[Advaita-l] Advaiti Response to this report?

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Hari Om, Venkateshji,

(This is my last response on this thread. Apologies to the moderators
and list members for dragging the thread thus far).

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com> wrote:
> No I am saying there is only light everywhere but others are asking
> where is Darkness.

Sorry, nobody here is asking you to show darkness, but asking you what
your definition of darkness is to say that there is nothing called
darkness.

To the man seeing Light everywhere Darkness is only
> a word with no meaning. I am trying to say this.

Agreed, but you're not trying to say this. Not until now!

>
> To the dull man Pot appears but the intelligent man is seeing Clay
> only not Pot. Same case for Sat and Nama-Rupa. The Jnani is seeing Sat
> only but the Manda Buddhi is seeing different forms.
>
> Kindly read above. The differences are all for Manda Buddhi. The wise
> man will see only One Sat everywhere and in waking dream and sleep.
>>

You've thoroughly managed to confuse yourself as to not only what
mithyA is, etc, but also as to whom are the scriptures useful. The
j~nAni has no use for the scriptures, so your argument as to what he
sees is completely unnecessary. Now, lets for your own sake use your
terminology of manda buddhi and what he sees. Why is he seeing a pot
when j~nAni is seeing clay? This contradicts with your own statement
earlier that pot is also real. If clay that j~nAni sees is real and
the pot is also real, then why is the one who sees that real pot even
manda buddhi?! Surely, there is something different between the
so-called realities of clay and pot. If there is none, then why would
you call one a j~nAni and another manda? If there is a difference in
these realities, then that is what mithyAvAda explains.

gurupAdukArpaNamastu,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */