[Advaita-l] Does Brahman Know?

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

>  *Sri Subrahmanian, you said that all the attributes of Ishwara are
> possible
> in relation to this world only. Even when nothing exists (not even time),
> Ishwara exists. Therefore, trans-temporal existence (pure existence) is an
> essential attribute of Ishwara and trans-relational because there is
> nothing
> else to relate to. *
>


The negation of all attributes from Brahman is spoken of only when the world
is held to be unreal/non-existent and not when the manifest world has gone
into the unmanifest state called pralaya.  The concept of Ishwara in Advaita
is relevant only when the concept of the world is admitted. In the absence
of the world, there is no Ishwara but only Brahman.  The mAnDUkya kArikA:

न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिः न बद्धो  न च  साधकः ।
न मुमुक्षुः न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता ॥   2.32
32 There is neither dissolution nor creation, none in bondage and none
practicing disciplines. There is none seeking Liberation and none liberated.
This is the absolute truth.

depicts the situation we are talking about.



> **
> The Uddhavagita provides the basis for the Advaitic declaration: Brahma
> satyam jagat mithyA, jIvo brahmaiva na paraH.
> **
> * Why is jagat not Brahman? The difference between Ishwara, Jiva and
> Brahman
> is only the nature of Upadhi. On removal of upadhi, all this is Brahman
> only. From an ultimate point of you, you said that jagat is unreal (asatya)
> but then why say jagat is mithya (sad asad lakshana) in a statement that
> says the ultimate reality of jIva?*
>

'Unreal' is what 'mithyA' is.  'asatya' also means the same.


> **
> *You concluded that jIva is untimately witness. For a kshetrajna to exist,
> there has to be a kshetra.  As kshetra does not exist, there can be no
> kshetrajna also. Is it not like saying son of a barren woman? *
>

True, 'kshetrajna'-status is relative only to 'kshetra'.  The 'witness' in
that Uddhavagita verse is spoken of only in relation to the three states of
waking, etc.  When the world, in other words, the three states, is held to
be not there in absolute terms, there is no scope for the use of the term
'witnesss' / 'kshetrajna' with respect to the jiva.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v