[Advaita-l] Fwd: Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??
agnimile at gmail.com
Fri Mar 25 07:49:01 CDT 2016
I agree with both your observations about rule 1. It is samskAra of the
adhyasyamAna that is required for its subsequent adhyAsa. That samskAra
need not be generated by pramA alone. I had restricted my response to
simply demonstrating that the "prior knowledge" need not be of a real
On 25 Mar 2016 8:33 a.m., "श्रीमल्ललितालालितः" <
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:
> Nicely replied.
> 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,
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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