mahesh.ursekar at gmail.com
Sat Jul 22 09:48:17 CDT 2006
Thanks again for your reply. From your description of "sarvajnah" as applied
to Brahman and Iswara, Krishna was Iswara and not Brahman - since he
"displayed omniscience". Is that correct or am I missing something?
Thanks in advance, Mahesh
On 7/21/06, S.N. Sastri <sn.sastri at gmail.com> wrote:
> This brings up another question that was bothering me with regard to the
> Atman. If we consider two schools - Jaina and Samkhya - both regard the
> as omniscient, then how is it that they differ in the above regard? Both
> schools believe that a person can get omniscient knowledge (kevali jnana
> kaivalya mukti respectively) while alive so supposedly, their teachings
> should have corroborated. Why this difference then?
> Humble pranams, Mahesh
> I have not studied Jaina philosophy and so I am not able to answer this
> question. As regards Sankhya, they consider the Purusha as pure
> consciousness and devoid of any activity. Omniscience implies the act of
> knowing. So the Purusha in Sankhya is not 'omniscient' because it has no
> activity.It is only consciousness. In Advaita also, Brahman is not
> 'omniscient'. It is pure consciousness. Brahman associated with mAyA, i.e.
> ISvara, is omniscient. The word sarvajnah, when applied to Brahman, has to
> be split up as sarvam cha jnah ca iti sarvajnah; i.e. what is all, and
> jnaptisvarUpa or pure consciousness is Brahman. When the word sarvajnah is
> applied to ISvara, it has to be split up as sarvam jAnAti iti sarvajnah-
> who knows everything.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list