[Advaita-l] Re: gauDapAda kArikA-s

[kalyan chakravarthy]

>And pray, define what you mean by material attributes and transcendental 
>attributes, and also justify why you make an arbitrary decision not to 
>include material attributes in a discussion of sa-guNa brahman.

Material attributes are those caused by prakriti,- like sattva, rajas and 
tamas. The guNas of saguNa brahman like imperishability, all-pervasiveness, 
etc. i.e. in short Its sakala kalyANa guNas are transcendental attributes.

That brahman is free from material attributes is known from bhagavad gIta.

>There is no point in arguing around in cirlces. My view is this - nobody 
>but you sees this chimera of brahman being deluded. I do not maintain that 
>brahman is deluded.
>>This is the point. Even as a vyavahArik satya, you cannot say that brahman 
>>is deluded. You would be contradicting bheda sruti if you do
>
>As mentioned above, NOBODY says this. That you think that somebody says 
>this is part of your own delusion.
>

My chimera? My delusion?  Remember that I have said that in any sense, 
brahman is never deluded and let us see what you say/imply from your own 
mails-

*******************************************************************************
However, think about the following. The jIva, being brahman, is also a kind 
of sa-guNa brahman (the guNa-s differ), and according to your own thinking, 
the jIva is deluded.
*******************************************************************************

What is your intention here? saguNa brahman is deluded?

*******************************************************************************
It is only when you equate saguNa brahman with ISvara that you have to 
insist upon ISvara being undeluded.
******************************************************************************

If you look at this carefully, you will realize that you are not making any 
sense out of this and the previous statements.

>gauDapAda does not.

Really? We have seen sammohitah svayam. But of course, you can always accuse 
me of mis-understanding. Let us see who is misunderstanding -

Who is imagining all the objects and the individual self? According to 
gauDapAda, it is the Self. The rest I leave it for you to figure out.

And as for your question *who relaizes his own self as brahman?* The answer 
cannot be brahman anyway because brahman is eternally undeluded, really or 
unreally.(Thanks for accepting that finally)


>Neither does Sankara, nor does sureSvara. Yet, the last author has no 
>qualms in saying that if you want to look for the locus of avidyA, then 
>that locus is brahman.

Dont contradict yourself so openly. We have already seen that if the locus 
of avidya is brahman, then it means that brahman is deluded.

Looking for the locus of avidya is avidya in itself. Moreover, saying that 
brahman is the locus of avidya is the highest avidya. It is as un-vedAntic 
as you can get. You deny this?

>It seems to me that you do not understand how this can be so. You falsely 
>accuse gauDapAda of saying that brahman is deluded, because you 
>misunderstand his text. Enough said.

Question1.   *Who, according to gauDapAda, is imagining all the objects and 
the individual self?*

Question2.   *What is delusion?*

That should settle the issue once and for all.

>>Why does the world not dissolve if one jIva acheives liberation?
>Why should it?

According to your question *who realizes his own self as brahman?*, in case 
you give brahman as the answer. If you say brahman is not the answer, then 
you cannot defend gauDapAda.


>As mentioned above, NOBODY says this. That you think that somebody says 
>this is part of your own delusion.

This once again is from your own mail -

********************************************************************************
It is not the intention of the kArikA author to say that Brahman is really 
deluded. It is only an "as if".
********************************************************************************

I have pointed out why this argument is self defeating. Mr. X is not 
deluded. But delusion is unreal. Therefore Mr.X is deluded. *A classic 
example of confusion of vyavahArik and paramArthik satyas*

Your reasoning points to one conclusion alone -  brahman is unreally 
deluded. Since you imply that brahman is *deluded* in some sense, I have 
said that even that is unacceptable.


>I can well understand why you do not get it, but refrain from repeating 
>myself, for the result will still remain your not getting it.

I am amazed by your confidence in my *impaired understanding capabilities*

>You misunderstand again. It isn't my reasoning, but yours that tells you 
>that everything that anyone tells you is avidyA. I just wrote it out 
>explicitly, for the purpose of verbalizing the argument and showing you how 
>it would lead to absurd conclusions.

Since I accept jIvanmuktas, I dont face any such problem.

>And pray, who is the jIvanmukta - the jIva or brahman? If the former, as he 
>continues to remain in a body, and as he sleeps and wakes up daily, he is 
>deluded (according to YOUR reasoning, not according to mine). If the 
>latter, he cannot sleep and wake up daily, and he cannot even remain 
>embodied. Do you mean to say that the jIvanmukta jumps from being undeluded 
>brahman in the turIya state to a deluded jIva in the other states? And what 
>is it then, that causes the change from one state to another?

Which is why I said, *what a jIvanmukta undergoes is not our guess*.

>As I said before, NOBODY says that brahman is deluded, although you seem to 
>think that someone does. If you wish to tilt at windmills, there is little 
>anyone can do except to point out to you that it is quite futile.

You have said it. Brahman is unreally deluded. And there are some of your 
friends here who maintain that position intentionally or otherwise. You deny 
it? Please make *truth* as the basis of your arguments.

>In what manner would you distinguish between the waking state of a 
>jIvanmukta and that of another? What is it then, when a jIvanmukta eats, 
>sleeps and wakes up? Finally, how would you know that a given person is a 
>jIvanmukta and that another is not?

The question does not arise. *What a jIvanmukta undergoes is not anybody's 
guess* You have an alternative?

All in all, it is better to argue on the basis of truth.

_________________________________________________________________
Got a wish? Make it come true. 
http://server1.msn.co.in/msnleads/citibankpersonalloan/index.asp Best 
personal loans!