[Advaita-l] looking for a comparative study on these two topics

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Sun Apr 9 02:42:37 EDT 2023

On Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 10:16 AM Krishna Kashyap via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste  everyone:
> looking for a comparative study on these two topics
> 1) substance attribute relationship in Advaita and comparison with other
> vedantic schools
> or in other words "guna-guni bhava" or "dharma-dharmi bhava"
> 2) dictionary meaning of sublate is: sublated; sublating
> transitive verb <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transitive>
> 1
> : NEGATE <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negate>, DENY
> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deny>
> 2
> : to negate or eliminate (something, such as an element in a dialectic
> process) but preserve as a partial element in a synthesis
> sublation
> ˌsə-ˈblā-shən
> <
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sublate?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=s&file=sublat02
> >
>  noun
> what is sublatability? Sat is defined as that which is not-sublatable. I
> need a serious in depth explanation of what sublatability is?

That Brahman is unsublatable since it is 'Satyam' (in the Taittiriya
Upanishad - satyam jnanam anantam brahma).  Shankara gives a very far
reaching definition of what is Satyam and what is the opposite of it:

यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं व्यभिचरति, तदनृतमित्युच्यते । अतो विकारोऽनृतम्
, ‘ वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (छा. उ. ६ । १ । ४)
सदेव सत्यमित्यवधारणात् ।

Shankara says above: That which does not change is known as satyam and that
which changes, transforms, is anrtam.  Hence vikara (that which transforms)
is anrtam. On the basis of the  Chandogya Shruti: that which is a
transformation (transformed thing) is merely a word while the material
cause of that thing alone is satyam.

> Is adhyaropa apavada some kind of step-by-step process of sublation?

Yes.  According to Advaita, the entire corpus of the Veda, the subsidiary
scriptural corpus, the texts authored by the Advaita Acharyas, etc. are all
adhyaropa.  This includes the saguna brahman concept. This Mandukya Karika
(an upanishadic mantra) sums up this:

न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिर्न बद्धो न च साधकः ।
न मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता ॥ 2.32 ॥ Mandukya Karika
[ There is no dissolution, no creation, none who is bound, no aspirant,
none desiring moksha, none liberated. This is the absolute truth.]
We are reminded of the Brahmabindu Upanishad:

> Are there just 2 levels of reality mainly  (vyavaharika and paramarthika)
> in advaita?

Actually a third, prAtibhAsika satta, is also included, which is the day to
day experience of rope-snake type of errors. This error does not need the
Brahma Jnana to sublate it; it is enough if the knowledge of the
substratum, the rope, etc. arises. The dream is another example of this
category. Wakng up is enough to sublate the dream.

> If so, does adhyaropa apavada, or even neti neti process accept many levels
> of reality since one level is sublated to get to the other?

The prAtibhAsika is a subset of vyavaharika satya. The latter requires
Brahma jnana to sublate it.

> Or it will be a flat acceptance of the same level of reality for all
> experiences within the realm of vyavaharika satya (or duality of some
> kind). Let me clarify this further. if someone says he had an experience of
> a deity and such a deity appeared in front of him and gave him some ananda
> or bliss right here. Is this in the same level of reality as
> experiencing some other experience like flying or bungy jumping which is
> supposed to give some kind of a kick?  In other words are there different
> levels of reality ascribed to different experiences which are somewhat
> spiritual right here in this world: for example, Thiru jnana Sambandar it
> seems was fed milk by divine mother Parvati. Is that experience as unreal
> as any other experience here (within the sphere of relative reality)? Is
> the experience of Saguna brahman in some way,  and the experience of a good
> movie here, at the same level of reality? (relatively real but absolutely
> unreal? or non existing like an imaginary snake superimposed on a rope?)

All exepriences, even the Akhandakara vritti that launches one in the Mukti
anubhava, are regarded part of the vyavaharika, in other words, mithya.
Only that such special experiences are regarded significant/useful to the
ultimate avidya-dispelling goal. But still they belong to the Vyavaharika.
This is from the Paramarthika satya point of view where Nirguna Brahman
alone is the sole Reality.  Remember the Gaudapada Karika mentioned

To sum up, the ultimate, absolute point is: There was no jiva ever. There
was no creation ever. None ever was bound and hence none ever was a seeker
and none ever got liberated.  All the talk of creation, jiva, bondage,
seeking, liberation - is unreal. The Bhagavatam 11th Canto is the best
proof of this.


> FYI, I teach mata-traya at the Hindu University of America. I am collecting
> true referenceable information that is justifiable and is derived from
> authentic works of vedanta starting from the pioneering founder Acharyas
> and later ones too.
> namaste,
> *Best Regards,*
> *Krishna Kashyap*
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list