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

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste Sri Praveen Bhat

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hari Om, Venkateshji,
>
> The drunkard from your example is more likely to say that the drink is
> brahman too and its as real. If he thinks of the world as mithyA, it would
> result in vairAgya via such viveka, a strong foundation for advaita
> vedanta. You seem to have completely lost the fundamentals of adhyAtma
> sAdhana with that weird example.
Are you saying we can take drinks saying it is Brahman? Are you saying
we can take drinks say the World is Mithya and get Vairagya? I did not
say that. The Smashana Vairagya you are saying for a drunkard is
useless. Even Arjuna had that kind of Vairagya in the battle field.
But it is useless.

> If I understood you correctly, you have come from stating what Gaudapada &
> Shankaracharya should have said to what others who followed them should
> have said! So, let alone the "highly negative" mAyAvAda, could you yourself
> stop being negative about sampradAyA please? If not, be kind enough to drop
> the subject that you have been taking on in circles while you avoid
> answering all direct questions to you. Just disagree with everything that
> all of us on this mailing list have said about mAyA, mithyA and stick to
> sarvam khalvidam brahma. Suit yourself.
>
I am saying there is a Positive Approach to Advaita without using Maya
and Mithyatva. The Message of the Upanishads is Brahman not Maya and
Mithyatva. That is why we say Brahma Sutra not Maya Sutra or Mithyatva
Sutra. Mithyatva was used to confuse Opponents in debates. It may be
useful for that purpose. I agree. But for daily Sadhana it is negative
and dangerous.

> I particularly say this now because you contradict your own thoughts you
> expressed only a few mails earlier! You initially had trouble that later
> teachers have stuck onto Mayavada which was used by Bhagavatpada for
> debates with dvaitis, etc, and that they should have changed. Now you are
> saying that later teachers talked of Mayavada while Bhagavatpada did not!
> All the teachers in the sampradAyA know what Shankaracharya said, didn't
> say, or why he didn't say what you think he should have said. Its high time
> you settle down with an acceptance that the sampradAyA won't change to
> your, may I add meaningless, perspective.
>
Adi Sankara talked Avidya and Adhyasa. But he talked Brahmavada also.
He did not stress Mithyatva that much. But for others Mithyatva became
the Chief Philosophical Doctrine and Brahmavada got pushed to
background. That is why others are calling Advaitis as Mayavadis. We
are Brahmavadis.

> gurupAdukArpaNamastu,
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
> [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Namaste
>>
>> A drunkard sitting in a bar can drink a few glasses and say 'The world
>> is not real. It is all Maya. It is all Mithya'. Why should we go to
>> Advaita Vedanta to listen to this message? Vedanta does not propagate
>> Mayavada. Adi Sankara did not propagate Mayavada. Some others coming
>> after him have spread the highly negative Mayavada philosophy. We must
>> avoid it. We have to follow the correct Vedantic goal. That is
>> Brahman. If possible try to understand Brahmavada priinciple Sarvam
>> Khalvidam Brahma.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh