AruNandi's Deconstruction of Advaita Vedanta-2மரபு விக்கி இருந்துUlagankmy (பேச்சு | பங்களிப்புகள்) பயனரால் செய்யப்பட்ட 07:38, 28 ஜனவரி 2013 அன்றிருந்தவாரான திருத்தம் சிவஞானசித்தியார் English Translation and Commentary by Dr K.Loganathan 2003 ( Some final verses yet to be translated- Loga)
The Sivokam Paavanai is Not the Same as Meditation on Makaa Vaakkiyas Saivism, in contrast to Vedanta promotes what is called Sivokam Paavanai instead of meditations on “brahamasmi” and such other Makaa Vaakkiyas. No meditations upon any of these sentences, even though deeply metaphysical will ever make the self pure and shine forth with Civanjaanam. For the self is not substantially BEING-as-Brahman as in Vedanta but only an independent entity full of the dirt and filth of Mummalam - the aaNavam Kanmam and Maayai . Such a self can Imagine itself to be Siva and that too in order to become Pure etc. Here Sivokam Paavanai becomes a way of imagining oneself as Siva Himself so that the auspicious qualities of BEING-as-Siva are also acquired by the anma. This is the universal Pygmalion effect where any psychic entity becomes essentially what it imagines ardently to be because of immense love. It is similar to self-identifications that prevail among genuine lovers “I am you, you are me, both are one, not different ” etc. In genuine Bakti where prevails only love for BEING and nothing else, this Sivokam Paavanai also prevails and because of which the pacu, the finite and filthy anma, destroys the Pacuttuvam intrinsic to itself and acquires the Sivattuvam, absolute purity Njaanam and so forth. This is the essence of any religious life and which can be given a TRUE understanding only within the Fundamental Ontology of Pati Pacu and Paacam - the Triadism. It is the finite and filthy anma that has to meditate as if it is BEING-as-Brahman etc in order to TRANSMUTE itself so that it is FREED of the various paacams and become Free and Pure. The anma as the shadowy creature, the Brahman in some kind of disguise will not IMAGINE as Brahman etc for substantially it is the same. BEING has to be totally an OTHER, always outside the anma and ABOVE for the anma to imagine that it can in fact become something like BEING - Pure Free and full of Njaanam. Advaita Vedanta , in promoting “Only Brahman is Real and Nothing Else” kind of Fundamental ontology fails miserably to show the Right Way towards moksa, the Way that would purify the soul and make it shine forth with TRUTH and nothing else. The Vedantic tradition is NOT Mey NeRittu, the Way of Truth as said by Tol but only a way of ingenious arguments, skillful intellectual debates , forced contentions and so forth but not that of deconstruction , i.e. the Way of Mookam, of seeking to PROVE at whatever cost that only the Vedas contain the Brahmanjaanam and nothing else and hence only the Brahmins are authoritative and nobody else. This tradition closes the mind by posting ideologies of various kinds to make everyone accept the authority of the Vedas and along with it the Brahmins. It is NOT allowed at all that there can be individuals who enjoy Moksa without knowing a single word of the Vedas ans without being a Brahmin at all.
235. ஏகம் நானென இயம்பி இப்படி அறிந்து முத்தியடை மின்னென உரை: ‘நான் பிரமத்தைத் தவிற வேறல்ல, ஒன்றே ; நானே பிரமம்” என்று உபனிடதங்கள் முழங்கும் மகாவாக்கியப் பொருளை செவ்வே அறிந்து அவித்தையை போக்கும் பிரமஞானத்தை அறிந்து முத்தி அடைமின் என, வேதங்களுக்கு முதன்மை தரும் வகையில் மெய்ஞானம் யாதென்று விசாரியாது மோகமயக்கின் உரை செய்கின்றாய் மாயாவாதியே நீ! நீ கூறும் வாக்கு சிவத்துவம் வந்து தன்னின் பசுத்துவம் போக்க வேண்டும் எனும் சோகம்பாவனையில் ஆன்மாக்களை ஆழ்த்தி முத்தி பேரின்பத்தை அனுபவிக்கும் வகையில் ஓர் முடிவினைத் தந்திடாது. உன் சொற்கள் பிழையான பொய் வழியில் ஆன்மாக்களைக் கொண்டு சென்று மெய்யான முத்தி விருப்பினை நிறைவேற்றாது. இது எப்படியோ வெனில். ஓர் காகமானது கருங்கல்லில் தசை பறித்து பசியால் வாடி அழும் தனது கரிய குஞ்சிற்கு தாகம் பசி போன்றவற்றை நீக்குவதற்கு வாயிடை கொடுத்தது என்று சொல்வதற்கு ஒப்பவாகும் என்று காண். குறிப்பு இங்கு அமையப்பர் ஆகாது யாதும் ஈனாத பிரமத்திற்கு உவமை மலட்டுக் காகம். அந்த பிரமமே மாயாவுலகில் ஓர் சீவான்மாவாக பிரதிபிம்பிக்கும் என்று கூறுவதற்கு உவமை கரிய குஞ்சு வாகும். அந்த சீவான்மாவிற்கு பிரமம் கன்மாதிகளைத் தரும் என்பதற்கு உவமை கல்லில் எடுக்கப்படும் தசையாகும் - இல்லாத போர் வெறுக் கற்பனைப் பொருளாகும் 235. eekam naanen iyambi ippadi aRintu muttiyadaiminena Meaning: O Advaita Vedanti! You declare that everyone should seek to attain moksa by meditations on the meaning of “Aham Brahman Asmi' and such other Makaa Vaakkiyas. This is NOT the way of Truth but rather a highly prejudiced account of the metaphysical way of life. This is NOT the same as the way of Sivokam Paavanai that brings about the genuine Bliss of Moksa and in which, like Pygmalion, the soul acquires Sivattuvam destroying at the same time its inherent pacuttuvam. Your philosophy that indulges in so many ingenious and false constructs is equivalent to saying that a barren crow picked up flesh from the rocks and fed its hungry and crying chick to quench its thirst and hunger. Comments In denying the facticity of the natural world by designating it as Mythiya, belonging to the Vyavakarika World and NOT to the Paramartika, the Vedantic Tradition of Ati Sankara begins a tradition of false metaphysics where ingenious arguments to PROVE that only the Vedas contain the redeeming Brahmanjaanam and nothing else. Thus in castigating the natural world and the truth-experiences within as delussory, inauthentic, misleading and so forth they begin to indulge in another species of Metaphysical Mythiya Thinking where anything other than Vedas are dismissed as valid sources of metaphysical illuminations. Because BEING is NOT seen as the Father-Mother of the world but only as BRAMAN who is totally uninvolved with the world except to reflect Himself there and creating the delussory jivanmas. Thus this Brahman is BARREN like the barren crow that imagines it has a chick. This barren and uninvolved Brahman cannot also UNDERSTAND an anma as it is for it does NOT recognize the anmas as distinct substances but only as itself but trapped in the Vyavakarika world. Thus it cannot instruct on Njaanam that would pacify the souls of their thirst and hunger for metaphysical illuminations of a deep kind and which will lead ultimately to the enjoyment of Civanjaanam. Thus the various doctrines of Advaita philosophy are like the flesh snatched from hard rocks- simply imaginary with so substance at all. Such doctrines will NOT purify the soul- make it Clean and Pure free of lust greed and so forth. These Vedantic doctrines DO NOT illuminate the soul at all but only lure them into a meaningless word play and a false way of life.
