[Advaita-l] Which one is first in the creation sequence

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

>
> Please forgive but I'm a bit surprised by this thread.
>

​I hope you are not like the poster of this post :
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2011-September/029036.html

But, if you are, our reply is like this to such stereotype posts:
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2011-September/029037.html
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2011-September/029051.html

And, if you are not, then see these suggestions :​

​
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2011-September/029038.html
​

Doesn't Gaudapada and Sankara thoroughly establish ajativada tradition in
> the Mandukya Karika?
>

​Yes, they established. But, what do you mean by ajAtavAda ? Don't you
accept that even those who accept ajAtavAda have to explain vyavahAra ? If
no, then I hope you will get a better teacher in future by grace of your
puNya. If yes, then this is what the thread and the whole forum is doing.
​


> For instance, introducing MaKBh 3.23, the purvapaksa suggests that "The
> sruti     that speaks of creation cannot be accepted as a valid proof by
> one who holds that the Self is not born."  Sankara responds that the
> purpose of the sruti is the oneness of Brahman and not creation as that is
> secondary .... and further that, "creation in any other use (than Maya or
> Illusion) is not accepted and it serves no purpose."
>

​To understand that part, you again need help of others. The apparent
meaning which you are suggesting shows that you failed to grasp actual
meaning.
I hope some kind member will help you.
Why not me ?
Because, I'm not writing to explain to you. I got just irritated by such
stereotypical post which are posted by 'brahmaGYAnI-s' and 'ajAtavAdin-s'
now and then on this forum or that.
​


> are we then discussing in the current thread, that which has no purpose?
>

​It has a purpose and to understand that you need a teacher and ability to
think critically.
Teacher may be some other person. But, let me show that you are not
considering other works of sha~NkarAchArya where he extensively delves on
world and it's constituents, as pa~nchIkaraNam. So, just holding a
particular instance of writings of a particular portions while neglecting a
vast amount of his writing - is the error on your part.