[Advaita-l] Advaiti Response to this report?

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Namaste
>
> 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 ।
>

The shruti started with the question 'by hearing what everything becomes
heard, known, realized'.  For this it gave the analogies of clay, gold and
iron with the kArya - kAraNa bhAva.  An understanding  that a particular
sentence is satyam the objective of the shruti does not get accomplished.
This understanding; मृन्मयं मृत्तिकेति वाक्यमेव सत्यं
अबाधितार्थकमित्यर्थः । does not make one understand the paratattva that the
shruti is teaching through the analogies.

>
> >
> 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?


That is why in Advaita when Brahman is said to be upAdAna kAraNam, it is to
be understood as 'vivartopAdAna kAraNam' -  'Brahman has not transformed or
become the world but Brahman is 'appearing' as the world.  When one thing
'appears' as another the latter need not be real.  When rope appears as
snake the appearing snake is not real; it is mithyA sarpaH.  By saying the
vikAra, the effect, is only 'vAchArambhaNam nAmadheyam' the shruti is
emphasizing that the appearing effect is merely a word, name.  Apart from
the word / name 'pot' none can show a pot as something  distinct from clay
that is its material cause.  So the Upanishad is teaching that the
'concept' pot is only a conception, the reality there is only clay.



> 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.
>

Actually the idea of 'dependent' ultimately ends in only declaring the
dependent object as mithyA.  The paratantra world has no existence, sattA,
of its own; it exists on the sattA of the swatantra Brahman.  The pot that
depends on the clay for its existence has no existence of its own for the
simple reason that one cannot show a pot separated from clay.  The
superimposed/imagined snake in the place of a rope has no existence of its
own; it is talked of 'existing there' ONLY on the basis/existence of the
underlying rope.  No doubt the snake depends on the snake for its
sattA/sphuraNa.  Thus none can advance an analogy for the paratantra
satya/tattva  other than the rope-snake/shell-silver type.  If it is said
that the paratantra jivas depends on the swatantra for their survival, it
can be pointed out that all such survival is only with regard to the
'kshetram' or anAtma or jaDa aspect of the paratantra jivas.  Separated
from the kshetram the jiva is pure Atman and thereby needing no support
whatsoever from the swatantra.  A parasite plant survives from
water/resources drawn from the host plant.  Here too the parasite plant
depends ONLY for the survival of the body, the plant.  Intrinsically the
parasite is a jiva, Atman, chaitanya svarUpa which has no dependence on
anything else for its being. In one of the nine examples the Chandogya
shruti specifies a plant/tree as a jiva-Atman.  'na jAyate mRyate vA
kadAchit/vipashchit' teaches the scripture about the Atman.  Such an Atman
is never paratantra.  Only with body-mind accretion the Atman becomes
paratantra.  When this viveka is performed one can see that the
paratantra's dependence on the swatantra simply collapses.  This collapse
is what the 13th chapter of the Gita wants to take place by the
kshetra-kshetrajna vibhAga chintanam.

Even the created world, paratantra,, prakRti in essence, depends on the
Swatantra Brahman ONLY for its sattA/sphuraNa.   'svabhAvastu pravartate'
says the Lord in the Gita, washing off any agency on His/Brahman's part in
the vyApAra of the prakRti/samsara/jiva.


subrahmanian.v