Advaita and adhyasa - 3

[Guest guest]

Namaste SrI Chittaranjan-ji,

 

 

Again, since your original mail was quite long, I had to split it up

into parts. Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

> Sorry, according to Advaita, words are eternal and come from

>Brahman.

 

 

I have no idea which version of advaita you are talking about here.

 

 

> In the para state they exist in identity with Brahman and the

>object

> which the word denotes also lies in identity with Brahman. In the

> pashyanti state they become embryonic within consciousness. In the

> madhyama state they begin to separate into the form of the word and

> the form of the object. In the vaikhary state the word and the

>object

> are separated. A word is not the same as the object denoted, but

>the

> relationship between words and objects is eternal.

 

 

Where does this theory come from? A word is merely a convention used

to denote something. What I call today a chair, tomorrow I may choose

to call it a car, but that does not mean that the chair can be

driven, or gets wheels. I dont know whether your question was the

same.

 

If in the para state, the words are identical to brahman, then it

does not make any sense to call them separately by the name "words".

That would only give the mistaken conclusion of brahman having parts.

If objects too were at one stage in an embryonic stage within

consciousness, you need to explain why they cannot be considered as

mere appearances of consciousness. Moreover if all these words, etc

are separate from brahman in the last state, then there is no more

advaita in that state. If they are not separate from brahman, then to

preserve advaita they must be not as real as brahman.

 

> > The referrent of the word "brahman" does not come from avidya,

> > though the reference itself could come from it.

>

>

> If the referent of the word "Brahman" does not come from avidya,

then

> by what means do the referents of other words come from avidya?

 

 

 

The mode of questioning is incorrect because brahman (the referent)

does not belong to any class, nor is it an object.

 

>The

> nature of words do not change depending on the referents.

 

 

Words are mere conventions to denote "entities/ideas etc.".

 

> According to Advaita, a word is eternal. A word is attached to

> objects. Without an object a word is not a word - it is noise or

just

> sound. So, we need evidence for your statements from the shashtras.

> According to Advaita, words point to their objects by virtue of an

> eternal relationship. You may also consult Panini and Patanjali

> Mahabhashya for a re-confirmation on this point. (The philosophy of

> the grammarians is also a philosophy of Advaita.)

 

 

But the advaita that we are discussing here is the advaita of the

upanishads and not the grammarians. As for the evidence that brahman

is non-dual, you can look at the upanishads. The mANDUkya upanishad

calls it "advaitam". No objects, no words. "ekamEva advitIyam brahmA".

 

 

To the rest of your mail, I will reply some other day.

 

 

Regards

Raghavendra