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

[Jay Nelamangala]

>It is physically impossible for a dumb man to verbally shout "I am dumb."
>However, he can shout it in his mind, and nobody will be able to listen to
>him shouting mentally, but the fact would remain that he is indeed shouting
>out in his mind that he is dumb.

So?.    I don't see its relevance to the case being discussed.

When a person that can speak  keeps saying "I am dumb"
then it does'nt make him dumb.   That is the case being discussed.
It only makes him self contradictory.    Similarly,  to ascertain
attributes called "attributelessness" and "partlessness" to an entity
does not make it partless and attributeless.  It only makes it
self-contradictory.

> "asti" etc. It teaches us negatively, by saying "na iti" "na iti", the
> negation being addressed to all that is confined to parts and attributes.
> That is enough for a student to begin with.
>
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.

>
> We advaitins do another major leap of faith, by listening with total faith
> to the Sruti that tells us that brahman is partless. Seen in this light,
it
> is ironic indeed that you have expressed great concern for Sruti in the
> past.
>
Which shruti told you Brahman is partless and attributeless?  May I ask?
I take it as a compliment that you remembered me as having great
concern for shruti.  My concern is shruti interpreted with the help of
sootras.

>
> This is what it boils down to. We advaitins think you are fundamentally
> mistaken, and you think the same about us. Let us leave it at that,
without
> indulging in any more vAg-vilApanam.
>
It is upto you.  But in my opinion,  this  gives me a chance to verify
the soundness of my own understanding of  shruti-sootras-geetha.
So I do not consider as mere vAg-vilApana.
We can keep it more friendly,  I do respect your knowledge of shAstra.

>
> I, for one, would like to see you make such a claim explicitly, instead of
> pretending to some respect for saints of all stripes. Then we can perhaps
> discuss the rest and then keep silent.
>

As for the three AchAryas,  yes I do respect them

In my school,  Sri Shankara is considered as an  incarnation of Shiva,
Sri RAmAnuja is considered as an incarnation of AdiShEsha,
and Sri Madhwa is considered the third avatAra of vAyu, after hanuma and
bheema.

So how can I disrespect any of  them?  or pretend to  respect any of them?
I disagree with some of the tenets of  philosophy of Sri Shankara, because
our
AchAryas have taken the trouble of exposing the "internal inconsistencies"
in
advaita before arriving at their own philosophies.

But,  Sri Shankara did not have to do it,  because dvaita was just not
there.
He had to deal with mainly poorva-mImAmsaa and Buddhism which he
has successfully done.
Some people blindly say that Sri GoudapAda had already done it with dvaita.
But one should study AnuvyAkhyAna and NyAya-sudhA before making
such statements.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vidyasankar Sundaresan" <svidyasankar at hotmail.com>
To: <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 2:36 PM
Subject: [Advaita-l] Re: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 2, Issue 18


>
> >Advaita teaches that this jeeva is "Brahman" and knowledge-A is
> >partless,  all those great commentrators had realized this advaitic
Truth,
> >but
> >still  the knowledge-A  their works produce in us,  is all in parts and
> >pieces.
>
> Not at all. Forget about the commentaries, even Sruti is in parts and
> pieces, but the brahman-knowledge imparted by the vedAnta is not. You are
> missing the forest for the trees.
>
> >Students of advaita like you should ask the question,   is there anything
> >that is partless and attributeless?
>
> Sruti tells us that there is. It teaches us positively, by saying "sat"
> "asti" etc. It teaches us negatively, by saying "na iti" "na iti", the
> negation being addressed to all that is confined to parts and attributes.
> That is enough for a student to begin with.
>
> >Without attributing 'partlessness' and 'attributelessness' to it, it can
> >not
> >be
> >described as partless and attributeless.
> >To hold that there are attributes, 'partlessness' and 'attributelessness'
> >is
> >to hold that there are parts in the thing.  So, the conception that a
thing
> >is partless and attributeless denies its own truth, and implicitly
asserts
> >the
> >truth that everything is necessarily with attributes, and therefore with
> >parts.
>
> This is a major leap of faith, based on myriad assumptions on your part,
and
> contradictory to Sruti which tells us otherwise.
>
> We advaitins do another major leap of faith, by listening with total faith
> to the Sruti that tells us that brahman is partless. Seen in this light,
it
> is ironic indeed that you have expressed great concern for Sruti in the
> past.
>
> >Hence, the very conception that chit is akhanda and nirvishEsha is
> >impossible,
> >because in the very conception chit is determined to be sakhanda and
> >savishEsha.
>
> It certainly is not impossible to conceive of cit as akhaNDa and
nirviSesha.
> That you have failed to do so does not mean such a thing is non-existent.
> Indeed, we have said this for centuries, and we say that your corollary as
> stated above is totally false. If you want to limit yourself to words,
yes,
> you will have trouble with the conception. However, the whole goal of
saying
> "anyA vAco vimuncatha" and "Om ity evaM dhyAyata" is to lead you beyond
> words. This, by the way, answers your question about nirguNopAsana. In one
> word, "auM".
>
> This is what it boils down to. We advaitins think you are fundamentally
> mistaken, and you think the same about us. Let us leave it at that,
without
> indulging in any more vAg-vilApanam.
>
> >If a man cannot talk we call him dumb.  If a mere verbal denial of
talking
> >can make
> >a man dumb,  then even the man who says loudly  'I am dumb' should be
taken
> >to
> >be dumb.   Similarly,  if one says loudly,  "knowledge-A is
attributeless"
> >he has
> >already contradicted himself.
>
> Not so. Again, the whole goal of vedAntic teaching is to use words
> judiciously, as a bridge, to go beyond words. Your analysis would have it
> that Sruti is meaningless when it says, "yato vAco nivartante" - the very
> sentence uses vAk. According to your thinking, it is impossible to say
"yato
> vAco nivartante", but see, Sruti does say it.
>
> It is physically impossible for a dumb man to verbally shout "I am dumb."
> However, he can shout it in his mind, and nobody will be able to listen to
> him shouting mentally, but the fact would remain that he is indeed
shouting
> out in his mind that he is dumb.
>
> For every one person who, out of compassion for sincere students, has said
> out loud, "knowledge-A is attributelss", there are indeed thousands who
have
> realized the attributeless knowledge and have kept silent. But precisely
> because they are silent, you have no means of judging the truth or
veracity
> of their experience. If you accept that there does exist or has existed at
> least one such person, then you will have to accept the truth of
> attributelessness. On the other hand, as you reject the very possibility
of
> knowledge being partless and attributeless, you will have to claim that no
> such person has ever existed, does exist or will exist, who has realized
> such knowledge.
>
> I, for one, would like to see you make such a claim explicitly, instead of
> pretending to some respect for saints of all stripes. Then we can perhaps
> discuss the rest and then keep silent.
>
> Best wishes,
> Vidyasankar
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
>
> _______________________________________________
> want to unsubscribe or change your options? See:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> Need assistance? Contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>