[Advaita-l] Advaiti Response to this report?
vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 12 22:12:00 CST 2012
Where Sruti is saying exactly Anitya=Mithya? The opponents may agree a
Pot is Anitya. It can be created and destroyed at some point. But how
is this proving it is Mithya? One point from Dvaiti side- the Advaiti
says something is Mithya but he says also looking from Paramartha that
Mithya thing was not there at any time. It becomes just like Asat.
Then how are you going to differentiate Mithya from Asat? If Mithya is
same as Asat we get a meaningless theory.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:08 PM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>wrote:
>> Your chief point of argument is Chandogya Vacarambhana Sruti but the
>> opponent may not agree with your translation. It is only saying-
>> 'Pot, tumbler, plate, etc., and various articles of this kind
>> manufactured out of clay are clay only, in reality.' But it is not
>> saying Pot, tumbler, plate etc is not real. Advaitis are saying that.
>> They are adding stuff to Sruti - 'Pot, tumbler, plate etc are Mithya.'
>> They are making a jump to Mithyatva. The jump is from Anityatva to
>> Mithyatva. But Sruti is not saying this.
> The 'eva' along with 'vAchArambhaNam vikAro nAmadheyam' is enough teaching
> in the shruti for the Advaitin's conclusion/interpretation. The
> characteristic of anityatva is: it has a beginning and an end. The
> scripture based on yukti teaches that 'that which is absent before
> beginning and after end has to be deemed to be so (absent) even in the
> intervening period. So it is not a 'jump' from anityatva to mithyAtva but
> only stating that anityatva IS mithyAtva/asatyatva.
>> Sruti is saying Pot, tumbler, plate etc are transformations of Clay
>> only and they are all Clay only in reality. The base is the same but
>> the objects are not Mithya. They are transformations.
> Transformation is nothing but giving the clay a new name and form which
> were not there before and will not be after. Hence mithyAtva of the
> name-form transformed-clay is the natural conclusion.
>> Clay is the Material Cause Upadana of Pot, Tumbler, plate etc. Sruti is
>> this. ततश्च उपादानोपादेयोरभेदात् उपादाने ज्ञाते उपादेयस्य ज्ञातता
>> भवतीत्यर्थः । See Ranga Ramanuja Bhashya on 6-1-4. मृत्पिण्ड एव
>> नामरूपभाग् भवतीत्यर्थः, वाचारम्भणमित्युक्तेर्मिथ्येत्यश्रुतकल्पनम्
>> ।पुनरुक्तिर्नामधेयमितीत्यस्य निरर्थता ॥
> Pl. read an earlier post on the above here:
> If the Clay is only real but not Pot and Tumbler it will be meaningless
>> for Sruti saying if we know
>> Clay we know Pot and Tumbler. What is there to know if they are
>> Mithya? Second point is knowing real Clay will not give us knowledge
>> of Mithya Pot and Tumbler. Knowing Brahman will not give us knowledge
>> of World because Brahman is Paramartha and it will not have property
>> of Mithya World. ब्रह्मणि ज्ञाते प्रपञ्चस्य ज्ञातमेवेति चेत् न-
>> परमार्थब्रह्मणः अपरमार्थप्रपञ्चतत्तवरूपत्वाभावात् ।
> The purpose of the shruti in giving the three analogies is to enable the
> knowledge of the 'essence' / 'truth' of the phenomenon called the
> variegated world. To know that the created world has no existence/reality
> apart from the material cause, Sat, is not a waste. That indeed is the
> liberating knowledge.
>> The Vacarambhana Sruti is saying Brahman is Material Cause of World.
>> But not World is Mithya. The Dvaiti will not agree with Visishtadvaiti
>> saying Brahman is Upadana of World. But he will not agree with Advaiti
>> saying World is Mithya in Vacarambhana Sruti
> Only because of these disagreements we have different schools.
> 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