Show Categories
Sudharma kantheti posted 3 days ago at 4:26 am

Hari Om!

Could anyone clarify this for me please?

For the question in Chapter 12, Which of the following are manifestations of ‘jagati satya-buddhi’?

Why isn't " I am a middle-aged person" not a manifestation of jagati satya-buddhi eventhough it's a manifestation of Atma-Anatma-Budhi( the 3 sariras or anatma concept) as given in the material?

To my understanding, eventhough Jagati satya-buddhi and Atma-Anatma-Budhi are categorized as 2 fold effects of Ignorance/Bondage, the underlying concept is same. Jagati satya-buddhi means the world of names and FORMS OF BEINGS ( she/he be a woman/man- infant/toddler/youth/"middle aged person"/old person) and objects are considered real which meant " I am a middle-aged person" is a manifestation of ‘jagati satya-buddhi’.

Thank You!

SUBHODEEP MUKHOPADHYAY posted 3 days ago at 6:19 pm

Dear Course Acharya, I have a hypothetical question. Imagine a scenario 1 million years down the line where humans have evolved into some different species which has 6 indriyas (one new faculty) or 4 indriyas (lost one faculty), or lost the need for udana, or have no deep sleep/ sushupti state at all. Every other faculty is same as humans, and they have same mumukshatva burning desire. Will the methods described in Tattvabodha be applicable to them as well?

Keyur Nayak posted 7 days ago at 5:58 am

Hari Om,

Sa-Isvara Sankya believes in God. So why is it considered under Theistic "Atheism" ? Since it believes in Veda and also in God, shouldn't it be classified under Theistic Theism? What makes it fall under Atheism?



Lesson 5 about 50min. The sh in Vishnu is shortened but other consonants in other words used as examples before and after in the middle are not mostly shortened. Is that because there was no vowel with sh?


Hari OM!

Could you please clarify the following?

For the 5TH question: Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya (in Ātmabodha, verse 45) gives the analogy of the post–thief. Which of the following does the example elucidate?

One of the answers given in the answer key is:
a) Ignorance of the POST is the cause of misapprehension of the post as a thief. So too, ignorance of PARAMATMAN causes Its misapprehension to be the jīvātman

My question is:
Is it the "ignorance of the post/Paramatman" that causes the misapprehension of the post/SELF as a thief/Anatma ? or IS it the "ignorance of the PERCEPTION of the individual or JIVA/ANATMA" that causes the misapprehension of the post as a thief since,
Paramatman is NEVER ignorant even though it has the self deluding power "SAKTHI" of the self which could be destroyed by the dawn of self knowledge as it is of the nature of SAT(That exists in all 3 periods of time, considering the fact that ignorance is neither SAT nor ASAT)- CHIT- ANANDA?

Ajñāna comes under the category of mithyā/anirvachaniya because:
If Ajnana can't be either SAT or ASAT then,
Is it not that Ajnana doesn't exist in all 3 periods(Present,Past,Future) of time?
since it won't be there in future after the ignorance is destroyed by the light of SELF knowledge..

Thank You!

chandru sharma posted May 10 at 7:34 pm

Swami Vidyaranya ji, in his example in this chapter, talks of the effect of sun's rays and the reflection of a mirror on the wall. It is the mirror's reflection which enables one to cognise the external object - the pot. In the gaps of the mirror's reflection one can see the sunshine.
But, in our experience, one does not always require a mirror's reflection to cognise an object. We can, and do, cognise an object with direct sunshine too.
The example is used for clarifying the role of chidabhasa in identifying the external object. Swami Vidyaranya ji, himself, brings in the distinction of the Antahkarana, which is very close to the Pure Consciousness. In such a case why bring in chidabhasa at all? Why can't the Chit itself use its effulgence to enable us to cognise Antahkaran?
My doubt is like this: Is Pure Consciousness incapable of such an ability? Is it because it has no vikaras and, hence, should not be viewed as doing any action? If so why does the Swamiji bring in such a distinction w.r.t. Antahkaran?
Request someone to clarify this for me please.

warm regards,


james park posted May 17 at 12:08 pm

Horticulture, or "gardening," entails the process of developing and tending to plant life. Plants produced in gardens can be classified as either decorative raised for their flowers, leaves, or general look or functional grown for sustenance, use as dyes, medicinal, or cosmetic purposes. A gardener is the person in charge of the garden's upkeep and upkeep.. The goal of is to provide gardeners with the information they need to make educated purchasing decisions. It features ratings and reviews of gardening products in addition to expert gardening guidance and recommendations. Gardeners can talk to one another and get answers to their questions on the site's forum. If you want to get the most out of your garden, check out Garden Reviewer and the important think is this site gives the gardening tips to the beginners.


Hari Om!

In 10th lesson of Advanced Vedanta course, a match the following question was given on Desa Paricheda stating that it relates to the Objectival limitation and Jivabhava as the Notion of finite. Why can't it be vice-versa? Since Jivabhava is a limited individual considering different from others with the experience of objectival limitation (which means every finite object/being is limited by all other finite objects/beings by the very fact that they are different in nature), Jivabhava has the experience of objectival limitation at a point of time and at particular place.
Desa Paricheda also known as Spatial limitation is finite and is conditioned by space, hence to my understanding it can be related to the notion of finite too. Please correct me if I am wrong...

My second question: To my understanding, usually for most of us it takes several births to get rid of all the vasanas, but for few enlightened ones(rare) Isn't few births or one janma not enough to be devoid of vasanas?

Thank you.


Dear Forum,
The fifth rare blessing (Lesson 1 of Advanced Course) is 'Vidvattvam'. I have understood the definition and spirit of the meaning conveyed. However, what lurks in my mind is the practicality of 'Viprata' (Vp) and 'Vaidika Dharma Marga Parata' (VDMP) when one knows and believes about his Vidvattvam. Is it possible for a Vidwan to tolerate misinterpretations without getting infuriated? The slightest sign of discomfort when faced against deliberately wrong interpretations will bring down a volley of stronger emotions like reprehensible anger and resentment thereby losing Vp & VDMP. How does one get all three blessings to coexist in harmony? Now, the analogy of fruit bearing branches of a tree bowing down in humility as compared to a Vidwan may sound ideal and utopian, but my doubt is what should be done to prevent oneself from losing temper when facing brutish reasoning/ argument whilst knowing correct from wrong?
Will be grateful if someone can guide me through.....

recent by TEJUS M  ·  May 15 at 5:56 am
Hide topic messages
Enable infinite scrolling
All posts under this topic will be deleted ?
With selected deselect topics
Pending draft ... Click to resume editing
Discard draft