01-28-2005, 02:50 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->How does this even attempt to explain Tath Thvam Asi? This occurs in the Chandogya Upanishad NINE times. Yes, Aruni tells this to Svethakethu nine times. If you go thru each example, the "individual cellular-bodies making up a universal body" theory does not even come close to fitting the case. Take the pippala seed example or the saltwater example (ref Chandogya), and you will see there is no two. There is only ONE.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Instead of individual bodies making a cellular body. how about another analogy of a homegenous entity and smaller clones of the entity(mini mes).
A big (infinetly large) piece of gold in the universe(Brahman, assuming gold is a homegenous entity).
Stage 1: Several small minute pieces of gold are taken out (by maya) from the gold. there is no change in the infinetly large chunk (brahman) and the smaller chunks have the same attribute(gold). Only space(jagat) separate the bigger and smaller piece .
Stage 2: Once the smaller chunk transcend space(maya/jagat) and it merges with the bigger chunk, there is no difference b/w the smaller and bigger chunk.
Advaita talks about stage 2 being the reality, which is independent of where you are and that stage-1 is illusionary.
Vishistadvaita says that stage 2 is true only when u are in stage 2, and at stage-1, the difference is real. It then asks how can an advaitist talk about stage-2 when he is in stage-1 as the difference is obvious (which they state as reality) when u are in stage-1.
Regarding tat vam asi , does Vishidadvaita say that the vakhya is valid at stage-2 where there is no difference??
For me the 'if you define the truth to be one independent of standpoint(absolute), then advaita is correct.- Can I call it abosolute reality?.When you take truth to be dependend on standpoint(relative), then vishisadvaita may be right and can I call this relative realism?"
Have i summed up the problem in my language?
Sarvam Krishnarpanam
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Instead of individual bodies making a cellular body. how about another analogy of a homegenous entity and smaller clones of the entity(mini mes).
A big (infinetly large) piece of gold in the universe(Brahman, assuming gold is a homegenous entity).
Stage 1: Several small minute pieces of gold are taken out (by maya) from the gold. there is no change in the infinetly large chunk (brahman) and the smaller chunks have the same attribute(gold). Only space(jagat) separate the bigger and smaller piece .
Stage 2: Once the smaller chunk transcend space(maya/jagat) and it merges with the bigger chunk, there is no difference b/w the smaller and bigger chunk.
Advaita talks about stage 2 being the reality, which is independent of where you are and that stage-1 is illusionary.
Vishistadvaita says that stage 2 is true only when u are in stage 2, and at stage-1, the difference is real. It then asks how can an advaitist talk about stage-2 when he is in stage-1 as the difference is obvious (which they state as reality) when u are in stage-1.
Regarding tat vam asi , does Vishidadvaita say that the vakhya is valid at stage-2 where there is no difference??
For me the 'if you define the truth to be one independent of standpoint(absolute), then advaita is correct.- Can I call it abosolute reality?.When you take truth to be dependend on standpoint(relative), then vishisadvaita may be right and can I call this relative realism?"
Have i summed up the problem in my language?
Sarvam Krishnarpanam