Polar Concepts

[Guest guest]

Namaste Subbu-ji and advaitins generally,

 

I read your recently uploaded pdf to the advaitin files

advaitinThe%20Bhagavadgita%20-%20the%20fore\

\

runner%20of%20Relativity.pdf

and found it very interesting and stimulating. I have certain

reservations about your two level theory of reality and this post is an

attempt to set out a holistic view. Any comments from any quarter are

welcome.

 

It is a fact that we can be seduced by concepts, particularly polar

concepts, into thinking that these poles have an actual reality which is

fixed. Thus they can be understood a having a gulf and separation

between them. If you are in one you are not in the other. If you are in

m ithya you are not in sathya, if you are in the relative you are not in

the absolute. Here the dyadic absolute/relative polarity has become the

absolute/relative duality. My intuition is that the Dvaitic philosophy

has got a good grip on the idea that reality presents itself as polarised

and that we cannot simply drop the one pole and say that the other is the

really real. The magnet is a good illustration for this idea. You cannot

say that the real magnet is the North Pole or the South Pole, both

together are the force which makes the magnet what it is.

 

We live under the sway of these polar concepts and our way into reality is

through them. Significantly it was via the basic polar dichotomy of

Subject and Object or Conscious and Inert that Shankara begins his magnum

opus. He does not dismiss this polarity as mere vyavaharika and thus

below consideration, he embraces it and asks what is it telling us. What

is the reality in which we are immersed, how is that actual and

independent object at the same time an object for me _without changing its

reality_? This is the start of the philosophical investigation.

 

In a curious way the dvaita is more advaita than the advaitins in holding

to the 'magnetic' integrity of reality which presents itself as

polarised. This is at the level at which questions get asked and answered

and it is no surprise that Shankara does not accept the short answer of

the absortion of questions by the overweening reality of the absolute.

Time after time he rejects the ready response that the absolute creates an

obliteration of all questioning. A full rebuttal is given in the

preamble. In B.S.B.I.i.4 he distinguishes between the knowledge of

Brahman which is ostensive i.e. pointable to or as something that can be

experienced, and Brahman as the knowing subject itself.

 

In B.S.B.IV.i.4 Shankara states " One should not fix the idea of the Self

on symbols, because an aspirant cannot think of the separate symbols as

himself. " It's when you try to think about the self that you go astray.

It outstrips the mind as the Upanishad says. Even though we conceptualise

it in a mistaken fashion that does not mean that it does not exist. It

exists through every phase of consciousness from the utterly deluded to

that of the realised sage. For the sage, as I understand it, even

ordinary perception does not confuse him about primal identity. Finding

his way around the furniture of the world and being absorbed in samadhi is

the same for the self realised sage. There is no special state.

 

From B.S.B.II.i.9: " As during the state of the continuence of the world,

it is seen that like dream, there are empirical differentiations under the

influence of unreal ignorance, despite the existence of the Supreme Self

as an undiffentiated entity, so also we can infer that even in

dissolution, a power of diversification, possessed by unreal nescience,

persists. "

 

The Absolute does not split off from the Relative then in the state of

enlightenment. Enlightenment does not eradicate perception. Perception

per se is not the establisher of ignorance. Insight into what makes

perception possible is the source of unity.

 

If reality is one with opposite signs, the next question is: Is there a

reality beyond the pairs of opposites? Advaita comes into proper focus at

this point.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> Namaste Subbu-ji and advaitins generally,

>

> I read your recently uploaded pdf to the advaitin files

>

advaitinThe%20Bhagavadgita%20-%20the%20fore\

\

> runner%20of%20Relativity.pdf

> and found it very interesting and stimulating. I have certain

> reservations about your two level theory of reality and this post is an

> attempt to set out a holistic view. Any comments from any quarter are

> welcome.

>

> It is a fact that we can be seduced by concepts, particularly polar

> concepts, into thinking that these poles have an actual reality which is

> fixed. Thus they can be understood a having a gulf and separation

> between them. If you are in one you are not in the other. If you are in

> m ithya you are not in sathya, if you are in the relative you are not in

> the absolute.

