[Advaita-l] mithyA and abhAva chatuShTaya - Vaadiraaja's Nyayaratnavali Slokas 43-46
agnimile at gmail.com
Sat Sep 5 11:26:03 CDT 2015
That nityatvam in BG2.12 sloka in fact refers to the Atma Svarupam being
nityam, as Sri Shankaracharya says in his Gita BhAshyam of that sloka.
"Trishu api kAleshu nityA Atma svarUpeNa ityartha:. Deha bheda anuvrttya
bahuvachanam, na Atma bheda abhiprAyeNa".
That Atma is being referred to here is the correct interpretation because
the very next sloka starting "dehino asmin yathA dehe" explains the
nityatvam of the Atma by giving the illustration of how the dehina: Atma
witnesses the changing nature of the deha without changing in the slightest.
In any case, this still doesn't explain how an eternal entity can depend on
another eternal entity while still remaining eternal. If vastu B is
dependent on vastu A, and A and B are different vastu's, then B is an
effect of A. If it is an effect, it has to exist after the cause. If it
exists after the cause, it implies sequentiality. If it is sequential, it
cannot be eternal.
If B is non different from A, but appears to be different, i.e the
difference is only an illusion, then as long as the illusion is perceived,
you can say that the dependent thing is eternal in the lower order of
reality (illusion) but not in the highest order of reality (the truth). The
independent thing is eternal in all orders of reality, but it can be the
ONLY eternal, independent thing.
The Svetashvatara Upanishad mantra can also be explained on this basis -
Brahman is the eternal one among the eternal entities - the latter eternal
entities are vyAvahArika, not pAramArthika satya vastus.
Advaita admits the anAditvam of jiva, ishvara, avidya etc in
vyavahAra(illusion), per the sloka below, but it says that only truly
nitya, anAdi, ananta vastu is brahman, the pAramArthika Satyam.
jIva Isha vishuddhA cit tathA jIveshvarayorbhidA |
avidyA taccitoryogaH ShaDasmAkam anAdayaH ||
On 4 Sep 2015 16:26, "Venkatesh Murthy" <vmurthy36 at gmail.com> wrote:
> How can there be two nitya vastu's AND one vastu be dependent on the
> Both eternal-ness and dependence cannot simultaneously be true. Either
> nityatvam of both must be wrong, or the dependence of one on the other
> be wrong.
Kindly read Gita 2-12 - http://
na tv evāhaḿ jātu nāsaḿ
na tvaḿ neme janādhipāḥ
na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ
sarve vayam ataḥ param
Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these
kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.
Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya have quoted the Sruti -
nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam
eko bahunam yo vidadhati Kaman
‘Eternal among eternals, sentient among sentients, the one, who
fulfils the desires of the many’ (Sve. U. VI. 13, Ka. U. V. 13).
Kindly see also Ramanujacharya's comments -
Indeed, I, the Lord of all, who is eternal, was never non-existent,
but existed always. It is not that these selves like you, who are
subject to My Lordship, did not exist; you have always existed. It is
not that ‘all of us’, I and you, shall cease to be ‘in the future’,
i.e., beyond the present time; we shall always exist. Even as no doubt
can be entertainted that I, the Supreme Self and Lord of all, am
eternal, likewise, you (Arjuna and all others) who are embodied
selves, also should be considered eternal. The foregoing implies that
the difference between the Lord, the sovereign over all, and the
individual selves, as also the differences among the individual selves
themselves, are real. This has been declared by the Lord Himself. For,
different terms like ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘these’, ‘all’ and ‘we’ have been
used by the Lord while explaining the truth of eternality in order to
remove the misunderstanding of Arjuna who is deluded by ignorance.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list