(No subject)

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

There was this strand of discussion on Sep 1, that was not

followed up fully ( or maybe i missed it). could the members

please answer these questions raised by mani on this

date? i enclose a somewhat detailed insert as this was a while ago.

anand

 

>Permit me to play devil's advocate in the rest of this

>email.

>

>> "pirAtti" is also a "vishesanA" for nArAyaNA

>

>This is agreed.

>

>> ie. perumAL is the sarIrI & pirAtti is sarIrA for Him.

>

>Let us also accept this for now.

>

>> aprudhak siddha viseshanA exists between

>> the two. Since perumAL is present as visEshyA & pirAtti as His

>> aprudhak siddha visEshanA , both of them can be referred by a single

>> word . This resolves all the "confusions" . "ekatvam" is not lost.

>

>Why then, is not ekatva lost if caturmukha-brahma is also taken

>as part of the "ekatva", since since caturmukha-brahma is

>also a viseshya in apRthak-siddhi relation to Brahman?

>

>pirATTi's viseshaNatva does not automatically lead to

>ekatva of the jagat-kAraNa, because this could equally

>apply to any jIvAtmA in Brahman's SarIra, or worse,

>to prakRti itself.

>

>> But , pirAtti is also Brahman ( Jagad kAranatvam) & belongs to

>> category of IswarA ie. she is neither a jIvAtmA nor prakruti, but

>> Controller of all jIvAtmAs & achit . She is also "upAyA" & "upEyA".

>> for baddha jIvAtmAs .

>

>The supposition is that SrI and nArAyaNa are distinct tattva-s

>related in a viseshaNa-viseshyA relation. This being the case,

>the same objection from above can be applied here, that this does

>not necessarily mean that SrI must have upAyatva. If furthermore,

>SrI is in the ISvara class as a separate tattva, how at the same

>time can she be SarIra to nArAyaNa? In other words, if the Lord

>is already Infinite, how can she also be Infinite? Can there be

>two Ultimate Infinites?

>