[Advaita-l] Advaiti Response to this report?

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan
<svidyasankar at hotmail.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.
>
> Sorry, the chAndogya Sruti does not care about anityatva here. It talks
> of what is *really* satya - mRttikety eva satyam. And it also relegates
> all transformation to a mere name - vAcArambhaNaM vikAro nAma-
> dheyam. It follows that all the transformations, while appearing to be
> real to the uneducated, are not *really* real. That is what is called the
> mithyA in advaita vedAnta.
>
Sruti may be saying Pot, Tumbler etc are all Clay material only
really. Correct? But how is it making Pot and Tumbler Mithya? The
Satyam word is saying the Vakya 'The Clay articles like Pot are Clay'
is true. See Ranga Ramanuja Bhashya-
मृन्मयं घटादिकं मृत्तिकेत्येव प्रमाणप्रतिपन्नम् । न तु तद्भिनत्वेन
इत्यर्थः । यद्वा मृन्मयं मृत्तिकेति वाक्यमेव सत्यं
अबाधितार्थकमित्यर्थः ।

> As far as the Sruti is concerned, you do not appreciate the force of the
> word "only" here. If you accept that all these objects are "only" clay, in
> "reality", then the advaita conclusion follows in a straightforward manner.
> If there were something else, really real, to account for transformation,
> then the word "only" would have no meaning. Remember that the same
> Sruti passage emphasizes "ekam eva", so there is no second material or
> non-material reality that can be invoked to rescue a dvaita interpretation
> in the ultimate analysis.
>
The Vacarambana Sruti has said the Upadana of World is Brahman. But
how does it make the World Mithya? If Sruti is saying Brahman is
Upadana of World and World is false the whole Vacarambhana Sruti will
become useless. It is correct to speak of Upadana of something real
only. What is the point in saying Upadana of Mithya thing?  Ekam Eva
Advitiyam is there also. True. Then we can say Brahman is Main reality
and the World is depending on Brahman and it is also Brahman material
only. Without Brahman the World is not there. But it is wrong to say
the World is Mithya.
> Yes, various explanations can be sought in order to maintain dvaita, as
> human ingenuity in clinging to things has infinite variety. However, the
> advaita interpretation does not believe in taking Sruti piecemeal, but
> rather in interpreting the entirety of the Sruti in a consistent manner.
> We have bRhadAraNyaka which tells us "yatra tu dvaitam iva bhavati"
> - where there is seemingly (iva) a duality - as opposed to nd "yatra tv
> asya sarvam AtmA *eva* abhUt" - where there is *only* the Atman.
> This again reinforces that the multiplicity that is normally experienced
> is only an "iva" whereas brahman - Atman is "eva".
>
> It is the job of the vedAnta tradition to teach us how this upanishadic
> vision of brahmAtmaikatva can be had, here and now. If, on the other
> hand, the clinging to a universe of infinite transformations makes one
> happy, along with seemingly sophisticated logical argumentation for
> why such happiness can come and go, and still be somehow "real",
> why then, such a person is not really ready for advaita vedAnta.
>
> Regards,
> Vidyasankar
>




-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh