[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Dvaita and Advaita: A Reconciliation
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Dvaita and Advaita: A Reconciliation
-
From: mpt@mail.utexas.edu (michael tandy)
-
Date: 9 Jul 1995 17:33:59 GMT
-
From news@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu Sun Jul 9 13: 22:15 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
-
References: <3ti2tp$43t@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
In article <3ti2tp$43t@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, Shrisha Rao <shrisha@lcl.cmu.edu> says:
>> I agree there is a difference between nirguNa and saguNa brahman, but
>> there is no question of who is the superior of the two. They are one
>> and the same. Hari is easily recognized to be the saguNa brahman. He
>
>This is a patent contradiction. You agree that there is a difference, and
>in the same paragraph, say that they are one and the same. It is worth
>your while to decide which *one* of these mutually incompatible positions
>you want to hold.
Pardon me if I am butting into this debate, but it appears
to me that he is espousing the only Vedanta view that cannot
be assailed by it's own statements, acintya-bhedabheda-tattva.
We shouldn't be overeager to try to artificailly stuff the
Supreme Brahman into the convenient paradigm of our logic; He
has no obligation to be so stuffed. The conceptions of dvaita
and advaita are not necessarily ontologically incompatible;
rather our own minds may be incompatible with their
reconciliation. However, what we can see is that we are one
in essence, yet different in volume and potency, like a drop from
the ocean which contains absolutely nothing other than ocean
water, sans the ocean volume and its potential power.
Secondly, I can't agree that Sri Hari is saguna-brahman. How
would both of you respond if I said that He is in fact the
nirguna brahman?
-m
