06-21-2005, 05:37 AM
<b>Ashok Kumar</b>,
Thanks for taking the time to expand on your ideas. I'll first point out where we agree, and then where I think you may be constricting yourself. I will introduce another angle towards the end.
Also, since you frequently refer to "Sankhya" philosophy in your comparative approach, I thought I'd mention that there is some controversy about what the 'real' Sankhya is. Kapila, son of Devahuti, propounded a Sankhya which falls in line with Vedanta, albeit at a lower level of discussion (in the Noetic model I outlined previously at some length). There is the other, non-theistic Sankhya <i>interpretation</i> given by another 'Kapila', and you are speaking in reference to that. Just thought I'd mention it, because many people seem to be unaware of this. It was the former that Krishna references in the Bhagavad Gita, and it is the former that is referenced in the Bhagavatam, etc.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Two things that can interact can't be two mutually exclusive realities.
...
I consider the more pertinent classification 'real' versus 'unreal' (sat -asat).
...
There is no need to break it up arbitrarily into material or spiritual.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->That was EXACTLY my point. By material I meant asat, and by spiritual I meant sat. And I defined the difference in terms of eternality versus transience. And further, in terms of projections of consciousness.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This dichotomy in Samkhya is resolved in advaita through the questions of 'sat' (being) and 'asat' (non being), rather than 'material' and 'spiritual'. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is where the confusion arises. "Being" and "non-being" are misleading terms, and therefore need qualification, which Vedanta provides (but Sankhya doesn't). Sat and asat are clearly differentiated in terms of eternality and transience as per Vedanta (including Shankara's commentary on it). So let's be quite clear about this. <b>The time-dimension is crucial to distinguishing the Sat from the Asat, i.e., the material from the spiritual.</b> In oscillating back and forth between Vedanta and the particular commentary of Sankhya that you are referencing, you may be confusing semantics.
Now only if this were clear could we can begin to tackle the idea of "material attributes" versus "spiritual attributes". But then again, your definition of maya does not sit well with the Vedantic definitions of sat and asat as outlined above:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->By 'illusion' in advaitic context I meant the usual definition of illusion, as taking something for something else.
...
Note that Maya is defined indirectly throgh the need to rconcile the existence of experiences that an observer can have (as claimed in Upanishads) that include a range from the ordinary world of multiplicity all the way to unity.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't know what you mean by the "usual" definitions of illusion, but I hope you are aware of some historical legerdemain in this regard:
satattvato'nyatha buddhir vikara ity udiratah
atattvato'nyatha buddhir vivarta ity udahrtah
"The perception of a different object when a real object takes another form is called parinama (or vikara). Perception of a different object when there is actually no different object is called vivarta."
This is the original definition of concepts fundamentally related to maya. But, much after Shankara passed away, in debate with Ramanuja and later acharyas, the mayavadis actually rejected this Vedantic definition, and re-defined the terms vivarta, etc in order to make different sense of Shankara's commentaries. As I pointed out in a previous post, the mayavadis clung to Shankara's comentaries (which remained ambiguous on so many concepts and focussed mostly on superconscious Brahman versus Voidism). Instead, they would re-define or reject <i>Vedanta</i> definitions so that they fell in line with the ambiguities of Shankara's commentaries, <i>rather than the other way around</i>. The Vaishnava acharyas referrred <i>directly to Vedanta</i>...and still explained Shankara's intentional ambiguities in terms of the "time, place and recipient" of his teaching. So my point is that I hope you're aware of this in what you consider the "usual" definitions of maya.
