[Advaita-l] Advaiti Response to this report?

Praveen R. Bhat bhatpraveen at gmail.com
Mon Jan 16 00:06:58 CST 2012

Hari Om, Venkateshji,

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Namaste Sri Praveen
> When there is bright light everywhere you are asking me to show and
> describe Darkness.

I'm asking you to describe darkness because you're saying there is nothing
like darkness. To say there is nothing like darkness, you should know what
darkness is. If you don't know what it is, then there is no meaning in
saying there is no darkness either.

> Kindly tell me how this is relevant.

I hope the above clarifies the relevance.

> When
> everything is Sat where is the scope for Asat and Mithya? I don't have
> to define Asat and Mithya because they are never experienced.

Well, then explain why while being clay, there is appearance of pot at all?
If pot is truth, clay is truth, then why pot is visible at all because
there can't be two/multiple truths. Why doesn't everyone see clay, clay and
clay everywhere?

> Even in
> shell silver illusion silver is Sat only and shell is also Sat. The
> base of everything in the world is Sat only.

Either you have to believe in advaita vedanta as there is only one sat and
that appears differently or you have to say that there are multiple sats,
else it will mean silver = truth = shell. Silver = shell is the result,
which is completely meaningless.

> Even the dream object has
> the base Sat. So it is Sat only. You are Sat and I am Sat. There is
> Sat everywhere.

With the above, dream = sat = waking. Dream = waking. Either say that or
explain the difference between pot and clay, silver and shell, dream and
waking. All can't be the same, else going even further, the argument will
also lead to pot = dream = silver = clay = shell = waking, because all are
truth. :) No matter how you approach this discussion, all being sat still
appears differently, else you can't even use terminology such as
shell-silver *illusion* which you very well use.

> The pure Sadvada is the Upanishadic thought like 'Ekam Sat Bahudha
> Vadanti',

Ekam sat would have been sufficient for Upanishadic though, that viprAH
bahudA vadanti is completely out of place, except for mithyA! The bahudA
would have no existence, let alone for viprAh's vadanti. :)

> 'Sadeva Somya Idam Agra Asit Ekam Eva Advitiyam', 'Sarvam
> Khalvidam Brahma',

sarvam is out of place, but for mithyA.

'Antarbahishca Tatsarvam Vyapya Narayanaha
> Sthitaha".

Why does Narayana stithaH all alone become antar & bAhya; its out of place,
but for mithyA.

> Tell me one place where there is no Brahman. This is how
> Hiranyakashipu asked the boy Prahlada. He said Everywhere. Even the
> non living Pillar. He broke it to see and inside there was Narasimha.
> This shows Brahman is there in everything. That is Sat is there in
> everything.

"Every"thing is out of place, except for mithyA.

--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list