Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: vitatha - an incorrect view

  1. #1
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    64
    Posts
    7,607
    Rep Power
    382

    vitatha - an incorrect view

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté & hello,


    This offer deals with the vaitathyaprakaraṇa (I will define in a moment) which is the 2nd chapter of gauḍapādacharya’s work called the māṇḍūkyopaniṣatkārikā (māṇḍūkya-upaniṣad-kārikā), also known as gauḍapādiyakārikā.


    Now, why would you care about this at all ? Well, any one that is part of this great knowledge of sanātana dharma is introduced to the notion that the world is an illusion. The people that I know and much that I read take this in stride and consider it to be the case, but as I have found, they are not really sure why this illusion is so; they may mutter, 'oh yes, this is all māyā ' and leave it at that, not really getting to the jest of this insight.
    This series of posts will offer some reason as to why, at least from gauḍapādacharya’s point of view, that most of us have an incorrect assessment of the world and have not taken the time to ponder the idea in depth.

    First the definition - vaitathyaprakaraṇa

    • vaitathya = falseness. Many times we see this word as vitatha which means untrue , false , incorrect.
    • prakaraṇa = chapter; a more refined definition is treatment , discussion , explanation. Where ‘chapter’ keeps count, what really is occurring is an explanation and discussion.


    Now tangential to this term prakaraṇa is ṭīkā which is a commentary. It is our good fortune that ‘coaching’ on this matter comes from ādi śaṅkara-ji as he offers his commentary on this writing of his grand-master. And there is another person ānandagiri1 who offers us a commentary (ṭīkā) on ādi śaṅkara-ji’s commentary.

    Let’s begin with the answer first
    An incorrect view of the world ( some say unreal, false) is simply because of its transitory nature. That is, it is impermanent. It ( the world) is full of change. For something to be real it must be changeless; the absence of all change. This is the definition we will go with, as that is what gauḍapādacharya informs us of, and it is backed up by the śrīmad bhāgavad gītā & kṛṣṇaḥ -jī’s words in chapter 2, 16th verse, the unreal has no being, the real never ceases to be.

    Now we will go deeper and wider into this in future posts, as we need a firm handle on this notion to build comfort and confidence. Yet let’s take an example. Take a car. Place this car in a field somewhere and wait. Just wait. This could be years, centuries, etc. What occurs to that auto made of metal, rubber, etc. ? It decomposes. It, at first was all shiny and new, but in a century or two it has decomposed into something else. It did not stand the test of time. It did not pass the test ‘the real never ceases to be’.

    Okay you do not have 1,000 years, so take an apple. Place that apple in the same field. Wait a month. Where now is that apple? It failed to keep its continuity. Take a human – we go from embryo to infant, to toddler, teen, adult, sr. citizen and then expire. Take all the elements of the periodic table...the table basically offers an elemental view of world, yet what did they start from? Hydrogen and how it evolved over time. Each individual element came to be over time and though a process of change. They ( the elements) did not pass the test of ‘changeless’ nor did the human body, and therefore fit the bill for being ~unreal~.

    In the examples above we can see transition going from one condition to another – that is, one state does not remain permanent and is in constant transition – perpetual change.

    So, let’s see how gauḍapādacharya would call this out ( in chapter 2)
    ādāvante ca yannāsti vartamāne'pi tattathā |
    vitathaiḥ sadṛśāḥ santo'vitathā iva lakṣitāḥ || 6

    that which is non-existent at the beginning and in the end, is necessarily so (non-existent) in the middle.
    the objects are like the illusions we see, still they are regarded as if real ||6

    Think of the apple... it was non-existent in the beginning; and in the end it decomposed and is no more. And, if you asked a scientist, the apple is in constant state of change i.e. growing and eroding or decomposing, not to mention apple A is not consistent with apple B ( in size, shape, atom count, etc). Hence, using gauḍapādacharya’s point of view, it too must be considered ~unreal~ while in the middle condition i.e. of it being an apple for a short time ( before it was a seed, and before the seed it was the sap of the tree). See the point?

    From the reader’s point of view there should be many questions ‘ but what if, how can _____ ( fill in the blank)’; many questions are provoked by this conversation. But, the best one is , if this world is unreal what then am I seeing, what then am I touching? I am experiencing something! How is that ~unreal~ ? These will be answered accordingly, but as usual a run way ( just like an airplane) is needed to get lift and to launch the knowledge that will be offered.

    Launching the means of knowledge
    This is offered in the traditional form found in the upaniṣad-s. These compoents will be used to frame the conversation:

    • anumāna – inference; inferring or drawing a conclusion from given premises
    • pratyakṣa – perception ( cognition), insight; this can be apparent, or a revelation in thought
    • śruti - verbal testimony; drawing on the wisdom of those that ‘see’; realized beings
    • dṛṣtāna – illustration ; examples and logic to compare and contrast.


    So, with the next post it must begin with , what is meant by ~unreal~ ?

    The overall conversation will take some time, so if there there is some impatience, one can read the
    gauḍapādiyakārikā on their own ( and I hope contribute to the conversation). Yet that is why I have started with the answer first approach. The goal is not to get to the answer ( like on a college test) but to show how all this comes about. Some have patience for this, others? not so much.
    And above all, I take my support from those seers that offer the knowledge to us. I take no authorship of this knowledge. I pass it along the way I have come to understand it and try to bundle it the best I can for one's consumption. Any and all mistakes must be allotted to me and none other.


    इतिशिवं
    iti śivaṁ


    1. ānandagiri - head of the dvārakā pīṭha during the 13th century, common era; author of several ṭīkā-s and ṭippaṇa-s on various upaniṣad-bhāṣya-s of ādi śaṅkara-ji. He is commonly known as ‘ṭīkākāra’ in the advaita tradition


    Last edited by yajvan; 31 March 2017 at 03:33 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  2. #2
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    64
    Posts
    7,607
    Rep Power
    382

    Re: vitatha - an incorrect view

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté & hello,


    Real and apparently real

    By definition ( or proof point) we have established, at least by gauḍapādacharya’s thinking, a thing that is anityatva (transient or limited existence) or impermanent is viewed as unreal. That is, if a thing changes, it becomes something different or inconsistent to what it previously was.


    If something is truly real (sat or satya) it must be changeless. Yet if something is absolutely unreal, like a square circle ( usually the child of a barren woman is used as the example) then this is asat. These things can be conceived but has no basis in fact. Clearly we can state these things are ideas, but not observable or anchored in fact.

    Herein is the pickle
    What of something that is observable or evident yet transient ( full of change over time) , what then? This object (let's use the apple again) does appear and can be perceived, yet it changes over time. One could argue that it is neither absolutely real nor absolutely unreal and therefore indeterminable – hence it gets tagged as ~apparently real~.


    This is our world we live in and our direct personal experience. Hence we come to a better definition of mithyā: that which is apparently real and indeterminable as being absolutely real or absolutely unreal. Here is where the the advaitin-s use the magician as a ( great) example. You ‘see’ the illusion being performed yet you cannot discern whether it was real or unreal. See the point?

    This is why you hear of ‘illusion’ so often within this school of thought. People lock into māyā as the prime idea and that may be okay, but there is a more refined view. Mithyā or vaitathya is the experience wherein things are apparently real or indeterminable, just like an illusion being performed by a magician. It has all the qualities of impermanence (the illusion of the magician comes and goes) yet it was observable for a short time. It is this one thing, that we see things for a period of time and therefore think they are absolutely real... that is the fly in the ointment. This it seems helps sure up the information that was offered in post 1 above.

    Now a few more foundational points before we go deeper and wider. To really appreciate the teaching of gauḍapādacharya one must be mindful that he teaches truth from two levels:

    • the point of view from the highest truth or paramārtha
    • the relative of empirical level of truth or vyavahāra

    To comprehend this school and the wisdom of gauḍapādacharya these two must be kept in mind ( compared and contrasted).

    The other point to render into one’s thinking as we move along is this: Within this adivayan vedānta view of the world this school avoids saying that things are ~merely apparent~ (mithyā or vaitathya) without pointing out that this appearance cannot exist without a foundation , a substratum of what is in fact real (sat, or satya).
    That is, just like a house there is a foundation for it to stand on. Like that, this ~merely apparent~ must be standing on something, and that is sat or satya, brahman, pure awareness, and as we continue this conversation it will be addressed as turīya ( the 4th ).

    Others say...

    I often hear ‘all this is an illusion, all this is unreal, māyā’ , as mentioned already. Few offer that this illusion must be standing on something. The comment is not followed up with the truth. In other words the ~formula~ of what this world is or is not, is incompletely spoken of and therefore is null. Well how is it completely spoken? Let gauḍapādacharya offer it correctly:

    भावैरसद्भिरेवायमद्वयेन च कल्पितः ।
    भावा अप्यद्वयेनैव तस्मादद्वयता शिवा ॥ २,३३
    bhāvairasadbhirevāyamadvayena ca kalpitaḥ |
    bhāvā apyadvayenaiva tasmādadvayatā śivā || 2.33
    This (ātman is being referred to here) is imagined1 both as unreal objects that are perceived, and as the non-duality (advaya2) . The objects are imagined in the non-duality itself. Therefore, non-duality (advayat3) is the (highest) auspiciousness (śivā).
    A side note to the reader: śivā is not used here as the personal Lord, for the term śiva is defined as auspicious. If it were the personal Lord the term would be śivaḥ ( called the nominative case); here we are using it in the neuter gender , śivāya = auspiciously, blissfully.


    Hence this kārikā 2.33 considers mithyā\kalpita in nonduality or advaya itself. We will talk more of this at a later date, but the point being offered is gauḍapādacharya does not leave us with mithyā only but ties our understanding back to sat or truth.


    This foundational information then allows us to wade a bit deeper into the knowledge. We will come to where we use another idea of the snake and the rope; this is known by many as viewing something falsely but there is a wealth of information that helps us understand kārikā 2.34. We will take a look in the next post.


    इतिशिवं
    iti śivaṁ

    terms
    1. imaged in this verse is kalpita which = fabricated , artificial , which is = to mithyā
    2.advaya - not two without a second, non dual
    3. advayat – free from duplicity

    Last edited by yajvan; 24 February 2017 at 04:27 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  3. #3
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    64
    Posts
    7,607
    Rep Power
    382

    Re: vitatha - an incorrect view

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté & hello,

    To make sense of the the 34th kārikā we must revist the 33rd kārikā for a moment.
    भावैरसद्भिरेवायमद्वयेन च कल्पितः ।
    भावा अप्यद्वयेनैव तस्मादद्वयता शिवा ॥ २,३३
    bhāvairasadbhirevāyamadvayena ca kalpitaḥ |
    bhāvā apyadvayenaiva tasmādadvayatā śivā || 2.33

    This (ātman is being referred to here) is imagined1 both as unreal objects that are perceived, and as the non-duality (advaya2) . The objects are imagined in the non-duality itself. Therefore, non-duality (advayat3) is the (highest) auspiciousness (śivā).

    Look at what this says, ‘ātman is imagined1 both as unreal objects that are perceived, and as the non-duality (advaya2)’ . This is telling us that perceiving ātman (Self, Being, pure consciousness, turīya the 4th) as being non-dual is also falsely imagined. How can that be ? This is quite interesting ( to me at least). Here is one view.

    Advaya not two without a second ( or non dual) only comes into play when one thinks of what would be opposite of it i.e. duality or multiplicity. Think of the example I offered in the last post, that of a foundation for a home. The foundation is only relative to the home; it is called foundation to compare it to something that is made of many things – the home e.g. wood, glass, steel, tile, stone, etc. The foundation is uniform, of one material, continuous (cement/concrete). We can say the foundation is non-dual, uniform. Like that brahman (Self, Being) is called non-dual to wrap our understanding around it. Brahman in and of itself is neither dual or non-dual ( dvaitādvaitavilakṣaṇa3) and ‘non-dual’ is only offered as such as a teaching aid.

    With that said we can take on the 34th kārikā :

    नाऽऽत्मभावेन नानेदं न स्वेनापि कथंचन ।
    न पृथङ्नापृथक्किंचिद् इति तत्त्वविदो विदुः ॥ ३४ ॥
    nā''tmabhāvena nānedaṃ na svenāpi kathaṃcana |
    na pṛthaṅnāpṛthakkiṃcid iti tattvavido viduḥ || 34

    This manifoldness ( of the world) does not exist as identical with ātman nor does it ever stand independent by itself ; It is neither separate from Brahman nor is it non-separate. This is the statement of the wise.
    Another’s translation4
    This plurality ( multiplicity of the world) does not exist as identical to Self (ātman), nor even does it somehow exist on its own. Those who know (viduḥ) Reality know that nothing exists different from Self or as identical to Self.

    Those who really know ( the realized one’s, the jñāni) not only have this point of view, but have the direct personal experience of what this verse offers. Here is the jest of this verse: if the phenomenal world was identical to Self ( pure Being) no world ( or apparent multiplicity) would even be present as something ‘other’ i.e. another thing.
    Also, this world has no existence on its own because if it did it would be self-existent and therefore ~real~. We have established the world is a place of change and therefore non-real due to gauḍapādacharya’s definition of non-real.

    A slightly different angle on this matter
    Nothing exist different ( pṛthak5 ) or identical to (apṛthak) to Self. This causes some brain cramps for some. Consider the term ‘identical to it’. This implies there would be another Self. Like car A being identical to car B. Said slightly differently when the world is absolutely perfectly ~identical~ to Self, then it is non-different than Self and therefore Self! ‘Identical’ here means totally homogeneous Self without change and therefore no multiplicity i.e. the world. And 'identical' also infers a copy ( being identical) like car A & B and when it comes to Self (Being) where can there be 2?

    Said more poetically
    This is offered by śaṅkara-ji – name and form ( code for the world) is indeterminable as ‘that’( Self), or as something else.
    The ‘stuff’ of the world is indeterminable as either identical to brahman or as something different than brahman (ātman in the verses above).

    So enters the illustration (dṛṣtāna)of the snake and the rope to help us out . We are now ready to offer it in the next post.

    इतिशिवं

    iti śivaṁ
    terms

    1. imaged in this verse is kalpita which = fabricated , artificial , which is = to mithyā
    2. advaya - not two without a second, non dual
    3. dvaitādvaitavilakṣaṇa (dvaita-advaita-vi-lakṣaṇa) = dual+nondual+in two parts+indicating or ‘mark’ or characteristic
    4. Michael Comans – The Method Of Early Advaita Vedānta - ISBN 81-2081722-2
    5. pṛthak - widely apart , separately , differently , singly , severally , one by one
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  4. #4
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    64
    Posts
    7,607
    Rep Power
    382

    Re: vitatha - an incorrect view

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté & hello,

    The snake and the rope

    At a parochial1 level this example offers that a rope can be confused for a snake in dim light, hence the idea of an illusion of not seeing the real thing ( the truth). Yet if we take a more robust view, this illustration can offer deeper meaning and help explain the ideas offered in post 3 above.

    Please assume the following. The rope is to be understood as ātman2. Note that this ātman is interchangeable as a term for brahman, pure consciousness, or turīya ( 4th). We will get more into these terms later, but for now keep them in your mind as essentially the same.

    So, ātman = rope and the snake = the world ( or field of change,multiplicity, diversity i.e. ‘name and form’ from post 3 above).

    The rope in this illustration is therefore real due to it being brahman/ātman and therefore unborn (ajā) and changeless. If changeless it does ~change~ into the snake, yet the snake appears exactly were the rope is at. Hence this ~apparent~ snake has the rope as its substratum (adhiṣṭāna). Now we get to ask:

    Is the snake different from the rope? It cannot be different because it has no independence on its own i.e. you would not perceive it if there were no rope, correct? Well, then you could say it is identical to the rope. If that be the case and absolutely ‘identical’ it would then be the rope and there would be no snake to talk of.

    Like that ( from this non-dual vedānta point of view) brahman/ātman has not changed or transformed into the world you and I see – yet this world appearance exists for us. That is why śaṅkara-ji says, name and form ( code for the world)is indeterminable as ‘that’ (brahman/Self/ātman), or as something else.

    I mentioned in the 1st sentence, a rope can be confused for a snake in dim light. It is rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi that calls our attention to this dim light necessity. He says in the full brightness ( a realized being) of the sun there is no mistaking the rope to be a snake, and in total darkness ( that of being overshadowed by tamas) nothing is seen and the mistaken identity cannot occur at all. I will let you decide for whom this dim light occurs.





    इतिशिवं
    iti śivaṁ

    terms
    1. parochial – having a limited or narrow outlook
    2. ātman – spelled this way is the singular vocative case , like saying O’ ātman! When spelled ātmā then it is in the nominative singular format (masculine gender).
    Last edited by yajvan; 26 February 2017 at 06:20 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  5. #5
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    64
    Posts
    7,607
    Rep Power
    382

    Re: vitatha - an incorrect view

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté & hello,

    We addressed the snake and the rope in the last post, now lets advance the conversation further.

    In your experience we still see the world of multiplicity, the snake. If the world is unborn and it is fabricated , artificial , which is = to mithyā how then can I see this snake this multiplicity ? This is a good question no doubt and explained in a few ways... let’s look at a few.

    Guḍapādacharya offers this in the 3rd chapter, 19th kārikā.

    मायया भिद्यते ह्येतन्नान्यथाऽजं कथञ्चन ।
    तत्त्वतो भिद्यमाने हि मर्त्यताममृतं व्रजेत् ॥ १९


    māyayā bhidyate hyetannānyathā'jaṃ kathañcana |
    tattvato bhidyamāne hi martyatāmamṛtaṃ vrajet || 19


    This unborn (changeless, non-dual brahman) appears to undergo modification only on account of māyā (illusion) and not otherwise. For, if this modification were real, the immortal (brahman) would become mortal.

    It ~appears~ that brahman becomes many ( the world) due to this māyā ( we will come back to this in a moment), yet if this were true then this modification would make the immortal mortal.

    This statement is a testimony by guḍapādacharya saying, hey! if you think this modification of taking brahman and making the world of things ( of duality, of multiplicity) is truth, then you might as well think that you can take something that is immortal and make it mortal. That you can take something that is infinite and make it finite, take something that is unborn and make it take birth.

    See the logic offered? It’s like saying , hey if you are foolish enough to believe that one, wait till I tell you this one! You can make the immortal mortal!

    He informs us that from the point of view mithyā, sure things appear to come and go, to take birth but from the standpoint of Reality, this is not so and no birth (nor death) has occurred at all.

    Well, what did occur or is occurring ?

    कल्पयत्यात्मनाऽऽत्मानमात्मा देवः स्वमायया |
    स एव बुध्यते भेदानिति वेदान्तनिश्चयः ॥ १२


    kalpayatyātmanā''tmānamātmā devaḥ svamāyayā |
    sa eva budhyate bhedāniti vedāntaniścayaḥ || 12


    ātman, the self-luminous, through the power of his own māyā, imagines in himself by himself (all the objects that the we experience within us or outside of us). He alone is the cognizer of the objects (so created). This is the decision of the Vedānta.

