[Advaita-l] Who is Ishwara? He is NARAYANA only. Beautiful and soothing Narayana Bhajan
Praveen R. Bhat
bhatpraveen at gmail.com
Thu May 25 00:58:18 EDT 2017
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
>> Whatever your answer on mithyA,
Lets be clear first that I am not answering on mithyA, I'm questioning
others' understanding of mithyA.
> it does not take away the position that at least as long mithya is said to
>> be there (i.e during vyavahArika avastha), only nirguNa brahman is said to
>> be under the spell of that avidya. That is the distinction.
> The distinction between all others and AV is that we say that any of the
vyavahArika avasthA is only a standpoint. In the same avasthA, nothing
changes even a bit from the pAramArthika standpoint.
>>> Since ignorance cannot float freely without any aShraya, and given that
>>> only NB is only the tatva according to AV, then his question is how NB
>>> possibly could have ignorance?
>> NB is the Ashraya, which is unopposed to knowledge and ignorance alike,
>> just as the desert land is the Ashraya for mirage-water without being
> That is not the problem in the case of desert because it allows us to
> posit the guNa (of being Ashraya or Ashrayattva). No one claims desert is
No one can claim anything is nirguNa, but brahman, meaning one's own self.
In such cases, kevalavyatireka examples are perfectly fine too, since no
anvaya examples are possible.
This questioning of the example can be done with any example in any
siddhAnta, since no example can be the same as the exemplified. If it is
the same, then it is not an example. In each example, bhAgatyAga lakShaNa
is to be done. I can show this so-called fault of the example even in the
Shrutis, let alone dvaitin's examples, such as jIvAs being like sparks that
come off the fire flame, since fire is created and insentient, how can that
be an example for jIvas.
This cannot be said so in the case of Brahman, for by definition it is
> nirguNa, including Ashraya for anything.
Ashrayatva is also mithyA from the perspective. Also, saguNatva of desert
has nothing to do with its being ashraya for mithyA mirage-water. The
example fits perfectly. We resort to mAyayA sarvasambhavAt. Hence we bring
Maya to explain the inexplicable: aghaTita ghaTanA paTIyasi mAyA.
Moreover, you conveniently ignored the dream example. Here it is again:
If you went to sleep alone, how are you dreaming the entire dvandva
prapancha in svapnAvasthA? What does it rest on? Did you divide and become
many? Did you undergo change? The dreamer is ignorant about being the waker
along with the waking world. Therefore, he takes the dreamer along with the
dream world as real. Ditto.
> If it cannot then why invoke ignorance argument to explain away duality?
>> I didn't say that ignorance is a guNa of NB; why ignorance, sat, chit
>> and Ananda are also not guNas of NB.
> Isn't it your question to Sri.Kalyan -- "If the Atman is nirguNa
> nirvishesha, how can he have the attribute of ignorance?" . Because you use
> the hEtu (of Atman being nirguNa) in questioning sAdya of Atman having
> attribute of ignorance,
Yes, it is a hetu not in questioning the sAdhya, but to show the flaw in
sAdhya that ignorance is an existent attribute.
> Isn't it entire adhyAsa-bhAShya is all about this confusion?
No. The confusion is never between atyanta-asat and atyanta-sat. Hence I
have to revert to the assertion that AV is not understood till all
definitions of mithyA as explained are understood well. Please note that am
not saying that you do not know, else I have heard people say that "AV
followers find an easy way out of saying that people who accuse AV do not
understand mithyA". :) I am only saying that what you have said is not the
definition of mithyA.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list