[Advaita-l] Re: gauDapAda kArikA-s

[kalyan chakravarthy]

Namaste,

>So are you saying prakrti is not also part of Brahman?  If it is than how
>do you justify treating "material" vs "transcendental"?

I never talked about prakriti being or not being a part of brahman.


>That Brahman is free from _all_ attributes is known from the Gita.  Again
>why the distinction between material and transcendental?

No disagreement here. But since the context is saguNa brahman, I have not 
touched upon the topic of nirguNa brahman.


>You are I'm afraid.  Sammohitam means _He_is_deluding_Himself_.  There is
>only one true entity, Brahman.  So any illusion that we can speak of has
>to be Brahman.


This point has already been refuted. Refer to the previous mail.


>Only if avidya were the totality of Brahman.  It might help if I drew a
>picture. (if it looks messed up, use a fixed space font like courier.)
>
>   +------------------+
>   | +------+         |
>   | |Avidya|         |
>   | +------+         |
>   |                  |
>   |     Brahman      |
>   |                  |
>   |                  |
>   |                  |
>   +------------------+
>
>
>I can say "the locus of the small box is in the left hand corner of
>the larger box."  But can I say "the smaller box is the larger box"?


In that case you must assume that a part of brahman is being deluded, while 
another part remains undeluded.


>Yes but again it is a necessary part of Vedanta becuse we (meaning
>advaita-l readers) are finite beings of space and time who normally deal
>with concepts like loci (locuses?) When one finally moves beyond that
>level a locus isn't necessary but by that point Vedanta isn't necessary
>either.


But even the upanishads or brahmaSutras dont attribute any delusion to 
brahman. So, we as finite beings in space and time need not do that.


>Actually the sequence of events is probably more
>like this:
>
>1. Mr. X thinks he is not deluded.
>
>2. Mr. X learns from study of the shastras that view 1 is a delusion.
>
>3. After further study Mr. X learns that both 1 and 2 are unreal.
>
>4. For that matter Mr. X-ness is also unreal.
>
>5. Brahman (no Mr. X at this point) _knows_ it is not deluded.


Couldn't have agreed with you better. But notice that even your reasoning 
does not show that brahman is deluded.(no Mr.X in the final point)


>The Vedas themselves say that Brahman is prana etc.

But not to show that brahman is deluded.

>It is that identification which is being described here as delusion (but
>again I repeat it is a necessary one.)


Delusion. Yes.
To brahman. No.


Best Regards
Kalyan

_________________________________________________________________
Reconnect with old pals. Relive the happy times. 
http://www.batchmates.com/msn.asp With just one click.