Questions on Indian idealism

Bhadraiah Mallampalli vaidix at HOTMAIL.COM
Wed Dec 20 16:55:13 UTC 2000

>From: Satya Upadhya <satya_upadhya at HOTMAIL.COM>

>Theory of "Two truths" does not, so far as i understand, mean visible and
>invisible Brahman.

I am sorry about that. pUrNamadaH pUrNamidaM does not translate to
visible/invisible. I use online text only as quick reference.

pUrNamadam: That (one material which has no properties) is "fullness". It is
everything. pUNamidam: This (entire world) is "fullness". This is also
everything. These are the two truths in my opinion.

>It means truth from the provisional practical point of life (what
> >Advaitists call "vyahvarika satya"), and truth at the ultimate
>metaphysical level ("parmarthika satya"). Thus the food you eat exists at
>the level of "vyahvarika satya", but at the higher >metaphysical level
>("parmarthika satya") it is just a phantom >conjured up by mortal illusion,
>according to both the Advaita >Vedantists and the Mahayana Budhists.

It may be so according to mahAyAna buddhism, but I am afraid to say this is
not advaita. Apologies Sri Sundaresan, I am not trying to define advaita,
just trying to use it sincerely.

You can't just make food disappear. If you try, mArjAla nyAyam will react
with double force. Food alone is not complete without its companion eater,
so food alone is not provisional truth (vyAvahArikA satyA). This is despite
'annam brahmeti' because bhRgu continues with 'annAt tatyeva khalvimAni
bhUtAni jAyante'; you can't have 'extra baggage' of 'bhUtA's to ultimate
truth. The food and eater together is a complete model, and it acquires
'fullness'. Then this vyAvahArikA satyA of food+eater will be ignored in
favor of the pAramArthikA satyA because vyAvahArikA satyA becomes redundant
like saying the King owns horses, men and so on. King owns everything in his

>[ Two fundamental of the Advaita are: 1. Brahman is the only reality.
>2. Brahman is pure consciousness that is devoid of any attributes.]
>Futher to this, i may mention just some of the several sources who accuse
>Advaitists of being disguised Mahayana Budhists:
>1. Vijananabhikshu, who coins the phrase "pracchanna baudha" to refer to
>the Advaitists (in his intro to the Sankhyapravanbhasay from >the

Buddhists can have a fun time as long as discussion is limited to one
element such as food. When you bring in multiple elements (like eater) or
hierarchies of elements they get confused. If you go down the hierarchy of
Vedic gods, at lower levels in the yajna there many others needed to make
the model complete, such as bRhaspati who makes soma, pUSaN who distributes
etc. I understand Buddhists do not accept Vedas, but now there are
multi-element empirical models that can work as bench marks which can be
used to test theories like advaitA, mahAyAnA etc. Sorry no references, these
are just my speculations.

>2. Madhva on Brahma Sutra ii.2.29, when he says that the Brahman of the
>Advaitists is nothing but the "sunya" of the Sunyavadins. [Rememember that
>according to Advaita, the Ultimate Reality is devoid >of any attributes,
>and this is the position of the sunyavadis too as >far as i know.]

I suppose advaitA was not presented correctly to madhvAchAryA. I believe
viSNu is the first one who gets in when yajnA is created ("viSNu is the
door-guardian of gods".. AB), therefore perception of viSNu did have a
beginning, and it is the start of the perception of yajna itself. Others
like aditi will follow suit later on. When perception of yajna goes away,
the perception of viSNu also goes away. Again, sorry no references. All this
goes to prove Sankara.

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list