Mr. Sigma.

We would come to omniscience some other day.

@MrGreenGold I agree & I also maintain that Brahman is witness according to Advait. But many modern Advaitins believe that Brahman isn't even aware of the world because it's an illusion witnessed by only Jivas & Ishwar. AFAIK, even TheDestroyer, a moderator, also maintains that the Brahman isn't aware of the phenomenal world.

Okay, I see. @MrGreenGold I meant the same; I called the Brahman being aware of the world only & ofc, I am aware of Brahman being transcendental to 5 sheaths. Ignoring the implication of omniscience, if you agree that Brahman is aware of the phenomenal world, then we are on the same page. Most of the advaitins don't even admit of Brahman being aware of phenomenal world.

I am of opinion (& so many textual critics) that not all the works of Shankara are authentic. Anyway, Lemme have a look at the context of the three truth theory of Shankara you mentioned. Bye.

Note that Mandukya Upanishad itself expounds Brahman being aware of the phenomenal world. But the modern Advaitins, in pretext of 3 truth theory claims the Brahman in the MU is Ishwara not Brahman. Now, this conclusion of theirs tend to have many implications, like non-omniscience of Brahman, etc.

In most of the works of Shankara, he clearly expounds Brahman being aware of the phenomenal world as a dream. But modern Advaitins, in pretext of 3 truth theories, claims that the absolute Brahman isn't even aware of the phenomenal world, it's only Ishwara (Saguna Brahman) who is aware of the phenomenal world.

The motive of the so-called 3 truth theory is to establish Brahman being unaware of the phenomenal world. We have to understand the version of Shankara's three truth theory.

@MrGreenGold Btw, I will have to check the context. The point is if Brahman is aware of the phenomenal universe? According to many works of Adi Shankara like Dakshinamurthy sotram, he is.

@MrGreenGold Thanks. You can answer this question hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/13626/….

@TheLittleNaruto €thanks.

2. Or answer without resorting to it

1. 3 truth theory from Adi Shankara's work.

No more discussion. Write an answer either with

@MrGreenGold You can answer instead of whining.

@MrGreenGold Because 3 truth theory isn't to be found in Ādi Śaṅkara's works. I would accept your answer if you include concept of 3 truth theory from his works.

It's not about allergy but about consistency.

@MrGreenGold whatever... I am not custodian of Advait & the arguments I put forth were anew unconditioned by the 3 truth theories floating hither tither just to help the also_ran in some way... I would also like to see how Advaitins gonna answer otherwise without resorting to theories of relative, absolute & all the rest of it.

I'm leaving the stage now. Bye. I attempted to answer with my limited capacity. You can try the same.

In any case, you being a renowned logician might want to make your hands dirty with an answer backed up with relevant sources by harnessing your skilled intellectual prowess?

The point I was trying to make was that the Brahman is both transcendent & immanent and the creation is due to its immanent aspects governed by Maya. We usually call Brahman with its transcendental aspect Nirguṇa Brahman. The verse from Atmabodh that I have included in the answer implying the same that too with analogy of the sun & rays.

@MrGreenGold Nobody has stopped you do write a right answer.

@MrGreenGold First get informed about the difference between analogy & examples followed by scopes of analogies.

@MrGreenGold Maya is substrated on Brahman. This is the literal meaning of ब्रह्माश्रय।

@MrGreenGold Dude, when did I gave examples? These are analogies. Analogies ain't meant to be equivalent to the fact.

Okay. I'm ending here irrespective of you agree to my answer or not. Bye.

Upanishads indicate the sun barring its rays (hence devoid of 7 colors) when they assert Brahman to be Nirguṇa whereas they indicate the sun with its rays when Brahman is asserted to create the world.

@MrGreenGold "have" connoted to external projection. Rays of the sun are being projected outwardly; Rays have 7 colors & I'm defining Sun as both the combination of Sun+its Rays. Whenever I assert that sun has no 7 colors, you should understand that I'm talking about Sun barring its rays but when I assert that the sun is shining on the earth, then it means that the rays are included in the sun.

Moreover, Vedanta doesn't speak about origin of bondage. It simply asserts that it has been since eternity though have an end.

@MrGreenGold There is a difference in case of KS— the reason I'm satisfied with its consistency. There should be a point where all should have gotten Moksha in Vedanta because they believe bondages have been existing since eternity though there is an end.

This is a problem with all the Vedanta schools actually. They simply answer it by asserting that there are infinite souls, which isn't convincing.

@MrGreenGold There are many. Consider a simple question. All would eventually merge in Brahman, then by now there shouldn't have any more jiva left in bondage presuming there have been innumerable creations.

I have hands, hands ain't in me. My witness or existence is separate from hands.

@MrGreenGold "Maya is in Brahman"— It's not in Brahman., Brahman has Maya as its power. Therefore Gunas are in Maya not Brahman. I have been reiterating the same but you ain't comprehending.

@TheLittleNaruto I wasn't after bounty. I just wished to help him.

@TheLittleNaruto In any case, I am not obliged to brain storm to get answers on behalf of AV. KS answers all these succinctly.

@TheLittleNaruto Yup. I have read works of Adi Shankara & haven't found yet. Let's see if I find in his Bhashyas of Upanishad.

@TheLittleNaruto Probably, Advaita of Shankara was more subtle but watered down to an extent that it's no more recognizable in its true form.

Theory of multiple realities is mostly the sole refugee of Advaitins against the difficult philosophical questions.

@TheLittleNaruto , Advaitins tend to reiterate the same theory of multiple realities, but shy away from providing any reference from Shankara's works.

@TheLittleNaruto Yeah, KS answers. Moreover, I am just venturing to answer because a guy aspired to get answer by raising bounty, otherwise, I don't care to answer because there seems to be a lot of issues with Advait Vedanta.

In any case, I have ventures to answer these questions by myself w.r.t. Shankara's works alone who doesn't answer these questions with theory of multiple realities. I am not a Vedantin, who doesn't agree with tenets of AV for its inconsistencies & lack of answers of difficult questions.

Did you read the latest updates|?

@TheLittleNaruto Can you unfreeze chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/123166/…

@TheLittleNaruto There?

@MrGreenGold There is no guarantee. It's just saying that if you could keep the window open, you might stumble upon wind. Opening window doesn't guarantee arrival of wind.

@MrGreenGold Again wrong comprehension. It's just saying that when Sattwa is in abundance, then one could realize the bliss. It's not saying that Sattwa is bliss.

Prakriti isn't bliss. It's insentient.

the problem is with translation, it's ambigious.

Prakriti (i.e. primordial substance) is that in which there is the reflection of Brahman, that is pure consciousness and bliss and is composed of sattva, rajas and tamas (in a state of homogeneity). It is of two kinds. — It's saying that Brahman is bliss and pure consciousness not prakriti. Prakriti is composed of sattva, rajas and tamas.

@MrGreenGold €give exact verses.