[Advaita-l] Fwd: World is a Flower in the Sky

Venkatesh Murthy vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Tue Apr 2 21:38:11 CDT 2013

Dvaitis are saying this.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: shivprasad dinkar <shiv_dinkar at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:20 AM
Subject: World is a Flower in the Sky
To: "vmurthy36 at gmail.com" <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>

*The Dwaitins accept that there is a difference between impermenance and
But not existing for all time, is not the same as not existing at definite
periods of time!!! 'Mithyatva', in this sense, would be synomous with
impernance or 'Anithyam'. So, if we say, 'Brahmeva Nithyam, Jagat
Anithyam', we can call that logical and can accept that. So, what does the
concept called
'Mithya' add something new to our knowledge that we did not know and, maybe
that is the crux of the question.

But, if, as is actually held by the Adwaitin, the stultification denies the
existence of an object even with reference to the particular time at which
it is experienced. As quoted in Advaithasiddhi by Madhusudhana Bharathi
that you had suggested -'Yadkaalavachedhena Swarthm Gruheethaha
Tannishe Dhambhupagmaath' - this is equivalent to saying that the so-called
'object' is utterly non-existent in the present, even with reference to the
particular time and place with which it is or was associated in our

So, that is why Mahan Sri Vyasaraya Tirtha* says - it is impossible to
any logical or conceptual distinction between the Mithyabhuta as conceived
the Adwaitin and the utterly non-existent - 'Tasmath Sarvatra
Traikaalikanishedha Pratiyogithwameva Aswathwam | Thadeva Cha Mithyaathwam'
In other words their distinction, so doggedly sought to be pursued by the
Adwaitin is, if I have to use the IIT Bombay language - the same as that
the tweedledum and the tweedledee (i.e., a set of two similar things
as a unit and hence impossible to tell apart).*

As Mahan Sri Jaya Tirtha Swamy says - 'Aprithiya Pratishedhaha Na Yujyathe'
that is, Nothing can be denied without knowing it. So, when Adwaitha calls
Jagat as 'Sadsat Viakshana' - that is different from Sath as well as as it
different from Asath also. And, in order to prove their point, the Adwatins
state the inference as - Vimathwam, Mithya, Drushatwath, Shukti Rajatwat.
is Mithya because it is seen, like the conch-silver. Then what is meant by
Mithya, they say -'Mithyatwam Naama Anirvachaneeyam' and 'Anirvachaneeyam
Sadsat Vilakshanatwam'. Then the Adwaitins say Mithyatwam means
which means that it cannot be expressed. Further, Anirvachaneeyatwa means
Sadsat Vilakshanatwam which means that it is different from Sat as well as
In order to substantiate, Adwaitins take the example of conch-silver (or
and snake). There they show Drushatwa Hetu as well as Sadsat Viakshnatwa.
also is present there. In respect of Hetu being present in the example,
is no difficulty because one sees Shukti Rajatam, feels as Idham Rajatam and
this Brahamai or illusion. In respect to Sadhya being present in the
Drushtantha, Adwaitins take two postulates on Nyaya School - namely, Sat
Chet Na
Badayeth - which means if it is Sat, then later on, it should not be
to a different and opposite knowledge. The other being Asat Chet Na
- which means if it is Asat then it should not be seen. Now taking Shukti
Rajath, one can find that it is Sat Vilakshana - different from Sat, because
later, on examination, one gets the knowledge as Nedham Rajatham. So, Sat
Na Badayet is not satisfied and so it is different from Sat and so Sat
Vilakshanatwam has come. Then because this silver, Rajata is seen and Asat
Na Prateyet is not satisfied and, it should be different from Asat so it is
Vilakshana. Hence Shukti Rajat is both Sat Vilakshana and Asat Vilakshana
therefore Sadsat Vilakshanatwam is arrived to Shukti Rajat. Hence Adwaitins
conclude, there is Drushtwa, Hetu is the Jagat and Satsath Vilakshanatwa,
should also be there following the example of Shukti Rajat.

That is why, Mahan Sri Madwacharya says - "Na Cha Paramarthaha Bhedabhavaha,
Vyavaharikaha Saha Asthithi Vachyam | Sadsadaivalakshane Pramanaabhavath"
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" ||
is, he who claims that Asat is not comprehended, cannot deny it unless he
comprehended it and he cannot also deny it if he has comprehended it (in
case he has to accept the comprehension of Asat).

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
falls flat. When Asat Chet Na Pratiyet falls falt, then Sadsat Vilakshanatwa
falls flat. So, Anirvachaneeyam falls flat. So, then Mityatwa falls flat.

** PS - As Mahan Sri Vijayeendra Tirtha (Paramaguru of Sri Raghavendra
jestingly asks - "Will a mother willingly give poison to her child and, then
also give an anti-dote for the poison? The answer is NO. Similarly, would
anyone knowingly enter into dirt and then clean oneselves up from dirt? The
answer is NO. So, why would the Lord create Jivatmas and knowingly put
Agyanam into them that then makes them think that they are different from
Paramatma which supposedly they are not, as alluded by the Adwaitins? Then
would the Lord also give them ways and means as prescribed by Adwaitins
study of scriptures, atma vichaara etc. etc.) by sending a messenger who
propounds Adwaita, as an anti-dote to overcome this Avidya? Just does not
any logical sense.*



More information about the Advaita-l mailing list