1 Jan 2009 07:13
New Year Wishes...
Namaste, Wishing all a very Happy New Year 2009! May this new year bring us all closer to the Knowledge which we seek!!! -- -- Regards, Bharathi T. M.
5 Jan 2009 04:16
New member introductions
Suresh Jayaraman I am a practicing Brahmin and hail from Srivathsa Gothram. I am very much interested in learning more about Adhvaitham. Michael Shepherd Retired teacher and journalist, with slight familiarity with Sanskrit and interest in Advaita Vedanta related to 'non-dualism' in Western writings in prose and poetry. Sreevalsa Kolathayar brahma sathyam jaganmithya jivo brahmaiva naparah salutations to Srimahadeva, Adi Sankaracharya and all gurus. sn I belong to Kerala. Got interested in sankara and his works. currently trying to learn by listening to lectures of Dr Krishnamurthy Sastri and Mani Dravid -- -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@...>
5 Jan 2009 04:47
Re: What is the meaning of illusion (according to advaita, obviously)?
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008, Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote: > > Would not you think that "delusion" is a better equivalent word for > "mithya" than the more commonly used word "illusion"? > The problem is that illusion (and to a somewhat lesser extent) delusion both suggest a perceptual problem which is the wrong emphasis. mithyatva is a conceptual error. For instance, "everyone knows" the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. This is readily confirmed by perception. It is only when you learn a little astronomical theory that you will realize that the sun is not rising and setting at all but it is the earth that is revolving around it. You will still make the same sense-observations but your interpretation of them has changed. And yet even the cleverest of scientists can still enjoy a beautiful "sunrise" even though he knows "sunrise" doesn't exist. In the same way we do not have to worry about at the dawn of jnana everything will disappear or be reduced to a uniform shade of grey. It is only (ha! only!) the unshakable conception of apparent multiplicity as oneness. -- -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@...>
5 Jan 2009 15:13
mithya and maya
A respectful request to relate the terms 'mithya' and 'maya' in relation to 'illusion'.. Which term has the more ancient history in Advaita-Vedanta ? Do they both have an universal and an individual aspect ? Personally, I try to 'look through' illusion, and learn from iignorance... but it would be good to hear from the wiser ! Michael Shepherd
5 Jan 2009 19:15
Arjuna vs. Karna
I'm presently (re)reading the Mahabharata, and it seems to me that the fighting prowess of Arjuna is
exaggerated compared to some of his opponents, especially Karna. I'm just wondering why Arjuna is often
praised as a great warrior, but fares rather poorly when he is pitted against others who are also strong
considered great warriors in their own right.
During the final Mahabharata war, there are good reasons to believe that Arjuna was not as good a warrior as
Karna or other greats on the Kaurava side:
1. Karna actually comes close to beheading Arjuna by aiming an arrow at the latter's neck, and the arrow
would have found its mark had it not been for Krishna's pressing down the chariot with his toe. Now, if
Arjuna had really been such a great warrior, why would he need Krishna to come to his rescue?
2. There is not a single instance among their mutual conflicts in the Mahabharata war where Arjuna actually
comes close to overcoming Karna. In the end, Arjuna observes Karna being disarmed and takes advantage of
the opportunity to kill the enemy. Karna may have "deserved" to die in this manner (Krishna points out that
Karna sneaked up on Abhimanyu from behind, which is against the laws of war, and there is also the case of the
Brahmin's curse), but this also doesn't speak highly of Arjuna's prowess.
3. In spite of having acquired the Pashupata-astra from Shiva Himself, Arjuna never really defeats the
strong warriors on the Kaurava side - such as Bhishma, Drona, and Karna - by obviously virtuous means in the
final war. In fact, Arjuna had to approach Bhishma to enquire as to how Bhishma can be killed.
Why then is Arjuna lauded as a "great" warrior when there are these other equally if not superior warriors
around? He was of course a great Bhakta and a highly virtuous person for Krishna choosing him as a student to
preach the Gita, but that is not the same as being a great warrior.
