Guru Poornima 2016

This year the Guru poornima celebrations was held at chennai, in the same venue as the previous three occasions, Villivakkam Sri Kamakoti hall.

The main event started as usual with the chant of Totakashtakam and Guru Stotra, followed by Vyasa Puja and Guru Puja.

But, above all the main part I was waiting, for so long, happened right after a small lecture by Swami Tatpurushananda Puri ji, that is the unveiling of the Statue of Shri Shankaracharya. The statue is made-up of Gypsum material, roughly 4.5 inch statue, in white colour (as opposed to the colour statue which was decided earlier), with a separable staff (danda) for Acharya. The statue prepared by Guru and Co, chennai (please visit Sri Ganesh Iyer at a very reasonable cost of Rs. 100 per statue (though i charge them a hefty price, chanting of Totakashtakam slokas daily, which is distributed along with the statue). And Sri Ganesh Iyer has consented to take-up small orders too, as part of his Seva.

This I mention here because, instead of this becoming an one time event, want it to be a viral event, for the people to carry forward. One can contact Mr. Ganesh Iyer directly (Cell number – +91 98 41 92 57 98), and place the orders and distribute it to the devotees, remember I am not saying, if you do it so and so and not do it so and so :).

Why this Murthy and why should one do this? We should be thankful to our indian Democracy (i am not saying democrazy), to read, write and speak anything and everything without any fear, even the fear of  “the nation wants to know” :). This is and was the freedom even in our earlier days, which has given us multiple theologies and philosophies. This in spite of the “so called” secular brigade, which was always there. We owe this freedom to Bhagavan Bhashyakara Shri Shankaracharya. Otherwise, we probably would have lost our tradition long ago, and would have been converted to Buddhism or whatever. When asked do you know, Shankaracharya, many don’t know and few people point out to the photo of Sri Chandrashekaredra Saraswati or the likes who sat in the Peetha of Shankaracharya.  This is our pitiable condition, who call ourselves Hindus.

Who should do this? Any Hindu Asthika, irrespective of the form or cult he / she follows. Because, as we said, we are shaiva, shakta, vaishnava, madhva etc, is all because of the humongous task of Bhagavan Bhashyakara. Only because there was a vaidic tradition, one had the freedom to debate the philosophy and thereby come with the new form of system of philosophy.


Acharya Murthy

Acharya Murthy


This was followed by the releasing of the Sticker and Totakashtakam book.

Totakashtakam Book

Totakashtakam Book


English Sticker

English Sticker


Tamil Sticker

Tamil Sticker





Categories: General | Comments Off on Guru Poornima 2016

AdvaitaSiddhi – Lecture 13 – Part 2

Na cha asatiativyapti,

Just because, the eternal non-existence of something is being discussed, one should not levy a charge of ativyapti against the Advaitin. Why? The revered author clarifies this:


It is not  that here the knowledge takes place without any corresponding cognition(pratite) of existence.  In the definition we have to accept “sattwenpratitiarhatwa” as an adjective. Mithya objects unlike asat objects appear to be existent though they are actually adjuncts of absolute non-existence in their locus of appearance.

The dualist now raises a new objection:

Na chatadaiyke ahu asatevamidamagreasititishrutyaasatasattwapratitetatraativyaptidushpariharaitivachyam.

According to the follower of the Madhwa School, even addition of “satwenpartitiarhatwang”-that which appears to be existent, to the definition of revered Chitsulkhacharya does not solve the problem of a too broad definition (ativyapti). This is because shruti itself says “asatamidamagreasit”- prior to creation there was only non-existence (and that was cognizable). So even absolute non-existence can be cognized as existence and thus it cannot be meaning fully distinguished from mihyatwa. However,MadhusudanaSaraswatiji says- na cha vachyam-don’t say like this as it is not logical.

“sadevasouymyaidamagreasit” ityasyaarthasyaabhavaevananjpratipadiyatenatuasatasatyamvirodhat,

The shruti says itself that whatever exists is nothing but existence. So if the interpretation of the dualist is accepted then shruti would become contradictory. Thus “asat” in the first sentence quoted above does not imply absolute non-existecne but only apparent absence of Existence, and is thus equivalent to mithyatwa.

atonaativyaptisarvam cha nyatpurvauktamevaanusandhyemitiuparamyate.

Thus there is no ativyaptidosha. All other remaining doubts has been clarified in the second definition of falsity.[1]


Here ends the discussion on the fourth definition of falsity.

Sadviviktamvamithyatwam. Sattwang cha pramanasiddhatwam.Pramang cha doshasahakritajnankaranatwam,  tenswapnadivatpramanasiddhabhinatwammithyatwamsidhyati.

This is the fifth and the final definition of falsity.Sadviviktatwam-that which is different from sat is what is mithya. Here sat means that which is having sattwa(existence ness) and that is which is –pramanasiddhatwam. Nyayamritakara had given various definitions of sat in this context, and had refuted them. MadhusudanaSaraswatiji , does not accept any of those definitions and says that which is sat is –pramanasiddhatwam- that which is proved through pramanas. Pramana cha doshaasahakritamjnanakaranatwam- Pramana is that which is the means of knowledge and does not have any fault in them. So, that which is associated with error, like nidradoshha, cannot be a pramana, like the knowledge gained through dreams. So mithyatwa is doshasahakrita jnana karanatwam.

Pramanasiddhyatwam cha avadhyavypyamitianyat.

Moreover pramanasiddhyatwa is avadhyatwavapyam. Whatever is known by means of right knowledge  that has avadhyatwa- non-negtability.

Atrapiasatinirdharmakabrahmani cha ativyaptivaranayasattwenpratiyamanatwamvisheshanamdeyam, tayosattwaprkarakpratitivishyatwaabhavat.

Now Brahman does not have existence as attribute, but is nirdharmaka-without any attributes. So in that sense it is also satviviktwam and hence becomes mithya. Moreover asat-absolute non existence is also different from existence and thus would get incorporated within the category of mithyatwa. To remove Brahman and ast from the category of mithya, an adjective of “sattwenpratitiarhatwang” should be added to the definition  “sat viviktwam”. This is because there is no sattwapratitiprakara in Brahman and asat as they never appear to be sattwa.


Nyaymritakara asks in His text, that whetehr it has sattajati in the adhikarana that is being discussed, or  issatta that which is non-negatable, or is satta identical to Brahman.[2]

Adoughatadouavidyakjatiabhiyupagamenasambhava, dwitiyevadyatwarupamithyatwaparyavasanamtriteyesiddhasadhanamitinirastam

In pot etc it is accepted, that the class that exists is avidyaka-jati-a class characterised by avidya. So here sattwajati cannot be there. However, this argument is not correct. It is not because of the pot existence is there, but it is on Existence the pot has been superimposed[3]. The second point was avadytwa-If one accepts satwa to be avadytwa, then finally it will be reduced to vadytwa, as jagat is mithya and hence vadya. If the third poition is accepted then there is siddhasadhanadosha as Brahman is already accepted to be different from jagat.


So all these three positions are not accepted by Advaitins but pramnasiddhatwam is accepted to be definition of the falsity.


All the discussions that took place while analysing the first definition of falsity, sad-asadvilakshanatwam (not beng the locus of existence and non-existence) can be incorporated here to answer the relevant doubts raised by Nyayamritakara. If some doubt still persists, those will be clarified (MadhusudanaSaraswatiji says) on the chapter on drishtanta-the example.

Here ends the discussion on the fifth definition of falsity.

In the text called Shatadushani, seven definitions for falsity/mithyatwa was chosen and all of them were condemned. Among them only five definitions of falsity that have been discussed above are considered to be error free by the knowers of tradition.



[1] Since these definitions are very similar.

[2]Because Brahman is often referred as sat-chid-ananda.

[3] In advaita Vedanta existence is not simply an attribute.



PancaMithyatve (the five definitions of Mithya-ness) my Dream / Pet project written by Shri Rajit Biswas  who wrote these  after listening the Lectures comes to an end.



Categories: AdvaitaSiddhi, Vedanta | Comments Off on AdvaitaSiddhi – Lecture 13 – Part 2

AdvaitaSiddhi – Lecture 13 – Part 1

Swaashrayanisthaatyantaabhavapratiyogitwangvamithyatwam. Tad cha swatantraabhavadhikaraneevapratiyamanatwamatahapurvavailakshanyamdushanapariharapurvavat.

Swaashraya- by the word “swa” whatever is to be proven should be accepted. Thus swa here means mithyatwa. Thus swaashraya- means mithyatwaashraya. Nistha- in that locus (adhikarna), the place, where mithya exists.Atyantaabhavapratiyogitwang-  adjunct of eternal absence. Now, atyantaabhava( eternal absence) and traikaliknishedpratiyogitwang (absence in all the three periods of time) (from the second definition of falsity) are very similar.Swaashrayanistha (the place/locus of existence of the mithya object) and pratipannaupapadou (jnatedharmine)(second definition of falsity) are very similar.So it may seem that the reference is being made by the revered author once more to the second definition of falsity. This is called dosha (error) called punaruktidosha( error of repetition). Instead of presenting it here, this definition of falsity should have been discussed with second definition of falsity. If such a doubt is raised, MadhusudanaSaraswatiji says there is no such error. The difference between the two definitions is that in this definition of falsity, swatantraabhavadhikaraneevapratiyamanatwam – the locus of the eternal  absence is incorporated into the definition and thus it is different from the earlier one.  All the contradictions and objections that can be raised are also more or less same to the second definition of falsity and can be rejected in a similar fashion.

Na cha samyoginisamavayinivadeshe tad atyantaabhavasambhavaasambhavetuupadantwaanupapattiitivachyam,

A very interesting objection is raised by the dualist here. While discussing the second definition of falsity, the logicians had tried to show that in the same place samyoga and samavaya relationship can be there, and the same object can be existent and non existent in the same locus through different relations(samyoga and samavaya). On the other hand, by the same relation the object can be existent in one part of the locus and absent in the other. However, while the relevant discussion took place MadhusudanaSaraswatiji, negated those ideas and proved that what actually is being proved in all those places is the existence and non existence of the relationship. Here the dualist is raising a slightly different objection.A pot exists on a table/ground through samyoga (conjunction) relationship. In that locus of existence, the eternal absence of pot-atyantaabahva can never be proved. The pot exists in the pot-sherds by samvaya (inherent) relationship. In that locus also the eternal absence of pot can be never proven. If eternal absence of pot is shown in the potsherds, then being the locus of eternal absence of pot, they can never be the cause of pot, which is absurd. The contention of the dualist is this: whatever be the relationship, samyoga or samvaya, the existence of an object can never be negated in the locus. In order to refute this MadhusudanaSaraswatiji says na cha vachyam.

kalesahasambhavatdesheapisahasambhavaavirodhatpragbhavsatwenupadantwavirodhat cha.

Through the relationship of time, both prior absence-pragabhava and eternal[1] absence –atyantaabahva can be there.  Therefore it can exist through the relationship of space also. Pragabhavasatwenupadanavirodhat cha- however, if there is eternal absence it can’t be material cause. Thus in case of pot sherds they can never be the cause for pot. This problem is avoided by the fact that pragabhava is also posited to be there and that prior absence can be the cause of this pot.

Na cha atyantaabhavaadhikaranepragabhavasyaapianupapattiitivachyam

The dualist tries to bring in a rule that wherever there is pragabhava(prior absence), there is no atyanatabhava(eternal absence) and wherever there is atyantaabhava there is no pragabhava. However MadhusudanaSaraswatiji sys that there is no such rule and thus says na cha vachyam

Kale vyabhicharat

This is because, through time eternal absence and prior absence can co-exist (see footnote 1) and the rule established by the dualist is negated – vyabhicharat.

Na cha kale pragabhavaatyantaabhavayosamanadhikaranamidaningghataatyantaabhavaidanngghatapragbhavaitipratitevalatangikritat

The dualist argues that in time both pragabhava and atyantaabahva can be shown to be existing because of direct perception- pratitevalatangikritat. However,

Deshetu tad ubhaysamanadhikaranyenakinchidapipraanamitivachyam

That prior absence and eternal absence can exist in the same space, is not validated by  any means of right knowledge. At least there is pramana for prior absence and eternal absence to exist in the same time by virtue of one’s perception but not for space. However this is refuted by the revered author in the following way:


The knowledge gained through mithyatwaanumana and shruti itself is the pramana. Swaahshrayanistha-This term indicates that there is atyantaabhava in the locus of the object, and thus even in pragabhava that can persist. Moreover the shrutisays’nehananastikinchan”-nothing exist except self.


The only rule is that bhava (existence) and abhava (non-existence) should exist in different planes of reality.

[1] Consider that there a few pot sherds which can be used to make a pot, but the pot still has not been made. So both eternal absence and  prior absence of pot is there. Once the pot is made, these absences are negated. Thus anything that is created has a relationship with time and through that relationship with time both types of absence can persist in the locus.

Categories: AdvaitaSiddhi, Vedanta | Comments Off on AdvaitaSiddhi – Lecture 13 – Part 1