[Advaita-l] Which Advaita?

[ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli]

Dear Ramesh,

I think we are agreeing here. Vivarta vAda is the substantiation for mithyAtva 
of phenomenal causation. The moment the phenomenal world is not mithya, we would 
have to account for its pariNAma. It does not matter whether we uphold 
non-dualism or dualism as long as we are saying the world is a pariNAma. The 
whole frame changes when we say it is not pariNAma but a vivarta, because then 
the relation between immutable and mutation is now across frames (an absolute 
and a relative/phenomenal) - which is why there is an anirvacanIya. PariNAma 
vAda takes the multiplicity/mutation itself to be eternally true, and as 
existing all the while along with the absolute as a second principle, so it is 
not actually addressing the relation/transformation between immutable and 
mutation. It is only vivarta vAda that tries to reconcile even these. 


Am I missing something? 

BTW there is another quick clarification I wanted - which is the school that 
says Isvara is brahman descending into the primal upAdhi of mAya? Is this really 
Sankara's position or a sAkta position? Since brahman is the abode of mAya, this 
can result in mutual dependence (which is also okay when we anyway say they are 
undifferentiated and inseparable but not two different principles). 




Shankar

Ramesh Krishnamurthy rkmurthy at gmail.com 
Mon May 30 06:56:24 CDT 2011 
________________________________
 
On 30 May 2011 13:32, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli < shankarabharadwaj at 
yahoo.com> wrote: << Thank you. Both dual and non-dual positions are stated by 
various dArsanika-s. What I meant to say is that the uniqueness of Sankara 
darsana lies not in non-dualism itself but in the vivarta vAda. So the moment we 
bring in vivarta concept most of the criticism on Sankara darsana does not hold 
ground.>>   Dear Shankar,  The uniqueness of advaita-vedAnta lies in the 
understanding of the ***mithyAtva of causation*** and not in vivartavAda. What 
advaita-vedAnta provides is a lot more than just another theory of causation.  
"Non-dual" in advaita-vedAnta is not another "ism" or "vAda". It implies, at the 
very least, an understanding of the falsehood of pramAtR^itva itself. There is 
no question of the satyatva of a view, position or vAda when pramAtR^itva itself 
is not satya.  Ramesh