[Advaita-l] Pramana for adhyaropa apavada
rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Fri May 10 15:36:44 CDT 2013
AchAryAr: We can have. But then (in that case), that which pervades the
world would only be shakti, not BhagavAn. Would it be nyAyam when the Vedas
have mentioned BhagavAn himself as sarva-vyApaka (all-pervading), and that
only Brahman is the greatest, to make that BhagavAn just a small
parichChinna mUrti (divided, detached, confined image) residing in the
VaikuNThaM and KailAsaM, giving the nature of his pervasion to only his
RV: But how will this defect apply if we accept that shakti and shaktimaan
are absolutely non-different?
AchAryAr: If the upAsakA remains in happiness having darshan of the
VaikuNThAdi MUrtis, it would amount to the upAsakA becoming the bhoktA (one
who experiences) and that MUrti becoming the bhogyaM (that which is
experienced). The bhoktA is always AtmA, cetana (animate, intelligent,
conscious); bhogyaM is always anAtmA, achetana (not the AtmA,
inanimate/without consciousness). Therefore, if this man is having darshan
of that Divya MUrti and experiencing happiness, it can only be that he
makes that MUrti bhogyam and thereby anAtmA and jaDaM (inanimate). This is
a great apachAraM (spiritual offence).
Advaitins would not give room to such apachAraM. They would only accept the
kaivalya padavi (path to Unity) as MokShaM, where the bhedaM (difference,
distinction) of bhoktA-bhogyaM ceases into a state of unity of both
RV: If the Lord is the enjoyer and the jIvA is thhe enjoyed, then how can
the Lord be considered boghyam? Is it not that in advaita, the mUrti is
mithya or jadaprakrti?
AchAryAr: But there would be space between his bhujaM (arm) and the hand
that holds the disc, right? Would there be BhagavAn in that space? If he is
not there, the sarva-vyapakatvaM for the Bhagavan would be gone. If he is
there, the concept that the very MUrti with those limbs is BhagavAn would
be gone? Does BhagavAn pervade only that space?
RV: If the lord's form is mayika and hence beyond space and time, how
will the above logic that applies in space and time apply? We see in the
lila of krishna showing the universe, there is a krishna inside his own
mouth showing the universe to yasoda, in which there is another krishna
showing the universe to yasoda - ad infinitum. There is Krishna outside
Krishna and inside Him, is it not?
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Venkata sriram P
<venkatasriramp at yahoo.in>wrote:
> I'm only talking about descriptive statements. The statements that describe
> brahman as having form, performing action etc. are negated by statements
> that describe brahman as not having form, not performing action. Does it
> not make the former
> untrue though required for upasana?
> Here are the excerpts from "guru-kripA-vilAsaM" which is a dialogue between
> Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati Swamigal and a devotee.
> When a bhakta came to have darshan of SrImad AchAryAL (Sri Chandrasekhara
> BharatI MahAsvAmigaL), he did prastAvanA (begin to talk) about SrI
> bhakta: When SrI RAmAnujAchArya is explaining the meaning of some
> upanishad vAkyas (sayings), for the saying 'brahmaM nirguNaM' he gives the
> meaning, 'heya-guNa-rahita (wanting in bad characteristics) and therefore
> 'ananta-kalyANaguNa-vishiShTa', (distinguished by all good
> characteristics); would that be appropriate?
> AchAryAr: Good, bad are all for us only; they are not in the Brahmam. The
> siddhAntaM (demonstrated conclusion) is only that he is of no guNa. If it
> is meant that "no bad guNas are there", it is enough to say 'nirdoSha'
> (with no deficiencies); there is no necessity at all to say 'nirguNa'.
> bhakta: Like suvAsanA, durvAsanA (good and bad intentions), since there is
> prayogaM (usage) of suguNa, durguNa (good and bad characteristic), isn't
> the guNa-shabda (the word 'guNa') one that can 'do anvaya' (associate) with
> AchAryAr: vAstavaM (True). When that is the case, if it is nirguNa, it
> would only mean that there is neither any good nor any bad characteristic?
