing that Nirguna means free of flaws etc.

Take this for eg:

eko devaH sarvabhUteShu gUDhaH sarvavyApI sarvabhUtAntarAtmA karmAdhyaxaH sarvabhUtAdhivAsaH sAxI chetA kevalo nirguNashcha (Sveta Up)

Here you find the verse describing Brahman as devaH, sarvavyApi, saXi etc which are indicative of guNas. Then what should the nirguNa in the same context mean? That I dump all these attributes? It only means that Nirguna means without flaws like death, sin etc. Unles you can prove the existance of two Brahmans, your views are mere hypothesis. Even then the same verse points to two Brahmans? No chance!

You again mentioned that Krishna said that he was Nirguna and you beleived that. What did you beleive? The supreme being who came down and said that "I am Nirguna" cannot be the advaita's nirguna at all. It will be like a sleeping man attendng the phone and replying - I am in deep sleep.

From the Bhagavad Gita, the only practical message that I gather is that salvation is possible only on complete surrender to Krishna and unflinching devotion to him. Knowledge about Krishna has to be obtained from performing the Bhakti Yoga. Sorry, I dont see your message.

This is what Lord Krishna says:

idam j�ānam upāśritya mama sādharmyam āgatāḥsarge 'pi nopajāyante pralaye na vyathanti ca ( 14.2)

This is the highest stage of perfection attained by sages( see 14.1), and note the word "sAdharmyam" here which only indicates a nature similar to Krishna, which is further supported by 15.7 which says the soul is a subset(part) of Krishna. The similarity, along with the "part" indicate that Krishna remains Advaitam inspite of this division.

It is your sole imagination that Bhagavad Gita preaches Advaita or attaining identity with Krishna. Even the Bhagavad Gita ends with Lord Krishna advising him to surrender himself completely to Krishna(18.66) which is pretty much useless from the advaitic perspective.

Thanks, there is a differences between ego indulging in bush beating and the ego pointing out the facts.

Mere assumptions. No evidence.

[quite=Atanu] And Brahman will always remain a shunyata for VA adherents since the main premise of VA is: In case of scripture contradicting perception, scripture is not stronger. [/quote]

This is true of advaita as well, though advaita has no problems with disregarding perceptional evidence while interpreting scripture. If the scripture says the crow is whie advaitins will beleive without winking an eye, since scripture should not be questioned. Similarly, when the whole of scripture upholds the reality of the world ( infact Mayavada is criticized by Krishna in 16.8), they have no problems in upholding it.

Nope. But I wont accept something that is mentioned to be unknowable instead of just incomprehensible. Nirguna Brahman has been rejected by all schools of Hinduism ( except advaita) because it has no scripural and logical evidence. The very idea of NB is self contradictory.

No one is rejecting NB due to lack of perception, after all we dont see God at all. It is rejected because it has no basis whatsoever, scripturally and logically. The rest shows your prejudice and absence of knowledge of other schools of Hinduism. And you dont appear to know advaita as well, as you did not even appear to cover my charges on its classifications of reality - except bypassing the question.

Good ways to gain high moral grounds.

Since Arjuna calls himself as Advaitin, these should be ample proof to demonstate that I am not prejudiced in anyway. This is the same verdict of everybody.

Inexlicability cannot be considered as a valid explanation for any scientific religion.

Maya - InexplicableAvidya - InexplicableNirguna - Inexplicable

and so on...

It needs considerable blind faith to beleive in such a doctrine, which advaitins are accusing others of. Admit it that you just blindly beleive in it, without accusing others of being blind followers or being irrational or spiritually inferior. The tables can be turned in a minute.

Any meaning can be derived with conceptualisation and that is not the way. Advaitam and Nirgunam are two words. Rest is all your mental concepts.

Yes. This supports Advaita. Being all the things Brahman is yet kevalo Nirgunascha who is the fourth Turiya but as Pragnya/Taijjjaso, and Vaisvnanaro, He is ALL as well. But He is Advaitam and Nirgunam Fourth Turiya First.Settled.

