[Advaita-l] Need explanation

[Kartik Vashishta]

It is contended by some that the world is not such an utter negation of
Reality, that the world of names and forms is in the being of Reality, that
plurality cannot be a nothing, that diversity which is real is indwelt by
the Supreme. It is also held that the individual is not the Absolute until
it realises the Absolute, that the process of change and evolution is a
perfect truth and not an appearance, and that the quality of the Absolute
is not attributable to the individual at any time.

It is not difficult to note that indwelling is possible only when the
Indweller is different from the indwelled, that is, when there is a second
entity.

Query: Does this mean that there is something outside the absolute which
invalidates the hypothesis of duality?


 To assert that God pervades the diverse beings and that God impels all
actions is a trick played by the cunning individuals flowing with the
current of instinct to get a license of objective indulgence. The
self-expression called the world is not a deliberate objective act of the
Absolute, for we cannot say that the Absolute acts.

Query: Activity cannot be attributed to the absolute, is this what in these
lines invalidates duality?


It is an undivided appearance without any ultimate logical reason for its
existence or disappearance. Hence we often come to the conclusion that
appearance, subsistence, disappearance, bondage, life and liberation are
eternal!

Query: How do we come to the aforesaid conclusion? Is it because the world
is eternal?


An undivided change is no change.

Query: While I understand this I fail to see the relevance of the above
sentance in the critique of duality.

 Eternal transformation is changelessness, and it cannot be considered as
any motion at all.

Query: How is eternal transformation changelessness?


Thus, appearance would become eternal like Reality, and two eternals
contradict the Absolute. This proves the invalidity of the existence of
appearance.




To assert diversity is to deny absoluteness. It does not, however, mean
that the Absolute excludes the diverse finitudes, but the finite is
eternally dissolved in or is identical with the Absolute, and therefore, it
does not claim for itself an individual reality. It is argued that to
ignore differences is to reduce the Absolute to a non-entity. The Absolute
does not depend upon the reality of egoistic differences. By cancelling the
relative we may not affect the Absolute, but we, so long as we are
unconscious of the fundamental Being, improve thereby our present state of
consciousness.

Individuality is in every speck of space and these egos must be so very
undivided that diversity becomes an impossible conception and homogeneity
persists in every form of true reasoning in our effort to come to a
conclusion in regard to the nature of the Absolute.

Query: How are the individual infinite egos undivided?
Query: How does diversity become an impossibility?

We may blindly assert difference, but it is not possible to establish it
through any acceptable reasoning.

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Kartikji,
>
> Reply inline...
>
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Kartik Vashishta via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Does this mean that the realization of the absolute cannot be a process
> > because a process is changing every moment? Evolution being a process is
> > al;so hence unreal......
> >
> Your question is little on the boundary of the context of the process of
> the opponent quoted by Swamiji. The opponent's process is to evolve and
> become something one is not. That is just not possible. Coming to your
> question, its tricky. One can't say it is not a process since there is
> effort involved. However, it is prAptasya prAptiH, gaining of the already
> gained, what you already are. Since there is no choice in knowing something
> as is, one can't say that ​there is a process of choosing to become. Yet
> knowledge takes effort in terms of removing misunderstandings. So
> realisation is a process of removing the misconceptions of taking oneself
> as something one is not, including the thinking that one will become
> absolute while being limited. That is an impossibility.
>
>
> Does this mean that the world is not a second absolute, since two absolutes
> > would be a contradiction?
> >
> ​Yes, it verily means that.​ This absolute is not like my saying that "O,
> my friend is absolutely good", the absolute good there being relative/
> subjective. This absolute is the real sense of the word absolute. There
> cannot be anything outside of it.
>
> Does the presence of infinite individuaualities not contradict that there
> > can be only one absolute? How do we arrive at the conclusion that an
> > infinite set of finites spread across space cannot be divided?
> >
> ​No, appearances do not contradict the one. A rope can be seen as a snake,
> a split in the [path, a stream of water and so on, but the rope always
> remains one even when perceived as many.
> ​​
>
> > Putmān retas siñcati yoṣitāyām bahvīḥ prajāḥ puruṣāt samprasūtāḥ: In this
> > manner, the heavenly Purusha is causing, by his own vibration of will,
> the
> > creation of every little thing in this world. Even the little crawling
> > insects are created by the Supreme Purusha. Creation takes place in a
> > variety of ways, which is only one illustration of the manner of the
> > relation of cause and effect, highlighting how we, in our crude form of
> > understanding, imagine how something could have come from something else.
> > Why should anything come from something else? If something is not there
> > which is causeless, and if the ultimate cause also has a cause, there
> would
> > be a logical regression and the argument will break. A meaningful
> argument
> > should have an end. Endless arguments are no arguments. And so, the
> > argument in respect of the effect coming from a cause should lead to a
> > cause which itself has no further cause.
>
>
> First of all the creation mentioned itself is just manifestation or
> expression of one reality as many. It is not real creation or even
> modification. That said, if the cause/ source of all causes were also to
> have a cause, it would lead to infinite regress. That is a logical flaw, so
> there has to be a cause that is Itself causeless. That is one and brahman
> as per Shruti. Moreover, if there is a cause for brahman, that brahman will
> not be absolute, as explained earlier.
>
> ​gurupAdukAbhyAm,
> ​
> ​
> --Praveen R. Bhat
>  /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> ​ ​
> That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */​
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>