365bet娱乐

[Full title: The meaning of Badha in the Advaita is untenable and hence does not support Mithyatva]

This is The Advaita holds that at the gain of Brahmajnana, all the entities other than Brahman stand sublated. what is called Badha or sublation in the Advaita. But Vadiraja says that the Advaita cannot explain this sublation properly. He poses the question: "Is this Badha true or not?" If it is held true then, it is nothing but accepting another real entity which in turn makes the very sublation impossible, and also spoils the very idea of Advaita. any entity. And if it is not true, then it cannot sublate Thus in both the cases, the theory of sublation cannot be sustained. In the Advaita the Brahmajnana or the sublating knowledge is taken to destroy the nescience and then the world. Thus it is not sublation but destruction like the destruction of a pot. Further, sublation' is explained as the realization of the absence of the object relating to all the three times- past, present and future. But this is not correct. There is not a thing that could deny certain thing at all the three times basing 1074 on the relating. The denial is possible provided something is real at some time. Vadiraja promises that the 'Ekamevadvitiyam' Sruti does not deal with any kind of sublation. It does not deny

the presence of objects other than Brahman. But, it states that there is not even a single object equal or superior to Brahman. Likewise the sruti- 'Neha nanasti.. also does not deny the objects other than Brahman but it denies the internal differences in Brahman in respect of His qualities, incarnations and the like. Thus, these passages do not support the 'sublation' and the Visvamithyatva. As Vyavaharikasatta means ultimately non-existence, it cannot afford the chance of some type of real existence to any objects. The acceptance of the Wyavaharikasatta does not make the 1075 Vadiraja objects real for their sublation. Vadiraja says that the sruti 'Bhidyate hrdayagranthih hrdayagranthih : 1075 A does not refer to either sublation or total destruction. It mentions the destruction of Karma, Punya, Papa and the like. So by the Brahmajnana, neither sublation nor even the destruction of the entire world is possible. The world has been there since beginningless times and so far none has experienced its sublation. Thus, the very fact proves the reality of the world. Vadiraja states also the syllogism: "World is absolutely real since it does not get sublated like Brahman. This argument is defectless in all the respects and hence establishes the reality of the world. The passage, 'Visvam satyam 1075 B also substantiates the reality of the world. Thus, there is not even a single evidence, may be of any 1076 kind, that could refer to Jaganmithyatva.

The Advaita considers this world as Sadasadvilaksana or inexplicable as either existing or non-existing. That means, it is neither real nor unreal. It is different from both. The Advaitins say that the passage 'Na-asad- ,1076 A asit no sad-asit... supports their Sadasadvilaksana concept. But, really speaking it does not support. Because, if Asad is understood as it stands for Atyantabhava or absolute non-existence then, there is no point in negating once again by 'Na asit.' The Atyantabhava as its very name clarifies, can never be present either in Pralaya or in Srsti. Therefore the expression 'Na asit' regarding it serves no purpose. And as Sat or existence is not expected exp to be in Pralaya by the Advaitins there is no need to deny it. So this passage does not explain the Sadasadvilaksanatva of the Advaitins. It simply conveys that Asat is always absent and Sat is absent only during Pralaya. And further, as Sat is meant to be Brahman by the Advaitins, their contention is supposed to deny even the existence of Brahman 1077 during Pralaya. Hence it leads to Brahmamithyatva which no Advaitin will ever dare to accept. Thus the passage does not support the Sadasadvilaksanatva and the Jaganmithyatva of the Advaitins. The reality is the primeimport of all the passages as shown above.