Yes again. Complete surrender does not happen with you. 'I am a bhakta who has surrendered to Lord' claim retains the doership, which is wrong. When you do not know the Self, What do you surrender?

Nowhere soul as subset is mentioned. These are inventions and lies. What is mentioned is that Atma cannot be cut, burnt etc. There is no equivalent word for soul in Gita. There is however 'Purusha and Atma'. Purusha enmeshed in Prakriti is Man. And as has been pointed out again and again the very concept of division has bbeen shown to apparent and not real by a verse in 13 th Chapter.

The Self is ONE but appears as if divided in beings.

Does anything depend on your acceptance? I said animals have better perception and there are infinite perceptions. So, all will overrule shruti. You cannot be selective.

Vedas teach us that what is not percieved by senses through the Mahavakyas. Vedas would be useless to teach us that which is known to every one through perception. Some bend Mahavakyas to accomodate preferences.

Namaste Arjuna,

Vaishvanara = KriyaTaijasa = Iccha = VimarshaPrajna = Jnana = PrakashaTuriya = Ananda = Anuttara

Turiya and Anuttara appear to be equivalent concepts; but if Vimarsha and Prakasha are coeternal with Anuttara, then Paradvaita is akin to Vishishtadvaita, although Trika raises Trimurti to the next level and makes Turiya (as Anuttara) the ultimate Lord of Creation ~ and this is contrary to the Mandukyopanishad (which knows Prajna as the only Creator) and contrary to Ajativada (which denies the unborn eternity of ANY diversity in Turiya).

Shankaracarya�s Advaita and Abhinavagupta�s Paradvaita serve exactly the same purpose; however, �Mayavada� follows Ajativada, whereas �Trika� follows Jativada.

What ever siddantha existed during the presence of Shri Adisankara Bhagavatpada was defeated, hence he has been made to sit on Jnanapeetam.

Creating one more agama, after the demise of the great acharya is nothing but simply not accepting defeat, irrespective of the fact been defeated clean and square

If the basis of Paradvaita is Vedanta, there is no problem as Mahacharya as already established the superiority

Vedanta is just one darshana and it is the only darshana established by Shri Adisankara Bhagavatpada defeating all other siddantic religions. Hence, I say, after Adisankara, every offshoot should be a vedantic religion. Any other version Vedanta is acceptable but not a siddantic view, as established by Adisankara Bhagavatpada

This part is baseless

The only tantric work subscribed to Adisankara is Soundarya lahari, even there, there is lot of contradictions.

Linga purana categorically tells, this soundarya lahari is written by vinayaka

It is also ascribed to Pushpananda, who grasped it from the walls of Mahameru

Some also opine that Anandalahari part is not written by Adisankara

The idea that Soundarya lahari makes Sankara bhagavatpada as Tantric is laughable, if so, based on all his karavalambams I choose to say, Sankara is a dualist

Soundarya lahari is book of poetry with many contradictions in it. It calls Devi as Ahamkara of Shiva in one place, thus denies physical presence expressing in terms of ahamkara, in the other, it categorically tells, Siva wears Padaduli of this Devi as sacred Ash all over his body, exhibiting her physical presence, in other place siva is described to lay on her lap and Devi enjoying union with Siva in a secret place which is not in consistent with wearing padaduli on sacred ash all over his body

Soundarya lahari is a great work but cannot be a philosphical quest of mahaguru, where in Sariraka Bashya is.

Shed your misconceptions and favourtism; and give way for truth

Irrelevant to my statements.

Paradvaita can be accepted as vedanta only when it accepts superiority of Veda over agamas. Else it stands as siddantic view, which was condemned by Sankara, establishing Vedantic religion over all othe siddantic religion.

Once all siddantic religion has lost its ground, there is no scope of reviving it

If grouns of Tantric monism is pre-sankara's then it should had been defeated by Sankara, else it should be of later. In any case, such basis in unavailable as all siddantic views are defeated, hence there is no siddantic views in kashmir to revive Tantric monism

Advaita = Nirguna is also your own mental concept - It is adopted from Buddhist Tatashta and not vedanic Bragman. Atanu, you have not yet shown one evidence yet for showing that the meaning of Nirguna is Nirvishesha.

