[Advaita-l] Re: The current advaita-dvaita debate
svidyasankar at hotmail.com
Fri Jun 20 17:25:26 CDT 2003
The following post may be moot, as Jay Nelamangala has been unsubscribed
from this list, but I thought I should address a few points. If he is
reading the archives, let it be on record that his parting comments did not
Re: the schools of vallabha and caitanya, Jay Nelamangala wrote:
>In any case, none of these schools were started because they had
>difficulties with dvaita.
This comment misses the point. All those later authors who started new
schools had ample opportunity to study dvaita literature and become members
of the dvaita camp. They chose not to, and came up with a "Suddha"-advaita
and an "acintya" bhedAbheda school, thereby indicating that they had to find
a place for abheda/advaita somewhere in their own system. So much for the
claim about how the scriptures do not teach advaita at all.
Re: brahman as jagadeka-kAraNa,
>aprAkrita JagadEka-kAraNa is the kAraNa for prakrit also
In what sense is brahman the kAraNa for prakRti? If you accept that prakRti
comes into being by brahman's will, where did it come from? Out of nothing
or out of brahman itself? If the former, then one has to remember, nAsato
vidyate bhAvaH. If the latter, then one has to accept that the changeless
brahman can give rise to an effect that is full of change, i.e. prakRti, and
yet remain unchanged in the process. Therefore, one has to accept that the
properties of the effect can thus be diametrically different from those of
the cause, and that the properties of the effect do not affect the
properties of the cause.
It follows that what advaitins say about the reality or otherwise of the
world, the effect, does not affect what they say about the reality of
brahman, the cause. QED.
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list