[Advaita-l] Advaiti Response to this report?
vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 16 04:58:05 CST 2012
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
No I am saying there is only light everywhere but others are asking
where is Darkness. To the man seeing Light everywhere Darkness is only
a word with no meaning. I am trying to say this.
>> 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?
To the dull man Pot appears but the intelligent man is seeing Clay
only not Pot. Same case for Sat and Nama-Rupa. The Jnani is seeing Sat
only but the Manda Buddhi is seeing different forms.
>> 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.
Kindly read above. The differences are all for Manda Buddhi. The wise
man will see only One Sat everywhere and in waking dream and sleep.
>> 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
> 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
> 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
> "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