headers
V Subrahmanian | 1 Jul 2012 03:25
Picon

Re: Is the idea of 'anAditva' logical?

On 7/1/12, rajaramvenk@...
<rajaramvenk@...> wrote:
> What is the pramana (pratyaksha, anumana, arthapatti, sabda?) by which time
> is known? Why do we know it as existing, passing, non-existing etc.?

It is admitted that kAla and desha are sAkshi-pratyaksha.
Non-existence of time, along with everything else, is ultimately
known/realized through shruti-friendly yukti and Self-realization
which is again through shabda (Agama) pramANam.

subrahmanian.v

> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian@...>
> Sender: advaita-l-bounces@...
> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 23:34:16
> To: A discussion group for Advaita
> Vedanta<advaita-l@...>
> Reply-To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> 	<advaita-l@...>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Is the idea of 'anAditva' logical?
>
> On 6/30/12, Shyam <shyam_md@...> wrote:
>> Pranams Subbuji
>> I am on travel and hence unable to participate in this and related
>> discussions.
>> What I would suggest in regards to your well thought-out poser would be
>> to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Rajaram Venkataramani | 1 Jul 2012 08:18
Picon

Re: Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

Dear Sri Sunil,

If you had just stated this reason instead sarcastically calling my opinion
( based on researchers ) an astounding imagination, I would have answered
it. It will help the quality of discussions on the list, which is a
wonderful and practical way for us to learn an share.

Best Regards
Rajarm Venkataramani

On Sunday, July 1, 2012, Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:

> Dear Shri rajaram,
>
> I do not get pleasure by just criticizing for nothing. You cannot take
> somebody else's dating without at least prima facie being convinced about
> the dates. Of course if you are not proficient at all  on the dating
> business then better do not mention the dates and do not try to bring
> credibility by giving dates, of which, you are not sure of yourself. If you
> think that a PhD dissertation has given the correct date then you should be
> able to give the salient points on which that dissertation gives the dates.
> Jaimini is mentioned in the Brahmasutra and if you are accepting the date
> of Jaimini to be around 2 to 5 BCE then that will also mean that the date
> of composition of the Brahmasutra will be still later than that and that
> will also mean that the Brahmasutra was composed several centuries after
> Lord Mahavira. This is so preposterous a situation that such ideas, in my
> opinion, are to be scrapped without any discussion.
>

RV: Jaimini and Badaryana refer to each other. According to Sri
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Srikanta Narayanaswami | 1 Jul 2012 14:10
Picon
Favicon

Mlecchas not eligible to take Hinduism?

There are many portions in the Vedas(Brahmanas and mantra)which declare whi is a Brahmin and what makes a
Brahmin.In our day to day sankalpa in "Sandhyavandanam"we say,"Mamopattha samasta duritakshaya
dvara,Sri Parvathi Parameshwara preethyartham..."and "Bharathavarshe Bharatha Khande 
Karmabhumeh meroh dakshineparshve Shakabdhe vartamane Vyavaharike...".Here,we define the
boundaries of our "Karma ritual"which is Bharatha varshe Bharatha Khande"and vartamane vyavaharike
...Samvatsaranam madhe,which defines the Space and time.
 
1)A westerner or a foreigner who has born in that country cannot define his space and time as per the above
"Mantra".So,the first condition is violated."Karma"means "Kriya"which subscribes to certain
rituals based on rules prescribed in the Vedas.A Mleccha cannot perform according to these rules.
2)A  Person to get qualified for the "Upanayanam"initiation has to observe certain basic 
requirements.First,is the "shoucha"or cleanliness which he has to observe till his death.These can be
known from our "Dharmasastra"books.If he is a "Gruhastha"he has to lit the "Garhapathya"agni,which has
to be kindled daily till his death,and this Agni has to be carried to his funeral pyre when he dies.
3)It is not enough if he performs "Sandhyavandanam"daily.He has to perform "Agnihotram daily if he is a
Bachelor.He has to observe the "Pancha Yagnas"if he is a householder.
4)He must observe the Vidhi neshadas for his food.He must distinguish between,"bhojya and
abojya"(eatable and non-eatable),he must observe the "varjya and avarjyam as per "Dharma sastras".The
cow is held sacred in Hinduism.It is said the previous "Janma"(birth) for a Brahmin is "Cow"(Gobrahmana
hitaya cha).
5)The Vedas prohibit "Upanayanam"for a "Shudra"and "Chandalas".These are strict injunctions in our Vedas.
The disciple has to live with his Guru doing his services and learning Vedas for 12 years.Then only he is
eligible for "Grhasthashrama"or "Sanyasa".
N.Srikanta.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sudhakar Kabra | 1 Jul 2012 14:28
Picon
Favicon

