[Advaita-l] dva suparNA
H S Chandramouli
hschandramouli at gmail.com
Fri Nov 13 03:26:47 CST 2015
Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,
I had some difficulty in relating specific points from your posts to my
observations set forth below. You may please consider it in totality.
Iswara is always Saguna, He is Saguna Brahman. In the Shruti and Bhashyam,
the words Iswara and Nirguna Brahman have been used interchangeably in
many places. Whether Saguna or Nirguna is meant is to be determined
Same appears to apply to Kutastha/Sakshi and Iswara also. For example, in
the Mundaka verse under discussion, the Mundaka Bhashyam clearly mentions
Iswara ( with all his sagunatvam specifically stated ) as the second bird
अनश्नन् अन्यः इतरः ईश्वरो नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावः सर्वज्ञः
सत्त्वोपाधिरीश्वरो नाश्नाति ।
Hence in my view it is sufficient , in understanding the Bhashya/Shruti ,
to distinguish between Jiva on the one hand and Brahman(
nirguna)/Iswara(saguna)/Kutastha/Sakshi on the other ( to be understood
contextually and according to individual temperament of the sadhaka).
This is in continuation to my earlier post.
Hope I make sense.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> On 13 Nov 2015 07:41, "Jaldhar H. Vyas via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> I just want to concur that the second bird is not nirguNa brahman in the
> munDakopaniShad context because both birds are in the "samAna vR^ikSha"
> i.e. the sharIra.
> Sri Jaldhar,
> I have no problems if you prefer to call the second bird as sAkshi instead,
> but sAkshi is nirguNa brahman, so I don't agree with your statement saying
> it is not nirguNa brahman.
> The lakshyArtha of tat and tvam have to be the same.
> 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