Guest guest Posted February 13, 2008 Report Posted February 13, 2008 Michael, Srinivas and others - PraNAms. Here is my position. Yes I say that on regular basis since that is the correct advaitic stand. If object can exist on its own then we run it dvaita not advaita. Only self-conscious entity is the self-existent entity as per advaita Vedanta. All others depend on the existence of the self-conscious entity for their existence - this is what anvaya vyatireka logic that is applied through out advaita Vedanta. I am the only one that is the self-conscious and self-existent entity. Mithyaa is anya adheena satvatvam or anya adhiina prakaashatvam, whose existence and their knowledge of existence depends on conscious entity that I am. Unless I establish that the object is - its existence and knowledge of its existence cannot be established independent. Does it exist without my establishing its existence - it becomes anirvacaniiyam only. It is not non existent but its existence cannot be established - hence it remains as indeterminate problem. Of course dvaitins do not agree, it is their problem. Mithyaa is anirvachaniiya is sat asat vilakshaNam -which is same as anirvacaniiyam and all objects are mithyaa by definition. Whole of chand. Up sixth chapter - eka vijnaanena sarva vijnaanam and Mandukya emphasis is only - that sat eve idem agra asiit and that sat is - tat tvam asi. everything else is vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam. That vak comes from a conscious entity not inert entity. This is stated beautifully in Advaita Makaranda, but I will stop here. Hari Om! Sadananda --- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote: > You say this on a regular basis and I > offer a rebuttal on a regular basis not with the idea that you will change > your mind but to offer an alternative view to the members. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.