[Advaita-l] A vichAra on Swatantra & Paratantra (Independent & dependent Realities)

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste.

One cannot expect the Madhva school to accept vyavaharika satya.  However, I
found the following excerpt very much in tune with the Advaitic
interpretation of the 'वाचारम्भणश्रुतिः’:

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

// The dependence of the world of matter and the souls on Brahman is in the
sense that both are functioning at His will, which is the essential
condition and sustaining principle *that invests them with their reality and
without which they would be but void names and bare possibilities. //

*Of course, it is easy to dismiss this also as not accurate.

Regarding the Madhva interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita II-12 (नत्वेवाहं
जातु नासं न त्वं नेमे जनाधिपाः)  there exists an article in the Advaita L
website where some comments are available -
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/articles/Mananam.pdf

Best regards,
subrahmanian.v
*

*
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Shrisha Rao <shrao at nyx.net> wrote:

> El abr 10, 2010, a las 11:20 a.m., V Subrahmanian escribió:
>
> > shrIgurubhyo namaH
> >
> > ***The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy *
> >
> > *says:
> > *
> >
> > *// Madhva (1238-1317 CE)*
> >
> > * According to Madhva there are two orders of reality: 1. svatantra,
> > independent reality, which consists of Brahman alone and 2. paratantra,
> > dependent reality, which consists of jivas (souls) and jada (lifeless
> > objects). Although dependent reality would not exist apart from brahman's
> > will, this very dependence creates a fundamental distinction between
> brahman
> > and all else, implying a dualist view. //
> > *
> >
>
> > A vichara on Swatantra (PAramarthika) & Paratantra (vyAvahArika)
> >
> > These two are not real on the same footing:
> >
> > 1.  The PAramArthika is that in which the vyAvahArika does not exist.  P
> can
> > exist by itself. But V has to depend on the P for its existence.
>
> If you are presenting your own opinion, that is fine, but it would be as
> well to note that your views are not acceptable to either Madhva or
> Purandara Dasa (who do not accept the existence of a व्यावहारिक category at
> all), for which reason your analysis is rather ill-founded.  It is also
> worth noting that Madhva's reading of Bhagavad Gita II-12 (नत्वेवाहं जातु
> नासं न त्वं नेमे जनाधिपाः) and other authorities such as नित्यो नित्यानाम्
> rules out such reasoning as the following as representing his views:
>
> > 10.  Since Hari and the prapancha are of opposite characteristics, the
> two,
> > Swatantra and Paratantra are not 'satya on the same footing'.  We can say
>
> The encyclopedia you have cited is providing an inaccurate and misleading
> summary, and thus does not form a firm-enough foundation on which to reason
> further.
>
> Regards,
>
> Shrisha Rao
>
>