[Advaita-l] Causal Body

[Srikrishna Ghadiyaram]

Hari Om !!

--- Jay Nelamangala <jay at r-c-i.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear SriKrishna,
> 
> > If you decide to measure my devilishness, will
> > 'devilishness' become my property ??  I think not.
> > Yes, 'Devilishness' as a property may exist in
> some
> > experience of yours say in Ravana. While
> explaining
> > about me to some other party you resort to
> measuring
> > my devilishness. Still, 'devilishness' does not
> become
> > my property. Inspite of such argument, what
> happens if
> > you come up with a '0' measure. Does devilishness
> > become my property ??
> 
> You are right,  but for wrong reasons.  But good
> example though.
> 
> There are Asuree and Daivee - svabhAva jeevas.
> They are two seperate categories of people.
> RaavaNa and vibhIshaNa for instance.
> What you say holds good if we start measuring
> "devillishness"
> in vibhIshaNa.   You will come up with 0  measure
> for  the property "devillishness" ,  because you are
> in the
> wrong category!!
> 
> But,  "attributelessness" is not like this.
> 

Why not ?? Give reasons. Do not just make a statement.
Property is a Property. Svarupa is not a property;
Property is not Svarupa. Heat is not a property of
fire; it is Svarupa of fire. But, you can add some
Diwali cracker substance and bring out some colors and
sounds, such sounds and smell and color do not fbelong
to fire.

You are digressing from the topic here. You are
abandoning your own statements. 

You said, "The acceptance of peculiarity (vishEsha) is
inevitable even for 
advaita,
though
advaita ignores it.  Advaita regards Brahman as
partless.  This implies 
that
partlessness is a property of It.   It is akhanda.  
So partlessness is 
not
different
from it.  Then the question is, "how can there be the
thought that
partlessness
is a property of Brahman? "
"

You do not have to postulate two distinct properties
such as Khandatvam and akhandatvam. Akhandatvam is
another way of saying khandatvam. So, you can not
attribute akhandatvam as an attribute of Brahman.
Instead say that khandatvam is a property understudy
and its measure in Brahman is '0'.

If we were to go by two distinct properties as said by
you above your Dvaita Sidhanta Brahman will become
such that 'akhandatvam' becomes His property !!

So, you are wrong.  Please read carefully, before you
contradict this.


> Every object ( physical or mental) has to have
> attributes.

> There are no two categories of objects : those with
> and those
> without  attributes.

Did Advaita say that there are two different
categories of objects and Brahman belongs to one
category and does not belong to the other ????

It says that both or any number, as you please, of
categories has ONLY ONE sad-vastu as its ESSENCE. Some
categories, evolutes of that sad-vastu have attributes
based on their form and name etc.


> 
> When you say ,  "Brahman is attributeless"  you have
> self-contradicted already because of this reason.
> 

Wrong derivation. Your first definition itself is
rejected. 

> You can not mentally conceive an attributeless
> entity.
> 

I as subject 'awareness' discern all attributes. I can
fully comprehend that vastness of attributelessness or
being in a state where all attributesness and
attributelessness is in me.

> Either you can say,  no one has conceived Brahman or
> you have to say some has conceived it,  and called
> it
> attributeless.
> 

You are wrong again. You are denying your own
existance, akin to your dumbman. You are true to the
extent that you can not conceive ANOTHER Brahman apart
from you. The whole problem is coming because you are
looking for a Brahman different from yourself. It is
here and now, not some where else and at some other
time. Accept what is now - Because even for you
Dvaitin, Brahman can not be said to be 'not NOW'. So,
findout what is 'here and now' and that is
attributeless. The fact that inspite of all attempts
to find it in attributes, you fail at task. So, it is
attributeless. Because it is You !! The Awareness
principle, the Existance principle.

> If no one has conceived it,  then how did you come
> to know of it?

As 'I'. I conceived it as myself; none else.

> If someone has conceived it in advaita ( although
> they don't accept it)
> it means they have conceived it with the attribute
> called
> "attributelessness".
> 

You are wrong. I conceived the Same Dvaita Brahman
with attributeness where in the measure was '0'.

> The very sootra, of bAdarAyaNa asks you to enquire
> into Brahman.

You are right. It did not say go to Vaikunta or
Kailasa to see Brahman. It said 'enquire', because he
wanted to say that it is 'here and now'.  It asks you
to enquire, so that it is what you do not even
consider it be !! Your ownself !!

> Obviously, you can not enquire into an attributeless
> entity either.

Why is it so obvious to you ?? Infact why do you think
of 'Attributelessness' ? Think of 'Attributeness'
only. I am not enquiring about any 'entity' other than
me. Sootras say this enquiry is into the Truth or
Reality; whether it turns out to be an entity or not
does not matter. It turns out to be 'I' which is
beyond all attributes. All attributes are
superimpositions on me. I declare, I am not any thing
that you know which you can qualify with attributes.
The only way to know me is to be 'I'.

> When enquiry itself is not possible,  whether such a
> Brahman is the
> creator of this world or not?  the question does not
> arise.
> 

Who is questioning the 'Creator'. We are just
'enquiring' into reality. And we come to conclusion
that 'sadeva'. Later things are are derivations. That
'Sat' is the Existance principle; that Sat is
Consciousness principle; that Sat is 'Ananda'
principle; that Sat is everythingness principle; that
Sat is nothingness principle.

> But shrutis  ordain enquiry into the cause of this
> world, and  call it
> Brahman.
> "yatO vA iMAni bhootAni ....tad vijijnAsasva tad
> brahma"
> 
> Therefore, whatever you call "Brahman" - must be the
> object of enquiry in
> the first place.   

You are right. You start with an assumption that you
are enquiring into the 'Object' and endup concluding
that it is infact the subject. Surprisingly it is 'I'.

>An attributeless NirguNa brahman
> is not object of
> enquiry.

It is an object of enquiry, if the same 'object' is
the subject making the enquiry.

Say, Jay wants to enquire into the Svarupa/nature of
Jay, then 'Jay' becomes the Object and Subject. Infact
this what we are shouting all about. The Conscious
principle is 'Self-aware' it is 'Awareness' itself.
Otherwise, due to infinite regression the enquiry
would not have sustained itself.

> So, other vEdaantins reject the attributeless
> NirguNa brahman theory, and
> say there is only One Brahman -  who is the Creator
> as well as the object
> of enquiry, and object of devotion, and
> shruti-smritis have come about to
> describe that One Brahman.
> 
> I hope you got clarfied on your analogy.
> 

I thought I was making it clear to you !!

Om Namo Narayanaya !!

Srikrishna


> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Srikrishna Ghadiyaram"
> <srikrishna_ghadiyaram at yahoo.com>
> To: <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 12:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Causal Body
> 
> 
> > Hari Om !!
> >
> > --- Jay Nelamangala <jay at r-c-i.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The acceptance of peculiarity (vishEsha) is
> > > inevitable even for advaita,
> > > though
> > > advaita ignores it.  Advaita regards Brahman as
> > > partless.  This implies that
> > > partlessness is a property of It.
> >
> > If you decide to measure my devilishness, will
> > 'devilishness' become my property ??  I think not.
> > Yes, 'Devilishness' as a property may exist in
> some
> > experience of yours say in Ravana. While
> explaining
> > about me to some other party you resort to
> measuring
> > my devilishness. Still, 'devilishness' does not
> become
> > my property. Inspite of such argument, what
> happens if
> > you come up with a '0' measure. Does devilishness
> > become my property ??
> >
> > > It is akhanda.
> > > So partlessness is not
> > > different
> > > from it.  Then the question is, "how can there
> be
> > > the thought that
> > > partlessness
> > > is a property of Brahman? "
> > >
> > Om Namo Narayanaya !!
> >
> > Srikrishna
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync
> to Outlook(TM).
> > http://calendar.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com