[Advaita-l] Adhyaropa-Apavada Nyaya.

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Bhaskarji - PraNAms

First my admiration, as always, the way you would interpret my statements and then counter those interpretations. 

The contradiction is a-dvaita, where the apparent dvaita is negated as not real and the underlying substratum is claimed as the oneness that pervades both tat and tvam. The equation is valid at the substantive level - which is paaramaarthika - as in apareyam.. dhaaryate jagat sloka of the 7th ch. of Geeta. 

Please remember the full quote of the Upanishad - aitadaatyma idagam sarvam tat satyam, sa aatmaa - tat tvam asi - swetaketo. Before tat tvam asi - the statement made by the Upanishad is extremely important for advaita. First notice 1. idagam sarvam - the neti neti of the idagam sarvam - is now reexamined again to see the substratum of that idagam sarvam - and therefore scriptures point out - The essence of all that idagam sarvam is aatmaa - and that you are my dear son, Swetaketu- since it was already established that the whole universe is vaachaarambhanam vikaaraH or naamakevaste creation. 

Therefore the whole idagam sarvam is reduced to mithyaa - neither satyam nor asatyam - sat asat vilakshnam, while the essence of the mithyaa is - aitadaatmyam - is that satyam -which is there before creation - sat evam idam agra aseet -  which you are. 

Bhaskarji - aham braamasmi is one aspect of advaita where brahma satyam and jiivo brahma eva na aparaH are involved. The second aspect of advaita is equally important is jagat mithyaa. mithyaa is not only not sat but also not asat too. Hence jnaani sees the mithyaa world as mithyaa and not satyam that ajnaani thinks it is - because he is jnaani. And my friend, echoing your statements, yes this is also what Shankara says, if one studies them carefully. Jnaani sees the oneness that pervades the whole creation and claims aham brahmaasmi and also sees the apparent creation as apparent and not real. All nine yeads are involved in the jnaanam of the jnaani. As have been pointed out many times both jnaani and ajnaani are within vyavahaara only. At paaramaarthika level - aham brahmaasmi statement itself has no meaning too, like any other statements - since na vaak gacchati etc. 

I hope the above explanation is also equally refreshing, since there are no contradictions in my understanding. 

Hari Om!
Sadananda







--- On Fri, 2/11/11, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:


Aha!! this is indeed a very refreshing thought from your goodself 
prabhuji.  AFAIK, you have been arguing althese days at advaitin list that 
jnAni realizes that  ahaM brahmAsmi and jnAni by sitting in witness box, 
as a sAkshi, would  witness the jagat 'as mithya' by detaching himself 
from it...But here you are saying neti neti would become iti, iti...And 
this is what I've been telling as 'Atmaikatva darshana' or samyak darshana 
without any trace of duality.  And this is what shankara also says : 
pUrvaM avidyayA asarva Aseet punarvidyayA avidyApanaye sarvO bhavati & 
sadAtma vijnAne tu sati idAneeM svAtmata eva saMvruttau, taThA sarvOpyanyO 
vyavahAraH Atmana 'eva' vidushaH.  So, as I have been telling & now you 
are accepting, it is jnAni's satya darshana only and NOT mithyAdarshana.