[Advaita-l] Need explanation

[V Subrahmanian]

The issue being discussed in this thread, in my understanding, can be
captured under the idea of 'vastu pariccheda'.  When there are two
objects/individuals that are held to be different from each other, then
there exists what is 'vastu paricchedatva', i.e., they are both limited by
each other. If an Absolute or Supreme is held to be coexisting with many
others of its own or any other type, then that Absolute cannot be really
absolute, infinite.  It is limited by the 'other'.  This is different from
'desha pariccheda'.  Akasha, space, is all-pervading and that way 'deshatah
ananta'.  But it is vasuttah paricchinna since there are others such as
vayu, etc. that can be counted as different from akasha.  Akasha also is
not kaalatah aparicchinna since it is a created entity subject to
destruction in pralaya.  Shankara has brought out these aspects in the
Taittiriya Bhashya while explaining the 'anantam' word there.

Thus, if any deity such as Vishnu, is said to be the Absolute, and
different from other deities and individuals and objects, such a Vishnu
cannot enjoy the Absolute status as he is limited by the 'others' which he
is not.  Such a defect cannot be escaped by non-Advaitins.  That is the
reason why Advaita does not admit of any deity/individual/formed person as
the Absolute.

regards
subbu

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 5:02 AM, Kartik Vashishta via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>