Re: Fw: [advaitin] Re: regarding karma yoga

See comments inline below:

--- On Sun, 7/1/12, Sunil Bhattacharjya
<sunil_bhattacharjya@...> wrote:

From: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya@...>
Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: [advaitin] Re: regarding karma yoga
To: "Adiscussiongroupfor Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l@...org>
Date: Sunday, July 1, 2012, 1:01 AM

For favor of comments by the esteemed friends.

Regards,
Sunl KB

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya@...>
To: "advaitin@..."
<advaitin@...> 
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: regarding karma yoga

Namaste,

Thank you for the detailed definition of these words. It is said in English that an Ounce of practice is worth
a Ton of theory. so kindly permit me to supplement your excellent definitions with an excellent practical
example. Lord Krishna gave the Bhagavad Gita discourse at Kurukshetra. We know that one, who remembers
all the verses of the Bhagavad Gita,  can recite it in about one hour. Actual conversation between Lord
Krishna and Arjuna could have taken even less than one hour. Before the war started Arjuna wanted to have a
look at the people he was going to fight and Lord Krishna took the Chariot to the middle of the war zone so that
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Suresh | 1 Jul 2012 17:36
Picon
Favicon

Brahman knowing itself?

Many times, I have heard this argument. Brahman created the world to know itself. The logic goes like this:
the eye cannot see itself, except as a reflection in the mirror. Likewise, the knower cannot know himself
except by studying himself in a mirror, namely the world. 

So they say the purpose of creation is Brahman&#39;s desire to know himself. 

What do you think? Is there anything &#39;advaitic&#39; about this?

Suresh
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Sunil Bhattacharjya | 1 Jul 2012 17:49
Picon
Favicon

Re: Fw: [advaitin] Re: regarding karma yoga

THANK YOU FOR RAISING THE QUESTIONS. MY COMMENTS ARE IN CAPITAL LETTERS.

Lord Krishna gave the Bhagavad Gita discourse at Kurukshetra. We know 
that one, who remembers all the verses of the Bhagavad Gita,  can recite it in about one hour. Actual
conversation between Lord Krishna and 
Arjuna could have taken even less than one hour. Before the war started 
Arjuna wanted to have a look at the people he was going to fight and 
Lord Krishna took the Chariot to the middle of the war zone so that Arjuna could see both the warring parties.
After the discourse 
was over Arjuna was looking at Yudhisthira and found that Yudhisthira 
was preparing to go to the elders Bhishma and Drona to seek permission 
to start the war and then Arjuna also joined Yudhisthira for that. That 
confirms that the discourse indeed lasted only a short time.

SK: On the context of time many present day historians are divided. Prof 
P.Lal considers it to be a monologue between Arjuna's conscience and 
himself though the chariot was standing in between the two armies it 
could have taken a few minutes. Vishwa roopa darshana is said to be a 
mental visualization. Rest like Yudhisthira taking permission was an act before war.

SKB--I BELIEVE THAT THE ACTUAL CONVERSATION  BETWEEN LORD KRISHNA AND ARJUNA DID TAKE PLACE. AS REGARDS
THE VISHWA-ROOPA DARSHANA THE LORD GAVE THE DIVYA 
CHAKSHU TO ARJUNA AND THAT IMPLIES THAT ARJUNA HAD SEEN THE VISHWA-ROOPA IN HIS 
MIND"S EYE. IT IS CLEAR THAT LAL DID NOT NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE.

 It is another thing many eminent scholars wondered how Lord Krishna could 
have given a discourse in the battle field. They might not have read the Mahabharata properly because in
addition to what I said above there was also an agreement between the Kauravas and the Pandavas before the
war. According to that agreement no unarmed warrior could be attacked and 
Lord Krishna started his discourse  only after Arjuna laid down his arms and this is given in the last verse
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
श्रीमल्ललितालालितः | 1 Jul 2012 18:41

Re: Brahman knowing itself?

