Various vAda-s in advaita (was Re: A few questions)

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:

> No offence intended, but it is quite clear that you have no idea of what
> vivarta vAda and pariNAma vAda are and it is quite clear that you have not
 read
> the GK either.

None taken because I do understand and I have read the GK. :-)  I would
not presume to answer if I didn't.

> In spite of the fact that I quoted gauDapAda who is considered
> the last word in the advaita circles, you are persisting in your arguments
> without even making an attempt to read either gauDapAda or his interpretation
> by sha.nkara.
>

Actually the last word in Advaita circles are Shruti and reason as you
yourself pointed out.  You no doubt remember the thread a while back
discussing Gaudapadacharyas relationship with Buddhism.  Even if you
don't believe Gaudapadacharya is a Buddhist in disguise you can see that
he is flirting dangerously close to apparently Buddhist ideas.  One
doesn't need to be a modern critical scholar to see that Shankaracharya is
subtly modifying his paramagurus teaching to safeguard it against
non-Vedic misinterpretation.  And so it has been with Sureshwaracharya and
the Bhamatikara and other Advaita luminaries upto Abhinava Vidyatirtha
Maharaj.  In the light of this I don't see what I'm saying which is so
controversial or in any way against the teachings of the Acharyas.  To
recap, the specific assertions I've made are:

1.  Both the dream and the waking state are unreal.
2.  The waking state is qualitatively different from the dream
3.  From the standpoint of the maya-entranced jiva the objects of the
    waking world are real though even duch a deluded jiva can see that
    dreams are unreal.
4.  the objects in the waking state are unreal in the way the jiva is
    unreal but the dream objects are "doubly" unreal as they are strictly in
    the kalpana of the jiva.
5.  Both the waking and dream states have only Brahman as their mula.

If any of this is contrary to the siddhanta it would be news to me.

> I'll post an answer if you make an attempt to read the works of the two prime
> AchArya-s I quoted. Let me leave it at that.

As I said I have read those works and more.  I certainly encourage you to
post your answer regardless.  After all that's what the list is for.

One final note to those who read my last post and were puzzled by a
dangling reference to (p. 257-258)  A sentence was carelessly omitted
there.  I was refering to Gambhiranandas English translation of the
Mandukya Karika which Ramakrishnan appears to be using.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar at braincells.com]   And the men .-_|\ who hold
Consolidated Braincells Inc.                          /     \
http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/ -)~~~~~~~~  Perth->*.--._/  o-
"Witty quote" - Dead Guy   /\/\/\ _ _ ___ _  _ Amboy       v      McQ!