[Advaita-l] Holenarsipur Swamiji's remarks and why even Avidya is not necessary for Advaita
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Tue Jan 31 11:57:48 CST 2012
I think some scholars still believe that Adi Sankara was the first to use the words Maya, Mithya. To my knowledge, much earlier than Adi Sankara the Budhhist scholars like Vasubandhu used these terms, with almost similar meanings. So also many believe that the words Paramarthinka and Vyavaharika Satyas were first used by Adi Sankara. To my knowledge much earlier Nagarjuna used these words and probably Lord Buddha also did. As regards the Anirvachaniyatva can we say that the Nasadiya sukta itself gives the clue and so also the "Neti Neti". It was Adi Sankara, who for the first time extended the good work of Gaudapada and churned the Vedic texts comprehensively to spread the message of Advaita. It is said that even Lord Buddha desired that in future such an exposition should appear in this land.
Kindly correct me if I am wrong.
From: श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at gmail.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 5:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Holenarsipur Swamiji's remarks and why even Avidya is not necessary for Advaita
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:11, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Give up the complicated Maya Jala and do Brahmopasana. That is
Who are you to tell this to us ? You are not an advaita-AchArya. Your
thoughts show that you are not even a student of this path.
And if you really want members of advaita-l to follow your foot-prints by
making them disciples, try to be more rational.
> Adi Sankara has not propagated the idea of Anirvachaniya Avidya and
> the two Avidyas. But it was started later.
Do you think that you are the only one in this world who has contemplated
upon bhAShyam ?
> Holenarsipur Swamiji has written about Vachaspati in Page 101 How to
> Recognize the Method of Vedanta -
> 'In almost all instances of his defence of Sankara against the attacks
> of Bhaskaracharya, we find the Anirvachaniyavada is the one handy
> weapon un-sheathed to repulse the opponent.'
SSS is not an authority on these issues. His path is different from
tradition in many ways and he and his words are pramANa for his followers
and if not in conflict with advaitAchArya-s then for us.
How could a person who has no faith in padmapAda, etc. is so faithful to
SSS ? Any hidden agenda ?
In Page 98 -
> 'The Panchapadika however enters upon a tediously long discussion to
> refute all views other than the theory of Anirvachaniya Khyati which
> is elaborated at great length, never invoking the support of the
> Bhasjya for any of the opinions advanced in that connection.'
> What is Anirvachaniya Vada? Same as Mayavada. Same as Mithyatva Vada.
It seems that you hold that only sha~Nkara was capable of thinking and none
other can do that.
That's not true. Every person is capable of that and the result is seen as
different sampradAys-s of advaita.
Again, it appears that according to you advaita is only limited to words of
sha~Nkara and direct meaning of that.
That's again false. Any person who can think according to advaita keeping
in mind shruti, smR^its and yukti, is a contributer to advaita. Hence we
have texts other than that of sha~Nkara.
We can now say two things. A The Anirvachinaya Vada is not supported
> in Sankara Bhashya. B It is not necessary for understanding Advaita.
> All the Sadasadvilakshana Vada was used to confuse Opponents in
> Debates. It is not necessary.
> Holenarsipur Swamiji is saying Sankara Bhashya has used only
> Adhyaropa Apavada Vada. A false thing is superimposed and removed.
And what does 'being false' mean? sat or asat or both or 'you can't say' ?
This was asked in a previous thread. You just bypassed.
If you are a person who wants to test advaita-matam, then it will be better
to be neutral to reach correct result. First hear our objections, then
define your assumptions.
> Adi Sankara has used Brahmavada very strongly in arguments in the
And what is that brahmavAda ?
Is it able to stand without mAya ?
Definitely not as is shown by many advaitain-s here.
> The Creator of the World is Brahman. It is unnecessary to
> bring in another thing called Maya to explain Creation.
So, world is real. Because it is created by brahman. This is not advaita of
Are you trying to propagate vishiShTAdvaita in disguise in this forum ?
But he creates
> the world with his Sankalpa thought only.
So, he has a mind. And definitely he is not 'his mind'. So, he is a limited
brahman. Such is not brahman of veda-s.
> He does not have to do any
> work actually. He is doing this creation for having fun.
So, he feels bored too. What type of brahman is this ?
It is His
> Leela. Lokavattu Leelakaivalyam sutra 2-1-33 is clear. Moreover
> Brahman's Sankalpa cannot be false.
Your such and such brahman is false, because he is limited. What to say
about his sa~Nkalpa.
> He is called as Satya Sankalpa.
> Whatever He thinks will be real only. It will never be false.
He thinks about snake-in-rope and our dreams, they born mithyA. So, it
proves him mithyA-sa~Nkalpa !?
> World created by Him is also real. But it is only His thought. It is
> in Him. It is not different from Him. That is why every object is a
> reflection of Him only. That is why the Sruti is saying Sarvam
> Khalvidam Brahma.
If shruti is trying to say what you are saying, then shruti is not a
pramANa. Why ? This type of thing is never seen to happen anywhere else and
hence is opposed to pratyaxa, etc.
> The Bruhadaranyaka Sruti is saying Purnamadaha Purnamidam Purnat
> Purnamudachyate. Adi Sankara has explained this. This Universe has
> come from the Infinite Purna Brahman. It is not different from Him.
If it came from him, then it is clearly different from him ? Child is not
one with Mother. Isn't it ?
> But a question can be asked? How is it possible for a Jada Vastu like
> a stone to be Brahman? In pure Advaita there is no Jada vastu at all
> like the Visistadvaita says Acit Vastu. Instead of Acit or Jada or
> Achetana Vastu in pure Advaita the stone is not revealing Brahman to
> us. But Brahman is there in it.
Even if stone is accepted as an agent of revelation of brahman, it is
different from brahman. As a gem is different from light.
> Another question. If the world is Brahman how is there suffering and
> cruelty in the world? The World is created in Brahman's thought as a
> Game for fun. In a Game we suffer sometimes defeat sometimes we get
> victory. We cannot always be winning. We have to smile even in defeat
> because we can play well in the next game. Better Luck Next Time.
> Life is a Game played by God. We have to be good sportsmen. Exercise
> well and play well. We cannot take Life very seriously because it is
> only a Game.
> The Sruti is also saying Nirguna Brahman is the only thing existing.
> We all are That only. By doing Sagunopasana we can realize we are part
> of Brahman's Sankalpa thought only. This will lead to Nirguna Brahman
It appears as you have read too many books of different writers, so you are
uttering unrelated and baseless things. Before revealing your thoughts to
public, test them atleast.
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list