Dear Shri tks Sir,
1. Thank you very much for your views, which are, as always, very learned and instructive. I think not only I but also the other readers will benefit from these discussions.
2. My own stand in matters like pāramārthikā reality, vyāvahārikā reality, etc., is that even our great ācāryas were hemmed in by the so called 'past baggage', meaning whatever was told in the upanishads - mainly, as also the earlier scriptures like the vedas, brahmanas, Aranyakas, etc.
Regarding pāramārthikā, vyāvahārikā, etc., will it not be correct to say that even those great ācāryas of the past would most probably not have had direct experience of the pāramārthikā variety and that the best they could have offered to us is their own imaginations or theories, if you so prefer, about what would be the picture, as viewed from the pāramārthikā level.
3. For example, these passages from the taittirīyopaniṣat are supposed to represent the exclamations of a jīvātmā which has transcended all the koshas:
hā ))) vu hā))) vu hā))) vu | ahamannamahamannamahamannam | ahamannādoऽ hamannādoऽ hamannādaḥ | ahagm̐ ślokakṛdahagm̐ ślokakṛdahagm̐ ślokakṛt | ahamasmiprathamajā ṛtā)))sya |... ahamannamannamadantama)))dmi |ahaṃ viśvaṃ bhuvanabhyabhavām |
But, even here, the sense of
aham is found to be intact!
4. In my proposal the Life Force will take the place of this pāramārthikā reality and our own experienced world/universe will, no doubt, represent the vyāvahārikā.
5. The above dichotomy (about karma as a sentient entity and the Life Force which I refer to) is, I think, no more contradictory or erroneous than the problem created by Shankara's Brahman and avidyā concepts. Because, as you will definitely be knowing, one of the points held against advaita is "what is the origination and what is the locus of avidyā?". I do not know of any logically satisfying answer from the advaitin scholars which safeguards the position of brahman as the one and only reality and, at the same time, clarifies wherefrom avidyā originated, whether it was originally a part of brahman (if yes, then brahman has at least one guna, viz., avidyā
and if avidyā was not part of brahman what was its source of origination and where was it located before afflicting the jīvātmās, etc.
6. My proposition does not claim adherence to either advaita or dwaita philosophy, nor does it claim that karma is sentient. Just as poisonous substances (which are insentient in our vyāvahārikā reality) in pond water will adhere to the skin of every bather, and what particles stick to one person's skin will not be able to stick to another bather's skin, etc., it is possible to imagine karma also as consisting of non-sentient particles and attaching to every new birth.
So when our 'past baggage' could lend itself to different and mutually contrarian interpretations like advaita and dwaita, and when advaita itself is unable to explain where the avidyā came from and where it resided — before afflicting the so called jīvātmās — and the inherent contradiction of brahman and avidyā being mutually independent, probably co-eval and both being almost endless, etc., this perceived contradiction of karma as a sentient item and the Life Force could be tolerated.
I do not think we should rigidly adhere to the old requirements as invariable conditions. If we do so, we will be compelled to end up with one or the other options of brahman + avidyā (māyā), sagunabrahman (viśiṣṭādvaita), or sagunabrahman separate from jīvātmā (dwaita) and will be back to square one!
< Clipped >
Once again, let me submit that my proposition does not claim adherence to either advaita or dwaita philosophy, nor does it claim that karma is sentient. Just as poisonous substances (which are insentient in our vyāvahārikā reality) in pond water will adhere to the skin of every bather, and what particles stick to one person's skin will not be able to stick to another bather's skin, etc., it is possible to imagine karma also as consisting of non-sentient particles and attaching to every new birth.
Our scriptures have not gone through any scientific or logical evaluation, though I agree that the theories churned out (mainly three in number) have probably been. Even among these three, it is possibly the first, advaita which has been subjected to much evaluation and the tenet of avidyā (māyā) has come in for much scrutiny and criticism without any logically satisfactory decision. That is why we still see vaishnavam and mādhvaṃ doing well and thriving.
Under these circumstances, I feel it will be a beneficial thing to delink our beliefs from those ancient tenets, and posit a new one which does away with the need for anthropomorphic deities, idolatry, temples which are essentially run on business principles fleecing the common man's gullibility, the tendency to lean on to superstitious customs and practices, and, above all, an overwhelming preoccupation (both time- and energy-wise) to all these unsatisfactory tendencies.
