[Advaita-l] Re: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 2, Issue 18

[Jay Nelamangala]

Dear Bhaskar-jI,

>ShAstrAs purports are just to wipe off the
> distinctions superimposed on brahman by avidya.  The ShAstras donot
propose
> to teach brahman as such & such a thing, but it says brahman as not object
> at all (neti),  being the inmost self & removes all distinctions created
by
> avidya such as the pramANAdi vyavahAra.
>

Which part of shruti says this?
Which Shruti says "avidyA such as pramANAdi vyavahAra" ?
It is not in the geetha and definitely not in the sootras.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
To: <jay at r-c-i.com>
Cc: <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 5:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Re: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 2, Issue 18


> praNAm Jay prabhuji,
> Hare Krishna
>
> Similarly,  to ascertain attributes called "attributelessness" and
> "partlessness" to an entity does not make it partless and attributeless.
> It only makes it
> self-contradictory.
>
> >  I hope, Sri Vidya prabhuji will address your issues more elaborately.
> You can just keep mine as a side note.  Yes you are right, it will be
> self-contradictory if we say attributelessness & partlessness to an
> *entity*.  But adv. does not talk about an entity outside of us prabhuji,
> it says about our swarUpa which is beyond dEha, indriya, mana, buddi &
> ahankAra.
>
> This "Neti Neti" is another passage that we have to take a closer look at
> in the context of that upanishat.   I will do it sometime soon.
>
> >  prabhuji, we know you have answer for everything under the sky!! but it
> would be appropriate that you should know shankara's/advaitins stand on
> this *neti*. It is quite obvious that Atman as is well known, is not
> adventitious thing for anyone, Moreover as shruti says speech cannot
> express, but which itself expresses speech etc.etc. So, shruti describe
> brahman which is the light of eternal witnessing consciounsness.  So Sri
> Shankara clarifies in bhAshya, ShAstrAs purports are just to wipe off the
> distinctions superimposed on brahman by avidya.  The ShAstras donot
propose
> to teach brahman as such & such a thing, but it says brahman as not object
> at all (neti),  being the inmost self & removes all distinctions created
by
> avidya such as the pramANAdi vyavahAra.
>
>
> Which shruti told you Brahman is partless and attributeless?  May I ask?
>
> >  I am really very surprised, you are asking this question.  Perhaps, you
> may be having different interpretation to the following verse from Br. Up.
> (3-8-8):
>
> >  This indeed, O Gargi, Brahmanas regard to be the akShara ( the
> imperishable), It is neither gross, not subtle; neither short not long;
not
> red, not viscid, without shadow or darkness, not air, not ether,
> unattached; without taste, without smell, having no eyes, having no ears,
> having no organs of speech, having no mind, having no light, having no
> life-breath, having no opening, having no measures & having neither inside
> nor outside.  It eats nothing whatever.  No one eats it.
>
> >  Apart from the above, you can have a look at your favourite verse from
> Sw.Up. *yEko devaH sarbhuteShu......kEvalo nirguNasch*.  Anyway, you have
> shared your understanding on this verse.
>
> >  Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> >  bhaskar
>
>
>
>