"If Everything is Mithya, then is your Pravachan also Mithya?" - Clearing Misconceptions I Jagadguru
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 06. 2023
- Sringeri Jagadguru Shankaracharya Sri Sri Bharati Teertha Maha Swamin clears the Misconceptions and wrong conclusions on Advaita Vedanta, and instructs us to understand the Philosophy first before simply giving out objections and silly conclusions.
Wonderfully said. My Pranams to Sri Sri Sri Adi Shankaracharya ji and this respected Peethaadi pati ji 🙏🙏🙏
Mythya doesn't mean non truths. Mythya means the nature of phenomena being different than what it appears to us (For example, Objective phenomenon's magnitude is always contingent on frame of reference - but this does not appear to us as so). Mythya is Brahma is not "Illusions and Reality". It is "Reality and Ultimate Reality". Mythya is reality, in the sense your body exists is a reality. Mythya is not the ultimate reality, in the sense "your body" is an impression, the elements existed before you and will exist after you.
Then don't use that very word mithya, no where in dictionary we can find this definition
@@user-zv9mb7th1y Word for non truth is Asat. Not Mythya ("Jagat Mythyam" - Jagat is not Asat - Karma is immutable). Like many words, the word Mythya is non-translatable. In all Upanishad discourses it means "That which'es actual nature is different from what it appears". It is Observer-dependent phenomena.
You clearly have no idea of how mithya is defined in classical Advaita. Your definition of Mithya may be the altered one found in neo-Advaita of Vivekananda and others. But in Shankara's Advaita, mithya is anirvachaniya i.e. sad-asad-vilakshana. Go and ask the meanings of these two words to any of your gurus.
@@Krsna927 Unintelligible esoteric jargon. Not a substitute for comprehension. Might intimidate sophomores.
Mythya is "defined" as neither real nor unreal. Samsara is a modification of Brahma (the Great Adi Shankaracharya's main illumination for the world). Brahma, since it is the ultimate reality (Does not change under analysis or meditative states, general reality is contingent on Brahma and not otherwise), and the world as it appears changes to Brahma (Logical as well as in Meditative states), therefore the world is not ultimately real. However, it is experienced objectively, so it is not unreal (like an illusion). Adi Shankaracharya provides no quantitative term for this "less than ultimate real" state of existence, neither was that his immediate concern. So it is meaningless to argue about his vocabulary. The analogies used to illustrate the point, that of snake and rope, and water and waves, likewise suffer from limitations. They exist in the "general experience", and the meaning thus is inaccessible to the lay person. The lay person can only take the meaning of "illusions" out of it. Which, perhaps, you assume has been taken here as well.
The later philosophers do not depart from Adi Shankaracharya's "meaning", but only ossify it using modernly accessible examples. Hence "observer psycho-psychological contingent reality" is the absolute proper term for Mytha. Time, for instance, stops at the velocity of light - the movement of light is like Mythya - it's true from the frame of reference of us, but untrue from the frame of reference of light (Brahma, incidentally, is also called infinite luminousity). You can ask your Gurus to verify if it is appropriate. They will agree. With a smile.
Let me know if you want to take further refuge in esoteric sophistry.
@hobo, can you give me a proof of such meaning for mithya. Well I've one for you, ಮಿಥ್ಯಾ ಜ್ಞಾನೇನ ಚ ತಮಃ, means we attain eternal hell by following mithya gnana. Where in gita we can find such words, please tell me.
Plz don't quote from any Acharya unless it is from basic scriptures
Acharyas are ALWAYS our Gurus
shed Wisdom
excellent explanation swami. Jaya Jaya Shankara Hara Hara Shankara.
Pranams Guruji.. thanks and Namaskaram for the awesome explanation and teaching
ನಮೋನಮಃ ಶ್ರೀ ಭಾರತಿ ತೀರ್ಥ ಗುರುಭ್ಯೋ ನಮಃ. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻👌🏻
ओन्नमश्शिवाय। 🙏🏼🌹❤🔥🌺🌻🌼
Few people are asking for the references for the सत्तात्रयः (तिस्रः सत्ताः), here is my following response:
Before quoting the references kindly have patience while going through them! I'm a hardcore Physics student & I'm a truth seeker! I always try to dig things in deeper! At 1st, let me quote the references & then let me explain:
The following is from the छन्दश्शास्त्रम् of भगवान् पिङ्गलाचार्यः
लोके हि सर्वत्रैवार्थे प्रतिपत्तिस्त्रिविधा दृष्टा- पारमार्थिकी, व्यावहारिकी प्रातिभासिकी चेति । पारमार्थिकी, आर्थिकी, वास्तविकीत्यनर्थान्तरम् । व्यावहारिकी औपयौगिकी, औपचारिकीत्यनर्थान्तरम् ।
sa.wikisource.org/wiki/छन्दःशास्त्रम्
See how crystal clearly it had been stated over here! If you have any doubt you may copy paste the following पारमार्थिकी, व्यावहारिकी प्रातिभासिकी चेति (exactly) in the above link. The search bar is on top right, it's visible as (विकिस्रोतः अन्विष्यताम्), so just copy paste this & enter. You'll find the छन्दश्शास्त्रम् of none other than भगवाञ्श्रीपिङ्गलाचार्यः
आर्थिक (कः की कं) means अर्थं गृह्णाति, so आर्थिक (कः की कं) means that which is Real/सद्वस्तुः/Significant/Substantial
अनर्थान्तरम् means Synonym/Conveying no different sense/not another
So, पारमार्थिकी, आर्थिकी, वास्तविकीत्यनर्थान्तरम् means that the सत्ता is आर्थिकी/वास्तविकी, It’s absolute.