    This is the revelation of the realized being (jñāni) and the decision of the school of vedānta. It is that all that occurs is not outside of brahman/Self/pure awareness. And , the realization is this: I am that! Per this verse it says , He alone is the cognizer of the objects ( that are in Him to begin with). That is the revelation of enlightenment, that what you cognize ( experience) is you, and you all along are brahman. You cannot ‘become’ brahman, because that is what you always were! It would be like saying , oh! I am mortal and I can turn myself into immortal... that is not possible. You must have been That ( immortal ) all along. That is the revelation.

    All that occurs is within brahman
    This is supported by bhāgavad gītā , chapter 9 , 8th śloka:

    prakṛtim svām avastabhya
    visrjami punaḥ punaḥ |
    bhūta-grāmam imaṁ kṛtsnam
    avaśaṁ prakṛter vaśāt || 8


    This says curving back (leaning, resting-upon or avaṣṭabhya) onto my SELF (svām) I create (visṛjāmi) again and again (punaḥ punaḥ).
    All this (kṛtsnam) which exists ( manifestation and variety bhūta-grāmam) , that comes into creation (prakṛti) is done by my authority or command (vaśāt).

    Kṛṣṇaḥ-jī makes no mistake in informing us that all that occurs that is ~created~ is within Him, nothing is outside of Him (brahman)


    But what about ‘me’ ?
    Let’s look at the 3rd chapter, 3rd verse from guḍapādacharya's kārikā's :


    Kārikā, verse 3.3
    आत्मा ह्याकाशवज्जीवैर्घटाकाशैरिवोदितः ।
    घटादिवच्च संघातैर्जातावेतन्निदर्शनम् ॥ ३

    ātmā hyākāśavajjīvairghaṭākāśairivoditaḥ |
    ghaṭādivacca saṃghātairjātāvetannidarśanam || 3

    I am just going to use a portion of this verse in this post, and complete the thought in the next post ( I do not wish to overwhelm the reader).

    A key term here is iva = ‘as if ’ or seemingly. The verse says ātmā (brahman) ‘seems’ to have become jīva ( or individual being), just like space seems to have become the space found in a pot.

    The notion here is from the point of view of an observer looking a clay pot, they see the space in the pot as unique and aligned only to that pot they are viewing. Pick up another pot and they see that space as different from the 1st pot viewed. Well, when thinking critically about this, how can the space in pot 1 be different than pot 2? Well it ‘seems’ different due to the clay housing of it, but it cannot be different. In fact, space provides the environment for things to exist, it holds all objects; it ‘seems’ to be held inside a clay pot but this is mithyā. Like that, this ātmā ‘seems’ to be individual jīva, and this too is an incorrect view or mithyā.

    Now there is just a bit more to this story and I will resume it in the next post.


    इतिशिवं
    iti śivaṁ
    Last edited by yajvan; 28 February 2017 at 03:40 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  6. #6
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    64
    Posts
    7,607
    Rep Power
    382

    Re: vitatha - an incorrect view

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté & hello,

    Now there is just a bit more to this story

    ātmā hyākāśavajjīvairghaṭākāśairivoditaḥ |
    ghaṭādivacca saṃghātairjātāvetannidarśanam
    || 3
    ātman may be said to be similar to ākāśa (pure space) manifested in the forms of the jīvas (embodied selves) which may be compared to the ether enclosed in pots;
    as pots (ghaṭādivacca) are said to be produced from ākāśa (pure space), similarly bodies are said to appear from or in ātman. This is the view (darśanam) of the manifestation (from brahman, if any).

    A key term here is jātā – it has several meanings: appearing on or in, brought into existence by, a living being.
    Hence the living being ( the body and components) is like the pot or clay holding the space that is akin to ātmā/brahman/Self . This verse is saying the body too comes from, appears to be brought into existence from ātmā or brahman. The ‘if any’ is implied as I do not see this term in the verse.

