[Advaita-l] Advaita-l Digest, Vol 2, Issue 29

[Nagarjuna Siddhartha]

In this mail, I am trying to address another issue. I have in the process skipped an important issue (of visesha) raised by Nomadeva Sharma, but I will be on it as soon as possible.(This delay is primarily due to my being an amateur to advaita and moreover the concept of visesha and saviseshabheda occurs in dvaita, of which my knowledge is pathetic.)
 
And as I always carry the possibility of mis-representing advaita or any other school, I request the members to correct me, if and when they notice such a mis-representation.
 
>> >'neti neti'

>> I think I got what you are trying to suggest. 

>Sir, that was pun. Sorry for misleading you. I was trying to use an
>upanishadic statement to say that we do not consider Brahman as not the
>material cause. Given that we are on that statement, I don't understand
>how, the statement can make sense, if Brahman were to be the material
>cause. 
 
Creation, in advaita is "per accidens" (to quote T M P Mahadevan). Thus brahman is not inherently a material cause, but the causality is only accidental. This would preserve the sanctity of "neti neti". 
 
>Similarly, what would you say of 'tadsR^iShTvA
>tadanupravishat.h'?
 
If your intention sir, is to quote this as an explanation of difference beween brahman and its creation, then I have a different intention in mind. I can use this to question the omni-presence of brahman once upon a time (i.e. before he entered into his creation). The dualist who believes that the attributes of brahman are eternal, can ill-afford to discard omni-presence at any point of time.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </archives/advaita-l/attachments/20030616/09e0a20b/attachment.html>