The entire meaning:
pratipattiḥ (Knowledge/truth/Consciousness/understanding) is of 3 types & they’re पारमार्थिकः, व्यावहारिकः & प्रातिभासिकः
And भगवान् आचार्यः furtherly stated that the पारमार्थिकः is Real/सत्
And व्यावहारिकः is औपयौगिकी, औपचारिकीत्यनर्थान्तरम्
व्यावहारिकः is औपचारिकः -> Metaphorical/Secondary/Figurative It’s just opposite to the मुख्यः
One may kindly go through the entire post which has references from वैष्णवम् (विष्णुपुराणम्) for the सत्तात्रयः (तिस्रः सत्ताः)
adbhutam.wordpress.com/2022/04/21/paramarthika-vyavaharika/
Over there in the comment section I have explained the same thing. BTW you may go through my Quora profile where I have addressed to certain basic queries
qr.ae/pyrPGz (Proof of advaita aka vēdāntaḥ from a layman devotee's perspective, how can a layman devotee understand & appreciate advaita aka vēdāntaḥ)
Read all my answers patiently where I have given authentic references. And go through the entire blog that I have quoted. In future, I'm planning to write on Quora about the explanation on the classifications of scriptures based on त्रिगुणाः (don't jump into the conclusions, have patience!), I agree to the गुणीकरणम्, but wait till I write!
advaitinaḥ do not condemn bhaktiḥ as it's extremely important! Kindly have patience in going through all these things.
Regards
अरुणाचलशिवार्पणम् 🙏🏼
Names can name no lasting name
Nameless: the true nature of reality
The illusion of names: Mother's creativity.
जय जय श्री गुरुदेव दत्त कोटि-कोटि प्रणाम गुरुदेव
Dhanyavadah for sharing this words of Jagadguruji. The entire of this pravachan is avialble?
🙏🙏 sharanagathi at the lotus feet of Jagadguruji🙏
What a beautiful explanation
Ji shri Grdav ki shre chanm ma koti koti Denvd pranam
🙏🌺🌺🌺🌺🌺🌹🌹🌹🌹🏵️🏵️🏵️🌸🌸🌸🌸🌸🌸🌸🌸🙏
Shaarade Pahimaam Shankara Rakshamaam🙏🙏
❤😇🙏🏻Agnaanam Janhavi teertham Vidyateertham vivekinaam Sarveshaam Sukhadam Teertham Bharati Teertha maashraye ❤❤😇😇😇🙏🏻
➤ ಶಿವ
.............
1) ಮೌಂಟ್ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕುಳಿತುಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದು
2) ಕುಳಿತು ಮಲಗುವುದು
3) ದೇಹವು ಹಾವಿನ ಸುತ್ತಲೂ ಸುತ್ತುತ್ತದೆ
4) ವೆಪನ್ ಈಟಿ (ಭಾಷಾಂತರ ಚಲನೆಗೆ ಉದಾಹರಣೆ)
5) ಡಮರು (ರೇಖಾಂಶದ ಅಲೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಉದಾಹರಣೆ)
6) ಭಸ್ಮವನ್ನು ಹಣೆಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಅಡ್ಡಲಾಗಿ ಎಳೆಯಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ
7) ವಾಹನವು ಬುಲ್, (ಹಾರಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ)
➤ವಿಷ್ಣು
...................
1) ಸಮುದ್ರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಕುಳಿತಿರುವುದು
2) ಮಲಗಿದ್ದರೂ ಮಲಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ
3) ಹಾವಿನ ಹೊರಗೆ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ
4) ವೆಪನ್ ವೀಲ್ (ತಿರುಗುವ ಚಲನೆಗೆ ಉದಾಹರಣೆ)
5) ಕೋನ್ (ಅಡ್ಡ ಅಲೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಉದಾಹರಣೆ)
6) ಶ್ರೀಗಂಧವನ್ನು ಹಣೆಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಲಂಬವಾಗಿ ಎಳೆಯಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ
7) ವಾಹನವು ಹಾರಬಲ್ಲದು
⏩ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ
ವಿಷ್ಣುವು ಶಿವನ ಸಾದೃಶ್ಯವಾಗಿದೆ. ಶಿವನು ಗೂಳಿಯ ಹೊರಗೆ ಕುಳಿತಿದ್ದಾನೆ. ಹಾಗಿದ್ದರೆ ವಿಷ್ಣು ಗಿಡುಗದ ಕೆಳಗೆ ಕುಳಿತುಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು. ವಿಷ್ಣು ಗಿಡುಗದ ಕಾಲಿನ ಮೇಲೆ ಕುಳಿತುಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು. ಗಿಡುಗದ ಕಾಲುಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ಕುಳಿತಿರುವುದು ಹಾವು. ಹಾಗಾದರೆ ವಿಷ್ಣು ಯಾರು?
