[Advaita-l] Causal Body

[Jay Nelamangala]

VidyAshankar,  Namaste.

>It is totally mistaken to think that there was no dvaita in the time of
>Sankara, and therefore he did not address it. How is sAkshI in dvaita
>different from purusha in sAMkhya? There was a nirISvara sAMKhya and a
>seSvara sAMkhya (also called pAtanjala sAMkhya) that preceded Sankara. He
>already addressed everything that there was to address in regard to dvaita,
>when he discussed sAMkhya and yoga.

The word "dvaita"  was always there,  because it is a word coming from
upanishats.  Sri Shankara could not have studied  Madhwa-bhAshya on
upanishats,  geeta and sootras,  and therefore he could not have addressed
what you call today as "dvaita vEdaanta".   That is what I am trying to say.

Sri Shankara might have refuted some other  dvaita vEdaanta, which you think
is
the same as Madhwa siddhAnta.   If you tell me correctly,  what that other
"dvaita" that Sri Shankara has refuted, and the reasons he gives for
refuting it,
then for all we know,  it might be one of the schools that Sri Madhwa also
refutes!!

If you study "anuvyAkhyAna-nyAyasudhA-parimaLa" you
will see that Sri Madhwa has found fault with the 21 different
interpretations
that were given by other thinkers,  and  hence the need for his bhAshya
which is the 22nd one.  What Sri Shankara has refuted as "dvaita" could very
well be in one of these 21.   That is why calling Madhwa's school of thought
as dvaita may  not be appropriate, because "dvaita" and "advaita" are words
coming from the  upanishats,  and not from any school of thought.

Both nirIshwara and sEshwara sAmkhya are poorva-paksha to BAdarAyaNa
himself,   let alone to being poorva-paksha to dvaita-vEdaanta of  Sri
Madhwa.

sAkshI-D in dvaita-vEdAnta is not the same as purusha of sAmkhya either.
The sAkshI-D under discussion now,  is the jeeva-swaroopa.   This
jeeva-swaroopa does not create anything.   But the Creator in Seshwara
sAmkhya is the "nirlipta"  Creator,  who can't create anything by himself,
but can only do so only with Prakrti.  VedAntins reject sAmkhya because
what brings Purusha and Prakrti together, is unanswered in sAmkhya.

Thus, sAkshee-D and purusha of sAmkhya are not same.

So, when Sri Madhwa also has rejected  sAmkhya,  you can not claim that
Sri Shankara has rejected Madhwa while rejecting sAmkhya.

The same thing with yOga as well.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vidyasankar Sundaresan" <svidyasankar at hotmail.com>
To: <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 3:02 PM
Subject: RE: [Advaita-l] Causal Body


>
> >But, as per our previous discussion on "gauDapAda kArikA-s" topic, it was
> >mentioned that, Advaita holds, whatever you & I perceive here (in
> >vyavaharika domain) is ultimately not real in paramArthika level. This
> >means, what we perceive here about this world and it's business
> >(knowledge-A) is subsequently sublated when one moves from v-level to
> >p-level. Don't you agree, this is what Jay is referring to "no guarantee"
> >knowledge-A ?
>
> I forgot to mention the following in my earlier response. If sAkshI-A
means
> the sAkshI as per advaita, then there is only one true meaning for
> knowledge-A, i.e. the knowledge that is advaita. It is not what we
perceive
> about this world and its business, for sAkshI-A already knows that all
that
> is avidyA, and not real knowledge.
>
> It is only sAkshI-D that has a problem with no guarantee for sublation. By
> the way, we advaitin-s do not accept your notion of sAkshI-D, because what
> you call sAkshI-D is just another name for buddhi - the function of
> antaHkaraNa that takes care of niScaya and vyavasAya or adhyavasAya. It is
> buddhi that determines what is true/valid in daily experience, and that is
> the reason it is distinguished from manas, in such instances as,
mayyarpita
> manobuddhI in gItA and manomaya vs. vijnAnamaya in taittirIyopanishat. If
> you want to claim that even advaitins need sAkshI-D, we say, we advaitins
> have buddhi inasmuch as we operate in the daily vyavahAra, and we don't
need
> to postulate yet another sAkshI.
>
> It is totally mistaken to think that there was no dvaita in the time of
> Sankara, and therefore he did not address it. How is sAkshI in dvaita
> different from purusha in sAMkhya? There was a nirISvara sAMKhya and a
> seSvara sAMkhya (also called pAtanjala sAMkhya) that preceded Sankara. He
> already addressed everything that there was to address in regard to
dvaita,
> when he discussed sAMkhya and yoga.
>
> Vidyasankar
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>