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

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com/>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*



On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 22:06, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com> wrote:

>  > This was asked in a previous thread. You just bypassed.
> > And what does 'being false' mean? sat or asat or both or 'you can't say'
> ?
> Here it means a non Self thing is superimposed on the Self. The Non
> Self is false. There are only two type of things. Self and Non Self.
> The Self is real. The Non Self is not. This is one theory.
>

Read again and you will know that you didn't answer anything. You went
round and round to deceive yourself.


> > And what is that brahmavAda ?
> Brahman is the Only Reality. This is Brahmavada. It does not mean the
> world is Mithya or false. It means the world also is Brahman.
>

So, there are two things : world and brahman. And, world is brahman. Is it
sane to talk like this ?


> > Is it able to stand without mAya ?
> Yes because everything is Brahman.


Does 'everything' means brahman or world ? If first, then no problem.
Everyone knows that brahman is brahman. If second, then how can a thing
which is different from other, become one with that ? This is not what is
known by valid means of knowledge. So, it must be an outcome of daydreaming.

> Definitely not as is shown by many advaitain-s here.
> This is wrong conception. Maya is introduced following some Bauddha
> type reasoning.


Being bauddha is not a crime. And thinking similar to them is also not so.
If bauddha-s can think properly as us, let it be so. Why do you hate
bauddha-s so much that their good things become intolerable to you ?


> It is not required for Upanishadic study.
>

Correct. We just need a book for study. mAyA is not needed for study. :P


> Maya theory has Bauddha influence. It is Asacchastram truly.
>

Haters can't appreciate.


> > So, he has a mind. And definitely he is not 'his mind'. So, he is a
> limited
> For explaining Creation of World we have to explain Saguna Brahman.
> With Nirguna Brahman you cannot explain Creation.
>

Totally unrelated reply.
Reply at correct place.

 > Your such and such brahman is false, because he is limited. What to say
> > about his sa~Nkalpa.
> >
> Then you are saying Sruti is also saying false things.
>

Definitely not. I mean that your understanding is not correct.


> > He thinks about snake-in-rope and our dreams, they born mithyA. So, it
> > proves him mithyA-sa~Nkalpa !?
> Even the Snake and Mirage Water are in the thought of Brahman. They
> are real. His thought is real. Satya Sankalpa.
>

You must go out of this world to propagate this innovative view. People in
this world are not going to accept dreams, etc. real.

> If it came from him, then it is clearly different from him ? Child is not
> > one with Mother. Isn't it ?
> Then you are saying Sruti is telling us lies.
>

Again not so. I'm saying that you have distorted the whole picture.


> > Even if stone is accepted as an agent of revelation of brahman, it is
> > different from brahman. As a gem is different from light.
> How is stone different?


Already said that because it is an agent for revelation of brahman.


> For a Jnani a stone and a gem are equal. Both
> show Brahman only. He sees Brahman only everywhere all the time.
>

Read again to understand question and then reply. Emotional replies worth
nothing. I'm not asking about mental condition of this type of GYAnI(!!).
I'm interested in reality, i.e how things actually are.


> > It appears as you have read too many books of different writers, so you
> are
> > uttering unrelated and baseless things. Before revealing your thoughts to
> > public, test them atleast.
> Mayavada theory must have been tested before they brought into
> Advaita.


Actually we did. And others, including vishiShTAdvaitin-s, dvaitin-s did
the same.


> No quality check done.


For quality check read advaita-siddhi. You will understand how mithyAtvam
is correct.


> That is why we have to do some changes
> now.
>

Sorry, we have another ideas. You may create a new path like osho, j.
krishnamurthy, etc. and propagate it in your faithful disciples.