➤ ತೀರ್ಮಾನ
ಹಾವು ಗಿಡುಗದ ಪಾದದಲ್ಲಿದೆ. ನಿಧಿ ಹಾವಿನ ರಾಕ್ಷಸನನ್ನು ಕಾಪಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸನ್. ಕೈಲಾಸನಾಥನು ಭೂತನಾಥನು ಪರ್ವತವೇ? . ಹಾವು ಮತ್ತು ಗೂಳಿಯ ಹೊರಗೆ ಮಾನವ ದೇಹವನ್ನು ನೀಡುವುದರಿಂದ ಅವರಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾರೂ ಅದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಯೋಚಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
ಈ ಗೂಳಿ, ಹಾವು, ಗಿಡುಗಗಳನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಆಕಾಶ ಭೂಮಿಯ ಒಡೆಯನಾದ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಕರ್ತನನ್ನು ಪೂಜಿಸುವುದೇ?
Om shree gurubhunamah
Dhanyosmi Dhanyosmi...
Gurudeva Datta 🙏
Thanks for this
Could somebody give the source of the quotation given in this clip by Sri Acharya?
Har Har Mahadev 🙏
@hobo, can you give me a proof of such meaning for mithya. Well I've one for you, ಮಿಥ್ಯಾ ಜ್ಞಾನೇನ ಚ ತಮಃ, means we attain eternal hell by following mithya gnana. Where in gita we can find such words, please tell me.
Plz don't quote from any Acharya unless it is from basic scriptures
Beautiful and very clear. Correct me if am wrong, for all who follow dualism, is it right to say, your dualistic ends when Paramartha Satya is known? I have few friends who comment extremely negative on Maya and Mithya. Now-a-days, I however don't get into a discussion and just nod and smile at them.
ಆಲೋಢ್ಯ ಸರ್ವ ಶಾಸ್ತ್ರಾಣಿ ವಿಚಾರ್ಯೇಚ ಪುನಃ ಪುನಃ, ಇದಮಿತ್ಥಂ ಸುನಿಷ್ಪನ್ನಂ ಧ್ಯೇಯೋ ನಾರಾಯಣಃ ಸದಾ.... ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಶಾಸ್ತ್ರ ವಿಮರ್ಶೆ ಮಾಡಿದಮೇಲೆ ಸಿದ್ಧವಾದ ವಿಷಯ ಹರಿ ಸರ್ವೋತ್ತಮ ಅನ್ನೋ ವಿಷಯ. ಅಂಥ ಹರಿ ಕೃಷ್ಣನಾದಾಗ ಗೀತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹಲವು ವಿಷಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಮೂರು ಬಗೆಯನ್ನು ಹೇಳ್ತಾನೆ, ಆಹಾರ ಮೂರು ವಿಧ, ತಪಸ್ಸು ಮೂರು ವಿಧ, ಹಾಗೆ ತ್ಯಾಗ, ಸುಖ, ಕರ್ಮ, ಜ್ಞಾನ, ಕರ್ತೃ ಮೂರು ವಿಧ..... ಅಂತೆಲ್ಲ ಹೇಳಿದವನಿಗೆ ಸತ್ಯವೂ ಮೂರು ವಿಧ ಅಂಥ ಹೇಳೋದು ಕಷ್ಟವಾಗಿತ್ತೆ?
ಯಾಕೆ ಹೇಳಿಲ್ಲ? ಆ ರೀತಿಯಿಲ್ಲ, ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಹೇಳಿಲ್ಲ ಅಷ್ಟೇ.
ಆಗಮ ಹೇಳುತ್ತೆ, "ಸತ್ಯಂ ಜಗತ್" ಅಂಥ, ಪ್ರಾತಿಭಾಸಿಕ, ವ್ಯಾವಹಾರಿಕ ಅನ್ನೋ ಶಬ್ದವೇ ಕಾಣೋದಿಲ್ಲ.
ಹೊಸ ವಿಷಯ ಒಂದು ಗ್ರಂಥದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಂದಿದೆ ಅಂತಾದ್ರೆ ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಪೂರಕವಾದ ಸಂವಾದಿಯಾದಂಥ ಬೇರೆ ಪ್ರಮಾಣಗಳೂ ಇವೆಯೆ ಅನ್ನೋದನ್ನು ಮೊದಲು ನೋಡಬೇಕು.
ಮುಖ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಭಾಷೆಯ ಪರಿಜ್ಞಾನವಿರಬೇಕು. ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಬಳಸಿದ ಭಾಷೆ ದರ್ಶನ ಭಾಷೆಯೋ ಅಥವಾ ಸಮಾಧಿ ಭಾಷೆಯೋ ಅಂಥ.
ಉದಾಹರಣೆಗೆ, ಬೆಂಕಿ ತಣ್ಣಗಿದೆ ಅನ್ನೋ ಮಾತನ್ನು ಯಥವತ್ತಾಗಿ ನಂಬೋದಲ್ಲ.... ಆ ವಾಕ್ಯದ ಹಿಂದೆ ಮುಂದೇನಿದೆ ಅನ್ನೋದನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ತಿಳಿಯಬೇಕು. ಆ ವಾಕ್ಯ ಹೀಗಿದ್ದರೆ "ಬೆಂಕಿ ತಣ್ಣಗಿದೆ ಅಂಥ ಒಬ್ಬ ಮೂರ್ಖನ ವಾದ" ಈ ವಾಕ್ಯ ಶಾಸ್ತ್ರದ್ದೇ ಆದರೂ ಅರ್ಧ ವಾಕ್ಯವನ್ನು ಮಾನ್ಯ ಮಾಡಲು ಬರುವುದೇ? ಯೋಚಿಸಿ ನೋಡಿ.
ನಿಮ್ಮ ಮಾತು ಪ್ರತ್ಯಕ್ಷ ವಿರೋಧ ಮಾತ್ರವಲ್ಲ, ಆಗಮ ವಿರೋಧವೂ ಹೌದು. ಇಲ್ಲವಾಗಿದ್ದಲ್ಲ, plz prove me wrong with apt proof
ಹಾಗೆ, ಶಿವಾರ್ಪಣ ಹಾಗು ಅರುಣಾಚಲಾರ್ಪಣವೂ ಕೂಡ ಅವೈದಿಕವಾದದ್ದು
Dwaitis and any Abrahamic religion followers have similar characteristics😂
First nivvu helthiro vichara ne avaidika vada du
"सत्यत्वं न च सामान्यं मृषार्थपरमार्थयोः ।....
.....वञ्चनार्थं उपन्यासः लालावक्त्रासवादिवत् ||"
Bauddhara hage satyatvavannu kattarisihakuvudu/sullige satya endu hesaru koduvudu obbarige Vanchane maduvudakke upayogisuva kutantra endu annuttare Kumarila Bhattaru
Can you please upload the full video
Naguroradhikam pranamams
Param gyan❤
🙏AumNamahShivay🙏
Please Need the full discourse.
🙏🙏🙏ಬ್ರಹ್ಮ ಸತ್ಯ ಜಗನ್ಮಿತ್ಯ
ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಸರಳವಾಗಿ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ ಜಗದ್ಗುರು ಮಹಾಸ್ವಾಮಿಗಳು 🙏🙏🙏🙏
There is no proof to say there are 3 types of reality. That's the imagination of shankara to overcome the objections
@@R_Ragh that is the essence of " vedanta " ( upanishads ).
Only a stupid can think and believe he is Eternal .
@@R_Ragh there's nothing Sri Shankara said by his own making, or God said in his dreams, those were the words directly from vedopanishads...
➤ ಶಿವ
.............
1) ಮೌಂಟ್ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕುಳಿತುಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದು
2) ಕುಳಿತು ಮಲಗುವುದು
3) ದೇಹವು ಹಾವಿನ ಸುತ್ತಲೂ ಸುತ್ತುತ್ತದೆ
4) ವೆಪನ್ ಈಟಿ (ಭಾಷಾಂತರ ಚಲನೆಗೆ ಉದಾಹರಣೆ)
5) ಡಮರು (ರೇಖಾಂಶದ ಅಲೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಉದಾಹರಣೆ)
6) ಭಸ್ಮವನ್ನು ಹಣೆಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಅಡ್ಡಲಾಗಿ ಎಳೆಯಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ
7) ವಾಹನವು ಬುಲ್, (ಹಾರಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ)
➤ವಿಷ್ಣು
...................
1) ಸಮುದ್ರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಕುಳಿತಿರುವುದು
2) ಮಲಗಿದ್ದರೂ ಮಲಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ
3) ಹಾವಿನ ಹೊರಗೆ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ
4) ವೆಪನ್ ವೀಲ್ (ತಿರುಗುವ ಚಲನೆಗೆ ಉದಾಹರಣೆ)
5) ಕೋನ್ (ಅಡ್ಡ ಅಲೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಉದಾಹರಣೆ)
6) ಶ್ರೀಗಂಧವನ್ನು ಹಣೆಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಲಂಬವಾಗಿ ಎಳೆಯಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ
7) ವಾಹನವು ಹಾರಬಲ್ಲದು
⏩ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ
ವಿಷ್ಣುವು ಶಿವನ ಸಾದೃಶ್ಯವಾಗಿದೆ. ಶಿವನು ಗೂಳಿಯ ಹೊರಗೆ ಕುಳಿತಿದ್ದಾನೆ. ಹಾಗಿದ್ದರೆ ವಿಷ್ಣು ಗಿಡುಗದ ಕೆಳಗೆ ಕುಳಿತುಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು. ವಿಷ್ಣು ಗಿಡುಗದ ಕಾಲಿನ ಮೇಲೆ ಕುಳಿತುಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು. ಗಿಡುಗದ ಕಾಲುಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ಕುಳಿತಿರುವುದು ಹಾವು. ಹಾಗಾದರೆ ವಿಷ್ಣು ಯಾರು?
➤ ತೀರ್ಮಾನ
ಹಾವು ಗಿಡುಗದ ಪಾದದಲ್ಲಿದೆ. ನಿಧಿ ಹಾವಿನ ರಾಕ್ಷಸನನ್ನು ಕಾಪಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸನ್. ಕೈಲಾಸನಾಥನು ಭೂತನಾಥನು ಪರ್ವತವೇ? . ಹಾವು ಮತ್ತು ಗೂಳಿಯ ಹೊರಗೆ ಮಾನವ ದೇಹವನ್ನು ನೀಡುವುದರಿಂದ ಅವರಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾರೂ ಅದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಯೋಚಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
ಈ ಗೂಳಿ, ಹಾವು, ಗಿಡುಗಗಳನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಆಕಾಶ ಭೂಮಿಯ ಒಡೆಯನಾದ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಕರ್ತನನ್ನು ಪೂಜಿಸುವುದೇ?
@@drsriharidattag2529 if so, please quote from vedopanishads and prove your point that those are not mere imagination of Acharya Shankara
Om 🕉
🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
🙏🙏🙏
Can you provide the shloka said in this video ?
ओन्नमश्शिवाय। 🙏🏼🌹❤🔥🌺🌻🌼
That isn't the verse. It had been stated by जगद्गुरुः भगवत्पादः आद्यशङ्कराचार्यः in his शारीरकमीमांसासूत्रभाष्यम्
... सर्वव्यवहाराणामेव प्राग्ब्रह्मात्मताविज्ञानात्सत्यत्वोपपत्तेः ... Go through the following carefully:
कथं चानृतेन मोक्षशास्त्रेण प्रतिपादितस्यात्मैकत्वस्य सत्यत्वमुपपद्येतेति ।
अत्रोच्यते नैष दोषः ।
सर्वव्यवहाराणामेव प्राग्ब्रह्मात्मताविज्ञानात्सत्यत्वोपपत्तेः।
स्वप्नव्यवहारस्येव प्राक्प्रबोधात् ।
The gist of the above is:
Objection: How would it be possible for the विधि-प्रतिषेध शास्त्रम् to operate when non-difference, advaita, is admitted (if the शास्त्रम् itself is अनृतम्) ?
Reply: All vyavahāra is admitted as real only prior to the arising of the advaitic realization, just like the svapna vyavahāra before waking up. All laukika and vaidika vyavahāra can happen unimpeded before the advaitānubhūtiḥ arises.
In the very adhyāsa bhāṣyam itself Śaṅkaraḥ has indicated this: All the प्रमाणानि (pramāṇa-s),
including the vēda karma kāṇḍa and mokṣa śāstrāṇi (upaniṣads) operate in the state of avidyā alone. The very upadēśaḥ itself is dvaitaḥ
In the pāramārthika sattā there is only the sadvastuḥ (parabrahma/advaitabrahma) & how is the ultimate truth described merely in words? However upaniṣadaḥ/सत्सम्प्रदायविदाचार्याः guides us for advaitānubhūtiḥ/अपरोक्षज्ञानम्
I hope it helps (You may also go through my Quora answers: qr.ae/pyrPGz where I have addressed how a layman devotee can understand/appreciate the advaitaḥ aka vēdāntaḥ)
My Quora profile: www.quora.com/profile/Viveka-विवेकः (from this link one can find all my answers) interested ones may go through.
There are the references (शास्त्रप्रमाणानि) for the सत्तात्रयः (तिस्रः सत्ताः), a few minutes ago I have just addressed in the comment section over here. Interested one's may search
Regards
अरुणाचलशिवार्पणम् 🙏🏼
ShreeRam
We can see a Big difference
One atma, one parmatma
🙏
🙏🙏🌹🌹🙏🙏
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Real means existing outside of consciousness. Not-real means existing within consciousness.
Your holiness pl clear why in Sandhya Vandana there is only krishnas, Givindaa,narayana etc this is a big confusion. Pl clear and oblige
Because we see Surya as Surya Narayana. The Saiva agama Sandyavandanam will have Shiva smaranam. If we follow Krishna yajur veda, then Krishna is in Guru sthanam. Krishnam vande jagath gurum. This is my understanding
Never look at sandhyavandanam with saivam - vaishnavam perspective. Vishnu is the sthithikara (sustainer), so kesava smaranam. at the same time in the sandhyavandanam you chant 'sivaya vishnurupaya.....yadantharam na pasyami tatha me swasthi rayushi' sloka at the end, which speaks about siva kesava abhedham (non-difference).. Above all sandhyavandana is Gayagtri Upasana, so a kind of default saktheyam as well. So, sandhya vandana is above all this siva, vishnu, sakthi debates. Anyway for worshiping siva you have rudra namakam and chamakam.
Sir kindly start one discussion on "Indian Brahmins and Shudras"
Bhagwan Krishna in Bhagwad Geeta said that " brahmins are those who are engaged themselves in learning Vedas and Upnishads. After acquiring the full knowledge of Vedas and Upanishads they must engage in spreading the knowledge of Vedas and Upanishads all over the world.
This must be the bounded duty of all brahmins. He loves the people that is brahmins more because their work( that is learning and spreading knowledge of Vedas and Upanishads all over the world) is superior compared to others work. Others work means Shudra
Work , Kshatriya work and Vysya work. Shudras means those who are engaged in Seva Work, or seva sector work or Sevak work.
Our all Politicians are engaged in seva sector. That is sevak sector.
They are all shudras as bhagwan Krishna said. Our all celebrities, artists, players, are all engaged in seva sector that is shudra sector.
They are all shudras.that is sevaks.
Our banks managers, Lawyers, court judges , college professors, Lecturers,Doctors, teachers media persons. T V anchors....are all engaged in seva work. They are called as or categorised as shudras that is sevaks or seva sectot workers or people.
Cast is different and work is different.
Bhagwan Krishna categorised. Human beings according to their work or livelihood. He knows that there are thousands of casts of people. That is why he made only four categories of work of all people and named them as brahmins Kshatriyas , Vysyas and Shudras.
Sir please open one public discussion let all the people must understand the meaning of brahmins and shudras correctly.
My cast is brahmin only but I worked in Bank that is why I am Shudra. That is sevak. Or seva sector work.
Trikalaabhadyam Satyam
Bhadyam midhya
Aham bramhasmi , meaning as per advita is wrong, if you have any answers to clear this please post, swamiji, this is not to test you, but would like to know more.... 😊
Sriman, please take a look at the adhvaitic perspective of Aham Bramhasmi by Jagadguru himself 🙏 ( czcams.com/video/0EgB9pg8TiI/video.html )
So long an individual thinks that he is the insentient body, senses and thoughts he is under ignorance and is bound by actions and it’s results.
I am the body Consciousness ie EGO has its root in the Brahman the Supreme Consciousness. With the raise of thoughts ie Ego the the world appears as real and one is bound. Ego is Maya ( Not that) ie unreal. On prolonged and serious enquiry as to who this Ego I am is and for whom the thoughts are, the thoughts disappear revealing the Brahman the Supreme Consciousness which is ever present. For such a realised person only reality is Brahman and all the rest appears,operates and disappears like Mirage.
Question by a non hindu : among the four Shankaracharyas, is one more respected than the others or are they all totally equal in knowledge and wisdom ? Thank you
All four Shankaracharya are equally respected
18 6
➤ ಶಿವ
.............
1) ಮೌಂಟ್ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕುಳಿತುಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದು
2) ಕುಳಿತು ಮಲಗುವುದು
3) ದೇಹವು ಹಾವಿನ ಸುತ್ತಲೂ ಸುತ್ತುತ್ತದೆ
4) ವೆಪನ್ ಈಟಿ (ಭಾಷಾಂತರ ಚಲನೆಗೆ ಉದಾಹರಣೆ)
5) ಡಮರು (ರೇಖಾಂಶದ ಅಲೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಉದಾಹರಣೆ)
6) ಭಸ್ಮವನ್ನು ಹಣೆಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಅಡ್ಡಲಾಗಿ ಎಳೆಯಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ
7) ವಾಹನವು ಬುಲ್, (ಹಾರಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ)
➤ವಿಷ್ಣು
...................
1) ಸಮುದ್ರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಕುಳಿತಿರುವುದು
2) ಮಲಗಿದ್ದರೂ ಮಲಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ
3) ಹಾವಿನ ಹೊರಗೆ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ
4) ವೆಪನ್ ವೀಲ್ (ತಿರುಗುವ ಚಲನೆಗೆ ಉದಾಹರಣೆ)
5) ಕೋನ್ (ಅಡ್ಡ ಅಲೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಉದಾಹರಣೆ)
6) ಶ್ರೀಗಂಧವನ್ನು ಹಣೆಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಲಂಬವಾಗಿ ಎಳೆಯಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ
7) ವಾಹನವು ಹಾರಬಲ್ಲದು
⏩ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ
ವಿಷ್ಣುವು ಶಿವನ ಸಾದೃಶ್ಯವಾಗಿದೆ. ಶಿವನು ಗೂಳಿಯ ಹೊರಗೆ ಕುಳಿತಿದ್ದಾನೆ. ಹಾಗಿದ್ದರೆ ವಿಷ್ಣು ಗಿಡುಗದ ಕೆಳಗೆ ಕುಳಿತುಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು. ವಿಷ್ಣು ಗಿಡುಗದ ಕಾಲಿನ ಮೇಲೆ ಕುಳಿತುಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು. ಗಿಡುಗದ ಕಾಲುಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ಕುಳಿತಿರುವುದು ಹಾವು. ಹಾಗಾದರೆ ವಿಷ್ಣು ಯಾರು?
➤ ತೀರ್ಮಾನ
ಹಾವು ಗಿಡುಗದ ಪಾದದಲ್ಲಿದೆ. ನಿಧಿ ಹಾವಿನ ರಾಕ್ಷಸನನ್ನು ಕಾಪಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸನ್. ಕೈಲಾಸನಾಥನು ಭೂತನಾಥನು ಪರ್ವತವೇ? . ಹಾವು ಮತ್ತು ಗೂಳಿಯ ಹೊರಗೆ ಮಾನವ ದೇಹವನ್ನು ನೀಡುವುದರಿಂದ ಅವರಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾರೂ ಅದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಯೋಚಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
ಈ ಗೂಳಿ, ಹಾವು, ಗಿಡುಗಗಳನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಆಕಾಶ ಭೂಮಿಯ ಒಡೆಯನಾದ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಕರ್ತನನ್ನು ಪೂಜಿಸುವುದೇ?
With all due respect, then when Advaita realisation happens, vedas also become mithya - matter of fact all those shastratha used as rope to realize Advaita brahman also becomes mithya, as these all are first type of truth as said by swamiji. This is a very dangerous philosophy.. really
You become the embodiment of all those scriptures, a perfect being, eternally bliss.
