Imprecision in religious conversations

[Guest guest]

It is funny - I posted this mail in the morning at 9:15am with a copy to

myself. I checked and I had advaitin alright in my address

field. But I got an adviatic response saying that there is an error in my

address and the response was from nobody (AT) onelist (DOT) May be there is nobody

outthere other than myself, and the rest is all real maaya!

 

Any way I am posting it again to see if pases through nobody to somebody.

Sorry if you receive this two times. But you are real anyway!

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

Remailed at 12:50

-----------------------

 

I could not respond to Allen Curry's quite enlightening and challenging

discussions few days ago, as I was tied up with my work. Allen raised so

many arguments that it is difficult to know where to begin. I saw Sri Greg

and f. maiello addressed the issues very adequately. There is not really

much that I can add to their arguments. But here are summary of my

thoughts for whatever they are worth. They may be to some extent a rehash

of what has already been responded by Greg and f. maiello. Since I donot

know where to begin, I start with the very beginning statements of Allen

that established the line of his arguments and only discuss that part.

 

----------------------

Allen's model starts: The universe could be an interacting set of quantum

fields which produce nervous systems which produce consciousness in which a

representation of some aspects of that universe appear.

--------------------------

 

This model assumes consciousness is a product of matter (production by the

interactive universal fields that produce nervous systems and with further

interaction produce consciousness). Sequence indicates that consciousness

is product of a reaction between the universal fields and human nervous

system. Ignoring for the time being the details of the production of the

nervous system, the model presupposes the existence of human nervous system

and the universal fields to start with, for them to interact further to

produce consciousness. There are only two possibilities:

 

The pre-existing nervous system belongs to a 1) a dead or unconscious human

or being, or 2) living or conscious human or being. Either choice will

invalidate the model.

 

1)If it is a dead human, the nervous systems is inert and there are no

conscious elements (if I am allowed to use such a word) to enliven the

nervous system (or for the system to function). Since matter by itself

is an unconscious entity, it is lacking self-consciousness. If the creation

of consciousness to be possible, then, there must be pre-existing conscious

elements in the parent reactants ( intrinsically at least if not

extrinsically) to produce the product which is conscious. No-thing can

come from nothing. This invalidates presupposition since it implies a

non-existence consciousness to come into existence at some time sequence.

In fact there cannot be any non-existent consciousness, as it is a

self-contradictory - Interestingly this in vedantic terminology is

called - praagaabhaava aprati yogini - prak means before and abhaava means

non-existence. Prati yogini means the current existence proves the

previous non-existence - like here is pot. The current existence of the

pot which is a product of an intelligent creation (obviously involving a

conscious entity), proves its non-existence as a pot before (then only we

say the pot is a creation -- but it cannot be created from nothing, it has

to be created from upadaana kaarna, a material cause, a clay. Here the

reactant cause, clay, and the product, pot, are of the same nature since

both are inert or non-conscious). But with 'a' in front of pratiyogini,

implies it is counter to the creation aspect - that is consciousness

existence is beginning-less. In Chandigya, the teacher Uddaalaka

explaining the creation to his son, Swetaketu, says: hai soumya!, hai good

looking one!, sadeva idam agra asiit, Ekameva adviteeyam. Existence was

there before the creation and it is one without a second. He goes on later

.... tad aikshyata, bahu syaam, prajaayeyeti. It saw and decided to become

many and became many. Since he says it saw, which is an activity involving

a conscious entity, that existence entity is also conscious entity, and

since it was one without a second, seeing implies only a self-consciousness

existent entity. - it is sat and chit and one without a second implies

infinite entity, ananda, too.

 

But Uddalaka also presents the counter arguments similar to what Allen

presented, and but then refutes those arguments.

 

tad eka aahuH| asateva idamagra asiit, Eka mevaadvitiiyam| tasmaat asataH

sajjayata|

 

Some say that non-existence was there in the beginning, which was one

without a second, and from that the existence was born|

 

kutastu khalu soumya eva syaaditi ho vaacha, katham asataH sajjayata|

 

Uddlaka questions - How can one say that ( implying even to say or to

recognize, a existent conscious entity has to be there to know that

existence of a non-existence! How can existence can be born of

non-existence. The same argument applies to consciousness since what was

there before the creation was existent consciousness, one without a second.)

 

satveva soumya idam agra asiit, Eka meva advitiiyam||

 

Hence Uddalaka reaffirms - indeed existence was there alone before creation

and it was one without a second- there cannot be anything other than

existence, since if some second thing exists then automatically it becomes

part of the existence - hence consciousness existence has to be one without

a second)

 

Hence it is paagaabhaava aprati yogini - meaning essentially it is

beginingless. ( Not to confuse everybody- the same definition is also used

for ignorance or avidya too - but it involves different logic). We have

invalidated the first of the two possibilities.

 

2) Now the second possibility is that the nervous system belongs to a

conscious entity, for it to produce consciousness by the interaction with

the universal quantum fields! This is invalid which vedanta tarka sastra

calls as - 'siddha-saadhana' - establishing something what is already been

established.

 

I advice strongly Allen and those who are interested to study - The famous

book - Advaita Siddhi by Sri Madhusudhana Saraswati - Hair splitting logic

is used to dismiss the objectors arguments - especially Vedanta Desikaa's -

hundred abuses against advaita - The point I am making is that Allen's

arguments were in one form or other have been raised again and again in the

past, and have been logically answered by the advaitic masters - yet

Advaita is beyond logic

 

Most of the rest of the arguments presented by Allen follow the premise of

the origin of the consciousness which is invalidated above - it is the same

as the origin of the existence.

 

Now can the existence exist without being conscious, which Allen seems to

resort to - Greg and Frank have addressed this issue. We have established

that there cannot be non-existent consciousness since that is

self-contradictory, since it says essentially non-existent consciousness

exists. How about the other way around - Can there be a non-conscious

existence in the beginning. This is what Allen is implying. There are two

problems in this assertion:

 

(1) Let us say in principle, it is possible, but then, who will know that

existence - as Greg and Frank posed in their responses.

 

Advaita vedanta is addressed to a conscious entity. All means of

knowledge, including sastra pramana (pramaana means, means of knowledge -

like perception, inference etc.), are valid for, and also validated by, a

conscious entity. Science (shaastra), and logic obviously has no meaning

to a dead or inert one.

 

(2) The second problem is, since now there is a conscious entity asking

these questions; where, when and how that conscious entity came into

existence from its non-existence before. Birth of conscious entity from

non-conscious entity has to be invoked putting into some black box of

"some-how" around it - Black box is covered, with a tight lid, since we

are invoking something from nothing or something from contradictory nature

of parent or reactants which are non-conscious by assumption, and a product

which is conscious in nature since it is there now, asking these questions.

 

Hence advaita Vedanta rejects the assertion that consciousness is born out

of non-consciousness. Sat and Chit are its intrinsic nature of the

primordial universe.

 

I pose now a new question, which Allen might have asked, but Vedanta asks

too, to push the student to go even deeper.

 

If consciousness-existence is there as one without a second then how one

can explain the existence of the unconscious or inert matter like the

pot, nervous system, and the universal quantum fields, etc.,etc., that we

see.

 

We again have two possibilities:

 

1) We can pre-suppose that there were two existences(if I am allowed to use

that plural) from the beginning -(may be Allen calls this as duel) - one a

conscious existence entity and the other non-conscious existence entity

(jadam in sanskrit), since consciousness cannot be born from

unconsciousness and also the otherway around. Bhagavan Ramanuja and Madva

resorted to this possibility saying - Paramaatma satyam and Jagat satyam -

Of course the conscious entity is further split into two - Paramaatma and

jiiva, the Lord and the individuals - One is all pervading and macroscopic,

and the other is limited and local. The all pervasiveness for the

Paramaatma or the limited pervasiveness for the jiiva has to be invoked,

otherwise neither will be conscious of their worlds. Proof for the

existence of local or jiiva is not needed (since he is there already

self-evident to prove or disprove) and the proof for existence of

Paramaatma is implied either by inference or by shaastra. Of course, to

make sure that the all pervading one is the Almighty one, he/it has to

pervade the the primordial non-conscious entity too. Essentially saying

the conscious entity pervades the unconscious entity - both at jiiva level

and at Paramaatma level. This model leaves us with hierarchical system;

local and global consciousness entities along with non-conscious entity.

The question that leaves us wondering then is why or how did I end up with

a short stick - or as local or microcosmic consciousness entity, which is

appears to be rather unfair. There are other questions that raise as well

as if there are more than one consciousness(es), one consciousness become

an object of other consciousness. Object being a jadam, that reduces the

consciousness to jadam violating the premise.

 

2) The second possibility is that there is only one existence that is

conscious; since it is there asking questions and we cannot produce it out

from unconscious entity. Then what about the inert matter that we see. If

there is only one and that has to be conscious entity, then the existence

of unconscious entity is not real but only apparent, since (a) it is there

since we see it, b) it is temporal - jaayate gachate iti jagat that which

comes and goes - it is there in the waking state and a different jagat in

the dream state and homogenous ignorance in the deep sleep state without

any sajaati, vijaati swagata bedhaas, without any differences between of

the same kinds, different kinds and parts in the same kind. c) The

existence of the inert, jadam, or the universe (at least the confirmation

of its existence) pre-supposes the existence of consciousness or awareness-

Here it reduces to thoughts and since awareness has to pervade the thought

wave, it becomes its essence.(see my discussion with Greg). Hence the

inert is only a name and form for the consciousness since we are conscious

of - it is consciousness playing a duel role, seer and the seen - the seen

being apparent to the seer. Duality that Allen eludes to, is recognized,

but it is also recognized that this duality is only apparent duality, hence

called Maaya. Inertness is only apparent just like the dream world that

we experience in the mind which is only apparent, but appears to be real

to the dreamer or to the deluded. Hence this model rejects that there are

two, one a conscious existent entity and the other non-conscious existent

entity, the world. Here is where shaastra (vedanta shaastra), anubhava

(experience of sages) and anumaana, inference, all come to play to

establish this thesis.

 

Allen is very right, it requires a faith, but so are all scientific

investigations. It is a working hypothesis for one to proceed ones

investigation further, to find out by oneself what is the truth. One can

start with different hypotheses and start investigating. If one is a true

scientific investigator, one obviously discards the those hypotheses that

lead us to no answer, and make new ones that lead to the truth. This is

exactly what was done by the sages of the yore and recorded as pramaana, so

that new investigator does not have to start all over making non-working

hypotheses and struggle. This is what we do in scientific publications

too. Advaita vedanta insists that faith is required only to see the

connection between the conscious inquirer and the non-conscious entity that

he sees. It establises that seer alone is the truth and seen is only

apparent, and the seer-seen duality becomes apparent when the apparent

becomes apparent and not real. That the inquirer himself is an existent

conscious entity - for that no faith is required since it is a self-evident

fact- since he is there to ask questions and inquire. One cannot

invalidate the inquirer since he has to be there even to execute the

invalidation process to see if that is done successfully!. - hence the

suggested inquiry by Vendanta by neti - neti process.

 

Shaastra means a science and shaastra pramana means - means of knowledge to

establish faith for a sadhak to proceed further. Just making a hypothesis

is of no value, unless one investigates further to discover the truth. The

truth is beyond the hypotheses that one makes!

 

Hence Bhagavan Shankara gives a shocking statement in VivekachuuDaamaNi for

the seekers:

 

aviJNaate pare tatve shaastraadhiitistu nishpalaa|

viJNaate pare tatve shaastraadhiitistu nishpalaa||

Shankara says: The study of shaatraas are useless for those who have not

realized, and the study of shaastraas is also useless for those who have

realized.

 

The study of the shaastraa is useless for those who are ignorant - here he

means two ways - ignorant who wants to study without the help of a

preceptor, or to the one who studies but does not make any attempt to

investigate the truth expounded in the shaastras (essentially who keeps on

reading and quoting but makes no attempt to investigate whether shaastra

is right or wrong or the working hypothesis is right or wrong, factually

and not intellectually); also the study of the shaastra is useless for

those who have gained the knowledge - here also two meanings; it is useless

to go on studying without experimenting or personally realizing the truth;

and the other meaning is, it is useless for those who have already

realized. There is no need for them to study shaastraas since they have

accomplished what need to be accomplished by studying shaastraas.

 

Implication is that advaita vendanta is logical and provides valid working

and time tested hypothesis based on the analysis of the three states of

everybody's experience, and one has to investigate by one self with oneself

to see oneself the truth about oneself - dhyaanena atmani pasyanti kechit

atmanam atmaana - B.G - one sees oneself by oneself in oneself by

contemplation.

 

Hence, conclusion without experimentation is unscientific.

 

I might not have answered all the intricate questions raised by Allen, but

it may be fair to contemplate on these to see the truth before one rejects

the arguments.

 

Since the list serve discourages extended back and forth dialogue on any

particular subject, it may be good idea to brood over some of these

thoughts before we respond.

 

I must say the issues raised by Allen are contemplative. I for one

strongly believe that one should keep questioning and not accept at face

value or just because Vedanta says so, Bhagavan Shankara or Ramana said so

etc., until one discovers oneself the facts by contemplation. But the

benefit of doubt should be given to shaastras, since it is a science and

not a religion and confirmed by many who experimented themselves and gained

not just JNaanam but vuJNaanam! viJNaanam stands for knowledge confirmed

by personal experience. Religion comes into picture in terms of practices

as an applied science, that one has to follow to achieve the end result

depending on ones culture, upbringing, values and tastes. That is what my

statement about the pointers being different from pointed. But one has to

use the pointers in the direction pointed to go beyond the pointers to the

pointed. From the truth, all pointers are equally valid and at the same

time equally invalid, since they are all relative. Hence, to distinguish

the truth from all relatives, we use the word 'Absolute' to designate that

the goal itself is independent of all relative practices or religions! -

exactly to remove the religious implications that Allen dislikes! Since we

feel that we are relative, the relatives are needed to go beyond the

relatives until we realize we are Absolute. Then the relatives have only

relative meaning. If Allen feels that his system of relatives takes him to

that, by all means, experiment and realize and tell us about it. Peace

Pilgrim did it in her own way without studying any quantum fields and

interactions or knowledge of existence-consciousness. In the final

analysis neither biidies or pawn shops or Schrodinger's equation and

quantum fields have any relevance other than in the relative plane.

 

Back to my work.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

posted on Monday 9:15 EST - all errors cannot be fully attributed to the

transmission problems!

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

At 01:02 PM 9/14/98 -0400, sadananda wrote:

>sadananda <sada

>

>It is funny - I posted this mail in the morning at 9:15am with a copy to

>myself. I checked and I had advaitin alright in my address

>field. But I got an adviatic response saying that there is an error in my

>address and the response was from nobody (AT) onelist (DOT) May be there is nobody

>outthere other than myself, and the rest is all real maaya!

>

>Any way I am posting it again to see if pases through nobody to somebody.

>Sorry if you receive this two times. But you are real anyway!

 

 

Glad to see you back!

 

Hari Om!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadananda,

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are only two possibilities:

 

The pre-existing nervous system belongs to a 1) a dead or unconscious

human

or being, or 2) living or conscious human or being. Either choice will

invalidate the model.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

In my reading, I've seen simplistic premises used to generate arguments

which apparently "prove" almost anything is either logically necessary or

perfectly impossible. Somehow the world remains largely unconvinced that

"motion is impossible" or "there must be a god" or whatever. What is

never made clear in such attempts is why we assume the universe must

conform to our notion of reason and logic ? At the most such argument

can pull religion up to the level of being a "reasonably held belief" as

opposed to a "irrationally held belief" but the undying problem with such

beliefs remains and that is there are numerous sometimes mutually

incompatible reasonable beliefs available.

 

 

According to me, the legitimate role of reason is to prove its own

inadequacy to bring about a realization of or evocation of the truth. If

you feel Advaitin scholars have done more than this, I'm content to

disagree. Reason can remove some of the ill effects of believing

untruths but it is a mischief (in my opinion) to leave any residual "idea"

in its place, no matter how holy or profound those ideas may seem. I am

in favor of leaving what is as it is -- I see no need to evoke it or

think it or argue about it . I don't understand people's motivation in

calling it one thing or another because to do so seems far more likely to

obscure the obvious than to reveal its charm.

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I advice strongly Allen and those who are interested to study - The famous

book - Advaita Siddhi by Sri Madhusudhana Saraswati - Hair splitting logic

is used to dismiss the objectors arguments - especially Vedanta Desikaa's

-

hundred abuses against advaita - The point I am making is that Allen's

arguments were in one form or other have been raised again and again in

the

past, and have been logically answered by the advaitic masters - yet

Advaita is beyond logic

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

"Hair splitting" is a derogatory term, although it may be quite accurate

here. If it's a question of Advaita being one thorn to remove all other

thorns -- good. "Advaita is beyond logic" -- very good! However, unless

the thorn of Advaita is discarded, it is no better than any other thorn.

Some people are apparently controlled by their idea of "Jayzuz" and others

by their idea of "Conshusness". It doesn't matter which has the better

argument. Both are wrong because there is no "right" thorn or "better"

thorn. I'd go so far as to say there is no thorn at all. There is no

complete and coherent description of reality -- nor is there any need for

such a thing in order for what is to be as it is and I am in favor of

leaving what is as it is. As I have nothing else to say really, I'll

retire from the list for the time being...

 

thanks and good-bye,

 

Allan Curry

[Guest guest]

Dear Allen Curry,

 

You have expressed your sentiments so beautifully that out of my excitement

I could not but respond.

 

Allan Curry <acurry

>In my reading, I've seen simplistic premises used to generate arguments

>which apparently "prove" almost anything is either logically necessary or

>perfectly impossible. Somehow the world remains largely unconvinced that

>"motion is impossible" or "there must be a god" or whatever.

 

Absolutely you are right.

 

Universe as we see and experience day to day appear to confirm laws that

scientists are able to discover sitting remotely in a tiny corner of the

universe. Strange it may sound, that these discovered laws, that have been

deduced by local observations, are universally applicable laws (say for

example gravitational laws or field equations) any where in the universe,

galaxies and galaxies away - indicating that the universe (in scientific

terminology) is a well behaved system or ordered system. Please note that

reason and logic are out-growth of scientific observations only, and hence

inference and logic are one way or the other the product of perception

only. This is recognized in Vedanta too. But for Vedantins the universe

includes not only the objective world, but also the thought world, thoughts

of both emotional character (mind with feelings) and rational character,

intellect or buddhi. Why I am suffering with pains and limitations is a

nagging question that all religions are seeking for an answer - not

Brahman, not God and not-consciousness.

 

As we know from the laws of thermodynamics, that any order has low entropy

resulting in high energy. To put in simple terms, to keep things in order,

work has to be done. Work can only be done by a conscious entity. The

'cause' for such ordered universe, a rational intellect cannot but inquire,

and anything within the system cannot be the cause for the whole system.

So God is created by a desperate human, who is seeking for some answers,

since even the tools for inquiry, the logic and reason (human intellect or

the thoughts) are within the ordered system - and just as you pointed out

- are inadequate to know the cause for the system. God is essentially

creation of man (instead of God creating man, man created God) and even

this fact is also recognized by Advaita Vedanta.

 

>What is never made clear in such attempts is why we assume the universe must

>conform to our notion of reason and logic ?

 

You are right - Things within the universe appear to follow a well ordered

set of laws deductible by logic and reason. But if we want to inquire for

the cause for all the whole universal system, it is recognized in Vedanta

that it is indeed beyond the reason and logic, since these are thoughts

which are within the bounds of the universe - In fact both space and time,

which are relative, are also included in the system or Universe. Hence the

cause cannot be within the space or time either. Even the laws of

causation, which are within the bounds of logic and reason, (I donot say

not valid) are inadequate to know the truth that is beyond the logic.

 

But let us also accept the fact that these are the only tools we have -

body, mind and intellect - to explore and to investigate, and we cannot but

explore, since causation hunting is the function of the intellect.

Remember the beautiful questions that you are raising are by the thought

process, which is not happy with the current answers given by a system or

systems of analyses, and is still exploring in its owns way seeking some

answers outside our bounds of reason and logic! - Yet, would you agree

with me that it is still seeking for some answers? using one form of logic

and reason since I must agree that your questions are logical and

reasonable. - in JK terminology (I donot know if you are familiar with his

writings) discarding one system of conditioning and seeking in the process

another system of conditioning that are out of bounds for 'our notion of

logic and reason" - please think it over.

 

Your statement "what is never made clear in such attempts ...." is not

really true. Vedanta recognized that the cause that we are looking for is

beyond the cause-effect laws that are governed by 'our reason and logic'.

 

Let me quote the famous Kenopanishad slokas that exactly addresses the same

issues, but in its own way-.

 

yad vaachaa anabhyutiam, ye na vak abhyudyate|

tadeva brahma twam viddi nedam yadidam upaasate||

 

yan manasaa na manute, ye nahur mano matam|

tadeva brahma twam viddi nedam yadidam upaasate||

 

To the student who comes with pre-conceived notion of God and Creator etc.

and all the prayer and emotional slavery to hold on to some super concept,

as well as to shake him loose from the concepts of human logic and reason

as well, the teacher states that the truth is indeed beyond 'human reason

and logic'.

 

That which the speech cannot speak (since what is spoken is of objects that

are reduced to thoughts and the associated reason and logic) , but because

of which one has the capacity to speak that indeed is Brahman and not this

that you worship here ( as God or whatever).

 

That which the mind cannot think (it is beyond reason, logic and laws of

causation and hence bounds of time and space - since mind can only think

those, or beyond whatever the mind can thinks as those are bounded by time

and space and thus within the universe), but because of which the mind has

the capacity to think, that alone is Brahman and not this that you worship

here.

 

The concepts of Gods and creators are thrown away to the mind, which is

prepared and free from emotional hang-ups and is free to throw away.

 

The teaching not only takes away from normal notions or conceptual world,

but also shows positively in the direction of the truth - here it is

pointing towards the very consciousness because of which one is conscious

of 'our limited reason and logic'. In JK ( he does not like it to be called

as teaching) terminology, observe the conditioning of the mind to get out

of the conditioning. Ramana calls this inquire what is the mind (maanasantu

kim maargane pare) or the thoughts. Vedanta calls this saakhii bhava ,

witness consciousness.

> At the most such argument

>can pull religion up to the level of being a "reasonably held belief" as

>opposed to a "irrationally held belief" but the undying problem with such

>beliefs remains and that is there are numerous sometimes mutually

>incompatible reasonable beliefs available.

 

Again you are right - one can have any reasonable beliefs ( one form of

conditioning or the other) - but the beliefs have to in one way or the

other fall within our norms of 'our logic and reason' - for them to be

reasonable. Actually, belief does not demand a reason - For example, I can

still belief that the earth is flat and no one has any business to question

my belief. That is precisely the reason! why Vedanta also declares that

the truth is beyond any reasonable belief or beliefs. JK calls it "truth

is pathless land" - Strangely enough, one can have a belief in this

statement itself, and it is again belief or conditioning ( I donot know if

it is even appropriate to call belief reasonable or unreasonable since it

is belief), until of course one discovers by oneself that it is true. I

call these as working hypotheses. In fact all hear-says are in one form

or the other are beliefs, some are more reasonable (those beliefs we call

faith) until they are proven to be true or false. Ultimately the individual

who has beliefs has to inquire or establish to his satisfaction that they

are indeed true and the truth we are seeking is indeed beyond 'our logic

and reason' - is the declaration of Vedanta too.

What is indeed required in all these is the mind which is ready to inquire

- using whatever the system that it is comfortable with. Here the proof

rests on oneself and not on any reason or logic or even belief; and

Vedanta states that infact the proof is oneself that is beyond our 'reason

and logic" and beliefs too!.

>

>thanks and good-bye,

>

>Allan Curry

 

I enjoyed the discussions and thanks and good-by and good luck in you

pursuits.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

Posted at 9:20am

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Allan and Sadananda...

 

Allan, please don't go, though I'll respect your decision if you do. I

really enjoy reading your posts.

 

Sadananda, where can one find a copy of Advaita Siddhi by Sri Madhusudhana

Saraswati?

 

--Greg