Sri SSS views on namarupa according to Chatgpt
putran M
According to Sri Satchidanandendra Saraswati (SSS), a jñānī (one who has realized the Self or Brahman) does see nāmarūpa, but with a completely different understanding than an ajñānī (ignorant person). This distinction lies at the heart of his interpretation of Advaita Vedānta as taught by Śaṅkara.
⚡ Short Answer:
Yes, a jñānī still perceives nāmarūpa (name and form) — but only as an illusory appearance (mithyā), and never as real or as affecting Brahman, which is the jñānī’s true identity.
🧠 Detailed Explanation:
1. Perception of Nāmarūpa Doesn't Stop
Even after Self-realization, the jñānī’s mind and senses continue to function due to prārabdha karma(momentum of past actions).
As a result, the world of objects (nāmarūpa) is still seen — just like a mirage is still seen even after one knows it's not water.
SSS aligns with Śaṅkara in this:
“The perception of duality continues after knowledge, but it is sublated by the knowledge of the non-dual Self.”
2. Transformation of Understanding
What changes is not the perception, but the understanding of what is perceived.
The jñānī no longer mistakes nāmarūpa for reality. It is known to be mithyā, a mere superimposition on Brahman.
According to SSS, this is not a metaphysical change in reality, but an epistemological correction — a removal of ignorance (avidyā).
3. No Real Relationship Between Brahman and Nāmarūpa
For SSS, following strict Śaṅkara, Brahman never becomes the world; nāmarūpa is never truly in or of Brahman.
The jñānī sees this clearly: that Brahman alone is real, and nāmarūpa is not a second reality.
4. Example: The Rope and Snake
SSS often invokes this metaphor:
The ajñānī sees a snake in a rope — thinks it's real.
The jñānī still sees the form (the illusion may continue due to perception), but knows it’s only a rope.
Similarly, nāmarūpa is seen, but not taken as real.
🧘 Implication in Liberation
A jñānī has no more delusion, no more identification with nāmarūpa (including body/mind).
The appearance continues, but it is disconnected from any sense of reality or bondage.
As SSS says (paraphrased from Vedānta Prakriyā Pratyabhijñā):
“The wise man continues to see the world as long as the body lasts, but he does not attribute any reality to it.”
✅ Conclusion:
Yes, a jñānī sees nāmarūpa, according to SSS — but:
Only as a false appearance,
Never as real,
Never affecting Brahman, and
Only due to the persistence of prārabdha and habitual sense activity.
This is a core point in SSS’s mission to restore what he sees as pure epistemic non-duality in Śaṅkara’s Advaita.
Would you like a textual reference from SSS's Vedanta Prakriya Pratyabhijna or his commentary on Adhyāsa Bhāṣya to support this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q2: What are SSS's views on namarupa?
ChatGpt:
Sri Satchidanandendra Saraswati (SSS) had a very specific and rigorously non-dualistic view on nāmarūpa ("name and form"), based on his reading of Adi Shankara's original teachings. His position sharply contrasts with later Advaitic interpretations that gave more ontological status to nāmarūpa and Māyā.
Here’s a detailed breakdown of SSS’s views on nāmarūpa:
🧠 1. Nāmarūpa is purely adhyāropa (superimposition)
SSS holds that nāmarūpa is not real (sat) in any way and not a property of Brahman. It is the product of ignorance (avidyā) — a superimposition (adhyāsa) on the formless, attributeless Brahman.
Brahman is nirguna, changeless, indivisible, and unconditioned.
Nāmarūpa is a mental projection, arising only when there is ignorance of the Self.
SSS: "The so-called world of name and form (nāma-rūpa-prapañca) is but an error, an adhyāsa."
🔍 2. Nāmarūpa does not exist in Brahman
One of SSS’s strongest critiques of post-Śaṅkara Advaitins is that they began treating māyā or nāmarūpa as a “power” in Brahman or as somehow belonging to Brahman.
SSS strictly rejects this:
Brahman is not the locus of māyā or nāmarūpa.
Associating Brahman with māyā or nāmarūpa as an ontological power violates non-duality.
Instead, he maintains that nāmarūpa is purely an epistemic error, like mistaking a rope for a snake.
🧘 3. Nāmarūpa continues to appear after realization, but is known as mithyā
Even after Self-realization (jñāna), nāmarūpa may still be seen (due to prārabdha karma and continued perception), but it is known to be unreal.
“The jñānī sees the same world, but with the knowledge that it is a mere appearance, not a second reality.”
This is an important Vedantic idea — that perception doesn't end, but misunderstanding does.
🔧 4. Nāmarūpa is a tool used in the prakriyā (method)
SSS emphasizes that nāmarūpa, like adhyāsa, is a conceptual tool used for teaching, not a metaphysical principle.
It's introduced in the Adhyāsa Bhāṣya as part of the method of superimposition and sublation (adhyāropa-apavāda).
Its sole role is pedagogical — to help a seeker move from error to truth.
🔥 5. Critique of Post-Śaṅkara Ontologizing of Nāmarūpa
SSS criticizes figures like Padmapāda (Vivaraṇa school) and Vāchaspati Miśra (Bhāmatī school) for reifying nāmarūpa via doctrines like:
Māyā as an ontological power of Brahman
Vivarta-vāda as a metaphysical projection
He argues these are not faithful to Śaṅkara’s original epistemological method, and they introduce duality under the guise of non-duality.
🧾 Key Quotes (Paraphrased from SSS):
"Nāmarūpa is not a reality in itself, nor a property of Brahman; it is a mistaken attribution due to ignorance."
"To speak of Brahman possessing the power to manifest nāmarūpa is to compromise its nirguna nature."
"Shankara used nāmarūpa only as an explanatory device, not as a metaphysical principle."
✅ Summary of SSS's View on Nāmarūpa
| Aspect | SSS's Position |
|---|---|
| Reality of Nāmarūpa | Mithyā — not ultimately real, not a part of Brahman |
| Origin of Nāmarūpa | Due to avidyā (ignorance) and adhyāsa (superimposition) |
| Relation to Brahman | No intrinsic relation; not in Brahman, not an expression of Brahman |
| After Enlightenment | Still appears, but is known to be unreal |
| Use in Vedanta | A teaching tool, used in the prakriyā (methodology) |
| Critique of Later Advaitins | They reified nāmarūpa and violated strict non-duality |
If you're interested, I can give you direct citations from SSS’s Vedānta Prakriyā Pratyabhijñā, his commentary on Adhyāsa Bhāṣya, or Mūlāvidyā Nirāsa — where he discusses nāmarūpa in detail.
--------------------------
Q3: According to SSS, how can a jnani for whom avidya is destroyed continue to see namarupa which is due to avidya?
This is a deep and important question, and Sri Satchidanandendra Saraswati (SSS) addresses it with great care and precision. It gets to the heart of how the world of nāmarūpa continues to appear to a jñānī (one who has destroyed avidyā), even though nāmarūpa is supposedly born of avidyā. Here's the essence of SSS's explanation, grounded in Shankara’s original framework:
❓ The Core Puzzle:
If nāmarūpa (name and form) is due to avidyā, and the jñānī has destroyed avidyā, why does nāmarūpa still appear to the jñānī?
🧠 SSS’s Answer (Simplified):
✅ Avidyā is destroyed only with respect to the Self (ātman).
When Self-knowledge arises, the notion of duality (I am this body, the world is real, etc.) is sublated.
But this does not destroy the mental and sensory mechanisms that continue to function due to prārabdha karma.
SSS says: “The destruction of avidyā means the destruction of the false notion of identification with nāmarūpa, not the destruction of the appearance itself.”
🔄 How the Appearance Persists:
🌀 1. Apparent perception continues due to residual mental impressions and prārabdha
Even after Self-knowledge, the body–mind complex continues functioning, just like a potter’s wheel keeps spinning after the potter stops pushing.
The mind and senses, shaped by past karma (prārabdha), continue to project nāmarūpa, even though the jñānī no longer identifies with them.
🪞 2. Nāmarūpa is seen like a reflection in a mirror
The jñānī sees nāmarūpa just like a reflection: without superimposing reality on it.
It’s known to be mithyā — appearing but not real.
🔍 Epistemic Distinction Is Key
SSS stresses that avidyā is not a substance or thing that physically projects nāmarūpa. It is a wrong cognition — a mistake in the mind. When Self-knowledge corrects that mistake, the cognitive error is gone, but the cognitive mechanism (mind) remains.
So:
| Ajñānī (Ignorant) sees nāmarūpa as | Real, independently existing, separate from the Self. |
| Jñānī (Wise) sees nāmarūpa as | Mithyā, a dependent appearance, not truly separate from Brahman. |
🪷 SSS's Analogy (based on Shankara):
Just as a man who knows that the rope is not a snake still sees the outline of the snake in dim light — but no longer fears it, the jñānī continues to see the world but is not deluded by it.
🔚 Summary:
According to SSS, a jñānī continues to see nāmarūpa because:
Avidyā has been destroyed only with regard to the Self.
Nāmarūpa persists due to residual prārabdha karma and mental conditioning.
The jñānī no longer takes nāmarūpa to be real — it is known as mere appearance (mithyā).
Perception continues, but superimposition (adhyāsa) ends.
This is a key distinction SSS draws between epistemological error (avidyā) and perceptual functioning, restoring what he sees as the pure Advaita method of adhyāropa-apavāda found in Shankara’s original works.
Would you like me to provide textual references or quotes from SSS’s Vedanta Prakriya Pratyabhijna or Mulaavidya Niraasa on this point?
-------------------------
thollmelukaalkizhu
putran M
except for the jnani to continuing to see the world.
Here are some relevant quotes I picked out. BTW, Hacker et.al. observes that namarupa is a common term in Prasthanatraya bhasya but is all but absent from post-Sankara Advaita!
'.Therefore, knowledge and ignorance belong to the realm of name and form. Names and form are not attributes of the Self.
For there is that other upanishadie text, 'The ether, verily, is that which determines name and form. That within which they lie is the Absolute'. (Chand.VIII.xiv.l) And this name and form are merely imagined in the Absolute, like day and night in the sun. From the standpoint of the highest truth, they do not exist. Tait bh2.8
If those liberated in life are still in any of the three states, such as waking, they do not have the right to claim that they ha\'e perceived the evil of worldly life themselves, let alone having the right to teach it to others.HOSS p16
19. Nor can it be established by experience of 'the Fourth', Perhaps you will say C Let us assume that the enlightened ones have direct experience of the unreality of the world in a state other than sleep and called "the Fourth". And they give us their metaphysical teaching in the waking state. What is wrong with that?' The fault lies in the fact that it is only in the course of actually having experience of the waking state that they declare it to be unreal. Investigators are not expounding an impeccable means of knowledge when they contradict their own experience. HOSS p17
But this view will not stand examination either. For Ignorance and metaphysical knowledge cannot co-inhere in the same place (i.e. in the same person). Contradictories like darkness and light cannot co-exist in the same place. And SureSvara has said, 'Only a fool would claim that Ignorance and knowledge could inhere in the same seat (the same individual consciousness), and that ignorance of a thing could remain on, uncancelled, after the thing had been rightly known' (B.B.V. 2.4.209, cpo B.B.V.S. 2.4.59). HOSS p18
Where there is so much as a faint light, no one can detect darkness even after washing their eyes out. So how can one bring up the idea that light and darkness could exist? HOSS p18
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I guess that is the main thing I am looking to understand, so if Chatgpt is not properly presenting regarding how the jnani for whom avidya is destroyed is supposedly continuing to see the world that supposedly is due to avidya, then I cannot use its response as a starting point.
- I think Sri SSS clarified this by sighting the bAdhitAnuvrutti. However the question is, as per shankara whether jnAni sees the nAma rUpa jagat as mithyA or he would realize that it (jagat) is not different from brahman?? We should know that what we are seeing ‘as jagat’ is pratyaksha pramANita, and the very purpose of pramANa is to give the ‘correct knowledge of prameya to pramAtru then only it is considered as valid pramANa. So pratyaksha as valid pramANa gives us ‘sight’ of nAma rUpa which can not be superseded by another pramANa i.e. shAstra pramANa, So what is the shAstra pramANa role here is, revealing the seen nAma rUpa which will continue to the jnAni also during the post realization period as it is already validated by pratyaksha pramANa. So the realization of the ‘existing’ nAma rUpa and its true nature will be determined by shAstra and this shAstra does not have any power to destroy any existing thing nor create new thing in place of already existing thing. In rope snake example the jnAna gives us the realization that what is existing there is rope (yathArtha jnAna), it does not create rope afresh. So jnAni who was earlier seeing this world independently aloof from brahman and thinking that it is asarvaM and abrahmam realizes the true nature of jagat i.e. the socalled jagat is NOT different from brahman. So, to the question, will the world of nAma rUpa be lost immediately when the knowledge is attained? The answer is jagat (nAma rUpa) for the jnAni is not lost by his realization. But the preconceived notions during the avidyA period like jagat is asarvaM, abrahman etc. are gone... Here exactly bhAshyakAra clarifies Atmaikatva vidyA does not create or destroy a thing in front. Bruhad bhAshya 1.4.10. And anything short of this realization even a hair-split that ‘this is not I’ as against this Atmaikatva vidyA is the state of avidyA again bruhad bhAshya 4.3.20. For the avidyAvanta the Jagat in front of him appears as something other than brahman. This appearance of abrahman-Pratyaya is avidyAkalpita ( like snake in the rope) But for the paramArtha jnAni the Jagat in front of him is not that. It is brahman only and nothing but brahman clarifies bhAshyakAra in Mundaka shruti bhAshya. Prapancha pravilaya (sublimation of world) happens to him Atmaikatva darshana. It is with this sarvAtmabhAva realization vAmadeva exclaimed : ahaM manurabhavaM sUryascha ( I am manu, I am sUrya ) ahaM annaM, annAda and shlOkakarta (I am the eater, eatable and creator of eatable). In this Samyak jnAna, for the paramArtha jnAni everything is himself. Therefore, the paramArtha jnAna / self-realization results only with the removal of the sense of difference with outside objects not denial of outside objects. bAhyAkArabhedabuddhi nivruttiH eva Atma svarUpAvalambanaM kAraNaM. Again it is not the denial of the outside objects. Though outside objects are being cognized through the indriyaa-s and the socalled body of the is still engaging in transactions, this Atmaikatva vidyA destroys the kartrutva in that jnAni. This is because of the reason that there is no avidyA, kAma karma etc at all in the fruit of the vidyA of sarvAtmabhAva/ mOksha.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
Bandaru Viswanath
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
"The pot exists" (poor translation for ghatah san) is prama from pratyaksha pramana. However, shruti says it is mithya. How can shruti override a pratyaksha pramana ? Why should anybody discard what their sensory organs are telling ?
- If what is seen and validated through pratyaksha pramANa is destroyed as snake or dviteeya Chandra, then pratyaksha loses its very validity as ‘valid pramANa’. Brahmaikatva jnAna is shAstra pramANita whereas the seeing world is pratyaksha pramANita, one cannot override another coz. of both are valid pramANa. The pot exists and through pot only we realize that clay is the only truth. If we don’t see nAma rUpa (or if brahman is not created nAma rUpa) then there is no possibility for us to realize he is the prajnAna ghana (mruttiketyeva satyaM). The pot in its unmanifested form resides in clay, the pot during the availability of sensual perception nothing different from clay and after his annihilation too goes back to its source i.e. clay. The purpose of any talks about nAma rUpa is of course to show the brahman who is nirvishesha and nirvikAri. But when talking about its nirvisheshatva what is being shown directly is the world and its upAdAna, nimitta and sahakAri kAraNa-s (janmAdasya yatha). Therefore, the meaningful answers that can arrived only when the world (pot) is not different from brahman (clay). This is possible if, and only if, brahman is the
material of the naama rUpa Jagat. That is why all effects (pots, pitcher, jar etc.) are understood the moment their upAdAna is understood. sarvaM cha nAmarUpAdi sadAtmanaiva satyaM vikArajAtaM svatastu anrutam eva. If we pot aloof from clay it is anruta, if we realize pot is nothing but clay it is called svarUpa jnAna.
Bandaru Viswanath
If what is seen and validated through pratyaksha pramANa is destroyed as snake or dviteeya Chandra, then pratyaksha loses its very validity as ‘valid pramANa’. Brahmaikatva jnAna is shAstra pramANita whereas the seeing world is pratyaksha pramANita, one cannot override another coz. of both are valid pramANa.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB6638649D497B28C2396C0F2F8451A%40VI1PR06MB6638.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Vikram Jagannathan
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2BjqNH%3DUqY2ZRebWYCMEmJiDrg-2fz4tpPQ09PhKvkt0F9Fqmw%40mail.gmail.com.
putran M
- I think Sri SSS clarified this by sighting the bAdhitAnuvrutti. However the question is, as per shankara whether jnAni sees the nAma rUpa jagat as mithyA or he would realize that it (jagat) is not different from brahman?? We should know that what we are seeing ‘as jagat’ is pratyaksha pramANita, and the very purpose of pramANa is to give the ‘correct knowledge of prameya to pramAtru then only it is considered as valid pramANa. So pratyaksha as valid pramANa gives us ‘sight’ of nAma rUpa which can not be superseded by another pramANa i.e. shAstra pramANa, So what is the shAstra pramANa role here is, revealing the seen nAma rUpa which will continue to the jnAni also during the post realization period as it is already validated by pratyaksha pramANa. So the realization of the ‘existing’ nAma rUpa and its true nature will be determined by shAstra and this shAstra does not have any power to destroy any existing thing nor create new thing in place of already existing thing. In rope snake example the jnAna gives us the realization that what is existing there is rope (yathArtha jnAna), it does not create rope afresh. So jnAni who was earlier seeing this world independently aloof from brahman and thinking that it is asarvaM and abrahmam realizes the true nature of jagat i.e. the socalled jagat is NOT different from brahman. So, to the question, will the world of nAma rUpa be lost immediately when the knowledge is attained? The answer is jagat (nAma rUpa) for the jnAni is not lost by his realization. But the preconceived notions during the avidyA period like jagat is asarvaM, abrahman etc. are gone... Here exactly bhAshyakAra clarifies Atmaikatva vidyA does not create or destroy a thing in front. Bruhad bhAshya 1.4.10. And anything short of this realization even a hair-split that ‘this is not I’ as against this Atmaikatva vidyA is the state of avidyA again bruhad bhAshya 4.3.20. For the avidyAvanta the Jagat in front of him appears as something other than brahman. This appearance of abrahman-Pratyaya is avidyAkalpita ( like snake in the rope) But for the paramArtha jnAni the Jagat in front of him is not that. It is brahman only and nothing but brahman clarifies bhAshyakAra in Mundaka shruti bhAshya. Prapancha pravilaya (sublimation of world) happens to him Atmaikatva darshana. It is with this sarvAtmabhAva realization vAmadeva exclaimed : ahaM manurabhavaM sUryascha ( I am manu, I am sUrya ) ahaM annaM, annAda and shlOkakarta (I am the eater, eatable and creator of eatable). In this Samyak jnAna, for the paramArtha jnAni everything is himself. Therefore, the paramArtha jnAna / self-realization results only with the removal of the sense of difference with outside objects not denial of outside objects. bAhyAkArabhedabuddhi nivruttiH eva Atma svarUpAvalambanaM kAraNaM. Again it is not the denial of the outside objects. Though outside objects are being cognized through the indriyaa-s and the socalled body of the is still engaging in transactions, this Atmaikatva vidyA destroys the kartrutva in that jnAni. This is because of the reason that there is no avidyA, kAma karma etc at all in the fruit of the vidyA of sarvAtmabhAva/ mOksha.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB66381065650E01CAAA1376F38451A%40VI1PR06MB6638.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
putran M
If namarupa are said to persist after the fall of ignorance, it must be taken as gauna mukti or an explanatory concession to vyavaharika drsti.
The shear number of PTB quotes referring to immediate/sadyomukti demand this corrective understanding. I'll paste below a collection of citations teaching pramatr, pramana, prameya all fall with ignorance and only the nondual Self, one wihtout a second, remains.
Afaik PSA agrees to this. Self is nirguna. namarupa is adhyasa. But in the standpoint of cognitions, where it stands affirmed even post-jnana, they call it mithya due to knowing the reality-standpoint of the Self where namarupa has no existence.
How to define mithya is core! You call it anirvacaniya with a quasi-ontic status saying, "something' indeterminable as real nor unreal' (sadasadbhyam) while PTB only uses the term tattvanyatvabhyam, neither Tat (Brahman) or different from Tat in which case Brahman is the only ontic. There is no place for quasi-ontic when Brahman is the only Ontology/Sateva
Interesting that he brings in the word "imagined". That has the mirror question "By whom or what?"
By Himself alone. It is an empirical bias to demand a second entity - who or what, perceptions continue post-Jnana, bhavarupa creation etc.
PSA: so long as you affirm their cognition/imagination in spite of knowledge of the Absolute, then in your standpoint, there is also the imagination of the Absolute as their non-dual Cause. That is, Brahman is seen/imagined as Ishvara so long as namarupa is imagined in the Absolute. The Absolute is imagined as having an adjunct of Maya/avidya that mirrors (or is the causal bimba) for the namarupa projection (the pratibimba).
Subtle. "causal bimba" is there really a cause or is avidya naisargika and anadi? You reify imagined adjunct by positing a cause.
Note: just as the jnani knows namarupa to be imagination on Self, he also knows its mirror Causal shakti in Self is also an imagination. Both are non-existent in Self and yet they appear (i.e. Self is imagined as them) - hence they are mithya.
Reifying cause is the problem.
V Subrahmanian
Namaskaram Viswanath ji,To add to your comment, this is precisely one of the criticisms of other sampradhayams against Advaita as well. Particularly, Swami Ramanujacharya in SriBhashyam (1.1.1) and Swami Vedanta Desikan in Shatadushani (Vada 29) have substantially criticised leveraging the same note as the purvapaksha.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLeSuQrfCKiY6%3DJKKwN%2BNkZdwbm_JrDbQwCFkPP9ATr3DA%40mail.gmail.com.
Vikram Jagannathan
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0T1FbEk%3DSe0avbKq7Mw8xYBnJJ%3D%2BK6%2B_zFuvOMO7Pv2Q%40mail.gmail.com.
putran M
The shear number of PTB quotes referring to immediate/sadyomukti demand this corrective understanding. I'll paste below a collection of citations teaching pramatr, pramana, prameya all fall with ignorance and only the nondual Self, one wihtout a second, remains.Thanks for the extensive references. Whatever camp we are in, we should be happy to study the PTB more.The non-dual Self is alone there. We have to ask what it means to say "pramatr etc" fall along with ignorance.
NO PRAMATA, PRAMANA, PRAMEYA
· “In the recognition that there is no second thing, duality resolves” – jnate dvaitam no vidyate GK 1.18
· "That it ·does not' see in that ·state is because, although seeing then It does not see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is immortal. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see. BrU4.3.23
· (Resolution): We explain (ucyate) (listen). He who does not have (being w/o that anupapattau) any identification such as ‘me’ or ‘mine’ (ahaṃ mama abhimāna rahita) in the body, senses etc., cannot be a knower (pramātṛ). Thus, it is incongruous to say the means of knowledge (pramāṇa) such as direct observation and others (pratyakṣādī) function in him (who is not a pramātṛ). That is, without the assumption of senses (indriya-s) there could not be any pramāṇa-pramēya vyavahāra since the senses cannot transact without their substratum (adhiṣṭhāna, the body). In addition, without superimposing a notion of Self (anadhyasta ātmabhāva) on the body, one could not be doing any action. Moreover, without a knower (pramātṛ) the pramāṇa-s do not function. Therefore, the means of knowledge such as direct observation and others (pratyakṣādī) are objects of the ignorant. Adhyasa Bhasya
· It is like this. As a man embraced by a woman he loves is oblivious to everything within or without, so this person embraced by the self (Atman) consisting of knowledge is oblivious to everything within or without (BU 4.3.21)
· “'0 good looking one, in the beginning this was Existence alone, One only, without a second.” ChU 6.2.1
· Bhasya: “Vediintin: No. Since the instruction of oneness is given by saying 'Thou art That', there is no scope for the difference between the basis and the thing supported, and similarly, there can be no scope of any vision with regard to oneself, since it has been ascertained in the sixth chapter that Truth is one Existence, without a second; and also in Upani~adic texts like: , ... established in this unperceivable, bodiless ... Brahman' (Tai. II.7.1); 'His form does not exist within the range of vision' (Ka.11.3.9); 'Through what, 0 Maitreyi, should one know the knower?' (Br. 11.4.14). … The idea is that this (finitude) exists during the period of ignorance. It is like a thing seen in a dream, which exists only during that period, before waking. Chbh7.24.1”
· “He goes from death to death who sees any difference here.” KaU 2.1.10
· And this name and form are merely imagined in the Absolute, like day and night in the sun. From the standpoint of the highest truth, they do not exist.”Tait Bh 2.8
· Neither from itself nor from something else is anything born. Neither an existent nor a non-existent … is born. GK 4.22
· This is to be attained through the mind indeed. There is no diversity here whatsoever. He who sees as though there is difference here, goes from death to death. Ka 2.1.11
· “Through the mind alone (It) is to be realised. There is no difference whatsoever in It. He goes from death to death, who sees difference, as it were, in It.” Br 4.4.19
· This duality existing of the knower and the knowable is only the vibration of the citta. …GK4.72
· … But there is no duality there GK4.75
· Because the Imperishable is unmanifest, He is not accessible to words and cannot therefore be defined. He is unmanifest, not manifest to any of the organs of knowledge.” (BGbh 12 3)
· It is known to him to whom It is unknown; he does not know to whom it is known. It is unknown to those who know well, and known to those who do not know. Ke 2.3.
· But in a context where the unconditioned Self is one, there can neither be knowing by oneself not by another. Kebh2.4
· "For when there is duality, as it were, then one… knows another. But when everything has become the Self, then what should one …know and through what? "Br2.4.14
Not so, for that is possible before enlightenment like the behaviour in a dream before awakening. The scripture also speaks of the use of perception etc. in the case of the unenlightened man in the text, "Because when there is duality, as it were, then one sees something" (Br. II. iv. 14, IV. v. 15); and then it shows the absence of this in the case of an enlightened man, "But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what?" (ibid) etc. BSbh4.3.14
· "The cessation of Ignorance is in fact the Absolute and that alone. For the Absolute is that in which Ignorance is in eternal 'cessation' " SSSS, HoSS p141
· "Whether it is in the waking or in the dream or in the deep
sleep - everywhere this Turya alone exists ; when we observe
(Intuit) from the Paramartha Drishti, apart from the Chaitanya
of this Turyatman there do not exist these A vasthas like
waking, dream etc. at all ; just as in the waking the sea-shell
or nacre itself appears in the form of silver, this Chaitanya Itself
appears in the distinctive fonns of Pramatru, Pramat:la and Prameya
indeed. Tllerefore, even the 'Pramatru Rupa' (fonn of cognizership)
which is cognizing everything in that A vastha (i.e. waking) is,
in truth, a reflection (Abhasa) alone of this Tunyatma or Chaitanya.
Why say more? Even what we call 'Jagrat Avastha:' is also the
Abhasa only of this Chaitanya ; there does not at all exist any
Jagrat Avastha apart from Turlyatmatattwa ; similarly, apart from
Turyatman neither there exists whatsoever Svapnavastha nor the
reflection of the world comprising Pramatru, PramaQ.a etc. because
of the mental projections which appear within that Avastha ;
whatever appears to exist therein is verily an Abhasa (reflection),
false appearance of this Turyatma Chaitanya." SSSS Essential Gaudapada p71
· Nanu: The pramanas must be invalid since they since they give knowledge about objects that are unreal. Thus instruction itself loses its point in that it cannot lead to truth or liberation.
Sankara’s reply: yes, it is quite true the pramanas are no less mithya than are the objects they propose to reveal however they may “produce” something real no less than death from a fancied snakebite. But, it is further argued, death is as unreal as its cause and we are looking for a real effect out of an unreal cause. BS bh 2.1.14
Jnani has no body, sees no world, not a teacher
Naiskarmaya Siddha 3.62
moha-tat-karyasrayatvaj jhatrtva-vikriyayoh
purvatredam-mama-jhanan vayah pradarsitah .
athadhuna tad-vyatirekena vyatirekapradarsanarthamaha. It has been said above that Witnesshood and empirical knowership, associated with knowledge as “this” and knowledge as “mine”, accrue to the Self (not really but) through ignorance and its effects alone. We now complete the argument negatively by showing that in the absence of ignorance neither of these two kinds of knowledge arises. (Sambandhokti)
vikriyd-jndna-sunyatvan nedam na ca mamatmanah utthitasya sato 'jhanam naham ajhasisam yatah
[62] In itself the Self is free from ignorance and modification, and hence feels neither “this” nor “mine”. For it is only the one who has woken up from sleep (i.e. the empirical knower) who experiences ignorance and feels “I did not know (anything then)”. 21
"But how is it that when the organs have been merged, and the body also has dissolved in its cause, the liberated sage lives in the body identified with all, but does not revert to his former embodied existence, which is subject to transmigration?
...Just as in the world the lifeless slough of a snake is cast off by it as no more being a part of itself, and lies in the anthill, or any other nest of a snake, so does this body, discarded as non-self by the liberated man, who corresponds to the snake, lie like dead. Then the other, the 'liberated man identified with all-who corresponds to the snake-although he resides just there like the snake, becomes disembodied, and is no more connected with the body. Because formerly he was embodied and mortal on account of his identification with the body under the influence of his desires and past work; since that has gone, he is now disembodied, and therefore immortal. Brbh4.4.7"
The criticism is also unfounded that no one will be left over to practise the Vedantic path and that direct perception etc. will be outraged. For the transmigratory state is conceded before enlightenment, and the activities like perception are confined within that state only, because texts as this, "But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what?" (Br. II. iv. 14), point out the absence of perception etc. in the state of enlightenment.
Opponent: In the absence of perception etc. the Vedas also will cease to exist.
Vedantin: That is no defect, since that position is admitted by us. For according to the texts starting with, "In this state the father is no father" and ending with "The Vedas are no Vedas" (Br. IV. iii. 22), we do admit the absence of the Vedas themselves in the state of enlightenment.
Opponent: Who is it then that has this unenlightenment?
Vedantin: We say that it is you yourself who ask thus.
Opponent: Is it not stated by the Upanisad that I am God?
Vedantin: If that is so, you are already an enlightened man, and so nobody has unenlightenment. Hereby is also refuted the criticism of some people who say that the Self becomes associated with a second entity owing to the very presence of nescience, so that non-dualism becomes untenable.1 Hence one should fix one's mind on the Self which is God. BSbh4.1.3
"For when unity is achieved, it is but reasonable that all ideas of duality, involving action, accessories, etc .. should be eradicated, because (the absolute) Brahman is neither acceptable nor rejectable. Not that the perception of duality can crop up again (from past impressions) even after being (wholly) uprooted by the realization of non-duality. //...Nor is the validity of the Upani~ds to be established by inference" BSbh1.1.4
Doubt: Does the merger of the constituents of the body of the man of realization occur wholly as in the case of others, or is some part left out?
Opponent: Since that is a resorption like any other resorption, their potentiality must remain intact.
Vedantin: To this the aphorist says,
16. (Absolute) non-distinction (with Brahman comes about) on the authority of the scriptural declaration. It is a total unification to be sure.
Why so?
"On the authority of the scriptural declaration". Thus it is says, "When their names and forms are destroyed and they are simply called Purusha. Such a man of realization is without the constituents and is immortal" (Pr. VI. 5).
Besides, the constituents that spring from ignorance can have no remnant after their resorption through knowledge. Accordingly, they must become absolutely unified (with Brahman). BSbh4.1.15-6
By the term non-attachment the aphorist implies that the knower of Brahman has no idea of agentship whatsoever with regard to the actions occurring in future. Although the man of knowledge appeared to have some ownership of the past works on account of false ignorance, still owing to the cessation of false ignorance through the power of knowledge, those works also are washed away. This fact is stated by the term destruction.
The knower of Brahman has this realization: "As opposed to the entity known before as possessed of agentship and experiencership by its very nature, I am Brahman which is by nature devoid of agentship and experiencership in all the three periods of time. Even earlier I was never an agent and experiencer, nor am I so at present, nor shall I be so in future." From such a point of view alone can liberation be justified.BSbh4.1.13
Bhaskar YR
If what is seen and validated through pratyaksha pramANa is destroyed as snake or dviteeya Chandra, then pratyaksha loses its very validity as ‘valid pramANa’. Brahmaikatva jnAna is shAstra pramANita whereas the seeing world is pratyaksha pramANita, one cannot override another coz. of both are valid pramANa.
This is the standard purvapaksha in the texts I cited earlier. Have you had a chance to study the siddhanta-paksha, and how it refutes the purvapakhsa ? You don't agree with them ?
praNAms
Hare Krishna
Sorry for the belated reply. If you are talking about the siddhAnta lesha saMgraha, no!! I have not studied it. But I read about it as a work of reconciliation of differences among various later vyAkhyAna-s about Advaita’s doctrinal issues. And I also read that in this work it has been highlighted that all jeeva-s, even after Advaita paramArtha jnAna, first go to some lOka and ONLY after mahApraLaya they will get svarUpa jnAna or literally they merge with brahman/paramAtma. Perhaps you can share more about this as you are familiar with this work.
Coming back to pramANa-s, I am just echoing what bhAshyakAra says about the validity of various pramANa-s and the respective prama and how one pramANita jnAna (knowledge) can not be overruled by another pramANa. bhAshyakAra precisely observes this : one pramANa ‘will never contradict’ another pramANa it is because of the simple reason that what cannot be known through one pramANa the other pramANa helps us to know / realize. Here, brahman is not at all pratyaksha pramANita and what pratyaksha pramANa serves us is dvaita prapaNcha and OTOH what shAstra teaches us is ekatva behind pratyaksha pramANita dvaita prapaNcha. So, dvaita darshana is pratyaksha pramANita and ekatva darshana or realization of Atmaikatva is shAstra pramANita. And it can be noted that shAstra can give us the knowledge of what is ‘already’ there (bhUta vastu Vishaya) it neither creates anything afresh nor destroys anything already existing. It only removes our avidyA (adhyAsa) and fetch us the yathArtha jnAna. And again it is not two stage exercise like adhyAsa nirmUlanaM and subsequent jnAnOdayaM, once avidyA eradicated the jnAna shines on its own, no special further effort required as we are bereft of avidyA, brahman only and brahman is svayaM jnAna svarUpa. BTW, I don’t understand how this stand is Advaita viruddha and it is a dvaita pUrvapaxa objection!!??
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
From your writeup, I gather SSS followers will not accept "namarupa is imagination" "namarupa is adhyasa on Brahman". The words imagination and adhyasa do not find a place in your writing, with reference to namarupa.
Ø No prabhuji, Sri SSS mainly insists adhyAsa is the primary cause for our suffering. In one of his works he observes : the word Atman/brahman really means that which pervades (ApnOti) ‘all’. Our genuine Atman (parishuddhAtma) is the ONLY reality underlying all the phenomenal universe. And this is what endorsed by Upanishads as well. He quotes chAndOgya : now therefore, the teaching concerning Atman alone is begun, Atman alone is below, above, behind, front, on the right on the left…and finally concludes “All this is Atman alone” (AtmaivedaM sarvamiti). And then how is it that owe see this manifold universe in which live somany individuals?? How is that I, you or anybody else in this world firmly believes that each one of us is a limited being full of desires and not this great Atman?? For this, Sri SSS says, shAstra would give the answer, it is due to avidyA or ignorance where nAma rUpa being identified within the boundaries of adjuncts or nAma rUpa with a limited knowledge as its stand on its own independently from brahman.
- Elsewhere Sri SSS observes that Upanishads like chAndOgya, bruhadAraNyaka etc. teaching essential unity of the world with the non-dual Atman or brahman. It is only the effect of mAyA and is essentially “identical” with and has no “independent” existence ‘apart from’ brahman. He quotes here sUtra bhAshya 2-1-7 : Objection : but (according to you) brahman devoid of qualities such as sound is the cause of the universe (full of qualities)!!?? Reply : “quite true”, but the effect with qualities like sound, never exists except in its essential forms as the ‘cause’ whether now or before the creation.
The same Self is realized (in a jnani) in all namarupas.
- Yes this is called sarvAtma bhAva or Atmaikatva jnAna or bhUma drushti or ultimate realization of svarUpa jnAna behind all nAma-rUpa.
I think this is not a point of contention between PSA and SSS. The Sat of all identification is the same. In "I am man", "I am teacher", "I am son", one knows the same "I" through all the different namarupa identifiers. One who has right knowledge is not confused by this, whether from PSA or SSS.
Ø The subtle point here is the satya is I the qualified knowledge about this ‘I’ that I am man ( identifying another body as woman and thinking that it is really different from me ) I am son (thinking that I am a son of so and so, my father is different from me, my sister is different from me and this difference is ‘real’. ) Here bedha buddhi satyatva to be negated not bedha aakAra. If some person takes sannyasa with true vairAgya, bedha buddhi like he is my wife, I am his son, it is my property etc. goes away, but shareera of that father, wife, son etc. will not go anywhere 😊 It is like bedha sahishNu Advaita jnAna or bAdhitaanuvrutti as per Sri SSS. Please note Sri SSS never ever advocated the arthAdhyAsa so as per him there was never ever sarpa in the rope and there exists only mithyAjnAna about the rope i.e. only jnAnAdhyAsa. So according to him when nAma-rUpa viewed with qualified knowledge it is adhyAsa and when the same is viewed without any qualified knowledge it is not different from brahman.
Perhaps even VA or Kashmir Shaivism can come to such conclusion, in their own way.
Ø VishishtAdvaita maintains the shesha-sheshi duality (like jagat is the body of the brahman and brahman is its Chaitanya etc.) I don’t think it endorses the view of Advaita’s AtmaikatvavAda. I don’t know anything about Kshamir Shaivism.
The question revolves around the "existence-status" of different identifiers that are defined by different attributes. Whether the distinct identification of the identifier is implicitly accompanied with the attribution (adhyasa) to the Self of the differentiations specific to the identifier.
