[Advaita-l] Re: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 1, Issue 22
svidyasankar at hotmail.com
Wed May 28 19:29:27 CDT 2003
>The misunderstanding is yours.
>Brahman is pervading in the body anyway(not necessarily as a form of
>prakRti) - from the mundaka anology of two birds (jIva and
Oh God, you completely misunderstand. There is no "anyway" apart from the
higher and lower prakRti-s described in Gita 7.4-5, nor is brahman to be
described as a form of prakRti. Rather, it is as the jIva that brahman
pervades the body and the jIva itself IS the higher prakRti while the body
IS the lower prakRti. I would suggest a reading of Sankara's commentary on
the two Gita verses, and also chapter 13. You seem to know sufficient
Sanskrit to read it in the original.
>>I said that jIva is sa-guNa brahman, in a sense, depending on the guNa-s
>>that you associate it with. If you choose to misinterpret me as above, and
>>also want to insist that saguNa brahman is only ISvara, never jIva, then
>>it is your problem. Please re-read my earlier post, dispassionately, and
>>do not twist what I said in order to raise a strawman argument.
>See above. In general it is not argued that way because jIva suffers.
I don't care about "in general". There is a particular argument we were
Moreover, "in general", no advaitin author explains "tat tvam asi" without
saying that the jIva is brahman, albeit associated with guNa-s. You arrive
at the essential identity only by not identifying with the guNa-s and
thereby pruning them off, so to speak.
>And if you accept that the answer is not brahman you cannot say that
>brahman is deluded.
Who said that brahman is really deluded?
Just to remind you of the question, to quote your own words, "And as for
your question *who relaizes (sic) his own self as brahman?* The answer
cannot be brahman ..."
>The essence of jIva is the Atman which is nothing but brahman. However,
>that does not mean brahman is deluded. Logic going against vedAnta is logic
Again, whoever argued that brahman is deluded?
>That should close the issue. I have already written on this matter some
>time back in response to another member.
And I can only reiterate, read Sankara first.
>You misunderstood me. My intention is not that jIvanmukta does not sleep
>etc. It is just that you cannot say that he is deluded even if he sleeps
>etc. No guesses - like comparing this with a normal jIva.
So let me get this clear. The jIvanmukta used to be a normal jIva, but got
transformed into something else, because of an experience of the turIya
state - is that your position? If so, there are countless passages in
Sankaracharya's works that would refute you, starting with the commentary on
the sUtra "avasthiter iti kASakRtsnaH".
>This is not about bhedas as such. It is just that jIva itself is unreal.
>why? abhAsa eva cha. Even you would agree that jIva loses
If the jIva is wholly unreal, then it cannot have its essence as the real
Atman which is brahman. So there has to be something about the jIva that is
real and that always was, is and will be real.
>its individuality in turIya. That is as good as passively admitting the
>unreality of jIva. The point is that any such analysis carried
So, we return to my characterization of your view of jIvanmukti - that the
jIvanmukta loses individuality in turIya and then returns to unreal
individuality in other states, i.e. into and out of delusion periodically.
>in the backward direction, leads you directly against vedAnta. You
This thing about the backward direction is your opinion, not shared by
gauDapAda (as you yourself claim), but not shared by Sankara ot sureSvara
Of course, you are welcome to your own brand of supposedly advaita thinking,
but if so, please take care to distinguish it well from traditional advaita
vedAnta. After all, if you want to think that gauDapAda used logic that is
gone astray, well, that is your choice. I close the issue too.
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list