The non-dual thief in the court

[Harish L B]



The non-dual thief in the courtroom.

Judge to the thief :  "No, we cannot remove your handcuffs, we must adhere to the protocol". 
Thief     :  "Sir, the real bondage is ignorance…not the handcuffs. I request you to reconsider my request”. 

Judge   :  (after a pause) "you seem to be a learned and educated person, why did you break in and steal from the house?"
Thief     :  "I didn’t steal; The house, the jewels, the owner… and me, all are the same non-dual Brahman. I was just rearranging Brahman! ". 

Judge   : (confused now, asks the prosecutor) "are there any witnesses?"

(Before the prosecutor could utter anything), the thief responds : "Yes Sir, I’m the Witness who witnessed the absence of duality… and the rearrangement of the jewels". 

Judge   : "Court is adjourned until duality returns; let's first figure out who the complainant even is". 

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Harish ji,

lol...

The argument is logically flawed. As Brahman is partless, there can be no rearrangement of Brahman. If the superimposed names and forms of Brahman are subject to rearrangement, then the corresponding superimposed prosecution against such an unlawful rearrangement of said names and forms is in order as well!

There are several such popular examples, frequently quoted by non-Advaitins to seemingly undermine the logical efficacy of Advaita Siddhanta. It may look humorous at the surface level, but depict a clear misunderstanding of the siddhanta.

prostrations,

Vikram

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/F26E3B01-3CC8-4621-95DD-DC9EE9A5A8ED%40gmail.com.

[Harish L B]

Namaskarams Vikram ji.

Thank you for the intervention, would ensure I'm not sending such jokes anymore on this group.

I had no intention to hurt anyone's thoughts or undermine the precious Advaita principles.

Kindly ignore :)

Hari Om,
Harish

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLdhj-soazyky1mJ_eSgKf%2BNg2XQ0E%3DoA%3Df8mXLX6L6kLQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Harish ji,

My intent was merely to call out the deeper insight embedded within these jokes. One should not take these jokes any deeper than what is said, or use it to undermine AS as some non-Advaitins do. With that being clearly understood, jokes are taken at face value. It does give a humorous twist in the end. By no means I am suggesting you to refrain from sharing such jokes in this forum or that anyone (including me) are offended by this. This is just an asterisk footnote.

Perhaps I should add this (text in bold) as a prefix to my previous comment:

Judge to the thief: "The argument is logically flawed. As Brahman is partless, there can be no rearrangement of Brahman. If the superimposed names and forms of Brahman are subject to rearrangement, then the corresponding superimposed prosecution against such an unlawful rearrangement of said names and forms is in order as well!"

prostrations,

Vikram

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAD3Kb_m-pshNFJq48NxruYiFy5Y3M5gCLLGdAww6o%3DgNsDOwOw%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

In Advaita, a clear demarcation is made between paramārtha jnana and vyavahara.  In upāsana there is bheda and only in jnāna there is abheda. So, in vyavahara one ought to follow bheda.  One example from Shankara is this Bh.gita bhashya;

The gist is: The Jnani 'sees' the same Atman in all the widely diverse beings: A learned humble Brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a chandāla.  On this discussion Shankara raises a question: It is wrong to have same-sightedness across diverse entities on the basis of the Gautama Dharma sutra which ordains one has to observe difference among differently qualified/equipped people.  Shankara replies that this sutra is in the realm of karma/vyavahara and the Jnani's vision is transcending karma.  Explaining that Shankara says: When there are different persons: A Brahmavit, a ShaDangavit and a Chaturvedavit - these have to be honoured according to their status which evidently varies.  

The crux of the above is: In all vyavahara, difference has to be maintained/observed compulsorily. There is a famous statement said to be of Shankara:  भावाद्वैतं सदा कुर्यात् क्रियाद्वैतं न कुत्रचित्   - Advaita is at the level of vision and never in the realm of vyavahāra.

 

ननु अभोज्यान्नाः ते दोषवन्तः, ‘समासमाभ्यां विषमसमे पूजातः’ (गौ. ध. २ । ८ । २० ; १७ । १८) इति स्मृतेः । न ते दोषवन्तः । कथम् ? —

इहैव तैर्जितः सर्गो येषां साम्ये स्थितं मनः ।
निर्दोषं हि समं ब्रह्म तस्माद्ब्रह्मणि ते स्थिताः ॥ १९ ॥  5.19

इह एव जीवद्भिरेव तैः समदर्शिभिः पण्डितैः जितः वशीकृतः सर्गः जन्म, येषां साम्ये सर्वभूतेषु ब्रह्मणि समभावे स्थितं निश्चलीभूतं मनः अन्तःकरणम् । निर्दोषं यद्यपि दोषवत्सु श्वपाकादिषु मूढैः तद्दोषैः दोषवत् इव विभाव्यते, तथापि तद्दोषैः अस्पृष्टम् इति निर्दोषं दोषवर्जितं हि यस्मात् ; नापि स्वगुणभेदभिन्नम् , निर्गुणत्वात् चैतन्यस्य । वक्ष्यति च भगवान् इच्छादीनां क्षेत्रधर्मत्वम् , ‘अनादित्वान्निर्गुणत्वात्’ (भ. गी. १३ । ३१) इति च । नापि अन्त्या विशेषाः आत्मनो भेदकाः सन्ति, प्रतिशरीरं तेषां सत्त्वे प्रमाणानुपपत्तेः । अतः समं ब्रह्म एकं च । तस्मात् ब्रह्मणि एव ते स्थिताः । तस्मात् न दोषगन्धमात्रमपि तान् स्पृशति, देहादिसङ्घातात्मदर्शनाभिमानाभावात् तेषाम् । देहादिसङ्घातात्मदर्शनाभिमानवद्विषयं तु तत् सूत्रम् ‘समासमाभ्यां विषमसमे पूजातः’ (गौ. ध. २ । ८ । २०) इति, पूजाविषयत्वेन विशेषणात् । दृश्यते हि ब्रह्मवित् षडङ्गवित् चतुर्वेदवित् इति पूजादानादौ गुणविशेषसम्बन्धः कारणम् । ब्रह्म तु सर्वगुणदोषसम्बन्धवर्जितमित्यतः ‘ब्रह्मणि ते स्थिताः’ इति युक्तम् । कर्मविषयं च ‘समासमाभ्याम्’ (गौ. ध. २ । ८ । २०) इत्यादि । इदं तु सर्वकर्मसंन्यासविषयं प्रस्तुतम् , ‘सर्वकर्माणि मनसा’ (भ. गी. ५ । १३) इत्यारभ्य अध्यायपरिसमाप्तेः ॥ १९ ॥  

Om Tat Sat

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAD3Kb_m-pshNFJq48NxruYiFy5Y3M5gCLLGdAww6o%3DgNsDOwOw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Harish L B]

Namaskarams Sri Vikram ji and Sri Subrahmanian ji.

Subrahmanian ji,
Thank you. Your response beautifully clarifies the distinction between paramārtha jnana and vyavahara.
Did not expect to learn something delightful from Shankara's bhashya on this email thread.

Vikram ji,

Well understood; And it's also been insightful for me to experience that this group is just not about Advaita enthusiasts; there is a moral duty to the serious learners and seekers who are following this group.

Hari Om,
Harish

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3Qky7t3FgB6PritdKMZAJ1KJoAFNMF8wR5hPrgVbg_EQ%40mail.gmail.com.