Maya is the result of perverted projections of consciousness. You yourself made a very strong case in favour of this viewpoint when you said, "Two things that can interact can't be two mutually exclusive realities." In one (partial) sense, realized consciousness means seeing everything in relation to the Fountainhead, i.e. Godhead. I touched upon this in previous posts, and for much more in-depth discussions, you may delve into Vaishnava commentaries, <b>which is the whole point of my making these posts -- to induce the reader to investigate bona fide literature.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Note also that defined this way, action of Maya is specific to the observer in world of appearances. If that specific observer attains 'mukti' and sees the unity of brahman, that doesn't imply that the same thing happens simultaneously for all the observers as seen from the world of apparent realities. Mukti is an individual experience, as seen from the world of appearances. As seen from the unitary level of brahman, there is just one universal observer anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->That's a very unconvincing jugglery of concepts, without answering to the fundamental question of what is the unit of conscious experience. According to Vedanta, Atman is atomic, i.e., indivisible, and is also the unit of conscious experience. Also, maya springs from Godhead (the Supreme Soul) itself, therefore it cannot operate on fragmental parts of this Supreme Soul unless there is some sense of "spiritual separateness", or otherwise you end up with other contradictions. In fact, if Absolute Oneness is your theory, then what is maya itself? Where does it spring from, and why? In answering these questions, the mayavadis practically admitted defeat.
Let's take 4 of the many assertions Vedanta makes about the Supreme:
1,2,3) There can be no svajatiya or vijatiya bheda, nor svagata bheda in Absolute Truth. So how will you explain your understanding of maya, and discrete consciousness within maya existing in parallel with this "Lonely Oneness"? You cannot explain this without taking the time-factor aspect of the proper definition of sat and asat into consideration, which you are reluctat to do. OTOH, Impersonalism posits some sort of material dissolution or illusions of perception, "self-hypnosis", etc, which have been debunked. I have pointed out that maya is constant, even in liberation. Only it is a transformation from avidya-maya to vidya-maya.
4) The Supreme Soul can never be the object of anything.
The fact that the Vaishnavism takes this and the above into consideration should make you re-evaluate your hackneyed complaint of "observer-observation-observed", etc, and find out how Vaishnavism (i.e. the Vedas) understands this. To quote a tiny passage from Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati:
"Krishna as Object of worship is one-Half, and, as the Support of His worshipper, He Himself is the other Half of the Whole. The variety of reciprocal activity of these Two Moieties constitutes the Fullness of the Divinity. Krishna is the complete realization of the Support of His worship. The <i>transcendental reflections </i>which are also of the nature of supporters are the worship of the Divinity, which appear in the different planes of cognitive existences..."
The Supreme is the impetus and reservoir of all <i>rasa</i>. Which then leads to a closer examination of the position of jiva, etc. (note the use of the term "transcendental reflections"). There is much to explore.
<b>And these above 4 assertions are only in the "abheda" section of Vedanta, which Chaitanya Vaishnavism is quite comfortable explaining along with the other Upanishads. The great Rishis have defined Complete Knowledge as "seeing each thing in relation to the Whole". But step outside into the "bheda" and "ghataka" Upanishads, and any brand of mayavada has no way of reconciling...</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Lila or 'play' in timelessness is an oxymoron. A play is a sequence of events. And time is nothing but a way to arrange a sequence of events. I don't understand what you mean by time being "subservient' to 'Lila'.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->It is anirvachaniya no doubt, but not an oxymoron. It is an oxymoron only for lack of understanding and imagination. You may be familiar with concepts of "infinite nowness", etc, even found in Zen and other literatures. Let's just say that this is one part of understanding this. The only thing I can say now is that it requires some degree of immersion in the literature -- and sadhana -- to be able to expand one's intellect and imagination to draw closer to these esoteric concepts. I mentioned earlier how practice of certain kinds of sadhana can reveal the link between Time and Mind, and its effect on consciousness.
"The moment a fool gives up concentration
And his other spiritual practices,
He falls prey to fancies (intellectual & sensual) and desires.
Even after hearing the truth,
The fool clings to his folly..."
-Ashtavakra Gita 18:75-76
Actually your Alice in Wonderland example, though given in jest, was quite an interesting one. There are many rabbit-holes that are to be explored, if only people would learn to <i>use both sides of the brain in spiritual quest</i>. The yoga that employs <i>all</i> the faculties at our disposal is the best yoga, or the only complete yoga.
As regards my reference to String theory:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It miserably fails Popper's Falsifiability criterion as of now.
...
I can't comprehend 'events' beyond time. It just doesn't compute for me.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I am quite aware of the multiple difficulties this fascinating theory has in terms of conventional proof, and that it is currently considered more metaphysics than physics. That will probably be the ultimate destiny of all material science anyway. With all due respect, I find it amazing that you consider it a proud characteristic of a "hard-headed" physicist to not be able to think beyond "linear time". And also that you are measuring such ambitious universal theories of "unification" by lame criteria such as Popperian falsifiability. Surely you have also heard of Godel's Incompleteness theorem? <b>Within any given branch of mathematics or science, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that system itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going <i>outside</i> the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical systems of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules...</b>
Therefore, with all sincere respect, I would assert that the quest for the Absolute Truth requires a little more than what an average career in Physics demands. As we have seen, even the most ambitious theories in material Physics itself are stepping into the metaphysical. Therefore I pointed to string theory to give an idea of how respectable physicists are trying to wrestle with certain concepts, and not as some proven theory. Don't you agree that your desire to be able to "compute" everything seems a little naive in the face of the subject matter we are discussing here (Absolute Truth), as is your admission of not being able to (or not wanting to) think beyond the rigid confines of Time.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am willing to argue that in timelessness, multiplicity can't exist.
...
observation of a timeless observer is unitary. A timeless observer can make only "one" observation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I agree with the first statement, but only if you qualify "multiplicity" in the <b>material</b> sense of the term -- which takes us back to definitions of sat, asat, and avidya-maya. As for your second statement, and statements that sunder makes in his posts -- <b>to speak of "one", or "alone", etc is as ludicrous as speaking of "two", "three" or "four" in the material sense</b>. Nirguna is beyond number, <b>in the discrete sense of countability</b>. Therefore, saying "one", or "alone" (in a purely material conception) as a denial of spiritual variegatedness is also logically ludicrous.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Carl, what is the use of such phrases? Did Shri Chaitanya have nothing better to do than to spent so much of his efforts on merely refute some two-legged asses?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Ashok, just ignore some caustic comments I may make about mayavadis, which are meant for the exclusive consumption of some others here, who set the tone for debate, much to my own chagrin. As for Lord Chaitanya, he, like all acharyas, spent some time and effort to counter mayavada so as to delineate truth from untruth as far as the innocent masses were concerned. <b>Mayavada is a blanket term, covering various grades of false interpretation of the Vedas, and includes: agnostics, apotheosists, anthropomosphists (<i>this</i> is material saguna conception), impersonalists, henotheists, pantheists, and absolute monists.</b>
Aside from trying to induce you to delve unreservedly into real Vedic literature as commented upon by bona fide acharyas, I would also like to suggest that you take a psychological approach to understanding theology. In fact, that was one of the primary motivations for all the Vaishnava acharyas to counter mayavada, because bhakti-yoga cannot be executed effectively if even a trace of Impersonalism remains in the psychology of the disciple.
So far we have been discussing only one side of a philosophy that is necessarily "multi-disciplinary." Why not expand the discussion to psychology also, exploring the role of Imagination and Emotion -- which influence Will at least as much as Intellect, and must also surely be part of Brahman/Maya?
It is a strong theory in psychology that the idea of Impersonal Absolute is attractive to neuroses arising from what we would call False Ego. It is an expression of denial of Personality and <i>Relationship</i>. Denial of relationship is tied to a whole bunch of neuroses arising from False Ego. Therefore, the Personalists have spoken of sAyujya mukti as "spiritual suicide". Why not explore some standard books on existential psychology, etc on this subject. To quote William Blake:
"God appears, and God is Light
To those poor souls who dwell in Night,
But does a Human Form display
To those who dwell in realms of Day."
Of course, don't nit-pick this bit of poetry, but take the essence of the point I'm making. <b>The tri-guna division of Hindu scripture (scriptures divided into sets in the mode of tamas, rajas and sattva) is related to this psychological understanding of spiritual growth.</b> In fastening the "sambandha-jnana" before the practice of yoga, the psychological orientation of the disciple is very important, because that shapes the Will of the disciple, and Will shapes the spiritual trajectory of his Soul. I spoke about this earlier.
<b>sunder</b>,
Yes I have a good knowledge of Sanskrit. Several sections in previous posts should have made it clear, as I spoke of nuances of meaning, and ambiguity of grammar. So yes, I'm comfortable with Sanskrit, though I don't make as big a deal of it as you seem to do.
Thanks for taking the time to expand on your ideas. I'll first point out where we agree, and then where I think you may be constricting yourself. I will introduce another angle towards the end.
Also, since you frequently refer to "Sankhya" philosophy in your comparative approach, I thought I'd mention that there is some controversy about what the 'real' Sankhya is. Kapila, son of Devahuti, propounded a Sankhya which falls in line with Vedanta, albeit at a lower level of discussion (in the Noetic model I outlined previously at some length). There is the other, non-theistic Sankhya <i>interpretation</i> given by another 'Kapila', and you are speaking in reference to that. Just thought I'd mention it, because many people seem to be unaware of this. It was the former that Krishna references in the Bhagavad Gita, and it is the former that is referenced in the Bhagavatam, etc.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Two things that can interact can't be two mutually exclusive realities.
...
I consider the more pertinent classification 'real' versus 'unreal' (sat -asat).
...
There is no need to break it up arbitrarily into material or spiritual.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->That was EXACTLY my point. By material I meant asat, and by spiritual I meant sat. And I defined the difference in terms of eternality versus transience. And further, in terms of projections of consciousness.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This dichotomy in Samkhya is resolved in advaita through the questions of 'sat' (being) and 'asat' (non being), rather than 'material' and 'spiritual'. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is where the confusion arises. "Being" and "non-being" are misleading terms, and therefore need qualification, which Vedanta provides (but Sankhya doesn't). Sat and asat are clearly differentiated in terms of eternality and transience as per Vedanta (including Shankara's commentary on it). So let's be quite clear about this. <b>The time-dimension is crucial to distinguishing the Sat from the Asat, i.e., the material from the spiritual.</b> In oscillating back and forth between Vedanta and the particular commentary of Sankhya that you are referencing, you may be confusing semantics.
Now only if this were clear could we can begin to tackle the idea of "material attributes" versus "spiritual attributes". But then again, your definition of maya does not sit well with the Vedantic definitions of sat and asat as outlined above:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->By 'illusion' in advaitic context I meant the usual definition of illusion, as taking something for something else.
...
Note that Maya is defined indirectly throgh the need to rconcile the existence of experiences that an observer can have (as claimed in Upanishads) that include a range from the ordinary world of multiplicity all the way to unity.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't know what you mean by the "usual" definitions of illusion, but I hope you are aware of some historical legerdemain in this regard:
satattvato'nyatha buddhir vikara ity udiratah
atattvato'nyatha buddhir vivarta ity udahrtah
"The perception of a different object when a real object takes another form is called parinama (or vikara). Perception of a different object when there is actually no different object is called vivarta."
This is the original definition of concepts fundamentally related to maya. But, much after Shankara passed away, in debate with Ramanuja and later acharyas, the mayavadis actually rejected this Vedantic definition, and re-defined the terms vivarta, etc in order to make different sense of Shankara's commentaries. As I pointed out in a previous post, the mayavadis clung to Shankara's comentaries (which remained ambiguous on so many concepts and focussed mostly on superconscious Brahman versus Voidism). Instead, they would re-define or reject <i>Vedanta</i> definitions so that they fell in line with the ambiguities of Shankara's commentaries, <i>rather than the other way around</i>. The Vaishnava acharyas referrred <i>directly to Vedanta</i>...and still explained Shankara's intentional ambiguities in terms of the "time, place and recipient" of his teaching. So my point is that I hope you're aware of this in what you consider the "usual" definitions of maya.
Maya is the result of perverted projections of consciousness. You yourself made a very strong case in favour of this viewpoint when you said, "Two things that can interact can't be two mutually exclusive realities." In one (partial) sense, realized consciousness means seeing everything in relation to the Fountainhead, i.e. Godhead. I touched upon this in previous posts, and for much more in-depth discussions, you may delve into Vaishnava commentaries, <b>which is the whole point of my making these posts -- to induce the reader to investigate bona fide literature.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Note also that defined this way, action of Maya is specific to the observer in world of appearances. If that specific observer attains 'mukti' and sees the unity of brahman, that doesn't imply that the same thing happens simultaneously for all the observers as seen from the world of apparent realities. Mukti is an individual experience, as seen from the world of appearances. As seen from the unitary level of brahman, there is just one universal observer anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->That's a very unconvincing jugglery of concepts, without answering to the fundamental question of what is the unit of conscious experience. According to Vedanta, Atman is atomic, i.e., indivisible, and is also the unit of conscious experience. Also, maya springs from Godhead (the Supreme Soul) itself, therefore it cannot operate on fragmental parts of this Supreme Soul unless there is some sense of "spiritual separateness", or otherwise you end up with other contradictions. In fact, if Absolute Oneness is your theory, then what is maya itself? Where does it spring from, and why? In answering these questions, the mayavadis practically admitted defeat.
Let's take 4 of the many assertions Vedanta makes about the Supreme:
1,2,3) There can be no svajatiya or vijatiya bheda, nor svagata bheda in Absolute Truth. So how will you explain your understanding of maya, and discrete consciousness within maya existing in parallel with this "Lonely Oneness"? You cannot explain this without taking the time-factor aspect of the proper definition of sat and asat into consideration, which you are reluctat to do. OTOH, Impersonalism posits some sort of material dissolution or illusions of perception, "self-hypnosis", etc, which have been debunked. I have pointed out that maya is constant, even in liberation. Only it is a transformation from avidya-maya to vidya-maya.
4) The Supreme Soul can never be the object of anything.
The fact that the Vaishnavism takes this and the above into consideration should make you re-evaluate your hackneyed complaint of "observer-observation-observed", etc, and find out how Vaishnavism (i.e. the Vedas) understands this. To quote a tiny passage from Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati:
"Krishna as Object of worship is one-Half, and, as the Support of His worshipper, He Himself is the other Half of the Whole. The variety of reciprocal activity of these Two Moieties constitutes the Fullness of the Divinity. Krishna is the complete realization of the Support of His worship. The <i>transcendental reflections </i>which are also of the nature of supporters are the worship of the Divinity, which appear in the different planes of cognitive existences..."
The Supreme is the impetus and reservoir of all <i>rasa</i>. Which then leads to a closer examination of the position of jiva, etc. (note the use of the term "transcendental reflections"). There is much to explore.
<b>And these above 4 assertions are only in the "abheda" section of Vedanta, which Chaitanya Vaishnavism is quite comfortable explaining along with the other Upanishads. The great Rishis have defined Complete Knowledge as "seeing each thing in relation to the Whole". But step outside into the "bheda" and "ghataka" Upanishads, and any brand of mayavada has no way of reconciling...</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Lila or 'play' in timelessness is an oxymoron. A play is a sequence of events. And time is nothing but a way to arrange a sequence of events. I don't understand what you mean by time being "subservient' to 'Lila'.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->It is anirvachaniya no doubt, but not an oxymoron. It is an oxymoron only for lack of understanding and imagination. You may be familiar with concepts of "infinite nowness", etc, even found in Zen and other literatures. Let's just say that this is one part of understanding this. The only thing I can say now is that it requires some degree of immersion in the literature -- and sadhana -- to be able to expand one's intellect and imagination to draw closer to these esoteric concepts. I mentioned earlier how practice of certain kinds of sadhana can reveal the link between Time and Mind, and its effect on consciousness.
"The moment a fool gives up concentration
And his other spiritual practices,
He falls prey to fancies (intellectual & sensual) and desires.
Even after hearing the truth,
The fool clings to his folly..."
-Ashtavakra Gita 18:75-76
Actually your Alice in Wonderland example, though given in jest, was quite an interesting one. There are many rabbit-holes that are to be explored, if only people would learn to <i>use both sides of the brain in spiritual quest</i>. The yoga that employs <i>all</i> the faculties at our disposal is the best yoga, or the only complete yoga.
As regards my reference to String theory:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It miserably fails Popper's Falsifiability criterion as of now.
...
I can't comprehend 'events' beyond time. It just doesn't compute for me.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I am quite aware of the multiple difficulties this fascinating theory has in terms of conventional proof, and that it is currently considered more metaphysics than physics. That will probably be the ultimate destiny of all material science anyway. With all due respect, I find it amazing that you consider it a proud characteristic of a "hard-headed" physicist to not be able to think beyond "linear time". And also that you are measuring such ambitious universal theories of "unification" by lame criteria such as Popperian falsifiability. Surely you have also heard of Godel's Incompleteness theorem? <b>Within any given branch of mathematics or science, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that system itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going <i>outside</i> the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical systems of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules...</b>
Therefore, with all sincere respect, I would assert that the quest for the Absolute Truth requires a little more than what an average career in Physics demands. As we have seen, even the most ambitious theories in material Physics itself are stepping into the metaphysical. Therefore I pointed to string theory to give an idea of how respectable physicists are trying to wrestle with certain concepts, and not as some proven theory. Don't you agree that your desire to be able to "compute" everything seems a little naive in the face of the subject matter we are discussing here (Absolute Truth), as is your admission of not being able to (or not wanting to) think beyond the rigid confines of Time.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am willing to argue that in timelessness, multiplicity can't exist.
...
observation of a timeless observer is unitary. A timeless observer can make only "one" observation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I agree with the first statement, but only if you qualify "multiplicity" in the <b>material</b> sense of the term -- which takes us back to definitions of sat, asat, and avidya-maya. As for your second statement, and statements that sunder makes in his posts -- <b>to speak of "one", or "alone", etc is as ludicrous as speaking of "two", "three" or "four" in the material sense</b>. Nirguna is beyond number, <b>in the discrete sense of countability</b>. Therefore, saying "one", or "alone" (in a purely material conception) as a denial of spiritual variegatedness is also logically ludicrous.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Carl, what is the use of such phrases? Did Shri Chaitanya have nothing better to do than to spent so much of his efforts on merely refute some two-legged asses?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Ashok, just ignore some caustic comments I may make about mayavadis, which are meant for the exclusive consumption of some others here, who set the tone for debate, much to my own chagrin. As for Lord Chaitanya, he, like all acharyas, spent some time and effort to counter mayavada so as to delineate truth from untruth as far as the innocent masses were concerned. <b>Mayavada is a blanket term, covering various grades of false interpretation of the Vedas, and includes: agnostics, apotheosists, anthropomosphists (<i>this</i> is material saguna conception), impersonalists, henotheists, pantheists, and absolute monists.</b>
Aside from trying to induce you to delve unreservedly into real Vedic literature as commented upon by bona fide acharyas, I would also like to suggest that you take a psychological approach to understanding theology. In fact, that was one of the primary motivations for all the Vaishnava acharyas to counter mayavada, because bhakti-yoga cannot be executed effectively if even a trace of Impersonalism remains in the psychology of the disciple.
So far we have been discussing only one side of a philosophy that is necessarily "multi-disciplinary." Why not expand the discussion to psychology also, exploring the role of Imagination and Emotion -- which influence Will at least as much as Intellect, and must also surely be part of Brahman/Maya?
It is a strong theory in psychology that the idea of Impersonal Absolute is attractive to neuroses arising from what we would call False Ego. It is an expression of denial of Personality and <i>Relationship</i>. Denial of relationship is tied to a whole bunch of neuroses arising from False Ego. Therefore, the Personalists have spoken of sAyujya mukti as "spiritual suicide". Why not explore some standard books on existential psychology, etc on this subject. To quote William Blake:
"God appears, and God is Light
To those poor souls who dwell in Night,
But does a Human Form display
To those who dwell in realms of Day."
Of course, don't nit-pick this bit of poetry, but take the essence of the point I'm making. <b>The tri-guna division of Hindu scripture (scriptures divided into sets in the mode of tamas, rajas and sattva) is related to this psychological understanding of spiritual growth.</b> In fastening the "sambandha-jnana" before the practice of yoga, the psychological orientation of the disciple is very important, because that shapes the Will of the disciple, and Will shapes the spiritual trajectory of his Soul. I spoke about this earlier.
<b>sunder</b>,
Yes I have a good knowledge of Sanskrit. Several sections in previous posts should have made it clear, as I spoke of nuances of meaning, and ambiguity of grammar. So yes, I'm comfortable with Sanskrit, though I don't make as big a deal of it as you seem to do.