drushti and satya

[Guest guest]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Can words 'drushti' & 'satya' carry

the same meaning?? I dont think so...But surprisingly, while discussing

advaita vedAnta, we are using these two words alternatively as if

these two words are synonyms!! Ofcourse, shankara at various

places in his prasthAna trayi bhAshya makes clear distinction between naive

view of reality (lOka drushti) and vedAntic view of the same (shAstra drushti)...shankara

also calls these two view points as vyAvahArika drushti (transactional

view point) & pAramArthika drushti (transcedental view point).

But nowhere he hints about the existence of vyAvahArika, prAtibhAsika

& pAramArthika satya to give us the impression that there exists gradations

in reality!!

 

Dont you think it is better to have

difference in view points intead of split in truth itself?? Can our

vyAvahArik talks on advaita allow us to split the concept of absolute

truth itself to label it as vyAvahArika, prAtibhAsika & pAramArthika

satya-s?? Again, I dont think so, because vyAvahArika satya what we are

attributing to this world is nothing but an 'effect' which is nothing more

than appearance and consequently the 'cause' stands for the substrate

on which appearances are mere superimposition (adhyArOpita).

 

Any clarification on these terms drushti

and satya would be highly appreciated.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> praNAms

> Hare Krishna

>

> Can words 'drushti' & 'satya' carry the same meaning?? I dont think

> so...But surprisingly, while discussing advaita vedAnta, we are using

> these two words alternatively as if these two words are synonyms!!

> Ofcourse, shankara at various places in his prasthAna trayi bhAshya makes

> clear distinction between naive view of reality (lOka drushti) and

> vedAntic view of the same (shAstra drushti)...shankara also calls these

> two view points as vyAvahArika drushti (transactional view point) &

> pAramArthika drushti (transcedental view point). But nowhere he hints

> about the existence of vyAvahArika, prAtibhAsika & pAramArthika satya to

> give us the impression that there exists gradations in reality!!

 

 

Namaste.

 

Here is a small note based on the Acharya's Bhashyam on the Taittiriya

Upanishad:

 

The Three states/types of Reality (sattaa-traividhyam)

 

 

While commenting on the mantra ''satyam cha anRtam cha Satyam abhavat'

(Taittiriya Up. II.6) Sri Shankaracharya says: satyam = vyavaharavishayam since

this is being mentioned in the context of 'sRishti' of the world. He adds: this

is not paramArthasatyam (absolute reality) since Brahman alone indeed is

paramArtha satyam. This vyavaharavishayam satyam is only Apekshikam, relative.

He explains: when compared to the water in a mirage, the water (that we actually

use for drinking, etc.) is real. This is what is meant by 'vyavaharika satyam'.

That which is not thus real is anRtam, unreal.

 

//satyam cha vyavahaaraviShayam, adhikArAt, na paramaarthasatyam; ekameva hi

paramaarthasatyam Brahma. iha punaH vyavahaaraviShayamaapekShikam

mRgatRShNikAdyanRtaapekShayA udakAdi satyamucyate. anRutam cha tadvipareetam.

kim punaretat sarvam? satyamabhavat paramArthasatyam...//

 

 

The above bhashyam brings to the fore that three types of 'reality' are admitted

in the Shruti. Commonly these are known as: 1.PAramArthika Satyam which is

Brahman alone, 2. vyAvahArika satyam which constitutes the common world

experience of samsara and 3. prAtibhAsika satyam which is a seeming reality,

actually within the samsaaric experience. This seeming reality of say, the

mirage-water or rope-snake, is corrected in the vyavahara itself and does not

require Brahma jnanam for this. The vyvahaarika satyam, of course, gets

corrected upon the rise of Brahma jnAnam. The Shruti vakyams for this are:

Ekameva adviteeyam, neha naanaa asti kinchana, sarvam khalu idam brahma, etc.

 

 

What is worthy of noting in the above bhashyam is the Shruti pramaanam for the

existence of the three types of reality or sattAtraividhyam. The Taittiriya

shruti we took up above is the pramanam for the three types of reality. It is

not the concoction of the advaitins/Bhagavatpada/later Acharyas. The Bhashyam

uses the two specific names and the third is only implied.

