Concept of personal God and Advaita

[Stephanie Stean]

Rama:

Thank you for your explanations.  I can see one of the problems in
discussing this of course, is the limiting aspect of language.

First off, to perceive is to not only to become aware of through the senses,
but it also refers to achieving understanding.

>I'll state the views of sureshvara in brief. The role
> of perception is to reveal objects.

So sureshvara is right, that perception is for sensory revelation, but the
English word perception also can signify other types of revelation.

The English word "experience" also has many definitions.  One involving the
senses, but one specifically meaning: "to participate personally in,
undergo."  So to experience something also means to personally participate
in it or undergo it.

When I use the words perceive and experience (especially when we discuss
these topics), I'm using them in the latter definitions.  I cannot think of
any other words (in the English language) that can encompass or capture "the
knowledge" you speak of.

As for your description of the PramANa-s. I understood your examples and I
did some more reading and will continue reading to further understand.  As I
have questions, I can direct them to you or anyone else; such is the beauty
of the listserv.

Your words about no contradictions existing in the PramANa-s.  That seems
evident.  They all reveal the same Truths but from different standpoints
(this seems to be a very common belief in Hinduism).

We need not follow a particular one but listen to all, because all speak
truth and lead to "One knowledge of Reality", right? Or wrong?

So, we come to the question again, is scripture essential? And if so, in
what way and why?

And I wonder if scripture is essential in the way you mentioned.  I mean,
we all seek what is Real and not what is said to be Real.  Words can only
take us so far.  At some point we have to let go of the words.

For example, some scriptures emphasize works for realization, some love,
some knowledge, some emphasize only study of scripture itself.  Now, most
would think these paths contradictory, but I'm sure you know otherwise.

But what if revelation occurs without scriptures?  Then how are they
essential?  How can revelation be explained minus scriptural study,
according to advaita?  Or is it believed that revelation cannot occur
without scripture?


Lastly,

I clipped this from GauDapAda's Karika, book 4.

73. What experience alone indicates to exist does not really exist. Equally,
what other schools of thought assert to exist does not really exist.

Does this not mean that at some point, even the scriptures are not
essential?

Can relying on scriptures for revelation be another form of attachment that
we seek to liberate ourselves from?   Attachment to words and systematized
logic or systematized Sruti?  That prevents one from seeing Reality?

Thanks for your help and suggestions.  I have much reading to do ;-)

Stephanie