[Advaita-l] Re: nirvikara

[drganesh at vsnl.com]

Regarding the topic of[nirgunam-sagunam],[sakara-nirakara]

Gaudapada in his karika comments on the word ‘nirvikaram’ in the alanthasanthi chapter 74 th verse. He says Brahman is beyond modification which means beyond time [because cause and effect are within time]. Really speaking Brahman cannot be called nirvikaram also—this word is used from vyavahara drshti only. From vyavahara drshti we say Brahman is jagat karanam and ‘nirvikaram’ is used only to negate savikaram. Once savikaram is negated then the word nirvikaram becomes irrelevant. All brahman’s description as ‘nir---‘ etc are only to negate the misconception. From turiyam stand point no word can be used, not even ‘advaitam’ as advaitam has a meaning only with reference dvaitam. Silence or amatra can only be used to indicate that absolute state, this silence is not absence of sounds as that would also fall within dvandva, it has to be that which illumines both relative silence and sounds. 
Dr s.ganesh


----- Original Message -----
From: advaita-l-request at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Date: Sunday, April 4, 2004 9:30 pm
Subject: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 12, Issue 4

> Send Advaita-l mailing list submissions to
> 	advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	advaita-l-request at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	advaita-l-owner at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Advaita-l digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: Brahma Sutra-supreme brahman (Jaldhar H. Vyas)
>   2. Re: Brahma Sutra-supreme brahman (Jaldhar H. Vyas)
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 15:54:32 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Brahma Sutra-supreme brahman
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> 	<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0404022012060.2716 at diku.intranet.braincell.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 Darshan.Pawargi at engg.tjc.co.in wrote:
> 
> > I here want to clarify something that i heard of Saguna-Nirguna and
> > similar sayings. Saguna means gunas associated with form. 
> Nirguna means
> > not no-gunas but one having all of them -undistinguising kind. 
> Similar> goes with Sakar-Nirrakar. Because everthing comes from 
> the one and
> > everything goes in one or everthing is one. Saguna- cannot come from
> > Nirguna if nir-guna means no-qualities. I would like to make 
> this more
> > clear to me.
> >
> 
> Imagine you are flying over the ocean.  If you are looking down 
> from a
> great height it may seem that it is perfectly flat and calm.  As you
> descend you will see that it is actually in constant turmoil and has
> waves, foam, boats etc.  How did these things "grow" from the 
> flatness?They didn't, the observers perspective changed.  The 
> superimposition(adhyasa) of gunas on the guna-less is due to the 
> flawed perspective of
> the observer.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> It's a girl! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 18:48:04 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Brahma Sutra-supreme brahman
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> 	<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0404031846320.2025 at diku.intranet.braincell.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, S Jayanarayanan wrote:
> 
> > Jaldhar, there is no doubt that the "highest place of VishhNu" 
> can be
> > taken as the place of Ishvara, etc. But the question was:
> >
> > ---
> > "The Sutra declares that at the dissolution of Brahmaloka the souls,
> > which by that time have attained knowledge, along with the Saguna
> > Brahman attain what is *** higher than the Saguna Brahman, i.e., 
> para> Brahman or the pure highest place of Visnu ***"
> > ...But how come, Sri AdiShankaracharya mentioned supreme brahman 
> in the
> > form of Vishnu in IV.3.10 commentry, which is a Saguna form of 
> Brahman?> ---
> >
> > I find it extremely strange that Shankara would choose the term
> > "VishhNu" to refer to the nirguNa Brahman when specifically
> > DIFFERENTIATING it from saguNa Brahman! I think the question 
> asked is
> > very valid and still unanswered.
> >
> 
> Ok sorry I wasn't clear, let me try again.  Note that the specific 
> phraseis not viShnoH padaM but viShnoH _paramaM_ padaM.  The 
> dwelling of Vishnu
> can be Naraka (with Bali in chaturmasa), or Vaikuntha but the 
> "highest"dwelling is Moksha.  The Bhamatikara also emphasizes that 
> this phrase
> refers to Moksha not some intermediate place.  The rgvedic sukta I
> mentioned treats the course of the Sun (sunrise, noon, and sunset) 
> as the
> three steps and three dwelling places of Vishnu.  It is from the 
> highestplace that He brings down the madhu/soma.
> 
> >
> > PS: In your own reply, you've repeatedly spoken of "VishhNu 
> Bhagavan" -
> > NOT nirguNa Brahman.
> >
> 
> In the bhashya itself, Shankaracharya considers the world of saguna
> Brahman to be the world of Hiranyagarbha or Brahma.  This is 
> contrastedwith the highest place of Vishnu.  Could this reflect 
> some ancient
> sectarian rivalry?  The Samkhya/Yogis preferred to refer to 
> Ishvara as
> Hiranyagarbha.  Kapila Muni was said to be the avatar or son of 
> Hiranyagarbha.Shankaracharya was a bitter critic of Samkhya/Yoga
> doctrines, did he perhaps consider the worship of Vishnu to be 
> more Vedic?
> It seems unlikely due to the fact that his opposition to the 
> Bhagavatas,Vaishnavas though they may be, was partially on the 
> grounds that they were
> not Vedic.  Also there is shastric support for saying that Kapila 
> was an
> avatar of Vishnu Bhagavan.  Rather I think we have to look at another
> shastraic story.  Brahma is said to be born at the beginning of 
> creationfrom a lotus growing from the navel of anantashayi Vishnu 
> Bhagavan.  This
> can be a metaphor for how Nirguna Brahman "produces" Saguna 
> Brahman who is
> the "golden womb" (hiranyagarbha) of creation.  All this talk of
> saguna vs nirguna Brahman  shouldn't lead us to think they are two
> seperate entities.  Just as when sannyasis use the greeting om 
> namo narayana
> the usage of narayana doesn't refer to the husband of Shri who carries
> shanka, chakra, gada, padma etc., Bhagavan shouldn't imply any limited
> entity.  It's a matter of context.  I suppose I should have been more
> explicit to avoid confusion though.
> 
> -- 
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> It's a girl! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Advaita-l mailing list
> Advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> 
> 
> End of Advaita-l Digest, Vol 12, Issue 4
> ****************************************
>