 

 

Om Tat Sat

Subbu

 

 

 

>

> Dont you think it is better to have difference in view points intead of

> split in truth itself?? Can our vyAvahArik talks on advaita allow us to

> split the concept of absolute truth itself to label it as vyAvahArika,

> prAtibhAsika & pAramArthika satya-s?? Again, I dont think so, because

> vyAvahArika satya what we are attributing to this world is nothing but an

> 'effect' which is nothing more than appearance and consequently the

> 'cause' stands for the substrate on which appearances are mere

> superimposition (adhyArOpita).

>

> Any clarification on these terms drushti and satya would be highly

> appreciated.

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

[Guest guest]

While commenting on the mantra ''satyam cha anRtam cha

Satyam abhavat' (Taittiriya Up. II.6) Sri Shankaracharya says: satyam =

vyavaharavishayam

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

But prabhuji dont you think this quote

exclusively dealing with srushti prakriya and nothing to do with compartmentalization

of reality which we have been practicing oflate while dealing with certain

issues??!! This quote says ultimate satya is the base for vyavahAravishaya

and at a stretch prAtibhAsika (if at all anruta is meant to denote prAtibhAsika..)

For that matter in geeta bhAshya too shankara clarifies that because of

the 'essence' of satya in vyavahAra, we could reach & deal in vyavahAra

: na hi nirAtmakaM kiMchit bhutaM vyavahArAya avakalpate (geeta 9-4)..coz.

this satya is the kArANa for all appearances & it has to be there

anyway!! As you know, in taitireeya itself, subsequently shruti says

yadidaM kiM cha tatsatyamityAchakshate to denote the 'all pervasiveness'

of that satya..in bruhadAraNyaka too shankara says nAma rUpa is satyaM

and these would envelop the prANa..nAma rUpe satyaM tAbhyAmayaM prANashcchannaH,

and in another place he says satyasya satyaM is paramAtma, satyaM

cha bhUtapanchakaM, satyasya satyaM cha para Atma...From these quotes,

out of context, we cannot say nAma rUpa is also true (satya) and paNcha

bhUta also satya etc. & there exists gradations in satya and

paramArtha satya can be contrasted from other two satya-s etc. ...If this

satya what shankara saying is 'real' satya, it is only from the point of

view of kArya-kAraNa ananyatva and not to advocate the different levels

of satya...

Kindly pardon me Sri subbu prabhuji,

I know, you donot want to indulge in discussion...but just sharing my amateur

thoughts..Thanks onceagain for your interest in the subject.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar-ji,

 

In the statement `satyAnRite mithunIkRitya' in adhyAsabhAShya, are the satya and

anRita of the same level of reality or different levels? Does this not refer to

the Atma as satyam and anAtma as anRitam?

 

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

> Hare Krishna

> But prabhuji dont you think this quote exclusively dealing with srushti

> prakriya and nothing to do with compartmentalization of reality which we

> have been practicing oflate while dealing with certain issues??!! This

> quote says ultimate satya is the base for vyavahAravishaya and at a

> stretch prAtibhAsika (if at all anruta is meant to denote prAtibhAsika..)

From

> these quotes, out of context, we cannot say nAma rUpa is also true (satya)

> and paNcha bhUta also satya etc. & there exists gradations in satya and

> paramArtha satya can be contrasted from other two satya-s etc. ...If this

> satya what shankara saying is 'real' satya, it is only from the point of

> view of kArya-kAraNa ananyatva and not to advocate the different levels of

> satya...

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

[Guest guest]

In the statement `satyAnRite mithunIkRitya' in adhyAsabhAShya,

are the satya and anRita of the same level of reality or different levels?

Does this not refer to the Atma as satyam and anAtma as anRitam?

 

 

Humble praNAms respected Sri Sastri

prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I dont have to say anything more about

this in front of your goodself prabhuji. As you know, satyAnruta

mithuneekrutvaM is due to mithyAjnAna ( mithyAjnAna nimittaH satyAnrute

mithuneekrutya 'ahamidaM', mamedaM etc....) which is quite natural in avidyA

lOka vyavahAra drushti...Yes, prabhuji as you have rightly pointed out

Atma as satyaM and anAtma is anrutaM...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , narendra sastry <narendra.sastry wrote:

 

> Bhaskar ji, it is logical to say drushti beda than sathya beda...coz there is

not beda in ONE sathya

>

 

Namaste Narendra ji,

 

No one disagrees with your above statement, especially that there cannot be

bheda in ONE Satya. It would be wise to recognize that dRiShTi-bheda

presupposes, implies, a satya-bheda. Consider the following example:

 

Kumar sees a rope on the roadside and thinks: someone has left this rope here.

