[Advaita-l] Re: gauDapAda kArikA-s

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Sun, 25 May 2003, kalyan chakravarthy wrote:

> >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.
>

So are you saying prakrti is not also part of Brahman?  If it is than how
do you justify treating "material" vs "transcendental"?

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

That Brahman is free from _all_ attributes is known from the Gita.  Again
why the distinction between material and transcendental?

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

You are I'm afraid.  Sammohitam means _He_is_deluding_Himself_.  There is
only one true entity, Brahman.  So any illusion that we can speak of has
to be 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.
>

Only if avidya were the totality of Brahman.  It might help if I drew a
picture. (if it looks messed up, use a fixed space font like courier.)

  +------------------+
  | +------+         |
  | |Avidya|         |
  | +------+         |
  |                  |
  |     Brahman      |
  |                  |
  |                  |
  |                  |
  +------------------+


I can say "the locus of the small box is in the left hand corner of
the larger box."  But can I say "the smaller box is the larger box"?


> 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.

Yes but again it is a necessary part of Vedanta becuse we (meaning
advaita-l readers) are finite beings of space and time who normally deal
with concepts like loci (locuses?) When one finally moves beyond that
level a locus isn't necessary but by that point Vedanta isn't necessary
either.

> 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.

You have it backwards.  Mr. X is deluded.  delusion is unreal.  Therefore
Mr. X is not deluded.  Actually the sequence of events is probably more
like this:

1. Mr. X thinks he is not deluded.

2. Mr. X learns from study of the shastras that view 1 is a delusion.

3. After further study Mr. X learns that both 1 and 2 are unreal.

4. For that matter Mr. X-ness is also unreal.

5. Brahman (no Mr. X at this point) _knows_ it is not deluded.

> 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.
>

Unacceptable to whom?  The Vedas themselves say that Brahman is prana etc.
It is that identification which is being described here as delusion (but
again I repeat it is a necessary one.)

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
It's a girl! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/