[Advaita-l] Shankara authenticates Shiva as the son of Brahma

[Venkatraghavan S]

Interesting points raised by Sri Srinath. Would be good if you could
provide replies, Smt Gayatri. It is OK if your reply generates a flood of
emails - we have already crossed that bridge.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On 16 Aug 2016 10:50 p.m., "Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Dear Gayatri,
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 2:11 PM, D Gayatri <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > And one more thing Sri Srinath. Despite all my posts supporting Vishnu as
> > vedAntic Brahman, I hold that Vishnu's Ishwaratva is ultimately unreal
> and
> > only nirvishesha Brahman (NB) is ultimately real.
>
>
>
> If so, why argue for who is superior? Do anyone argue whether snake seen on
> rope illusion is Adi Shesha or Taksha ? Both are equally unreal.
>
> Let me ask you, you argued for Vishnu's superiority based on so many
> pramANa-s including critical edition of Mbh and that is good. In the same
> line, I am curious to see how you can support illusory nature of VishNu
> based on the same set of pramANa-s. Could you please do that?
>
>
>
> > Vishnu, devoid of His Ishwaratva is NB and I, devoid of my jIvatva am NB.
> > Difference is that he knows and I don't know. And his grace is needed to
> > obtain jnAna and only this jnAna can destroy avidya.
>
>
> What is the locus of this knowing/unkowing? Is Vishnu's knowing aspect
> belongs to His chid (which is real)? or is it one of many arOpita guNa-s on
> Him which are illusory?
>
> If it is former, then you are invoking nAnatvaM in Brahman, for since chid
> of vishnu is one & the same as chid of you, and having both knowledge (from
> instance of Vishnu appearance) and ignorance (from instance of your
> appearance) located in the same chid. Then what happens to nEhA nAnAsti
> kiMchana? Also you will contradict Shankara who denys pramaritva of Atman
> (na ca agneriva AtmA Atmani viShayaH) if you accept knowledge is
> located/equal to Chid of Vishnu.
>
> If it is later, such knowledge of Him is equally mithya and itself does not
> exist at all in all three period of times, and what to speak about granting
> you that knowledge and destroying your avidya.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > So let me make it clear that even though we both hold Vishnu as vedAntic
> > Brahman, our positions are mutually incompatible.
>
>
>
> I would rather say Vishnu being Brahman is incompatible with Brahman being
> nirviShESha. Either you have to say Vishnu being Brahman (and accept guNa
> pUrNattvaM) or say Brahman is nirviShESha and do not argue which Devata is
> Vedic Brahman. You cannot have it both ways.
>
> /sv
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>