[Advaita-l] Advaiti Response to this report?
srirudra at vsnl.com
Thu Jan 12 09:47:29 CST 2012
I am of the view that the example of clay and its modifications are
stretched too far.The core idea if I may say so is that Brahman is the
sole material cause to start with.All manifestations are sparks of
Brahman only and there is nothing other than Brahman.And Brahman is the
only Sath.The other schools think that if every thing is Brahman
including the jivas why this perceived suffering etc of the jivas and so
stick to the theory that Brahman is separate and jivas are separate and
the sufferings are attributed to the Karma done in previous jenmas
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:16:11 +0530, Venkatesh Murthy
<vmurthy36 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Your chief point of argument is Chandogya Vacarambhana Sruti but the
> opponent may not agree with your translation. It is only saying-
> 'Pot, tumbler, plate, etc., and various articles of this kind
> manufactured out of clay are clay only, in reality.' But it is not
> saying Pot, tumbler, plate etc is not real. Advaitis are saying that.
> They are adding stuff to Sruti - 'Pot, tumbler, plate etc are Mithya.'
> They are making a jump to Mithyatva. The jump is from Anityatva to
> Mithyatva. But Sruti is not saying this.
> Sruti is saying Pot, tumbler, plate etc are transformations of Clay
> only and they are all Clay only in reality. The base is the same but
> the objects are not Mithya. They are transformations. Clay is the
> Material Cause Upadana of Pot, Tumbler, plate etc. Sruti is saying
> this. ततश्च उपादानोपादेयोरभेदात् उपादाने ज्ञाते उपादेयस्य ज्ञातता
> भवतीत्यर्थः । See Ranga Ramanuja Bhashya on 6-1-4. मृत्पिण्ड एव
> नामरूपभाग् भवतीत्यर्थः,
> वाचारम्भणमित्युक्तेर्मिथ्येत्यश्रुतकल्पनम् ।
> पुनरुक्तिर्नामधेयमितीत्यस्य निरर्थता ॥ If the Clay is only real but
> not Pot and Tumbler it will be meaningless for Sruti saying if we know
> Clay we know Pot and Tumbler. What is there to know if they are
> Mithya? Second point is knowing real Clay will not give us knowledge
> of Mithya Pot and Tumbler. Knowing Brahman will not give us knowledge
> of World because Brahman is Paramartha and it will not have property
> of Mithya World. ब्रह्मणि ज्ञाते प्रपञ्चस्य ज्ञातमेवेति चेत् न-
> परमार्थब्रह्मणः अपरमार्थप्रपञ्चतत्तवरूपत्वाभावात् ।
> The Vacarambhana Sruti is saying Brahman is Material Cause of World.
> But not World is Mithya. The Dvaiti will not agree with Visishtadvaiti
> saying Brahman is Upadana of World. But he will not agree with Advaiti
> saying World is Mithya in Vacarambhana Sruti
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:14 PM, V Subrahmanian
> <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2012/1/11 श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at gmail.com>
>>> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
>>> lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*
>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 09:49, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>
>>> > How can you say Parinami Nitya Vastu is Mithya.
>>> Yes, I suggested you this to ask to others who were replying in vague
>>> manner. So, I leave it to them to reply.
>>> > Svapna things are also real only because because they are existing for
>>> > limited time and then vanish.
>> यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं यन्न व्यभिचरति, तत् सत्यम् । यद्रूपेण
>> यन्निश्चितं तत् तद्रूपं व्यभिचरति, तदनृतमित्युच्यते । अतो विकारोऽनृतम्,
>> ’वाचारंभणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’, एवं सदेव सत्यम्
>> इत्यवधारणात् ।
>> //As for satyam, a thing is said to be satyam, true, when it does not
>> change the nature that is ascertained to be its own; and a thing is said to
>> be unreal when it changes the nature that is ascertained to be its own. Hence
>> a mutable thing is unreal, for in the text, ‘All transformation has speech
>> as its basis, and it is name only. Clay as such is the reality.’
>> (Chandogya Up. 6.1.4), it has been emphasized that, that alone is true that
>> Exists (Ch.Up. 6.2.1)
>> Also in the commentary to the Gita verse 2.16, the Acharya says:
>> यद्विषया बुद्धिर्न व्यभिचरति तत्सत्, यद्विषया व्यभिचरति तदसत् …।
>> [That is said to be Real, of which our consciousness never fails; and that
>> Unreal, of which our consciousness fails.]
>> An article detailing this concept of 'anitya is asatya' can be accessed
>> In the case of a rope-snake illusion the snake is held to be / experienced
>> to be real for some time. Later when baadhaka jnaana arises the snake is
>> realized to be mithya. Even here the snake was experienced to be real for
>> some time and the anityatva is not in doubt; yet the asatyatva is also
>> proved subsequently. In a dream too the objects/events are experienced for
>> a while; anityatva is there and yet when waking occurs they undergo
>> baadha. In all these instances the pattern is: the experience of reality
>> is had, though for a temporary period, and WHEN ANOTHER STATE ARISES ALONE
>> the baadha is experienced. Thus for rope-snake experience, the subsequent
>> rope-jnana state has to arise and for the dream experience the subsequent
>> waking has to arise. In the same way even the anitya experience of the
>> world/samsara is held to be baadhita ONLY WHEN THE SUBSEQUENT STATE OF
>> BRAHMA JNANA/DRISHTI ARISES and not before. So, avasthAntara is a must and
>> ONLY in that / from that avasthaa standpoint Advaita teaches mithyAtva of
>> swapna and all the world/samsara experiences. So, anityatve sati uttaratra
>> avasthAntarOditabAdhakajnAne satyeva mithyAtvapratipAdanam.
>> Shankara's initial definition of satya/anRta shown by me above from the
>> Taittiriya Bhashyam can be seen to apply perfectly well in the rope-snake,
>> dream and the world /samsara experiences. There is no strength in the
>> argument that 'things are experienced for a short while and then vanish but
>> they are real'. VikAravattva (parinAmavattva) is held to be the hetu for
>> asatyatva by the Shruti/Shankara. So, parinaaminitya/pravAhanitya is also
>> ultimately mithyA only.
>>> Have you read madhwa-s properly or are you just saying and asking anything
>>> according to your understanding?
>>> In order to reply properly, I need an educated opponent.
>>> Why am I saying this ?
>>> Because, you once said that silver is asat and now you are saying that
>>> dream is real and existing. Be consistent.
>>> > If you say you cannot drink pot water
>>> > from dream and become satisfied what is your point? You are saying
>>> > something must be useful to be real. Arthakriya Karitva. You are
>>> > saying a thing with some use and purpose is existing otherwise not.
>>> > This is not correct. Because there are many useless things in life in
>>> > waking also like a star in the sky. It is not helping us but you are
>>> > not saying it is a dream object. A star in the sky is real like the
>>> > sun and moon. The sun and moon are giving light but the star light
>>> > cannot help us.
>>> And this is why I asked you to declare your definitions of real, unreal,
>>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>> For assistance, contact:
>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list