[Advaita-l] A vichAra on Swatantra & Paratantra (Independent & dependent Realities)

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Shrisha Rao <shrao at nyx.net> wrote:

> El abr 11, 2010, a las 11:58 a.m., V Subrahmanian escribió:
>
> > I think we can close the exchanges on this thread and perhaps continue it
> > privately, if needed and if there is anything to say.]
>
> Not a bad idea, so this will be my last.
>
> I do enjoy your postings when they actually quote and explain the works of
> the masters, but would offer the constructive criticism that it would be
> better if you were to steer clear of attempting to use Dvaitins' writings
> (or summaries of the same) to derive Advaitic positions.  Not only is there
> the question of whether the interpretations are true to the intentions of
> the authors, but there is also the risk of straying into theories that are
> inaccurate per classical theology.
>

[ Just in order not to give a misleading idea to the readers who have
followed this thread so far, I wish to make a clarification, before we close
this.]

>
> For instance, recently you posted an analysis that attempted to use
> Purandara Dāsa's composition referencing a non-existent "gumma" to make
> points about how an unreal entity can have effects.  Sounds good, but
> actually it turns out that the "gumma" is a तुच्छ, an अत्यन्तासत् like
> वन्ध्यासुत, व्योमकमल, etc. (it is neither a व्यावहारिक object of worldly
> experience, like the pot, etc., nor is it प्रातिभासिक like the
> silver-nacre).  Such an entity has no साधकत्व according to Madhusūdana
> Sarasvatī, Brahmānanda, etc., also (yes, I say this from having studied
> precisely what has been said in this regard in the Advaita-Siddhi, etc.).
>  The difference is merely this: the Dvaitin position is that only a
> पारमार्थिक सत्य can have साधकत्व whilst Advaitins hold that even व्यावहारिक
> or प्रातिभासिक will do.  No one however considers a तुच्छ as having साधकत्व,
> and indeed one of the objections to the Advaitic position responded to in
> the Advaita-Siddhi is तुच्छस्यापि तत्प्रसङ्गात्.
>

[ I have very carefully studied the 'gumma' phenomenon and taken it up as a
defect-free dRShTAnta for the avidya of Vedanta.  If you go back to the
article and see, I have listed how many common points are there between the
two.  Let me assure you again: the gumma of Purandara Dasa is NOT  an
atyanta abhAva vastu like vandhyaaputra, etc. as you have understood it to
be.  Why? Because, it is able to create fear, etc. in the child and bring
about obedience, compliance, etc. from the child. A vandhyAputra cannot
even  be invoked by anyone even for creating the fear psychosis.  It would
be meaningless for anyone to do that.  I cannot say, even in gest - ’ Look,
the vandhyAputra with fierce looks is staring at you'.  I cannot give any
attributes to a totally non-existing vastu.

Only such a vastu cannot be a sAdhakatva of anything.  But the bhAvarUpa
gumma  definitely has sAdhakatva.  The proof of this is there in the song I
had presented, with audio: gummana kareyadire.  Krishna pleads with
Yashodha, don't ever call gumma, I shall do whatever you want me to.

Gumma turns out to be not existent *only* upon Krishna searching for it in
all the worlds, including VaikunTha.  The two songs prove that gumma, though
not ultimately real,  can be a saadhakatva of bhaya and upon searching for
it, not being available.  This is exactly of the status of a mithyA vastu:
the snake appears, creates fear, trembling, etc. but upon searching for it
turns out to be not there.

A tucchA vastu is not of this type; it never even appears.  That is why this
mithyA vastu is defined as : सत् - असत् - विलक्षण.  Gumma is of this type.
It is not sat, not tucchA, but an intermediary type:  it appears, creates
some effects but upon enquiry is not found to be existing.  I hoipe you
appreciate this.

Nowhere have we seen  in shAstra or loukika fields an atyanta abhaava vastu
being given as an example for a sAdhakatva.  The Avidya of the Vedanta is of
such a bhAva (not like the absolutely real Brahman) that can bring about the
effect of samsara and be dispelled through jnana.  If you say that only a
pAramArthika vastu can have saadhakatva (of anything), you will have to hold
ajnAna to be a pAramArthika vastu, equal in status with Brahman.  Such an
ajnAna can never be destroyed through jnana, even as Brahman can never
undergo nAsha.  There will be no way one can come out of samsara.

With this clarification, I retire.

>
> Regards,
>
> subrahmanian.v
>
>
>