[Advaita-l] Who is Ishwara? He is NARAYANA only. Beautiful and soothing Narayana Bhajan
kalyan_kg at yahoo.com
Thu May 25 07:30:52 EDT 2017
Please give reference for the second Sanskrit quotation, so that I will know where exactly to look for.
On Thu, 5/25/17, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Who is Ishwara? He is NARAYANA only. Beautiful and soothing Narayana Bhajan
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>, "Kalyan" <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, May 25, 2017, 10:54 AM
25 May 2017 9:47 a.m., "Kalyan via Advaita-l"
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-
Now, if the Atman is appearing to be affected
by ignorance, to whom does it appear that the Atman is under
ignorance? Who is under the impression that the Atman is
under the ignorance? It should be to the Atman itself for
the Atman is the only conscious entity.
Please note that in saying that Atma
is the only conscious entity, you are already arguing from a
pAramArthika viewpoint - you have therefore admitted that
there are no divisions within it. If Atma is the only thing,
and it happens to be divisionless how can it know anything,
when the very act of knowing requires a division between the
knower, known and the instrument of knowledge? Which is
precisely why Gaudapada says that there is neither mukti nor
bandha, neither a seeker, nor the sought, neither creation
nor destruction for such an Atma. न निरोधो
न चोत्पत्तिर्न बद्धो न
च साधकः । न
मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त
Atman thinks that it is under ignorance when it is not
really under ignorance. But, this is a contradiction since
such a thinking itself is a real ignorance as the Atman is
thinking mistakenly. So the Atman is under ignorance and
free from ignorance, simultaneously. Thus, the advaitic
position leads to a contradiction.
The moment you talk of Atma being
under the impression that it is ignorant, you are already
presupposing that it has a mind with which to form such an
impression. You have already come to vyavahAra. The question
becomes, is Atma aware of its own ignorance (even
mistakenly)? Your argument is based on Atma being under the
impression that it is ignorant - therefore Atma must know
that it is ignorant.
It is precisely because you say Atma
is aware of ignorance (even mistakenly) that ignorance
cannot be its own dharma. Just as fire cannot burn itself,
nor can the eye see itself, the partless conscious
principle, Atma, cannot know an ignorance if it really
belonged to it. Hence Shankaracharya says in the kshetrajna
bhAshya in the Gita
; सर्वकरणवियोगे च
very premise of your question is incorrect. NirguNa Atma
cannot know ignorance for two reasons - it lacks the
instrument with which to know anything, let alone ignorance.
Secondly, even if it does have an instrument, ignorance
cannot be a property of the partless Atma - if it knows an
ignorance, then ipso facto, that ignorance is not a property
of the knower, but the known.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list