    If you do some research you will find that at the atomic level there’s a lot of space in matter, hence in our phsical frame. Some argue 99% + is ~empty~. Yet due to various forces which I for one am not capable of explaining , matter feels solid. It is like a fan spinning. Even with 3 blades that are spinning ( force), when you look at it, it looks like a solid disk or wheel. Slow it down, you see the 3 fan blades. Hence from a physics point of view there’s mostly space within and in-between atoms. This offer is not to argue the ‘physics’ of the notion offered but to suggest an illustration for one to ponder and consider.




    इतिशिवं
    iti śivaṁ
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  7. #7
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    64
    Posts
    7,607
    Rep Power
    382

    Re: vitatha - an incorrect view

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté & hello,

    as pots (ghaṭādivacca) are said to be produced from ākāśa (pure space), similarly bodies are said to appear from or in ātman. This is the view (darśanam) of the manifestation (from brahman, if any). A key term here is jātā – it has several meanings: appearing on or in, brought into existence by, a living being.

    Hence the living being ( the body and components) is like the pot or clay holding the space that is akin to ātmā/brahman/Self . This verse is saying the body too comes from, appears to be brought into existence from ātmā or brahman. The ‘if any’ is implied as I do not see this term in the verse.
    ... now what of all this talk of pots and space ? It is not for everyone. Aspirants come mainly in 3 ~flavors~ and for many the intellectual pursuit ( or exercise) is not appealing to them. So be it. Ādi śaṅkara-ji informs us of the following in his śrīśivānandalaharī (śrī-śivānanda-laharī)1 :

    ghaṭō vā mr̥tpiṇḍō'pyaṇurapi ca dhūmō'gniracalaḥ
    paṭō vā tanturvā pariharati kiṁ ghōraśamanam ।
    vr̥thā kaṇṭhakṣōbhaṁ vahasi tarasā tarkavacasā
    padāmbhōjaṁ śaṁbhōrbhaja paramasaukhyaṁ vraja sudhīḥ ॥ 6

    This is a pot, no this is only mud, this is earth, no this is only atom,
    this is smoke, no this is only fire, this is cloth, no it is only thread.
    Can all this debate ever cure (pacify) the cruel god of death?
    vainly you give pain to your throat by the torrents of words.
    Instead worship the lotus-like feet of śambhu2 O’ intelligent one and attain the highest happiness.

    Now ‘code’ here for the lotus-like feet of śambhu2 is the following:

    aṅkolaṁ nijabījasantatirayaskāntopalṁ sūcikā
    sādhvī naijavibhuṁ latā kṣitiruhṁ sindhḥ saridvallabham |
    prāpnotīha yathātathā paśupateḥ pādāravindadvayṁ
    cetovṛttirupetya tiṣṭhati sadā bhaktirityucyate || 61

    using rāmaṇa mahaṛṣi’s translation, this śloka says,
    just as the aṅkola fruit falling from the tree rejoin it (the tree itself) or a piece of iron is drawn to a magnet, so also thoughts, after rising up, lose themselves in their original source. This is bhakti. The original of thought is the feet of the lord(in this verse paśupataḥ); love of his feet forms bhakti.

    The source of thought = sadā sarvadṛk = always, continually + whole + seeing; pure consciousness. You see, being devoted ( or a devotee) in this case is surrendering to sadā sarvadṛk, pure awareness that is NOT beyond you, at the source of your every thought. It is the core/essence of you.
    You needn't go any where other than your quiet Being.

    इतिशिवं
    iti śivaṁ

    1. śrī-śivānanda-laharī = the radiance /good fortune (śrī), and waves (laharī) of joy (ananda)/ auspiciousness (śiva). It is 100 verses in praise of the Supreme.
    2. śambhu – a name of śivaḥ ; granting or causing happiness , beneficent , benevolent , helpful , kind
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  8. #8
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    64
    Posts
    7,607
    Rep Power
    382

    Re: vitatha - an incorrect view

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté & hello,

    This overall subject ( within this string) is based upon this notion vaitathyaprakaraṇa :
    by definition - vaitathyaprakaraṇa
    · vaitathya = falseness. Many times we see this word as vitatha which means untrue , false , incorrect.
    · prakaraṇa = chapter; a more refined definition is treatment , discussion , explanation. Where ‘chapter’ keeps count, what really is occurring is an explanation and discussion.
    Net net, vaitathyaprakaraṇa = an incorrect view of the world ( and one’s self).

    Well what is a correct view then? Let’s look to the śrīmad bhāgavad gītā (chapt 5.8,9) & kṛṣṇaḥ -jī’s words for a hint:

    naiva kiñcitkaromīti yukto manyeta tattvavit|
    paśyañchṛṇvanspṛśañjighrannaśnaṅgacchansvapanśvasan
    ||8

    pralapanvisṛjangṛhṇannunmiṣannimiṣannapi|
    Indriyāṇīndriyārtheṣu vartanta iti dhārayan
    ||9

    I will use my teacher’s words here, ( then for those interested in grammar rules I will take apart some terms ; this will be done in the nāgarī corner folder as some interesting rules apply):

    (the)one who is in union (yuktaḥ) with the divine and who knows the truth (tattvavit) will maintain1 , ‘I do not act at all’ ;
    • in seeing (paśyan),
    • hearing (śṛṇvan),
    • touching (spṛśan),
    • smelling (jighran),
    • eating (aśnan),
    • walking2 moving (gacchan),
    • sleeping (svapan),
    • breathing (śvasan),
    • speaking (pralapan),
    • letting go (visṛjan),
    • seizing (gṛhṇan),
    • even opening the eyes and closing the eyes (unmiṣan & nimiṣan).

    he holds simply that the senses (indriyāṇi) are occupied (vartante) or act among the objects (artheṣu) of sense indriya-s. ||8-9

    Look at all these actions that occur. This revelation that this full field of action occurs within the body and senses. That the senses act or are occupied within the field of objects. Who then is having this revelation that ‘I do not act at all’ ?
    The answer is offered here: http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthr...238#post130238 , post 4, as it puts attention on this 'I'.

    Within this string and the example of the pot and the space found in the pot. It is the realization ' I am not the pot', I am the space in the pot ( code for pure Being, pure awareness). It ( this space) does not get involved with the clay, or its final form or even its name, yet it provides the space for the pot to exist in! This takes some getting use to, to comprehend and 'get'.


    इतिशिवं
    iti śivaṁ

    1. maintain – the term in the śloka says manyeta , or manya which means 'thinking one's self to be , passing for , appearing as'. My teacher nets it out as ‘maintains’. This , I think is brilliant. Why so? Because ‘thinking’ comes and goes. ‘Maintains’ implies permanency and that is the relevance that occurs with union or yuktaḥ ( shown as yukto in line 1).
    2. walking - gacchan – going, and is used as ‘walking’ , some translate as moving; ‘gacchanti’ is 'he walks', or 'he goes'. For the astute reader gacchan is the active present participle of the root ‘gam’ which = go, and is shown in the verse in the nominal case
    .
    Last edited by yajvan; 31 March 2017 at 04:44 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. How do you view this ?
    By kallol in forum Christianity
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05 August 2011, 12:27 PM
  2. Hindu world view vs Judaeo-Christian world view
    By mohanty in forum Mera Bharat Mahan
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 15 March 2011, 11:02 PM
  3. the view of Self...
    By yajvan in forum New to Sanatana Dharma
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 25 November 2010, 06:24 PM
  4. Mr. Hawking's view
    By yajvan in forum Science and Religion
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 10 November 2010, 07:01 PM
  5. View of God
    By RamaRaksha in forum I am a Hindu
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10 May 2009, 08:27 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •