polar concepts

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sekhar-ji & RK-ji and interested advaitins,

 

I'm looking at the back and forth about illusion and adhyasa going on

between you. I am perhaps tangential to that discussion but let me hazard

a few points.

 

First off Shankara is not interested in Psychology or Science and does not

stand or fall by any statement of his that uses elements from those two

disciplines as illustrations. Look at the preamble(B.S.B.)and you will,

if you read it carefully, be struck by his indifference to the exact

psychological mechanism whereby confusion occurs. 'Some say' ....but

others assert...others say ...' from every point of view'. Does this

look like a man that is deeply concerned as to which theory about

confusion is correct? By the way we are talking about confusion here and

not delusion e.g. hallucination or illusion e.g. stick appearing bent in

water. It is confusion that is used as an analogy for superimposition.

The extraction of a purely mental existent from the object out there and

its 'travelling' to the mind of the subject is shown to be a common

occurrence. My view is that the standard interpretation of this

emphasises the false aspect of confusion rather than the 'travelling'

aspect. This has come about because of the unfortunately restricted diet

of examples that are used in Advaita. Snake/rope is used to illustrate

perceptual error as well as the movement of the mental from the inert

object. Perhaps in the time of Shankara these distinctions were so well

marked that they did not need to be stressed. It would be a good study

for someone with the scholarly apparatus that I lack to study the subject

of analogy, homology, parallel, metaphor, symbol etc in the contemporary

literature. Shankara gives hints here and there that he is aware of the

problem of the general taking of an analogy as a parallel. The idea that

only those things which share some likeness can be superimposed

demonstrates this basic error. It is the movement of the mental from the

inert that is the focus of the analogy not the likeness.

 

It is also true that Shankara is the source of bemusement himself by his

seeming to accept this error by answering it or refuting it on its own

terms. This is I presume an example of teaching that is pitched at the

level that the pupil can absorb. This is quite different from the

dialectical model of instruction practiced by Socrates in the dialogues of

Plato.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " subrahmanian_v " <subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> > 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'.

 

 

Well, `existence' and `non-existence' is not only for created things. These

categories equally applies for eternal things as well. Brahman is not created,

but it is said to be `exist' (remember `sadEya idam asIt', `satyasya satyam' of

shruti?). So also atyanta asat entities `vandhyAputra' or `saShaviSaNa' are said

to be called `asat' even though they were never created and destroyed later.

Your understanding that these sat-asat categorie applies only to created things.

 

Also, as per your understanding if Brahman is neither sat nor asat because

Brahman was not created entity, then Brahman was really supposed to be called

sat-asat vilaxaNa or `mithya' you see! And this jagat was created entity, it

really suppose to be called `sat'! How come siddhAnta has interchanged these?

 

Moreover, if you were to bring sat-asat duality under created world and think

the polar duality has been addressed, you are wrong. That position will give

raise to a totally new duality of `created' and `not-so-created'! You see, it is

not easy to escape duality.

 

 

>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.

 

Alright, what do you say about entities other than Brahman? Do they exist or

not? If you say they do exist (in order to avoid duality o sat-asat categories)

you will end up with posting duality of sat entities. On the other hand, if you

deny the existence of bhrahmEtra vastu-s, you end up in accepting categories of

sat and asat. This is the point.

 

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

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

>

 

As said above, your position is based on wrong idea of sat-asat is applicable

only to created world.

 

>

> >

> > 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.

 

Only if you accept pAramArthika is different from jIvan-mukta's state.

 

Also, who do you mean by `jIvan-mukta's vyavahAra'? jIva-muktha is supposed to

be not identifying self with upAdhis and how come such self has any vyavahAra?

The term is contradtiction.

 

>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?

 

You may say so only if pure Atman has guNa of getting itself into vivarta or

manifestations. This vindicates the nirguNatva of Atman. Also note that such

manifestation itself, according to Shankara, is not real per se, but mithya.

 

>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.

 

This analogy is not correct, for the process of undergoing dream is as real as

the waker himself. Also, the waker do have the guNa of sleepyness and

dreamyness, which is unlike Brahman who is said to be nirguNa before any

manifestation.

 

 

>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 gIta vAkya was wrongly interpreted. Moreover it is coming from saguNa

brahma Krishana and it is not to be taken seriously, for this very entity

`saguNa Brahman', as per Advaita, does not really exist out there, but it is

something created by my avaidya or collective mAya superimposed on nirguNa

Brahman (or NB seen thru mAya).

 

>

>

>

> > 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.

 

Then you have new polar concepts of `phenomenal world with dualities' and

`absolute truth with no polar concepts'. You just can't get away with polarity

you know.

 

 

>'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.

> >

 

But SriKrishna did not say indriya's interaction with their object were all

unreal. In contrast you are saying jnAni's interaction is unreal. There is no

relevance for jivan mukta's transaction and Sri.Krishna's assertion.

 

If jnAni knows BMI which teaches and BMI which listens are all unreal, several

problems;

 

1. It means jnAni's as a pure Atma has the `knowledge' of something. This

pramartitva is negated by Shankara as said before. Even if you bring in vivarta

of Brahman it does not help as discussed above.

2. What about selves in those `seemingly' listening BMIs? Do they know the truth

(of unreality of teaching-listening) or not? If they do know, then it is as good

as saying one will be knowledgble even before any teachings! If they don't, then

you are posting of duality of `knowledge' and `ignorance' within the Brahman who

is same in both teacher and studend. This is svagatabhEda in Brhamn which is

quite antivEdic.

3. From eternity when one self is realized, all other seemingly existing selves

should be unreal and there is no question of teaching. Or else, should " I " take

it that as long as I am having avidya avaraNa I will continue to perceive

teacher and students? If that is so, I will question myself that how did I come

to that there is such thing as non-dual reality without being taught by a

teacher really?

 

 

> >

> > >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.

 

I agree you don't deny polar concepts within vyavahArika, but don't you deny

such vyavahArika itself from pAramArthika or not?

 

If you don't deny then you have duality in pAramArthka. If you do, it is as good

as denying polar concepts at its root. It is mere eyewash to accept at some

level and then deny that level itself later from ultimate level.

 

 

>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.

 

The Dvaita's position saying `very well do without' has been misunderstood by

you.

 

In Dvaita, Brahman is very well do without prakriti-jIva, but it does not means

prakriti-jIva are not unreal. The stress on `very well do withou' is meant to

indicate svatantrya of Brahman. Look at this way, in Dvaita it is Brahman's

explicit Iccha (Will) which keeps prakrit-jIvas into existence. This is due to

Brahman being guNa-pUrNa. This is unlike Brahman in Advaita, where from

Brahman's point (which is real point of view if you will) jIva and jagat does

not exist, period. Your attempt to reconcile two systems, based on some

misunderstanding of Dvaitic position, is invalid and sorry to say that it is

quite futile in exercise.

 

Regards,

Srinivas

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadananda-ji,

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

>

> --- 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.

>

 

Why does posting same ontological reality to independent and dependent is

incorrect?

 

Your quoting vAcharambram vIkAro verse is not apt here. Before that verse

Upanishad's `mritikaitiEva satyam' and its terms `iti' is superfluous in

advaitic reading. If mud alone is real (and not pot or jar) it would have been

suffice to say `mRuttikaiva satyaM'.

 

Same in the case of duplicate `nAmadhEyaM' and `vikAro vAchArambhanam'. If

advaitic reading is correct, Shruti would have avoided punurukti fallacy.

 

In Shankara bhashya, the term `mAtram' is not part of the shruti but something

supplied externally. Based on such `mAtram' it is incorrect to say independent

and dependent entities belongs to different ontological reality.

 

Now coming to 'eka vijnaanena sarva vijnaanam bhaviti' verse;

 

Why do you think it is lost in Dvatic reading? In fact it loses its significance

under Advaitic reading. Let me explain;

 

Shruti is saying `Ekavij~jAnena sarva vij~jAnam' (knowing many by knowing One).

