[Advaita-l] Holenarsipur Swamiji's remarks and why even Avidya is not necessary for Advaita

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Hari Om, Venkateshji,

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>wrote:

> I have said Adi Sankara is the greatest Vedantin. There was not and
> will not be another like him. Na Bhuto Na Bhavishyati. But I am trying
> to say we can change his teachings for our time.


Somehow, you don't realize that you contradict your own statement about "na
bhaviShyati" when you say that those teachings need to be changed for our
time.


> In his time there was
> requirement to teach in one way. We are still following Advaita. But
> in our day we have to see there is a better way to teach the same
> thing. Padmapada and Vachaspati Mishra taught Advaita in a different
> way. Vidyaranya taught in different way.


The most important part you miss in qualifying here is that those teachings
were "without compromising or contradicting Bhagavatpada and advaita
tattva".


> Mayavada was useful in
> debates with Dvaitis, Visistadvaitis and others.

It is highly negative
> approach and fit to be used in debates.


It was not a strawman raised only for the argument; its part of advaita
siddhAnta. A jaundiced eye can't cure the yellowish tinge of the world. The
medicine is to be taken by the patient and not applied to whatever is
perceived erroneously!


> Today we are not arguing with
> Dvaitis. We are getting married to them. Some Dvaiti Swami may say
> something about Advaita but nobody cares.
>

Unfortunately, all of your threads on the topic were strongly grounded ONLY
in dvaita and vishishtAdvaita perspective of advaita mithyA.


>
> What is the role of Mayavada now?


Maya always has the same role, without any change, na bhUto na bhaviShyati.
Those who find no use for mithyA have completely misunderstood mithyA. Like
your saying in another thread that the mirror being scratched doesn't hurt
the face. You completely err when you say that those who find that their
face is scratched then are not ignorant. They ARE ignorant. They ARE
aj~nAnis. You call it partial j~nAna; God only knows what that means! As
someone else said, you just cannot explain why anyone being brahman should
see multiplicity and suffer from a mirror scratched, without mithyA. That
reflection theory is meaningless if you can't answer why or what that
reflection is, but mithyA.


> It is like driving a military tank
> to the office everyday. It is heavy. We cannot use it.

We have to use
> a small simple civilian vehicle.  It is pure Brahmavada. Brahman is
> One and everything is Brahman.
>

Its still better than driving the small civilian vehicle in circles
endlessly, neither reaching the office... worse yet, nor leaving home!!

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