Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: Impersonal Absolute is wrong?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Impersonal Absolute is wrong?

    Namaste Yajvanji and Guptaji

    I checked Sankara bhasya (Tr. M. Hiriyanna), which has the following note:

    It should be noted that sambhuti in the first pada is mentioned without the (initial) a (and is to be taken as equivalent to asambhuti).

    I reproduce Sankara's interpretation below:


    Now with a view to inculcate their simultaneous practice, follows the condemnation of the separate meditation on the manifest and on the unmanifest.

    12. Into blinding darkness
    pass they who are devoted to the
    unmanifest, and into still greater
    darkness, as it were, they who
    delight in the manifest

    Sambhavanam means birth. That which is born and is an effect is sambhuti. asambhuti is what is other than sambhuti i.e., prakrti, the unditferentiated cause whose essence is nescience and which is the source of all activity and desire.

    They who devote themselves to such Cause enter (as may be expected) darkness which is correspondingly blind in its nature. (Sambhitim i.e., in the phenomenal Brahman known as Hiranyagarbha). They who delight only in Him enter darkness which is, as it were, more blinding still. Now follows as an argument for their simultaneous practice, a statement of the distinction between the respective fruits of the two kinds of meditation.


    13. Distinct, they say, is (what
    results) from the manifest and
    distinct again, they say, is (what
    results) from the unmanifest.

    Thus have we heard from the sages who taught us that altogether distinct from that which has birth from meditating on the phenomenal Brahman, supernatural power such as assuming, at will, extreme subtlety is said to result. Similarly, they say that there is a (distinctive) fruit from meditating on the unmanifest, viz, that, alluded to in pada 1 of verse 12 and which is known as "absorption into primal cause', we have heard the saying of the wise.

    The last pada means "who explained to us the results of meditating on the manifest and the unmanifest". Since this is so, it is but right that meditation on both the effect and the cause should be practised together ; a further reason being the achievement (through such meditation) of the chief end-amrtm.

    14. Whoever understands the
    manifest and the unmanifest as
    going together, (he), by overcoming
    death through the manifest,
    attains immortality through the
    unmanifest

    The first half of the verse means "He who understands that meditation on the manifest and the unmanifest should be practised together", "by meditating on such (Brahman)" all kinds of deficiency arising from limited power, demerit, covetousness and so on are overcome, for great supernatural power is attained by the contemplation of Hiranyagarbha.

    Having thus overcome death or limitation of power by meditating on the unmanifest, amrtam i.e. absorption into the First Cause is attained.

    It should be noted that sambhuti in the first pada is mentioned without the (initial) a (and is to be taken as equivalent to asambhuti) agreeably to the statement that the result is absorption into the First Cause.

    Om Namah Shivaya
    Last edited by atanu; 15 August 2010 at 08:05 AM.
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Impersonal Absolute is wrong?

    Friends

    The reason for these posts is to dispel the doubts that many students of Vedanta initially hold that the Unmanifest (asambhutim-prakriti) is the final goal being taught by Shankaracharya.

    And many dvaita oriented criticisms (including from christians) of advaita are equally ignorant of this fact and criticise advaita on this ground that it teaches merging with darkness. Shankara teaches merging with amrata-the immortal, which is akshara.

    I thought that a clarification was in order.

    Om Namah Shivaya
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Impersonal Absolute is wrong?

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté atanu,

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    The transliteration rules are impossible for me and many others, who actually know the words and their meanings. But Sarabhanga would show that on account of transliteration rule I was wrong. Om Namah Shivaya
    Yes, so many rules... both in transliteration and in saṃskṛt. One is easily tripped up often ( that would be me).

    praṇām
    यतसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚ शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṠśivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Age
    36
    Posts
    116
    Rep Power
    81

    Re: Impersonal Absolute is wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    Namaste Riverwolf
    1. sambhutim=vaykta=manifest bhuta= equates to the dream and waking worlds

    2. asambhutim=avaykta=unmanifest prakriti= equates to the deep sleep world

    3.akshara avaykta=avyayam= Imperishable unmanifest=Immutable Atman=Immortal= equaltes to Shiva Atman, the Self
    Would you mind elaborating on these? I.E., how you get vaykta (manifest bhuta; this world) from sambhutim, and avaykta (unmanifest prakriti; nature) from asambhutim? I do not speak any Sanskrit, so I don't understand the connections.

    Also, were you trying to contradict me, or support what I had said?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Impersonal Absolute is wrong?

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté riverwolf (et.al)

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverwolf View Post
    Would you mind elaborating on these? I.E., how you get vaykta (manifest bhuta; this world) from sambhutim, and avaykta (unmanifest prakriti; nature) from asambhutim? I do not speak any Sanskrit, so I don't understand the connections.
    I think think your post was for atanu , yet let me , if I may, contribute the following:

    This refers to the 12th śloka of the īśāvāsya upaniṣad written below.

    andhaḿ tamaḥ praviśanti
    ye 'saṃbhūtim upāsate |
    tato bhūya iva te tamo
    ya u saṃbhūtyām ratāḥ ||

    Note in the line 'ye 'sambhūtim upāsate' the proper rules of saṃskṛt are applied. Avagraha ( holding away) is applied in this verse i.e. the 'a' is held back , and not sounded.
    Hence this word is asaṃbhūtim or asaṃbhūti , defined as 'non-existence' , some say non-becoming.

    The last line has saṃbhūtyām which is sambhūti + yā . This sambhūti is defined as birth , origin , production i.e. 'risen or produced'; ya is enter , approach , arrive at ( plus many other definitons)

    We can assume from asaṃbhūti of non-becoming as the Universal that is yet to manifest. From sambhūti we get risen or produced and can equate this to 'becoming' and the indication of the manifest.

    Perhaps if the ṛṣi ( rishi) used the word vināśa now ( instead of in the 14th śloka) defined as utter loss , annihilation , perdition , destruction , decay , death , removal , then the conversation would be different. Yet asaṃbhūtim was chosen presently .

    So , we can also look at the hymn just a bit differntly then 'manifest and non-manifest' and consider existing and not existing. Then there is a different view on this 12th śloka . It suggests that of appearences - that a person is destroyed (asaṃbhūtim) by death and takes delight in re-birth (saṃbhūtyām) - these two opposites are appearences.

    The notion of opposites starts in the 9th śloka and continues to the 14th. The teaching is done by offering opposites for the reader to consider.

    Hence one must look to these 6 verses overall to extract the maximium understanding from them.

    praṇām
    यतसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚ शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṠśivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  6. #16

    Re: Impersonal Absolute is wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté riverwolf (et.al)



    I think think your post was for atanu , yet let me , if I may, contribute the following:

    This refers to the 12th śloka of the īśāvāsya upaniṣad written below.

    andhaḿ tamaḥ praviśanti
    ye 'saṃbhūtim upāsate |
    tato bhūya iva te tamo
    ya u saṃbhūtyām ratāḥ ||

    Note in the line 'ye 'sambhūtim upāsate' the proper rules of saṃskṛt are applied. Avagraha ( holding away) is applied in this verse i.e. the 'a' is held back , and not sounded.
    Hence this word is asaṃbhūtim or asaṃbhūti , defined as 'non-existence' , some say non-becoming.

    The last line has saṃbhūtyām which is sambhūti + yā . This sambhūti is defined as birth , origin , production i.e. 'risen or produced'; ya is enter , approach , arrive at ( plus many other definitons)

    We can assume from asaṃbhūti of non-becoming as the Universal that is yet to manifest. From sambhūti we get risen or produced and can equate this to 'becoming' and the indication of the manifest.

    Perhaps if the ṛṣi ( rishi) used the word vināśa now ( instead of in the 14th śloka) defined as utter loss , annihilation , perdition , destruction , decay , death , removal , then the conversation would be different. Yet asaṃbhūtim was chosen presently .

    So , we can also look at the hymn just a bit differntly then 'manifest and non-manifest' and consider existing and not existing. Then there is a different view on this 12th śloka . It suggests that of appearences - that a person is destroyed (asaṃbhūtim) by death and takes delight in re-birth (saṃbhūtyām) - these two opposites are appearences.

    The notion of opposites starts in the 9th śloka and continues to the 14th. The teaching is done by offering opposites for the reader to consider.

