[Advaita-l] Can a mithyA-vastu produce an effect? असत्यवस्तुनः अर्थक्रियाकारित्वम्

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

2011/5/22 V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>:
> 2011/5/21 Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>
>
>> Namaste
>>
>>
>> Sribhashya has said Yathartha Sarva Vijnanam Iti Vedavidam Matam
>>
>
> Namaste.
>
> There is pratyaksha (sAkShAt) shruti pramaNa for adhyAsa/bhrama:
>
> I am quoting from an earlier post of mine:
>
> //While commenting on the mantra सत्यं च अनृतं च सत्यमभवत् ''satyam cha
> anRtam cha Satyam abhavat' (Taittiriya Up. II.6) Sri Shankaracharya says:
> satyam = vyavaharavishayam since this is being mentioned in the context of
> 'sRishti' of the world. He adds: this is not paramArthasatyam (absolute
> reality) since Brahman alone indeed is paramArtha satyam. This
> vyavaharavishayam satyam is only Apekshikam, relative, empirical. He
> explains: when compared to the water in a mirage, the water (that we
> actually use for drinking, etc.) is real. This is what is meant by
> 'vyavaharika satyam'. That which is not thus real is anRtam, unreal.
> सत्यं च व्यवहारविषयम्, अधिकारात्, न परमार्थसत्यम्; एकमेव हि
> परमार्थसत्यं ब्रह्म । इह पुनः व्यवहारविषयमापेक्षिकं
> *मृगतृष्णिकाद्यनृतापेक्षया उदकादि सत्यमित्युच्यते ।* *अनृतं च तद्विपरीतम्*
> । किं पुनरेतत् सर्वं सत्यमभवत् परमार्थसत्यम् ।//
>
> We have another Taittiriya Shruti: असन्नेव स भवति, असद्ब्रह्मेति वेद चेत्
> ...[He who knows Brahman to be non-existent himself becomes so.  ..]  If the
> SrIbhAShya declaration: Yathartha Sarva Vijnanam Iti Vedavidam Matam is
> correct, why does the Veda itself see the possibility of people getting
> ayathArtha jnanam and denounce such a jnanam thru the above Tai.vaakyam?
> Also we have in the Chandogya Upanishad: अनृतेन प्रत्यूढाः to show how man,
> not being aware of the 'wealth' that is the Atman that is within him goes
> about being deluded by the seeming pleasures of life.  In all these cases,
> the scripture itself talks of 'ayathArtha jnAna' that man has. The very
> reason the Veda teaches the Truth is with the fundamental conclusion that
> man, in his state of ignorance, has 'ayathArtha jnAnam' alone.
>

There are two ways. One Advaita says all is Mithya. But another is all
is Satya. This is also correct because all is Brahman only. There
cannot be a second thing. Visistadvaita is agreeing Brahman is only
thing here. But difference is Brahman is Savisesha not Nirvisesha.


> Shankara, in that Taittiriya passage has shown how the Upanishad recognizes
> 'yathArtha jnAnam' and the ’संभावना’ of ayathArtha jnAnam with respect to
> worldly objects itself.  That is why the Upanishad uses the word 'anRutam'.
>
> In the Mahabharata Drona believed that the 'ashwatthAma' that was announced
> to have been killed was his son.  Where is the 'yathArthatvam' of his
> vijnAna?  It is only because Krishna saw the sambhAvanA of generating
> ayathArtha jnana that He hatched the plan to get an elephant named
> 'ashwatthAma' and make such an announcement.  The claim of the srIbhAShyam
> is contradicted by the Shruti and smRti.
>

Everything is part of Brahman everything is Satya.


>> Shell will have silver silver will have shell iron will have gold and
>> diamonds and platinum. Even mud will have gold silver and platinum. Why it
>> is like this? Chandogya Sruti has said Tasam Trivrutamekaikam we see by
>> Pratyaksha the Trivrutkarana of elements in combining. All things in
>> the world have the same basic elements.  Even our body has the same
>> elements like Carbon. So everything contains everything. But the question is
>> how much? Even mud has gold and silver but they will be here in very small
>> quantity. We cannot get gold and silver from mud lying in front of our house
>> because the quantity is very small. We may get only some Nano grams of gold
>> from tonnes of mud. We may spend more than the gold value to get it from
>> mud.
>>
>
> If it is true that only a nanogram of gold/silver is contained in even
> tonnes of mud, it is clear that such an insignificant quantity of
> gold/silver is beyond one's ordinary ocular perception.  However, in the
> case of an error where silver is seen in shell, it is not stated that the
> man is wearing any special instrument to be able to perceive the silver in
> the shell.  The example is not talking of tonnes of shells. In the example
> articulated by Shankara in the adhyAsa bhashya, it is 'shuktikaa hi
> rajatavad avabhAsate'  It is only in singular number.  Even in just one
> shell, a person is able to see at least a one inch patch of 'silver'. In
> just one shell this patch is not insignificant; it is an enormous quantity.
> If this much silver is perceivable by a man with naked eyes, and that too
> admittedly, defective eyes, one can imagine the capacity, efficiency of his
> eyes.  He is the one fit to replace electronic gadgets employed by those who
> search for gold/silver deposits to divine gold/silver at great depths.  In
> the example, it is not that over a spread of tonnes of shells he sees silver
> spread over the vast area.  On the other hand he perceives silver
> concentrated in just one place, of a significant quantity in  just one
> silver.
>

This logic is very strange. A person may feel giddy because of some
illness. Then he will say the world is rotating. But he is correct.
The world rotates on its axis.  The normal person cannot feel world is
rotating but the giddy person feels it. Will you honour the Giddy
person as a great scientist because he can feel world rotation? Will
you employ him in a high position because he has special powers? Like
that the person seeing silver in shell is not a special person. He is
seeing silver because of a defect. He cannot have special power of
seeing silver.




-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh