'Understanding the rope-snake thru the Madhva system'

[Guest guest]

Dear Srinivas-ji,

 

 

 

I was not talking merely about utility either. The world is real from a

vyAvahArika standpoint so the pole and the veda-s, the bar and mokSha, are

all real too. You cross the real bar using a real pole; you use real veda-s

as a real pramANa to gain real mokSha. All of the same order of reality.

From the pAramArthika standpoint *all*are mithyA. veda-s are a pramANa in

just the same way as pratyakSha is a pramANa in vyavahAra. *No* pramANa-s

are relevant from a pAramArthika standpoint.

 

 

 

I don't believe any advaitin will complain about claiming that the veda-s

are also mithyA. I believe that the 'unauthoredness' is a red herring as far

as this discussion is concerned. Their utility as pramANa would be the same

even if their authorship were attributable to past sages.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Srinivas Kotekal

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 6:32 PM

advaitin

Re: 'Understanding the rope-snake thru the Madhva

system'

 

 

 

That's fine, we are not talking about " utility " of the pole past achieving

the objective. But we are talking about " reality status " of the pole as

compared to the reality status of the goal. Can you jump & cross the real

bar using an imaginary pole? You may categorize your crossing over the bar

as either vyavahArika or prAtibhAsika etc, however the pole used to do so

has to be of the same order of reality, period.

 

Others will have no issue if you say vEda has no " use " after reaching the

mukti, but will complain only when you say such vEda is a mithya vastu.

 

But you haven't given a thought how a non-existing vEda will be pramANa in

the first place.

 

Veda is pramANa because of the very fact that it is unauthored.

Unauthordness implies it is eternal (always existing). This eternality

(nityatvam) in turn implies it has to be satyatvam. If you were to knock off

the that eternal reality itself from the vEda, it fails to be called

pramANa. This is as simple as this and very fundamental.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

dennis ji :

 

superb example,thanks...

 

suresh.

[Guest guest]

srinivas ji:

 

>>Veda is pramANa because of the very fact that it is unauthored. <<

 

the fact that it=veda, is un-authored,is due to the fact everything is from

brahman.How do you coin the word 'brahman'? in the first place?

 

this jagat is contained within brahman,therefore all that can be

heard,seen,spoken,made,natural,unnatural.......etc are all brahman only...sarvam

brahman mayam...

 

suresh

[Guest guest]

Namaste Srinivasji:

 

You are quite consistent with respect to your assessment of advaita using the

yardstick of Dwaita. I am not surprised by your conclusion and I very much

admire your devotion to Acharya Madhwa and Dwaita. I don't believe that

analogies, scriptural quotes and commentaries of scholars in support of

advaita's position will ever convince you. There is no point in continuing our

conversations using an advaitin forum.

 

In my private email correspondence with Subbuji (V. Subramanian) indicated that

you are more than welcome to communicate with him privately. The scope and goal

of this list is to educate and learn advaita vedanta as theolized by Adi

Sankaracharya.

 

Personally I have great respect for Acharya Madhava and his contribution in

uplifting millions of devotees of Mahavishnu.

 

With my warm regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , " Srinivas Kotekal " <kots_p wrote:

>

>

> But you haven't given a thought how a non-existing vEda will be pramANa in the

first place.

>

> Veda is pramANa because of the very fact that it is unauthored. Unauthordness

implies it is eternal (always existing). This eternality (nityatvam) in turn

implies it has to be satyatvam. If you were to knock off the that eternal

reality itself from the vEda, it fails to be called pramANa. This is as simple

as this and very fundamental.

>

> Regards,

> Srinivas.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Srinivas Kotekal " <kots_p wrote:

>

>

> Dear Dennis-ji,

>

>

>

> >Similarly,

> > you use veda pramANa to point towards the truth but you have to reject it as

> > mithyA in the ultimate realization.

> >

>

> But you haven't given a thought how a non-existing vEda will be pramANa in the

first place.

>

> Veda is pramANa because of the very fact that it is unauthored. Unauthordness

implies it is eternal (always existing). This eternality (nityatvam) in turn

implies it has to be satyatvam. If you were to knock off the that eternal

reality itself from the vEda, it fails to be called pramANa. This is as simple

as this and very fundamental.

>

> Regards,

> Srinivas.

 

Dear Srinivas ji,

 

It is not denied that Veda, unauthored, is always existing. But this nityatvam

which you have equated to satyatvam is to be distinguished from the nityatvam

and satyatvam of Brahman the Paramarthika Swatantra. The Veda itself talks

about the non-Brahman-kind of nityatva of the Veda.

 

The Purusha sUkta for example talks of the utpatti of Veda in words like: RchaH

sAmAni jagnire...yajustasmAdajAyata The Rg, SAma and Yajus originated from That

(Creator Brahman). This shows that Veda has utpatti, origination, like any

other originated object that this sUkta itself lists. Only that the Creator

'brings forth all these as they were in the earlier cycle, kalpa'.

 

Again, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad teaches that the Veda, like all else, goes

into dissolution mode. atra pitaa na pita....vedaa avedaa...(There, in the deep

sleep state, a father is no father, a brAhmana is no brAhmaNa...veda is no

vEda...etc.) The deep sleep state itself was taught in this section as an

illustration for the liberated state. All that does not exist in their created

form in deep sleep does not exist in the liberated state that is Brahman. Thus,

the vEda is not a 'part' of the moksha state. Just like the pole is not part of

the post-landing state in pole-vaulting.

 

But nowhere does the vEda say that Brahman is subject to arrival and departure.

This shows that the vEda, although nitya, unauthored, etc. is NOT of the same

order of reality that Brahman enjoys. VEda is definitely paratantra,

vyavahArika. It is never Swatantra, pAramArthika. This does not take away the

pramANatva status of the vEda.

 

Also, in the Mandukya Upanishad 7th mantra there is the crucial word

'prapanchopashamam'. This word negates the entire pancha-bhedAtmaka-prapancha

of the Paramopanishat, in Brahman, the Turiya. The vEda, like all other created

objects, is a part of the prapancha. No vEdic statement accords the same order

of reality to the vEda as that of Brahman. If vEda is also accorded the same

satyatva as that of Brahman, there will be two entities enjoying the same order

of satyatva. This might be alright in the vyavaharika, paratantra category

where prakriti and jiva belong, but not in the Swatantra, pAramArthika category

which is Only One. In terms of Advaita, Brahman is kUTastha nitya and vEda is

pariNAmi nitya.

 

Regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Srinivas-ji,

>

>

>

> I was not talking merely about utility either. The world is real from a

> vyAvahArika standpoint so the pole and the veda-s, the bar and mokSha, are

> all real too. You cross the real bar using a real pole; you use real veda-s

> as a real pramANa to gain real mokSha. All of the same order of reality.

> From the pAramArthika standpoint *all*are mithyA. veda-s are a pramANa in

> just the same way as pratyakSha is a pramANa in vyavahAra. *No* pramANa-s

> are relevant from a pAramArthika standpoint.

>

>

 

I'm afraid that is not that simple.

 

When you claim " from the pAramArthika standpoint all are mithyA " , my contention

is how do you know that is the fact? Obviously your claim was based on Veda as a

pramANa. But vEdas does not really exist from pAramArthically speaking. So also

your very claim itself does not exist from pAramArtha and hence render it to be

false. That falsity of your very claim would render existence of pAramArtha

itself to be false. In the end you will be left with what you have right now,

period.

 

Alternatively,

 

Your very claim that everything is mithya from pAramArtha requires that such

state called " pAramArtha " needs to be known to exist in the first place. But how

do you know that exist? It is not obvious as black and white and not given right

now and here. So, it has to be known from some source of knowledge (pramANa). So

what is that source? Whatever that may be, the point is that your final

conclusion (everything does not exist from paramartha) will cut that source of

knowledge in its root. In other words, from paramartha point, your source of

knowledge does not exist at all. That fact itself establishes that there is no

way to know paramartha exist or not, for you have no source to know about its

existence in the first place.

 

Therefore, without definitevely knowing such pAramArtha state, any claim based

on such state is not valid.

 

This is the crux of the matter.

 

 

 

>

> I don't believe any advaitin will complain about claiming that the veda-s

> are also mithyA. I believe that the 'unauthoredness' is a red herring as far

> as this discussion is concerned. Their utility as pramANa would be the same

> even if their authorship were attributable to past sages.

>

>

 

I would not argue here about whether Veda is valid with or without

unauthoredness, but point out to you that Advaita do accept its validity because

of its unauthoredness. Let's not forget that.

 

As a curocity, let me ask you how do you establish the validity of Vedas without

them being considered as unauthored? It seems you are on loose grounds here. I

will wait for your justification.

 

 

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

 

 

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Ram-ji,

 

Namaste.

 

 

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote:

>

> Namaste Srinivasji:

>

> You are quite consistent with respect to your assessment of advaita using the

yardstick of Dwaita. I am not surprised by your conclusion and I very much

admire your devotion to Acharya Madhwa and Dwaita. I don't believe that

analogies, scriptural quotes and commentaries of scholars in support of

advaita's position will ever convince you. There is no point in continuing our

conversations using an advaitin forum.

>

> In my private email correspondence with Subbuji (V. Subramanian) indicated

that you are more than welcome to communicate with him privately. The scope and

goal of this list is to educate and learn advaita vedanta as theolized by Adi

Sankaracharya.

>

> Personally I have great respect for Acharya Madhava and his contribution in

uplifting millions of devotees of Mahavishnu.

>

> With my warm regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

 

Rest assured, I am not evaluating Advaita using Dvaita yardstick here. I was

just answering Sri.Subramanian's refutation of Sri.Vadiraja's treatment about

Advaita's vEda mithyatvam. The reason I am participating in this thread is to

answer Sri.Subu-ji attempt to equate dvaita with advaita. Rest assured I will

limit my scope to that aspect only. I fully agree with Sri.Bhaska-ji that

without Dvaitin's participation in this thread, all attempts of dvaitAdvita

samanvya will not be fruitful. Please let me know.

 

Regards,

Srinivas

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri.Subramanian-ji,

 

advaitin , " subrahmanian_v " <subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> It is not denied that Veda, unauthored, is always existing. But this

nityatvam which you have equated to satyatvam is to be distinguished from the

nityatvam and satyatvam of Brahman the Paramarthika Swatantra. The Veda itself

talks about the non-Brahman-kind of nityatva of the Veda.

>

> The Purusha sUkta for example talks of the utpatti of Veda in words like:

RchaH sAmAni jagnire...yajustasmAdajAyata The Rg, SAma and Yajus originated

from That (Creator Brahman). This shows that Veda has utpatti, origination,

like any other originated object that this sUkta itself lists. Only that the

Creator 'brings forth all these as they were in the earlier cycle, kalpa'.

>

> Again, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad teaches that the Veda, like all else, goes

into dissolution mode. atra pitaa na pita....vedaa avedaa...(There, in the deep

sleep state, a father is no father, a brAhmana is no brAhmaNa...veda is no

vEda...etc.) The deep sleep state itself was taught in this section as an

illustration for the liberated state. All that does not exist in their created

form in deep sleep does not exist in the liberated state that is Brahman.

 

What Br.Up is saying about dissolution mode is only about maha praLaya time. If

you think it is saying about mOksha time, then when vEda's are brought forth in

next kalpa, the moksha state is lost and reversed? In your understanding mOksha

is after all reversible?

 

>Thus, the vEda is not a 'part' of the moksha state. Just like the pole is not

part of the post-landing state in pole-vaulting.

>

 

Pole may not be the part of post-landing, but nevertheless you cannot deny its

existence during pre-landing stage while sitting in post-landing condition. Can

you? But look at what Advaita teaches, it denies existence of vEda in all three

points of time looking from pAramArtha point of view. This is the very

definition of " mithya " ( which is something does not exist in all three points

of time but appears to exist). Therefore my point is that pole-vault does not

represent the case in hand at all.

 

 

> But nowhere does the vEda say that Brahman is subject to arrival and

departure. This shows that the vEda, although nitya, unauthored, etc. is NOT of

the same order of reality that Brahman enjoys. VEda is definitely paratantra,

vyavahArika. It is never Swatantra, pAramArthika. This does not take away the

pramANatva status of the vEda.

>

 

But in your example the case is just reverse. Post-landing state(which is

pAramArtha according to you) is very much depends on pole (which is vEda). Here

pole is independent (whether you use it to jump or not) and post-landing is

dependent reality. According to this analogy, vEda must be independent and

Brahma attainment is dependent reality. Therefore pole-vault is not correct

analogy.

 

 

> Also, in the Mandukya Upanishad 7th mantra there is the crucial word

'prapanchopashamam'. This word negates the entire pancha-bhedAtmaka-prapancha

of the Paramopanishat, in Brahman, the Turiya. The vEda, like all other created

objects, is a part of the prapancha. No vEdic statement accords the same order

of reality to the vEda as that of Brahman. If vEda is also accorded the same

satyatva as that of Brahman, there will be two entities enjoying the same order

of satyatva. This might be alright in the vyavaharika, paratantra category

where prakriti and jiva belong, but not in the Swatantra, pAramArthika category

which is Only One. In terms of Advaita, Brahman is kUTastha nitya and vEda is

pariNAmi nitya.

>

 

Agreed, in svatantra category Brahman is alone, but in the view of that

svatantra tatva Brahman, difference between its own svatantra and other's

paratantra is a reality or not is the question.

 

In Dvaita system, Brahma Vishnu is always seeing/perceiving the difference

between His svatantrya and jIva's pAratantrya. His knowledge of this difference

is nitya. Since by definition Vishnu's jnyAna is always yathArtha, His knowledge

of this difference is also yathArtha and sattya after all. Thus this fact leads

to yathArtha of duality a.k.a duality is reality in Vishnu's view.

 

In contrast to this, Advaita's position is that from Brahman point view (nay

there is not even a point of view to say so) paratantra jIva-jagat just does not

exist at all. The difference between svatantra-paratantra is false from Brahman

point of view. This means duality of svatantra-paratantra is just false and not

the reality in the final.

 

Given this fact, you have no grounds to equate svatantra-paratantra of Dvaita

system to paramartha-vyavahara of Advaita system. Note that I am not saying

which one is correct and which one is incorrect, but just pointing out the

incompatibility of two systems that's all.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

 

> Regards,

> subbu

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Srinivas-ji,

 

 

 

The crux of the matter is that 'pAramArthika viewpoint' is a vyAvahArika

concept. In paramArtha there are no viewpoints because there is nothing else

to view. I suggest that your arguments are mixing levels of reality and

therefore carry no weight.

 

 

 

Vedas act as pointers to the truth; they are not in themselves 'truth' or

'reality', which is why they are ultimately mithyA. One of the other

well-known metaphors used is pointing out the house to which one wants to

refer as being 'the one with the crow on the roof'. Once this is seen, it

matters not at all that, by the time you reach the house, the crow is not

longer there. To extend the metaphor, assuming that our reason for asking

about the house was that we wanted to meet Mr. X, its owner, at the time

that we were given the description, we did not know that Mr. X lived there.

But, when we knock on the door, lo and behold, Mr. X answers. Similarly,

although we may not know that, 'from the pAramArthika standpoint all are

mithyA', when we actually get there we find it to be so. The veda-s told us;

we had faith in them and were proved to have been right in having that

faith. The vedas-s were real from the vyAvahArika standpoint (which is where

we were) and that is what is important.

 

 

 

Again, it is like the dream lion that wakes us from the dream. It was real

in the dream, which is where we were. The fact that it is known to be unreal

once we have awoken is irrelevant.

 

 

 

Regarding your aside about the validity of the veda-s, they are 'valid' to

the extent that they 'work'.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Srinivas Kotekal

Thursday, July 30, 2009 1:36 AM

advaitin

Re: 'Understanding the rope-snake thru the Madhva

system'

 

 

 

 

 

<< >>

 

 

When you claim " from the pAramArthika standpoint all are mithyA " , my

contention is how do you know that is the fact? Obviously your claim was

based on Veda as a pramANa. But vEdas does not really exist from

pAramArthically speaking. So also your very claim itself does not exist from

pAramArtha and hence render it to be false. That falsity of your very claim

would render existence of pAramArtha itself to be false. In the end you will

be left with what you have right now, period.

 

Alternatively,

 

Your very claim that everything is mithya from pAramArtha requires that such

state called " pAramArtha " needs to be known to exist in the first place. But

how do you know that exist? It is not obvious as black and white and not

given right now and here. So, it has to be known from some source of

knowledge (pramANa). So what is that source? Whatever that may be, the point

is that your final conclusion (everything does not exist from paramartha)

will cut that source of knowledge in its root. In other words, from

paramartha point, your source of knowledge does not exist at all. That fact

itself establishes that there is no way to know paramartha exist or not, for

you have no source to know about its existence in the first place.

 

Therefore, without definitevely knowing such pAramArtha state, any claim

based on such state is not valid.

 

This is the crux of the matter.

 

<< >>

As a curocity, let me ask you how do you establish the validity of Vedas

without them being considered as unauthored? It seems you are on loose

grounds here. I will wait for your justification.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

srinivas ji :

 

>>Agreed, in svatantra category Brahman is alone, but in the view of that

svatantra tatva Brahman, difference between its own svatantra and other's

paratantra is a reality or not is the question.<<

 

Brahman alone is the category,if at all one wants to categorise.There is no

svatantra or paratantra,as far as Brahman is concerned.Something un-explainable

cannot be explained in a written format or oral format.

 

>>In Dvaita system, Brahma Vishnu is always seeing/perceiving the difference

between His svatantrya and jIva's pAratantrya. His knowledge of this difference

is nitya. Since by definition Vishnu's jnyAna is always yathArtha, His knowledge

of this difference is also yathArtha and sattya after all. Thus this fact leads

to yathArtha of duality a.k.a duality is reality in Vishnu's view.<<

 

siva,brahma,vishnu alongwith their shakthis is consciouness states,prevalent as

destroyer of avidya,to allow creatoin of vidya and in time allowing sustainment

of vidya.

 

>>In contrast to this, Advaita's position is that from Brahman point view (nay

there is not even a point of view to say so) paratantra jIva-jagat just does not

exist at all. The difference between svatantra-paratantra is false from Brahman

point of view. This means duality of svatantra-paratantra is just false and not

the reality in the final.

 

Given this fact, you have no grounds to equate svatantra-paratantra of Dvaita

system to paramartha-vyavahara of Advaita system. Note that I am not saying

which one is correct and which one is incorrect, but just pointing out the

incompatibility of two systems that's all.<<

 

only from dwaita & visishtadvaitha can only be the ultimate realisation of

advaita possible.All three stages are mightily important stages of

consciousness.

 

sarvam 'brahman' mayam.

 

suresh.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " sureshbalaraman " <sureshbalaraman wrote:

>

> only from dwaita & visishtadvaitha can only be the ultimate

> realisation of advaita possible.All three stages are mightily

> important stages of consciousness.

 

Hari OM!

Thank you Sureshji for writing that.

 

There is so much to learn, practice and benefit from three schools of

thought, it seems we get diminishing returns to dwell on differences.

 

I recall words of Paramahansa Yogananda from memory in this regard.

" Truth is no theory, no speculative system of philosophy. Truth is

exact correspondence with Reality. For man, truth is unshakeable

knowledge of his real nature, Self as his soul. " - Yogananda

 

Elegant arguments on (ironically!) " dual " sides, have already been

made. Often, no one changes opinions based on what others write,

but do only as a result of one's greater understanding.

 

Unlike other groups, such group's lofty goal seems neither merely to

discuss nor display scholarship, but help us practise better. It seems

whenver we lose sight of it leads to, borrowing Shankara's refrain:

" punarapi jananam, punarapi maraNaM " - birth and death of " arguments " .

============================

Hari OM!

-Srinivas

[Guest guest]

Pranams Dennis-ji

Very simply and eloquently stated.

Let me expand on this a little bit.

 

Let us say someone tells me that only dead people can see or can know Heaven.

And if I ask that person how does he know this he says it is written like this

in this particular Scripture. So obviously the next question becomes - who

authored that Scripture? A dead person could not have authored it and a live

person could not have known Heaven. Only He who can transcend life and death and

has access to both realms of experience can write about this with authority.

 

Similarly why cant we apply this to Brahman the way Srinivas-ji is saying - if

VedAs are the authority that helps one transcend vyavahara and teach/reach

paramArtha, then how to regard the Veda? Certainly not as vyavahara - because

then anything it says about paramartha will be rendered invalid -

correct?...This seems to be a very logical question but fortunately it is only

seemingly logical when it comes to atma-jnana.

 

How so? Our Acharya has explained this very well in numerous instances in his

bhashyas.

The basic principle is this - jnatrtvam or knowership itself is adhyasta. That

is knowing as awareness is satyam, but knowing as in a kriya an action is

mithyA.

 

Knowing as awareness is the very knowing principle, consciousness, and is

Eternal, and Absolute - this consciousness alone is the Supreme Chaitanyam -

Brahman.

 

I who am a " knower " is a product of beginningless avidya and hence knowership is

adhyasta. Pramatrtvam is thus adhyasta. And it pertains to ahankara - it is this

I the ahankara - the abhimani individual with a i notion who looks upon himself

as a pramata. And to this pramata alone apply the various types of pramana

including the shabda pramana. In other words it is only in the context of the

mithya triputi which seemingly splits the very knowing principle that sustains

it, that ANY pramana has any relevance and validity.

 

And the Shruti Herself teaches this, and the Gita reaffirms this as well.

 

Brahman is not a prameya vastu - it is not a thing that can be known using any

means of knwoledge - there is no question of any kind of pramana with regards to

Brahman - there is no pramana that can establish Brahman either. Both ignorance

and moksha are abhimana of the jivA. Mukti is praptasya prapti. It is gain of

the already gained. The gain here then is hence mithya alone.

 

As soon as one utters the word " pramana " in the verisame second one is talking

about a individual whose name is Mr.Pramata.

And just as " his " eyes help this mithya Mr.pramata see the glorious Sun, the

Veda helps this Mr.pramata understand....understand what? That I am not a

pramata. I am the sakshi chaitanyam that illumines every mithyA transaction that

this mithya I Mr.Pramata mithyA performs. Just like in a dream I the sleeper

apparently divide myself into the knower, who knows , the knowables in that

dream and then when the dream ends resolves that entire triputi unto myself, the

uninvolved witness of the entire dream world.

 

One needs a real pole to vault over from one side to the other, and one needs a

real bridge to cross over from one bank of the river to the other....here in

regards to the Atman, the vaulter, the vaulting and the psotvault landing are

all One - the travel is only in the understanding of the destination being

itSelf verily the Source. There is no pre-landing state and post-landing state -

this is not dvaitA. In advaitA, there is no two things here - vyavahara and

paramartha - what IS is paramartha alone, what IS not is vyavahara. The

unquestionable validity of the VedAs in vyavahara is not contradictory to its

redundancy in paramarthA and this the VedA itself asserts most categorically.

 

What the VedA accomplishes is a teaching of the unteachable,employing words that

fail to describe, and succeed in describing, to make known that which is

unknowable, to realize a Unity that never was dual at any period in time, to

gain nothing else but that which ever was my own Self!

 

Truly is vedanta akin to the path of the razor's edge!

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Wed, 7/29/09, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

 

 

Dennis Waite <dwaite

RE: Re: 'Understanding the rope-snake thru the Madhva

system'

advaitin

Wednesday, July 29, 2009, 4:02 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Srinivas-ji,

 

I was not talking merely about utility either. The world is real from a

vyAvahArika standpoint so the pole and the veda-s, the bar and mokSha, are

all real too. You cross the real bar using a real pole; you use real veda-s

as a real pramANa to gain real mokSha. All of the same order of reality.

From the pAramArthika standpoint *all*are mithyA. veda-s are a pramANa in

just the same way as pratyakSha is a pramANa in vyavahAra. *No* pramANa-s

are relevant from a pAramArthika standpoint.

 

 

 

Recent Activity

 

 

 8

New Members

 

 4

New FilesVisit Your Group

 

 

 

Give Back

for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

 

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

 

 

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

..

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Srinivas-ji,

>

>

>

> The crux of the matter is that 'pAramArthika viewpoint' is a vyAvahArika

> concept. In paramArtha there are no viewpoints because there is nothing else

> to view. I suggest that your arguments are mixing levels of reality and

> therefore carry no weight.

>

 

Well, if `pAramArthika viewpoint' is a vyavahArika concept, then very notion of

`pAramArtha' itself is another vyavArika concept conceived here in this

vyavahAra, and therefore its existence is equally mithya and easily rejected as

non-existing?. You are the one mixing the levels and wrongly thinking concept of

`pAramArtha' was conceived in some stable state other than this vyavahAra and

somehow it persist without getting sublated in the end. This s the classic

confusion of levels.

 

Having existence of `pAramArtha' is negated this way and this vyavahAra is also

does not exist any three period, then what is left after realization? Welcome to

shUnyavAda!.

 

 

>

>

> Vedas act as pointers to the truth; they are not in themselves 'truth' or

> 'reality', which is why they are ultimately mithyA.

 

You miss the point. Vedas cannot be pointers to the reality unless they

themselves are part of that reality. Unless they themselves are truth and exist

in reality, they cannot have capacity to reveal the truth (i.e. their

pramANyam). That exactly the argument about mithya vastu cannot have pramANyam.

I am still waiting for the answer on that point.

 

You are wrongly thinking somehow they stand outside the reality framework and

pointing towards that reality.

 

>One of the other

> well-known metaphors used is pointing out the house to which one wants to

> refer as being 'the one with the crow on the roof'. Once this is seen, it

> matters not at all that, by the time you reach the house, the crow is not

> longer there. To extend the metaphor, assuming that our reason for asking

> about the house was that we wanted to meet Mr. X, its owner, at the time

> that we were given the description, we did not know that Mr. X lived there.

> But, when we knock on the door, lo and behold, Mr. X answers. Similarly,

> although we may not know that, 'from the pAramArthika standpoint all are

> mithyA', when we actually get there we find it to be so. The veda-s told us;

> we had faith in them and were proved to have been right in having that

> faith. The vedas-s were real from the vyAvahArika standpoint (which is where

> we were) and that is what is important.

>

 

Crow-on-rooftop metaphor allows the duality of Mr.X and the crow (existing

somewhere else, if not on the rooftop) at the end. However it is not the case

with Brahman as conceived in Advaita. After you meeting Brahman (Mr.X),

non-existence of Veda (crow) is retroactive. It is not that " it was existed back

then but doesn't anymore " , but it was not existed at all, period. Therefore, the

metaphor is invalid.

 

 

>

>

> Again, it is like the dream lion that wakes us from the dream. It was real

> in the dream, which is where we were. The fact that it is known to be unreal

> once we have awoken is irrelevant.

>

 

You miss the key point in dream lion analogy – you woke up due to lion no doubt,

but lion itself did not tell you that there exist a " waking state " and you must

wake up to that. In contrast Vedas are by definition mean-of-knowledge about

existence of pAramArtha. If you were to say " I am not sure there exist a

non-dual pAramArtha state, but I will keep studying Vedas and if it make me

`wake-up' I will wake up if not I am not " ; then I would accept dream analogy

depicting correctly this case. If that is case, then it is no point in talking

about pAramArtha-vyavAhArika in all our philosophical dialogs. We ned to stick

with what we have now and here.

 

>

>

> Regarding your aside about the validity of the veda-s, they are 'valid' to

> the extent that they 'work'.

>

 

Is it `worked' already? Or going to work in future? If it is already worked,

then why do Vedas still exist? Don't forget, vEda is suppose to be sublated if

it is already worked (`vEda avEda' shruti). If you say it has not worked so for

but will work in future, then I will say how do we know it is going to work? It

also means it did not work on our past teachers and all their teachings are

futile. Also, it raise another doubt, in all the past from eternity it did not

work and so I will doubt it in fact work in future. What are your hopes? If you

say it is already worked for some and yet to work for other, then we have the

case of `released' and `yet-to-be-released' side-by-side, and that compromises

non-duality of released alone exist.

 

Btw, vEda pramAnya does not work that way. Let me summarize how it said to work

in all schools of vEdAnta (more explicitly and clearly worded in Dvaita

vEdAnta);

 

You might know the calibration of a system or instrument in general. You measure

the system's response for the known input. If the output is what you expected,

then you confirm the presence of validity in the system. So also, you check the

absence of invalidity in the system by deliberately feeding the wrong input and

examine the output. In general, system is said to be valid if either

presence-of-validity or absence-of-invalidity is confirmed. Then you use such

instrument/system to apprehend in all your other knowledge gaining task with

certainty of its result.

 

Now, when it comes to knowing `ultimate truth', the things get difficult. Veda

is the instrument here. But how do you know its validity? In other words, how do

you `calibrate' and confirm it is in fact valid in what it is saying? The normal

calibration won't work here because to begin with, we should know what that

`ultimate truth' independent and outside of that Veda instrument. We cannot know

that, we do not have any other such instruments. So, the avenue of

`presence-of-validity' is closed for us. What we left is only the route of

`absence-of-invalidity'. How do we make sure Veda do not have invalidity?

 

Texts in general are not invalid on themselves. Any invalidity if at all exist

in them comes only from the deficiency of its author. If text is unauthored,

its absence of invalidity follows naturally. This absence-of-invalidity is

exactly the `pramANya' of vEdas and it positively attest its truth-revealing

capacity beyond the showdown of doubt. The question whether Vedas are unauthored

or not is something different topic altogether and it does not (and should not)

arise between you and me, for we both are Vedantins and we already accepted

Vedas are unauthored. Veda apourushEyatva vAda is between vEdAntin and

non-vEdAntins only.

 

No offence, but it I am at great pain when people in this forum say Vedas are

accepted on faith. Vedanta has been portrayed as if it is another Abrahamic like

faith based system. It is indeed the ill effect of 19th century neo-vedanta.

 

Regrads,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri.Shyam-ji,

 

 

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

>

> Let us say someone tells me that only dead people can see or can know Heaven.

And if I ask that person how does he know this he says it is written like this

in this particular Scripture. So obviously the next question becomes - who

authored that Scripture? A dead person could not have authored it and a live

person could not have known Heaven. Only He who can transcend life and death and

has access to both realms of experience can write about this with authority.

>

 

 

That requires an assumption that such person has really transcended life and

death. How do we know he actually did? We just need faith to accept so. This is

akin to faith based system. Scripture is just for name sake in such system.

 

 

 

> Similarly why cant we apply this to Brahman the way Srinivas-ji is saying - if

VedAs are the authority that helps one transcend vyavahara and teach/reach

paramArtha, then how to regard the Veda? Certainly not as vyavahara - because

then anything it says about paramartha will be rendered invalid -

correct?...This seems to be a very logical question but fortunately it is only

seemingly logical when it comes to atma-jnana.

>

 

You are talking as if there is such thing as " atma-jnAna " is already given and

taken into granted even before considering Veda. Outside of Veda, there is no

way of knowing such thing as " Atma " esist let alone " Atma jnyAna " . There is no

such thing as " Atma " in Science domain, for Veda has no place there. Any talks

about atma-jnyAna even before consideration of vEda pramANya and refuse to

accept logic in the name of transcending logic is in itself a illogical

proposition.

 

 

> How so? Our Acharya has explained this very well in numerous instances in his

bhashyas.

> The basic principle is this - jnatrtvam or knowership itself is adhyasta. That

is knowing as awareness is satyam, but knowing as in a kriya an action is

mithyA.

>

 

This very knowledge (about two types of knowledge) is what type? swarUpa jnyAna

or vritti jnyAna? If former, then it is akin to saying this duality (of

knowledge) is eternal and persist always. If later, i.e. vritti-jnyAna, this

very knowledge (of " there are two types of knowings exist " ) itself is mithya and

can be easily rejected.

 

> Brahman is not a prameya vastu - it is not a thing that can be known using any

means of knwoledge - there is no question of any kind of pramana with regards to

Brahman - there is no pramana that can establish Brahman either. Both ignorance

and moksha are abhimana of the jivA. Mukti is praptasya prapti. It is gain of

the already gained. The gain here then is hence mithya alone.

>

 

" Om shAstrayOnitatvAt Om " sUtra is not for nothing.

 

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Srinivas Kotekal " <kots_p wrote:

>

> You miss the point. [snip]...

> You are wrongly thinking somehow they stand outside the reality

> framework and pointing towards that reality. >

[snip]...

> Therefore, the metaphor is invalid.

> You miss the key point in dream lion analogy ...

> [snip]..

 

Hari OM!

Please forgive me for interrupting, and saying what you know already.

Just found this discussion sliding into scoring match, who missed

what points. Let us try limiting to sharing understanding and less

about judging others. That itself seems like a great sadhana.

--------

Hari OM!

-Srinivas

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>>

Re: 'Understanding the rope-snake thru the Madhva system'

 

Dear Subbu-ji,

With ref to your statement that dvaita recognizes two levels of reality, please

see the following extracts from the book `Brahma-sutras' by Swami

Vireswarananda, one of the most learned Swmijis of the Ramakrishna Mission:

Introduction- Page xiii— " Madhva, however, accepts It (brahman) only as the

efficient cause and not as the material cause also " .

Introduction- Page xiv— " Madhva, a thoroughgoing dualist, regards these three

(brahman, the world and the jivas) as quite independent, eternal entities,

though brahman is the ruler of the other two " .

 

Do the ruler and the ruled belong to two levels of reality similar to the three

levels in advaita? Do the ruled become mithya and is the ruler alone real?

I wonder how it can be said that paratantra implies two levels of reality. Manu

smriti says that the woman should be dependent on her husband or her son----

stree na svAtantryam arhati. Does it mean that women are a lower level of

reality than men according to Manu? Christianity and Islam also say that

everything is dependent on God. Does it mean that they also recognize two levels

of reality? In dvaita brahman is identical with God, because they have no

concept of nirguNa brahman.

 

Subbu:

 

There is ample proof, appended at the end, from authentic Madhva texts, that

they admit two realities; Svatantra and paratantra.

I agree that in that the `ruled' is not mithya just because it is dependent on

the ruler. Long ago a person asked me: My son is dependent on me. Is he

mithya?

My answer is: The mithyAtvam of the dependently real entity is established in

those cases where the (knowledge of the)dependently real entity is sublated by

the knowledge of the substratum. Surely, the son's case is not so. Nor is it

correct to hold that the son is dependent on the father absolutely. Only till

the boy becomes an adult and is able to be on his own he is dependent. What is

dependent here is only the body-mind personality, but not the indwelling jiva.

This indewelling jiva has an existence of its own, till the time of Mukti when

the jiva will lose its identity; only the body-mind is dependent on someone

else. . In all these cases of wife, son, etc., even though they are dependent,

the Shastra recognizes that they are individual jivas, subject to

transmigration. So, the case of these is quite different from the prakriti

and jiva of the Vedanta. They are separate entities. But the case of the

prakriti and jiva in Vedanta is not so. They have no existence apart from

Brahman, (according to both the schools). They cease to be when the knowledge

of Brahman dawns. In this sense only the dependent is held to be mithya.

 

SN:

If, in spite of the above, you still insist that dvaita recognizes two levels of

reality, without quoting any statement from any authoritative work on dvaita or

from Polagam Rama Sastrigal's book in support, I have nothing to say. You seem

to be relying on some internet article. All articles appearing on the internet

cannot be accepted as authentic. I am however content to stay with my own

" misunderstanding " , as you put it, until I get definite proof that I am wrong.

 

Subbu:

This is a quote from Polaham Sastry's book:

//prakRteH svAtantrya-abhyupagantR-sAnkhya-pratikShepeNa prakRteH

Ishwara-pAratantrya-abhyupagamaH // (p.19)

The above quote says that Both Advaita and Dvaita have this common feature that

prakRtiH is paratantra, that is a dependent principle. (That Brahman/Ishwara is

Independent/swatantra is implied.)

There is another Kannada book with me authored by Dr.A.V.Nagasampige, a noted

Madhwa scholar (who invites Advaitin Scholars from Chennai for discussions

annually) where he clearly says that the Dvaita school admits two categories:

Swatantra and paratantra.

They are called, in their own terminology, `Swatantra satya' and `paratantra

satya'. Note the word `satya'. What else does it mean other than`reality'?

Can there be two realities? Unless there is a ranking, gradation, the word

`satya' attached to a principle is meaningless. And only because the prakriti

and jiva have no existence of their own, unless blessed with existence by

Brahman, these are called `dependent' realities. A dependently real entity is

no better than non-existent, in the ultimate analysis. I am not trying to

`impose' advaitic connotations on the dvaita principles; it is naturally visible

to a probing eye. That is what Polaham Sastry has done in his book. He has

listed more than 50features as common to all the four systems. There are 10

common features between advaita and dvaita. Pl. see list at the end of the

post.

 

SN:

 

As regards the use of the word paratantra by Shri Shankara in the bhAShya on the

gItA, to which you have referred, it does not mean that wherever the word

paratantra is used there are two levels of reality. The concept of different

levels of reality is a consequence of the concept of mithya as I have explained

later on in this note. The concept of mithya certainly does not exist in dvaita.

 

Subbu:

Polaham differs from the above. He has identified the `adhyasa' concept in

dvaita. Maybe the word `mithya' is not apparent to us, outsiders, but clearly

they too must have the idea expressed only in different terminology.

 

SN:

In advaita there is only one reality, and that is Brahman. Everything other

than

Brahman is mithya. Mithya is that which has no existence in all the three

periods of time in the locus in which it appears. So the world has no existence

even now when we are experiencing it. The difference between mithya and tuccha

is that, while both are non-existent, mithya appears in a locus, like the

rope-snake, but tuccha does not appear anywhere at any time. This is all made

very clear in Advaitasiddhi. The term `vyAvahArika reality' is only a concession

to our ignorant minds which cannot accept the notion that what we actually

experience has no existence. It is therefore given a provisional existence. So,

to say that dvaita and advaita are similar because one accepts two levels of

reality and the other three, is a total misreading of the views of both the

systems. Dvaita does not have a concept similar to the vyAvaharika of advaita.

 

Subbu:

I have shown how the `mithyAtva' definition is applicable in the dvaita system.

It is not with a view to get their approval, but for the refinement of my own

vision of the Vedantic systems. My premise is: When two `levels' of reality is

admitted, and that too as depended upon and dependent upon, the latter has to be

mithyA, ultimately. This is what I have worked out in the case of Dvaita, from

the material on Dvaita. When Appayya Dikshta wrote his reconciling work, he

too might have faced opposition from certain quarters. That did not deter him

from expressing his views.

 

SN:

I have also heard the lecture of Mani Dravid Sastrigal you have referred to.

Madhusudana Sarasvati also says in his work `PrasthAnabheda' that both Ramanuja

and Madhva knew the Truth. But they found advaita difficult for the ordinary man

and so they diluted it. Both of them wanted their systems to be distinguished

from advaita and did not try to reconcile the two. Even now seminars are held

where learned vishiShTAdvaita and advaita scholars criticize advaita and

advaitic scholars answer them and criticize the other systems. Dr. Krishnamurthi

Sastrigal, one of my gurus, is one of the eminent scholars who take part in

these seminars. The discussions are purely academic and in a friendly atmosphere

and every one keeps his cool. Nobody sees any need to reconcile these systems.

 

Subbu:

 

Sir, there have been in the past and are now some who find the need for

reconciling the systems. Shankaracharya's was the foremost in this effort. He

is credited with the titular appendage of `ShaNmatha-sthApanAchArya'. He

brought all the differing schools of Shaiva, ShAkta, Vaishnava, GANApatya, Soura

and KaumAra under the Vedic Umbrella. He declared that all these deities are

the manifestations of one Consciousness, Brahman. And that those who are devoted

to these will certainly move upwards in the direction of Moksha.

Appayya Dikshitar in the later period pioneered this effort. He wrote different

books for the four schools. His invocatory verse is:

Ananda teertha muni(Madhva) lakshman deshikendra (Ramanuja)

srikaNThayogi(shrIkanThashivAcharya) padavIH advavIyasIh naH |

AchAryapAda (Shankara) saraNincha vivicya boddhum sangRhyate matachatuShTaya

sAra lesham |

Just see how respectfully he refers these Acharyas!! He was a trenchant critic

of other schools. But that is a different matter.

The purport of the above is: The core teaching of the three schools are

hierarchically leading to Advaita.

Polaham Sastry carries forward the reconciliatory effort of Appayya Dikshitar in

his work `chaturmata sAmarasyam' (The non-contradictory nature of the Four

schools). He makes a fervent appeal at the close of this work:

// I pray to the scholars of kindered heart who peruse this book devoted to

underline the agreement among the four philosophies will look at the criticisms

of each philosophy by the protagonists of others bearing in mind the dictum of

Sri Dikshitar: `Contradiction does not appear to those who are aware that praise

of one thing does not mean decrying of another, but is intended only for

creating interest in the philosophy concerned.' I pray that scholars will

approach their study with this attitude and contribute to the prosperity of

mankind.//

In the most recent times, the work of Dr.Anandatirtha V.Nagasampige, a noted

Madhwa scholar is highly commendable. He gives lectures at various fora on the

non-contradictory nature of the three schools of Vedanta. His talks are a great

success and a real treat to the listener.

Such moves are generally not welcome in orthodox circles. I am aware that

Dr.Nagasampige's mission is not very well-received by a section of the Madhwa

community. But there are many people in that community who support this

initiative.

SN:

I am not interested in winning in an argument with any one. I only want that

people should not be misled by wrong theories.

 

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

Subbu:

Let me assure you Sir, that I share your lofty concern and responsibility in

this regard. I have presented my views through this and a few other articles in

public domain only with a view to let these be known to many. Personally this

exercise turned out to be richly rewarding in that it expanded, deepened and

fine-tuned my understanding of Advaita in particular and the Vedic Dharma in

general.

I seek your blessings and beg your pardon for the harsh words that might have

come from me. Your words were of an enthusing nature to me. There is a saying:

krodho'pi devasya vareNa tulyaH [even the anger of Gods is akin to boons]. When

you mentioned the `mithyAtva lakshana' some time ago, I found it a challenge and

this resulted in mworking out the mithyAtva in the Dvaita system, based on their

own statements. Again, your exhortation resulted in my delving deeper in

Polaham Sastrigal's book and unearth many more points to strengthen my views on

this.

 

The Moderators are free to remove the 'article' from the Files section upon

their discetion. I will have no ill-feelings about such a move.

 

With warm regards,

subbu

 

 

Here are a few notes:

Dvaita

http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Vedanta

Dvaita vada or the school of dualism is popularized by Madhvacarya, also called

Ananda Tirtha Swami. His darsana is also called Purna prajna darsana, Tatva

vada, Bheda vada, Bimba-pratibimba vada. This school too, is closely related to

Vaishnava mata and Maha Vishnu is held to be the supreme Godhead.

There are three Tatvas, Jiva, Isvara and Prakriti. Isvara is the only

independent (swatantra) reality. Jiva and Prakriti are realities dependent

(paratantra) on Isvara. Dependent and independent are the two categories dvaita

expounds. Everything other than Isvara - time, matter or action, is dependent on

Isvara. Isvara is sentient and jiva is sentient. Prakriti is insentient. Jiva is

sentient by the grace of Isvara. jiva is immutable, and is bound by misery

because of false identification. By realizing the five tatvic differences one

gains wisdom and eventually mukti, by the grace of Isvara.

