--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2BLbyMz5d_9wgPbBO_nZoH4ur7_O__yEE98jzvuNPm4A%40mail.gmail.com.
Namaskaram,Kindly pardon any ignorance on my part, but I thought that body-adhyasa was always accepted by Dvaita? In other words, I assumed that Dvaitins hold that the Jivaatma which is chaitanya-svaroopa (nature of consciousness or sentient) is falsely imagining itself to be the body which is jada (insentient). This is, in my limited understanding, similar to the view of the Samkhya philosophy where the (multiple) Purushas which are sentient experience the Prakriti which is insentient (and makes up 24 tattvas including the five panchabhootas of which the body is made) while not realizing the difference between Purusha and Prakriti.It is my understanding that the main difference of Advaita to these philosophies is not the body-adhyasa but rather the Jiva-Brahma-aikyam (one-ness of the Jiva and Brahman).So this post makes me wonder if there anything new (or surprising) about Dvaitins accepting body-adhyasa.
Please do correct me if any of my above understanding is incorrect. 🙏--On Thu 14. Oct 2021 at 21:36, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:--Here is an updated article on the above topic. New evidences are added including a short video clip of the late Pejawar Swamiji on taking the body as the self is bhrama, mithyaajnana:regardssubbu
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2BLbyMz5d_9wgPbBO_nZoH4ur7_O__yEE98jzvuNPm4A%40mail.gmail.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJJ4Bwo%3DeCd7U_qENgYhqk7s4i_bLera3%3DVAKaCtHNa7fw%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te12g5WTce-wBBwQM-_nL0AeSBnH-8jyGOfeW_9G%3DpFoGA%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJ%2BOuviDvuzym%2B43Wt4ZV3LBHLwax%3DrWee_oN2z52%3D6geQ%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CADWxSDg6Eopx9fn_5S%3DgqpbnYArKPU4%2B%3DwUToFkBPE%2BFP%2Bkt3Q%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJJguHNhPAmDVsZu-9s5t79zXHxyNxT44WBUdzdsjdCoog%40mail.gmail.com.
Namaste Vinodh Ji,
Reg << In essence, I am trying to understand where and why the Dvaitic schools
differ in their conclusion from Advaita even though they accept the same
Sruti and accept several things that are common with Advaita like body-mind
adhyaasa. Why do they stop short of the final conclusion of Advaita even
while there are many similarities? What is it they are unable to agree with
on Advaita and why? >>,
I have selected arbitrarily one part from your posts to explain my understanding of the position. Several other parts could also have been selected for the same purpose.
The adhyAsa advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada involves a combination of the Real and the Unreal. AdhyAsa Bhashya in the second line declares ** सत्यानृते मिथुनीकृत्य ** (**satyAnRRite mithunIkRRitya** ). All vyavahAra is founded on such an adhyAsa only. In other words all vyavahAra involves a combination of the Real and the Unreal. None of the other schools of thought accept such a position even if they were to accept some type of adhyAsa. In their Systems, all entities involved in vyavahAra are Real.
AdhyAsa Bhashya has five sections namely प्रतिज्ञा (pratij~nA), लक्षण (lakShaNa), उपपत्ति (upapatti), प्रमाण (pramANa), and उपसंहार (upasaMhAra). What I have cited above is from the प्रतिज्ञा (pratij~nA) section. The Shruti pramANa for the same is covered in the appropriate section.
Hope this answers the fundamental issue raised by you. Once this position of Sidhanta is understood, I believe many of the other doubts raised stand automatically cleared.
Regards
Chandramouli
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org
Namaste Vinodhji
Thank you for your question. I understand Subbuji was highlighting how even
dvaitin expositions don't deny adhyAsa of the body-mind and yet, (as
Advaita points out), they don't see the consequences of
I noticed that Subbuji indicated a brief answer along the idea of pramANas.
In other words, if pramAtRtvaM is accepted as adhyasta and hence not
absolutely real, then all objects (prameyas) including body and mind are
unreal. Samkhyas don't see the implication of adhyAsa for the means of
knowledge by which alone anything can be said to exist. If puruSha is
discriminated from its false identification with prakRti, then subsequently
there is no way ( by pramANas like pratyaxa and anumAna) to assert prakRti
exists.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te12g5WTce-wBBwQM-_nL0AeSBnH-8jyGOfeW_9G%3DpFoGA%40mail.gmail.com.
