[Advaita-l] Today Bhagavan Ramanuja Jayanti too

Venkatraghavan S agnimile at gmail.com
Sat Apr 25 02:05:29 CDT 2015

Sorry item 5 should read "Avidya can have Brahman as ashraya in
vyaavahaarikam without it affecting Brahman's asangatvam in any way"
On 25 Apr 2015 08:02, "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Sri Keshava Prasad,
> 1) Avidya exists only in vyaahaarika, not in paaramaarthika.
> 2) Brahman is the de facto adhishthAnam of everything in vyaavahaarikam.
> It is the only thing in existence in paaramaarthikam.
> 3) Brahman therefore is the adhishthAnam of avidya in vyaavahaarikam. This
> does not affect the adviteeyatvam of Brahman in paaramaarthikam.
> 4) The adhishtAnatvam of an adhisthAnam does not necessarily impact or
> sully its asangatvam or its shuddham. Especially if the superimposed object
> is a kalpita vastu. The imagined snake doesn't affect the real rope in any
> way.
> 5) Therefore, Avidya in vyaavahaarikam does not affect Brahman in any way,
> anywhere. Avidya can have Brahman as ashraya in paaramaarthikam without it
> affecting Brahman's asangatvam in any way.
> 6) Avidya is neither real (in paaramaarthikam) nor unreal (in
> vyaavahaarikam), nor both simultaneously (mutually contradictory).
> 7) The jeeva's existence in vyaavahaarikam presupposes the existence of
> Brahman AND the existence of avidya.  Both jiva's and avidya's existence
> are only apparent existence.
> 8) Jiva also has avidya, but for him to appear to exist, avidya would also
> have to appear to exist.
> 9) Brahman is the only thing worth knowing, and claiming that status is
> the only thing worth achieving  - a discussion on avidya, whose very nature
> is truly a thing of wonder, is anirvacaniya,  and better left alone.
> 10) If it helps manana, its better to conceive of avidya's nature as being
> contradictory, and therefore encountering a contradiction when speaking
> about avidya does not refute the validity of advaita philosophy, which is
> backed by shruti pramANa. Reductio ad absurdum doesn't apply in such a case.
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
> On 25 Apr 2015 06:30, "Keshava PRASAD Halemane via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> namastE
>> Thank You My Dear Srinivas Murthy ji for your illuminating and
>> encouraging comments on the short input that i shared herein recently. I
>> agree that may be there is more to IT - surely not mere parroting/aping/etc
>> - even an imbalance in the triad saadhana SravaNa+manana+ninidhyaasana may
>> possibly take one astray.
>> Let me pose here below some more questions/statements to ponder -
>> regarding the problem of 'locus-of-avidya':
>> (0) 'avidya' being the 'absence-of-vidya' the locus of the 'avidya' must
>> necessarily be the same as (and cannot be different from) that of the
>> 'vidya' thereof.
>> (1) Do we accept the possibility of various degrees of truth rather than
>> the binary dichotomy of choice between  TRUTH & UNTRUTH ?
>> (2a) It is a logical requirement that the degree-of-truth of the
>> 'locus-of-x' must necessarily be at-least-as-much-as the degree-of-truth of
>> 'x' ?
>> (2b) In case you accept only the case of binary dichotomy choice between
>>  TRUTH & UNTRUTH - then the above statement can be re-read as -
>>         If 'x' is UNTRUE then the 'locus-of-x' can be either TRUE or
>> UNTRUE (not both);  but, if 'x' is TRUE then the 'locus-of-x' must
>> necessarily be TRUE.
>> (3) The various interpretations/models arise because of the acceptance or
>> otherwise of the various possible cases w.r.t. the  degree-of-truth  etc.
>> * Just because one accepts that "brahmavastu IS EkamEvaadviteeyasatyam"
>> doesn't necessarily mean IT cannot be the locus of avidya (and of vidya as
>> well as of everything-else)! * How can one limit  IT by one's whims and
>> facies of whatever one thinks as
>> logical/rational/acceptable/conforming-to-Sruti-yukti-anubhava/etc.? * It
>> is like - the convergence of the ZERO the ONE and the INFINITE - everything
>> converges in IT and therefore everything emerges out-of IT alone.
>> * . . . nirguNa as well as saguNa as well as sarvaguNa . . . since there
>> is only ONE and nothing else other than IT . . . * Then there is no bandha,
>> no mOkSha - no question of talking about any saadhana -  TRUTH-in-SILENCE =
>> praNaamsKeshava Prasad Halemane
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list