Regards,
Kartik
(Continue reading)
5 Jan 2009 23:40
Re: Arjuna vs. Karna
Hello, I read some where that Sri Kavyakantha Ganapati Muni, based on information available in the Veda, seems to have commented that in actuality Karna won the battle. But, Veda Vyasa with a view to give some 'correct' moral example to the future generations, wrote in the Mahabharata that Arjuna won. People familiar with Sri KGM's works can find out what lead Sri KGM to conclude that. Regards Srikrishna --- On Mon, 1/5/09, S Jayanarayanan <sjayana@...> wrote: From: S Jayanarayanan <sjayana@...> Subject: [Advaita-l] Arjuna vs. Karna To: advaita-l@... Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 10:15 AM I'm presently (re)reading the Mahabharata, and it seems to me that the fighting prowess of Arjuna is exaggerated compared to some of his opponents, especially Karna. I'm just wondering why Arjuna is often praised as a great warrior, but fares rather poorly when he is pitted against others who are also strong considered great warriors in their own right. During the final Mahabharata war, there are good reasons to believe that Arjuna was not as good a warrior as Karna or other greats on the Kaurava side: 1. Karna actually comes close to beheading Arjuna by aiming an arrow at the latter's neck, and the arrow would have found its mark had it not been for Krishna's pressing down the chariot with his toe. Now, if Arjuna had really been such a great warrior, why would he need Krishna to come to his rescue?(Continue reading)
6 Jan 2009 00:35
Re: mithya and maya
In a magic show the magician sees the show he performs differently from the way the audience sees the show. Similarly God is the magician who knows the reality and we assume what we perceive as real. Maya is the ability of God to create the magic ie. this world. Due to Avidya or ignorance we do not see the reality that the world is not different from God. This notion that what we see as separate, which starts from us looking at ourselves as separate individuals, is false or Mithya, as in reality we are all connected and not separate from each other and from God. The word "Maya" is a Vedic word and Lord Krishna used it in the 32nd century BCE in the Bhagavad Gita when He says that He created this world by His Maya. There is a book by an American Lady scholar, who has traced the word "Maya" in the Vedas and other ancient Indian texts. To my knowledge Adi Sankaracharya was the first to use the word Mithya, in the meaning as said above. But many people who did not understand the proper meaning of the word had criticised Advaita. Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Mon, 1/5/09, Michael Shepherd <michael@...> wrote: From: Michael Shepherd <michael@...> Subject: [Advaita-l] mithya and maya To: "advaita vedanta" <advaita-l@...> Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 6:13 AM A respectful request to relate the terms 'mithya' and 'maya' in relation to 'illusion'.. Which term has the more ancient history in Advaita-Vedanta ? Do they both have an universal and an individual aspect ?(Continue reading)
6 Jan 2009 00:50
Re: mithya and maya
From my understanding: maayaa is the power by which one appears to be many. The locus of the power is Iswara. Krishna says - diivam .. mama maayaa - this maaya of mine is divine origin. maaya makes impossible possible - aghaTita ghaTanaa paTiiyasii maayaa - just as one mind projects multitude of plurality - movable and immovable in the dream state. That power because of which one appears to be many is maaya. Scripture equates it to prakRiti - maayantu prakRitin vidyaat - says swetaasvatara upanishad. mithyaa is the product of maaya. what I see or perceive is mithyaa - it is neither sat nor asat - Sat is that which never changes and asat is that which has no locus for existence. Whatever I see is changing therefore not sat but since it is experienced it is not asat. It is called mithyaa - like ring in comparison to gold, as a worldly example. The whole world is mithyaa since it is experienced and continuously changing. The power because of which it is seen and seen as changing is maaya. Taking mityaa as real is delusion. Taking mithyaa as mithyaa or apparent but not really real is knowledge. Hope this helps. Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Mon, 1/5/09, Michael Shepherd <michael@...> wrote: A respectful request to relate the terms 'mithya' and 'maya' in relation to 'illusion'.. Which term has the more ancient history in Advaita-Vedanta ? Do they both have an universal and an individual aspect ?(Continue reading)
6 Jan 2009 01:03
Re: mithya and maya
Dear Sadanandaji, One can see through Mithya only when one has the right knowledge. When one has the knowledge then and then only one can really take Mithya as mithya otherwise it will like learning by a parrot. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Mon, 1/5/09, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada@...> wrote: From: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada@...> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] mithya and maya To: advaita-l@... Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 3:50 PM From my understanding: maayaa is the power by which one appears to be many. The locus of the power is Iswara. Krishna says - diivam .. mama maayaa - this maaya of mine is divine origin. maaya makes impossible possible - aghaTita ghaTanaa paTiiyasii maayaa - just as one mind projects multitude of plurality - movable and immovable in the dream state. That power because of which one appears to be many is maaya. Scripture equates it to prakRiti - maayantu prakRitin vidyaat - says swetaasvatara upanishad. mithyaa is the product of maaya. what I see or perceive is mithyaa - it is neither sat nor asat - Sat is that which never changes and asat is that which(Continue reading)
6 Jan 2009 01:06
Re: Arjuna vs. Karna
If this were so, it would seem to make Krishna "asathya", when he told Arjuna - Sarva dharmaAn parityajya mAmekam sharaNam vraja.......... sathya includes Both sides of the coin - sathya vachana (speak the truth) and Vachana sathya(keep up the spoken word). Regards, K. Ramakrishna -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces@... [mailto:advaita-l-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Srikrishna Ghadiyaram Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 5:40 PM To: Advaita Vedanta List Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Arjuna vs. Karna Hello, I read some where that Sri Kavyakantha Ganapati Muni, based on information available in the Veda, seems to have commented that in actuality Karna won the battle. But, Veda Vyasa with a view to give some 'correct' moral example to the future generations, wrote in the Mahabharata that Arjuna won. People familiar with Sri KGM's works can find out what lead Sri KGM to conclude that. Regards Srikrishna(Continue reading)
RSS Feed