[Advaita-l] Causal Body
jay at r-c-i.com
Fri Jun 6 16:04:58 CDT 2003
>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.
How sAkshI-A already know this? In fact, sAkshee-A is a silent witness
to both right and wrong knowledge. It is only sAkshee-D that can
between what is real knowledge and what is not real knowledge based on
the "internal consistency" of what is presented to it.
So you will have to first accept that all of you have only sAkshee-D if you
say if already can distinguish between what is avidyA and what is real
Then we will talk about knowledge-A.
sAkshee-D is not buddhi. sAkshee-D is jeeva-swaroopa, buddhi is another
faculty like the mind, ego etc.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vidyasankar Sundaresan" <svidyasankar at hotmail.com>
To: <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 3:02 PM
Subject: RE: [Advaita-l] Causal Body
> >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"
> >knowledge-A ?
> I forgot to mention the following in my earlier response. If sAkshI-A
> 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
> about this world and its business, for sAkshI-A already knows that all
> 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,
> 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
> 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
> when he discussed sAMkhya and yoga.
> Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> want to unsubscribe or change your options? See:
> Need assistance? Contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list