[Advaita-l] Who is Ishwara? He is NARAYANA only. Beautiful and soothing Narayana Bhajan

Kalyan 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-
 vedanta.org> wrote
 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
 इत्येषा परमार्थता
 Therefore, the
 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
 संवेद्यत्वाच्च तेषां
 प्रदीपप्रकाशवत् न
 ज्ञातृधर्मत्वम् —
 ; सर्वकरणवियोगे च
 कैवल्ये सर्ववादिभिः
 Therefore, the
 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