[Advaita-l] Re: gauDapAda kArikA-s
kalyan chakravarthy
kalyan_kc at hotmail.com
Wed May 28 12:46:09 CDT 2003
Namaste,
>So are you saying prakrti is not also part of Brahman? If it is than how
>do you justify treating "material" vs "transcendental"?
I never talked about prakriti being or not being a part of brahman.
>That Brahman is free from _all_ attributes is known from the Gita. Again
>why the distinction between material and transcendental?
No disagreement here. But since the context is saguNa brahman, I have not
touched upon the topic of nirguNa brahman.
>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.
This point has already been refuted. Refer to the previous mail.
>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"?
In that case you must assume that a part of brahman is being deluded, while
another part remains undeluded.
>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.
But even the upanishads or brahmaSutras dont attribute any delusion to
brahman. So, we as finite beings in space and time need not do that.
>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.
Couldn't have agreed with you better. But notice that even your reasoning
does not show that brahman is deluded.(no Mr.X in the final point)
>The Vedas themselves say that Brahman is prana etc.
But not to show that brahman is deluded.
>It is that identification which is being described here as delusion (but
>again I repeat it is a necessary one.)
Delusion. Yes.
To brahman. No.
Best Regards
Kalyan
_________________________________________________________________
Reconnect with old pals. Relive the happy times.
http://www.batchmates.com/msn.asp With just one click.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list