[Advaita-l] Causal Body
svidyasankar at hotmail.com
Fri Jun 6 14:02:39 CDT 2003
>But, as per our previous discussion on "gauDapAda kArikA-s" topic, it was
>mentioned that, Advaita holds, whatever you & I perceive here (in
>vyavaharika domain) is ultimately not real in paramArthika level. This
>means, what we perceive here about this world and it's business
>(knowledge-A) is subsequently sublated when one moves from v-level to
>p-level. Don't you agree, this is what Jay is referring to "no guarantee"
I forgot to mention the following in my earlier response. If sAkshI-A means
the sAkshI as per advaita, then there is only one true meaning for
knowledge-A, i.e. the knowledge that is advaita. It is not what we perceive
about this world and its business, for sAkshI-A already knows that all that
is avidyA, and not real knowledge.
It is only sAkshI-D that has a problem with no guarantee for sublation. By
the way, we advaitin-s do not accept your notion of sAkshI-D, because what
you call sAkshI-D is just another name for buddhi - the function of
antaHkaraNa that takes care of niScaya and vyavasAya or adhyavasAya. It is
buddhi that determines what is true/valid in daily experience, and that is
the reason it is distinguished from manas, in such instances as, mayyarpita
manobuddhI in gItA and manomaya vs. vijnAnamaya in taittirIyopanishat. If
you want to claim that even advaitins need sAkshI-D, we say, we advaitins
have buddhi inasmuch as we operate in the daily vyavahAra, and we don't need
to postulate yet another sAkshI.
It is totally mistaken to think that there was no dvaita in the time of
Sankara, and therefore he did not address it. How is sAkshI in dvaita
different from purusha in sAMkhya? There was a nirISvara sAMKhya and a
seSvara sAMkhya (also called pAtanjala sAMkhya) that preceded Sankara. He
already addressed everything that there was to address in regard to dvaita,
when he discussed sAMkhya and yoga.
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list