[Advaita-l] Need explanation

[V Subrahmanian]

I forgot to add a term that Shankara has used there: sarva ananyatvam.
Brahman is non-different from everything (in creation). That way Brahman
alone can be the Absolute. Everything is only a superimposition in that
One.

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 8:39 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The issue being discussed in this thread, in my understanding, can be
> captured under the idea of 'vastu pariccheda'.  When there are two
> objects/individuals that are held to be different from each other, then
> there exists what is 'vastu paricchedatva', i.e., they are both limited by
> each other. If an Absolute or Supreme is held to be coexisting with many
> others of its own or any other type, then that Absolute cannot be really
> absolute, infinite.  It is limited by the 'other'.  This is different from
> 'desha pariccheda'.  Akasha, space, is all-pervading and that way 'deshatah
> ananta'.  But it is vasuttah paricchinna since there are others such as
> vayu, etc. that can be counted as different from akasha.  Akasha also is
> not kaalatah aparicchinna since it is a created entity subject to
> destruction in pralaya.  Shankara has brought out these aspects in the
> Taittiriya Bhashya while explaining the 'anantam' word there.
>
> Thus, if any deity such as Vishnu, is said to be the Absolute, and
> different from other deities and individuals and objects, such a Vishnu
> cannot enjoy the Absolute status as he is limited by the 'others' which he
> is not.  Such a defect cannot be escaped by non-Advaitins.  That is the
> reason why Advaita does not admit of any deity/individual/formed person as
> the Absolute.
>
> regards
> subbu
>
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 5:02 AM, Kartik Vashishta via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> It is contended by some that the world is not such an utter negation of
>> Reality, that the world of names and forms is in the being of Reality,
>> that
>> plurality cannot be a nothing, that diversity which is real is indwelt by
>> the Supreme. It is also held that the individual is not the Absolute until
>> it realises the Absolute, that the process of change and evolution is a
>> perfect truth and not an appearance, and that the quality of the Absolute
>> is not attributable to the individual at any time.
>>
>> It is not difficult to note that indwelling is possible only when the
>> Indweller is different from the indwelled, that is, when there is a second
>> entity.
>>
>> Query: Does this mean that there is something outside the absolute which
>> invalidates the hypothesis of duality?
>>
>>
>>  To assert that God pervades the diverse beings and that God impels all
>> actions is a trick played by the cunning individuals flowing with the
>> current of instinct to get a license of objective indulgence. The
>> self-expression called the world is not a deliberate objective act of the
>> Absolute, for we cannot say that the Absolute acts.
>>
>> Query: Activity cannot be attributed to the absolute, is this what in
>> these
>> lines invalidates duality?
>>
>>
>> It is an undivided appearance without any ultimate logical reason for its
>> existence or disappearance. Hence we often come to the conclusion that
>> appearance, subsistence, disappearance, bondage, life and liberation are
>> eternal!
>>
>> Query: How do we come to the aforesaid conclusion? Is it because the world
>> is eternal?
>>
>>
>> An undivided change is no change.
>>
>> Query: While I understand this I fail to see the relevance of the above
>> sentance in the critique of duality.
>>
>>  Eternal transformation is changelessness, and it cannot be considered as
>> any motion at all.
>>
>> Query: How is eternal transformation changelessness?
>>
>>
>> Thus, appearance would become eternal like Reality, and two eternals
>> contradict the Absolute. This proves the invalidity of the existence of
>> appearance.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To assert diversity is to deny absoluteness. It does not, however, mean
>> that the Absolute excludes the diverse finitudes, but the finite is
>> eternally dissolved in or is identical with the Absolute, and therefore,
>> it
>> does not claim for itself an individual reality. It is argued that to
>> ignore differences is to reduce the Absolute to a non-entity. The Absolute
>> does not depend upon the reality of egoistic differences. By cancelling
>> the
>> relative we may not affect the Absolute, but we, so long as we are
>> unconscious of the fundamental Being, improve thereby our present state of
>> consciousness.
>>
>> Individuality is in every speck of space and these egos must be so very
>> undivided that diversity becomes an impossible conception and homogeneity
>> persists in every form of true reasoning in our effort to come to a
>> conclusion in regard to the nature of the Absolute.
>>
>> Query: How are the individual infinite egos undivided?
>> Query: How does diversity become an impossibility?
>>
>> We may blindly assert difference, but it is not possible to establish it
>> through any acceptable reasoning.
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Namaste Kartikji,
>> >
>> > Reply inline...
>> >
>> > On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Kartik Vashishta via Advaita-l <
>> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Does this mean that the realization of the absolute cannot be a
>> process
>> > > because a process is changing every moment? Evolution being a process
>> is
>> > > al;so hence unreal......
>> > >
>> > Your question is little on the boundary of the context of the process of
>> > the opponent quoted by Swamiji. The opponent's process is to evolve and
>> > become something one is not. That is just not possible. Coming to your
>> > question, its tricky. One can't say it is not a process since there is
>> > effort involved. However, it is prAptasya prAptiH, gaining of the
>> already
>> > gained, what you already are. Since there is no choice in knowing
>> something
>> > as is, one can't say that ​there is a process of choosing to become. Yet
>> > knowledge takes effort in terms of removing misunderstandings. So
>> > realisation is a process of removing the misconceptions of taking
>> oneself
>> > as something one is not, including the thinking that one will become
>> > absolute while being limited. That is an impossibility.
>> >
>> >
>> > Does this mean that the world is not a second absolute, since two
>> absolutes
>> > > would be a contradiction?
>> > >
>> > ​Yes, it verily means that.​ This absolute is not like my saying that
>> "O,
>> > my friend is absolutely good", the absolute good there being relative/
>> > subjective. This absolute is the real sense of the word absolute. There
>> > cannot be anything outside of it.
>> >
>> > Does the presence of infinite individuaualities not contradict that
>> there
>> > > can be only one absolute? How do we arrive at the conclusion that an
>> > > infinite set of finites spread across space cannot be divided?
>> > >
>> > ​No, appearances do not contradict the one. A rope can be seen as a
>> snake,
>> > a split in the [path, a stream of water and so on, but the rope always
>> > remains one even when perceived as many.
>> > ​​
>> >
>> > > Putmān retas siñcati yoṣitāyām bahvīḥ prajāḥ puruṣāt samprasūtāḥ: In
>> this
>> > > manner, the heavenly Purusha is causing, by his own vibration of will,
>> > the
>> > > creation of every little thing in this world. Even the little crawling
>> > > insects are created by the Supreme Purusha. Creation takes place in a
>> > > variety of ways, which is only one illustration of the manner of the
>> > > relation of cause and effect, highlighting how we, in our crude form
>> of
>> > > understanding, imagine how something could have come from something
>> else.
>> > > Why should anything come from something else? If something is not
>> there
>> > > which is causeless, and if the ultimate cause also has a cause, there
>> > would
>> > > be a logical regression and the argument will break. A meaningful
>> > argument
>> > > should have an end. Endless arguments are no arguments. And so, the
>> > > argument in respect of the effect coming from a cause should lead to a
>> > > cause which itself has no further cause.
>> >
>> >
>> > First of all the creation mentioned itself is just manifestation or
>> > expression of one reality as many. It is not real creation or even
>> > modification. That said, if the cause/ source of all causes were also to
>> > have a cause, it would lead to infinite regress. That is a logical
>> flaw, so
>> > there has to be a cause that is Itself causeless. That is one and
>> brahman
>> > as per Shruti. Moreover, if there is a cause for brahman, that brahman
>> will
>> > not be absolute, as explained earlier.
>> >
>> > ​gurupAdukAbhyAm,
>> > ​
>> > ​
>> > --Praveen R. Bhat
>> >  /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one
>> know
>> > ​ ​
>> > That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */​
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>> >
>> > For assistance, contact:
>> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>
>