 

Namaste Michael ji,

 

Thanks for your views on the article. This following portion of the article

addresses your above observation:

 

// The above commentary brings to the fore two viewpoints: the avidyA

dRShTi and the vidyA dRshTi. The Scripture speaks about both these

viewpoints and holds out the latter as the goal attainable, to be attained. It

speaks of the ignorant viewpoint only to inform us what is it that is to be

given up. //

 

Here we see that it is The One Reality, the Truth, Brahman, that is ignorantly

seen as the world, the avidyA dRiShTi (= viewpoint). The enlightened view,

however, is the correct view which views Brahman as the Only Reality. And your

last sentence above is corroborated by shankara's commentary which I have

paraphrased in the article:

 

// …to all beings who are ignorant and who correspond to night-wanderers, the

Supreme Reality is dark, is like night; for it is not accessible to those whose

minds are not in It. With reference to that Supreme Reality, the self-restrained

Yogin who has subdued the senses, and who has shaken off the sleep of Avidya

(nescience), is fully awake.//

 

In this commentary we can see that Shankara says that 'those whose minds are not

in It' are oblivious of It; what is true to them is only what their senses show

them. Shankara Himself says this:'... imbued with the distinct notions of

perceiver and things perceived.' This duality of perceiver-perceived is the

characteristic of the ignorant-viewpoint as Shankara has repeatedly said

throughout the commentary literature.

 

 

Here the dyadic absolute/relative polarity has become the

> absolute/relative duality. My intuition is that the Dvaitic philosophy

> has got a good grip on the idea that reality presents itself as polarised

> and that we cannot simply drop the one pole and say that the other is the

> really real. The magnet is a good illustration for this idea. You cannot

> say that the real magnet is the North Pole or the South Pole, both

> together are the force which makes the magnet what it is.

 

 

To consider two poles as both real is the unavoidable characteristic of the

world of duality. It has to be so. But Brahman, the sole reality, is quite

distinct from the world of duality. In sanskrit it is termed as:

prapancha-vilakShaNam. Thus, in Brahman there can be no two real extremes.

Shankara, in BSB 2.1.14 takes up the view of a mistaken advaitin who proposes

that the state of bondage of duality is real and equally real is the state of

liberation of Unity. Shankara asks: How can both these opposites be real

equally? He severely criticizes this view and settles the issue that unless the

state of bondage is understood as avidya-caused and therefore unreal, the

Upanishadic Advaitic position cannot be established beyond flaws.

 

> We live under the sway of these polar concepts and our way into reality is

> through them. Significantly it was via the basic polar dichotomy of

> Subject and Object or Conscious and Inert that Shankara begins his magnum

> opus. He does not dismiss this polarity as mere vyavaharika and thus

> below consideration, he embraces it and asks what is it telling us.

 

The very opening sentence of Shankara here (in the preamble) has the term

'mithyA', unreal. He says:

 

// Hence it follows that it is wrong to superimpose upon the subject--whose Self

is intelligence, and which has for its sphere the notion of the Ego--the object

whose sphere is the notion of the Non-Ego, and the attributes of the object, and

vice versâ to superimpose the subject and the attributes of the subject on the

object.// [Herein in the word 'mithyA' occurring.]

 

//In spite of this it is on the part of man a natural procedure (This term

'natural-procedure' is the translation of the original word:

'loka-vyavaharaH')--which has its cause in wrong knowledge--not to distinguish

the two entities (object and subject) and their respective attributes, although

they are absolutely distinct, but to superimpose upon each the characteristic

nature and the attributes of the other, and thus, coupling the Real and the

Unreal, to make use of expressions such as 'That am I,' 'That is mine.'--But

what have we to understand by the term 'superimposition?'--The apparent

presentation, in the form of remembrance, to consciousness of something

previously observed, in some other thing.//

 

This portion of the preamble contains both the terms mithya and vyavahara.

Shankara proceeds in the rest of the preamble to elucidate the vyAvahArika which

he holds as mithya and ends the preamble by setting forth His agenda:

 

//With a view to freeing one's self from that wrong notion which is the cause of

all evil and attaining thereby the knowledge of the absolute unity of the Self

the study of the Vedânta-texts is begun. That all the Vedânta-texts have the

mentioned purport we shall show in this so-called Sârîraka-mîmâmsâ.//

 

Thus Shankara considers the entire gamut of human endeavour, including the one

to get released from bondage, as vyaavahArika, based on ignorance. This is

because, the Upanishadic truth is the Advaitic Brahman which does not afford any

place for any endeavour. All mention of the ideal endeavour is only in keeping

with/alluding to the 'natural procedure' (loka vyavahara) of accepting the

duality of means and end.

 

What

> is the reality in which we are immersed, how is that actual and

> independent object at the same time an object for me _without changing its

> reality_? This is the start of the philosophical investigation.

>

> In a curious way the dvaita is more advaita than the advaitins in holding

> to the 'magnetic' integrity of reality which presents itself as

> polarised. This is at the level at which questions get asked and answered

> and it is no surprise that Shankara does not accept the short answer of

> the absortion of questions by the overweening reality of the absolute.

> Time after time he rejects the ready response that the absolute creates an

> obliteration of all questioning. A full rebuttal is given in the

> preamble. In B.S.B.I.i.4 he distinguishes between the knowledge of

> Brahman which is ostensive i.e. pointable to or as something that can be

> experienced, and Brahman as the knowing subject itself.

>

> In B.S.B.IV.i.4 Shankara states " One should not fix the idea of the Self

> on symbols, because an aspirant cannot think of the separate symbols as

> himself. " It's when you try to think about the self that you go astray.

> It outstrips the mind as the Upanishad says. Even though we conceptualise

> it in a mistaken fashion that does not mean that it does not exist. It

> exists through every phase of consciousness from the utterly deluded to

> that of the realised sage. For the sage, as I understand it, even

> ordinary perception does not confuse him about primal identity. Finding

> his way around the furniture of the world and being absorbed in samadhi is

> the same for the self realised sage. There is no special state.

>

> From B.S.B.II.i.9: " As during the state of the continuence of the world,

> it is seen that like dream, there are empirical differentiations under the

> influence of unreal ignorance, despite the existence of the Supreme Self

> as an undiffentiated entity, so also we can infer that even in

> dissolution, a power of diversification, possessed by unreal nescience,

> persists. "

>

> The Absolute does not split off from the Relative then in the state of

> enlightenment. Enlightenment does not eradicate perception.

 

This last sentence above is the correct ShAnkaran view. Enlightenment does not

eradicate perception; it puts an end to the mistaken notion that it is real.

 

Perception

> per se is not the establisher of ignorance. Insight into what makes

> perception possible is the source of unity.

>

> If reality is one with opposite signs, the next question is: Is there a

> reality beyond the pairs of opposites? Advaita comes into proper focus at

> this point.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

>

 

Regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Dear Michael-ji,

 

Greetings.

 

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> Namaste Subbu-ji and advaitins generally,

>

> I read your recently uploaded pdf to the advaitin files

>

advaitinThe%20Bhagavadgita%20-%20the%20fore\

\

> runner%20of%20Relativity.pdf

> and found it very interesting and stimulating. I have certain

> reservations about your two level theory of reality and this post is an

> attempt to set out a holistic view. Any comments from any quarter are

> welcome.

>

> It is a fact that we can be seduced by concepts, particularly polar

> concepts, into thinking that these poles have an actual reality which is

> fixed. Thus they can be understood a having a gulf and separation

> between them. If you are in one you are not in the other. If you are in

> m ithya you are not in sathya, if you are in the relative you are not in

> the absolute. Here the dyadic absolute/relative polarity has become the

> absolute/relative duality.

 

I completely agree with you.

 

That's all the reason I was contending in the past (in context of jnAni's

perception of world thread) that if anyone posit jIvan mukta would continue to

perceive this world but correctly understand it to be mithya; then the

consequences is that we'll end up with positing duality of satya and mithya at

the end.

 

I believe the confusion of such proponents is due to mixing up the `existence'

with `reality'. The existence of an apple is real, so also non-existence of

son-of-barren-woman is equally real. Otherwise if one contends that

non-existence of vandhyAputra is itself unreal, then it would be as good as

saying such vandhyAputra is real!. You see, the reality has the polar concept

of existence/non-existence in this case.

 

Similarly, one may ask the question – from jIvan-mukta's point, is the

mithyatvam of this world real or not?

 

The proponents (of the theory of perception do exist for jIvan mukta) have to

accept that `mithyatvam' as a " category-of-reality " must exist and very much

real. This exactly is the point I was alluding that at the end we have duality

of categories `reality' (of jIva-muktha himself) and `mithyatva' of jagat. This

duality (of categories) in itself must be really real in order to make sense of

the proponents position. You see, the duality cannot be wished away after all!

 

In order to avoid this duality, the solution may b that one has to deny

existence of such categories in pAramArthika. If so, then it follows that a

jIvan-muktha cannot see any perception at all, let alone he knows it right or

wrong, period. This exactly is the position taken by Shankara when he says `atma

atmani na viShayaH' (and what to speak about jagat as object of knowledge for

atman?).

 

This exactly the tension between three fundamental cornerstones of nondual

philosophies. These three corner stones are `absolute non-duality',

`vyavahArika-pAramArthika' and `teachings-by-jnAni'. If these three concepts

are treated as three points, we just can't connect them at the same time. We

have to let go one of them. This exactly where I think various sub-schools

within Advaita-Vedanta takes one of possible positions supporting any two points

at the same time as their central emphasis thereby differs from other

sub-schools within the tradition.

 

 

>My intuition is that the Dvaitic philosophy

> has got a good grip on the idea that reality presents itself as polarised

> and that we cannot simply drop the one pole and say that the other is the

> really real. The magnet is a good illustration for this idea. You cannot

> say that the real magnet is the North Pole or the South Pole, both

> together are the force which makes the magnet what it is.

>

 

Thanks for recognition of strength of Dvaita philosophy.

 

By bringing duality under the banner of Independent and Dependent, the dvaita

school has addressed dual issue of mainlining the majesty of vdic Brahman on one

hand and rationalizing the polarized reality (which is given) on the other.

 

> We live under the sway of these polar concepts and our way into reality is

> through them. Significantly it was via the basic polar dichotomy of

> Subject and Object or Conscious and Inert that Shankara begins his magnum

> opus. He does not dismiss this polarity as mere vyavaharika and thus

> below consideration, he embraces it and asks what is it telling us. What

> is the reality in which we are immersed, how is that actual and

> independent object at the same time an object for me _without changing its

> reality_? This is the start of the philosophical investigation.

>

> In a curious way the dvaita is more advaita than the advaitins in holding

> to the 'magnetic' integrity of reality which presents itself as

> polarised.

 

In dvaita schools, Brahman is considered as " Advaita " . This does not mean there

is no " reality " other than Brahman per se, but it simply put there is no

" independent reality " other than Brahman. This is called

svatantra-advitya-brahma vAda.

 

>This is at the level at which questions get asked and answered

> and it is no surprise that Shankara does not accept the short answer of

> the absortion of questions by the overweening reality of the absolute.

> Time after time he rejects the ready response that the absolute creates an

> obliteration of all questioning. A full rebuttal is given in the

> preamble. In B.S.B.I.i.4 he distinguishes between the knowledge of

> Brahman which is ostensive i.e. pointable to or as something that can be

> experienced, and Brahman as the knowing subject itself.

>

 

But one fineprint though – Brahman is knowing subject itself ONLY in vyavahAra,

i.e. ONLY as long as avidya exist. In pAramArtha Brahman is NOT subject of

knowledge of anything, including its own existence (atma atmani na viShayaH –

Shankara in BU 2.4.14)

 

This theme is more explicit for Sri.Shankara;

 

From the adhyAsabhAShya:

 

asaN^gasyAtmanaH pramAtR^itvamupapadyate . na ca pramAtR^itvamantareNa

pramANapravR^ittirasti .

tasmAdavidyAvadviShayANyeva pratyakShAdIni pramANAni shAstrANi ceti |

 

It is illogical to speak of pramAtR^itva of the Self, which is spoken of

'detached'. Without a pramAtR^i, there cannot be any operation of pramANas.

Therefore, pramANAs such as the shAstras and pratyakSha operate only in the

realm of avidyA.

 

Also see his commentary on the BU2.4.14:

 

" taM kena vijAnIyAt " yena vijAnAti, tasya karaNasya, vij~neye viniyuktatvAt.

j~nAtushca j~neya eva hi jij~nAsA, na Atmani; na ca

agneriva AtmA Atmani viShayaH; na ca aviShaye j~nAtuH j~nAnamupapadyate; tasmAt

yena idaM sarvaM vijAnAti, " taM vij~nAtAraM "

kena karaNena ki vA anyaH vijAnIyAt, yadA tu punaH paramArthavivekini brahmavidi

vij~nAtaiva kevali.advayi vartate, taM vij~nAtAraM are kena

vijAnIyAditi.

 

See here: na cha agneriva AtmA Atmani viShayaH: The Self is not an object of

knowledge for the Self.

 

> In B.S.B.IV.i.4 Shankara states " One should not fix the idea of the Self

> on symbols, because an aspirant cannot think of the separate symbols as

> himself. " It's when you try to think about the self that you go astray.

> It outstrips the mind as the Upanishad says. Even though we conceptualise

> it in a mistaken fashion that does not mean that it does not exist. It

> exists through every phase of consciousness from the utterly deluded to

> that of the realised sage. For the sage, as I understand it, even

> ordinary perception does not confuse him about primal identity. Finding

> his way around the furniture of the world and being absorbed in samadhi is

> the same for the self realised sage. There is no special state.

>

> From B.S.B.II.i.9: " As during the state of the continuence of the world,

> it is seen that like dream, there are empirical differentiations under the

> influence of unreal ignorance, despite the existence of the Supreme Self

> as an undiffentiated entity, so also we can infer that even in

> dissolution, a power of diversification, possessed by unreal nescience,

> persists. "

>

> The Absolute does not split off from the Relative then in the state of

> enlightenment. Enlightenment does not eradicate perception. Perception

> per se is not the establisher of ignorance. Insight into what makes

> perception possible is the source of unity.

 

There are several problems in above model;

 

1. If you say " enlightenment does not eradicate perception " , then it means

perception persist (does not sublate) eternally alongside with enlightened

entity. This makes the perception also summoned under the category " real "

because it does not negetable in all three period of time. This compromises the

non-duality of enlightened entity as the only reality.

 

2. If you say " enlightenment does not eradicate perception " , then it means

perception was not originated by avidya. Because, whatever is originated by

avidya must go after the enlightenment. It amounts to saying nAma-rUpa (name and

form) which are components of perception, are after all not originated due to

avidya.

 

3. If you say " enlightenment does not eradicate perception, but insight into

what makes perception possible is the source of unity " , then who exactly will

posses such insight? Is the entity after enlightenment or the entity before

enlightenment? You cannot say it is the enlightened one, for Shankara denies any

knowership (required for any sort of insight). You cannot say the later either,

for it is said that the very enlightenment is due to such insight and such

enlightenment wipes off all knowership including this insight.

 

>

> If reality is one with opposite signs, the next question is: Is there a

> reality beyond the pairs of opposites? Advaita comes into proper focus at

> this point.

>

 

For the argument sake, even if we accept existence of reality beyond the pairs

of opposite (polarized reality), the problem will not go away. Such acceptance

itself will again give raises to new duality – " polarized reality " and the

" reality which is beyond polarized one " !

 

Regards,

Srinivas

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " maatarishvan " <kots_p wrote:

>

> Dear Michael-ji,

>

> Greetings.

>

> advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@> wrote:

> >

>

> I completely agree with you.

>

> That's all the reason I was contending in the past (in context of jnAni's

perception of world thread) that if anyone posit jIvan mukta would continue to

perceive this world but correctly understand it to be mithya; then the

consequences is that we'll end up with positing duality of satya and mithya at

the end.

>

> I believe the confusion of such proponents is due to mixing up the `existence'

with `reality'. The existence of an apple is real, so also non-existence of

son-of-barren-woman is equally real. Otherwise if one contends that

non-existence of vandhyAputra is itself unreal, then it would be as good as

saying such vandhyAputra is real!. You see, the reality has the polar concept

of existence/non-existence in this case.

 

Response:

 

The above situation does not arise. The dual concepts of 'is' and 'is not',

'existence' and 'non-existence', 'real' and 'unreal' all obtain only in the

realm of the created world. For example, a pot is said to exist. It has come

into existence upon being produced. When it is destroyed we say 'it no longer

exists'. But Brahman has not come into existence to be called 'It exists'. Nor

will Brahman go out of existence to deserve being called 'It does not exist'.

There is no confusion in Advaita about these nor is there a mix-up between

'existence' and 'reality'. Shankara, based on the Shruti, concludes: 'sadeva

satyam' in the Taittiriya Bhashya for Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma. He quotes

the Chandogya Upanishad mantra which commences with : 'sadeva somya...'

(Existence alone was...) and concludes by saying: 'mRttiketyeva Satyam'

(....alone is the Reality). This Upanishad teaches the essence of the created

world and the jiva is none other than Sat, Existence and emphatically declares

that That (Tat) Sat Existence alone is the Satyam, Reality. Thus, The

Upanishadic Brahman is Sat and Satyam. Existence and Reality are synonymous.

The reality and otherwise of polar concepts of apple and vandhyaputra exist only

in the phenomenal world. Advaita has no problems with these.

 

 

>

> Similarly, one may ask the question – from jIvan-mukta's point, is the

mithyatvam of this world real or not?

>

> The proponents (of the theory of perception do exist for jIvan mukta) have to

accept that `mithyatvam' as a " category-of-reality " must exist and very much

real. This exactly is the point I was alluding that at the end we have duality

of categories `reality' (of jIva-muktha himself) and `mithyatva' of jagat. This

duality (of categories) in itself must be really real in order to make sense of

the proponents position. You see, the duality cannot be wished away after all!

>

> In order to avoid this duality, the solution may be that one has to deny

existence of such categories in pAramArthika. If so, then it follows that a

jIvan-muktha cannot see any perception at all, let alone he knows it right or

wrong, period. This exactly is the position taken by Shankara when he says `atma

atmani na viShayaH' (and what to speak about jagat as object of knowledge for

atman?).

 

 

Response:

 

Denying existence of categories in Paramarthika does not vitiate the acceptance

of categories in the Jivanmukta's vyavahara. The Brahadaranyaka Bhashya passage

you have referred to only says that Atman, the Conscsiousness, is not an object

for itself. What is wrong if the manifestations, vivartas, of that

Consciousness, become objects for the seeing Consciousness? After all, in a

dream this is what happens: I see a lot of friends in a get-together in a

dream. The seeing I and the friends and the place are all vivartas of me the

dreamer. Has not the Lord said in the 5th chapter that the Jnani will see the

Same, Samam Brahman, in a saattvic Brahmana, in a cow, in an elephant, in a dog

and in a chandala? Does not such a Jnani know that the Samam Brahman is what

his own essence also? Where is the problem here?

 

 

 

> This exactly the tension between three fundamental cornerstones of nondual

philosophies. These three corner stones are `absolute non-duality',

`vyavahArika-pAramArthika' and `teachings-by-jnAni'. If these three concepts

are treated as three points, we just can't connect them at the same time. We

have to let go one of them. This exactly where I think various sub-schools

within Advaita-Vedanta takes one of possible positions supporting any two points

at the same time as their central emphasis thereby differs from other

sub-schools within the tradition.

 

 

Response:

 

The above is not the correct depiction of the Advaitic position. What is wrong

in having the Truth to be Absolute Non-duality? This is the knowledge that a

sadhaka requires to get over samsara. 'vyavaharika-paramarthika' division

explains the phenomenal world with its dualities and the Absolute Truth with no

polar concepts. 'Teachings by a Jnani' is also not problematic as the Jnani,

who very well knows that the body-mind apparatus that 'teaches' and the

body-mind apparatus that listens to that teaching are all unreal. Has not the

Lord taught in the 5th chapter that the Jnani will have the conviction that the

'indriyas' are interacting with their 'objects'? And yet the Jnani remains

'naiva kurvan na kaarayan', not doing anything or causing to do anything? Thus

there is absolutely no problem in having/dealing with/talking about all the

'three concepts' at the same time. One has to only understand where and at what

level they are relevant/valid.

>

>

> >My intuition is that the Dvaitic philosophy

> > has got a good grip on the idea that reality presents itself as polarised

> > and that we cannot simply drop the one pole and say that the other is the

> > really real. The magnet is a good illustration for this idea. You cannot

> > say that the real magnet is the North Pole or the South Pole, both

> > together are the force which makes the magnet what it is.

> >

>

> Thanks for recognition of strength of Dvaita philosophy.

