[Advaita-l] Omniscience ..........
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Fri Jan 3 00:47:30 CST 2014
Dear Sri Chandramouli,
While making a statement:
// I do not think statements like the one made by Sri Subrahmanianji in
isolation contribute to a correct understanding of the advaitic stand. //
I think you are yourself not sure what the 'correct advaitic stand' is
since you also say:
// Meanwhile i would like to mention that the above statement is very
misleading if not an incorrect representation of advaita sidhanta.//
Since this forum is dedicated to the discussion of Advaita as taught by
Shankara BhagavatpAda, I would like you to state what your understanding of
Advaita is so that the members can hope to have a *correct* understanding
See also below for some more responses:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:55 AM, H S Chandramouli
<hschandramouli at gmail.com>wrote:
> Namaste. Since the current issue is different from the one discussed
> earlier i have started it as a fresh thread.
> Sri Subrahmanianji wrote
> < The thread started by me was about the apAramArthic
> nature of omniscience etc. in Advaita and that all such attributes are only
> world-jiva dependent and that without the world-jiva there is no place for
> the said attributes in Brahman and that the idea of dependent reality,
> paratantra sattA/satyam is no different from the vyAvahArika satyam
> otherwise known as mithyA or sadasadvilakShaNa. >.
> Sri Bhaskarji had earlier expressed some reservations on this issue and
> perhaps will continue from where he had left off once his office
> commitments permit. His earlier comments are valid if this is the complete
> statement of advaita sidhanta. Meanwhile i would like to mention that
> theabove statement is very misleading if not an incorrect representation of
> advaita sidhanta. It does not convey that omniscience, creation etc is
> indeed Brahman only. Mandukya mentions < soyamatma chatushpat > . Nodoubt
> the first three are of a lower level of reality but they are Brahman only.
> The complete statement would be as follows.
> < Omniscience is Brahman, but Brahman is not Omniscience, but only appears
> to be so > .
> < Iswara is Brahman but Brahman is not Iswara but appears to be Iswara > .
> < Creation is Brahman, but Brahman is not creation but appears to be so > .
I do not see anything different in content than what I have 'stated'
above. The word 'appearance' in your three statements above only translate
to the idea of 'dependent reality' that I have used. Apart from using a
different word you have not stated anything other than what I have
conveyed. In fact Sri Bhaskar ji has highlighted before the idea of
'sarvajnatva, etc. are avidyAkalpita' by citing the famous statements from
the BSB 2.1.14.
> Similar statements are valid for everything that we can think of. Sri
> Bhagavatpada advances his Doctrine of Maya for the interpretation of the
> Shrutis accordingly. This also addresses the concerns expressed by Sri
> Bhaskarji in his first reaction earlier. But i think a detailed discussion
> of the entire scope of the maya doctrine is beyond the scope of this forum.
This forum will not bar any discussion conducted in a civil manner without
deviating from the larger area of Advaita.
> I do not think statements like the one made by Sri Subrahmanianji in
> isolation contribute to a correct understanding of the advaitic stand.
I do not understand what you mean by 'in isolation'. If it means that I
must quote extensively from various bhashyas of the Acharya, then I would
think that a post in a thread would not warrant it. From the leads
provided in a post one is expected to make more enquiry and or ask
questions if something is not clear. Rather than making empty statements
like the ones made by you, it would help members if you cite bhAShya
passages which you think contradict the passages I have cited.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list