[Advaita-l] Re: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 2, Issue 1
svidyasankar at hotmail.com
Sun Jun 1 18:00:08 CDT 2003
>Taittareeya upanishat is saying, parabrahma-jnAnee attains Moksha.
>Attaining Brahman is sometimes expressed as attaining the abode
But according to you, nobody ever has been, is or will be one who is
completely "para-brahma-jnAnI" because every one is doomed to only partial
jnAna. So attaining brahman is impossible in your argument. Right?
>any attribute of Brahman is also Brahman, so His abode is not
>considered different from Him in shAstra. It is only a matter of
Sorry, no. In what "matter of expression" is one supposed to understand the
claim that any attribute of brahman is also brahman?
>So, like Brahman this Brahma-jnAnee also becomes Bruhanta or
>reaches his completeness which is same as attaining Brahman
Anything to reject the advaitic conclusion which logically follows, right?
>But is this completeness same as Parabrahman's compleness?
>Shrutis, sootras, and Geeta in union say - NO.
>SriKrishna has already declared what this Brahma is.
>"mama yOnir mahad brahma tasmin garbham dadAmyaham"
>So, the Brahma in this context is mahAlakshmI.
No, that is your peculiar interpretation. Nowhere in the gItA is there room
to explain it so.
>He is ever filled with untainted bhakti (avyabhichAra bhakti) towards
>VishNu, which is Me. He finds the root of everything that happens only in
>Me without any sort of compromise (avyabhichAra). He is dear to Me just
>chit-prakrti (avyaya ) is dear to Me. By his tattva-jnAna that everything
>is rooted (prathiSHTaa) in Me, even if he reaches Mahaa-lakshmII, because
>of his knowledge that I am the doer of All (sarva-kartr, sarvOttama) in the
>end he attains only Me. (14.26, 14.27).
All of this is based on making unwarranted assumptions. To reiterate, there
is no reason to take mahad brahma as mahAlkashmI. Nowhere does the gItA give
room for the statement "even if he reaches mahAlakshmI".
eko vishNur mahad bhUtaM pRthagbhUtAn anekaSaH ...
ekaH - That is the consistent meaning of all my quotes. ekas san bahudhA
bhAti. tam ekam jnAtvA paramaM sAmyam upaiti; sAmyam upaitItyeva
>I hope all the readers realize the importance of shAstra samanvaya.
>If our interpretation of Veda, Geetha and Sootras produces knowledge
>which is inconsistent with one another or if it contradicts other pramANas
>such as pratyaksha, then it means we have lost Veda itself, and along
>with it goes the entire prasthAna-traya.
Well, your concern is v. good, but to set the record straight, in all our
long history, we advaita vedAtin-s have neither lost veda and/or prasthAna
traya, nor do we subscribe to knowledge that is either inconsistent or
contradictory. And we are in no danger of doing so any time soon ...
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list