சிவஞானசித்தியார் 11. The Deconstruction of Mayavati (Advaita Vedanta) மாயாவாதி மத மறுதலை Advaita is Inherently Self-Contradictory and Blind Advaita Vedanta or Mayavatam creates a BLINDNESS towards genuine self-understanding and hence it is simply a fanciful IDEOLOGY forged upon non-valid presumptions and presuppositions. The inner contradictions that it contains, as being pointed out here by AruNandi , makes it a real shame that such a philosophy should be presented as the best of the Indian philosophical mind. The truth is far from it. It is presupposed that the Vedas are Suyambu and that the validity of the claim of metaphysical monism that only Brahman is Real follows entirely on the authority of the Vedas. It is only on the presupposition of the absolute authoritativeness of the Vedas that the Fundamental Ontology that Only Brahman is Real and all else is Myttai (delusory) is upheld. But this remains simply a verbal claim contradicted by all the Brahmins in their daily practice where they chant the Vedic slokas and do the yajnas and so forth with meticulous care . But this very practice itself shows the presence of the hermeneutic categories of Njaatiru Njaanam and Njeeyam where the Njaatiru is the learning self, the Njaanam is the clear metaphysical understanding and Njeeyam is that which instructs in all these. Here as we analyse the behaviour we get the Fundamental Ontology of Triadism of Saiva Siddhanta and NOT the monism of Vedanta Thus while in behaviour all such Brahmins disclose an understanding of Triadism, they uphold Monism only in words and on the presumed authority of the Vedas. Thus Advaita Vedanta is hypocritical and self contradictory - it proposes something but which is denied in practice. They fool the world and fool themselves about the self being Brahman where as a matter of fact the self is NOT at all Brahman but a filthy and ignorant stuff that has to LEARN even by Vedic recitals and gain metaphysical illuminations(Njaanam) to become Clean and Pure. The self is autonomous ignorant and inherently evil and this fact is accepted even by the Brahmins when they seek to understand Brahman by studying the Vedas. A learning self cannot be Brahman at all in whatever manner for only a metaphysically IGNORANT self need to LEARN. Thus the eekattuvam or Monism of Advaita Vedanta is a gross failure for it cannot explain the behaviour of the Vedic Brahmins themselves accurately 236 நீடு வேதம் அளவாக ஏகமெனும் நீதிதான் நிகழ்வதாகுமேல் உரை: இனி அநாதிபொருளாக பிரமம் ஒன்றே என்ற ஏகத்துவத்தை வேதங்களையே அளவையாகக் கொண்டு நிகழ்த்துகின்றாய் - உலக அறிவாகிய சுட்டுணர்வின் மூலத்தை அறிந்தல்ல. ஆயினும் நீ நாடி நாள்தோறும் வேதங்களை ஓதலால், ஞாதிருவாக நீ நிற்பதும், ஞானமாக வேதப்பொருள் இருப்பதும், ஞேயமாக பிரமம் இருப்பதும் உண்மையாகின்றது. இதனால் நீ கூறும் ஏகத்துவம் உனது நடத்தையில் இல்லாது ஓடிவிடுகின்றது. இதனால் நடத்தையில் காட்டுவது சொல்லின் வழி தெளிவுறுத்துவதோடு மாறுகோள் உடைத்தாய் உனது அத்துவிதம் குற்றம் உடைத்து ஆகின்றது. இனி இன்னும் ஏகத்துவம் பகர்வதின் அதனால ஆன்மா ஓர் அநாதிப் பொருள் என்றும் இல்லாது போதலின், வேதங்கள் ஓதியும் அறிவின் விளக்கமாகிய ஞான அநுபூதிகள் உண்டென உன்னால் கூறுமுடியாதும் போகின்றதைக் காண். 236 Niidu veetam aLavaaka eekamenum niititaan nikazvataakumeel Meaning: O you Advaiti! Taking the Vedas as the sole authority you establish the Fundamental Ontology of eekattuvam i.e. only Brahman is real and all else Myttai. (This is not the way of Hermeneutic Science where the finite understanding of all human beings is taken as that to be interrogated) However in your behaviour where every day you seek to recite Vedas and so forth you contradict this very Monistic Ontology. For this behaviour of yours show that you are in a fact a Njaatiru, a self seeking to learn and gain metaphysical illuminations, Njaanam and as blessed by Njeeyam, the BEING-as-the-Guru. Thus there is a self contradiction between what you profess and what you disclose disclose in your own behaviour. Now furthermore , note that in the absence of an ontology where the anmas are taken not only anati but also inherently ignorant and finite, you cannot also explain the fact of human spiritual experience that you may gain by the study of the Vedas and so forth. Comments The categories of Njaatiru Njaanam and Njeeyam are the categories of Hermeneutic Logic that establishes the rationality of the Hermeneutic Sciences where in Dravidian culture even the religious dimensions of human behaviour are analyzed as such. All the metaphysical scinces are taken as very inclusive and fundamental Hermeneutic Sciences guided by the principles of Hermeneutic Logic where Learning as the Reduction of Ignorance is central. The Njaatiru is the Learner and Njaanam is what is learned , the clarifications of UNDERSTANDING and where the aruL or CiRsakti is that which informs the soul what is truth-experience and what is not. The aruL in itself cannot show that an experience is a truth-experience- it has to BEING in fact who discloses to the anma such matters and through the CiRsakti. Even in the study of the Vedas, such hermeneutics are applicable as they are applicable to any experience at all. Now KaNNudaiya VaLLal, another brilliant philosopher (c. 13th) also cast this logic in terms of Suruti Ukti and Anubavam where in Tamil usage Suruti means whatever that discloses truths and hence can serve the source of truth-experiences. For the VaLLal it was the hymns of Sambantar as it is the hymns of Namazvar for the SriVaishnavas. For Tolkaappiyar Tirumular TiruvaLLuvar Meykandar and so forth, it is the World as a Whole that is the Suruti. The World as the Text is the most inclusive and comprehensive TEXT which includes within it all the scriptural productions and hence the most UNIVERSAL TEXT, that which is COMMON to all human beings (as well the animals)
சிவஞானசித்தியார் 11. The Deconstruction of Mayavati (Advaita Vedanta) மாயாவாதி மத மறுதலை The Presence of SEEING shows that Anma is NOT Brahman Mayavatam or Advaita Vedanta turns out to be, on closer studies, simply a glorious WISH with the technology advocated - the SravaNam Mananam Nittyasanam and so forth the technology of wish-fulfilment fathered on the Vedas and Vedanta texts and given a false sense of authority. Saivism stands opposed to this in being the most inclusive Hermeneutic Science where Hermeneutic Logic rules the whole enterprise. In this it should also be noted that what holds the ground is Pedagogic Hermeneutics and not the Philosophical Hermeneutics such as that of Heidegger Gadamer and so forth in the West. It is understood there is a hermeneutic dialectics of showing and seeing and where that which SHOWS is BEING and that which SEES is the anma. As Meykandar has pointed out if the showing is withdrawn, there cannot be any seeing at all (kaaddu oduGkak kaaNaatu) The point is because of this hermeneutic dialectics, the seeing anma cannot be the substantially the same as the showing BEING and hence the anma cannot be a camouflaged Brahman - an insubstantial entity like the reflections of the sun in pot full of waters. Now another point is about embodiment and the reasons for it. Embodiment means coming to birth and with that also suffering DEATH. Now the question is: Can Brahman become the embodied anma by whatever means and which means that it would suffer death? Death means being psychically polluted - dirty and filthy with infections of the Mummalam. Among these it is aaNavam that brings about death - the disintegration of the physical body (as also the whole of the universes) Now the Vedanties with AtiSankara's adhyasam and Aropitham and so forth, i.e. various cognitive mechanisms of projective understanding, are prone to dismiss even death as KaRpanai, a kind of mental fiction. Here they are blinded by their construction into NOT seeing what is a FACT of existence. They simply do not wish to see and lock themselves in the Vedas. Now once they come out of their self-imposed blindness, they will see the presence of DEATH and with that also the fact that the anma that suffers death cannot be the Brahman. A Brahman that gets embodied and hence suffers births and deaths is NOT Brahman at all but only the ordinary anma, polluted with the Mummalam 237. நீதியால் ஒளிகொள் பானுவானது அகன் நீரிலே நிகழுமாறுபோல் உரை: இனி ஆன்மா என்பது தனித்தவொர் அநாதிபொருளல்ல, நீரிலே விளங்கும் மிகப்பிரகாச சூரியனின் பிரதிவிம்பம் போல, உபாதிகளாய உடம்பில் நிகழும் பரப்பிரம்ம பிரதிவிம்பமே என்கின்றாய். இனி ஆதியாகிய பரப்பிரம்மம் தானே தானாக இருப்பதொழித்து ஓர் குற்றத்தினால் கண்டிதப்பட்ட ஆன்மாக அசுத்தத்து உடம்பில் மேவி உலகில் இருப்பதாக ஆகாது. இனி பரப்பிரமமானது தனக்கென எந்த ஓர் வடிவமும் இல்லாத ஒன்றென்பதின், அது இருளாகிய நிழல்கள் சேர் இடமும் அல்லையாகும். இனி இவ்வாறு நிழல்களாகிய இருள் சேர்ந்து வேறாக நிற்கும் ஓர் ஆன்மா , ஓர் பாத்திரத்திலே சூரியனைக் காண்பது போல், இறைவனைக் காண்பான் என்பதின், ஆனமாவெ பிரமம் எனும் உனது ஏகத்துவம் பொய்யாகின்றதைக் காண். 237. niitiyaal oLikoL paanuvaanatu akan niirilee nikazumaaRupool Meaning: Now denying that the anma is anaati, you maintain that, like the reflection of the sun in a pot full of water, it is just the Brahman reflecting itself in the material product of the physical body. Now this is not acceptable for a faultless Brahman, instead remaining closed within itself, will not venture into getting entangled in the polluting physical embodiment (that brings about death and other miseries). Now the dark shadows, the Malam, cannot be within Brahman and therefore has to be the anmas where they reside and because of which they get embodied. Such anmas see BEING in their body and hence the anma cannot be the Brahman. Your monism fails and collapses here. Comments The issue here is that of embodiment and which comes along with DEATH. The view of Advaita Vedanta that an anma is indeed Brahman and that it thinks otherwise only because of the absence of Brahmanjaanam to be gained only by the study of Vedas, collapses here miserably unable to accommodate and explain the phenomena of DEATH and which is an empirical fact. Death is NOT something like a fiction, an imagination, a dream-like experience. It is a phenomenon that deprives such mental projections and makes the anma SEE the reality and accommodate itself to the fact it is embodied and that at the point of death, it loses the body, that which has served so far all its fancies and fantasies. This reality also shows that the anma cannot be the Brahman for then it would mean the Brahman is no different from the anmas that suffer births and deaths. The phenomenon of DEATH, a fact of existence metaphysically so important is something beyond the scope of Advaita Vedanta to explain. It is NOT a philosophical system at all but only a fanciful WISH projected as a philosophy.
11. The Deconstruction of Mayavati (Advaita Vedanta) மாயாவாதி மத மறுதலை Existence of Speech and the Impossibility of Advaita Here AruNandi articulate a brilliant deconstruction of Advaita that presupposes millenniums of efforts at understanding the origin of human speech. It is noted the KiLavi Akkam as in Tol, the birth of speech, is a matter of communication and something that can take place only between two or more autonomous and ontologically independent intelligent substances. There must always be a context of self and absolute Other for there to be communication either through speech or otherwise. There cannot be a private language unless it is a kind of soliloquy, speaking to oneself as if one is another and which is a transfer of the normal into the abnormal. Now there can be internal thinking, a kind of inner speech but this is nothing else than internalization of communicative speech in social contexts where there is always an other to whom the speech directed. Now in the metaphysical situation where the Other is BEING, we can have such articulations as “Akam Brahman Asmi” and so forth and which shows the presence of the Other, here Brahman as an alien, an Other, and substantially different from the self that communicates this claim. The origins of such speech itself are sufficient to show that the Brahman and the self that claims itself to be Brahman are in fact independent and autonomous. Ati Sankara observed that our everyday understanding of the world, is a matter of Vyavakarika and hence a Myttai, an understanding conditioned by fanciful projections of Adhyasa and Arobitam etc. It turns out that actually it is the claim that the self is the substantially the same as Brahman, the Monism that is a metaphysical Myttai, a mere construction without any logical premises at all to substantiate it. The whole of Advaita Vedanta is maintained not through a logical discourse but by sheer propaganda, brainwashing and outright NEGATION of anything to the contrary. The Vedanties quickly shut the gates towards the ideas that would expose the mere constructive nature of their claims and which being thoroughly irrational demands only irrationality to sustain itself. It is this that leads AruNandi to declare that they are fooling themselves and not moving in the direction of Moksa. Caught within a mental web of their creations, they remain IGNORANT as ever for their seeking is like seeking the Horns of the Rabbit, something non existent
வேறு வாயில் புலனோடு மேல் மனமும் மேவிடாது பிரமாணமும் உரை: ஆன்மா என்பது அதற்கு வேறாக நிற்கும் வாயில்களாகிய ஐம்பொறிகளொடு ஒன்றித்து அறியாதும், அந்தகரணங்களில் இந்த ஐம்பொறிகளின் வழி வரும் விடயங்களை மேவி நிற்கும் மனதோடும் ஒன்றித்து நில்லாதுm , வேறு தகுந்த பிரமாணம் யாதென்று கூறிடாதுm ஆன்மா தானே பிரமம் என்று உணரும் என்று கூறிகின்றாய். இது இல்லாத வெறும் கற்பனைக் கட்டாகிய முயலின் கொம்பு உண்டெனக் கூறுவதற்கும் ஒக்கும். இவ்வாறு தனக்கென அழிவில்லாது பிற அனைத்தின் அழிவிற்கு ஆகவே ஆக்கத்திற்கும் காரணமாக நிற்கும் தற்பரன் தானேயென ஏகத்துவம் இயம்பும் நீ, இப்படிப்பட்ட பொய் போதகங்களால் முத்தி பேறு அடையப் போவதில்லை. ஆன்மா இறைவனும் தனித்தனி அநாதிப் பொருட்களே என்பது உண்மை என அறியக் கிடக்கின்றது காண். 238 veeRu vaayil pulanoodu meel manamum meevidaatu piramaaNam Meaning: You claim that the self understands by itself and on its own as Brahman without either using the mental module Manam that processes the sensory inputs or using other relevant logical premises that establish the axiomatic truths. (PiramaaNam). This kind of claim is just a fiction like seeking the Horns of Rabbit, a purely mental construct. Now your claim that the birthless-deathless BEING is in fact the self itself, is false and such a claim will not be conducive to attain and enjoy Moksa. The truth is that both are independent substances and hence different. Comments: Here we have a Theory of Perception and its relation to communicative acts. The anma has at its disposable the Inner Cognitive Utensils of Manam Buddhi Ahankaaram and Cittam. When it comes to processing the sensory information reaching the self through the senses, it is the Manam module with which the anma functions. Then a part of it is taken over to Buddhi Ahankaaram and so forth. In all these the anma stands ABOVE and different from the cognitive utensils. As Meykandar says the anma ‘antakaranatil onRu anRu, avai cantittatu.' ( The anma is different from the antakaraNas and is that which uses them) Now the question is how do such claims as “Aham Brahman Asmi' and so forth originates ? The Advaita Vedanties say that the anma but itself and without any use of cognitive utensils will understand this and assert it as so. AruNandi notes that this is impossible for the anma is BLIND and remains in the DARK if there are no inputs from the world through the sensory channels . Such claims unless they are given a meaning consistent with the Fundamental Ontology of Triadism has to be considered fanciful constructions rather than statements of truths.
11. The Deconstruction of Mayavati (Advaita Vedanta) மாயாவாதி மத மறுதலை The NirguNa Brahman and SaguNa Brahman are both BEING The Advaita Vedanta of Ati Sankara, the Mayavatam, is in fact a godless religion, a peculiar kind of Atheism as pointed out by the brilliant Somasundara Nayakkar( 19th cent). Living the way of Advaita one is NOT spiritually uplifted where the good guNas come to prevail as part of the personality. On the contrary one is encouraged to NEGATE and AVOID in the interest of becoming the NirguNa Brahman, one totally blind and indifferent to what transpires in the world. Earlier even Ramanuja pointed out that NirguNa Brahman is just a fiction where as a matter of fact Brahman is saguNa Brahman following here Namazvar who said BEING is ‘uyarvaRa uyar nalam udaiyavan” , One who has within Himself and exhaustively all the good and auspicious guNas, the qualities. Now the Advaita Vedanta conflates the world and Brahman saying that both are substantially the SAME just like the gem and its brilliance which does not exist apart from the gem. However here we do not have substantial identity but only invariable connections- the gem and its brilliance co-exist but the gem is the guNi, the substratum and the brilliance is the guNa, an essence. He also points out a guNaless Brahman cannot be related as the Causal Agent of the complex world full of all kinds of guNas, the good and the bad. Most importantly unless Brahman is seen as BEING with innumerable guNas, there will not be any divine consciousness and which is a fact. The implication is that BEING is both NirguNa Brahman and SaguNa Brahman where both are ICONS of BEING, the various presentational forms of BEING with which He leads all souls towards Moksa. As Saivites say BEING is not sakaLan - in the world as the world , NishkaLan beyond the world and also akaLan, neither these two. BEING is ‘vaakku manaatiita koosaram' wholly INDETERMINATE with respect guNas and functions. The human mind can understand BEING only if He wills it and we understand Him as such and such only because he wills it that way. We are wholly dependent on His Grace for understanding BEING in some way or other. It is BEING who wills that we understand Him as SaguNa Brahman so that we can see the Play of Grace in the world. It is the same BEING who wills that we understand Him as NirguNa Brahman so that purity of the vision of Supreme Brilliance, we attain the Pure Consciousness that frees us from everything phenomenal including understanding BEING in terms of icons. 239 இலகு சோதிமணி எனவும் ஏகமெனில் இதனில் ஏகமது விலகினாய் உரை: இனி உலகிற்கு இறைவன் ஆதிகர்த்தா என்பது இலாது. உலகே பரப்பிரம்மம் வேறல்ல என்று ஏகத்துவம் பகன்று, அதற்கு உவமையாக இலங்குகின்ற மணியையும் அதன் பிரகாசத்தையும் எடுத்துக் கூறுகின்றாய். இவ்வுலகும் பரப்பரமும் மணியும் அதன் ஒளியுமாக ஒன்றே என்கின்றாய். ஆயினும் இவ்வாறு உவமித்துக் கூறும் போது உன் ஏகத்துவத்திலிருந்து விலகிச் செல்கின்றாய்.என்பதைக் காண். எப்படி என்னில் மணிக்கும் பிரகாச ஒளிக்கும் உள்ள உறவு குணம்-குணி என்றுபடும். பிரகாசமான ஒளி ஓர் குணமாக இருக்க, அதனைத் தனது குணமாக கொண்டிருக்கும் மணி இதனால் ஓர் குணிப்பொருள் ஆகி, வேறாகின்றது. இனி பரப்பரமம் எல்லா குணங்களையும் நீக்கியவோர் நிர்குணப்பொருள் ஆகவே ஏகமாகும் அனேகமாகாது என்று நீ கூறி, பரப்பரமத்தை கர்த்திருத்துவம் அல்லாத இறைவன் ஆக்கிவிடில், இந்த பரந்து விரிந்து கிடக்கும் உலகத்தை இறைவனே பஞ்சகிருத்தியனாக நின்று வெளிப்படுத்தி தொடர்ந்து இருக்குமாறு செய்கின்றான் என்ற உண்மைக்கு இடம் இலாது போகின்றது. இனி இதனை ஆழச் சிந்திக்க, உண்டென நாம் அறிந்து மகிழும் சுட்டுணர்வும் அதனைக்கடந்து இறைவன் உண்டென அறியும் அறிவும் இல்லாத பொய்களாகப் போவதைக் காண். 239. ilaku cootimaNi enavum eekamenil itanil eekamatu vilakinaay Meaning: You maintain your Fundamental Ontology of “only Brahman is Real and Nothing else' by bringing the analogy of a gem and its brilliance where you point out they do not exist appart from each other. But here you are departing from your own Monism for while the brilliance is a guNa, an attribute, the gem is the substrate, the guNi and hence both cannot be the same. Furthermore you also maintain that Brahman in NirguNa Brahman - a Pure Consciousness devoid of any qualities. Now if this were so then Brahman is made disconnected totally with the world of experience making it impossible to explain the divine consciousness that people in fact enjoy
The NirguNa Brahman is not BEING-as-LOVE (anbee Sivam) that the Saivites promoted and at least since days of Tirumular if not earlier.
11. The Deconstruction of Mayavati (Advaita Vedanta) மாயாவாதி மத மறுதலை The Hoax of Advaita Vedanata
This is compared to the visual illusions people suffer when in the dusk, a rope on the snake-hill is mis-perceived as a snake and with that entertain fear as if it is a true snake. Thus the Advaitins cast aside the whole domain human knowledge saying that it is Branti Njaanam, taking the rope a snake and so forth. The icons and icon thinking that almost all metaphysically inclined people (including the Advaitins in their practical life) is captured only as a species of Branti Njaanam, a mental aberration with NO TRUTH at all in it. Now such claims are full of self-contradictions. For no one can claim that the whole of Human Understanding is Branti Njaanam without contradicting himself for in ASSERTING this proposition he is implicitly claiming that what he says is true. When cornered they always resort to the authority of the Vedas or the need to be a Sanyasi for understanding it. Indirectly they have created a culture of propaganda and indoctrination with SravaNam Mananam Nittyasanam and so forth as the brain-washing technologies that to this day the Advaitins seem to follow. The culture of dialogs and debates with an OPENNESS to seek truth and nothing else is not at all a part of the whole of the Advaita Tradition since the days of Ati Sankara. If at all they describe other systems, it is only to throw them away as a species of Branti Njaanam, an understanding of an aberrant mind. Thus in this the Advaitins are deluding themselves and not the Baktas or the metaphysics that explains the TRUTH behind the Bakti way of life where Icon Worship and Icon Thinking are central. Having noted this AruNandi observes : the Advaitins can never enjoy the Bliss of being one-with BEING , the Sudhatvaita experience that constitutes the LIMIT of human spiritual experience where the self without any self-awareness is aware only of BEING and nothing else and in that not only understands all but also enjoys the supreme bliss. 240 புற்றின் நேர் பழுதை தொக்க போது மயிர் புளகமாக அரவிரவிலே உரை: ஓர் பாம்பு புற்றிலே கிடக்கும் கயிற்றினை ஒளி மங்கிய இருளிலே பாம்பெனக் கண்டவன், மெய்யான பாம்பினைக் கண்டவன் போன்று அச்சத்திலே மயிர் புளகித்து நிற்வன். அதுபோலத்தான், அழியாத ஓர் சத்துப்பொருளாகிய பரப்பிரமத்தில் உதிக்கும் இந்த உலகினை கயிற்றினை பாம்பாகக் கண்டு அஞ்சுவதுபோல் மக்கள் அது இறைவனே என பத்தி மேலீட்டால் பல விபரீதமான உணர்வுகள் அனுபவிப்பர். இதனால் அந்த பிராந்தி ஞானம் உடையோர் அத்துவித உணர்வு இன்றி யாண்டும் பேத உணர்வுடனேயே நிற்பர். ஆயினும் இப்படி நீ சொல்வதனால் தான் முற்றிலும் ஐயநிலைக்குத் தள்ளபடும் நீ, மெய்ஞானத்தின் இறைவனோடு ஒன்றித்து அவனேத் தானாக நிற்கும் சுத்தாத்வித இன்பம் உணக்கு யண்டும் இலாதே போம் கண்டாய் 240. puRRin neer pazutai tiokka pootu mayir puLakamaaka araviravilee Meaning: A Mayavati says: A man in the dusk would see a rope in a snake-hill as a real snake and would have his hair rising out of fear. Such is the case even with people who develop Bakti and various kinds of emotions on seeing the world as God Himself which as a matter of fact is something that arises from Parabramam. Such people will always be in delusion lacking the Brahmanjaanam that kills this understanding with difference. Now if you say thus, then so then you put yourself as an absolute sceptic who cannot move out from the scepticism. This also means that you deprive yourself of the Bliss that comes along with the absences of doubts and delusions. Comments We see here again another one of philosophic tricks used by the Advaitins that make them appear as if philosophical but as a matter of not. They are fond of analogical arguments which allow free and quite often illegitimate over generalizations. Here we have a local cognitive event of aberrant perceptions of seeing the rope as a snake being extended to the whole of human cognition and which is illegitimate. When corned about this they would counter it by saying that it is a Vedic truth and hence cannot be questioned at all as the Vedas are supremely authoritative and nothing else. They also ensure that the Vedas are not freely available so that any one can study them and see whether such claims are sustained in the Vedas. It is found now that the Vedas do not claim anywhere that they are supremely authoritative - they are simply a collection of hymns sung by Rishies as responses to some local demands and in the course of which they have also articulated various kinds of metaphysical insights. The tradition of Advaita Vedanta is an aberration the Vedic tradition itself. It has nothing to do with Mayavatam of Ati Sankara.
11. The Deconstruction of Mayavati (Advaita Vedanta) மாயாவாதி மத மறுதலை The Notion of Nirvasanam is Just a Glorious Fiction The Advaita Vedanta maintains that we cannot say anything definite about the ontological status of the World. Neither can we say it is nor it is not - there is complete indeterminacy with respect to our ontological evaluation of the world in which human existence is wrought. This notion is communicated linguistically by the expression ‘nir-vasanam', impossible to say anything and which is just an avoidance strategy more than anything else. This is a Vedantic trick to avoid encountering the FACTICAL essence of the world in which human existence both with joys and pains is worked out. It is a conceptual cocoon to withdraw from the world and avoid facing it bravely. First AruNandi notes that such a view is a mere fiction as so many things in Advaita Vedanta - there are none who says so. All human beings talk of the world as there directly or indirectly and only philosophically misled and as result of a WISH out of psychological trauma say the world is not, it is irreal and so forth. Now the explanation that the world suffers presence from Parabrahmam and later its own destruction , it follows that the world has within it the possibility of disappearing and hence something indeterminate with respect to its ontological status, is deconstructed by AruNandi who notes that which destroys and makes the world disappear and does this repeatedly each time the world is re-issued must be there eternally without itself disappearing. Thus brings us to the notion of Meykandar that BEING is antam-aati, the destroyer-regenerator, the SaGkaara KaaraNaakiya Mutal, the primordial BEING who withdraws the whole universe only to re-issue it. Now we also note that the notion of anir-vasanam, the impossibility of speech because complete indeterminacy in relation to the ontological status of the world is quite different from the \notion of Cutta Moonam, Deep Silence and which has been a part of Yoga practice from Sumerian times where special rooms were built as part of the temple for practicing the Sadhana of Silence When the self is one-with-BEING having overcome the alienation with BEING that is part of historical existence with temporality, SPEECH as such is impossible and the person enjoys his one-ness with BEING in Deep Silence. This Sudhatvaita appears to have already been present even in Sumerian times where over and above singing and dancing, the spiritually matured withdrew all their senses and tried to be one-with BEING by practicing Deep Silence. This technique is also advocated by the Siddhas for the psychologically disturbed to recover themselves. Here we do not have any indecision but on the contrary the greatest certainty of the world and BEING. 241: ஓதியே உலகமதனை நீயும் நிருவசனமாக உரை செய்வதென் உரை; வேதங்களை ஓதியே அதனின்று எழும் ஞானமாக நீயும் உலகம் நிருவசனம் என்று உரை செய்வது எவ்வாறு என்று புரியவில்லை. பொருளுக்கும் மொழிக்கும் உள்ள தொடர்பினை அறியாத பேதையே, உளதும் இலதும் அல்லாத நிருவசனப்பொருளைப் பற்றி பேசுவார் யாரும் உளரோ சொல்லாய்! இனி இதனை மறுக்கும் முகத்தான், நீ அனைத்திற்கும் ஆதியாகிய பரப்பிரமம் மீண்டும் மீண்டும் தோன்றி வருதால், இல்லை என்பது இல்லையாய் , உள்ளதே அழிந்து போம். இவ்வாறு தோன்றியது பின்னால் அழிந்து போவதால் இல்லாமை எனும் உணர்வு நேர்கின்றது என நீ கூறின், இவ்வாறு இல்லாதாக்கும் பொருள் அழியாது நிற்கின்றது என்பதைக் காண். 241. ootiyee ulakamatanai niiyum niruvasamaaka urai ceyvaten Meaning: After chanting and studying the Vedas you claim that the world is nirvasanam, i.e. impossible to say anything about it (because of complete and total indeterminacy surrounding it). O you ignorant fool! Are there any in the world who says thus? Certainly none (and it is simply your fiction) Now you reason further as follows. The Parabrahmam serves as the Primordial Stuff from which issues forth the world repeatedly destroying its inexistence. But at the same by becoming absent there is also inexistence created. Thus the world in itself is completely indeterminate as to its reality. But here you forget something - that which destroys must always be there indestructible for it to destroy the world each time the world is issued forth Comments: Death and destruction of the world as a whole and hence including existence has been an important theme of Natural Metaphysics right from Sumerian times. In Egypt death was a major theme of metaphysical inquiries as was the case with the various branches of Saivism during the historical period in India. This made them focus upon the fundamental processes of nature - destruction and regeneration and with that discover the Universal Praxis of the five fold processes of Panjca Kiritiyam whose agent was BEING. It is for this reason Meykandar calls BEING antam-aati, the destroyer regenerator. Now it should also be noted that BEING is a POWER unto Himself for unllike all other gods- BEING is the TaRparan, as Tirumular would put it. BEING is a power Unto Himself for He is the only one capable of self-destruction and self-renewal. BEING can present Himself as the world or withdraw Himself from it causing its absence on His own and without any super-ordinate Power.
11. The Deconstruction of Mayavati (Advaita Vedanta) மாயாவாதி மத மறுதலை The Physical and Metaphysical : What is the Difference? The Advaita is said to be by many ancients as a disguised Buddhism where the Madhymika concept Sunyata was replaced with Brahman of the Upanishads where the root ‘sun' and ‘para” means the same , if taken as Tamil i.e. an immense Brilliance, something like the ‘eri ‘ (fire) of Suruppak (c. 3000 BC) and ‘u-dalla-e-a' ( resplendent light) of En Hudu anna ( c. 2300 BC) Now it is this experience which some of the Buddhist philosophers seem to have used to draw a distinction between the viyavakaarika and the paramaarttika world that we can render simply as the physical and metaphysical world. This distinction of the Buddhist metaphysicians is appropriated by the Advaitins and again using an analogy of the conch shell appearing as silver under some conditions, the physical world and our understanding of it is said to be a Myttai - false and illusory because it would disappear like mirages on gaining the Brahmanjaanam and through the study of the Vedas alone and nothing else. AruNandi points out that this total mistrust of the experiential world is NOT justified at all and that we only entertain a DOUBTS about our ordinary understanding of it. When the mind is taken to the metaphysical levels, it is freed from the physical and at which point there will be some doubts about it's own understanding of the world where it will realize that the ordinary understanding of only the physical aspects of the world may not be adequate, that there are DEPTHS to the world that needs to be taken into account to understand it fully. There is a regularity in the physical world where there are transformations but bounded by rules. The world processes are not arbitrary where one element can become another. The world processes are NOT haphazard where anything can become anything by arbitrary mergers fusions. Having noted this aspect of the historical world, the viyavakaarika world, we can locate the principles in the paramaarttika world i.e. the metaphysical. We gain an understanding of the viyavakaarika world only by relating to the causal basis located in the paramaarttika and which is ruled by BEING as the Panjcakrittyan, the Dancer in the Tillai Ambalam, the primordial ground of even this paramaarttika world. Here we see the application of Pedagogic Hermeneutics of the Saivites - the world being taken a TEXT with a DUALITY of structure - the Surface Structure(SS) and Deep Structure(DS) where both are TRUE but with DS being the absolutely permanent and where BEING is present in His most authentic form. The Advaitins dismiss the SS of the world in favour of the DS and with that also understanding BEING as the panjcakrittiyan. They fail to recognize that it is through SS that we can access DS and with that also BEING. 242 வேறதாகியது போல் இருந்தமையின் வெள்ளி சுத்தியெனில் ஐயமே உரை: இனி இவ்வுலகு பஞ்சகிரித்தியம் படும் என்பதால் பஞ்சகிருத்தியனாக ஓர் முதல் உண்டு என்பதை மறுக்கும் முகத்தால், இவ்வுலகு பரிணாம உலகு அல்ல வியவகாரிக ஆகவே பொய் உலகே என்கிறாய். ஓர் கிளிஞ்சல் வெள்ளிபோல் தோன்றி அந்த கிலிஞ்சலுக்கு வேறதாகி நிற்பதுபோல் , பரப்பிரமத்தையே பரிணாமப் படும் ஐந்தொழில் உலகு என்று மித்தியா ஞானத்தால் கொண்டுள்ளாய் என்று நீ கூறுகின்றாய். இனி இங்கு உலக இயற்கையைப் பற்றி ஓர் ஐயப்பாடு உண்டெனவே கூறலாம், அது மித்தை என்றல்ல காண். இவ்வாறு ஐயப்பாடு தோன்றுதற்கு காரணம் உலக அறிவிலிருந்து கழன்று பரம்பொருள் எனக் கூறுதற்கு ஏற்ப ஓர் மெய்ப்பொருளைக் கண்டு உலக மயக்கிலிருந்து விடுபட்ட மீண்டு நிலை அடைவதே யாகும். மேலும் உலகில் பஞ்சபூதங்களில் நிலம் நீரதாகியும் , நெருப்பு வாயுவாகியும் ஒன்று பிரிதொன்றாக மாறிடாது. வேறு வகையில் இவை மாறிட்டாலும். ஒன்று பிரிதின்றில் சேர்ந்திடாது. அதனால், வியவகாரிக உலகில் பல உரு மாற்றங்களை , பரிணாம மாற்றங்களை நான் கண்டாலும் ஆங்கு நிலவும் நியதிகளைக் கண்டு, அதற்கு மூலம் பரமார்த்திக உலகென்றும், அந்த பரமார்த்தத்தில் அவை செறிந்து நிற்கும் என்றும் அறிக. 242. veeRataakiyatu pool iruntamaiyin veLLi cuttiyenil aiyamee Meaning: In order to dismiss the view that the world has as its causal basis of BEING, the Lord of the five fold universal praxis, you say the ordinary human understanding the world is just like taking the appearance of the conch as silver for real. They take the viyavakaarika understanding as the paramaarttika, the absolute. Only Brahman is real and the viyavakaarika understanding is Myttai- a delusion. Now here you are certainly mistaken- such a difference in experience can be said to create a doubt about the physical understanding of reality and not a total dismissal of it as illusory and so forth. When understanding in its excursions locates a DEPTH and stands disengaged from the physical, there can emerge DOUBTS about the understanding of the world simply as physical. But here you should note that among the basic elements, the Earth does not change into Water and Fire into the Wind and so forth. Such boundaries for changes are not located at the Vyavakarika world but only in the Paramaarttika world. Comments; The word ‘vivakaaram' is a variant of ‘vyava-kaarikam', frist introduced as a technical term by the Buddhists. The root ‘bi-a-kaar-akam' means. a place (akam) where various actions or processes (kaar) are made manifest (bi-a). The ‘paramaartikam' as ‘par-maartu-akam” is the location (akam) where transcendental (para) changes (maar, marabu) are established. It may be possible that these technical terms were first invented by the Tamil Buddhists in Kancipuram. The concept of ‘marabu” ( >varavu) - that which comes to pass and constitutes a tradition frist appears in Tol, Marbaiyal where it is noted as ‘maaRRunjc ciRappin marabu” - the historical processes that are difficult to change. This must have served as the initial input for these Buddhists to develop these metaphysical notions.
சிவஞானசித்தியார் 11. The Deconstruction of Mayavati (Advaita Vedanta) மாயாவாதி மத மறுதலை BEING as the Agentive Cause Cannot be Brahman From very ancient times there has been persistent and very vigorous attempts to deny BEING and hence develop metaphysical systems that are essentially atheistic. They have also consolidated themselves as religions and have had tremendous influence on the growth on human culture. The Indian Buddhism and Jainism, in the interest of developing AHIMSA ( Love and Non-violence) as the central ethics developed metaphysical systems where there was no necessity to admit and submit one-self to the dictates of BEING( or God) . This sort of metaphysics still remains very appealing because of LOVE and EQUALITY they embody as part of their Dharma or ETHICS. We see here in the Mayavatam of Ati Sankara an adaptation of such a metaphysics where again we have the DENIAL of BEING ( God) and with that articulate another kind of atheism where BEING is displaced with Brahman which like the ancient Prakriti of the Samkhyas is taken to be self productive and destructive of the world and hence dismissing the presence of BEING as the Causal Ground of all. What is uniform to all these false metaphysical systems is the denial of Agentive Causation and which belongs to viewing the world as a TEXT and analysing it within the framework of Hermeneutic Science only where the notion of Agentive Causation ( Nimitta KaaraNam) as distinct from physical causation causeless-ness as so forth can be seen. This is the point of the model of the potter who produces a pot by transforming the formless clay. The pot is taken as a TEXT and hence with a duality of structure , the Surface Structure(SS) and Deep Structure(DS) and where in the features of the pot , the SS features there is already the co-presence of the work of the potter as the DS. Once we refuse this TEXTUALITY of the pot and the surface-depth related SS-DS relationships, we become also BLIND to the agentive causality of DS in relation to the observable - measurable and immeasurable - aspects of the pot. The clay does not on its own transform itself into a pot, then become clay again and then another kind of pot. Such a misunderstanding of how a pot comes into being-there results only by denying the textuality of the pot and hence metaphysical studies as belonging to the most inclusive Hermeneutic Science. The cosmos as a whole has BEING as the Agentive Cause, the deepest of DS (DDS) of the world as a whole, with the observable SS features showing that and which we can reach through anumaanam, an interpretive inference The world comes and goes and when present there are EVOLUTINARY changes in everything particularly the way creatures come into being-there , disappear and re-merge ( Meykandar: Punar uRpatti) . These are neither mechanical nor blind - processes without a reason. They are processes enacted by the Cosmic Dance of BEING and all for the purpose of leading the creatures towards Moksa. While the Dance may not be teleological for BEING, ( He is not in need of anything) they are so for the finite creatures who are partially BLIND not knowing the Njaanam and TRUTH. The presencing and absencing the world by BEING is not a mechanical process that does not carry any MEANING - it is an intelligent process, a Dance of BEING where slowly and in stages the most Fundamental Meaning of Existence, Moksa is disclosed and with that the creatures led to live the most authentic life. 243. மாய நூலது சிலம்பி வாயினிடை வந்தவாறு அதனை மானவே உரை: ஓர் விசித்திரமாக மாயமாக சிலம்பியின் வாயிலிருந்து நூல் தோன்றி ஓர் வலையாக பின்னப்படுகின்றது. இதேப் போன்றுதான் பிரமச் சிலந்தியிலிருந்து மாய நூலாகிய உலகம் தோன்றுவதும் பின் அடங்கி ஒடுங்கி மீளத்தோன்றுவதுமாக இருத்தலால், இதற்கெல்லாம் ஓர் நிமித்த காரணமாக ஓர் சித்துப்பொருள் ஒன்றாய் உடனாய் வேறாய் நிற்கவேண்டுமென்பதில்லை. இவ்வாறு நீ கூறி உலகிற்கு நிமித்த காரணமாக இறைவன் இல்லை என்கின்றாய். இவ்வாறு கூறும் நீ உண்மையைக் காணமுடியாத சித்தப்பிரமை பிடித்த பேயனே யாகும். கடம் களிமண்ணில் தானேத் தோன்றி தானே அழிந்துப் பின் தானே மீள சில மாற்றங்களோடு உண்டாகாது. குயவனாக ஒருவன் நிமித்த காரணமாக இருக்கத்தான், அவனது வினையின் காரணமாக ஓர் குடம் குறிப்பிட்ட வடிவத்தோடு உண்டாகின்றது காண். இந்த உலகிற்கும் அதற்கு வேறாய் அப்பாலாய் ஆனால் உடன் இருப்பதாய ஓர் சித்துப்பொருள் இருக்கின்றதைக் காண். மிருத்து: களி மண். - கருப்பாய் இருப்பது 243. maaya nuulatu cilambi vaayinadai vantavaaRu atanai maanavee Meaning: The spider produces from its own mouth the silk and weaves it into a magic-like web. Then it destroys it and produces another in the same way. This is how the world comes forth, relapses and issues forth again from Brahman and which means there is no necessity for a BEING as the cause and who stands ABOVE the cosmos and at the same time along with it, unaffected by all the historical processes. Now when you say thus, you must be a mad man thinking with a mental aberration and not rationally and logically at all. You cannot have a pot coming out of the clay on its own, relapse into the primordial clay form and re-emerge with another shape. The world has BEING as its Agentive Cause and who remains unaffected by whatever He causes. Comments: The model of the spider producing the silk and weaving it into a net is also an analogy that Ramanuja also uses to establish his Vishishtatvaita Vedanta just as mistaken as that of the Advaita Vedanta of Ati Sankara. This has also, I believe, led to a distortion of the understanding of the notion Avatara where it originally meant only there-being of BEING, a presentational form of BEING, the muurtti or arccai. (ava-tara < av -taru-a : giving as there) Now if this is true, as I believe, then Ramanuja though deeply indebted to Namazvar but has misunderstood him for Namazvar and all the Azwars do not subscribe to the view of Vishistatvaida, that VishNu produces out of Himself the world, withdraws it and then reproduces it taking various kinds of avataras in connection with it. Namazvar does say that that BEING remains affected by the phenomenal involvement and but stands ABOVE it and because that the SAME, the CHANGELESS, the ‘miku narai ilan' ( doe not grow old) as said below: 2. BEING, though emerges in Lotus of Divine Illumination to dispel
11. The Deconstruction of Mayavati (Advaita Vedanta) மாயாவாதி மத மறுதலை Advaita Vedanta ( Mayavatam) Cannot Explain World Destruction By definition of what is Brahman, it is understood by the Advaitins as the Kuudasta Brahman, that which remains the SAME and UNCHANGING and hence always a-historical, above the historical processes. Once it is admitted that it is also in the world as the BEING who understands all and blesses the creatures with whatever they deserves, as the Saivites think, then it is deemed no more the Kuudasta Brahman, that which remains the SAME and UNCHANGING no matter what happens to world. Now if this so, then the question arises: How is that man is able to intuit the presence of the DIVINE in the hills and dales, trees and rivers and so forth? There are also individuals in whose aura we can intuit the presence of the divine and worship them Well the stock answer of the Advaitins is again another analogy - like the sun being reflected in the various pots with water, so we have Brahman reflected in the structured and circumscribed concrete objects like the hills etc. Now AruNandi asks: If this so then how is that Brahman does not UINDERSTAND the various objects in which it reflects itself? Brahman would turn out to be IGNORANT of that media - hills, trees, human beings etc- in which it reflects itself and leads people to intuit divine presence in them. Now the answer to this is that : Brahman does not understand all these only because the various cognitive tools Manam Buddhi and so forth and the energies that would be required do not accompany this process of reflection in the material media and hence the Brahman in being as thus in its natural purity, remains UNCONSCIOUS of what transpires in the objects it chooses to reflect itself. This raise another question: If that is so, if the Brahman-Reflections, the images , in the various objective particulars like hills, trees, human beings and so forth remains one-with them , then when they get destroyed ( nothing is permanent in the historical world) then these images of Braham also get destroyed. Then the question arises: Who destroys these images - the way Brahman is present in the objective particulars? If the Brahman-reflections, the IMAGES are not destroyed by Brahman itself, then surely there must be another POWER that projects this Brahman as above all and at the same time cause it to reflect in the objective particulars and then WITHDRAW such Divine Images only to cause them to re-appear and so forth. Thus it shows the presence of BEING as above Brahman and where this Brahman itself is a Play of that BEING 244 வேறதாகும் உருவத்திலே பரம் வெளிப்படும் என விளம்பில் நீ உரை: இனி உலகிற்கு ஓர் நிமித்த காரணனாக ஓர் பரம் பொருள் தேவையில்லை என்பதை வற்புறுத்துமா, இந்த பரப்பிரமம் , பலவாறு பேதித்து வெவ்வேறென நிற்கும் பல உருவப்பொருள்களில் தானே வெளிபட்டு நின்று தான் இருப்பதை அறியத் தரும் என்று நீ விளக்கினால், அதுவும் பல சிக்கல்களை தோற்றுவிக்கின்றது காண். இந்த உருவங்களோடு வரும் பொருட்கள் அனைத்தும் அசத்தாகும் - தோன்றி நின்று அழிவதின். இப்படி யிருக்க, இந்த அசத்துபொருட்களில் தோன்றும் பிரமம், அவற்றின் இயல்பு இதுவென அறியாதிருப்பதேன், கூறுக. இனி வாயு போன்ற பஞ்ச பூதங்களும் மனம் புத்தி அகங்காரம் சித்தம் போன்ற அந்தகரணங்களும் உடன் வாராது நிற்பதின், பரபிரமத்திற்கு அது இது எனும் உணர்வு இன்றெனின், பிரமம் அந்த அசத்துப் பொருட்களில் நிற்கின்ற இன்னொரு அசத்துப் பொருளாய் அழிந்து போம் தன்மையதாகும். இனி அழியாதே அனைத்தும் நிற்குமெனில், இது உலக உண்மையை மறுப்பதாகும். ஆக எவ்வாறு உலகப்பொருட்கள் அனைத்தும் அசத்துப்பொருளாய் அழியும் தன்மையது என்பதை விளக்குவாய்? உன்னால் முடியாது என்பதைக் காண் 244. veeRataakum uruvattilee param veLippadum ena viLambil nii Meaning: Now in order to deny the need to postulate BEING as the Causal Ground of the World and all, you simply say that this transcendent Brahman reflects itself in the various concrete particulars ( like the sun would in various pots with water) , But this assertion also creates many problems. If this is the case then it becomes difficult to understand why such a Brahman remains IGNORANT of what transpires in the concrete particulars in which it reflects itself ( and creates the divine images) Now if you say that this is so only because the Brahman in becoming an Image of this kind does not come along with the necessary energies and the cognitive tools such as Manam Buddhi and so forth, then it also follows that these Brahman- Reflections also gets DESTROYED along with the concrete particulars. This raises the question as to who or which Power destroys such Divine Images |