Guest guest Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Srinivas - praNams I request you not to bring your dvaitic arguments here. You have to understand what mithyaa means before you apply your logic. I have provided a very detailed answer to clarify for you paaramaarthika vs vyaavahaarika and what mithyaa means. Quite disappointed with immediate response without paying attention to the answers provided. --- On Tue, 2/17/09, Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote:If we use the term "jnAni" in vyAvahArika sense only, although the logical problem about dualities of categories (such as jnAna-ajnAna) is solved, nevertheless there would a new problem. It is as follows;Since my perception of a jnAni is in vyAvahAra, and by definition all perception within vyAvahArika is avidyAtmaka and arOpita on Brahaman due to my avidya only, then it renders my such perception of "jnAni" is also avidyAtmaka and fictitious on my part only. Then it follows that such fictitious entity jnAni's all teachings render fictitious too and therby loosing any validity to reveal any eternal truth. All the teachings starting from mUla Guru till living Guru would be useless in revealing the metaphysical truth what so ever. Entire upadEsha tradition looses its validity. Therefore, logically it follows that we can not place jnAni in vyavahArika sense by any means. ---------- Srinivas - you logic is completely at fault. I have already addressed the paaramaarthika and vyaavahaarika aspects. Iswara is in vyaavahaarika only He is sarvajna and no ajnaana for him. All the avatara concept will tumble. The problem lies in your logic - -Only Brahman is in paaramaarthika. --------------------- Srinivas:To summarize the philosophical issues involved in placing jnAni in either in vyavahAra or pAramArtha is this :If posted from vyavahAra, the problem of rendering his teachings invalid and ineffective to reveal the eternal truth, due to the fact that it is posted from my vyavahAra perspective. --------- KS: that is misinterpretation coming from classical dvatia and vishiSTaadvaita philosophies. I have already answered in another post in detail.------------ Srinivas:If posted from pAramArtha perspective, the problem of jnAni's perception/knowledg e of other ajnAni's wanting teachings. If he is not perceiving/knowing so, then it means it is we ajnAnis are seeing him teach us and back to first problem. If he himself on his part is seeing/knowing we ajnAni's wanting teachings, it means we need post duality of jnAni-ajnAni from the permanent pAramArtha standpoint. Hence the problem of loosing a-dvaita. Even if Sri.Sadananda' s contention in this regard that jnAni's perception of existence of ajnAni is not real but mithya and hence it does nt cause advaita-hAni; is not sufficient. --------- KS:Srinivas - please study my response again -Please do not make dvaitic declarative statements here. -------------------------- Srinivas: Even if we suppose such perception of jnAni is mithya, we have the dual categories of satya-mithya from pAramArtha standpoint. Remember, a-dvaita does not means non-duality of existence of things only, - but non-dualty of all categories even if they are mere notional. KS: please do not propose new advaita theories here. non-duality means negation of duality that is perceived and non-duality is therefore not absence of duality but absence of reality to duality - jagat mithyaa and sarvam khalu idam brahma implies exactly that - the substantive of jagat is Brahman - hence any apparent duality is only mithyaa - mithyaa by definition is neither sat not asat - hence your statement should be reality to non-duality of all catageries and categories by definition are mithyaa - if you know them and categorize them - they are by definition mithyaa. ----------------------- Srinivas:Another major problem in Sri.Sada-ji' s position of posting jnAni's perception/knowledg e of mithytva of other ajnAnis is that, since pAramArtha transcend even the notion of "time", any such mithyattva has to remain eternal for a jnAni in pAramArtha. KS - Along with time and space and all others are mithyaa - there is no sat for them, the substative is only Brahman that is satyam - Please study my post again. Time is mithyaa too. It has no absolute reality - You are missing fundamental definition of mithyaa - again it is sat asat vilakshanam - meaning it is not eternal (not sat) - its existence is due to Brahman, the satyam. It has borrowed existence- like ring. Your statement that mithyaa has to remain eternal is contradition in terms - Mithyaa by definition is non-eternal in the absolute sense. jnaani is part of mithyaa too - paaramaarthika involves no distinctions of any kind - that is advaita. Otherwise you are qualifying Brahman. Please do not bring your misinterpretations of adviata here. I have answered your questions patiently from advaita point in the last two posts. Please study them before you bringing your logic. ------------- Srinivas: It will never sublate even if jnAni is done with his mithya body!. - KS: That tells that mithyaa is not understood. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.