[Advaita-l] mithyA and abhAva chatuShTaya

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Durga Janaswamy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Hari Om,
> Pranams
>
> Small change:
>
> And Mandukya Agama Prakarana  is 2-satta vada   and not 3-satta vada?
>

Dear Sri Durga Prasad ji,

The question is not pertinent since the ultimate Advaita stand is 'Brahma
sattā alone is real.'  The mānḍūkya admits even vyavahārika satta:  4.42:

उपलम्भात्समाचारादस्तिवस्तुत्ववादिनाम् ।
जातिस्तु देशिता बुद्धैरजातेस्त्रसतां सदा ॥ ४२ ॥
भाष्यम्
यापि बुद्धैः अद्वैतवादिभिः जातिः देशिता उपदिष्टा, उपलम्भनमुपलम्भः, तस्मात्
उपलब्धेरित्यर्थः । समाचारात् वर्णाश्रमादिधर्मसमाचरणाच्च ताभ्यां हेतुभ्याम्
अस्तिवस्तुत्ववादिनाम् अस्ति वस्तुभाव इत्येवंवदनशीलानां दृढाग्रहवतां
श्रद्दधानां मन्दविवेकिनामर्थोपायत्वेन सा देशिता जातिः तां गृह्णन्तु तावत् ।
वेदान्ताभ्यासिनां तु स्वयमेव अजाद्वयात्मविषयो विवेको भविष्यतीति ; न तु
परमार्थबुद्ध्या । ते हि श्रोत्रियाः स्थूलबुद्धित्वात् अजातेः अजातिवस्तुनः
सदा त्रस्यन्ति आत्मनाशं मन्यमाना अविवेकिन इत्यर्थः । ‘उपायः सोऽवताराय’ (मा.
का. ३-१५)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=Mandukya&page=03&hval=%E2%80%98%E0%A4%89%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%83%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%BD%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E2%80%99%20(%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BE.%20%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE.%20%E0%A5%A9-%E0%A5%A7%E0%A5%AB)#MK_C03_V15>
 इत्युक्तम् ॥

One can read the translation of the above and also the next two verses.

The Vedanta admits, for the sake of the dull-witted, the 'arrangement'
taught in the Shruti regarding the dhārma and its practices for people.
These are required for these people for getting chitta shuddhi and rise to
the true Vedantic practices.  Hence, this 'acceptance' of varṇa-āśrama
dharmas etc. is only vyavaharika.  It rises to the level of prātibhāsika
when one shifts his vision to a higher level.  Brahman alone is
pāramārthika satya.  In fact it would be best the term Vedanta
'Ekasattāvāda'.  The verse of the BG 2.16 pointed out by Sri Venkatesh is
pertinent for in one go it denies reality/existence of the un-Atman and the
non-existence of the only real Atman.  In other words, the Real,
Atman/Brahman, will never go out of existence, abhāvagamanam is never for
it, and the unreal, anātman can never have true existence: it is ever
abhāva.

It is beneficial to contemplate on the term 'abhāvagamanam' Shankara uses
to explain the word 'bhūta-prakṛti mokṣam' in the very last verse of the
13th ch. BG.  It means: the kṣetra, created universe/prakriti/anātman has
no existence in all periods of time and the Kshetrajna, Brahman alone is
ever existent.

regards
vs

>
> thanks and regards
> -- durga prasad
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > From: janaswamy2001 at hotmail.com
> > To: vmurthy36 at gmail.com; advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> > Subject: RE: [Advaita-l] mithyA and abhAva chatuShTaya
> > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 05:32:09 +0000
> >
> > Hari Om,
> > Pranams
> >
> > And Mandukya  is 2-satta vada   and not 3-satta vada?
> >
> > thanks and regards
> > -- durga prasad
> >
> > ----------------------------------------
> >> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 10:40:34 +0530
> >> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] mithyA and abhAva chatuShTaya
> >> From: vmurthy36 at gmail.com
> >> To: janaswamy2001 at hotmail.com; advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> >>
> >> Namaste
> >>
> >> In the Mandukya Karika Sri Gaudapada has said 'Adavante Ca Yan Nasti
> >> Vartamane'pi Tattatha'. The thing not existing in the beginning and
> >> end but only in the middle present time is not existing now also. If a
> >> thing has a Pragabhava प्रागभाव before and a Pradhvamsabhava
> >> प्रधव्ंसाभाव after it gets destroyed ignorant people think it is
> >> existing in the middle period. But Sri Gaudapada has said even in the
> >> middle period also it is not existing. Therefore the words like
> >> प्रागभाव and प्रध्वंसाभाव have no meaning.
> >>
> >> The word Abhava अभाव also is meaningless Paramarthataha परमार्थतः.
> >> Why? Because you can say something is absent if it is different from
> >> Sat. But Sat is never absent and there is nothing different from it
> >> and only Sat is there.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Durga Janaswamy via Advaita-l
> >> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >>> मिथ्या and अभाव चतुष्टय
> >>>
> >>> mithyA is characterized by abhAva chatuShTaya
> >>>
> >>> abhAva chatuShTaya are
> >>>
> >>> 1. prAgabhAva प्रागभाव
> >>>
> >>> 2. pradhavMsAbhAva प्रधव्ंसाभाव
> >>>
> >>> 3. anyonyAbhAva अन्योन्याभाव
> >>>
> >>> 4. atyantAbhAva अत्यन्ताभाव
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please explain abhAva chatuShTaya and mithyA. What is the exact
> sentence used to say that mithyA has abhAva chatuShTaya?
> >>>
> >>> thank you and regards
> >>> -- durga prasad
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> -Venkatesh
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>