[Advaita-l] Body is the disease
svedagarbha at gmail.com
Thu Jan 23 20:51:41 CST 2014
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com>wrote:
> I would like to make two points here. First, advaitins are justified
> in using provisional facts to derive provisional conclusions. I think
> you would have no problem in agreeing to this. The question of the
> locus of avidyA is a provisional one, since there is no avidyA at all
> really, and the answer is also provisional. It is like asking - "In
> the dream last night, was I sick or was it my friend?" If one says
> the locus is Brahman, it is a provisional answer. If one says the
> locus is jIva, it is again provisional.
By all means you may consider both provisional paxa-s as provisional, I
have no objection. However, when you accept there is no avidya at all in
the end, this perceived bhEdAtmaka jagat remains unexplained by you along
with non-duality of Brahman.
> The second point, which you
> seem to be completely missing, is that provisional facts may, in fact,
> be used to arrive at tattva itself. How? A frequent example cited is
> that of a dream tiger that causes real fear and sweat upon waking up.
> The dream tiger was provisionally real as long as tIhe dream lasted,
> but it did have a real effect - fear and sweat. Another example is
> that of the famous illusory snake. A person may really tremble in fear
> and run away upon seeing the illusory snake. Taking even the shruti
> vAkya "tattvamasi" as provisional, one may wake up to the reality of
First, your conclusion "provisional facts can be used to arrive at tattva"
is not correct. In both of your examples, what has happened is a kArya
(sweating, trembling etc), and not any "tattva" such as "tattvamasi" etc. I
hope, you know the difference tattva and a kArya.
Secondly, sweating/trebling etc, are not due to illusory tiger/snake
themselves per se. They are due to your jnyAna about them. Although this
jnyAna is a brAnti (ayathArtha jnyAna), nevertheless it is a real one (ok,
as real as you, to be specific). So, it is not correct to say mithya vastu
has sAdakatvaM for pramEya/tatva siddhi.
>From another perspective too, your position is untenable. The notion of
"mithyA pramAna could have sAdakatvaM" is in itself a pramEya from your
part, which is not (yet) acceptable to opponent. Now, as a proponent of
that pramEya, onus is on you to prove it. Using what kind of pramANa do you
prove it? Do you prove it using sat-pramANa or mithyA-pramANa? advaitahAni
if former, for you end up with dual entities -- Brahamn and this pramANa.
On the other hand, if you say you would use mithyA-pramANa, we are back to
our original question and you need another pramANa to prove the fact that
your first level mithyA-pramANa has a sAdakatvaM. You are on your way to
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list