[Advaita-l] Re: gauDapAda kArikA-s

kalyan chakravarthy kalyan_kc at hotmail.com
Wed May 28 12:46:09 CDT 2003


>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

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

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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list