[Advaita-l] Fwd: Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com
Fri Mar 25 03:32:39 CDT 2016
Thanks, Venkataraghavan S.
You can change the rule 1's wording as:
there must be saMskAra of adhyasyamAna(the thing being superimposed), not
even GYAna. Why? because, it's anythAsiddha(just present with actual cause
of illusion). And, because there is no rule that every GYAna generates
saMskAra, as in case of knowledge of grass or dirt when we walk on road.
Add to this, that this GYAna which is itself not a cause of illusion, is of
two types: pramA and bhrama. There is no cause to believe that this
knowledge(generator of saMskAra which is cause of illusion) must be pramA.
So, their is no need to accept real world for illusion of world. [This is
what you said, although you skipped the quality of division and went to
it's subject. That's OK.]
For second rule, there is another example from sa~NxepashArIrakakAra: We
superimpose brAhmaNatva on body, but there is no similarity between jAti
and deha(dravya). Similarly, superimposition of body and consciousness also
defies their expectation.
I hope you can replace my usage of Sanskrit words with English one. I've
limited ability when it comes to English language.
This madhva boy doesn't understand that in their philosophy the
superimposed is alIka, but even then it is accepted to be perceptible. I
don't know why this bias towards superimposed and why they don't accept
same with hare's horn?
BTW, I was/am a part of madhva groups. I never put my opinion there in the
way this person is putting here, for saving mental peace. I hope that any
person who joins here is trying to learn advaitin's point of view. There is
no one forcing you to accept. So, just watch us and take important points
from here to enrich your understanding. Refutation(or making fun without
understanding?) can be done on some other platform or by writing a book. We
will welcome that. But, please don't spread your mental-disturbance here.
Most members are trying to learn from each other.
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Namaste all,
> I am responding to the substantive portion of Sri Shiv Dinkar's argument.
> Let us leave the other emotive points about Advaita and advaitins aside, as
> they doesn't merit a response.
> Essentially his argument is for any adhyAsa of jagat to happen on the
> adhishThAna Brahman, two things are necessary as a rule - sine qua non, in
> his words.
> 1) there must be a previous knowledge of the adyastha vastu and adhishThAna
> 2) there must be similarity between adhyastha vastu and adhishThAna.
> Re rule 1, we agree. However that doesn't mean that the knowledge of the
> previous adhyastha vastu is of a *satya* vastu. If I see a ghost in a
> horror movie and when walking back from the cinema theater I see a shadow
> and think it is the ghost I saw, that is an adhyAsa of a ghost in the
> adhishThAna shadow. However, the basis for the previous ghost knowledge
> that enabled me to superimpose a ghost on the shadow now is not a ghost
> that has paramArtha satyam. It is a mithyA ghost seen in a film.
> So while the requirement of prior knowledge of adhyastha vastu is fine, it
> is not necessary that the knowledge is generated by a real vastu "sine qua
> non". Even a mithyA vastu can generate the sanskAra for future adhyAsa.
> 2) Secondly, there is no absolute rule that similarity between adhyastha
> vastu and adhishThAna vastu be there for all adhyAsa to happen. Children
> and ignorant people look at the sky and say the sky is blue. Blueness is
> not an attribute of the sky, nor is there any similarity between blueness
> and sky. What is the similarity between mirage water and sand?
> This rule for similarity is just arbitrary and not "sine qua non".
> Anyway, Shivji, the reason I chose to respond to the two points was not
> because I thought logic could convince you - you have already dismissed my
> logical abilities :) - but in case other people have similar doubts about
> the requirements for adhyAsa.
> I also have no problem with your emotional outburst and wish you well in
> your understanding of dvaita.
> On 25 Mar 2016 6:08 a.m., "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I believe this message was not sent to the list, forwarding for the sake
> of completion.
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: "SHIVPRASAD DINKAR" <harivayus at bellsouth.net>
> > Date: 24 Mar 2016 10:22 p.m.
> > Subject: Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??
> > To: "Srinath Vedagarbha" <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
> > Cc: "agnimile at gmail.com" <agnimile at gmail.com>
> > Unless there is Sukthi before, and Rajatha has been known earlier, no
> projection of Rajatha on Sukthi is possible. This Sukthi is Adhishtana
> while the Rajatha seen earlier is Pradhana. Both these are similar to each
> other. These two are essential and sine qua non to have the illusory
> projection of Rajatha over Sukthi. Similarly, to have illusory projection
> of Jagat, two more Jagats are necessary. One to serve as Adhishtana and
> the other to serve as Pradhana, that are Real. If so, then the very
> purpose of envisaging the illusory projection of the world is defeated.
> This results in a situation whereby Adwaitins would be accepting TWO REAL
> WORLDs in their illogical anxiety to deny one real world.
> > Sriman Jaya Tirtha makes fun of the illogic of Adwaithis as follows in
> his Teeka for Srimad Acharya's Vishnutatwa Vinirnaya - Pinyakayachanartham
> Gathasya Pishachasya Swarithailadhana Prathigyavath Adhikaha - Aapatath.
> > Regards
> > Shiv
> > PS: No point in debating the logically challenged. Most of them do not
> have the logical ability beyond than that of a 7th or 8th grader middle
> school kids. They Will resort to circular logic, time and time again.
> 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