[Advaita-l] A vichAra on Swatantra & Paratantra (Independent & dependent Realities)

Shrisha Rao shrao at nyx.net
Sun Apr 11 09:54:53 CDT 2010

El abr 11, 2010, a las 5:59 p.m., V Subrahmanian escribió:

> [ Just in order not to give a misleading idea to the readers who have
> followed this thread so far, I wish to make a clarification, before we close
> this.]
>> For instance, recently you posted an analysis that attempted to use
>> Purandara Dāsa's composition referencing a non-existent "gumma" to make
>> points about how an unreal entity can have effects.  Sounds good, but
>> actually it turns out that the "gumma" is a तुच्छ, an अत्यन्तासत् like
>> वन्ध्यासुत, व्योमकमल, etc. (it is neither a व्यावहारिक object of worldly
>> experience, like the pot, etc., nor is it प्रातिभासिक like the
>> silver-nacre).  Such an entity has no साधकत्व according to Madhusūdana

> [ I have very carefully studied the 'gumma' phenomenon and taken it up as a
> defect-free dRShTAnta for the avidya of Vedanta.  If you go back to the
> article and see, I have listed how many common points are there between the
> two.  Let me assure you again: the gumma of Purandara Dasa is NOT  an
> atyanta abhAva vastu like vandhyaaputra, etc. as you have understood it to
> be.  Why? Because, it is able to create fear, etc. in the child and bring
> about obedience, compliance, etc. from the child. A vandhyAputra cannot
> even  be invoked by anyone even for creating the fear psychosis.  It would
> be meaningless for anyone to do that.  I cannot say, even in gest - ’ Look,
> the vandhyAputra with fierce looks is staring at you'.  I cannot give any
> attributes to a totally non-existing vastu.

Of course we can; e.g., we can say that the व्योमकमल is blue in color, and induce fear in a child or other person based on some characteristic of a तुच्छ (e.g., by saying that a शशविषाण is sharp and can cause grievous injury).  Your claim is backward, that a gumma is not अत्यन्तासत् because it has साधकत्व; by that standard, even a व्योमकमल or शशविषाण can be given some साधकत्व and called not अत्यन्तासत.  However, the gumma, like the व्योमकमल, does not have any of the three types of सत्ता -- it is an अत्यन्तासत् only, for it is not व्यावहारिक, प्रातिभासिक, and of course not पारमार्थिक.

> Gumma turns out to be not existent *only* upon Krishna searching for it in
> all the worlds, including VaikunTha.  

This of course is also a characteristic of other तुच्छs such as शशविषाण; one could scour the world expecting to see one somewhere (if we were told that it existed).  A logically-inconsistent तुच्छ could be ruled out if one were sharp, but one might not know that something like a शशविषाण does not exist, and some false claim of its साधकत्व could be easily made.

> The two songs prove that gumma, though not ultimately real,  can be a
> saadhakatva of bhaya and upon searching for
> it, not being available.  This is exactly of the status of a mithyA vastu:
> the snake appears, creates fear, trembling, etc. but upon searching for it
> turns out to be not there.

However, the प्रातिभासिक requires the superimposition on something else (e.g., on a rope seen in poor light), whilst a gumma is not created by misperception of something else.  What is its substratum?  A निरधिष्ठान-भ्रान्ति is not possible (this is a difference between us and Buddhists) and in any event would not suffice to call it प्रातिभासिक.

> A tucchA vastu is not of this type; it never even appears.  

Correct; which is true of a gumma as well -- who has seen it?


Shrisha Rao

>> subrahmanian.v

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list