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 9:26 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Namaste Vinodhji
> Thank you for your question. I understand Subbuji was highlighting how even
> dvaitin expositions don't deny adhyAsa of the body-mind and yet, (as
> Advaita points out), they don't see the consequences of
> I noticed that Subbuji indicated a brief answer along the idea of pramANas.
>
> In other words, if pramAtRtvaM is accepted as adhyasta and hence not
> absolutely real, then all objects (prameyas) including body and mind are
> unreal. Samkhyas don't see the implication of adhyAsa for the means of
> knowledge by which alone anything can be said to exist. If puruSha is
> discriminated from its false identification with prakRti, then subsequently
> there is no way ( by pramANas like pratyaxa and anumAna) to assert prakRti
> exists.
Yes, Raghav ji, that is the point. There are these two statements that all
accept: मानाधीना मेयसिद्धिः लक्षणप्रमाणाभ्यां वस्तुसिद्धिः - The
validation of a knowable object, prameya, vastu, is dependent upon 1. the
means to know it, pramana and 2.the nature of the object, the information
of which, together with the operation of the pramana.
The Vedanta keeps before the aspirant the scenario where there is no
body-identification. That is, the Atma is taught as that which has had no
body identification; the virgin Atman, so to say. From this Atman's
standpoint, there are no pramanas, means to know anything, since all
pramanas are, by default, situated in the body alone and nowhere else. So,
from the Vedantic Atman's point of view, there is no world that can be
validated since there are no pramanas at all.
Also, a pramaa, a valid knowledge, arises out of a pramana. A bhrama,
error, arises when the pramana, the right means of knowledge, is not used
to know the object. Hence alone a snake seen in the locus of a rope, is
not a pramaa but a bhrama. From this it follows that the world is a
bhrama since no pramana has had a place. It is interesting the BG 13th ch.
6th verse says: the ten plus one organs, pramanas, the five sense and five
motor organs plus the manas, antahkaranam, and the entire knowable world of
sound, smell, tough, form and taste, all belong to kshetram, the world.
So, the knowable world and the means to know it are all constituents of the
world, kshetram. The kshetrajna, the Consciousness principle, is outside
this means and end duality. Thus by the logic provided by the Vedanta,
the world, including the body-mind-organs complex, is unreal since these
are not established by any pramana.
Hence alone the Advaitins invoked the apaccheda nyaya of the purva mimamsa
in Vedanta: a person from birth believes in duality, the world, etc. When
he is exposed to the Vedanta he comes to know that the world is not and he
is actually the Atman. The maxim here is: pUrvam pareNa baadhyate - the
latter knowledge annuls the earlier knowledge. The earlier knowledge is
ignorance really, like the rope-snake, and the latter knowledge is the
yathArtha jnanam.
regards
subbu
>
>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB99n8imwPeM9pa7o1EjOJNqeqcqneYzgP0PNbRPt-ihwag%40mail.gmail.com.
Namaskaram Sri Sunil ji,Thank you for sharing your thoughts.I did not know that the Bhagavatham and other texts say "what was not there in the beginning and will not be there at the end is as good as not there in the middle".Would you be able to provide a reference to the places of occurrence of this statement in the texts you mention?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1%3DA4LvpUbvA%3D4x9M%2BwvgfCya43RHGtWwKmPoAXStWsQg%40mail.gmail.com.
Thank you very much, Sri Subbi ji! 🙏
That which is neither before nor after is also non-existent in
the interim. It is a mere name. I am of the opinion that whatever
is caused or brought to light by some other thing must be that
and nothing else. (srImadbhAgavatam UddhavagItA 13.21)
Although thus not existing in reality, this manifestation of transformations created from the mode of passion appears real because the self-manifested, self-luminous Absolute Truth exhibits Himself in the form of the material variety of the senses, the sense objects, the mind and the elements of physical nature.
regards
subbu
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJJRe0pukULQpQACtps83cNx9d%2BsYr_vZYEa3ks92OUnkA%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3D16h9AFcZ15GaEkq3cLVjkpDnqjRduT5PaiU4S-DFQqQ%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJKV%2BbHGoCmt%3Dg-YZkc9%3DR0yOOYkNbL89kpqfEy6uusgLg%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEnJpAuof1%2BvMtZnwRowYt0j%2BV-OfphcSCcgLNkiZnuNGw%40mail.gmail.com.
Namaste Vinodh jiThey are not examples, rather they are pramANa-s.The former is from bRhadAraNyaka shruti (4.4.19)मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यं नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन ।मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति ॥It is revealing that there is no multiplicity here whatsoever. There are many such statements throughout the shruti.
Namaste Vinodh jiThey are not examples, rather they are pramANa-s.
The former is from bRhadAraNyaka shruti (4.4.19)
मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यं नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन ।मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति ॥
It is revealing that there is no multiplicity here whatsoever. There are many such statements throughout the shruti.
Namaste Sri Subbu-ji,
<On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 12:25 PM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:Namaste Vinodh jiThey are not examples, rather they are pramANa-s.
The former is from bRhadAraNyaka shruti (4.4.19)
मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यं नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन ।मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति ॥
It is revealing that there is no multiplicity here whatsoever. There are many such statements throughout the shruti.
In Madhvacharya's view, this shruti means: He who perceives the difference between Vishnu and his avatara forms, Vishnu and his various body parts, Vishnu and his guna-s, will forever remain in samsara. By extension, whoever equates other gods with Vishnu or holds other gods to be higher than Vishnu also meet the same fate.>
If Vishnu is realized as the sarvAntaryAmi parmAtma (Supreme Self) indwelling in all, then not seeing any difference i that antaryAmi form leads to oneness of all which is essentially Advaita 🙂
IMHO, the spirit of Advaita is not to accept the world as real or to reject it outrightly. It is to identify oneself with the entire world so that the Atma-anAtma (body-world) divide is transcended to attain the all-pervading Brahman.
NamasteSuresh
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1Uj0zP%2BHu33v_1u_mUL6J5GNKmJ9N8v4W19TwVdQrpHw%40mail.gmail.com.
praNAms
Hare Krishna
If Vishnu is realized as the sarvAntaryAmi parmAtma (Supreme Self) indwelling in all, then not seeing any difference i that antaryAmi form leads to oneness of all which is essentially Advaita 🙂
Ø Not so, when you strictly speaking within the very rigid frame of Advaita 😊 Above statement holds good only for realizing upAsya brahma (kArya or apara brahma) not jneya brahma (i.e. parabrahma)😊
IMHO, the spirit of Advaita is not to accept the world as real or to reject it outrightly. It is to identify oneself with the entire world so that the Atma-anAtma (body-world) divide is transcended to attain the all-pervading Brahman.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
From: Bhaskar YR <bhask...@hitachienergy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 10:08 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: RE: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] 'Dvaita accepts body-adhyasa'
praNAms
Hare Krishna
If Vishnu is realized as the sarvAntaryAmi parmAtma (Supreme Self) indwelling in all, then not seeing any difference i that antaryAmi form leads to oneness of all which is essentially Advaita 🙂
Ø Not so, when you strictly speaking within the very rigid frame of Advaita 😊 Above statement holds good only for realizing upAsya brahma (kArya or apara brahma) not jneya brahma (i.e. parabrahma)😊
IMHO, the spirit of Advaita is not to accept the world as real or to reject it outrightly. It is to identify oneself with the entire world so that the Atma-anAtma (body-world) divide is transcended to attain the all-pervading Brahman.
Namskaram Sri Subbu ji and Sri Suresh ji, it interesting to know how Dvaitavaadins differently interpret the same statements from the sruti. It is even more fascinating to know how even such a different interpretation can still be subsumed under Advaita. Thanks for sharing. 🙏This makes me very curious to know more such examples of how similar sruti vaakyas have been differently interpreted and how a reconciliation can still be made under the Advaitic view. If there was already such a compilation made in another discussion earlier, I would greatly appreciate if someone could point me to it.
