[Advaita-l] Today Bhagavan Ramanuja Jayanti too
Keshava PRASAD Halemane
k_prasad_h at yahoo.co.in
Sat Apr 25 03:00:52 CDT 2015
Thank You very much indeed, My Dear Sri Venkatraghavan ji for a beautiful summary; wherein i agree with you on all the points put therein.
If you think that there are some issues of possible discord/unacceptance on what i had written, you may feel free to point them, and may be even correct them.
Otherwise, we may stop this discussion, i hope. [I usually do not wish to get dragged into too much of any protracted interactions - simply for practical/personal reasons/limitations of time, etc.]
praNaamsKeshava Prasad Halemane
On Saturday, 25 April 2015 12:35 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
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,
On 25 Apr 2015 06:30, "Keshava PRASAD Halemane via Advaita-l" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
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 = SILENCE-in-TRUTH !
praNaamsKeshava Prasad Halemane
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list