Turiya itself is not NB Atanu. Remember it is mentioned as handsome, and your NB cant be.

In your advaita there is no one to surrender to, is it? Do these passages mean surendering to oneself? Come on, dont misconstrcut the Gita to your whims and fancies.

You are wrong about VA preaching not knowing the Atman. Atman in Brahman, Surrender is effected to Brahman by the jivatman when the Atman is known, In advaita, such a concept is not relevant.

15.7 has clarified that all living beings( sentients) are part( and hence subset) of Krishna. Your interprettion of this is a blatant lie.( by using Akandaratha and all are unwarranted superimpositions)

As for people holding the world to be illusion of any kind: Gita says this,

They say that this world is unreal, with no foundation, no God in control. They say it isproduced of sex desire and has no cause other than lust.( 16.8)

Since there are no people or philosophies in the world that say that the world is unreal phenomenally, this is specificaly referring to who call it unreal in any way. That should ideally end the claims of Mayavada.

Not denied by VA. As you know, Vishnu alone exists in VA, and all such divisions have to be apparent only

Yes, dont overrule shurti. Please tell me how "butterin milk" in mukti can be advaita as explained in Svet Up. Dont be selective please. I have not seen one response from you yet.

VA does not preach that Brahman is known through perception, in that case it should be seen right now. So Mahavakyas have to be interpreted as to make sense with the rest of the shruti and not like advaita that says that most of the vedas are "attattvavedaka" ( false telling). Unfortunately you have confused yourself with unknowability and incomprehensibility which are two very different terms. VA says Brahman is knowable through the Atman( not through senses or mind), but Advaita says it is not even knowable because Brahman has no self awareness.

No Gita says so. Svet Up. Says So. I have not used any qualifying term like Nirvishesha etc., since Advaitam -- one without a second is enough. Qualifying Advaitam as: A Flower (Brahman) and its (redness) are ONE but also TWO beings is not acceptable.

Dont bring in Mahabharata as shruti and that too without the context. Mandukya says Turiya is indescribable.

Oh then why we are arguing? I say Turiya Shivo alone exists and all divisions are apparent only. I know you have great problem here.

Advaita says it correctly but you do not even try to understand. Self is true whereas ego self is false. Self knows Self only since Self is the eternal truth.

Ayamatma Brahma means This Atma is Brahman. Self is Brahman and awareness is from it. It is the very source of awareness and it cannot be thus correct to say that it has awareness. The correct is to say that the Self is pure awareness. Do you understand this subtle point? And you repeatedly ignore that only proof of it is in identity with it. So, in Turiya there cannot be an awareness of another.

From Gopala Tapaniya Upanishad I had shown that you do not understand what self is. You think that self is I and you. Surely, Turiya does not know I and You. And you have formed a preconcieved notion that for Turiya to not know I and You is inconcievable. This is your idea. Turiya has no such requirement or bondage.

This is well exemplified in Bhagavatam but only deeply discerning one will understand this. Lord Shiva is commonly known to have destroyed yagnas and done other fierce acts. But Bhagavatam says: Lord the destruction of Daksha yagna cannot be a subject of praise or prayer to you, since you do not even know how these things happen.

In Upanishads also shantam Shiva is the term used. Turiya is unchanging whether snakes crawl on Him, since He does not know any other. He is ONE ALONE. Shantam.

But as I have mentioned elsewhere prayers to Him are answered by Aditi -- the ALL including the Devas within ADITI.

Extracts from Gopala Tapaniya

18. Taste is contained within the element of water, although taste and water are different. Taste is contained within water. This water does not know. I am spirit. How can I be a materialistic enjoyer?

21. When spirit is everything how does one think? Where does one go? I am spirit, how can I be a materialistic enjoyer?

You have assumed that spirit, which is ONE and which appears to be MANY, has to know/think/lead etc and be a super hero of your mental concept. Spirit has no such inclination, else beggars and thiefs and rapists would not manifest (which you consider as reality).