दु:खेष्वनुद्विग्नमना: सुखेषु विगतस्पृह: |
वीतरागभयक्रोध: स्थितधीर्मुनिरुच्यते
Realised being is free from Kama, Krodha, Lobha, mada and maatsarya. He has achieved the ultimate purpose of all scriptures
@@mirchi6873 dukhalayam ashaahavatam means its temporary - not really mithya. Maya is being translated as mithya in this philosophy. Maya can be temporary but not mithya. Are vedas sathya or mithya ? The later is Budhist saying..
was Adi Shankaracharya a terrorist to propagate something dangerous?
This was proved by later acharyas
Mithya is used in the sense of non-eternal not untrue. To remove one mithya another mithya is needed till the former disappears.
The problem is that the three distinct types of truths specified by Shankara has no basis in the Upanishads.
Is it necessary to have everything to be rooted in vedas or upanishads??
Otherwise it's outside Hinduism right? There's no room for out of the box thinking in Hinduism? If not then there's no difference between Abrahamic religion and Hinduism. 😂
@@vishweshkumaraithal8477 -Of course yes! Sanatana Dharma is based on Upanishads. In his Sutra bhashya, Shankara hardly quotes from the rest of the Vedas.
लोके हि सर्वत्रैवार्थे प्रतिपत्तिस्त्रिविधा दृष्टा- पारमार्थिकी, व्यावहारिकी प्रातिभासिकी चेति । पारमार्थिकी, आर्थिकी, वास्तविकीत्यनर्थान्तरम् । व्यावहारिकी औपयौगिकी, औपचारिकीत्यनर्थान्तरम् ।
With all due respects in the sannidhaana, Acharya Shankara did not sit and debate , he traveled india to unite hindus. None of the prominent hindu gurus and institutions including sringeri are doing anything similar to this. Acharya Shankara's main aim was to "sanaatana dharma punarijjeevanaya". Instead we are facing the wrath of invaders and nonbelievers. What is the duty of dharma gurus like swamiji in this day and age?? If hinduism perishes who will care about Maya, mithya, tarka, etc. Please wake up.
You make a very valid point. The main difference during Adi Shankara's time was the nature of the conflict. The conflict, if one can call it that, was intellectual and not political or military. Both the opposing sides were open minded about the nature and the outcome of the debate, and a sense of acceptance if they lost the debate. That mindset has long been lost. Today's solutions have to emerge from within the political space first, which will first address basic needs and strengthen our defences. This will then allow an atmosphere of open intellectual debates to happen again. Surely there is a long way to go but we can be optimistic that at least we have begun the process of re-waking up.
I am not sure if I agree fully 🙏. Bigotry was prevalent even then. Yes may be not to an extent that we see today with the yavanas but intolerance from the bouddhas (hence the offense of Mimamsakas like Kumarila) was still prominent. Further the shanmatas were often bickering and hostile to each other. The solution does not need to start with the political class. The dharmagurus have more responsibility towards restoring order in society than the political class. For example the story in Bhagawatha on the Rishis punishing Vena for his maladministration and Parshurama punishing the errant kshatriyas sets a clear precedence. Out of the chatushpeetas, Sringeri has had a rich history of being politically involved (as rajagurus for Vijayanagara and Mysore Wodeyars) but it looks like the current dispensation has not focused on uniting the hindu society. As a primary peetha, the sannidhaana wields immense power and should use it for the good of hindu society instead of becoming more karmaThas.
@@dracharya5037 Very valid points again. Through colonial influence I think we got overly influenced by the western concept of separation of church and state, which our gurus interpreted, or rather misinterpreted, as separation of dharma/peetha and politics. I guess that's why we have the internet and social media at our fingertips. We can all contribute in our small ways and make ourselves heard until the rest wake up. 🙂
Yes very true, I think time has come for the devotees to start putting some pressure on the gurumaThas to start integration.
Brahman is a cast Brahma ji is divine guruji also talking about Brahma but in this video subtitles they are typing Brahma brahman this is wrong and not acceptable
Mithya only means ....all things are composed of the same material ,Brahaman; hence there is no differentiation seen anywhere. The one who has attained this stage can say that the world is Mithya and Brahman alone exists/ permeates.
Ice, water, & steam are all water..water is truth.. Other forms r mithya because they r transient in nature.. But from behaviour point r true in existence. Like gold is true, ornaments bangal ring,necklace r mithya.
This video confuses more than it makes clear of misconception. If one reaches bramha jnana then after that what is the use of doing bhakti? God is no longer Krishna, Rama, etc after that point. Just nameless formless Bramhan devoid of any gunas. There is more clarity needed here
Jagat satya.when we experience everything how can we say it's mithya.if somebody dies can we laugh.lord Shiva whom you worship now is which jeeva in the past. In the same Way one should tell above all thirty three devata's past history histry.
Wow U literary lack basic knowledge on Advaita Vedanta.
Study Vedanta systematically under an Srotriya Acharya for a length of time. Your doubts will be clarified. Reading paper back, english transaction will not answer your doubts on the other hand it will add more fuel on your doubts. हर हर गंगे
One can only laugh at this attempt at understanding of Vedanta through Puranas 😂. Jagadguru doesn't only worship Lord Shiva, He worships Lord Narayana LordShiva and all other saguna roopas as the same nirguna Shakthi that is also His and everyone's Atma.
Perhaps you've got the very meaning of the word 'mithya' wrong.
