Just for a change !

December 18, 2007

Namaste everyone !

World is an apparent transformation of brahman !

jIva himself is brahman !

jIva's union with brahman connotes ceasing from not-Self

identification and residing in ones own true Self i.e. brahman !

.........., ........., ........, ..........,

Open any advaita forum and we see a myriad of such *routine* statements.

As a matter of fact, SrI Sankara's works are replete with such

definitions everywhere. But surprisingly at one place in Brahma sUtra

bhAshya he deviates from the routine definitions and speaks totally in

a new way. Let us see what he has to say, just for a change! :-)

brahma sUtra bhAshya.2.1.27.

In the previous sUtra, an objection was raised as:--

## The vEdAntin has to accept that entire brahman undergoes a change

to become jagat and jIvas. On the contrary, if he says that only a

part of the whole brahman undergoes change, he will have to violate

the Sruti which says that brahman is without parts.

Now bAdarAyaNa refutes the objection by saying, " SrutEH tu

SabdamUlatvAt " -- But (this is not so), on account of scriptural

passages, and on account of (Brahman) resting on Scripture (only).

How would SrI Sankara comment on this? In the following way:--

## na tAvat kRitsna prasaktirasti; kutah? SrutEH ! -- That the entire

Brahman undergoes change, BY NO MEANS follows from our doctrine, " on

account of Sruti. "

## yathaiva hi brahmaNO jagat utpattiH SrUyatE, evam vikAra

vyatirEkENApi brahmaNOvasthAnam SrUyatE ! -- For in the same way as

Sruti speaks of the origin of the world from Brahman, it also speaks

of Brahman subsisting apart from its effects.

What are those Sruti texts? --

* That divinity thought let me enter into these three divinities with

this living Self and evolve names and forms " and,

* Such is the greatness of this (Brahman called Gayatri). The Person

is even greater than this. All this world is a quarter of Him, the

other three quarters of His constitute immortality in heaven. --

(ChandOgya Upanishad.III.12.6).

## tathA hRidayAyatanatvavachanAt -- Further, from the passages

declaring the unmodified Brahman to have its abode in the heart.

satsampatti vachanAt cha -- and from those teaching that in Dreamless

sleep the individual soul is united with the True.

yadi cha kRitsnam brahma kAryabhAvENOpayuktam syAt -- For if the

entire Brahman had passed into its effects,

" satA sOmya tadA sampannO bhavati " iti sushupti gatam viSEshaNam

anupapannam syAt -- the limitation (of the soul's union with Brahman)

to the state of dreamless sleep which is declared in the passage,

" then it is united with the True, my dear, " would be out of place!

vikRitEna brahmaNA nityasampannatvAdavikRitasya cha brahmaNOobhAvAt --

since the individual soul is always united with the effects of

Brahman, and since an unmodified Brahman does not exist (on that

hypothesis).

## Moreover, the possibility of Brahman becoming the object of

perception by means of the senses is denied while its effects may thus

be perceived. For these reasons the existence of an unmodified Brahman

has to be admitted!!

## Nor do we violate those texts which declare Brahman to be without

parts; we rather admit Brahman to be without parts just because

Scripture reveals it. For Brahman which rests exclusively on the holy

texts, and regarding which the holy texts alone are authoritative--

not the senses, and so on--must be accepted such as the texts proclaim

it to be. Now those texts declare, on the one hand, that not the

entire Brahman passes over into its effects, and, on the other hand,

that Brahman is without parts. Even certain ordinary things such as

gems, spells, herbs, and the like possess powers which, owing to

difference of time, place, occasion, and so on, produce various

opposite effects, and nobody unaided by instruction is able to find

out by mere reflection the number of these powers, their favouring

conditions, their objects, their purposes, & c.; how much more

impossible is it to conceive without the aid of Scripture the true

nature of Brahman with its powers unfathomable by thought! As the

purANa says: " Do not apply reasoning to what is unthinkable! The mark

of the unthinkable is that it is above all material causes. " Therefore

the cognition of what is supersensuous is based on the holy texts only.

## But--our opponent will say--even the holy texts cannot make us

understand what is contradictory. Brahman, you say, which is without

parts undergoes a change, but not the entire Brahman. If Brahman is

without parts, it does either not change at all or it changes in its

entirety. If, on the other hand, it be said that it changes partly and

persists partly, a break is effected in its nature, and from that it

follows that it consists of parts. It is true that in matters

connected with action (as, for instance, in the case of the two Vedic

injunctions 'at the atirâtra he is to take the shodasin-cup,' and 'at

the atirâtra he is not to take the shodasin-cup') any contradiction

which may present itself to the understanding is removed by the

optional adoption of one of the two alternatives presented as action

is dependent on man; but in the case under discussion the adoption of

one of the alternatives does not remove the contradiction because an

existent thing (like Brahman) does not (like an action which is to be

accomplished) depend on man. We are therefore met here by a real

difficulty.

## No, we reply, the difficulty is merely an apparent one; as we

maintain that the (alleged) break in Brahman's nature is a mere

figment of Nescience. By a break of that nature a thing is not really

broken up into parts, not any more than the moon is really multiplied

by appearing double to a person of defective vision.

avidyAkalpitEna cha nAmarUpa lakshaNEna rUpabhEdEna vyAkRit

avyAkRitAtmakEna tattvAnyatvAbhyAm anirvachanIyEna.. -- By that

element of plurality which is the fiction of Nescience, which is

characterised by name and form, which is evolved as well as

non-evolved, which is not to be defined either as the Existing or the

Non-existing, Brahman becomes the basis of this entire apparent world

with its changes, and so on, while in its true and real nature it at

the same time remains unchanged, lifted above the phenomenal universe.

And as the distinction of names and forms, the fiction of Nescience,

originates entirely from speech only, it does not militate against the

fact of Brahman being without parts.--Nor have the scriptural passages

which speak of Brahman as undergoing change the purpose of teaching

the fact of change; for such instruction would have no fruit. They

rather aim at imparting instruction about Brahman's Self as raised

above this apparent world; that being an instruction which we know to

have a result of its own. For in the scriptural passage beginning 'He

can only be described by No, no' (which passage conveys instruction

about the absolute Brahman) a result is stated at the end, in the

words 'O Ganaka, you have indeed reached fearlessness' (Bri. Up. IV,

2, 4).--Hence our view does not involve any real difficulties.

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

Hope the above references from bhAshya help a lot to broaden our views

regarding the issues like:--

* avidyA in sushupti.

* anirvachanIyatva of avidyA.

!! SrI Adi SankarArpaNamastu !!

Yours,

SAMPATH.

December 18, 2007

Hope the above references from bhAshya help a lot to broaden our views

regarding the issues like:--

* avidyA in sushupti.

* anirvachanIyatva of avidyA.

praNAms Sri Sampath prabhuji

Hare Krishna

I'd like to know what exactly is the significant change in shankara's

approach towards above topics you discovered in the above bhAshya

vAkya-s...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

December 18, 2007

advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote:

namastE SrI Bhaskarji,

mahASaya,

As I understand it, SrI Sankara gives the following pointers from his

bhAshya on this sUtra,

* Both Modified and Unmodified brahman exist separately at the same time.

* One quarter of brahman is modified and 3quarters of it remain

unmodified.

* If you say that the entire Brahman had passed into its effects, the

limitation (of the soul's union with Brahman) to the state of

dreamless sleep which is declared in the passage, " then it is united

with the True, my dear, " WOULD BE OUT OF PLACE!

* The " union " in Deep Sleep is not a metaphorical usage. It doesn't

mean jIva becoming brahman by the cessation of all modifications of

brahman. It only means, jIva(a portion of modified brahman) uniting

with the unmodified brahman. SrI Sankara indicates the criteria thus:

>> " since the individual soul is always united with the effects of

Brahman, and since an unmodified Brahman does not exist(on that

hypothesis). "

* If Deep Sleep connotes the cessation of all phenomena and losing of

jIva hood, why would SrI Sankara indicate a difficulty in saying,

" Then it is united with the True, my dear " ?

* This claim is backed by AchArya's bhAshya on brahma sUtra.1.3.42,

>> On account of the highest Lord being designated as different from

the embodied soul, in the states of deep sleep and of departing from

the body. His difference from the embodied soul in the state of deep

sleep is declared in the following passage, 'This person embraced by

the intelligent (prAjna) Self knows nothing that is without, nothing

that is within.' Here the term, 'the person,' must mean the embodied

soul; for of him it is possible to deny that he knows, because he, as

being the knower, may know what is within and without. The

'intelligent Self,' on the other hand, is the highest Lord, because he

is never dissociated from intelligence, i.e.--in his

case--all-embracing knowledge.

* But the unmodified brahman cannot be perceived by senses while its

effects may thus be perceived. For these reasons the existence of an

unmodified Brahman has to be admitted!!

## Now, to answer *all* objections and difficulties in understanding

the above things, SrI Sankara simply says,

>> " Do not apply reasoning to what is unthinkable! The mark

of the unthinkable is that it is above all material causes. "

* Now, how can I say avidyA exists in Deep Sleep? -- Because AchArya

says,

>> No, we reply, the difficulty is merely an apparent one; as we

maintain that the (alleged) break in Brahman's nature is a mere

figment of Nescience. By a break of that nature a thing is not really

broken up into parts, not any more than the moon is really multiplied

by appearing double to a person of defective vision.

* The " Union " is spoken of in Deep Sleep and Union can occur only

between two things(Modified and Unmodified brahman) and these two

things exist as long as there is avidyA. Hence, there is avidyA in

sushupti.

## Here we can also notice AchArya's intention behind giving the

example of One moon appearing as two while defining adhyAsa in his

adhyAsa bhAshyam. Most of us take only the Nacre-Silver example to

explain adhyAsa.

* Now, coming to the anirvachanIyatva of avidyA, I think I have shown

enough references in two of my recent posts.

Here in this sUtra bhAshya, the " element of plurality " imagined by

avidyA is said to be indescribable, for it is evolved as well as

non-evolved, which is not to be defined either as the Existing or the

Non-existing. The indescribability of that element of plurality can be

attributed to the fact that it is imagined by avidyA which itself

cannot be said as " It is " or " It is not " !

That which is a product of anirvachanIya vastu, must also be

anirvachanIya. This anirvachanIyatva as I have indicated earlier is

regarding its truth value.

Thank you,

Yours,

SAMPATH.

=======================

> praNAms Sri Sampath prabhuji

>

> Hare Krishna

>

> I'd like to know what exactly is the significant change in shankara's

> approach towards above topics you discovered in the above bhAshya

> vAkya-s...

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

> bhaskar

>

December 19, 2007

Humble praNAms Sri Sampath prabhuji

Hare Krishna

S prabhuji :

As I understand it, SrI Sankara gives the following pointers from his

bhAshya on this sUtra,

* Both Modified and Unmodified brahman exist separately at the same time.

* One quarter of brahman is modified and 3quarters of it remain

unmodified.

* If you say that the entire Brahman had passed into its effects, the

limitation (of the soul's union with Brahman) to the state of

dreamless sleep which is declared in the passage, " then it is united

with the True, my dear, " WOULD BE OUT OF PLACE!

bhaskar :

I dont think above is what shankara's final stand in the above sUtra

bhAshya commentary...Because, shankara himself makes his stand clear which

you yourself quoted in the mail. Let me quote the same :

// quote //

as we maintain that the (alleged) break in Brahman's nature is a mere

figment of Nescience. By a break of that nature a thing is not really

broken up into parts, not any more than the moon is really multiplied

by appearing double to a person of defective vision.

// unquote//

So, IMHO, it is evident that first shankara from adhyArOpa drushti, takes

the help of shruti vAkya-s & says there is only one of part of brahman is

modified & at the conclusion without disturbing his siddhAnta says all

these part & parcel business is kEvala avidyAkruta. Shankara never ever

accepts the existence of *another* chaitanya apart from one & ONLY shuddha

paripUrNa chaitanya...If at all he does that anywhere it is from the point

of mere adhyArOpa & to be contextually understood without compormising the

mUla siddhAnta i.e. yEkamEvAdvitIyatva of Atman/brahman. Here, in the above

commentary shArIra Atma is not part of brahman, if we conclude like that

then IMO, it is not advaita it is V-advaita. If we selectively read the

bhAshya bhAga of *saMbhOga prAptiriti chEnna vaisEshyAt* ( 1-2-8), we

definitely come to the conclusion that shankara is a *dualist*!!..coz. here

he says, jIva is kartA & bhOktA whereas brahman is apahatapApma..etc.

(yEkaH kartA bhOktA dharmAdharmasAdhanaH sukhadukhAdimAmshcha,

yEkastadviparItaH, apahatapApmAtvAdiguNaH, yEtasmAdanayOrvishEshAdEkasya

bhOgaH nEtarasya) Here shankara clearly says there is a definite

difference between jIva & brahman & one cannot be another, from this

selective reading can we say according to shankara there are *two* not

ONE?? No, because shankara elsewhere (vEdanta sUtra bhAshya 1-2-6) states

that para *yEva* AtmA dEhEdriyAdi manObuddhypAdhibhiH paricchidhyamAnaH

bAlaiH shArIra ityupacharyatE, yathA ghatakara

kAdyupAdhivaSAdaparicchinnamapi nabhaH paricchinnavadavabhAsatE, tadvat,

tadapEkshayA cha karma katrutvAdi bhEda vyavahAraH, na viruddhyate prAk

'tattvamasi' iti AtmaikatvOpadEsha grahaNAt, gruhItE tu AtmaikatvE

bandhamOkshAdi sarvavyavahAra parisamAptirEva syAt. Here shankara quite

explicitly declares that it is brahman only who has been called as shArIra

(jIva/jIvAtma) by average people due to brahman's seeming association with

limited adjuncts like, body, senses, mind & intellect. But this difference

(shArIra & paramAtma) anyway holds good in vyavahAra & it is NOT against

shurti also...When you realize that Atman is ONE without second then

transations like bondage & release etc. will get over within no time.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

PS : Due to year end activities I may not be able to participate in the

subsequent discussions on this issue...Hope you would bear with me

prabhuji...

December 19, 2007

advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote:

Humble praNAmaH SrI Bhaskar ji,

mahASaya,

You Wrote:--

> I dont think above is what shankara's final stand in the above sUtra

> bhAshya commentary...Because, shankara himself makes his stand clear

which

> you yourself quoted in the mail. Let me quote the same :

>

> // quote //

> as we maintain that the (alleged) break in Brahman's nature is a mere

> figment of Nescience. By a break of that nature a thing is not really

> broken up into parts, not any more than the moon is really multiplied

> by appearing double to a person of defective vision.

> // unquote//

But this difference

> (shArIra & paramAtma) anyway holds good in vyavahAra & it is NOT against

> shurti also...When you realize that Atman is ONE without second then

> transations like bondage & release etc. will get over within no time.

MY REPLY:-- mahASaya, I agree with all you wrote. And my view was that

Deep Sleep itself is a *phenomenon* where the modified portion unites

with the unmodified brahman. So it is still within the vyAvahArika realm.

Because SrI Sankara says that the individual soul is ALWAYS united

with the effects of Brahman. So one has to accept an unmodified

brahman separate from it.

So in sushupti as per SrI Sankara, there is NO cessation of the

effects of brahman. jIva also remains as it is !

In dahara adhikaraNam, SrI Sankara explains that the jIva *attains*

the nature of brahman in deep sleep by showing(in BSB.1.3.19) the

reference from chAndOgya.8.12.3. " As soon as it has approached the

highest light it appears in its own form. Then It is the Highest

Purusha " .

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

Thank you,

Yours,

SAMPATH.

December 19, 2007

praNAms Sri Sampath prabhuji

Hare Krishna

S prabhuji :

MY REPLY:-- mahASaya, I agree with all you wrote. And my view was that

Deep Sleep itself is a *phenomenon* where the modified portion unites

with the unmodified brahman.

bhaskar :

Kindly pardon me I am not able to get this modified & unmodified forms of

brahman..there is ONLY one brahman i.e. nitya,shuddha, buddha, mukta

brahman..IMO, there is no modified portion in brahman, ( can we say some

portion of brahman does undergo vikAra!!??)It will be only unmodified

(nirvikAri) brahman always. If you say modified brahman is jIva/shArIri

who unites with unmodified brahman in sushupti, that goes against the

nivikAratva of brahman...Here prAjna is nothing but brahman who has uniform

existence (astitva) in all the three states irrespective of his association

with upAdhi.

Just for my academic interest, please let me know whether there is any

difference between this modified brahman (jIva) and saguNa brahman??

S prabhuji :

So it is still within the vyAvahArika realm.

bhaskar :

As I said in my earlier mails, sushupti can be viewed from three different

standpoints..Yes, this sushupti is also in vyavahArika realm when it is

viewed from the witnessing standpoint. Because shruti itself declares that

Atman is not of inward consciousness (antaH prajna), nor outward

consciounsness nor even mass of consciousness (prajnAna ghana)..That is

the reason why mAndUkya describes Atman as turIya..

S prabhuji :

Because SrI Sankara, the individual soul is ALWAYS united with the

effects of Brahman. So one has to accept an unmodified brahman

separate from it.

bhaskar :

shall I append that only in the vyavahAra where (modified)brahman is

separate from (unmodified) brahman, but in reality there is ONLY one

brahman??

S prabhuji :

So in sushupti as per SrI Sankara, there is NO cessation of the

effects of brahman. jIva also remains as it is !

bhaskar :

There is no jIva as a separate entity apart from upAdhi...In my previous

bhAshya quote it is clear that there is no jIva as a separate entity which

we can say gets united in another entity called brahman...In sushupti it is

said that there is no mind, with that the socalled individuality of shArIri

(jIva) also vanishes..So, IMHO, there is no question of existence of Jiva &

its modifications. Since there is neither mind, nor body, nor senses, nor

the world in this state of sushupti how can we still maintain the

individuality of Jiva?? the socalled jIva, here in this state is one with

its essential and blissful nature which is pure consciousness. Your below

quote would corroborate the same I believe

S prabhuji :

In dahara adhikaraNam, SrI Sankara explains that the jIva *attains*

the nature of brahman in deep sleep by showing(in BSB.1.3.19) the

reference from chAndOgya.8.12.3. " As soon as it has approached the

highest light it appears in its own form. Then It is the Highest

Purusha " .

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

Thank you,

Yours,

SAMPATH.

praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

December 19, 2007

Shri Sampath ji,

We got to be very careful while letting out statements like " And my

view was that

Deep Sleep itself is a *phenomenon* where the modified portion unites

with the unmodified brahman. "

What modification are you referring to in the above statement ? Are

you equating modification with jagat or Jiva? Vrtti visista Caitanya

is Jiva and chit visistam is jagat. Advaita vadins hold the view

that even Jadatva has Chit as its adhistAna, for it is revealed

through perception. Vidyaranya categorically refers to say

that 'AddvitIya Brahman is partless - Nishkala as Shruti refers

never gets modified at any stage, to discards its previous nature.

transformation of unmodified to modified and vice versa does not

sound Advaitic at all. Vidyaranya while refuting Baskara's view

emphatically points out to say that there is no entity called

Modified Brahman that leaves a portion unmodified. A modification is

either being made of parts lumped together owing to conjuntions of

the parts which are different from the previous conjunctions, as a

lump of clay assumes the form of a jar, or being made of parts in

addition to other parts like milk being modified into that of curd

(by addition of coagulating substance). Change of state is not

modification as bee that is static is same as the bee that is in

motion. Ether conjoined with any substance is never modified. Acloth

for instance that is colored is not taken to be modified. The

distinction you make with modified and unmodified consciousness is

dangerous since it involves the problem of part and the whole; for

we say that the modification of parts with the modification of whole

is indescribable and hence the portion modified can also be

indeterminable. whther it falls on the realms of vyavahara or not or

it gets located as prAtibAsika is a mere ontological dilemma which

an Advaitin must not attempt to judge. it is like asking 'are parts

of gold modified into necklace? or are they modified into another

substance appropriate to necklace? or do they assume a state

appropriate to the necklace ?

In Vivarana premeya Samgraha Vidyaranya says this:

Vedic testimony says Brahman is partless at all levels and states.

Brahman which seemingly appears to be in parts is indescribable what

so ever be the realm of existence. If in any state of existence,

Brahman consists of parts, then both its parts and its whole as

parts are self luminous and the luminosity is one that shines with

same intensity in magnitude for it is partless once again. A jar

sustained by consciousness and consciousness conditioned by mind are

both non-different and are known to be composed of the same part

encompassed by the same whole, since part n whole are neither seen

nor distinguished as they shine with same luminosity.

December 19, 2007

advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote:

sa prEm namastE SrI Bhaskar ji,

SrI bhaskar ji Wrote:

>

> Kindly pardon me I am not able to get this modified & unmodified

forms of

> brahman..there is ONLY one brahman i.e. nitya,shuddha, buddha, mukta

> brahman..IMO, there is no modified portion in brahman, ( can we say some

> portion of brahman does undergo vikAra!!??)It will be only unmodified

> (nirvikAri) brahman always. If you say modified brahman is jIva/shArIri

> who unites with unmodified brahman in sushupti, that goes against the

> nivikAratva of brahman...Here prAjna is nothing but brahman who has

uniform

> existence (astitva) in all the three states irrespective of his

association

> with upAdhi.

Sampath:-- mahASaya, the same objections you have raised were

anticipated by SrI Sankara as we see in Brahma sUtra.2.1.27.

His solution to this boils down to saying, " One has to see the

difference between vyAvahArika and pAramArthika levels. "

I request you to consider the bhAshya to 2.1.27 as a whole but not

specific parts of it.

SrI Bhaskar ji wrote:--

> Just for my academic interest, please let me know whether there is any

> difference between this modified brahman (jIva) and saguNa brahman??

Sampath:-- Modified brahman according to SrI Sankara is jagat and

jIvas. Separate from this, there exist 3 quarters of unmodified

brahman. So IMHO, saguNa must be ISvara who pervades through jagat and

jIvas.

SrI Bhaskar ji :--

> As I said in my earlier mails, sushupti can be viewed from three

different

> standpoints..Yes, this sushupti is also in vyavahArika realm when it is

> viewed from the witnessing standpoint. Because shruti itself

declares that

> Atman is not of inward consciousness (antaH prajna), nor outward

> consciounsness nor even mass of consciousness (prajnAna ghana)..That is

> the reason why mAndUkya describes Atman as turIya..

SAMPATH:-- mahASaya, why should sushupti alone be viewed from three

differnt standpoints? Can't we view even the other two states in those

three ways to declare that jIva is brahman even in jAgrat and svapna?

In that way, there should be some specific criterion to declare that

sushupti is really pAramArthika while other two states are not. And

that criterion has to be stated after considering SrI Sankara's

statement that supti is a common feature of three states but sushupti

varies from the other two due to the absence of viparItagrahaNa and

samSaya.

SrI bhaskar ji :--

> shall I append that only in the vyavahAra where (modified)brahman is

> separate from (unmodified) brahman, but in reality there is ONLY one

> brahman??

Sampath:-- Exactly !! That is what I have been saying all the time!

SrI bhaskar ji :--

> There is no jIva as a separate entity apart from upAdhi...In my previous

> bhAshya quote it is clear that there is no jIva as a separate entity

which

> we can say gets united in another entity called brahman...In

sushupti it is

> said that there is no mind, with that the socalled individuality of

shArIri

> (jIva) also vanishes..So, IMHO, there is no question of existence of

Jiva &

> its modifications. Since there is neither mind, nor body, nor

senses, nor

> the world in this state of sushupti how can we still maintain the

> individuality of Jiva??

Sampath:-- We say Creation is NOT in our anubhava. So if pralaya

occurs now, is my individuality going to end?

If the individuality ends at each pralaya, how can jIvatva be anAdi?

Is it avidyA that creates individuality or Mind?

Kindly pardon me for I differ from the view that avidyA is confined to

Mind alone. Because it would lead to circular reasoning as aviydA

itself is adhyAsa and it amounts to saying that Mind can exist without

avidyA.

SrI Bhaskar ji :--

> the socalled jIva, here in this state is one with

> its essential and blissful nature which is pure consciousness. Your

below

> quote would corroborate the same I believe

> In dahara adhikaraNam, SrI Sankara explains that the jIva *attains*

> the nature of brahman in deep sleep by showing(in BSB.1.3.19) the

> reference from chAndOgya.8.12.3. " As soon as it has approached the

> highest light it appears in its own form. Then It is the Highest

> Purusha " .

Sampath :-- mahASaya, I wanted to relate this part of bhAshya to the

one of 1.3.42.

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

Thank you,

Yours,

SAMPATH.

December 19, 2007

advaitin , " antharyami_in " <sathvatha wrote:

My most beloved aravind ji,

sa prEm namastE, ;-)

Were you just re-phrasing the following Objections of pUrvapakshin

against SrI Sankara's thesis as put forth in 2.1.27 ?

But--our opponent will say--even the holy texts cannot make us