    Hence one must look to these 6 verses overall to extract the maximium understanding from them.

    praṇām
    I think U interprete the sloka in view of saraswat class of sanskrite not Nirghantu class of vedic sanskrite.The manifestion when occured when there is difference,that mean non manifestation occured when also exist this veda,From purnapragya darshan both brahma and jivatma treated as manifestion of brahma but due to ignorence maddhacharya totally forget that emptiness is not occuered by manifestation,thus the main error of this isha upanishad.So it need thorogh knowledge on yaksh class of sanskrite with panini vasya.
    Thanks
    Om purnam adah, purnam idam, purnat purnam udacyate; purnasya purnam adaya puram evavasisyate
    Om Santih! Santih! Santih
    That is Full; this is full. From the Full does the Full proceed. After the coming of the Full from the full, the Full alone remains
    Om. Peace! Peace! Peace!

  7. #17

    Re: Impersonal Absolute is wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    Friends

    The reason for these posts is to dispel the doubts that many students of Vedanta initially hold that the Unmanifest (asambhutim-prakriti) is the final goal being taught by Shankaracharya.

    And many dvaita oriented criticisms (including from christians) of advaita are equally ignorant of this fact and criticise advaita on this ground that it teaches merging with darkness. Shankara teaches merging with amrata-the immortal, which is akshara.

    I thought that a clarification was in order.

    Om Namah Shivaya
    Advaita stated that "Propancha" is false,Question arise falsehood of that "Propancha" either true or false?
    Om purnam adah, purnam idam, purnat purnam udacyate; purnasya purnam adaya puram evavasisyate
    Om Santih! Santih! Santih
    That is Full; this is full. From the Full does the Full proceed. After the coming of the Full from the full, the Full alone remains
    Om. Peace! Peace! Peace!

  8. #18
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Impersonal Absolute is wrong?

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namasté purnapragya,

    Quote Originally Posted by purnapragya View Post
    I think U interprete the sloka in view of saraswat class of sanskrite not Nirghantu class of vedic sanskrite.The manifestion when occured when there is difference,that mean non manifestation occured when also exist this veda,From purnapragya darshan both brahma and jivatma treated as manifestion of brahma but due to ignorence maddhacharya totally forget that emptiness is not occuered by manifestation,thus the main error of this isha upanishad.So it need thorogh knowledge on yaksh class of sanskrite with panini vasya.
    Thanks
    Thank you for your note... if you have interest, you can take a look at this string http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4677 where we have discussed īśāvāsya upaniṣad from multiple views. My intent in the post above was to offer one additional view. Yet I do see your point. IMHO if one only looks at verse 12, then the wisdom to the total message is lost. That is , I find no blemish in the īśāvāsya upaniṣad.

    praṇām
    Last edited by yajvan; 24 August 2010 at 06:30 PM.
    यतसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚ शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṠśivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  9. #19
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Impersonal Absolute is wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverwolf View Post
    Would you mind elaborating on these? I.E., how you get vaykta (manifest bhuta; this world) from sambhutim, and avaykta (unmanifest prakriti; nature) from asambhutim? I do not speak any Sanskrit, so I don't understand the connections.

    Also, were you trying to contradict me, or support what I had said?
    Namaste Riverwolf

    My post was in response to your following observation.

    If you read the 14th verse, it basically states that the best understanding is the one that realizes that both the Personal and Impersonal are True.
    Although, what you said was not wrong, yet, i wanted to emphasize that both the sambhuti and asambhuti are the gati -- the path, which take one to the akshara amrtm (imperishable immortal), the Self.

    The purport is that in absence of Self there will be no manifest or no unmanifest. The asambhuti of deep sleep becomes sambhuti of dream and waking states and again the reverse. But the Self is the fixed common consciousness existing through these two states of manifestation or the unmanifest. I hope this brings clarity.

    Om Namah Shivaya
    Last edited by atanu; 25 August 2010 at 02:39 AM.
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Age
    36
    Posts
    116
    Rep Power
    81

    Re: Impersonal Absolute is wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    Namaste Riverwolf

    My post was in response to your following observation.



    Although, what you said was not wrong, yet, i wanted to emphasize that both the sambhuti and asambhuti are the gati -- the path, which take one to the akshara amrtm (imperishable immortal), the Self.

    The purport is that in absence of Self there will be no manifest or no unmanifest. The asambhuti of deep sleep becomes sambhuti of dream and waking states and again the reverse. But the Self is the fixed common consciousness existing through these two states of manifestation or the unmanifest. I hope this brings clarity.

    Om Namah Shivaya
    Sort of. The nature of the Self has always been somewhat difficult for me, other than its omnipresence.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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
  •