anirvacaniya

anivacaniya end
anivacaniya end truth
anivacaniya end truth with self
anirvacaniya

Common arguments I see against Dvaita in these forums - Hi

of 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 [Archiv

of 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 encyclopedia

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 .
Achintya-Bheda-Abheda (acintya bhedbheda 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-bhedbheda-tattva completed the progression to
devotional theism. Rmnuja had agreed with akara 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 Jva: he had
maintained that this duality endures even after liberation. Caitanya, in turn,
specified that the Supreme and the jvas are "inconceivably, simultaneously one and
different" (acintya-bheda-abheda). He strongly opposed akara's philosophy for its
defiance of Vysadeva's siddhnta.
Satsvarupa dasa Goswami
Historical perspective
Historically, 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 nondifferent, 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 [Archiv

f 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, 2014
Very 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

Vishishtadvaita
At 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 Philosophy

Knowledge, however, is the highest end (for which one strives). ...... from the
concept of anivacaniya (inexpressible) of Advaita Vedanta.

Panchapadika Vivaranam of Prakasatma

Any 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 II

this 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 shrutis 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.
Lets 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 ones 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-today 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-VIIIs 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 !!
OM
Namaste 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 Banerjee
But 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 nonconsciousness 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 Shivayya
Just 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.
atanu
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. 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 yamayati
yam 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?
atanu
I 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 narayana
Please 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.
atanu
How 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 Shivayya
Not 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.
pro'pno vyna ityavakari |
akara ha v eka gyatryai padam |
etadu haivsy etat |
sa yvadida pri tvaddha jayati yo'sy etadeva pada veda |
athsy etadeva turya darata pada paroraj ya ea tapati |
yadvai caturtha tatturyam |
darata padamiti dada iva hyea |
paroraj iti sarvamu hyevaia raja uparyupari tapati |
eva haiva riy yaas tapati yo'sy etadeva pada 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 imstr loknprnpratighytso'sy etatprathama padam pnuyt |
atha yvatya tray vidy yastvatpratighytso'sy etaddvitya padam
pnuyt |
atha yvadida pri yastvatpratighytso'sy etatttya padam pnuyt |
athsy etadeva turya darata pada paroraj ya ea tapati |
naiva kena canpyam |
kuta u etvatpratighyt ||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 jnam upritya mama sdharmyam gat
sarge 'pi nopajyante 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 - Inexplicable
Avidya - Inexplicable
Nirguna - 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 = Kriya
Taijasa = Iccha = Vimarsha
Prajna = Jnana = Prakasha
Turiya = 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).

Shankaracaryas Advaita and Abhinavaguptas 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
is
produced 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 Perspective
Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga
Namaste Arjuna,
Vaishvanara = Kriya
Taijasa = Iccha = Vimarsha
Prajna = Jnana = Prakasha
Turiya = Ananda = Anuttara
Namaste 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 sarabhanga
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).
Shankaracaryas Advaita and Abhinavaguptas 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 Quote
16 June 2006, 03:03 AM #162 atanu atanu is offline
Member
Join Date
March 2006
Location
India
Posts
4,190
Rep Power
348
Re: One goal and so many voices
Quote Originally Posted by Sudarshan
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.
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 Quote

16 June 2006, 07:05 AM #163 Sudarshan's Avatar Sudarshan Sudarshan is offline

Dharma Guardian
Join Date
March 2006
Location
Govinda Lokam
Age
36
Posts
740
Rep Power
284
Re: Paradvaita Doctrine of Kashmiri Shaivism
Quote Originally Posted by Sudarshan
With incorrect understanding of attributes, Advaita says that
Exsitance=Knowledge=Bliss= Brahman each by itself.
Repsonse by Satay:
Quote Originally Posted by satay
I 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 Quote
16 June 2006, 08:06 AM #164 sarabhanga's Avatar sarabhanga sarabhanga is
offline
Avadhuta
Join Date
March 2006
Location
Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
Posts
1,802
Rep Power
174
Post Re: Paradvaita Doctrine of Kashmiri Shaivism
Brahman 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 Quote
16 June 2006, 08:13 AM #165 sarabhanga's Avatar sarabhanga sarabhanga is
offline
Avadhuta
Join Date
March 2006
Location
Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
Posts
1,802
Rep Power
174
Smile Re: Paradvaita Perspective
Namaste Arjuna,
Of course all Shaiva systems prefer a five-fold divine plan, but I have used the fourfold 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 Turiyas 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 fourdimensional framework.
Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
16 June 2006, 08:13 AM #166 Arjuna Arjuna is offline
Anandanatha

Join Date
March 2006
Location
Guru-mandala
Age
35
Posts
743
Rep Power
54
Wink Re: Paradvaita Doctrine of Kashmiri Shaivism
Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga
Brahman 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 Quote
09 August 2006, 09:23 PM #167 sarabhanga's Avatar sarabhanga sarabhanga is
offline
Avadhuta
Join Date
March 2006
Location
Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
Posts
1,802
Rep Power
174
Post Re: Shiva Sutra
** * *

aiua ka eoa aiauca hayavaraa laa
amaaanama jhabhaa ghahadhaa jabagaadaa khaphachahathacaatava
kapaya aasara hala
Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
28 April 2007, 01:56 PM #168 Znanna's Avatar Znanna Znanna is offline
svabhAvamadhurA

Join Date
April 2006
Location
NY State
Age
57
Posts
552
Rep Power
54
Re: Paradvaita Doctrine of Kashmiri Shaivism
Namaste,
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
ZN
Attached Images Attached Images
File 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 Quote
25 December 2010, 08:51 AM #169 Sahasranama's Avatar Sahasranama
Sahasranama is offline
Internet Hindu
Join Date
January 2010
Location
tadvishno paramam padam
Age
30
Posts
2,170

Rep Power
2528
Re: Paradvaita Doctrine of Kashmiri Shaivism
Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga View Post
Given 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 Vasuguptas 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 Quote
01 January 2011, 02:41 AM #170 Sudarshan's Avatar Sudarshan Sudarshan is
offline
Dharma Guardian
Join Date
March 2006
Location
Govinda Lokam
Age
36
Posts
740
Rep Power
284
Re: Paradvaita Doctrine of Kashmiri Shaivism
Quote Originally Posted by Sahasranama View Post
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.
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

Vishishtadvaita
Advaita 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 Ontology

Appearance 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 Vednta of Brahma-siddh

mind is not independent. ... that Mandana seems to consider the anirvacaniyakhyati- 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 -17

anirvacanIya 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 Vedanta

possible 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).
MonotheismMysticismBrahmanstika and nstika
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 SpinozaRen 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