[Advaita-l] Re: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 1, Issue 32

[Jay Nelamangala]

Note:  This reply was sent to the individual and not to the list, by mistake

>As for vedAntin-s who don't accept brahman as material cause of the
>universe, one needs to look no farther than scholars of the dvaita school
of
>AnandatIrtha. They do not

The dvaita school says Parabrahman is jagadEka-kAraNa.
Because other 'darshana'  thinkers had classifed various kAranas like -
upAdAna, sahakAree, nimitta, sAdhAraNa etc while understanding "Creation",
and also because Shrutis say Parabrahman is "nirvikAra" and according
to all these 'darshana' thinkers that were before him,  an upAdAna-kAraNa
modifies itself to become the effect.   So,  what dvaita school says is
whatever you have called kAraNa -  that which is nirvikAra in it is
Parabrahman
to me.   All these so called kAraNas are mere "Aiswarya dyOtikaa".
This is madhwa-siddhAnta.

>No. Firstly, there is no reason to introduce the muNDaka quote here as a
>vishaya vAkya at all. The sUtrakAra's discussion is still about the
sentence
>"tad aikshata" from the chAndogya. The succeeding sUtra, "svApyayAt", shows
>this clearly.

Why restrain sootras to fix only one vishaya-vAkya,  when it can fix many
vishaya-vAkyas ?
"IkshatE"  also appears in "parAt param purishayam purusham IkshatE".

Just would like to know how "Om svApyayAt Om"  is interpreted by you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </archives/advaita-l/attachments/20030605/3b7fd3d2/attachment.html>