[Advaita-l] Omniscience ..........

[H S Chandramouli]

Dear Sri Subrahmanianji,

>From the tone and tenor of your response , I understand that you have taken
serious offence to my mail. It was not my intention to offend you and since
it has resulted in being so , I offer my unconditional apologies for the
same.

Regards


On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:17 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
> of Advaita.
>
> 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.
>
> regards
> subrahmanian.v
>
> >
> > Regards
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>