>

> By bringing duality under the banner of Independent and Dependent, the dvaita

school has addressed dual issue of mainlining the majesty of vdic Brahman on one

hand and rationalizing the polarized reality (which is given) on the other.

 

Response:

 

The above perception of Michael ji and your seconding it arises from an

inadequate understanding of the Advaitic system. By bringing all phenomenal

duality under the head of 'vyavaharika' Advaita keeps the Upanishadic Non-dual

Brahman out of the range of the dualistic world of polar concepts. That way,

the dualities of the world like existent and non-existent, real/unreal are all

put under the vyavaharika plane and are thus 'rationalized'. The polar concepts

are not denied/negated within the vyavaharika. Only from the Paramarthika

standpoint the polar concepts are denied. Shankara never gives such an

erroneous impression of denying the polar concepts within vyavahara in His

commentaries. So, it is not that Advaita has not accounted for the worldly

dualities and that only Dvaita has rationalized them. In Dvaita too the

Swatantra Brahman 'can very well do without the paratantra prakriti and jiva'

just as the Advaitic Paramarthika Brahman. This excerpt from Shankara's Gita

Bhashya would throw much light on the above:

 

In the Bhagavad gita 13.12 verse:

 

jneyam yat tat pravakshyAmi yat jnAtvA amRtam ashnute

anAdimatparam Brahma na sat na asat uchyate

 

[That which has to be known I shall describe; knowing which one attains the

Immortal. Beginningless is the Supreme Brahman. It is not said to be 'sat'

existing or 'asat' non-existing.]

 

Shankara says, in his long commentary:

 

// For being beyond the reach of the senses, It is not an object of

consciousness accompanied with the idea of either existence or non-existence.

That thing, indeed, which can be perceived by the senses, such as a pot, can be

an object of consciousness accompanied with the idea of existence, or an object

of consciousness accompanied by the idea of non-existence. Since, on the other

hand, the Knowable (Brahman) is beyond the reach of the senses and as such can

be known solely thru that instrument of knowledge which is called 'shabda',

Revelation, It cannot be, like a pot, etc., an object of consciousness

accompanied with the idea of either (existence or non-existence) and is

therefore not said to be 'sat' or 'asat'.//

 

It would be rewarding to read the entire commentary for the above verse. From

the above we understand that the 'polarity' of 'is' and 'is not' or 'real' and

'unreal' belongs only to the created world.

 

 

 

> For the argument sake, even if we accept existence of reality beyond the pairs

of opposite (polarized reality), the problem will not go away. Such acceptance

itself will again give raises to new duality – " polarized reality " and the

" reality which is beyond polarized one " !

 

> Regards,

> Srinivas

 

Response:

 

No. It will not give rise to a new duality as stated above. The 'polarized

reality' is known to be mithya. Mithya is not a category. When I realize that

what I see is mirage-water, I would not put the unreal mirage-water in another

'reality' category. It is just an insubstantial appearance to me. The

Chandogya Upanishad delcares: vAchArambhaNam vikarO nAmadheyam, mRttiketyeva

Satyam. It clearly states that the transformed effects are insubstantial and

are merely names like 'mirage-water' and holds out the substance (clay) alone to

be Satyam, Real.

 

Regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

--- On Tue, 9/8/09, subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v wrote:

 

Subbu - PraNAms

 

When I read Srinivas trying to avail Michael's comments to present his

misunderstanding of Advaita and excuse to present his concepts of dvaita in

terms or real and unreal, I decided to ignore it as impertinent. I am glad you

took pains to answer the comments.

 

The fundamental problem in dvaita, in general, is not able to differentiate the

dependent and independent existence where anvaya vyatireka logic has to be used

to establish the relative or dependent reality of vyavahaara and independent

reality or absolute reality of the paaramaarthika. The reality of the kaarya

(pot), the dependent, and kaaraNa(clay),the independent (using relative example)

ontologically in the same order, is incorrect. The very teaching

'vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam' is lost its significance, where 'eka

vijnaanena sarva vijnaanam bhaviti' is lost. These are some of the reasons why

I said trying to see the unifying concept in the dvaita and advaita is trying to

bring two poles into one. Gravitation is the only monopolar in science, and

gravitating to advaita becomes the essence of the life pursuit.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda