[Advaita-l] An instance of Advaita wrongly comprehended

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:14 PM, <rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

> In ishadhikaranaman, daharadhikaranam, BG 8, 15 etc. he explains
> nirupadhika ishwara clearly. There is no room for your position that He is
> not atma, no satyasankalpa etc. in Sankara's works. Nirupadhika Brahman /
> Ishwara is a  homogenous totality or purnam and hence negation of absolute
> reality of all particulars. Period.
>

Could you pl. quote Shankara's sentences to the efect that satyasankalpa,
etc. pertains to the nirupAdhika Brahman?

>
> I pointed out a mistake in your position that formless also implies
> nameless because Avyakta is formless but not nameless. No response. I
> pointed out to Sri Subrahmanian that Avyakta is not always considered
> insentient with reference to SB. No response.
>

Again, quote Shankara's sentences to substantiate your view.  I have also
pointed out that in BG 8th chapter the word avyakta occurs twice in one
verse with two different meanings: one as anAtmA and the other as Brahman.

>
> If you agree with Sri Subrahmanian, you can very well agree with dualists.
> He is such a nice dualist who sees the difference between body and soul
> distinctly.


Seeing the distinction between the body and soul is the core of Vedanta
sadhana.  The whole of BG 13th chapter is about this.  In fact the very
first verse starts with this declaration.  Pl. get your basics right.


> He and Madhwas that he fights with may see a jnani's body as distinct from
> the Self. But as Sankara points outs in mamAtma verse quoted earlier, a
> jnani or god does not. His is the indescribable (lack of) view of the
> jewels by gold.
>

All completely wrong ideas.  Pl. do not confuse the members here.

>
> If a jnani sees and experiences the world just like others, then he should
> experience delusion and sorrow.


The teaching about the sthitaprajna is about how the Jnani stands insulated
from delusion and sorrow despite being exposed to their possibility.  pl.
study the second chapter of BG with the bhashya.


> If you agree he does not then you should agree his experience is different
> or ask him to consult a psychologist. I am not saying he sees a cat as a
> pot but he sees them in terms of their underlying reality as manifestations
> caused through the instrument of maya in/on Him, the Self of all.
>

It is 'seeing' (not ocular perception) the underlying reality that is what
is being aware of this reality.  Shankara says in the 13th chapter: asadeva
sadiva avabhAsate:  That which is non-existent alone appears as though
existing.  If only you go through the several quotations from the Bhashya
that I have provided in this thread you will  understand how far from the
reality is your understanding.  Especially see the one from BSB 4.1.15
where Shankara talks about the co-existence of the body along with the
experience of Self-realization.  Then you will realize the error in your
comments.

subrahmanian.v