Mythya doesn't mean non truths. Mythya means the nature of phenomena being different than what it appears to us (For example, Objective phenomenon's magnitude is always contingent on frame of reference - but this does not appear to us as so). Mythya is Brahma is not "Illusions and Reality". It is "Reality and Ultimate Reality". Mythya is reality, in the sense your body exists is a reality. Mythya is not the ultimate reality, in the sense "your body" is an impression, the elements existed before you and will exist after you.
Other qualities of Mythya : Its apparent nature does not withstand under logical scrutiny: It reveals another nature. It creates a complete world view based on half views. It excites, collapsing the minds anchoring in equilibrium (cause and effect, enjoyment will have equal suffering).
Solidifying a false philosophy is itself a wrong process
There is no scriptural basis for the existence of the so called Three Grades of Sathyam. It is a straight lift by Shankara from Buddhism. A counter question can be put - the existence of Three Grades of Sathyam is also a form of Sathyam, right? If so, what kind of Sathyam is it? Whichever of the three answer you choose, you will reach a logical cul-de-sac.
@@shivamtripathi6264 - I am not a Buddhist. I was born in a Tamil Adwaitic family.
Now please just provide the Scriptural basis (i.e., from Upanishad, Srimad Bhagavad Gita, Brahmasutra) for the Three Grades of Sathyam.
Keep it simple and straight. Thanks.
@@shivamtripathi6264 the Mandukya Upanishad Shruti quote ii.1 that you have quoted does not give the proof of existence of Three Grades of Sathyam.
@@shivamtripathi6264 - the verse in discussion contrasts Turiya and the other three forms. It makes no mention about existence of three grades of Sathyam.
It says - He does not reveal dream objects, does not reveal outside objects, does not reveal both together, does not reveal Jiva-Swaroopa etc., during deep sleep state, does not reveal the object of meditation.
However, he is not such who does not give any knowledge at all, as he gives knowledge to the liberated. He is not seen, he is not describable, not definable, unthinkable, unnameable.
He is supreme, full of attributes, of the nature of knowledge and bliss. He removes the bondage. He is auspicious, he removes the erroneous knowledge. He is the fourth form of Paramarthika. He should be understood in all his four forms.
Vyavaharika Sathyam’s existence would mean that existence of Scriptures wherein words of Great Rishis like Yagnavalkya are omniscient only with respect to illusory knowledge. They would ultimately be talking gibberish. Scriptures would in that case be nothing but a compendium of lies, a hoax writ large.
@@shivamtripathi6264 - the Mandukya Upanishad that you had quoted does not give the existence of Three Grades of Sathyam. Now that has been established, there is no basis for Adwaitam.
Shankara borrowed this from Madhyamaka Buddhism of Nagarjuna. Madhyamaka discerns two levels of truth - conventional truth or what Adwaitins call as Vyavaharika Sathyam and ultimate truth or what Adwaitins call as Paramarthika Sathyam. Shankara added, Prathibashika Sathyam and, came up with the concept of three grades of Sathyam.
Sorry that as a philosophy student, you don’t the basis of Buddhism or Adwaitam or correct interpretation of Sanskrit texts.
You should just stick with Adwaitam and wait for the day and time when you realize that you are verily the all known of Brahman!!!
You cannot be verily the all knowing Brahman and not knowing that you are verily the all knowing Brahman until you read Shankara’s texts. Nothing can be more absurd than that. But that is in essence what Adwaitam says.
Don’t worry about me. You are soon going to realize that you are the all knowing Brahman himself.
I asked about the Trikale tishthati scriptural basis in an advaita forum and recd no answer. Not that there is not. But original poster's hunch might be right - the 3 truths formulation might be a bhashyakara interpretation. And yes Buddhism does have 2/3 truths idea but that was much later than the Buddha's time. Possibly articulated by Nagarjuna.
On another note, every darshana borrowed concepts and ideas. The Buddha used "Dhamma" in various senses. Also Dhyana/jhana...etc
Madhwacharyara dwaitha mathave sari haagu sathya
adanna nimma mathagalalli itkoli yaru beda andru..... ellakade namma acharyaru anta avrige gourava kododu bittu mamakaradinda tanu shreshta anno bhrameli irtira... modlu madhwacharyarige gowrava kodi... mamakarakke poshane kododanna kammi madi.
@@bharathrkashyap9525✔️
Ondhe satya idheya.
Athava halavaru satya idheya.
Murkhatanada paramavadhi
poor english language dont have words to explane bhav and mithya
Advaita has so many misconspections
So this means truth is not one but 3... awesome
Pagal ho kya? Ya English samjh me nhi ati
@@shivendrapandey3077 @shivendrapandey3077 Bhai woh khud hi bole tumko samajh mein nahi aaya, tum pagal ho kya?
1. Paarmarthik Satya
2. Vyavharik satya
3. PratiBhasika Satya
Hear at 1:57 in the video...
So now you answer, Truth is one or 3?
This is what happens when you watch the video with Half attention. Please rewatch the video. Truth is only one but from what POV we are looking differs.
Sai Deepak ka Guru Mil Gaya 😭😭😭😭😭koi mil gaya 🔮
Actually in one line this can be answered as " I am NOT the DOER"!! Things happen, deeds appear to be Done, however there is No Individual doer thereof!! Simple.
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
🙏🙏🙏
🙏🙏🙏