[Advaita-l] Advaiti Response to this report?
abhishek046 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 16 08:16:08 CST 2012
How can you say that light can be perceived without darkness? Darkness
is not the opposite of light but it is the absence of light and vice
versa. If you take a torch into a dark room the torch is bright.
However if you take the same torch in the open sun, the sun becomes
more bright. Now you can say the sun is brighter only because you have
a less brighter torch. This less bright torch is the same as "a source
of darkness" compared to the sun even though it can still illuminate a
room. Even the brightest source of light needs a lesser bright source
or in other words a darker source to show that its the brighter. May
it be happiness-sadness, good-bad,etc, the same principle holds good.
This is the answer to anyone who objects the coexistence and
interexistence of Brahman and Maya.
Coming to the sat-chit-ananda point, plz acknowledge the fact this is
the closest DESCRIPTION of Brahman. Sat, chit and ananda are not the
attributes of Brahman. Saying Brahman is happiness, bliss,
conciousness is only a way to describe Brahman but not the attributes
of Brahman. May it be happiness or extreme happiness or bliss or
anything else, all these are emotions. Emotions are the product of
maya. Aren't emotions the product of the senses? Aren't our senses the
same things which bound us and prevent us from perceiving Brahman. The
Ajativada of Sri Gaudapada acknowledges the same fact. Neither was
there a creation, not destruction. Not matter what we use to describe
Brahman in the paramarthika level it is incorrect. Brahman is Brahman,
just Brahman, only Brahman and nothing but Brahman. View Brahman as
anything else and you perceive through the vyavaharika sense.
On 1/16/12, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mostly you are right. But it is not necessary to know sadness to know
> happiness. Why? Happiness is our natural state. Sat Chit Ananda. Like
> this Light is natural state. It is not necessary to know Darkness to
> know Light.
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:13 PM, abhishek sm <abhishek046 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If there were
>> nothing but silence, it wouldn't
>> exist for you; you wouldn't know
>> what it is. Only when sound
>> appears does silence come into
>> being. Similarly, if there were only
>> space without any objects in
>> space, it wouldn't exist for you.
>> Imagine yourself as a point of
>> consciousness floating in the
>> vastness of space - no stars, no
>> galaxies, just emptiness. Suddenly,
>> space wouldn't be vast anymore; it
>> would not be there at all. There
>> would be no speed, no movement
>> from here to there. At least two
>> points of reference are needed for
>> distance and space to come into
>> being. Space comes into being the
>> moment the One becomes two,
>> and as "two" become the "ten
>> thousand things.
>> But it is always the one that is the source of many.
>> So to prove the existence of Brahman alone it is necessary to prove
>> the non-existence of Maya.
>> Only when a disciple is crystal clear of the notion of non-dual
>> Brahman, he no longer tilts towards the maya aspect. Hence, Mayavada
>> is required atleast in the beginning if not in the entire process.
>> Sadly dvaitins waste their time debating the nature of Maya which
>> triggers such unwanted debates.
>> On 1/16/12, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Kalyan K <kalyankc.81 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Namaste Venkatesh-ji
>>>>> But Advaitis are caught up in Mayavada only insted of Sadvada.
>>>> Mayavada is generally used as a derogatory term by dvaitins and others
>>>> against advaita. The real spirit of advaita is brahmavada, not
>>>> mayavada. You will be doing a great disservice to advaita by calling
>>>> it as mayavada. Yes, nothing is ever born or destroyed, because when
>>>> eveything is brahman, the question of birth or death does not arise.
>>>> This is brahmavada in its purest form. When you worship brahman in
>>>> saguna form, like narayana or siva or sakti, the same priciple of
>>>> brahmavada (seeing siva or narayana or sakti everywhere) will also
>>>> lead you to the highest form of bhakti. That is why we have stalwarts
>>>> like madhusudhana saraswati who are both advaitins and krishna-bhaktas
>>>> at the same time. That is why Sri Sankara was able to compose both
>>>> devotional works as well as works imparting jnana at the same time. I
>>>> regret your fundamental misunderstanding of advaita.
>>> I agree Brahmavada is the purest Advaita. But why not learn this pure
>>> Brahmavada only? Mayavada is concentrating on something not Sat and it
>>> is a disturbance because it makes the mind go away from Sat.
>>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>> For assistance, contact:
>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list