[Advaita-l] Advaiti Response to this report?

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste Sri Praveen

When there is bright light everywhere you are asking me to show and
describe Darkness. Kindly tell me how this is relevant. When
everything is Sat where is the scope for Asat and Mithya? I don't have
to define Asat and Mithya because they are never experienced. Even in
shell silver illusion silver is Sat only and shell is also Sat. The
base of everything in the world is Sat only. Even the dream object has
the base Sat. So it is Sat only. You are Sat and I am Sat. There is
Sat everywhere.

The pure Sadvada is the Upanishadic thought like 'Ekam Sat Bahudha
Vadanti', 'Sadeva Somya Idam Agra Asit Ekam Eva Advitiyam', 'Sarvam
Khalvidam Brahma', 'Antarbahishca Tatsarvam Vyapya Narayanaha
Sthitaha".

Tell me one place where there is no Brahman. This is how
Hiranyakashipu asked the boy Prahlada. He said Everywhere. Even the
non living Pillar. He broke it to see and inside there was Narasimha.
This shows Brahman is there in everything. That is Sat is there in
everything.

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hari Om, Venkateshji,
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Now we can answer the questions. What is Sat? It is Brahman this is
>> Truth. What is Asat? This is not relevant question. There is no Asat
>> at all. No Mithya also. There is a lot of confusion because of
>> Mithyavada in Advaita. But there is nothing Mithya.  Why get confused
>> by Mithyavada?
>>
>>
> What a wonderful response! With this, I rest assured that you won't have
> any reason to point faults in Gaudapada or Bhagavatpada or Mithyavada or
> whatever you seem to be seeing trouble with. Why? Because you very clearly
> asserted that "everything is sat" in which case Mithyavada is also sat
> only, hare's horn are also sat only. Vaikuntha is also sat; why that,
> Buddhist shunya is also sat only!
>
> If you have any disagreement with what I understand of your post, kindly
> revisit many requests asking you to define sat, asat and mithya. Please do
> not get away by saying "advaita defines sat as..." because if its
> irrelevant to you what advaita says about asat and mithya, then you need
> not use advaita's sat also. Mention your own definition. Then define other
> words before rejecting them, because to say there is nothing like asat or
> mithya, you need to know what they are. Again, define them please, else
> you're getting repetitive to no end.
>
> --praveen



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh