[Advaita-l] Re: gauDapAda kArikA-s

[kalyan chakravarthy]

Namaskaaram,


>Because that verse says, "jIvaM kalpayate pUrvaM"
>
>The question is, who is the one who realizes his own self to be Brahman? 
>"rajjur eveti ... tadvad AtmA" - verse 18. The same person who was deluded 
>before this knowledge rose, right? "sa eva budhyate" says verse 12. It is 
>in that sense that the verse 19 then says, "saMmohitaH svayam".It is not 
>the intention of the kArikA author to say that Brahman is really deluded.

Even in the vyavahArik sense brahman is never deluded. *prakAshAdivannaivam 
parah*. Your arguments are self-defeating. You are saying - "Mr. X is never 
really deluded. But delusion is not real. Therefore Mr.X can be called as 
deluded."

One question here. What is the difference betwen saying that brahman is not 
really deluded and saying that brahman is deluded when you say that delusion 
itself is unreal?

On the other hand since delusion is accepted as a vyavahArik satya, you can 
only say that a jIva is deluded while brahman is NEVER deluded in any sense.


>It is only an "as if". On the other hand, if you posit a REAL difference 
>between jIva and Brahman, in order to say that jIva is deluded but Brahman 
>is not, then you have to necessarily accept that jIva can never REALLY be 
>Brahman.

This is confusion of vyavahArik and paramArthik satyas. You can analyze 
things only in one direction. From the vyavahArik level to the paramArthik 
level. It is like saying that time travel in the backward direction is going 
to produce absurdities such as simultaneous dual existence of a single 
entity. Thus an analysis from the paramArthik viewpoint involves saying that 
"All this never really happened" and nothing more, nothing less.


Best Regards
Kalyan

_________________________________________________________________
Attention NRI! Send money home easily. 
http://server1.msn.co.in/msnleads/citibankrca/citibankrca2.asp Just sign up!