But what is that `Eka' in advaita? Eka has to be independent Brahman. What is

`sarva'? it has to be dependent jagat. What is the relation being proposed

between that Eka and sarva in advaita? Of course, it is of the material

casualty. But such shuddha chaitanya can not undergo `real' modification so to

speak.

 

We have two options here;

 

1. Either such modification must be other than `real'

 

Or

 

2. It is not just Brahman alone have been involved in such transformation, but

Brahman along with `something else' be involved.

 

 

If modification is not real but apparent, then it would amount to saying that,

by knowing One real many apparents are known. Bhamati (on

S. sUtra bhAshya 1.4.27) argues in the same line, this transformation as not

real but illusory (vivarta) like rope is to snake. It says, by

knowing the rope (One) the truth about snake (many) is known. `rajvAm j~jAtAtyAm

bhujanga tattvam j~jAtam bhavati, sA hi tasya tattvam'.

 

But there is a difficulty of the direction here. In advaita it is knowing of

falsity of many (negation of world) will lead to knowing of One, but not other

way around of knowing One leads to knowing many `Ekavij~jAnena sarva vij~jAnam'.

 

In the second option (Brahman alone is not in its material casualty), it must be

maintained that NB with association with avidya is the material cause of the so

called `many'. In fact Sri.SurEshwarAchrya takes this position and says `asya

dvaitendrajAlasya yad upAdAnakAraNam aj~jAnam tadupAsritya brahma

kAranamuhyate'. But, that

would open up fresh difficulties. Since avidya in conjunction with Brahman is

the material cause, `Ekavij~jAnam' must also include this avidya

in that `One' that to be known. That would promote avidya from `to be discarded'

to `to be known' status!.

 

In both the cases, the conclusion of `Ekavij~jAnena sarva vij~jAnam' is `when

sat is known, sat is known', which is tautology indeed.

 

 

Also, the same Upanishad's says that by knowing the One, the unknown, unheard &

un-understood comes to be known. This is not met in vivartvAda's

explanation. According to it, right knowledge of adhisTAna will automatically

put end to appearance of `many'. Thus, one will just

left with knowledge of One alone! Shankara himself says in BSB 2.1.14 `Eka

vij~jnAnEna nAnAtvaj~jnAnam apanudyate'.

 

Regarding the issue of `iti' in `mritikitiEva satyam' verse, the analysis goes

like this;

 

In advaita, the particle `iti' (after mRuttika) has been used to denote the

actual clay (object of the word). But, as per pANinian rule `Na veti vibhAsa' ,

a word used in context of thought-content (arthaprakaraNa) with an `iti' after

it shall be treated as referring to its word-form (shabdaswarUpa) only and not

to it's actual

denotation. Accordingly, Dvaita's usage of `iti' as indicative of the word-form

`mRuttika' only is justified on this ground and very much grammatical. This is

in consistent with this Upanishad's very many usage of `iti' such as `iti'

immediately after `OM' in the very first mantra `OmityEtadakSharaM..'(Brahmn is

said to be denoted by

akShara `OM' ..), or as in `OMiti brahma' etc etc.

 

 

Regards,

Srinivas Kotekal

[Guest guest]

Pranams Srinivas-ji

First of all you do not need any pramana to establish dvaita.

Dvaita is pratyaksha. You open your eyes in the morning and what you see is the

glorious sunrise.

 

And of course we bow our heads in awe at the grandeur of the Lord and say " tat

savitur varenyam "

No philosphy or doctrine is needed to bring attention to this vibhuti of the

Lord.

 

The Vedas are also not needed in appreciating this - at best the Vedas may

provide us with some instructional tools in the form of rites and rituals so as

to appease the Surya devata.

 

But... perchance a rare individual " parrekshya lokan karma chitan

nirvedamayatastiakruthkruthena tad-vijnanartham sa gurum evabhigacchet "

approaches a Guru after examining this world of duality, and duality based rites

rituals and duties, and concluding that there is something that cannot be

attained by rituals, something that has to be known...then the Veda has to help

this person transcend what is apparent i.e. duality.

 

And what does the Veda say with piercing clarity?

 

ya aditye tishtann adityad antarah, yam adityo na veda, yasyAdityah shareeram,

ya adityam antaro yamayati, esha ta atmantaryamy amrtah.(Br Up 3.7.9)

 

He who inhabits the sun, but is within it, whom the sun does not know, whose

body is the sun, and who controls the sun from within, is the Internal Ruler,

your own immortal self.

 

sa yaschayam purushe yaschavaditye sa ekah (Tai Up 2.8.14)

He that is here in the human person and He that is there in the Sun are One.

 

Now, when you again wake up in the morning, and once again  " see " " that " Narayana

who is the savitru mandala madhyavarti the Lord in the Solar Orb and then see

" this " One - the Self, lodged in one's heart, with the VedA as the pramana it

becomes as clear as a fruit in one's palm hand = " that " is Naryana, " this " is

Narayana, and between " that " and " this " is also Lord Narayana alone - in other

words, the only Reality is Lord Narayana - satyam jnanam anantam -

and what about " me " ? this " me "  is nothing but the apparent, the false notion of

an individuality which I the ignorant harbor. And in the incadescence of this

knowledge, this notionality alone gets consumed.

 

There can be only be One Reality Brahman or Narayana - this is advaita. Thence

alone is immortality.

 

As the Katha Up affirms

yadeveha tadamutra yadamutra tadanviha

mrtyoh sa mrtyumaapnoti ya iha naaneva pashyati

 

What indeed is here is there. What is there is here likewise. He who sees as

though there is difference here, goes from death to death.

 

And for this alone you need VedA, you need teaching, you need philosophy, and

you need enquiry - vichara.

 

You write :

" Well, `existence' and `non-existence' is not only for created things. These

categories equally applies for eternal things as well. "

Sir, What is Eternal alone can be Existence.

The Katha Up has this to say - asti eva upalabdhavyah....and then tattvabhavena

prasidati.

Understand the Self to be existence and then transcendental. The first category

pertains to the phenomenal concepts of existence and non-existence and the

transcendental encompasses the phenomenal.

 

The rest of your lengthy arguments have been addressed previously by me and

others many times over - as they are all based on a lack of understanding of

advaita - esp the concepts of satya and mithya, and maya, and confusions

between mithya with asat. I doubt repeating them is going to be fruitful -

either for you or for me.

 

If you, and others in the dvaita sampradaya, find what is clearly and repeatedly

affirmed by Vedanta in mutifarous ways and through numerous analogies,

unpalatable, and find that an elaborate analysis of Vedanta is needed to arrive

at the very duality that is staring at you all the time, then, frankly, it is

nothing short of a tragic waste of vichara.

 

My humble pranams

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

--- On Fri, 9/11/09, maatarishvan <kots_p wrote:

 

 

maatarishvan <kots_p

Re: Polar Concepts

advaitin

Friday, September 11, 2009, 8:36 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, `existence' and `non-existence' is not only for created things. These

categories equally applies for eternal things as well. Brahman is not created,

but it is said to be `exist' (remember `sadEya idam asIt', `satyasya satyam' of

shruti?). So also atyanta asat entities `vandhyAputra' or `saShaviSaNa' are said

to be called `asat' even though they were never created and destroyed later.

Your understanding that these sat-asat categorie applies only to created things.

 

 

 

Recent Activity

 

 

 6

New Members

 

 1

New FilesVisit Your Group

 

 

 

Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

 

Find helpful tips

for Moderators

on the

Groups team blog.

 

 

Mental Health Zone

Find support for

Mental illnesses

..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sri Srinivas - PraNAms

 

I do not wish to go into discussion about the advaitic and dvaitic positions

here.

 

I must say however, putting both the upaadana kaaraNa and kaarya ontologically

in the same basket is where dvaitin's have problem-one has independent

existence and the other has dependent existence - To say that the reality of

gold and the ring that made of that gold both ontologically same, is illogical

at best - avyaya vyatireka logic establishes one can be negated while the other

is not and that which cannot be negated any time is satyam - trikaala

abhaadhitam. 'iti' in the sruti vaakyam will not make the statment any different

- Satyam part is the essense and is not altered by the iti part.

 

Anyway, I have no further interest to convince you or any other dvaitin that

advaitinc interpretation is what Scriptures provides - aitadaatmya idagam sarvam

tat satyam sa aatma tat tvam asi - maya tatam idam sarvam jagat avyakta

muurthinaa, mastaani sarva bhuutaani - yatova imaani bhuutani jaayante.. etc

provides the material cause and the effects that arise in it or from it - One is

eternal and the other is continously under changes - na ca mastaani bhuutani

pasyam me yogamaisvaram -

 

Srinivas - please think it over. If you are convinced of your understanding - so

be it. My best wishes.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- On Fri, 9/11/09, maatarishvan <kots_p wrote:

 

Why does posting same ontological reality to independent and dependent is

incorrect?

[Guest guest]

--- On Sat, 9/12/09, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

 

 

First of all you do not need any pramana to establish dvaita.

Dvaita is pratyaksha. You open your eyes in the morning and what you see is the

glorious sunrise.

 

 

-----

Shyam - PraNAms

 

PramaaNa definition involves ‘anadhigata, abaadhitam, arthavishyayaka

jnaanatvam – pramaaNam’ - of interest is anadhigata - meaning that which is

not known before. To emphasize the point here, by pratyaksha I can perceive the

duality, then I do not need to scripture to tell me that I am not that - atat

tvam asi – that too 9 times!

 

Any it reminds me a story that is told in this connection –only for those who

can take it on the lighter side and not intended to insult any vedantin.

 

There was once great advaitic teacher; and a student who was brought up as

dvaitin, approached him to study. After few classes, he did not wish to

continue learning there since his convictions differ from the teaching he is

receiving.

 

So he decided to quit that teacher and approach another teacher, who is a

dvaitin. As the story goes- he studied the scriptures for 12 years under that

teacher and after receiving his degree, he came to his first teacher and what to

have a debate with him to establish that advaita is wrong - how can the lord and

jiiva can be one?

 

The advaitin said, I am not really that interested in the debate, but if you

insist, let us do it tomorrow morning.

 

Next day the challengers went to the advaitin's house. He found that the

advaitin was getting his hair cut from a barber. The advaitin requested this

young man to have a seat and said we will have a debate after his hair cut and

bath.

 

The barber must have done a great job with his hair-cut and shave. When the

advaitin say himself in the mirror, he was overwhelmed by the transformation

that brought by the barber. He could see his own beauty and out of excitement,

he told the barber, this is the creative work of God, and I see that God in you,

and saying that He prostrated again and again to the barber - saying that OH!

you must be Naaraayana. Oh Naaraayana how great you are! Etc.

 

The barber almost got fainted – He screamed. What are you doing! I am the

barber not Naaraayana. and looking at the student who is watching all this said

to him - Sir please tell him that I am not Naaraayana and Why is he saying I am

Naaraayana. I am only the barber who does not know much.

 

The dvaitin pulled the advaitin up saying, Sir Please leave him. He is our

barber not Naaraayana - but advaitin insisted saying I see Naaraayana in him.

How can he be not Naaraayana. The Barber getting frightened ran away from that

place.

 

As the story goes, the advaitin was very happy that Naaraayana came and

transformed him and he went to take his bath saying he will be back soon for the

debate.

 

When he returned, he did not find the dvaitin there. After few minutes, he saw

the dvaitin coming with a plate full of fruits and flowers. He prostrated to the

advaitin and said - sir, please excuse me and please take me as your student.

 

Advaitin was surprised. He asked what happened. The dvaitin replied - Sir I

spend 12 years learning that I am not that - This Barber without undergoing any

study also knows ' I am not that'. I do not see any thing that I learned for

these 12 years which Barber also could know without going all those years of

study.

 

I understood now that I do not need scriptures to teach me that I am different

form that. If scripture is a pramaaNa, it must teach me something that I do not

know otherwise. Please accept me as your student.

 

The point is - Vedanta as pramaaNa, if it is going to confirm what I already

know by pratyaksha, then it is redundant. It fails to be the pramANa.

 

Tat tvam asi not a tat tvam asi - is the fundamental teaching of the Vedanta

which can not be gained by pratyaksha pramaaNa.

 

 

End of the story.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

To emphasize the point here, by pratyaksha I can perceive the duality,

then I do not need to scripture to tell me that I am not that - atat tvam

asi – that too 9 times!

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

You are absolutely right in your observation prabhuji ...first of all

shvetaketu didnot utter a single word that give uddAlaka a hint that he

is thinking that he is THAT to prompt him to say 'atattvamasi' 'you are

not that' :-)) anyway, as you know, dvaitins cook their own stuff to this

context to prove that it is indeed 'attatvamasi' what uddAlaka insisted

:-))

BTW, I liked your barber story...it is quite appropriate to the stand of

tattvavAdins !!

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

>

> --- On Sat, 9/12/09, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

>

> First of all you do not need any pramana to establish dvaita.

> Dvaita is pratyaksha. You open your eyes in the morning and what you see is

the glorious sunrise.

 

> Shyam - PraNAms

>

> PramaaNa definition involves ‘anadhigata, abaadhitam, arthavishyayaka

jnaanatvam †" pramaaNam’ - of interest is anadhigata - meaning that which is

not known before. To emphasize the point here, by pratyaksha I can perceive the

duality, then I do not need to scripture to tell me that I am not that - atat

tvam asi †" that too 9 times!

 

 

Says Sri Shankara Bhagavatpada in His commentary to the mantra 5.1.1 of the

Brihararanyaka Upanishad:

 

 

 

//na upadeshArham dvaitam, jAta-mAtra-prANi-buddhi-gamyatvAt.//

 

[Duality does not require to be instructed (by the Veda) since it (duality) is

comprehended by every being even at birth.]

 

 

> And it reminds me a story that is told in this connection †" only for those

who can take it on the lighter side and not intended to insult any vedantin.

 

> Advaitin was surprised. He asked what happened. The dvaitin replied - Sir I

spent 12 years learning that I am not that - This Barber without undergoing any

study also knows ' I am not that'. I do not see any thing that I learned for

these 12 years which Barber also could know without going all those years of

study.

>

> I understood now that I do not need scriptures to teach me that I am different

form that. If scripture is a pramaaNa, it must teach me something that I do not

know otherwise. Please accept me as your student.

 

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

 

 

Actually, there is nothing derogatory to dvaitins in the above story. Sri

Purandara Dasa has this to say in his famous song: alli nODalu Rama, illi nODalu

Rama:

 

avanige iva rAma, ivanige ava rAma...(for x, y is Rama, and for y, x is Rama)

Hear this song here:

 

http://www.kannadaaudio.com/Songs/Devotional/home/PurandaradasaKritis.php

 

(In the above album, select the second song)

 

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Actually, there is nothing derogatory to dvaitins in the above story. Sri

Purandara Dasa has this to say in his famous song: alli nODalu Rama, illi

nODalu Rama:

 

avanige iva rAma, ivanige ava rAma...(for x, y is Rama, and for y, x is

Rama) Hear this song here:

praNAms Sri Subhu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

thanks for the bruhadAraNyaka quote & dAsara padagaLu...Longtime back I

heard this song in Ramakrishna Ashram bhajans sung by Swamy

purushOttamanandaji...One line in that devara nAma ' e vele naranAgi

irabAradendeNisi deva sri rAma chandra jagavella tANAda ' is still ringing

in my mind prabhuji...This also reminds me chAndOgya shruti athAtha

AtmAdesha evAtmaivAdhasthAdAtmOparishtAdAtmA purastAdAtmA dakshiNata

AtmOttarata AtmaivedaM sarvaM and also svetAshvetara vAni : tvaM stree,

tvaM pumAnasi tvaM kumAra uta vA kumAri, tvaM jeerNO daNdena vaMchasi tvaM

jAtO bhavasi vishvatO mukhaH...Oh, what a verdict from shruti...veda mAta,

kindly accept my humble prostrations on your lotus feet.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar