08-16-2005, 11:14 AM
Hi Ashok.
I addressed some of these points earlier, and you have yet to post your full reply. Let me re-state some simple points briefly.
The theory I speak for is "achintya bheda-abheda tattva", or Inconceivable Difference within Oneness.
1) <b>The sense of "difference" is no more an external "attribute" to Brahman than is "oneness".</b> Rather, "difference" inheres in Brahman.
2) To speak of "one" in a <i>numerical</i> sense is ridiculous, i.e., it is as ridiculous as speaking of 2 or 3 Brahmans. Brahman is beyond space, time, and number. <b>Therefore, it is a <i>qualitative</i> oneness, not a <i>numerical</i> sense of being "alone".</b>
3) Since <b>Brahman is the "sum of all possibilities"</b>, therefore the imposition of such strictures as numerical singularity, impersonalism, or lack of variagatedness in any sense are all glaring contradictions.
4) "Advaita" in the Sanskrit means "unique", or "peerless". "Ekatvam" means "one-ness". There is a difference of meaning here. Uniqueness implies variagatedness, it implies difference. Therefore, again we have the inconceivable Uniqueness within Oneness. But the kevala-advaita commentary fudges this nuance of meaning and makes "advaita" synonymous with "ekatvam".
5) The simultaneous inherence of difference within oneness is 'inconceivable' in the sense that it <b>cannot be visualized</b> in our imagination. This is certainly understandable, given that Brahman is beyong mind. But it may be formulated philosophically, and it must <i>necessarily</i> be a paradox (with no further contradictions). It is beyond the empirical. OTOH, mayavadi commentaries have a rather simplistic, cut-n-dried set of axioms, but then they come up with a bunch of other "vadas" to try to tackle the multiplicity of contradictions, or they throw up their hands saying "it is inconceivable". Inconceivability refers to the ability to visualize, not to formulate it philosophically.
6) The variagatedness inherent in Brahman is not like the differentiated material variagatedness. Rather, material variagatedness, like illusory consciousness, is a perversion and dislocation of the original. The Source cannot be less than the Creation. Variegatedness exists, but in a non-thinkable form, beyond the physical, astral and causal planes of existence. <b>The higher dimensions transcend <i>and include</i> the lower dimensions.</b> A two dimensional object includes one-dimensionality. 3-D includes the first and second dimensions, and transcends both. Therefore Brahman, being the totality and balance of all, must necessarily include all that is in pratyaksha, anumana, etc....and more. All the attributes of the saguna realms are inherent in Brahman, albeit in a different, "unmanifest" form.
7) Because Brahman "is possessed of" pure consciousness, therefore is is necessarily <b>personal</b>. Impersonalism is non-sense.
I addressed some of these points earlier, and you have yet to post your full reply. Let me re-state some simple points briefly.
The theory I speak for is "achintya bheda-abheda tattva", or Inconceivable Difference within Oneness.
1) <b>The sense of "difference" is no more an external "attribute" to Brahman than is "oneness".</b> Rather, "difference" inheres in Brahman.
2) To speak of "one" in a <i>numerical</i> sense is ridiculous, i.e., it is as ridiculous as speaking of 2 or 3 Brahmans. Brahman is beyond space, time, and number. <b>Therefore, it is a <i>qualitative</i> oneness, not a <i>numerical</i> sense of being "alone".</b>
3) Since <b>Brahman is the "sum of all possibilities"</b>, therefore the imposition of such strictures as numerical singularity, impersonalism, or lack of variagatedness in any sense are all glaring contradictions.
4) "Advaita" in the Sanskrit means "unique", or "peerless". "Ekatvam" means "one-ness". There is a difference of meaning here. Uniqueness implies variagatedness, it implies difference. Therefore, again we have the inconceivable Uniqueness within Oneness. But the kevala-advaita commentary fudges this nuance of meaning and makes "advaita" synonymous with "ekatvam".
5) The simultaneous inherence of difference within oneness is 'inconceivable' in the sense that it <b>cannot be visualized</b> in our imagination. This is certainly understandable, given that Brahman is beyong mind. But it may be formulated philosophically, and it must <i>necessarily</i> be a paradox (with no further contradictions). It is beyond the empirical. OTOH, mayavadi commentaries have a rather simplistic, cut-n-dried set of axioms, but then they come up with a bunch of other "vadas" to try to tackle the multiplicity of contradictions, or they throw up their hands saying "it is inconceivable". Inconceivability refers to the ability to visualize, not to formulate it philosophically.
6) The variagatedness inherent in Brahman is not like the differentiated material variagatedness. Rather, material variagatedness, like illusory consciousness, is a perversion and dislocation of the original. The Source cannot be less than the Creation. Variegatedness exists, but in a non-thinkable form, beyond the physical, astral and causal planes of existence. <b>The higher dimensions transcend <i>and include</i> the lower dimensions.</b> A two dimensional object includes one-dimensionality. 3-D includes the first and second dimensions, and transcends both. Therefore Brahman, being the totality and balance of all, must necessarily include all that is in pratyaksha, anumana, etc....and more. All the attributes of the saguna realms are inherent in Brahman, albeit in a different, "unmanifest" form.
7) Because Brahman "is possessed of" pure consciousness, therefore is is necessarily <b>personal</b>. Impersonalism is non-sense.