Oh I see, that reference is not Mahabaratha, but BrihadAranyaka Up . I cited the verse number itself on this thread and in your enthusiasm to hold on to your illogical beleifs, you bypassed that. Read a few posts before this again.

You do not appear to have read any classics of advaita. Nor have you read the prastAna works of either advaita or VA. You do not know proper scripture and simple things such as quotes from Brihad Aranyaka. This discussion is pointless and this is my last post on this thread. Ignorance is bliss.

I also note that you did not address 16.8, nor the Svet up mukti, which should speak for itself. Rest are just irrelvant rehashes.

Re: Parama Advaita PerspectiveQuote Originally Posted by sarabhangaNamaste Arjuna,Vaishvanara = KriyaTaijasa = Iccha = VimarshaPrajna = Jnana = PrakashaTuriya = Ananda = AnuttaraNamaste Sarabhanga,

Standard KSh (Trika etc. and half of Krama tradition) holds a view of 5 functions of Samvit, and thus Chit (or ahAsA) and Ananda (or anAkhyA) are differentiated as Prakasha and Vimarsha.There is another view (Krama-chatushtaya), which unites Ananda with Chit (anAkhyA with bhAsA), but in this case again Anuttara stands for Atattva, above all 36 principles. Perhaps, Anuttara might be Turyatita of Vedanta.

Quote Originally Posted by sarabhangaTuriya and Anuttara appear to be equivalent concepts; but if Vimarsha and Prakasha are coeternal with Anuttara, then Paradvaita is akin to Vishishtadvaita, although Trika raises Trimurti to the next level and makes Turiya (as Anuttara) the ultimate Lord of Creation ~ and this is contrary to the Mandukyopanishad (which knows Prajna as the only Creator) and contrary to Ajativada (which denies the unborn eternity of ANY diversity in Turiya).Shankaracarya’s Advaita and Abhinavagupta’s Paradvaita serve exactly the same purpose; however, “Mayavada” follows Ajativada, whereas “Trika” follows Jativada.I cannot say anything now about Jati and Ajati Vadas, this i have to examine first.

But yes, in Trika Anuttara is Maheshvara (not to confuse with Maheshvara as a face of tirobhAva-shakti, Tatpurusha), the Absolute Lord, Self-aware, alone existing and free.

Details of Monism of Trika and of Vedanta may differ, for their origins are independent and even developed they quite separately. However essentially they must be similar. As soon as Maya is accepted as a potency of Brahman, AV becomes not far from Trika. Other differences are non-essential.Reply With Quote Reply With Quote16 June 2006, 03:03 AM #162 atanu atanu is offlineMember Join DateMarch 2006LocationIndiaPosts

4,190Rep Power348Re: One goal and so many voicesQuote Originally Posted by SudarshanOh I see, that reference is not Mahabaratha, but BrihadAranyaka Up . I cited the verse number itself on this thread and in your enthusiasm to hold on to your illogical beleifs, you bypassed that. Read a few posts before this again.

You do not appear to have read any classics of advaita. Nor have you read the prastAna works of either advaita or VA. You do not know proper scripture and simple things such as quotes from Brihad Aranyaka. This discussion is pointless and this is my last post on this thread. Ignorance is bliss.

I also note that you did not address 16.8, nor the Svet up mukti, which should speak for itself. Rest are just irrelvant rehashes.

Thanks for the compliments. You, unknowingly state a truth. I wish you will know this much for yourself also. I truly have not read anything.

I am a spirit. What can I read and where can I go? (my variation)I am a spirit. What can I think and where can I go? (Gopala Tapaniya).

As for the Br. Up. reference, Sarabhanga Ji has shown what it is (which of course my Pragnya has known). Mandukya describing Turiya as shivo advaitam, indescribable, not consciousness or not non-consciousness, into which the world dissappers --- which is known in identity and which must be known --- stands perfect.

It must be known and unlearning is required.Reply With Quote Reply With Quote16 June 2006, 07:05 AM #163 Sudarshan's Avatar Sudarshan Sudarshan is offlineDharma Guardian Join DateMarch 2006LocationGovinda LokamAge36Posts740Rep Power284Re: Paradvaita Doctrine of Kashmiri ShaivismQuote Originally Posted by SudarshanWith incorrect understanding of attributes, Advaita says that Exsitance=Knowledge=Bliss= Brahman each by itself.Repsonse by Satay:

Quote Originally Posted by satayI am not an advaitan but even I know that this equation is wrong!

where are you getting your information about advaita!Now, from Sarabhanga-ji

The Turiya is the foundation of visibility ~ i.e. the Turiya is Conciousness itself!So I was right after all. Existance=Knowledge=Bliss=Visibility= Brahman each by itself. Guard your Dharma, Burn the Myth, Promote the Truth, Crush the superstition.Reply With Quote Reply With Quote16 June 2006, 08:06 AM #164 sarabhanga's Avatar sarabhanga sarabhanga is offlineAvadhuta

Join DateMarch 2006LocationSahasrarkadyutirmathaPosts1,802Rep Power174Post Re: Paradvaita Doctrine of Kashmiri ShaivismBrahman is pure Wisdom, and the ultimate Wisdom is knowledge of Existence, and the experience of pure (eternal) Existence is remembered as Bliss, and the very Self of all of this is the essence of �Consciousness�.

At the point of extremity all words fail, and it must be remembered that all these terms are only approximate descriptions of that which is ultimately beyond any definition.

Existence = Knowledge = Bliss = Consciousness = Turiya = Atman = Brahman; all of this simultaneously!Reply With Quote Reply With Quote16 June 2006, 08:13 AM #165 sarabhanga's Avatar sarabhanga sarabhanga is offlineAvadhuta

Join DateMarch 2006LocationSahasrarkadyutirmathaPosts1,802Rep Power174Smile Re: Paradvaita PerspectiveNamaste Arjuna,

Of course all Shaiva systems prefer a five-fold divine plan, but I have used the four-fold Brahmanic arrangement (especially as given most plainly in the Mandukyopanishad) to allow some useful comparisons to be made.

Since all Hinduism originates from the Trayi, most philosophies have an ultimate Trinity; and so with only three essential categories, most philosophies look almost identical.

The Turiya�s creative formula is �1/1 divided by 3/3 remains equal to 1� ~ God is eternally unified, and yet always triple in expression ~ and 1 + 3 = 4.

In Ajativada, only the Turiya exists as an intrinsic eternal verity.

In Jativada, a degree of subdivision is allowed as being eternally true in Creation, and thus (for all practical purposes) these are considered as equally eternal verities.

Dvaita proposes that some degree of duality is absolutely eternal, and this division may be considered as two-fold and/or three-fold.

Vaishnava Vishishtadvaita knows Vaishvanara, Taijasa, and Prajna, as created divisions of Prajna, and this undivided Prajna is Narayana (who remains always Saguna, with Nirguna Brahman ignored, or denied as merely Void).

Paradvaita has Anuttara (expressed as Anuttara, Prakasha, and Vimarsha) as the highest (unborn) reality; and while the Vishva realm is excluded from truly eternal existence, it is included in the �lower� (created) triunity of Jnana, Iccha and Kriya. And thereby the Trika system neatly incorporates a double trinity into the four-dimensional framework.Reply With Quote Reply With Quote16 June 2006, 08:13 AM #166 Arjuna Arjuna is offlineAnandanatha Join DateMarch 2006LocationGuru-mandalaAge35Posts743Rep Power54Wink Re: Paradvaita Doctrine of Kashmiri ShaivismQuote Originally Posted by sarabhangaBrahman is pure Wisdom, and the ultimate Wisdom is knowledge of Existence, and the experience of pure (eternal) Existence is remembered as Bliss, and the very Self of all of this is the essence of �Consciousness�.

At the point of extremity all words fail, and it must be remembered that all these terms are only approximate descriptions of that which is ultimately beyond any definition.

Existence = Knowledge = Bliss = Consciousness = Turiya = Atman = Brahman; all of this simultaneously!Fully agree

BTW Mandukya does call the fourth pada as Shiva... Reply With Quote Reply With Quote09 August 2006, 09:23 PM #167 sarabhanga's Avatar sarabhanga sarabhanga is offlineAvadhuta

Join DateMarch 2006LocationSahasrarkadyutirmathaPosts1,802Rep Power174Post Re: Shiva Sutraअ*इ*उण ऋऌक ए*ओङ ऐ*औच हयवरट लणञमङणनम झभञ घढधष जबगडदश खफछठथचटतव कपय शषसर हल

aiuṇa ṛḷka eoṅa aiauca hayavaraṭa laṇa�amaṅaṇanama jhabha�a ghaḍhadhaṣa jabagaḍadaśa khaphachaṭhathacaṭatava kapaya śaṣasara halaReply With Quote Reply With Quote28 April 2007, 01:56 PM #168 Znanna's Avatar Znanna Znanna is offlinesvabhAvamadhurA Join DateApril 2006LocationNY StateAge57Posts552Rep Power54Re: Paradvaita Doctrine of Kashmiri ShaivismNamaste,

One of the references cited by Agnideva's definition of Paradvaita:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1386

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Trika/emanation.htm

...led me to an illustration which reminded me of two others I have on file, one of which I post below. The notion I have is that each chakra has its own chakra system, and each of those its own reflections as well and all of those as well are mirrored, perfectly balanced in inverse proportion in infinite series.

Just a thought

ZNAttached Images Attached ImagesFile Type: jpg trika.jpg (14.6 KB, 10 views)File Type: jpg Ajna_system.jpg (163.2 KB, 12 views)yaireva patanaM dravyaiH siddhistaireva choditA .shrI kauladarshane chApi bhairaveNa mahAtmanA .

It is revealed in the sacred doctrine of Kula and by the great Bhairava, that the perfection is achieved by that very means by which fall occurs.Reply With Quote Reply With Quote25 December 2010, 08:51 AM #169 Sahasranama's Avatar Sahasranama Sahasranama is offlineInternet Hindu Join DateJanuary 2010Locationtadvishno paramam padamAge30Posts2,170Rep Power2528Re: Paradvaita Doctrine of Kashmiri ShaivismQuote Originally Posted by sarabhanga View PostGiven that “Kashmiri Shaivism” is not based on the Brahmasutras, or even on the Upanishads, but rather on the Shivasutras of Vasugupta (c. 900 AD) it is not Vedanta. And Vasugupta’s dream seems to have been elaborated by subsequent disciples with the same Vishishtadvaita that was promoted by Ramanuja (c. 1100 AD). Abhinavagupta (c. 1000 AD) predates Ramanuja, however, and if Abhinavagupta had justified his Paradvaita through a commentary on the Brahmasutras then we could say that he was the first Acarya of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta. His disciples (such as Kshemaraja) would have been contemporaries of Ramanuja, who applied the same philosophy (but with a Vaishnava perspective) to the Brahmasutras, thus firmly establishing the philosophy of his Shri Vaishnava Sampradaya.Interesting fact. I have seen in a movie of Ramanuja's life that he went to Kashmir to obtain important texts on philosophy before writing his commentary on the brahma sutras.Reply With Quote Reply With Quote01 January 2011, 02:41 AM #170 Sudarshan's Avatar Sudarshan Sudarshan is offlineDharma Guardian Join DateMarch 2006

LocationGovinda LokamAge36Posts740Rep Power284Re: Paradvaita Doctrine of Kashmiri ShaivismQuote Originally Posted by Sahasranama View PostInteresting fact. I have seen in a movie of Ramanuja's life that he went to Kashmir to obtain important texts on philosophy before writing his commentary on the brahma sutras.That is right. Ramanuja is known to have referred to the elaborate commentary on the brahma sUtras by sage bodhAyana at kashmir. The authoritative and the most ancient commentary by bodhAyana is now lost and it appears that nobody other than Ramanuja was in possession of it at any point of time.

The story has it that Ramanuja went to kashmir in search of this commentary. The kashmiris were unwilling to let him have a copy of the text and instead gave him one day to go through it. Ramanuja's premier disciple known as kUreSha committed the entire work to memory in a single night and that is how Ramanuja managed to possess the entire text even though he was given only one day.

how anivacaniya apply in advaita

VishishtadvaitaAdvaita schools assert the monistic view that the individual soul and God are one and the ... It is clearly distinguished from the concept of anivacaniya (inexpressible) of ... It does not, however, apply to differences between Avatars of Svayam ...Appearance and Reality: Advaita Vedanta OntologyAppearance and Reality: Advaita Vedanta Ontology. David Paul Boaz. “Thou art that” because this whole world emanates from Brahman, which alone is .atma mind vs anirvacaniya

The Advaita Vedānta of Brahma-siddhmind is not independent. ... that Mandana seems to consider the anirvacaniya-khyati- vada perilously close to the Sunyavada. ... Avidya is dependent on vidyd.126 Compare the next verse of the VV: 1.53 V. 152: "Since by its ... the MS's atmatvena, which, since the next verse belongs to a refutation of 'atma-khyati' (note the[Advaita-l] Knowledge and the Means of Knowledge -17anirvacanIya khyAti 1. aatma khyAti or subjective cognition is an ... Hence in the perceiver's mind, silver is not unreal and it is 'out there'.The Philosophy of Sankar's Advaita Vedantapossible and so no longer has remained the logically impossible or ... which gives rise to the self-discrepant, and it is the self-discrepant which is anirvacaniya. ... This is certainly an innovation which will appear more puzzling to an Western mind ... inadmissibility (yuktivirodha) of atma-anatma- adhyasa by Vidyaranya12, ..Theories of erroneous perception. - Shodhganga

( 4) Anyatha-khyati, and ( 5) Anirvacaniya-khyati. The theories called Atmakhyati and Asatkhyati are advocated by Buddhists. The Madhyamikas or Siinyadidins ...Achintya Bheda Abheda: Quiz

Question 1: It does not, however, apply to differences between ________ of Svayam bhagavan and Lord Himself, so the difference between Vishnu and His origin, is not covered by the concept of acintya bhedabheda, i.e.AvatarRamaKrishnaHindu deities

Question 2: Historically, within Hinduism there are two conflicting philosophies regarding the relationship between living beings (Jiva or Atma) and God (Ishvara, ________ or Bhagavan).MonotheismMysticismBrahmanĀstika and nāstika

Question 3: While some maintain that its only a secondary extension of the principle that it is primarily applied to ________ and His energies.KrishnaChaitanya MahaprabhuKrishnaismSvayam Bhagavan

Question 4: It can be best understood as integral ________, as a position between polar opposites of absolute monism of Advaita, and the dualist monism of Dvaita.Baruch SpinozaRené DescartesExistentialismMonism

Question 5: In this sense Vaishnava theology is not pantheistic as in no way does it deny the separate existence of God (________) in His own personal form.AvatarVishnu sahasranamaKrishnaVishnu

Question 6: In ________ achintya means 'inconceivable',[1] bheda translates as 'difference', and abheda translates as 'one-ness'.BuddhismPaliSanskritMantra

Question 7: Its is clearly distinguished from the concept of anivacaniya (inexpressible) of ________.VyasaVishishtadvaitaAdi ShankaraAdvaita Vedanta

Question 8: This analogy is applied to the living beings and ________ - the Jiva being of a similar quality to the Supreme being, but not sharing the qualities to an infinite extent, as would the Personality of Godhead himself[11].NontheismTheologyGodPantheism

Question 9: [10] For example both the ________ and sunshine are part of the same reality, but there is a great difference between having a beam of sunshine in your room, and being in close proximity to the sun itself.SunEarthStarSolar System

Question 10: It is believed that this philosophy was taught by the movement's theological founder ________[5](1486 - 1534) and differentiates the Gaudiya tradition from the other Vaishnava Sampradayas.Chaitanya MahaprabhuA. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami PrabhupadaSvayam BhagavanBhaktivinoda Thakur