DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Paul Bunyan** · 11-07-2005, 05:40 PM

Sankara: Quite true. There is such a perception of difference. But that is between the nescient Self and the qualified God. It is because of this perception of difference that the Sruti becomes useful to us whenit declares a non-perceived truth that, if you remove the attributes which are responsible for the distinctness, the un-qualified Self and the un-qualified God are one. The superficial perception of difference must give way to the higher teaching of the Sruti, just like the initial perception of a snake giving way to the later teaching of a friend that it is but a rope.

Mandana: Perception may be, as you say, liable to error and therefore subject to correction. But reasoning is ever supreme and that is against you. Whatever is not all-knowing is not God. For example, a pot being not all knowing is not God. Therefore the Self, not being all-knowing , cannot be God.

Sankara: Your general proposition itself is not correct. You seek to deduct its correctness by reference to the illustration of a pot. But who told you that pot is not GOd?

Mandana: Why the distinction between a pot and God is certainly patently true and eternal as it is not destroyed even by the knowledge of the Self.

11-07-2005, 05:40 PM	#24
Paul Bunyan Join Date Jul 2007 Age 58 Posts 4,495 Senior Member	Sankara: Quite true. There is such a perception of difference. But that is between the nescient Self and the qualified God. It is because of this perception of difference that the Sruti becomes useful to us whenit declares a non-perceived truth that, if you remove the attributes which are responsible for the distinctness, the un-qualified Self and the un-qualified God are one. The superficial perception of difference must give way to the higher teaching of the Sruti, just like the initial perception of a snake giving way to the later teaching of a friend that it is but a rope. Mandana: Perception may be, as you say, liable to error and therefore subject to correction. But reasoning is ever supreme and that is against you. Whatever is not all-knowing is not God. For example, a pot being not all knowing is not God. Therefore the Self, not being all-knowing , cannot be God. Sankara: Your general proposition itself is not correct. You seek to deduct its correctness by reference to the illustration of a pot. But who told you that pot is not GOd? Mandana: Why the distinction between a pot and God is certainly patently true and eternal as it is not destroyed even by the knowledge of the Self.
	Quote