TattvasankhyAna

http://www.geocities.com/vayudevaru/summaryofWorks.htm

The word 'Tattva' is defined by Sri Jayatirtha as 'Tattvam anaropitam'-

Facts that are uncontaminated are 'Tattva'; In other words it is truth based on

facts supported by 'Pramanas'. We shall know about 'Pramanas' In 'Pramana

Lakshana'.. For the present we can say it means 'authenticated facts' ,which is

called as 'yatArthajnAna'. IN this short work ,Srimadacharya has given a

complete knowledge about the whole universe. It classifies the universe as two

entities,the independent,that is the Lord Himself and the dependent being all

other entities;.It is a fascinating break up of the whole creation laid bare

before us by a masterly hand. From this classification can be derived the main

principles of philosophy,namely:

God is the supreme being controlling all the entities (animate and inanimate);

there is the five fold difference among these entities.The living beings are

having the three qualities ,sattva,rajas and tamas etc.There is an interesting

point stated by Sri Jayatirtha in his commentary on this work. This work does

not have an invocatory verse( mangalacharane) and an objection is made by some

regarding it. Sri Jayatirtha gives two explanations; 1.The first word swatantra

in the first sloka denotes Vishnu,who is the only one who is Swatantra all

others beings being paratantra and so a separate mangala sloka is not required.

3. DVAITA PHILOSOPHY

http://www.ganeshatemple.org/index.php?option=com_content & task=view & id=83 & Itemid\

=80

(Lecture by N.R.Srinivasan)

Madhvacharya was born in a village near Udupi to an orthodox family of Brahmins.

He is considered to be an avatara of Vayu.

Dvaita philosophy of Madhva has many points in common with the Vishishtadvaita

of Ramnuja. There are three eternal entities fundamentally different from one

another—God, the soul and the world. Of these God is Swatantra, or an

independent reality and the other two are paratantra are dependent realities. He

does not create them, but only rules them.

From Polaham Rama Sastry's book: The following are the common features in

Advaita and Dvaita:

1. prakRteH svAtantrya-abhyupagantR-sAnkhya-pratikShepeNa prakRteH

Ishwara-pAratantrya-abhyupagamaH (p.19)

The above quote says that Both Advaita and Dvaita have this common feature

that prakRtiH is paratantra, that is a dependent principle. (That

Brahman/Ishwara is Independent/swatantra is implied.

2. The experience of misery etc. in oneself is not real, but the misery etc.

pertaining to the mind is wrongly superimposed in oneself and is therefore of

the nature of an error, bhramA. In Dvaita, even though the intellect, senses,

bodies are `real' yet due to ignorance one superimposes them in oneself. In

Advaita, however, misery, etc and the mind etc. are mithyA in themselves.

3. In both schools the jiva is only a reflection of Brahman. In Dvaita, the

reflection is really different from the Bimba; in Advaita, the difference is

unreal.

4. Both schools accept the cause of the aavaraNa, covering, of the bliss of

oneself and Brahman as anAdi-bhAvarUpa-ajnAna, also known by the terms Maaya,

avidya, prakrti, etc. This covering is removed by knowledge alone. The only

difference is that in Dvaita this mAya is real. In Advaita it is anirvachaniya.

5. Both schools admit that in the state of liberation the jiva experiences the

bliss of Brahman. This is an indication of the identity of jiva and Brahman.

6. Both schools admit that in cases of shukti-rajatam (shell-silver), etc., it

is different from sat.

These are some of the 10 common features listed by Sri Sastry.

[Guest guest]

Dear Srinivas-ji,

 

 

 

<< Well, if `pAramArthika viewpoint' is a vyavahArika concept, then very

notion of `pAramArtha' itself is another vyavArika concept conceived here in

this vyavahAra, and therefore its existence is equally mithya and easily

rejected as non-existing?.>>

 

 

 

Yes, *all* concepts and viewpoints, without exception, are vyAvahArika! (As

I said before: " In paramArtha there are no viewpoints because there is

nothing else to view. " ) These things are real from a vyAvahArika standpoint,

while we are in the world, acting and talking as separate persons. This does

not mean that they are not also ultimately mithyA. mithyA does not mean

'non-existent'. It means that their reality is 'borrowed', as it were, from

brahman alone. And when I say that everything has to go, this does not mean

that we are left with shunya - the silence of amAtrA is not nothing.

 

 

 

<< You are the one mixing the levels and wrongly thinking concept of

`pAramArtha' was conceived in some stable state other than this vyavahAra

and somehow it persist without getting sublated in the end. This s the

classic confusion of levels.>>

 

 

 

Please point out the precise statement(s) that I made which leads you to

this conclusion because, as far as I am aware, I made no such suggestions at

all; quite the opposite in fact.

 

 

 

<< Vedas cannot be pointers to the reality unless they themselves are part

of that reality.>>

 

 

 

I don't follow this, I'm afraid. If you were in the UK, I could tell you how

to get to the USA, even though I am not there myself and have never been

there. In any case, the bottom line is that everything is brahman, since

there is only That. Finally, from the standpoint of states of consciousness,

for something to function at a given level, it has to have existence at that

level. The dream-state food will not satisfy the waking-state hunger. If the

vedas-s are to function in vyavahAra to point us to the truth, that is where

they have to exist.

 

 

 

<< Crow-on-rooftop metaphor allows the duality of Mr.X and the crow

(existing somewhere else, if not on the rooftop) at the end. However it is

not the case with Brahman as conceived in Advaita. After you meeting Brahman

(Mr.X), non-existence of Veda (crow) is retroactive. It is not that " it was

existed back then but doesn't anymore " , but it was not existed at all,

period. Therefore, the metaphor is invalid.>>

 

 

 

This is re-entering the territory of the discussion a few months back about

whether the mind and world continue to exist after realization. And I have

no intention of re-visiting that discussion (or of changing my mind)!

 

 

 

<< You miss the key point in dream lion analogy - you woke up due to lion no

doubt, but lion itself did not tell you that there exist a " waking state "

and you must wake up to that.>>

 

 

 

Of course it did - the lion's roar was saying 'wake up, you are not the

dreamer!' (in lion language). Seriously, though, you cannot always push

metaphors to the limit can you? turIya is not a state so there is no

corresponding state to which to move from the waking state, anyway.

 

 

 

<< <Regarding your aside about the validity of the veda-s, they are

'valid' to the extent that they 'work'.>

 

Is it `worked' already? Or going to work in future? If it is already worked,

then why do Vedas still exist? Don't forget, vEda is suppose to be sublated

if it is already worked (`vEda avEda' shruti).>>

 

 

 

Again, this is the 'world ceases to exist after realization' discussion

(which it doesn't).

 

 

 

Regarding your exposition on 'calibration of systems' and

'validity/invalidity', I'm afraid I did not understand most of this. Maybe

Sada-ji will respond (or then again, maybe not). I follow the guidance of

Gaudapada on this one. Where there are seemingly contradictory statements in

the veda-s, I take whichever is amenable to reason and reject the other.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis