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

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 4:17 AM, D Gayatri <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com> wrote:

> > 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.
>
> Advaitins give importance to vyavahAra also.


That exactly is the question -- why give importance even after you know
that it is the avidyA druShti ?



> Just because rice and
> stones are both superimposed on brahman and are both mithya, it does
> not mean that one can eat stones instead of rice.
>
>
You cannot eat so because they are not mithya. The difference between them
is indeed a reality.




>
> > 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?
>
> Check Shankara's bhAshya on BSB 3.2.17. Narayana shows his Vishwaroopa
> to Narada and implies that it is due to mAyA that Narada is seeing Him
> like that.
>
> Also, check out bhagavatpAda's interpretation for neti neti in BU. If
> brahman is forever guNapUrNa, then neti neti is not the best
> description of brahman at all. But the BU itself says this is the best
> description. So brahman is truly nirvishesha.
>
>
I am asking for pramANas, instead you are showing pouruShEya logic on
shruti's nEti nEti. It is sahavakASha and can yiled to alternate
interpretation. You do not have any direct niravakASha pramANas to convey
illusory nature of Vishnu.



>
> >> 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?
>
>
> When He is knowing the world with all its jIvas and their karmas, the
> knowing is illusory because the world is also illusory.
>

The why did you invoke the non-existing difference by saying " 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" ?

Is it false then often quoted vachana in advaitic circles that without
Ishwara prasAda advaita vAsana is not possible?



>
> > 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.
>
>
> Even that granting the knowledge and destruction of avidya are equally
> mithya! Acharya GaudapAda says that there is no bondage, no one
> seeking liberation, nothing has been ever created etc.
>

Then again Acharya GaudapAda did not argue for supremacy of one dEvata over
other neither. It is you have a quite self contradictory position.



>
> However, none of this reduces the importance of vyavahAra, as long as
> one is not a mukta. Advaitins still work for a living, eat normal food
> and take care of their families in day to day life.
>

This stand "as long as one is not mukta" is real or itself a mithya?

Many people think this vyavahAra and paaramartha are two avasthas in a
liner time scale which comes one after the other. It is not correct. Do not
forget the nature of mithya as defined is something which was/is not there
in all three periods of time. It is not that vyavahAra was there once and
not there afterwords, kind of understanding.

/sv.