advaita-siddhi 12 (Objection by opponent)

[H.B.Dave]

Anand Hudli wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:48:38 +0530, H.B.Dave <hbd at DDIT.ERNET.IN> wrote:
>
> >Anand Hudli wrote:
>
> >>  I have heard this objection from some of my MAdhva friends. In reply,
>

... ... ...

>
> >>  a "dream" occurred.
> >>
> >I would not be so sure about Time (refering to the last few lines
> >above.)
> >I think saying that Time does not exists does not mean that the events
> >represented by the Time do not exist. The indication that a "dream"
> >occurred as a past event in Turiya, is there as a "being".
>
>  It depends on how you define Time and Event. If Time is defined
>  as a scheme of measure for the drama of "sR^ishhTi-sthiti-laya" (creation,
>  preservation or existence, and destruction), then certainly such a
>  measure does not exist. For example, such time may be expressed in
>  seconds, minutes, hours, etc. And an event  occurs in an interval of Time.
>  But if you equate Time to the substratum of everything, all events,
>  etc., and same as "Being" then yes, Time exists. It is just another name
>  for Brahman!
>

For timebeing I would keep the Time out of discussion, may be I return to it
later.

>
> > Our trouble
> >is that we are having this discussion while still in the "dream". Can we
> >percieve in a "dream" how does it feel like to have no "dream-Time"? I
> >think only answer can be self-experience, (a strict Advaitin would say
> >there is no experience, because experience presupposes Dvaita,
> >experiencer, experienced and experience). I would not be able to discuss
> >that! (yato vacho nivartante ...).
>
>  No, what we are doing is examining the mere  plausibility of
>  the non-dream (turIya) state while being in the dream state. If
>  there is an objection to the effect that such a non-dream and non-dual
>  state is logically impossible, we have to show the plausibility of
>  such a state.

If the possibility is in a formal sense only (like say in geometry), then we
are giving a logical argument about the Turiya state, which I feel, is going to
be impossible. The whole thing rotates round what do mean by saying "is", i.e.
what is the meaning of the word "is" (verb form stating existence od something)
(what is called "khyati".)

> Certainly, we cannot assert the such a state can be
>  proved in purely argumentative fashion. The shruti assures us (mANDUkya
>  upanishhad, for example) assures that such a state exists.

That is ,of course, accepted as a Pramana.

>
>
>  Anand
>
> --
> bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam
>
> Archives : http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l.html
> Help     : Email to listmaster at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> Options  : To leave the list send a mail to
>            listserv at lists.advaita-vedanta.org with
>            SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L in the body.

-- Himanshu


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </archives/advaita-l/attachments/20000301/1bafdb65/attachment.html>