[Advaita-l] Creation ex nihilo (was Re: Advaita vEdAnta - Unit(27))

[savithri devaraj]

--- Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> In the case of avidyA too, nobody thinks "I do not
> have the slightest idea 
> what the world is." There is no absence of knowledge
> but erroneous 
> knowledge, taking the world to be what it is not,
> atasmin.h tadbuddhiH.  And 
> this erroneous knowledge (superimposition), if you
> consider it existent, 
> must necessarily have an existent cause. Any of the
> orthodox schools of 
> Indian philosophy would agree with the principle
> that an existent effect 
> must have an existent cause.
> 
> Anand
> 

Namaste,

BTW, the jury is still out on what orthodox means on
this list. 
I thought the moderators didn't want to discuss
orthodox/sampradaya etc., but since it is brought up
here w.r.t. the same topic again, here it goes -

Dictionary meaning of Orthodox being - Adhering to the
accepted or traditional and established faith,
especially in religion.
If we agree that Shankara documented the advaitic
system, any school that follows Shankara and his guru
Gaudapada closely in its method of teaching and in its
essense of philosophy is an orthodox school. By that,
I would consider HH Sri Satchidanandendra Saraswati
Swamiji more orthodox than the other schools. He only
relies on Shankara and Gaudapada for his teaching. 

BTW, there is no existent effect, only apparent
effect, and hence only apparent cause - adhyasa. No
one believes that the apparent silver in nacre has to
be removed first by the true knowledge of nacre. It is
only one’s own false notions of it that has to be
removed(Su. Bh). How else could one reconcile "tat
tvam asi" here and now?

If the upanishads are broadminded enough to accept
Satyakama into the teaching, who are we to decide
orthodoxy of schools?

Regards,
Savithri


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com