[Advaita-l] Advaiti Response to this report?

Venkatesh Murthy vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 9 20:57:14 CST 2012


My response below.

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
> I think here somany wrong assumptions about advaita as a siddhAnta by
> dvaitins.  Which is anyway, bread & butter for their relentless attack on
> advaita :-))
> But they will say there is no example for neither true nor false thing. If
> you say Sukti Rajata is Mithya they will say it is Asat.
>>  shankara gives an example of water & foam for the mAyA's
> anirvachaneeyatva.  Foam which is not quite the same as water but yet not
> a different entity either.  Likewise, mAyA too cannot be defined to be
> identical with brahman or quite distinct from brahman.  The analogy
Where is Sruti saying Maya and Brahma is like foam and water?

> Nobody has a doubt is the Sukti Rajata is true or false? Everybody will
> say it is false. The world is not Mithya. It may be called as Temporary
> because it can get destroyed but not Mithya.
>>  nor it is satya...coz. the satya never ever undergoes any change. It is
> trikAla abhAditaM.  When the jnAni realizes the svarUpa behind mithyAnAma
> rUpa he would realize the fact that nAma rUpa in their svarUpa is brahman
> only.  The realization of oneness of  kAraNa-kArya is quite clear in
> shankara's advaita.  See for the explanation and clarification in sUtra
> bhAshya.
What is problem to say Satya can also be cycle type change?. The world
is changing but it is a cycle.
> Like this world is getting created protected and destroyed and the
> cycle is continuing. Why should we call the world Mithya? The nature
> of the world is temporary real. But not Mithya.
>> Yes, jagat in its svarUpa is nothing but brahman..Hence we should not
> see jagat as anAtma since it is in its sadrUpa none other than brhman
> only.  Shruti says those who see jagat as anAtma, they are not eligible
> for mOksha (bruhadAraNyaka). Siddhanta here is simple that there is
> nothing exists apart from brahman.  But how come this vyavahArAteeta
> brahman would become jagadAkAra with multiple names and forms??  it is
> just like a snake that is appeared in a rope due to avidyA. Then is it
> acceptable to say that since there is no snake in the rope, there is no
> existence of jagat in brahman??  Not like that since there is no separate
> existence for snake apart from rope, jagat too, in its own svarUpa nothing
> but brahman.  (shankara clarifies in chAdOgya shruti bhAshya).  And in
> sUtra bhAshya too he elsewhere says that the existence is ONLY ONE..So,
> the effect (kArya as nAma rUpAtmaka jagat) is none other than the cause (
> the brahman) ekaM cha punaH satvaM, athOpyananyatvaM kAraNAt kAryasya.
If world is like snake in a Brahman rope there is a problem. Who is
seeing the snake? You cannot say I am seeing it because you are also
Brahman only. You are saying world is also Brahman only. Then Brahman
is seeing Brahman as snake in Brahman as rope. This is  meaningless.

> The Jiva goes through  three states. But a dream object is also real.
> There is no object in dreamless sleep. How can it show world is
> Mithya?
>>  That which exists in one state (waking), looks different in another
> state (dreaming) and absent in yet another state (sushupti) is not
> qualified to be called as paramArtha satya.  Hence the socalled existence
Why is not possible for Satya to be cycle type Satya? Change is there
but it is a cycle.

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar



More information about the Advaita-l mailing list