[Advaita-l] Today Bhagavan Ramanuja Jayanti too

[Srirudra]

Dear
I have a doubt.Avidya can not have an independent existence.It exists in jivas minds who are in vyavaharika Brahman being the adhishtana for the jivas.Then how it is appropriate to reach the conclusion that Avidya which is dependent on jivas for its existence can have Brahman as its ashraya-support?.They appear to be contradictory.R.Krishnamoorthy.

Sent from my iPad

> On 25-Apr-2015, at 12:35 pm, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 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,
>> 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 =
>>> SILENCE-in-TRUTH !
>>> 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
>>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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