Maybe it will be picked up by him later.

 

Krishna who comes to that spot a little while later sees that same rope and

thinks: O there is a snake lying on the edge of the road. Let me hurry up and

caution others.

 

Now we have two dRiShTi-s: 1. Rope-dRiShTi and 2. Snake-dRiShTi. But do the two

dRiShTi-s represent the same truth? Obviously no. The former is based on the

'paramartha' satya, the actual status there and the latter is based on the

a-paramArtha satya, the mistaken status there. Thus, you can never speak about

dRiShTi-bheda without explicitly or implicitly admitting satya-bhEda. Yet, are

there two 'satya-s' really there? Surely no. There can be only one truth about

the rope: that it is a rope. Yet the possibility of two dRShTi-s expose us to

the admitting of two levels of satya pertaining to the one object, rope. Why do

we admit two 'levels'? It is because, one, the lower level of satya, will be

negated, sublated, when the 'higher' level satya pertaining to the rope is

gained. Till that happens, we have to keep talking about two levels of sayta.

Once the truth is known, there will be no scope to talk about two levels at all;

even the term 'paramArtha' is redundant when we do not have an a-paramArtha

satya to speak of. Consider some of these statements of Shankaracharya and

Gaudapadacharya:

 

In the GK 3.48 it is said:

 

yEtattaduttamam satyam....(This is the Highest Satyam)

 

Shankaracharya comments:

 

sarvo'pyayam manonigrahAdiH, mRllohAdivatsRiShtiH, upAsanA cha uktA

paramArthasvarUpapratipattyupAyatvena, na paramArthasatyA iti.

paramArtha-satyam tu na ...pUrvEShu upAyatvena uktAnAm satyAnAm yetad uttamam

satyam...satyasvrUpe brahmaNi aNumAtramapi kinchid jaayate iti.

 

The overall meaning of the passage, paraphrased, is: Thus far, in this 'Advaita

PrakaraNam' chapter of the GK, these were talked about: 1. the practice of

mind-control, etc. 2. creation akin to the clay-clay products, iron-iron

products, fire-fire sparks, 3. meditation, dhyAna. These were talked about with

a view to get the realization of the Supreme Truth, Absolute Truth, paramArtha

svarUpa, as a means to realize IT. However, these 3 talked about here are NOT

the absolute reality; paramArtha satya. The paramArtha satyam, however, is

not...Among those 'satya-s' talked about earlier, THIS is the UTTAMAM Satyam,

the Highest Truth, which is the non-origination of even a wee bit of anything in

the Absolute SvarUpa Brahman.

 

Now, why would GaudapAda and BhagavatpAda talk about 'uttamam' satyam unless

they admit of some satyam that is non-uttamam satyam? Shankaracharya even goes

to the extent of using ShaShThI bahuvachanam with regard to satyam: 'satyAnAm'

(among the said many satyams, This is the Highest). Unless He admits of an/many

a-paramArtha satyams, why would He make a comparison and conclude by picking out

the paramArtha Satyam/svarUpam? Is it that Bhagavatpada and GaudapAda are

ignorant about the 'logic' stated by you:

 

//it is logical to say drushti beda than sathya beda...coz there is not beda in

ONE sathya// ?

 

Remember Bhagavatpada has said: adhyAropa apavAdAbhyAm...(by the method of

deliberate superimposition and subsequent negation...a method taught by

'sampradAya vits', 'knowers of the method of disseminating the Truth' as

Shankara revers them.) According to this rule, the different wrong dRiShTis are

admitted as 'satyam' of a lower level, a-paramArtha, an-uttama satyam only to

distinguish them from the paramArtha, uttamam satyam. There is a compelling

need to admit different levels of satyam, as unmistakably done by Shankara,

Gaudapada, examples of which abound in the bhashya, and finally negate all of

them and uphold only One Absolute Truth. At this final level, however, as you

have stated, Satyam is Only One. There is no need to label it as 'paramArtha,

uttamam, etc.'. It is silence.

 

Here is a fine example of the 'satya bheda' and 'dRiShTi-bheda' co-existing, in

Shankara's own words:

 

Commenting on the GK 3.18: 'advaitam paramArtho hi, dvaitam tadbheda uchyate|

teShAm ubhayathaa dvaitam...' Shankara states:

 

//......dvaitinAm tu teShAm paramArthataH, aparamArthataH cha ubhayathApi

dvaitameva. yadi cha teShAm bhrAntAnAm dvaitadRShTiH, asmAkam advaitadRiShTiH

abhrAntAnAm...//

 

The meaning is: For the dualists, it is dvaitam both ways: in the relative realm

as well as in the absolute realm. Further, theirs is the deluded

view,dvaitadRShTiH, and ours is the undeluded view: advaitadRiShTiH...

 

It is unmistakable that Shankara talks about two satyams, realities, in the

first part of the sentence, relative and absolute, and about two views,

drishti-s, in the second part of the sentence. Now, you can easily connect this

with the example of rope-snake we considered at the beginning of this discourse.

 

The conclusion is: dRiShTi-bhEda presupposes, implies, satya-bheda. The one

cannot exist without the other. To make a distinction between them is

unnatural. It is impossible to teach the Tattva without alluding to these two

sets of bheda-s. It is because, we are under the compulsion, to do so by the

'adhyaropa-apavaada' rule. The Upanishad, GaudapAda and Shankara can never

flout this rule.

 

Best regards,

subbu

 

P.S. Yet another instance of Shankara using the word 'paramArtha satya' is: GK

2.34 bhashya: 'na hi atra advaye paramARthasatyAtmani...' Now, unless He admits

that anything other than the Non-dual Atman is a-paramArtha, why would He

qualify the Non-dual Atman as he does?

[Guest guest]

Dear Subbu-ji,

Your explanation is superb. I am taking a copy and preserving for future

reference.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

advaitin , " subrahmanian_v " <subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

>

>

> Namaste Narendra ji,

>

> No one disagrees with your above statement, especially that there cannot be

bheda in ONE Satya. It would be wise to recognize that dRiShTi-bheda

presupposes, implies, a satya-bheda. Consider the following example:

>

> Kumar sees a rope on the roadside and thinks: someone has left this rope here.

Maybe it will be picked up by him later.

>

> Krishna who comes to that spot a little while later sees that same rope and

thinks: O there is a snake lying on the edge of the road. Let me hurry up and

caution others.

>

> Now we have two dRiShTi-s: 1. Rope-dRiShTi and 2. Snake-dRiShTi. But do the

two dRiShTi-s represent the same truth? Obviously no. The former is based on

the 'paramartha' satya, the actual status there and the latter is based on the

a-paramArtha satya, the mistaken status there. Thus, you can never speak about

dRiShTi-bheda without explicitly or implicitly admitting satya-bhEda. Yet, are

there two 'satya-s' really there? Surely no. There can be only one truth about

the rope: that it is a rope. Yet the possibility of two dRShTi-s expose us to

the admitting of two levels of satya pertaining to the one object, rope. Why do

we admit two 'levels'? It is because, one, the lower level of satya, will be

negated, sublated, when the 'higher' level satya pertaining to the rope is

gained. Till that happens, we have to keep talking about two levels of sayta.

Once the truth is known, there will be no scope to talk about two levels at all;

even the term 'paramArtha' is redundant when we do not have an a-paramArtha

satya to speak of. Consider some of these statements of Shankaracharya and

Gaudapadacharya:

 

> The conclusion is: dRiShTi-bhEda presupposes, implies, satya-bheda. The one

cannot exist without the other. To make a distinction between them is

unnatural. It is impossible to teach the Tattva without alluding to these two

sets of bheda-s. It is because, we are under the compulsion, to do so by the

'adhyaropa-apavaada' rule. The Upanishad, GaudapAda and Shankara can never

flout this rule.

>

> Best regards,

> subbu

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Subbuji

Hare Krishna

I know your reluctance to discuss these issues...but surprisingly

you are still taking all the pain to write articles in a tone of refutation

& tempting your opposite number to poke his nose :-)) your recent

article on mAdhva siddhAnta 'atatvamasi' in favour of advaita is one of

those examples...As we know, we the advaitins, would believe & interpret

this shruti vAkya as 'tattvamasi' only and since our Acharya also does

interpret this in a same way, there is no need for us to twist this shruti

vAkya as 'atat' and forcefully making it fit into the advaita frame...If

your goodself really want to have the meaningful further discussion, clarity

& other view points on this term 'atat', kindly try post this

to any open forum where dvaitins too allowed to have their say...I dont

think they would really agree with your 'unnecessarily' complicated linking

of the word 'atat' in favour of advaita vedAnta when their intention

is quite clear in this context. Ofcourse, we the advaitins, without

any problem whole heartedly accept your ground breaking interpretation

of 'atat' since it is nicely fitting our bill :-))

And now coming back to drushti bedha Vs satya bedha, here

is my take & my observations are marked in '>' :

No one disagrees with your above statement, especially

that there cannot be bheda in ONE Satya.

> Kindly keep this 'ONE satya' statement on hand

as we move on....

It would be wise to recognize that dRiShTi-bheda presupposes,

implies, a satya-bheda.

> IMO, it would be wise to recognize that drishti

bedha is due to our naisargika or svAbhAvika avidyA on ONE satya..I think

this is what shankara too says in adhyAsa bhAshya...tathAcha lOke anubhavaH..

is it not??

Consider the following example:

 

Kumar sees a rope on the roadside and thinks: someone has left this rope

here. Maybe it will be picked up by him later.

> Seeing the rope as rope is 'saMyak vyavahAra'

this is called lOka vyavahAra drushti of that ONE satya.

 

Krishna who comes to that spot a little while later sees that same rope

and thinks: O there is a snake lying on the edge of the road. Let me hurry

up and caution others.

> seeing the 'snake' in place of rope is mithyA

vyavahAra again on the basis of that ONE satya...

 

Now we have two dRiShTi-s: 1. Rope-dRiShTi and 2. Snake-dRiShTi. But do

the two dRiShTi-s represent the same truth? Obviously no.

> But prabhuji dont you know this seeing rope

as rope (saMyak vyavahAra) and rope as snake (mithyA vyavahAra) is that

all our ideas, speech and conduct based upon practical life (vyAvahArika)

are really due to ignorance (ajnAna) of that ONE satya?? Please note

we have already concluded here that there is ONLY ONE satya ( I am talking

about dAshtrAntika brahma siddhAnta here..coz. that is what matters ultimately

is it not??!!) based on shruti and AchAryOpadesha...Hence, our approach

towards world should be that it is only because of our drushti dOsha (avidyA

drushti or lOka drushti) we are seeing multiplicity in place of ONE

satya...And it is not because of levels of satya prior of drushti dOsha...In

the above example of Krishna who is wrongly seeing snake in place of rope

does not give any satyatva status to snake...tatra evaM sati yatra yadadhyAsaH

tatkrutena dOsheNa guNena vA aNumAtrENApi sa na saMbadhyAte clarifies shankara

in adhyAsa bhAshya...So, both rope drushti & snake drushti representing

that same ONE truth though there is avidyA lOka drushti suffering from

the snake bite :-))

I have to abruptly end my mail here as I have to leave

office now, otherwise my colleagues would come and peep into the monitor

to find out what I am doing after office hours :-))...If time permits,

I shall look into your paramArtha satya definition tomorrow. Till

then prabhuji....

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> praNAms Sri Subbuji

> Hare Krishna

> .As we know, we the advaitins, would believe & interpret this

> shruti vAkya as 'tattvamasi' only and since our Acharya also does

> interpret this in a same way, there is no need for us to twist this shruti

> vAkya as 'atat' and forcefully making it fit into the advaita frame...

 

My response:

 

There is absolutely no 'force' involved in this. There is a Shruti pramANa for

'a' meaning 'pratyagAtma'. So, very neatly, easily, even that reading fits the

Advaitic thinking.

 

 

If

> your goodself really want to have the meaningful further discussion,

> clarity & other view points on this term 'atat', kindly try post this to

> any open forum where dvaitins too allowed to have their say...I dont think

> they would really agree with your 'unnecessarily' complicated linking of

> the word 'atat' in favour of advaita vedAnta when their intention is

> quite clear in this context.

 

Response:

 

I am not interested in getting their approval for my interpretation. Nor is it

'complicated' as you say. On the other hand, the dvaitins have always said that

the Advaitic interpretation of 'Tat tvam asi' itself is so complicated involving

jahadajahallakshana and what not. Even for an advaita student to understand

this lakshana it takes a lot of time and teaching. This article has been in

'open' cyber space for over a year now and has been viewed by many dvaitins.

There is nothing that the dvaitins can argue against my interpretation. After

all, the words 'atat tvam asi' is not the copyright property of dvaitins.

 

Ofcourse, we the advaitins, without any

> problem whole heartedly accept your ground breaking interpretation of

> 'atat' since it is nicely fitting our bill :-))

 

 

Response: What a wonder!! You wholeheartedly accepting something another

advaitin says!

 

From what you have started to respond to my note on 'drushti and satya' I am

convinced that you have completely misunderstood me. Your fundamental mistake

lies in confusing my analogy of the rope-snake. While I am maintaining that the

rope drishti is 'paramartha drishti' 'for the purposes' of my exposition, you

have completely missed this and are talking about vyavahara drishti. Since the

rest of your comments is based/is going to be based on this fundamental mistake

on your part, there is no point in my investing time and energy arguing with

you.

 

And let me assure you that if you correct that fundamental mistake of yours in

the very primary understanding of my position, you will have nothing to comment

against my position.

 

Warm regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Before going to attend my office routines...here is my

quick reply :

Sri Subbu prabhuji :

 

There is absolutely no 'force' involved in this. There is a Shruti pramANa

for 'a' meaning 'pratyagAtma'. So, very neatly, easily, even that reading

fits the Advaitic thinking.

bhaskar :

If there is a possibility of 'atat' reading in this shruti

vAkya, why shankara did not notice it?? or for that matter why any

other later 'prakhyAta' vyAkhyAnakAra-s have not noticed it when dvaitins

making all the cry!! is it not?? When shankara himself not able to

think the word 'atat' in this context and to link that 'atat' with pratyagAtma,

how can we innovate these type of revolutionery interpretations prabhuji??

I dont think even madhusUdana saraswati would have opted this line

of argument while refuting dvaitins' theory. So, IMO, your interpretation

neither fit into the dvaitins context here (you cannot push aside

dvaitins here coz. you are taking their interpretation to float advaita

vedAnta here) nor advaitins' age long interpretation of the same

shruti vAkya (coz. for them 'tattvamasi' is what giving the convincing

answer to 'abedha' and more importantly no AchArya from advaita parampara

ever commented this shruti vAkya taking tattvamasi as attatvamasi)...Hope

this would be enough to prove that reading 'atattvamasi' in advaita light

is mere subjective reading with undue linking of some words out of context.

 

Sri Subbu prabhuji :

 

I am not interested in getting their approval for my interpretation.

bhaskar :

but we must know that it is tatvavAdins who first interpreted

tat tvam asi as atat tvam asi to mainly prove that YOU ARE NOT THAT...Now

you are saying even atattvamasi also in one way or the other saying tattvamasi

only...if you think yours is final verdict on this interpretation and not

ready to hear any other counter points, then so be it prabhuji :-))

Sri Subbu prabhuji :

Nor is it 'complicated' as you say. On the other hand,

the dvaitins have always said that the Advaitic interpretation of 'Tat

tvam asi' itself is so complicated involving jahadajahallakshana and what

not. Even for an advaita student to understand this lakshana it takes a

lot of time and teaching. This article has been in 'open' cyber space for

over a year now and has been viewed by many dvaitins. There is nothing

that the dvaitins can argue against my interpretation. After all, the words

'atat tvam asi' is not the copyright property of dvaitins.

bhaskar :

It is not the issue of copyright...it is the issue of using

their interpretation to fit advaitic meaning...Since you are not ready

to openly debate on this issue with dvaitins, IMO, it is unfair on your

part to assume and say that 'there is nothing that the dvaitins can argue

against your theory'...You know something prabhuji, dvaitins can argue

anything under the sky if it is from the desk of advaitins...Try your article

atleast once in vAdALi group, you dont have to indulge any discussion,

just post and see the response..you will atleast come to know what they

have in theiry kitty to refute your advaitic interpretation of 'atat'.

 

 

Ofcourse, we the advaitins, without any

> problem whole heartedly accept your ground breaking interpretation

of

> 'atat' since it is nicely fitting our bill :-))

 

Sri Subbu prabhuji :

Response: What a wonder!! You wholeheartedly accepting

something another advaitin says!

bhaskar :

Jokingly, I am not like your goodself prabhuji, to say

no to discussion & writing big articles in refutation...Atleast I am

true to myself & straightforward while expressing my feelings...

Sri Subbu prabhuji :

 

From what you have started to respond to my note on 'drushti and satya'

I am convinced that you have completely misunderstood me. Your fundamental

mistake lies in confusing my analogy of the rope-snake. While I am maintaining

that the rope drishti is 'paramartha drishti' 'for the purposes' of my

exposition, you have completely missed this and are talking about vyavahara

drishti.

bhaskar :

Frankly, I expected this type of excuse from your side

prabhuji...you may not remember, but I vividly remember, during the discussion

on kAraNAvidyA in sushupti (some 5-6 years back!!) also you have taken

this same excuse to end the discussion abruptly...Anyway, despite saying

particularly that I am talking about the dAshtrAntick paramArtha siddhAnta,

you are telling I've misunderstood your position...Here is my explicit

statement within brackets in my previous mail prabhuji :

//quote//

( I am talking about dAshtrAntika brahma siddhAnta

here..coz. that is what matters ultimately is it not??!!)

// unquote//

It is quite conspicuous from this who is misunderstanding

what...

Sri Subbu prabhuji :

Since the rest of your comments is based/is going to be

based on this fundamental mistake on your part, there is no point in my

investing time and energy arguing with you.

bhaskar :

A well expected standard excuse...I am not surprised, since

this is not new to me prabhuji :-))

 

Sri Subbu prabhuji :

And let me assure you that if you correct that fundamental mistake of yours

in the very primary understanding of my position, you will have nothing

to comment against my position.

bhaskar :

Every tArkika vedAnti thinks like that prabhuji :-)) Anyway

I donot want to trouble you any more with my misunderstandings prabhuji

:-)) You can save your time and energy in sending more articles on

advaita/dvaita vedAnta....

A final word, I onceagain would like to say your atatvamasi

interpretation is simply fabulous to my advaita mind...kindly accept my

praNAms to your efforts and enthu.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

> Before going to attend my office routines...here is my quick reply :

> Sri Subbu prabhuji :

>

> There is absolutely no 'force' involved in this. There is a Shruti pramANa

> for 'a' meaning 'pratyagAtma'. So, very neatly, easily, even that reading

> fits the Advaitic thinking.

> bhaskar :

> If there is a possibility of 'atat' reading in this shruti vAkya, why

> shankara did not notice it?? or for that matter why any other later

> 'prakhyAta' vyAkhyAnakAra-s have not noticed it when dvaitins making all

> the cry!! is it not?? When shankara himself not able to think the word

> 'atat' in this context and to link that 'atat' with pratyagAtma, how can

> we innovate these type of revolutionery interpretations prabhuji?? I dont

> think even madhusUdana saraswati would have opted this line of argument

> while refuting dvaitins' theory.

 

 

Bhaskar ji,

 

Your logic is very queer, to say the least. Has not Sri Madhvacharya given an

altogether different meaning to 'aham brahma asmi' using meanings that are not

at all used by / understood by people in common parlance? You can very well

ask: Why did Shankara, with all His great knowledge of vyAkaraNa did not

interpret 'aham brahma asmi' that way? Why would He do that when He got the

straightforward meaning that is advaita-friendly without resorting to any

gymnastics and text torture?

 

In the same way, why should Shankara have thought of splitting 'sa

AtmAtattvamasi' with a 'savarNadeergha sandhi' rule that the dvaitins have done?

What purpose would Shankara have achieved in doing so when He got the

paramparA-prApta reading as 'sa AtmA tat tvam asi' and it naturally gave the

advaitic interpretation?

 

The dvaitins have not relied on 'atat tvam asi' alone for their siddhAnta

sthApana. They have taken this reading as only an alternative. They have

worked out some twenty ways in which 'tat tvam asi' can be interpreted without

flouting grammar rules and yet all of them being perfectly dvaita-friendly.

 

What is wrong if someone sees the possibility of an advaitic interpretation in

'atat tvam asi'? I do not see anything odd in this. If the pUrva vyAkhyAta-s

of Advaita have not done so, well, it might not have occurred to them. Long ago

I was reading that book on a thousand names of Atman/Brahman collected from the

Upanishads. Much later when I was thinking about atat tvam asi, I suddenly

remembered that name: akAraH in that book. That is the story behind this

'invention'. It gives me joy when I see how much unending scope advaita has.

