[Advaita-l] Advaita vEdAnta - Unit (25)
sjayana at yahoo.com
Fri Apr 27 19:47:47 CDT 2007
Dear K. Ramakrishna,
Thanks for your series postings on advaita VedAnta, which I have
found to be useful. However, there is nothing wrong in seeking
answers to legitimate doubts, and my questions were raised in that
1) So far as philosophy is concerned --
NONE of your sources say anything close to the claim:
abhAvarUpa Cause --> bhAvarUpa Effect
I'm not challenging the truth of the above in the traditional context
or in the context of Sruti interpretation, but whether the above
makes any logical sense at all. I cannot understand how a bhAvarUpa
Effect can possibly arise out of an abhAvarUpa Cause. Hence I wanted
to know where exactly you came across a teacher of advaita VedAnta
specifically upholding such a doctrine. ***Or is it only your own
personal claim?*** If so, I would question how it can come under the
purview of "advaita VedAnta" at all. After all, in advaita VedAnta,
The Effect is said to pre-exist in the Cause.
I would go so far as to ask which philosopher anywhere has spoken of
such a possibility.
2) So far as terminology is concerned --
You've used the terms "bhAvarUpa" and "abhAvarUpa" in your posting.
Hence I wanted to know which AchArya has spoken of "abhAvarUpa
aGYAna" -- exactly in those terms -- which you have repeatedly
maintained in your posting.
Even Swami Sadananda's quote that you've reproduced below says that
aGYAna is bhAvarUpa, the exact opposite of your claim. Neither do the
other quotes say anything specifically about aGYAna being bhAvarUpa
Again, it seems to me that it is your own personal use of
terminology, and if that is the case, it might be good to clarify
that *also* upfront.
--- Krishnamurthy Ramakrishna <puttakrishna at verizon.net> wrote:
> S. Jayanarayana wrote (also responding to Prem D P and Kartik)
> You are saying that bhAvarUpa adhyAsa has as its kAraNam an
> abhAvarUpa aGYAna. This is strange for two reasons:
> 1) It seems that a real effect (bhAvarUpa adhyAsa) can arise out of
> an unreal cause (abhAvarUpa aGYAna). This is not what advaita
> teaches, AFAIK.
> 2) This is out-of-sync with traditional AchAryas who teach that
> aGYAna is bhAvarUpa -- see for example the series posting by Anand
> in this regard.
> Can you please cite the references/sources for your information?
> The sources:
> 1) BrihadAraNyaka bhAshya (4-3-20) - "sA cha avidyA nAtmanah
> 2) vEdAnta sAra by swami SadAnanda (33) - vastu saccidAnanda
> advayam brahma;
> ajnyAnAdi sakala jaDa samUhah avastu (further in 34, swami
> clarifies that when ajnyAna is presented as bhAvarUpa, he explains
> that it
> is not 'sat'; if it is 'sat', it cannot be destroyed and there is
> no benefit
> of mumukShatva; it is not abhAva for an ajnyAni, so it is described
> bhAvarUpa. Because ajnyAna has to be illuminated by Pure
> being experienced by us ajnyAnis, it is described as bhAvarUpa).
> 3) NaiShkarmya siddhi (3-66) " sEyam bhrAntih nirAlambA sarvanyAya
> virOdhini, sahatE na vichAram sA tamO yadvaddivAkaram"
> 4) vEdAnta PrabhOda by Swami Paramananda bhArati (a faithful
> follower of
> Shankara) in Kannada, describes in detail the svarUpa of ajnyAna
> Let us not see every article under the "traditional" or
> microscope. In advaita there is no TWO. We are all seekers and
> challenge or seek clarifications with out reference to a label.
> Thanks for the comments.
> K. Ramakrishna.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list