Some Q & A - 3

cont ...

7.THe term pratiyogin , I always get confused about it, it seems to mean multiple things.I have read two translations of the term "counter-positive" and "counter-correlate".Can you kindly explain what is the basic difference between "counter-positive" and "counter-correlate" and what is the precise meaning of pratiyogi?
 In discussing the viprapatti ,the text says
'' it is the counter -positive which is negated for all time(past etc) in the locus in which it appears."
" it is the counter-correlative of the said negation in its absolute form."
Can you kindly explain what is the precise meaning?
answer :My english and my intelligence is very poor. so, i dont get into these counters, major and minor terms etc.

Pratiyogin according to nyaya is "yasya abhava", that is the object you are talking about. it need not just be the abscent object. simply put it is the adjunct or embodiment. this is what is said in" it is the counter-correlative of the said negation in its absolute form."

And for any pratiyogin there should be an anuyogin "yasmin abhava " -adhara, adhikarana, the substratum, locus.... and this is explained here with ref to pratiyogin '' it is the counter -positive which is negated for all  time(past etc) in the locus in which it appears."  


8. In your Brahmasutra lectures you said that it is generally believed that Bhamati tradition is for the householders and Vivarana is for Sannyasins. In this context I would like to ask what is the traditional view of liberation, can householders attain it? (recently I went to Sringeri, and bought abook of His Holiness Chandrasekherendra Bharati, where it is mentioned that He re generally did not agree to teach Brahmasutra Bhasya to householders)If this is so then what for is the Bhamati tradition ascribed to them?
answer : Forget chandrashekara bharati swamijis statement, i have tons of respect for him.  But, it is his perception. bhamatikara himself is a counter example. and there are innumerable examples.In advaita, understand this, not many people understand this, therecan be many ideas but the self is one. since the jagat is mithya, the explanation to it need not be precise. and also, whatever, explanation you give is precise too.

9. In Bengal, there is a particular tradition among Gaudiya Vaishnavas who say that Madhusudana Saraswatiji, was basically a vaishnava and not a true advaitin. They give lot of irrelevant logics which it seems to me, are of a little interest .However there is only one point ,in some places of Gita Bhasya Madhusudana Saraswati seems to differ from Bhagavan Bhasyakara. For example in His bhasya on 18.66 , He respectfully differs from Bhagavan Bhasyakara. Why is this so? Or is the answer like the one you gave me in the previous mail, i.e. maya's  jagat can be explained in various ways . What is disturbing me, is actually Madhusudana Saraswati rather emphasises His difference with Bhasyakara, in the last example (18.66).
answer: Forget about it. they are just ideas. why just him, even bhagavan bhashyakaras direct disciple sureswara bhagavan has contradicted him in brahadaranyaka varthika. see madhusudana bhagavans commitment in the mangala sloka itself. and when he starts with, advaitasiddi dvaita mithyatvasiddhipoorvakatvat... bhagavan bhashyakara himself says, tasmat vyaktistu na pramanam. and 2 just forget it is just ideas, they dont really mean anything, i
mean all the explanation someone gave.just remember, dont give importance to ideas, even this 

10. In Agama Prakarana, what does the prajna mean exactly, If it is avidya, then why is it called Ishwara sometimes?
answer: Praajna is the word which is sometimes used in this way.. but it probably is taken as prajne bhava (existing in prajna) and not as prajna eva praajna. (prajna is praajna) so, sometimes this type of interpratation happens. this meaning is what is taken even in kshetragna, by some. But tasya prajna prathistha etc, speaks it as the Self / knowledfe principle.

Some Q & A - 2

Cont...

5.What is the exact difference between Shaktadvaita and Shivadvaita ? I was recently reading an article by MM Gopinath Kaviraj who claims these two are different, but the difference between them seems to me rather based on terminology(at least reading the article it seemed)
answer:both shakta and shivadavaita are very similar. the idea for shakta philosphy is derived by bhaskaracharya from kasmir shaivism only. all said, if you want to see differrence 1 and 2 are differrent, but they are both numerals. here shiva is accepted as great and shakti on the other side, there it is a HUGE difference 
6.I was grappling with Advaita Siddhi, the first part starts with a discussion on Vipratipatti. I you have time can you elucidiate the basic positions of the purvapakshi and Siddhatin here.What I am trying to say what is the exact relation of this discussion with the objective of the Acharya i.e. proving the world is Mithya  Instead of starting the discussion ith Mithatya why does He start with this discussion?
answer:The purvapakshi does not want to accept the doubt which arises due to the viprapatti vakya in accepting the pakshata (sandigdasadhyadharmavan - where there is a doubt about the sadhya,and that type of dharma exists in whichever place, that is called).this is what he refers to with - yadyapi viprapattijanyasamsayasya na
pakshatasampadakatayopayoga.

1. Therefore this viprapatti statement which is declared by somebody
cannot be accepted as a part of the vicara.
2. And also, those who are in dialogue are sure about their own
statements, therefore, even if somebody pronounces this vipratipatti,
still, both are not going to listen to it.
3. And that somebody can easily declare that, you are going to prove
this, and you are going to condemn this. for this reason also there
can be no viprapatti and in effect no doubt.
But, for us though it may not be diretly accepted through doubt, asfor the negation of doubt it becomes a part of the vicara.

Some Q & A

Iam posting the posts by Rajit ji, in the forum.

These are some questions which were put to Swamiji, and He kindly answered them. Though these are being posted   under the topic Vedanta, occasional references are made to other darshanas also.
1. Firstly as far as I understood, in Advaita there is a Sat, Asat and Mithya.Now theMandukya karikas does not seem to differentiate between the last two. In the Bhasya of the karika also it seems as if Bhagavan Bhasyakar is not differentiating between Asat and MithyaHowver later Advaitins were bent on proving that Mithya and asat are different.Almost 75% of advaita siddhi is dedicating to defending the mithya position against the dualists. Specifically does the karika believe that the world is asat or mithya?
answer: Iam not sure, are you sure ?  because if so, then how did the association of sat and asat happen. and how will it go. it will be very complicated to explain advaita. and alatashanti itself means this mitya.
2.What is the difference between Shivadvaitabada ,Shaktadvaitabada and Advaita.? Is avidya of advaita the shakti inthis sysytem?Then why on earth should one worship avidya(which is not Ishwara) as the Divine mother? If Saguna Brahman of Advaita is Shakti then who is Shiva ?
answer :even for argument sake, if we accept, shakti to be avidya, it is ofthe shiva, and the shakti and shaktiman (weilder of power) are notdifferrent. therefore, worshipint the power means worshipping the shiva. and, they accept anava, karma, maya malas too. and these malasare synonymous to our avidya.
3.What is the difference between Hiranygarbha and Saguna Brahman?As far as I have understood the former is aJiva.But Bhagavan Bhasykara does not seem to differentiate between them in some places of His Brahmasutra Bhasya
answer:hiranyagarbha and saguna brahman are not differrent. both are jiva,in the sense, they are both created. this is what is accepted in yogawhen it is said, vishesha purusha ishwara.
4.Can there be liberation (in advaita) for a person who has not done Shravana etc, by simple Bhakti and through the grace of Ishwara? Or is the highest phala of bhakti is lokprapti?
answer:ofcourse bhakti will lead one to moksha. but the culmination ofbhakti will be to see who is the bhakta and what is the one he/sheworships, and this knowledge will be invariably be given to him by the iswara, directly or mostly thro a guru. this is what is said bykrishna, ananyas chintayanto mam. and bhagavan bhashyakara also saysthe same thing in the bs bhashya, but he attaches a string saying, that it happens very rarely to only some. if it does not end in knowledge itwill be giving the result of lokaprapti.