Who can stop anyone from coming up with advaita-friendly explanations in the

future? Has knowledge any limit?

 

Shankara has interpreted several pATha-bhEda-s in the GitabhAshya and also in

Kathopanishad bhashya. 'kAryakaraNa kartRtve' and 'kArya kAraNa kartRtve',

'mayaiva vihitAn hi tAn' and 'mayaiva vihitAn hitAn' are just two examples from

the Gita. 'kvadhastha' in Kathopanishad is interpreted in two ways by Him.

 

 

 

So, IMO, your interpretation neither

> fit into the dvaitins context here (you cannot push aside dvaitins here

> coz. you are taking their interpretation to float advaita vedAnta here)

> nor advaitins' age long interpretation of the same shruti vAkya (coz. for

> them 'tattvamasi' is what giving the convincing answer to 'abedha' and

> more importantly no AchArya from advaita parampara ever commented this

> shruti vAkya taking tattvamasi as attatvamasi)...Hope this would be enough

> to prove that reading 'atattvamasi' in advaita light is mere subjective

> reading with undue linking of some words out of context.

 

 

All this is your subjective opinion which you are perfectly entitled to.

 

 

> Sri Subbu prabhuji :

>

> I am not interested in getting their approval for my interpretation.

> bhaskar :

> but we must know that it is tatvavAdins who first interpreted tat tvam asi

> as atat tvam asi to mainly prove that YOU ARE NOT THAT...Now you are

> saying even atattvamasi also in one way or the other saying tattvamasi

> only...if you think yours is final verdict on this interpretation and not

> ready to hear any other counter points, then so be it prabhuji :-))

 

 

Have I said it is the final verdict? Have you heard of the final verdict on

NyaayAmruta-Advaitasiddhi dialectics? For the last several centuries it is

continuing, even to this day. Some or the other dvaita or advaita scholar takes

up issues in that series and brings out 'fresh' arguments. Just recently

Sringeri Math has released a book on this by the departed Vidwan Sri Narayana

Bhatta. This is a continuing story.

 

> Sri Subbu prabhuji :

> Nor is it 'complicated' as you say. On the other hand, the dvaitins have

> always said that the Advaitic interpretation of 'Tat tvam asi' itself is

> so complicated involving jahadajahallakshana and what not. Even for an

> advaita student to understand this lakshana it takes a lot of time and

> teaching. This article has been in 'open' cyber space for over a year now

> and has been viewed by many dvaitins. There is nothing that the dvaitins

> can argue against my interpretation. After all, the words 'atat tvam asi'

> is not the copyright property of dvaitins.

> bhaskar :

> It is not the issue of copyright...it is the issue of using their

> interpretation to fit advaitic meaning...

 

Have they not taken 'our' reading of tat tvam asi and given their own meanings?

Did they seek our approval for this?

 

 

Since you are not ready to openly

> debate on this issue with dvaitins, IMO, it is unfair on your part to

> assume and say that 'there is nothing that the dvaitins can argue against

> your theory'...You know something prabhuji, dvaitins can argue anything

> under the sky if it is from the desk of advaitins...Try your article

> atleast once in vAdALi group, you dont have to indulge any discussion,

> just post and see the response..you will atleast come to know what they

> have in theiry kitty to refute your advaitic interpretation of 'atat'.

>

 

I do not see any need to indulge in any kind of debate with them. There is

nothing unfair in this. If they come out with twenty or two hundred dvaita

friendly interpretations for tat tvam asi or aham brahma asmi, so be it. Why

should we bother about that? In the same way if advaitins work out several

advaita friendly meanings for these sentences like atat tvam asi, etc. why

should they bother?

 

> Ofcourse, we the advaitins, without any

> > problem whole heartedly accept your ground breaking interpretation of

> > 'atat' since it is nicely fitting our bill :-))

>

> Sri Subbu prabhuji :

> Response: What a wonder!! You wholeheartedly accepting something another

> advaitin says!

> bhaskar :

> Jokingly, I am not like your goodself prabhuji, to say no to discussion &

> writing big articles in refutation...Atleast I am true to myself &

> straightforward while expressing my feelings...

> Sri Subbu prabhuji :

 

 

Let us close this discussion with this. Both of us have expressed our opinions

on this.

Om Tat Sat