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

[Praveen R. Bhat]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.

> 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.


You brought the drunkard example to table expressing mithyatva and I am
saying its wrong. There is no use turning the tables on me now. I talked of
viveka vairAgya. A person who thinks of the world as mithyA is less likely
to turn to drinks and using his viveka, take to vairAgya instead. While
your drunkard is the one who is sitting and still drinking. So he doesn't
think that the world is mithyA, he thinks its real, drinks inclusive. Thats
what is likely to happen if you go around telling everyone that the world
is as real as brahman. Viveka is the most basic of sAdhana cAtuShTaya. Your
"brahmavAda" doesn't seem to have any use for viveka at all.


> 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.
>

What I said has nothing to do with smashAna vairAgya. You seem to be
confused with what even that terminology means! Repeating sarvam khalvidam
brahma without applying viveka is whats truly useless.

I am saying there is a Positive Approach to Advaita without using Maya
> and Mithyatva.


Saying sarvam khalvidam brahma on one hand while tagging something as
positive and something else as negative is completely meaningless. So, no,
you're only thinking its the positive approach.


> The Message of the Upanishads is Brahman not Maya and
> Mithyatva. That is why we say Brahma Sutra not Maya Sutra or Mithyatva
> Sutra.


One cannot even turn to the Upanishads, let alone understand the message
without feeling the mithyatva of the world, ergo its uselessness. There is
absolutely no reason for anyone who thinks the world to be real to turn
away from it.


> Mithyatva was used to confuse Opponents in debates.


No its not. You seem to be thoroughly confused about what mithyAtva is.


> It may be
> useful for that purpose. I agree. But for daily Sadhana it is negative
> and dangerous.
>

There has been a history of saints in the tradition that have realized with
the method of sampradAyA. So all negativity and danger is only in your
mind.


> Adi Sankara talked Avidya and Adhyasa. But he talked Brahmavada also.
>

And so did all teachers in the sampradAya.


> He did not stress Mithyatva that much. But for others Mithyatva became
> the Chief Philosophical Doctrine and Brahmavada got pushed to
> background.


Thats a wrong understanding. The Chief Philosophical Doctrine is in your
confused mind. Even the simplest of shAkhAcandra nyAya tells you that
brahman is the goal of all advaitis. If you are stuck in the shAkhA and
think that all advaitis do is show the shAkhA, then you can't be any
further away from the truth.


> That is why others are calling Advaitis as Mayavadis. We
> are Brahmavadis.
>

No true advaiti is bothered of what others misunderstand and call us.
Unfortunately, you're also on the other side calling Advaitis as Mayavadis!
Good luck returning.

gurupAdukArpaNamastu,
--Praveen R. Bhat