[Advaita-l] Shankara on non-Advaitic mokSha/Brahman

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

I don't see why you say anyone is changing the rules. The logic is simple. "If P, then Q" implies, "if not-Q, then not-P". It says nothing about if not-P, then what.
 
If spatio-temporal limitations, then not-absolute. This means, If absolute, then no spatio-temporal limitations. This leaves open a possibility for the existence of some entity that has no spatio-temporal limitations, yet is not-absolute.
 
Here is another mathematical way to think about it. You are no doubt aware of the conceptual difference between countable and uncountable infinities. Think of saguNa brahman as countably infinite, one guNa after another, and of nirguNa brahman as uncountably infinite.
 
Vidyasankar
 

> To: bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com; advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> From: rajaramvenk at gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:05:45 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Shankara on non-Advaitic mokSha/Brahman
> 
> You can't arbitrarily change the rules to defend a siddhanta. If you reject some thing as non-absolute because it has spacio-temporal limitations, then you have to accept saguna brahman as absolute. He is, by definition, the creator of space and time and beyond limitations. When you accept saguna brahman as such, you have to do so with his maya. Sun and His heat are non-different. 
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
>