[Advaita-l] Fw: [USBrahmins] Re: FW: "brahma satyam jagan mithya"-AN ADVICE TO READ BEFORE WRITING ON ADVAITA.
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Sun Sep 2 02:09:56 CDT 2012
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear friends,
> This for your kind perusal and comments.
> Regards,Sunil KB
> From: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
> To: "usbrahmins at yahoogroups.com" <usbrahmins at yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2012 12:33 PM
> Subject: Fw: [USBrahmins] Re: FW: "brahma satyam jagan mithya"-AN ADVICE
> TO READ BEFORE WRITING ON ADVAITA.
> From: Shivprasad <shiv_dinkar at yahoo.com>
> To: USBrahmins at yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2012 8:48 AM
> Subject: [USBrahmins] Re: FW: "brahma satyam jagan mithya"-AN ADVICE TO
> READ BEFORE WRITING ON ADVAITA.
> Hare Srinivasa
> Dear Sri Shivashankara Rao
> Thanks for kindly and patiently replying to my post but, did it answer the
> questions that were originlly initiated? I don't think so.
> (YOU DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE READ THE REPLY FULLY OR YOU HAVE NOT TRIED TO
> UNDERSTAND IT- IT COULD ALSO BE BECAUSE OF THE OVER ENTHUSIASM OF A NEW
> Since I was born in an Adwatic family and, was exposed to ONLY Adwaita
> until I went to Engineering college, I am aware that in Adwaitham, there
> are three kinds of Tatwam - namely, Paramarthaika Tatwam, Vyavaharika
> Tatwam and Pratibhashika Tatwam.
The Madhva system accepts two kinds of tattvam/satyam: Swatantra and
Paratantra. In the chart given by Dr.B.N.K.Sharma in his book 'A History
of Dvaita Vedanta and its Lietrature', according to Tattvodyota of Madhva,
Vishnu alone is Swatantra Satya and everything other than Vishnu, Lakshmi
onwards, the whole world and jivas. are Paratantra. This division is not
very different from Advaita's Paramarthika and Vyavaharika. What Advaita
holds as vyavaharika is paratantra in Dvaita.
Madhwas also aver that the Swatantra Vishnu is the 'sattA prada' (lender of
existence) to the paratantra (world and jivas) which is dependent for its
very existence on the Swatantra. Without the sattaa provided by the
Swatantra, the dependent paratantra will have no existence/reality. That
means even in the Madhwa system the dependent category does not have an
existence of its own. Such a category is no different from the
superimposed snake which has no existence of its own by seems to exist only
on the existence of the underlying rope.
> When an object is not becoming the object of Bhaada Gyanam, then it is
> Paramarthika Sathyam and, the exampe for this is Brahman.
> By Brahma Gyanam alone, when one is subjected to Bhaada Gyanam, then it is
> called Vyavaharka and, the example of this is Jagat.
> Other than by Brahma Gyanam, if Bheda Gyanam comes, it is, then
> Pathibhashika and, the example for this case is Sukti Rajata.
> That is why, Mahan Sri Madwacharya says - "Na Cha Paramarthaha
> Bhedabhavaha, Vyavaharikaha Saha Asthithi Vachyam | Sadsadaivalakshane
> Pramanaabhavath" ||
One need not go very far to know what is 'sat-asat-vilakShaNa.' Sri
Purandara Dasa has in his two songs provided enough material to understand
what is meant by this phenomenon:
> That is, there is no Bheda, that is real difference, but it is accepted
> only as Vyavaharik, that is, empirical, is not correct. Because the
> concept of Vyavaharik - that is Sadsat Vilakshana that which is real nor
> unreal is not tenable. So he says - "Na Cha Vaileshanam Tat Pratitim Vina
> Gyayathe" || That is, he who claims that Asat is not comprehended, cannot
> deny it unless he has comprehended it and he cannot also deny it if he has
> comprehended it (in either case he has to accept the comprehension of Asat).
This is not sound logic. Everyone knows that 'vandhyAputra', 'shasha
viShANa' and the like are asat; do not exist. What is the proof of their
non-existence? It is only that they do not present themselves to anyone's
knowledge. If anyone had apprehended them at any time/place one could
accept that these do exist. Since no one has so far seen these it is
accepted by all that they do not exist. Now, based on this, the Advaitin
says: if the illusory snake (superimposed on the rope) is asat it would not
have presented itself to anyone's knowledge. But everyone has the
experience of the illusory snake during a bhrama. And if this snake were
sat, real, it would not be getting sublated when the rope knowledge
arises. Everyone experiences the sublation of the imagined snake when the
rope is known. Thus this imaginary snake is neither asat nor sat and falls
in a special category. The 'gumma' described by Purandara Dasa and
experienced by every child is of this category.
> That is why Mahan Sri Jaya Tirtha Swamy* says - "Apreethitasya
> Pratishedhaha Na Yuchathe" | Nothing can be denied without knowing it, so
> when Asat is known, then only it can be denied.
So when Asat is known, means, Asat Chet Na Pratiyet falls flat. When Asat
> Chet Na Pratiyet falls falt, then Sadsat Vilakshanatwa falls flat. So,
> Anirvachaneeyam falls flat. So, then Mityatwa falls flat.
Even Madhwas accept 'asat' known as 'tucchA' by giving examples of 'gagana
kusuma', 'koorma roma', etc. Find out how they came to accept these.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list