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

[Kalyan K]

Dear Sri Venkatesh,

>What is 'real'? This is a difficult question. If you say a real thing
>must be there for ever it is not correct. A  thing like a pot has the
>base Brahman. Even if pot is destroyed the base Brahman is not
>destroyed. If you call the pot is not real it is not correct. It is a
>reflection of the real Brahman only.

For the moment let us forget about whether the pot is actually real or
not. Let us say if the pot (with its entire qualities of name, form
etc.) is "as real as brahman" then aren't there (at least) two things
in the universe? 1. brahman and 2. pot ?

Please answer with yes or no and justify your answer. Then we can
carry this discussion forward.


>Like this every object in the world is a reflection of Brahman.
?Because it is coming from Brahman it is real. The multiplicity of the
>world is coming from only One Brahman. If you see only the
>multiplicity your knowledge is incomplete. It is not wrong.

Reflection in what? Normally, reflection involves a mirror. Here what
does it involve? Even if it is really a reflection, does the
reflection really have as much reality as the original object? I can
feel pain. But can my reflection feel pain? Isn't it that I am *more
real* than my reflection?

>There are two very important Brahma Sutras. First is  Lokavattu
>Leelakaivalyam 2-1-33. Brahman has created the world as a Leela. It is
>His pastime. The second important sutra is Sankalpadeva Tu Tat Sruteh
>4-4-8. It is true Brahman has created the world as His Pastime. But
>how did he create it? Just by a Sankalpa. He simply thinks 'I will
>create the world like this' and it has happened exactly like the
>thought. It means the World is existing in Brahman's thought.


Sir, is the object imagined in your thought as real as you? I imagine
an elephant with wings. It works good in imagination, but is it a
really existing elephant? Similarly, are the objects in brahman's
thoughts as real as brahman?

>When you see a Pot it is not only a Pot but a Pot created in Brahman's
>thought. How can you say the Pot is not real?


In the above example, can you say that the elephant that my thought
has imagined is real?


> Now you can read the above and tell me Where is Maya? It is not necessary.


Yes, I read the above, and logically speaking, I can guarantee that
the dvaitin/buddhist/mimamsaka etc. will have a fun time in refuting
your arguments.


Regards

Kalyan