reposting again

[nanda chandran]

>So, we should conclude that when telling us how one appears to be >many,
>and how to go back to the one, the chAndogya Sruti is implying >mAyA, in
>the mature Advaita conception of the term.

Exactly. Does the validity of Advaita really have to depend on how many
times words like maya or nirguna occurs in the shruti? Maya and nirguna
refer to that which is beyond thought - so it is only natural that the
shruti rather than dwelling on these which cannot be easily expressed
concentrates on that which can be taught/easily referred to.

There're numerous verses in the shruti which teach "one who made himself
into many" etc But given the diversity that we experience in the world how
do we reconcile that with a single reality? Schools earlier than Advaita
tried to split it into the changing and the unchanging - which contradicts
the existance of a single reality. With mayavaada which questions the basis
on which such diversity is apprehended we're able to reject the differences.
In short if somebody says things are different, we ask,"how do you know" and
then disprove his assertion by deconstructing the fundamentals of his
proposition. It is an epistemological dialectic attack by which we disprove
difference. But again what should be noted is that reason is only able to
prove the non-validity of difference (the whole of Citsukhiyam is towards
establishing differencelessness) but is not able to establish unity. This is
fundamentally because unity is beyond thought - it is being - it is the
thing in itself.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp