An observation on Brahman, Ishwara and Creation

[Guest guest]

Namaste Vinayaka-ji.

 

Your post 35976.

 

I am quoting from Shri Subhanu Saxena's interpretation of AdhyAsya

BhaSyaM to which attention was called recently during our discussion

on Brahman as the locus for creation:

 

QUOTE

 

Put simply, our ignorance is confusing one thing for another, which in

the context of Vedanta, is confusing the world of duality for the

real world, whereas the real world is one where no duality

exists. This confusion is an experience, and therefore its existence

does not need to be proved or disproved. Sureshvara says this in his

'vaartikaa':

 

<ataH pramaaNataH ashakyaa avidyaa asya iti viixitum.h .

kiidR^ishhii vaa kutaH vaasau anubhuuti eka-ruupataH ..>

 

<sambandha vaartikaa 184>

 

In fact, one can never know ignorance as belonging to any one, neither

determine its nature nor conceive how it can possibly be at all, for

it is essentially the nature of experience itself.

 

[by the way, this affirms that, in Shankara's tradition of advaita,

it is futile trying to establish the cause of <avidyaa>, as, once it

is recognised and removed , it is seen never to have existed at all!

This is why Shankara never taxes himself with detailed discussions

concerning where does this <avidyaa> come from, and to whom does it

belong, as these matters become totally irrelevant once <aatman> is

known. Later followers of Shankara chose not to let the matter rest,

hence the elaborate theories regarding the root cause of <avidyaa>,

and various discussions of the locus of <avidyaa>. One imagines that,

should these discussions have happened in front of Shankara, he would

have given them short shrift by saying something like " It is about

<brahman>, not <avidyaa>! Don't get distracted! " )

 

UNQUOTE

 

From the point of view of pure advaita, we can substitute the

word `creation' for avidyA and ignorance wherever the latter two

words appear in the above quote, because `creation' is a seeming

process that results from our ignorance of the real Real. When we

speak in terms of shakti, latent will etc., I am afraid we are

embarking on a counter-productive discussion which advaitins can

better do without. Such exercises hold the potential of leaving us

permanently marooned in the empirical. That is the reason why I

studiously avoided getting into our heated saguNa/nirguNa debate.

 

I am fully aware many grand explanations for creation do exist in our

vedantic literature. Acharya's own Saundarya Lahari suggests

a `spanda' theory. I am a Devi bhakta, I love Saundarya Lahari.

However, I see the Devi as Brahman (Consciousness), not as *shakti

latent in Brahman* because Brahman cannot brook any latency or

inside. If everything is Brahman, then everything is She, shakti is

She, ignorance (avidya or mAyA) is also She. In such lahari called

Unity where is duality? Where is creation? That to me is advaita

where Brahman, Ishwara (the Devi) and the Universe stand irrevocably

reconciled.

 

SHIVOHAM, SHIVOHAM, SHIVOHAM, as Sri Putran-ji sang in his beautiful

poem.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

 

> [by the way, this affirms that, in Shankara's tradition of advaita,

> it is futile trying to establish the cause of <avidyaa>, as, once it

> is recognised and removed , it is seen never to have existed at all!

> This is why Shankara never taxes himself with detailed discussions

> concerning where does this <avidyaa> come from, and to whom does it

> belong, as these matters become totally irrelevant once <aatman> is

> known. Later followers of Shankara chose not to let the matter rest,

> hence the elaborate theories regarding the root cause of <avidyaa>,

> and various discussions of the locus of <avidyaa>. One imagines that,

> should these discussions have happened in front of Shankara, he would

> have given them short shrift by saying something like " It is about

> <brahman>, not <avidyaa>! Don't get distracted! " )

 

=====

 

Dear Nair-ji,

 

Namaste,

 

Thanks for your kind response. I require a small clarification. In

fact, the concept of will has been refuted by both Sri Shankra and Sri

gaudapAdAcharya while commenting on the mAndukya upaniShad. The

relevant karikas and commentaries are as under:

 

8 Those who are convinced about the reality of manifested objects

ascribe the manifestation solely to God’s will, while those who

speculate about time regard time as the creator of things.

 

Shankara's Commentary:

 

The manifestation proceeds from the mere will of God because His will

in reality cannot1 but achieve its purpose. Such objects such as pot

etc., are but2 the manifestation of the will of the potter. They can

never be anything external or unrelated to such will. Some say

manifestation proceeds from time.

 

1. Cannot etc-It is because they look upon the world as real,

therefore they affirm that God whose will manifests the world cannot

but be real.

 

2. But-The potter, first of all, conceives in his mind and the name

and form of the object and then creates it.

 

====

 

9. Some say that the manifestation is or the purpose of God’s

enjoyment, while others attribute it to His division. " But it is the

very nature of the effulgent Being. " What desire is possible for Him

who is the fulfillment of all desires?

 

Others think that the purpose of manifestation is only the enjoyment

(by God of the objects so created), that creation is merely a

diversion of God. These two theories are refuted (by the author) by

the single assertion that it is the very1 nature of the Effulgent

(Brahman). Thus taking this standpoint (the nature of effulgent being)

all2 the theories(of creation) herein stated are refuted3 for the

reason indicated by:

 

" What could be the desire for manifestation on the part of Brahman

whose desires are ever in a state of fulfilment? " For the rope etc.,

appear to be snake, no4 other reason can be assigned that avidya.

 

1. Very nature- According to gaudapAdAcharya, what others see as the

created universe is nothing but the very nature or essence of brahman.

Brahman alone exists. What others designate as the universe of names

and forms-subject to birth, change, death, etc.-is nothing but the

non-dual brahman. That one sees the world of duality instead of the

non dual Brahman and seeks its cause is due to avidya or ignorance.

 

In the notes Swami Nikhilanandaji writes:

 

Brahman is bliss which means absent of wants. Therefore the Divine

Will cannot be the cause of the universe. The human mind, subject to

mAyA, ascribes will, diversion etc., as the cause of creation. This

ascription itself is mAyA. Therefore it stands to reason that if

anybody sees creation, it is only due to mAyA. Therefore all theories

regarding creation in fact mAyAmayI, that is, due to the ignorance of

the mind that sees it. Viewed from the relative standpoint this mAyA

inheres either in brahman or in the perceiver. Assigning a substratum

for mAyA depends upon once's standpoint. Viewed from the avidya

standpoint mAyA has its 'locus' in brahman.

 

(Unquote)

 

Now, if we see carefully, to refute the concept of will

gaudapAdAcharya had to invent the concept of 'avidya' or ignorance. As

aptly quoted by you, we can use avidya and creation as sysnonyms.

Whether we say that creation is the will of the lord or to say that we

seek its cause due to avidya is one and the same. If we say that, if

anybody sees creation, it is only due to mAyA, the riddle is not

solved. We can ask very well that, if it is the very nature of the

effulgent being, how did we forget our real nature? From where did

this mAyA came into picture? What is its cause?

 

It is a fact. None can deny that.

 

I am unable to understand clearly the logic or methodology which is

used by gaudapAdAcharya to refute the concept of will by in the 9th

karika. If there is a subtle difference between the two, please do

explain. Or is it done for the sole purpose of maintaining consistency

in the teaching methodology?

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Vinayaka-ji.

 

You are too well-read a person for me to debate with.

 

However, the following part of your message startled me.

 

QUOTE

 

" Now, if we see carefully, to refute the concept of will

gaudapAdAcharya had to invent the concept of 'avidya' or ignorance. As

aptly quoted by you, we can use avidya and creation as sysnonyms.

Whether we say that creation is the will of the lord or to say that we

seek its cause due to avidya is one and the same. If we say that, if

anybody sees creation, it is only due to mAyA, the riddle is not

solved. We can ask very well that, if it is the very nature of the

effulgent being, how did we forget our real nature? From where did

this mAyA came into picture? What is its cause? "

 

 

UNQUOTE

 

Avidya is not the invention of Gaudapadacharya or Shankara!

 

Before I begin, let me warn you. Brahman derives from shruti.

Shankara does not purport to prove Brahman. He has accepted shruti

and Brahman without any qualms and sets about, in AdhyAsa BhASya, to

explain what prevents us from realizing the Truth that is Brahman.

 

I have with me Advaita Makaranda (The Honey of Advaita), which, right

in the second verse says: AhaM asmi sadA bhAti, kadAcid na ahaM

aprihaH, brahmaivA hatamaH siddhaM, satcitAnanda lakSanaM, meaning I

exist always, I shine always, I am never not dear to me, I am

Brahman, the embodiment of sat-cid-Ananda.

 

This advaitic vision is outlined in the following fundamental

understanding. Every advaitain should carry this understanding in

his pocket because it is the touchstone which helps him test the

veracity or otherwise of innumerable seemingly authoritative

statements and injunctions that he encounters en route the royal path

of brahma-jijnAsA.

 

That I exist is self-evident. I don't have to bring any proof to

substantiate it. That takes care of the `sat' part of sat-cit-Ananda.

 

I know. I am Awareness. My BMI, time and space are within this

Awareness. These include things that I don't know of because I

*know* that I know them not. All of them that I know and know not

cannot be without the Awareness that I am. The triad of the knower,

known and knowing is therefore really a Unity and that Unity is the

Awareness I am – Knowledge. That takes care of `cit' and

corroborates the mahAvAkya " prajnAnam brahma " .

 

If `everything' is within the Awareness I am, then I don't have an

outside. Absence of outside suggests an absence of inside too. That

is Fullness, which doesn't brook any divisions. How can there be any

divisions within a single Whole.

 

The duality we encounter is thus proved false. If I am fullness, I

am fully self-adequate and without wants. Thus, everything is me and

since I have always loved only myself (priyaM), I am by default in

love with everything. I am thus Universal Love.

 

Now you have this touchstone in your pocket. It is logically

derived. It is not imposed on you. You can always sit back, reflect

and appreciate its trueness. The foundation of advaita is laid.

 

When you look around, you see that all your experiences point in the

opposite direction. You identify with your body and falsely think

that you are mortal while you are really Immortality (sat). You are

knowledge, yet you think that you need to know more and more and keep

asking innumerable questions, while you are indeed that Knowledge

knowing which everything else is already known! You are Fullness;

yet you are full of wants, always wanting! You hate this and that,

while in reality you are in love with everything by default!

 

Now tell me why this happens? You have every logic in the world to

conclude that you are Brahman, Knowledge, Existence, Fullness,

Universal Love. Yet, you sadly take it that you are the opposite of

all these. Why? Obviously because there is an error in your

understanding. That error is avidya or ignorance. That ignorance is

there and it is not the invention of Shankara or Gaudapadacharya. No

one has to prove its existence. It stands logically proved.

 

Shruti says that Avidya is anAdi – beginningness. The correct

understanding should be that it has never begun. How tragic then

that we are looking for the locus and origin of something that has

not begun at all!

 

About Mandukya 9th Karika, I don't think I am scholarly enough to

answer your doubt. If you still want that doubt to be attended to

after all that I have written above, I would request Sadaji to kindly

intervene as he has done commendable work on Mandukya. I would also

request Sadaji to present a summary of his recent talk on Advaita

Makaranda. We all stand to benefit by it.

 

I composed this post in tearing hurry. Kindly forgive typos and

other errors.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Vinayaka-ji.

>

 

>

> Shruti says that Avidya is anAdi – beginningness. The correct

> understanding should be that it has never begun. How tragic then

> that we are looking for the locus and origin of something that has

> not begun at all!

 

>

> Pranams.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Namaskaram,

 

At one time I was puzzling about avidya, trying to understand

where it was, what it was, how it was, etc., etc.

 

I thought if I could just somehow locate and

concretize avidya, then somehow I could remove it.

I thought if I could find it, that would be helpful

in getting rid of it.

 

When I brought this question up to my teacher, the reply

I received is that the only thing which removes ignorance

is Knowledge. Therefore it is better to concentrate on

gaining Knowledge, rather than trying to investigate and

get to the bottom of ignorance.

 

I took this advice, which I found it to be very helpful,

and stopped trying to locate advidya. We all know

basically what avidya is. It is a false understanding.

So then I tried to find out what is true, self-evident

and self-revealing.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Hi Durga-ji,

 

Regarding finding out about avidyA, you said: " When I brought this question

up to my teacher, the reply

I received is that the only thing which removes ignorance

is Knowledge. Therefore it is better to concentrate on

gaining Knowledge, rather than trying to investigate and

get to the bottom of ignorance. "

 

And, of course, you are right. But, to be pedantic, reality/truth can never

be described so direct knowledge about it can never be provided. The

knowledge that we are given by the teacher or through reading the scriptures

is effectively about the ignorance (what we are *not* and about the

mithyAtva of the world etc.). So, in a real sense, we are getting to the

bottom of ignorance and the knowledge itself is an aspect of that ignorance

in the final analysis.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

..

 

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=3

6009/stime=1179329887/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848544/nc3=3848571>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Hi Durga-ji,

>

> Regarding finding out about avidyA, you said: " When I brought this

question

> up to my teacher, the reply

> I received is that the only thing which removes ignorance

> is Knowledge. Therefore it is better to concentrate on

> gaining Knowledge, rather than trying to investigate and

> get to the bottom of ignorance. "

>

> And, of course, you are right. But, to be pedantic, reality/truth

can never

> be described so direct knowledge about it can never be provided. The

> knowledge that we are given by the teacher or through reading the

scriptures

> is effectively about the ignorance (what we are *not* and about the

> mithyAtva of the world etc.). So, in a real sense, we are getting to the

> bottom of ignorance and the knowledge itself is an aspect of that

ignorance

> in the final analysis.

>

> Best wishes,

> Dennis

 

Hi Dennis,

 

I do not agree with what you have written above.

This understanding (or I would say misunderstanding)

completely leaves out, what in Vedanta is called

the tat pada, or 'positive assertion.'

 

This is the second half of the teaching, and is

equally as important as the negation of what I am not,

which is what is done in the tvam pada, the knocking

off from the word 'tvam,' all one is not.

 

That I am here, that I exist as Brahman, is the reason

that Brahman can be pointed out.

 

That the meaning of all words is orginally dualistic

in nature is true. But Vedanta is called a shubdha pramana,

a means of Knowledge, which uses words. So the

words need to be used very carefully, with the

initial or primary, dualistic meaning knocked

off from them, and then the words are used directly

as a pointer to your self.

 

And this use of words in the 'tat pada,' as part of the

pramana, or methodology, is the reason why Vedanta

works when taught by a qualified teacher to a

qualified student. Because you/Brahman are here to be

pointed to.

 

There are many words used in Vedanta to point

to Brahman, and they do so more or less effectively,

depending on the skill of the teacher, and the nature of

the conditioning of the mind of the student.

 

Maybe one word works for one student, and another

one works for another. Eventually some word does

work. Something clicks in the mind, " Oh, "

says the student, after that split second

of recognition, " So, that's what is meant. "

 

That is the akhanda akara vritti. A word which

triggers that vritti (after an enormous amount of teaching

has taken place) might be the word 'limitless,' it might be

the phrase 'one without a second,' it could be 'existence,'

or very simply, it might be the word 'me.'

 

Because really and truly after what you are not,

has been knocked off from what you are, what you

are left with is 'me,' self-evident,

self-revealing 'me,' and that 'me' is Brahman.

In a way, no word describes Brahman better, or

more directly, than the word 'me' does.

 

As my teacher once stated, after using a string

of words to describe and point to Brahman,

" And they are all inadequate, but they do the job. "

 

So knowledge isn't just the negation of ignorance. (If by the

word 'knowledge' you mean 'self-knowledge') That 'self-knowledge'

is not negated, nor ever can be negated, nor is it an aspect

of ignorance. It is pure knowledge (jnanam). It is

'me,' one without a second, without a lesah (speck)

of ignorance.

 

Over to you, :-)

Durga

[Guest guest]

Hi Durga,

 

I do love your posts! You are way too humble (though much less so in this

post than usual!) and will make an excellent teacher. But...

 

You cannot deny my statements. I was talking about the 'final analysis', in

much the way that Gaudapada does in his kArikA. Since paramAtha is non-dual,

*anything* that is said about it must ultimately be false and, for the sake

of classification (though if course that makes no sense either) must be

called 'ignorance' rather than knowledge. I was merely supporting the

original assertion about 'finding out about ignorance' and do not dispute

your excellent points about 'tat pAda' at all.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Durga

16 May 2007 21:19

advaitin

Re: An observation on Brahman, Ishwara and Creation

 

 

..

 

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=3

6015/stime=1179346877/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848576/nc3=3848632>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Hi Durga,

..

>

> You cannot deny my statements. I was talking about the 'final

analysis', in

> much the way that Gaudapada does in his kArikA. Since paramAtha is

non-dual,

> *anything* that is said about it must ultimately be false and, for

the sake

> of classification (though if course that makes no sense either) must be

> called 'ignorance' rather than knowledge. I was merely supporting the

> original assertion about 'finding out about ignorance' and do not

dispute

> your excellent points about 'tat pAda' at all.

>

> Best wishes,

> Dennis

>

 

 

Okay Dennis, if I understand what you are saying,

it is that all words are dual. Okay.

 

What I was speaking about in my original post,

which perhaps I did not make clear, was

the futility of trying to find the 'locus' of

ignorance.

 

While we say, 'ignorance is in the mind,'IMO

it cannot really be found as a 'thing.'

 

One can recognize a thought which is incorrect,

such as 'I am tired.' That's a thought

which implies self-ignorance. But one cannot really

find a 'locus' for the ignorance, IMO. It's a

waste of time trying to find it. It's a shape

shifter.

 

So better to find out the paramarthika locus,

which is totally self-evident and cannot be

negated. And luckily that locus is always at

hand, for that locus happens to be you. Now,

you can't get out of that one. :-)

 

Durga

[Guest guest]

Hi Durga,

 

" So better to find out the paramarthika locus,

which is totally self-evident and cannot be

negated. And luckily that locus is always at

hand, for that locus happens to be you. Now,

you can't get out of that one. :-) "

 

I wouldn't want to!

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Durga

16 May 2007 22:19

advaitin

Re: An observation on Brahman, Ishwara and Creation

 

 

..

 

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=3

6017/stime=1179350364/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848585/nc3=3848634>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

FROM: H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin , " Durga " <durgaji108 wrote:

But one cannot really

find a 'locus' for the ignorance, IMO. It's a

waste of time trying to find it. It's a shape

shifter.

 

So better to find out the paramarthika locus,

which is totally self-evident and cannot be

negated. And luckily that locus is always at

hand, for that locus happens to be you. Now,

you can't get out of that one. :-)

 

Dear Smt Durgaji,

In a wonderful and brilliant way you have presented the

essence of the teachings of the Upanishadic Sages. My heart is

filled with BLISS. THANK YOU again and again.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

 

 

>

> advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Durga,

> .

> >

> > You cannot deny my statements. I was talking about the 'final

> analysis', in

> > much the way that Gaudapada does in his kArikA. Since paramAtha is

> non-dual,

> > *anything* that is said about it must ultimately be false and, for

> the sake

> > of classification (though if course that makes no sense either)

must be

> > called 'ignorance' rather than knowledge. I was merely supporting

the

> > original assertion about 'finding out about ignorance' and do not

> dispute

> > your excellent points about 'tat pAda' at all.

> >

> > Best wishes,

> > Dennis

> >

>

>

> Okay Dennis, if I understand what you are saying,

> it is that all words are dual. Okay.

>

> What I was speaking about in my original post,

> which perhaps I did not make clear, was

> the futility of trying to find the 'locus' of

> ignorance.

>

> While we say, 'ignorance is in the mind,'IMO

> it cannot really be found as a 'thing.'

>

> One can recognize a thought which is incorrect,

> such as 'I am tired.' That's a thought

> which implies self-ignorance. But one cannot really

> find a 'locus' for the ignorance, IMO. It's a

> waste of time trying to find it. It's a shape

> shifter.

>

> So better to find out the paramarthika locus,

> which is totally self-evident and cannot be

> negated. And luckily that locus is always at

> hand, for that locus happens to be you. Now,

> you can't get out of that one. :-)

>

> Durga

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

 

 

Dear Nair-ji,

 

PraNAms,

 

You are confusing me! You say on the one hand, that:

 

That error is avidya or ignorance. That ignorance is

there and it is not the invention of Shankara or Gaudapadacharya. No

one has to prove its existence. It stands logically proved.

 

====

 

And, in the very next paragraph you are telling me again, that:

 

Shruti says that Avidya is anAdi †" beginningness. The correct

understanding should be that it has never begun. How tragic then

that we are looking for the locus and origin of something that has

not begun at all!

 

====

 

Sir, how can this be? In my humble understanding mAyA is anAdi but

sAnta. How can we say that it has never begun at all?

 

The following verse on mAyA which occurs in VivekachudAmaNi of

Shankara is my all time favorite:

 

She is neither existent nor non-existent nor partaking of both

characters; neither same nor different nor both; neither composed of

parts nor an indivisible whole nor both. She is most wonderful and

cannot be described in words.

 

Kindly see the last line, " She is most wonderful and cannot be

described! "

 

Whenever I read Swami Vivekananda's lectures on mAyA and freedom, I

think mAyA cannot bind me anymore. Yet, I have remained nature's bound

slave, nay, nature's bond slave. If I say that ignorance is never

begun , I will be lying to myself and others as well.

 

I do appreciate some points in your post.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Br. Vinayaka-ji.

 

I am sorry if I confused you. I told you my understanding.

Perhaps, someone else can clarify things the way you understand.

 

One last try though. You take yourself as an example. From how I

explained sat-cid-Ananda in my previous post, do you accept that

there is an error in your understanding of yourself and there is

need for brahmajijnAsa? If your answer is 'yes', we can proceed

further? If 'no', I have given up because any efforts beyond that

would not be advaita.

 

Now, when you self-realize, you know you are the Absolute with

reference to which there cannot be any additional or extra

entities. That means both the current you and the error you suffer

from now are no more there. They have vanished like something you

saw in a dream from which you have woken up. But, because the dream

and waking are in the phenomenal, you remember the dream and its

contents as belonging to the past. With the Absolute, there cannot

be any past even. The Absolute is beyond time (I mean trikAla-

AbAdhita). Time cannot exist there. So, from the Absolute point of

view, we can't even say an error had existed before Knowledge

occurred. Error as well as the one who suffered from it had never

been there. Knowledge just shines. That shining is not in time as

we are accustomed to understand.

 

This is what I meant by first affirming an error and later saying

that it would be known as never to have existed. Something that has

never existed is indeed anAdi (beginningless or not at all begun).

The error that the current you logially conclude as existing and

preventing you from realizing your real nature as Brahman is proven

in Self-Realization as never to have existed.

 

I cannot explain this any better in words or by using analogies.

You have to contemplate on it and understand.

 

You wanted us to comment on your theory of creation. I gave you my

uderstanding. If the result is only confusion still, then I have

already given up.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns@.

...> wrote:

>

> You are confusing me! You say on the one hand, that:

>

> That error is avidya or ignorance. That ignorance is

> there and it is not the invention of Shankara or Gaudapadacharya.

No

> one has to prove its existence. It stands logically proved.

>

> ====

>

> And, in the very next paragraph you are telling me again, that:

>

> Shruti says that Avidya is anAdi †" beginningness. The correct

> understanding should be that it has never begun. How tragic then

> that we are looking for the locus and origin of something that has

> not begun at all!

>

> ====

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Br. Vinayaka-ji.

>

> I am sorry if I confused you. I told you my understanding.

> Perhaps, someone else can clarify things the way you understand.

>

> One last try though.

 

Namaste Sri Nair-ji,

 

Your explanations are quite satisfactory. If I say no, I will not be

an advaitin anymore.:-) Thanks a lot!

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.