While I am not aware of any scholarly compilation of such instances, here are some well known ones: Madhva takes Tattvamasi as atattvamasi = you are not that. His interpretation of aham brahma asmi is very complicated. Yet later Dvaiitins have laboured to compose some twenty different interpretations of tattvamasi (not atattvamasi), everyone of these steering clear of the advaitic interpretation. 😊 These are just two well known examples of many others not so very well known.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3xQgo%3DUDm5Q6xDG6P_cZqZfcJ1zXmzz05LXLsJdAL_mg%40mail.gmail.com.
Namaste.The madhwas propose "atat tvam asi" because shvetaku was initially full of pride. To remove this pride his father tells him his not the supreme entity rather he is always under the control and mercy of it.This is the response given by them.Namo narayanaya
Namaste.I dont exactly know in depth regarding the tat tvam asi and madhwas,but I remember on the adbuthams blog ,subu sir had a long discussion with a madhwa in this topic. Hope he can shed some light on this.
Thank youNamo narayanaya
Dear Vindoh-ji,
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 11:16 PM Vinodh via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
Having summarized my understanding of the discussion thus far and having
reflected on it, it appears to me that assertion b. of Advaita (that all
pramana are unreal) can be established in two possible ways:
(1) using shabda pramana, e.g., sruti vaakya like 'ekam eva advitiyam' (one
without a second), which implies that there is nothing other than A and
therefore that B is unreal, or
(2) without using shabda pramana , e.g., by using pure reasoning as
Gaudapadacharya does in the Vaitathya Prakarana of his Mandukyopanishad
Karika.
The first requires a person to accept scriptural authority, whereas the
second does not.
In contrast, I doubt if there exists anything that is in support of
assertion b. of Dvaita (that all pramana are real).
What exactly do you mean by the term "support" in your above question?Are you looking for how Dvaitins provide any evidence(pramANa) in support of their position (of pramANas are real)?Whatever pramaNas Dvaitins may give you, they must necessarily be valid and existing. Otherwise how can you possibly accept them, right? If so, providing such real and valid pramANas itself proves their pramEya that "pramANas are real" irrespective of the details of such provided pramANas :)Anyways, Dvaitin's support is also from shruti -- Satya Aatmaa, satyo jiivaha, satyam bhidaa satyam bhidaa satyam bhidaa," among many others regarding satyatva of jagat.Please note, since Dvaitin's position is that of 'pramANa-s are real', their quoting of Shruti, which itself a pramANa, and its reality status does not run counter to each other. In other words, pramEya and pramANa are of the same reality status. This is not the case with Advaita. Their pramEya (that pramNa-pramEya-pramAtR^itva are avidya kruta and hence unreal) is counter to the reality status of the very evidence being used in the process.Regards,/sv
Dear Vinodh-ji
>
You cannot establish vyavahara unless you admit fundamental adhyAsa in
shuddha Atma. You cannot posit adhyAsa unless Jiva bhAva and vyavahara is
admitted on Atman. This is exactly called anyOnashrya.
Regards,
/sv
Sri Srinath ji,
Thank you for your excellent points on body-self adhyasa and on pramana from the Dvaita perspective! I really enjoyed reading them :)I will summarize my understanding of your main points and attempt to address each of them from an Advaita perspective. I also look forward to reading the responses to these points from other scholars.
Dear Vinodh-jiThanks for responding.
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 8:14 AM Vinodh via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:Sri Srinath ji,
Thank you for your excellent points on body-self adhyasa and on pramana
from the Dvaita perspective! I really enjoyed reading them :)
I will summarize my understanding of your main points and attempt to
address each of them from an Advaita perspective. I also look forward to
reading the responses to these points from other scholars.
Below is my understanding of your main points against the standpoint of
Advaita from the Dvaita perspective:
1. pramatrtva (knowership) is denied to the Self by Shankara but this
cannot be so because adhyasa implies that there is a pramatr (knower) on
whom the body-mind are being superimposed? Therefore, prmatrtva to the Self
must be accepted.
Yes, correct understanding of pUrvapaxa.
2. pramanatvam of sruti must also be acknolwedged becaused it only through
sruti that the existence of the Self is known
Yes, here too the correct understanding of pUrvapaxa.
3. any pramana provided in support of the Dvaita position which can be
accepted by an Advaitin must naturally be accepted as valid and existing,
regardless of the details of the pramana.Yes, here too the correct understanding of pUrvapaxa.
4. on the other hand, by claiming that the pramana-prameya-pramatrtva are
avidya kruta and hence unreal, the Advaitin's position does not stand on
firm ground (having negated the very prameya using which any claims can be
made).
Summerily correct, but need more clarity here. The very claim that the pramana-prameya-pramatrtva areavidya kruta and hence unreal, is itself a pramEya (nirNaya) derived after the analysis of adhyAsa. This final pramEya is antithesis. That makes the dheAtma adhyAsa still remain unexplained.
5. Sruti vaakyas in support of Dvaita position "Satya aatma, satyo jivaha,
satyam bhidaa satyam bhidaa satyam bhidaa" etc.
Yes, correct understanding of pUrvapaxa.
Below is my attempt at addressing the above points from an Advaita
perspective based on my limited understanding of this philosophy:
1. In Advaita, the pramatr (knower) is typically understood to be the
individual Jiva. This Jiva, whose true form is the Atma (Self), is unaware
of its true form and considers itself to be an individual self (Jivaatma)
separate from other similar individuals.
When pure Atman is claimed to be having no pramAtR^itva, how could you claim Atman "unaware" of its true form? Aware/unaware can only be talked about entity where pramAtR^itva is admitted.Hence your starting position of Jivatman distinct from shuddhAtman stands on loose grounds.
It is just like a rope when not
seen to be.a rope is seen to be something else like a snake or a stream of
water etc. The adhyaasa of the prana, mind, senses on the Atma is what
results in a Jivaatma (individual self).
Are you admitting this fundamental adhyaasa (of prana, mind, senses) on shuddhAtman? If yes, then my earlier objection remains. When pramAtR^itva is denied in (shuddha)Atman, how could you claim this first adhyAsa? Also this leads to a position that shuddhAtman has avidya even before you talk about Jivatman.
The pramatrtvam
of a Jiva is because of its true form being the Atma. One of Atma's
defining characteristics is Jnanam (Satyma-Jnanam-Anantam Brahma,
Taittiriya Upanishad), which is understood to be the ability to cognize
(consciousness).
In Advaita, jnAnam has not been used in sadrUpa, but in a negative form as "not having ajnAna" etc. Reasoning you provide for your conclusion is not valid.
It is in this sense that Shankaracharya has said
that the Atma does not have pramatrtva even though its very essence is
cognizing / consciousness (satyam-jnanam-anantham).
In my limited understanding pramAtR^itva in Atman is denied to avoid kartu-karma virOdha (to avoid duality) in Atman. I am arguing that the very jIvabhAva in Atman is impossible unless a fundamental adhyAsa is admitted in (shuddh)Atman.
2. Sruti is also accepted to be part of this maya which is perceived only
under avidya. Therefore, it does have pramanatvam under avidya from a
vyavaharika perspective, but it has no independent existence from a
paramarthika perspective, just like the illusory snake does not have an
independent existence without the underlying rope. If one asks 'how can one
say that sruti is a pramana (valid means of knowledge) if it is part of
avidya', it is similar to how one may be woken up from a dream by something
happening in a dream. Of course, what happens in the dream is unreal, but
it could still lead to the person waking up from the dream and realizing
that what happened was a dream. In the same way, Advaita considers sruti to
be a pramana which is part of this dream of Jagat which leads to one's
awakening to one's true form which is the Atma.
Are we saying just as scary dream scene wakes the dreamer up, so also Shruti **could** wake Jivatman from his avidya? Are we speculating or do we know for sure? If the former, then it is a speculative philosophy. If later, why are still debating in this vyavahAra as knowing it wakes for sure puts us in paaramArthika reality already!Whatever the case may be, the knowledge about waking up due to a scary dream tiger is after the fact and realized in a waking state only. After waking up can you deny the reality of the very dream state itself? In the same way, can you offer to admit duality of state when in pAramArtha?
3. Any pramana offered by a Dvaitin or otherwise is naturally accepted by
an Advaitin as valid and existing as vyavaharika satyam within this maya.
Just like in one's dream, one assumes that all of one's pramanas are real
and existing and uses it to observe, infer, and interact with dream
objects, in this Jagat also (which Advaita considers to be just a dream),
one uses such pramanas for all vyavahara within this Jagat-dream. However,
these are only given the status of vyavaharika satyam. Just like once a
person wakes up, it is clear that everything seen earlier in the dream,
including all the dream-pramanas, were false, when one wakes up from the
dream of Jagat, one sees that the paaramarthika satyam (fundamental truth)
is advitiyam (without a second) and that all the pramanas and the dvaita
prapancha (like individual jivaatmas, panchabhootas, etc.) were equally
false from a paaramarthika perspective.
So also, the idea of paaramarthika-vyavaharika states is equally false from this very state in which we are debating!
4. The above two points explain why Advaitins are able to still use the
pramana-prameya-pramatrtva to deduce their conclusions from a vyavaharika
perspective even though from a paramarthika perspective they are illusory.
Just like inferences drawn using dream pramanas can lead to one waking up,
the jagat-pramana can lead to one waking up from this Jagat-dream.
5. I am not familiar with the sruti passage. Perhaps some other scholars
here can shed light on the context of this passage and discuss how such
vakyas can be interpretted given the broader context.
In summary, Advaita accepts pretty much all of the Dvaitins positions as
vyavaharika satyam, however, from a fundamental (paramarthika) perspective,
the Truth is said to be without a second (advitiyam).
Well, the so called non-dual paramarthika state is still not established.
You cannot establish vyavahara unless you admit fundamental adhyAsa in shuddha Atma. You cannot posit adhyAsa unless Jiva bhAva and vyavahara is admitted on Atman. This is exactly called anyOnashrya.
Regards,/sv
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 4:12 AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:They
have accepted a 'svarupa deha' for the Atma which is inalienable from the
Atma. This jiva (for them the Atma is forever a jiva, both in samsara and
in moksha as they admit Vishnu to be the Controller and the jiva to be ever
the controlled.) with its default body mind complex (which is distinct from
the various bodies a jiva would take during its bound state) is the one
which will enjoy bhoga (of women, drinking, merrymaking etc) in mukti. (For
this they cite the authority of the Chandogya Upanishad 8.12.3 passage 'sa
paryeti jakshan ramamaanaH kreedan streebhirva yaanairvaa..' स तत्र
पर्येति जक्षत्क्रीडन्
रममाणः स्त्रीभिर्वा यानैर्वा ज्ञातिभिर्वा...) And this body is not
necessarily a human-like body but could be of any species. This body will
have a mind, sense organs and a gender and caste too. And it is also not
free of sattva, etc. gunas. So, for such an Atman it is no problem to have
pramatrutva, knowership, since it already has what all is required to be a
knower, the body, etc. It is this Atman that has a-prakrita body mind
complex that has the adhyasa of a prakrita body mind complex resulting in
samsara.
Dvita does not say Atma has 'svarupa deha'. The idea of Svarupa-deha is a contradiction in terms. "dEha" generally means which has origin, destruction etc., whereas "svarUpa" means self same nature. Therefore, Dvaita holds jIva has self-same nature (svarUpa) of unique aprkrita guNa-s.
Vishnudasa Nagendracharya http://vishwanandini.com/fullprashnottara.php?serialnumber=VNP078
The gist of the following is: The last body in the bhuloka is of the same form of that jiva's svarupadeha. If one is a bird in his swarupa, the last body will also be of the form of a bird. If one is a shudra in his svarupa, the last body will be a shudra body for him. The svarupa has varna, aashrama, form..all will be so in the last body too.
Vishnudasa Nagendracharya
He says: A jiva could be an animal or bird, etc. in his svarupa. That will be his charama deha too in the world.I can understand for Advains it is difficult to understand how could a chaitanya tatva can have pramatrutva. iccha, jnAna, kriya etc etc guNa-s without having some sort of dEha. This difficulty is due to the fact that in their siddhAnta they have not accepted any guNa-s to chaitanya tatva. But in Dvaita it is not that way. Both Paramatma and Jivatma are accepted as having svarUpa guNa-s, albeit in various qualitative and quantitative scales.
Also, they have assigned a 'dependent reality' (paratantra) to everything
other than Brahman (Vishnu) who alone has 'Independent, Svatantra,
Reality', just like Advaitins hold Brahman to be Paramarthika satya and
everything else only vyavaharika satya.
Not quite correct.Independent and dependent realities are absolutely real in Dvaita.Duality of pAramArthika and vyavahArika itself is mithya and vyavahArika. Speaking from reality perspective there is not even such biforgation. Some advaitins think in temporal sense that one was in vyavahArika earlier and after reaching pAramArthika the vyavahArika gets sublated. That is not correct. vyavahArika avastha is subject of trikAlika niSheda/sv
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 7:18 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:The BG 13th ch. verse 'purushah prakriti- stho hi bhunkte prajritijaan gunaan. Kaaranam gunasangosya sadasad yonijanmasu' teaches that Atma, identified with the prakriti (as body mind senses prana complex - dharmi adhyasa) considers the prakriti dharmas as its own (dharma adhyasa). This results in samsara, birth repeatedly.It also teaches prakriti and purusha are anadi. Thus, this adhyasa and samsara are also anaadi. So there is no anyonyashraya defect in all schools which accept adhyasa and samsara as anadi.
Gita of course teaches purusha is anadi, but it does not mean adhyAsa is anadi.The idea of 'anAdi' is valid if kAla is accepted as real. But in Advaita kAla (along with all others) are avidya kalpita by jIva. Thus unless you have dehAtma adhyasa you cannot have a notion of time. Hence, the anAdi vaad is not applicable in defending charge of anyonyashraya defect.
Advaita accepts Time also to be anAdi. DehAtma adhyasa is anadi and hence the basis for repeated creation by Brahman.
In each creation all aspects are manifested, space, time, Veda, etc.
The sUta samhita makes a reference to kAla as the sambandha (relation)
between mAya and Atma (2-2-10) : कालो मायात्मसम्बन्धात् सर्वसाधारणात्मक:
There is also a sloka that is quoted often, but I am not able to find the source (Sri Appayya DIkshitar says this occurs in the ChitradIpa of
Panchadashi, but I cannot seem to find it there):
जीव ईशो विशुद्धा चित् तथा जीवेशयोर्भिदा ।
अविद्या तच्चितोर्योगः षडस्माकमनादयः ॥
In this sloka, the term अविद्या तच्चितोर्योगः is said to refer to kAla by Sri VAsudeva Brahmendra Sarasvati svAminah in his Sanskrit translation of vichAra sAgara.
(An old post by Sri S.Venkataraghavan https://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2016-December/043739.html)
Btw, Dvaita does not accept samsAra is anAdi (even though the existence of jIva is anAdi). You must have confused with Vististadvita, who accepts anadi samsara.
anAdimAyayA viShNorichchayA svApito yadA tayA prabodhamAyAti tadA viShNum prapashyati. [Due to anAdimAyA which means ViShNu's Will, the jIva has been made to/put into the slumber of samsara. When the jIva, owing to ViShNu's Will wakes up, then he gets the vision/realization of ViShNu.]
As to when and how the adhyasa took place is not the responsibility of the shaastra to explain. It is committed to only show the remedy. And that is the viveka between atma and anatma and claiming oneself to be the Atma.The 13th chapter is a mirror of the adhyasa bhashya.
No it is not.The same Geetha also says in II.12 :
na tvevAhaM jAtu nAsaM na tvaM neme janAdhipAH |
na chaiva na bhavishhyAmaH sarve vayamataH param.h || 12 ||
(But certainly (it is) not (a fact) that I did not exist at any time; nor you, nor these rulers of men. And surely it is not that we all shall cease to exist after this.) (Swami Gambhirananda's translation).
What is that Sri Krishna is talking about the existence of many beings here as implied in the form of 'I('SriKrishna)', 'you (Arjuna)' and 'rulers of men'?
As we can see, only two options exist;1. Either He meant many "instances" of dhEhAtma bhAva (of Him,Arjuna & others) due to adhyAsa.or2. Pure chaitanya tattvas in them.
First option is unacceptable, for how can anyone say physical BMIs are eternal? Then that leads to accepting the second option, i.e. chaitanya
or consciousness beings in those plural subjects are eternal.
Therefore, the idea of anAdi adhyAsa stands refuted by Gita.
regards
/sv