Reality of the world

[K. Sadananda]

Jaladhar - thanks for your comments.

But I think there is more involved than what Shree P.
Sankaranaarayana points out for the Vedanta Deshika's objections
raised in Shatadhuushanii.  One argument of course is related to sat,
asat and mithya aspects as you have pointed out.  There are several
dialectic  arguments  that relates ultimately to the interrelations
between the attributes and the objects- and the associated
ontological implications.  Discussions between Shree Nanda Chandran
and myself  currently pertains to this issue - attributes, objects -
their relations and ontological implications associated with these.
As you are aware there are extensive discussions on the pramaa and
bhramaa aspects while discussing the mithya aspect of adviata. These
again rest on the epistemological aspects that are partly brought out
in the discussions with  Nanda.

>With reference to the conversation between Sadananda and Nanda, it seems
>to me both have slightly missed the mark on one topic.  I think it is
>exlained well by Prof. P. Sankaranarayana  in his English introduction to
>the Shatabhushani.
.....
>   "The same applies to
>prapancha.  It will continue till mula ajnana is destroyed by tattvajnana."

Jaladhar - actually it is more than that - the prapancha continues
as apparent or mithya even after tatvajnaana - when mula ajnaana is
there the apparent is taken as real and that is the cause of
samsaara.  The apparent snake causes no problem but if that apparent
snake is taken as real then it becomes a problem.  And when the
ajnaana is destroyed the apparent becomes apparent and the real is
known as ones own self as the substratum for even the apparent   That
is what I have presented in the discussions.

>"An aspect of the theory of avidya and mitthyatva is the important
>question how Vedanta which, being part of vyavaharika world is mithya, can
>produce tattvajnana.  In other words how can sat issue from asat? The
>usual answer given to this is that dreams which are false portend true
>events that are to occur.  This explanation does not satisfy the
>objectors.  But the truth of the matter is: it is not the object seen in
>the dream that portends the reality which is to follow; it is *knowledge*
>of that object which has the character of truth.  But it is not bare
>knowledge pure and simple, but knowledge qualified by the object that is
>the cause."

>The upshot is that it is not necessary to negate the world or peturbations
>of the mind, They just have to be ignored.  Brahman will provide knowledge
>of itself by itself.

In a way True and if you look carefully  the last statement  it is
after the fact.  When it said that it is swataH siddham - no
knowledge needs to be provided - see the last post related to my
notes on suutra 4. What I have presented in the discussions with
Nanda is from the point of a saadhak - how the inquiry of the world
of objects and thoughts and their reality has to be examined to
reveal what is apparent as apparent and what is real as real.


Your point, of course, is very true. advaitic position in terms of
sat, asat and mitya is not correctly interpreted -I find that more so
in dvaita literature.

Thanks again, we now know that someone else is reading these discussions!

Hari OM1
Sadananda

>--
>Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>

--
K. Sadananda
Code 6323
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington D.C. 20375
Voice (202)767-2117
Fax:(202)767-2623
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </archives/advaita-l/attachments/20010813/02ab4a11/attachment.html>