'Understanding the rope-snake thru the Madhva system'

[Guest guest]

List Moderators' Note: The list only accepts messages prepared in ascii text

format and make sure not to include other language scripts. Please use

transliteration instead of Devanagari script.

 

 

शà¥à¤°à¥€à¤—à¥à¤°à¥à¤­à¥à¤¯à¥‹ नमः

 

shrIgurubhyo namaH

 

Dear Friends,

 

Namaste.  Having been in touch with

some of you off List all these days for one or the other reason, I do not feel

that I have been away from you all.  In

order that the discussion on this topic remains focused and is available for

easy reference, I am making this post under the original  of title of my

article 'Understanding the rope-snake thru the Madhva system'

that has become the subject of discussion. 

    

 

The BhAmati ( Brahmasutra 2.1.6.14) makes a very interesting statement ‘ न

खलॠअननà¥à¤¯à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤®à¤¿à¤¤à¤¿ अभेदं

बà¥à¤°à¥‚मः, किंतॠभेदं वà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¸à¥‡à¤§à¤¾à¤®à¤ƒ

...’na khalu

ananyatvamiti abhedam brUmaH, kimtu bhedaM vyAsedhAmaH....(by

‘non-difference’

we do not assert identity but only negate difference).  This statement best

explains my position on

the subject I have dealt with in my Article. 

To elucidate, I do not propose to establish exact identity between Advaita

and Dvaita but only aim at removing the notion that ‘Advaita and Dvaita are

poles apart’.  With this general preamble

I get down to my task of explaining my views in response to the various

questions, objections, etc. that have arisen against my Article.    

 

In Msg no.

46040 of 23 july 2009 Shri. Sastri ji says:

 

But Dvaita considers the world to be real in

itself.

 

Subbu’s response:

 

It is a very common misconception both among Advaitins and

perhaps many Dvaitins who might not have exposure to their system in-depth,

that Dvaita holds the world to be real and that it is as real as Brahman. 

Contrary to this, according to the Madhva

system, the world that is dependent on Brahman does not have a reality in

itself.  Brahman is the source from

which the world derives/draws its reality. 

The emphatic manner in which the Madhva system admits of a dependent

reality to the world is seen from the following quote from Their Article,

http://www.indiadivine.org/articles/218/1/Philosophy-of-Dvaita-Vedanta/Page1.htm\

l 

 

 

both in anvaya as well as in vyatireka terms.  (When a concept is presented in

both anvaya,

concordant, and vyatireka, discordant, terms, there emerges a determination,

nishchayaH,  that is beyond doubt and

misconceptions.) The anvaya is shown in red, italicized, fonts and the

vyatireka in blue, bold, fonts.    

 

 

//The

dependence of the world of matter and the souls on Brahman is in the sense that

both are functioning at His will, which is the essential

condition and sustaining principle that invests them with their reality

and without

which they would be but void names and bare possibilities. //

 

(Does

not the last portion remind us of the ‘vaachaarambhanam vikaro

naamadheyam…;[the

effects are insubstantial being mere names…) of the Chandogya Upanishat?)

 

This

method of determining the status of the world according to the Dvaita system

proves that in Dvaita the world is not real in itself; it is essentially

having a borrowed existence.  That which

has only a borrowed existence cannot be deemed to be real in itself.  Dvaita

holds that Brahman is the source for

the world’s and jivas’ being

and becoming.   What depends on something else for its very

being will not have a reality in itself. 

Shankara equates ‘being/existence’ ‘Sat’ with Reality, Satyam in the

Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashyam on the word ‘Satyam’ (Satyam, Jananam, Anantam

Brahma).  Thus the Dvaita world has a

dependent reality alone even according to that school.  

 

According

to Shri Sastri ji:

 

2.

Mithya means that which has no existence in all

the three periods of time in the locus where it appears.

 

Subbu’s

response:

 

The

above ‘lakshana’ for mithyAtva can also be very well applied in the Dvaita

system.  The Article on the Madhva system

says:

 

//Though

Brahman can do very well without prakrti or purusa

(Dependent Realities), it prefers, in its infinite glory and inexorable

will, 'to do with them'. Such dependence (apeksa) of Brahman on things which

are in themselves dependent on It, is no mark of inferiority or limitation. //

 

The

accepting of the possibility of Brahman doing very well

without prakriti (world) and purusha (jivas) amounts to tacitly admitting that

Brahman is the Sole Reality, in Absolute terms.  Since the dependent realities

have been

proved to have no reality of their own, they can be assigned only a seeming

reality which is mithya.  Now, where is

the world perceived by the dvaitins?  If

the world is held to be absolutely different from Brahman, the world will have

to be perceived in a locus that is other than Brahman.  This would make Brahman

a finite entity as

there is a place/locus where Brahman is not present and the world is

present.  This cannot be accepted as the

Shruti precludes any such possibility:,

anantaram, abaahyam…(Brih.Up.3.8.8) [This Brahman has no inside, no

outside….] Even if it is said that the world can appear as a subset in the

superset Brahman, such a Brahman is ultimately that which can do very well

without prakrti or purusa (Dependent Realities). 

 

Secondly,

in the Gita, the Lord has said: na cha

matsthaani bhootaani (9.5).  [Nor are

these beings located in Me].  He also has

said: matsthaani sarvabhuutaani, na cha

aham teshu avasthitaH (9.4) [all beings are located in Me; but I do not

inhere in them).

 

See the

striking similarity in Shankara’s commentary with the quoted portion from

Their

Article: 

 

Shankara

says in Gita 9.4:

 

// No

being devoid of the Self can ever become an object of experience.  Wherefore

they dwell in Me, i.e. they are

self-existent (or have an individual existence) through Me, the Self, (i.e.

they are what they are in virtue of Me, the Self, underlying them all.)  Since

I am the Self of all those beings, it

would seem to the deluded as though I dwell in them.  Wherefore I say: I do not

dwell in those

beings, because of the absence of contact with others, unlike corporeal things.

….That which is unconnected with any object cannot indeed be contained

anywhere

as though in a receptacle.//

 

[The

paratantra nature of the world and jivas and the Stand-Alone nature of Brahman

that have been highlighted by me in Their Article on the Madhva system are so

explicitly, unmistakably brought out in the Shankara commentary above.]

 

While

Brahman is Infinite and also does not admit the locating/presence of the world

in It, the perceived world, per force, has to be admitted to be only appearing

in the Only Locus, Brahman.  And

since the Lord has denied the presence of the world in Brahman, the natural

conclusion is that the world only appears to be present in Brahman.  Thus, the

condition:  Mithya means that which has no existence in

all the three periods of time in the locus where it appears neatly fits in in

the case of the

world in the Dvaita system.

 

 To reiterate:

 

The world in Dvaita is not real in itself as wrongly understood by many

Advaitins.The world in Dvaita is not as real as Brahman either.  This is easy

to appreciate because even

though the world is ‘eternal’ it is only so from the ignorant jeeva’s

standpoint.  Further, the ‘eternal’

world will be always subject to modifications, srishti and pralaya.  But

Brahman is NirvikAri and does not

undergo these cyclical changes.   The world in Dvaita too appears in a

locus, Brahman,

which ‘can do very well without prakrti or purusa

(Dependent Realities).’ where it does not belong in all three

periods of time.Therefore the world in Dvaita is as much mithya the

same way it is in Advaita.   

 

Humble

pranams,

 

subbu

Om Tat Sat

 

 

 

 

 

Love Cricket? Check out live scores, photos, video highlights and more.

Click here http://cricket.