> bhakta: I don't say it that way. Since durguNa is contained in the
> guNa-shabda, what is the mistake in explaining the meaning of nirguNa as
> 'one without any bad characteristic'?
> AchAryAr: There is no mistake. What is the pramANa (evidence, proof) to
> take that the general guNa-shabda only indicates durguNa?
> bhakta: Don't we use the (Tamil) word nAtRam (smell) to mean only
> durnAtRam (bad smell) in general?
> AchAryAr: vAstavaM. In the same way, is there any context where the shabda
> guNa is used to mean only 'bad characteristic'? When NAradA asked VAlmIki
> in Srimad RAmAyaNam guNavAn kashcha vIryavAn ("who is the one who is a
> 'guNavAn'--one with all good characterstics and a 'vIryavAn'--one capable
> of heroic deeds), did he mean "one with all bad characteristics?" In
> prayogam (usage) guNa would only mean 'good characteristic' in sAmAnya
> bhakta: Even if it is not there in prayogaM, since the guNa-shabda is
> common, it would also indicate 'bad characteristic', is it not so?
> AchAryAr: It would also indicate 'good characteristic'. 'Doing alakShyaM'
> (ignoring) of prayogaM won't be nyAyaM (logical, justified) in any way.
> Suppose an elderly man comes when we are here. After he arrives, if I tell
> you "this man is an avidvAn", you would be startled, not knowing the
> meaning. If at that time I tell you, "My referring to this man as avidvAn
> was in the meaning 'heya-vidyA-rahita' (one who has no bad learning); the
> tAtparyaM (purport) of what I told was only that "this man is an
> ananta-kalyANa-vidvAn (one who has learnt all good disciplines of
> knowledge)", would that be of samAdhAnam (reconcilable) to you, you decide
> it for yourself.
> bhakta: They say that NArAyaNamUrti who remains either in paLLi (bed) in
> the kShIrAbdhi (milky ocean) or sitting in the ratna siMhAsanaM (throne of
> precious stones) at VaikuNThaM is the paratattvaM (ultimate Brahman), do
> the Advaitins agree with it?
> AchAryAr: What is the AkShepaM (objection) in agreeing with it? How can
> we, who say that the vyApti (pervasion) of ParaBrahmaM is in all the
> padArthAs (material objects) of the Jagad (world), say that those Divya
> MUrtis are not Paratattvam?
> bhakta: If that be so, what is the difference between them and us?
> AchAryAr: They say that only the Divya MUrtis in the VaikuNThaM are
> Paratattvam. We say that those MUrtis are the uttama vibhUtis (highest
> manifestations) of the Paratattvam.
> bhakta: What is the pAdakaM (obstacle, loss) for us if we agree that those
> MUrtis are themselves Paratattvam? Can't we have it as: just as the Sun who
> is only present in the sky pervades the whole world with his shine and
> warmth, in the same way BhagavAn too remains in VaikuNThaM and pervades the
> whole world with his prabhA (shine) and shakti (power)?
> AchAryAr: We can have. But then (in that case), that which pervades the
> world would only be shakti, not BhagavAn. Would it be nyAyam when the Vedas
> have mentioned BhagavAn himself as sarva-vyApaka (all-pervading), and that
> only Brahman is the greatest, to make that BhagavAn just a small
> parichChinna mUrti (divided, detached, confined image) residing in the
> VaikuNThaM and KailAsaM, giving the nature of his pervasion to only his
> bhakta: Is it the tAtparyaM that to do kalpana (create, imagine) of a form
> for BhagavAn would be a mistake?
> AchAryAr: Not so. MUrti is necessarily required for the upAsaka
> (worshipper) to do dhyAna upAsanAdis (meditation and worship). Moreover,
> his UpAsanA-MUrti should be there and do anugraham to him for his
> lokAntaraM (worldly attachments) to go away, by his upAsanA bhAvam, and for
> him to experience sukham (bliss) thereafter. Therefore, in whatever way, a
> mUrti would only be a necessity.
> bhakta: The UpAsaka who goes up to VaikuNThaM or KailAsaM would have
> already conquered all his sakala-vidha rAga-dveShAdi (all kinds of likes
> and dislikes). He would be desireless. So if he goes to those Uttama LokAs,
> he is not going to indulge in the vaiShiyika sukha (pleasures for the
> senses) there. He would not do apekShA (need or desire) of anything except
> remaining shAshvata (eternal, immortal), having darshan of the Divya MUrti
> there. What is the mistake to have that state as the state of MokShaM? What
> is the reason that the Advaitins say that there is a kaivalyaM (absolute
> unity) above this state?
> AchAryAr: What you say is completely nyAyam (logical). But then only
> having darshan of the VaikuNThAdi MUrtis and experiencing its bliss is not
> sAdhyaM (feasible), and not uchitaM (proper) too. Since upAsana is only a
> mAnasIka karma (mental act) the vaikuNThAdi vAsaM (residence in VaikuNTham)
> that is attained by it would also be over with the puNya-kShaya
> (consumption of good karma). He would only need to return here.
> bhakta: How is it not uchitaM?
> AchAryAr: If the upAsakA remains in happiness having darshan of the
> VaikuNThAdi MUrtis, it would amount to the upAsakA becoming the bhoktA (one
> who experiences) and that MUrti becoming the bhogyaM (that which is
> experienced). The bhoktA is always AtmA, cetana (animate, intelligent,
> conscious); bhogyaM is always anAtmA, achetana (not the AtmA,
> inanimate/without consciousness). Therefore, if this man is having darshan
> of that Divya MUrti and experiencing happiness, it can only be that he
> makes that MUrti bhogyam and thereby anAtmA and jaDaM (inanimate). This is
> a great apachAraM (spiritual offence).
> Advaitins would not give room to such apachAraM. They would only accept
> the kaivalya padavi (path to Unity) as MokShaM, where the bhedaM
> (difference, distinction) of bhoktA-bhogyaM ceases into a state of unity of
> Apart from this, if it is a mUrti it could only be within limits. It would
> not be uchitaM to say that only it is the Paratattvam. As an udAharaNam
> (example), let us take MahAVishNu. It is seen in his mUrti as holding up a
> chakraM (disc) in the right hand and a shangkham (conch) in the left hand.
> But there would be space between his bhujaM (arm) and the hand that holds
> the disc, right? Would there be BhagavAn in that space? If he is not there,
> the sarva-vyapakatvaM for the Bhagavan would be gone. If he is there, the
> concept that the very MUrti with those limbs is BhagavAn would be gone?
> Does BhagavAn pervade only that space? He pervades the space of his stance,
> the VaikuNThaM he resides in, and all the fourteen worlds? Without creating
> the space in him where he is not there, how can a MUrti be created?
> Therefore, to think that what is with MUrti is only BhagavAn, since it
> 'does hAni to' (ruins) his sarva-vyApakatvaM, would only be apachAraM.
> Therefore, for the Divya MUrtis in VaikuNThAdi, except that we can ascribe
> the vyavahArika satyam (practical, conditional reality) as done for all the
> padArthas (material objects) in the world, we cannot ascribe paramArthika
> satyam (absolute reality). Based on the tAratamyas (gradations,
> proportions) in the vyavahArika satyam we say that those LokAs are nityam
> (eternal) and satyam (real). So long as there is bheda-buddhi for us
> (tendency to distinguish) for us, all these worlds are only real.
> In the stage we are in today, we need to only indulge in karma and upAsana
> as prescribed in the ShAstras, and since we are anarha (unworthy,
> unsuitable) to inquire into what the Paratattvam would be like in the stage
> of uttama jnAnaM (highest knowledge), it would only be a waste to debate
> about that--there is no doubt about it. When that state is reached, the
> Tattvam would be intelligible of its own. And there would be no time for
> arguments then.
> 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