[Advaita-l] dva suparNA

[H S Chandramouli]

Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,

Reg  <<   I was referring to your statement that Bhagavatpada had
interpreted kshetragya as Iswara in PRB also.>>

My mistake attributable to carelessness/laxity in discussing vedantic
issues !!. It applies to other places also where I have committed the same
error. It should be read as Sakshi instead of Iswara.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Regards

Chandramouli

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Sri Chandramouliji,
>
> Thanks for your email.
>
> I don't see any difference between the kUtastha chaitanyam and nirguNa
> brahma chaitanyam. Any difference, if at all, can be attributed only from
> the upAdhi point of view, from the chaitanyam point of view both are the
> same.
>
> I also believe PRB was referring to kUtastha only in 1.2.12 (pls see my
> email to Sri Harsha yesterday), and since I don't see any difference
> between that and nirguNa brahman, I said kshetragya refers to Brahman here.
>
> I believe AchArya does the same when he says ब्रह्मस्वभाव
> चैतन्यमात्रस्वरूपाः, but perhaps I should have been clearer.
>
> In any case, my point is not to whether to call it sAkshi or nirguNa
> Brahman here, but that one can't call it saguNa Iswara here (PRB/BSB
> 1.2.12) - I was referring to your statement that Bhagavatpada had
> interpreted kshetragya as Iswara in PRB also.
>
> As an aside, I believe Sri NishchaladAsa makes the same interpretation of
> dvA suparNA in vichAra sAgara (kUtastha/chidAbhAsa as the two birds).
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>