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Suresh <mayavaadi <at> yahoo.com> wrote:

> Many times, I have heard this argument. Brahman created the world to know
> itself. The logic goes like this: the eye cannot see itself, except as a
> reflection in the mirror. Likewise, the knower cannot know himself except
> by studying himself in a mirror, namely the world.
>

This is not an advaitic view. It may be related to pratyabhiGYA-school of
shaivAgama-s.
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster <at> advaita-vedanta.org
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
V Subrahmanian | 1 Jul 2012 18:47
Picon

Re: Brahman knowing itself?

You can study the Br.Up. mantra 2.5.19  (along with Shankaracharya's
commentary) starting with 'idam vai tan madhu....rUpam rUpam pratirUpo
 babhUva *tadasya rUpam praticakShaNAya.*..'

 //Why did He become all this?  In order that He becomes known to all
in His true state.  In case He had not manifested Himself in all these
names and forms, His nirupAdhika nature woul never become known.....//

So, it is with a view to enable 'others' (who are Brahman alone in
truth) realize Brahman (themselves) this creation/manifestation has
taken place.  In a deeper sense, actually there has been no creation
at all.  Yet the shAstra 'validates' a creation by giving so many
details with a view to enable the aspirant to get self-realization.
In Taittiriya bhashyam Shankara says: creation is for establishing the
Anantya of Brahman - AnantyapratipAdanAt.

Regards
subrahmanian.v

On 7/1/12, Suresh <mayavaadi@...> wrote:
> Many times, I have heard this argument. Brahman created the world to know
> itself. The logic goes like this: the eye cannot see itself, except as a
> reflection in the mirror. Likewise, the knower cannot know himself except by
> studying himself in a mirror, namely the world.
>
> So they say the purpose of creation is Brahman&#39;s desire to know himself.
>
>
> What do you think? Is there anything &#39;advaitic&#39; about this?
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sunil Bhattacharjya | 1 Jul 2012 19:16
Picon
Favicon

Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?


Dear Shri Rajaram,

You have not noticed (or have you ignored that intentionally?) the fact that according to the chronology,
you depend on, the sages  Badarayana and Jaimini  lived more than five centuries years after Lord Mahavira.

Further you may not know that Jaimini was one of the four disciples of Vedavyasa and when Vedavyasa divided
the Veda into parts Jaimini became the expert in the Sama Veda. I don't think any scholar will accept that
the Vedas were divided into four parts some five centuries after Lord Mahavira"s time.

Sincerely,
Sunil KB

________________________________
 From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk@...>
To: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya@...> 
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l@....org> 
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

Dear Sri Sunil, 

If you had just stated this reason instead sarcastically calling my opinion ( based on researchers ) an
astounding imagination, I would have answered it. It will help the quality of discussions on the list,
which is a wonderful and practical way for us to learn an share. 

Best Regards
Rajarm Venkataramani 
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Rajaram Venkataramani | 1 Jul 2012 20:10
Picon

Re: Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

Dear Sri Sunil,

For the purpose of establishing Veda Apaureshyatvam, it is only important
to consider their arguments put forward by Jaimini and his commentators. We
know from the commentaries very clearly that he was taking a position
against the arguments of Buddhists, Jainas, Vaiseshikas and Naiyayikas.
Even without the commentary we or the researchers can map the opponent
views to a particular school of thought. Let us take the opponent view in
vedan ca eke sannikarsham puru vakhya (JMS 1.1.27) meaning "And One *hold
that *Vedas *are *modern *having derived *name from human". This view was
held by Buddhists but it is not important who this party was. What
is important in my view is how Jaimini and his commentators show the
fallacy of that opinion. That is because that logic is valuable even today.

My interest in history from the point of this paper is only to point out
when the idea of paureshyatvam came in to existence. According to Kalavai
Venkat, the first group to argue that Vedas are of human or divine origin
were Ajivikas around 8 BCE (Rf. AL Basham). He would even argue that Panini
( 5 to 8 BCE) also says that Vedic language evolved and hence Panini's view
is that Vedas are paureshya. I tend to question that because because
Jaimini shows awareness of the argument of modification (Rf. JMS 1.1.10
prakrtivikrtyasecha And *on account of *original and modified forms). But
we know for certain that the idea of paureshyatvam was put forward by
Buddhists and Jainas. We also Kanada puts forth that view and so does
Gautama. Their preceptors might have held that view for a long time before
them. But we dont have any literary evidence to support that. So, the
conclusion is that VedApaureshyatvam is an ancient opinion that came under
attack in the last 2500 - 2800 years.

I am a samavedin and am aware of the view expressed by you below. It is
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 14 comments |

Gmane