Ø The sameness between jagat and brahman is “is-ness” clarifies bhAshyakAra in sUtra bhAshya while answering the objection with regard to atleast a single feature of brahman should follow the jagat otherwise jagat is not different from brahman cannot be established.
So when we say, Pratyaksha pramana gives rise to a non-negatable dualistic knowledge of Reality, then effectively we are saying that the Reality has within it the multiplicity of distinctions that are uniquely known (i.e. that allow for the Reality to be known by different identifications) through pratyaksha pramana, and this knowledge (fact) of reality is not contradicted by what is known through shastra pramana. That both are different truths about the same Reality.
- Please see my reply to Sri Vishwanatha prabhuji, my question is very simple : can we asertain the ekatvam (oneness) of brahman by pratyaksha pramANa or do we have to do shravaNAdi sAdhana through shAstra pramANa to realize this truth ?? It is clear that the through pratyaksha pramANa it is impossible because only the Jagat is available for direct perception whereas brahman is NOT pratyaksha pramANa gOchara. So, the Atmaikatva jnAna or brahma jnAna has to be determined only through shAstra pramANa. So we are using two different pramANa-s to have two different pramA-s. multiplicity has been established and validated as ‘valid pramA’ through pratyaksha pramANa and shAstra which is another valid pramANa to determine the ekatvaM behind this already pramANita multiplicity through pratyaksha. So in the vyavahAra when this multiplicity is equally perceptible and transactionable to both jnAni and ajnAni why this multiplicity of the jagat should be denied at all for the one-ness of brahman?? Do we have to deny or destroy the multiplicity of pot, pitcher, jar (nAma rUpa) etc. to realize the clay is the only reality behind these names and forms?? When we realize this untainted truth behind all these multiplicity we would come to know that effect as such does not have any independent existence apart from its cause and cause has nothing to do with these multiplicity.
Effectively, that the Reality has duality intrinsic to it - only known through pratyaksha and not shastra which teaches the 'higher' non-duality of adhishtanam
- If I rephrase it I would say : effectively the duality has the reality as its svarUpa. There is no existence to pot without clay. But clay is not available for vyavahAra whereas nAmarUpAtmaka clay (big pot, small pot, different shaped pots) is available for our day to day transaction. That is why bhAshyakAra says vyAvahArika satya has the intrinsic pAramArthika satya, if it is not the cause it wont be available for vyavahAra. When the pot etc. merges in their kAraNa clay we know that their distinctions do not spoil the sanctity of clay. In that way cause is not effect but effect is nothing but cause.
.
I am sure I am misunderstanding, but imu PSA position negates that the dualistic knowledge of Brahman that is supposedly known through pratyaksha is real knowledge of Brahman.
- Please see above, we are not saying pratyaksha as pramANa would bring us the real knowledge of brahman OTOH we are telling both pratyaksha and shAstra pramANa would act as valid pramANa in its own domain and one cannot supersede another pramANa janita jnAna.
putran M
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625EEE539AFE9B1CB238DEE845FA%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Michael Chandra Cohen
HOSS on jnana nonduality
If those liberated in life are still in any of the three states, such as waking, they do not have the right to claim that they ha\'e perceived the evil of worldly life themselves, let alone having the right to teach it to others.HOSS p16
19. Nor can it be established by experience of 'the Fourth', Perhaps you will say C Let us assume that the enlightened ones have direct experience of the unreality of the world in a state other than sleep and called "the Fourth". And they give us their metaphysical teaching in the waking state. What is wrong with that?' The fault lies in the fact that it is only in the course of actually having experience of the waking state that they declare it to be unreal. Investigators are not expounding an impeccable means of knowledge when they contradict their own experience. HOSS p17
But this view will not stand examination either. For
Ignorance and metaphysical knowledge cannot co-inhere in the same place (i.e.
in the same person). Contradictories like darkness and light cannot co-exist in the same place. And SureSvara has said,
'Only a fool would claim that Ignorance and knowledge could inhere in the same
seat (the same individual consciousness), and that ignorance of a thing could
remain on, uncancelled, after the thing had been rightly known' (B.B.V. 2.4.209,
cpo B.B.V.S. 2.4.59). HOSS p18
Where there is so much as a faint light, no one can detect darkness even after washing their eyes out. So how can one bring up the idea that light and darkness could exist? HOSS p18
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-oapGSFstsF-YnzSB%3DUO0zrTukS-SsqyfqGYhDBOavrYQ%40mail.gmail.com.
putran M
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvED22km5-k5uH7AX8XfjhifrOoHEAxQ%2BcdGdPC%2BKdKyNQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
So, you can have two different pramanas simultaneously telling two different knowledge about the same reality; but both must be simultaneously known correctly - lest there is both ignorance and knowledge together?
- So basically your question boils down to : is it possible that different pramANa-s can convey opposite features like one-ness and multiplicity of the same object / jagat?? I don’t think it is an impossible scenario. For that matter why different pramANa-s? even a single valid pramANa would suffice to give this different knowledge. Just for the example, from perception alone multiplicity of ornaments is recognized but when we look at them from the point of view of their cause their one-ness is also recognized. Don’t you think it is possible ?? Similarly, pratyaksha pramANa will give rise to the cognition of multiplicity in the world which is again valid prama within its own domain, while the shAstra or shruti pramANa says it is all only One Brahman and nothing exists apart from HIM which is again another valid prama from another pramANa. I don’t think there is any contradiction between the two.
Ø Anyway you can expect more authentic answer from Sri MCC prabhuji.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
"SSS": namarupa pratyaksha is of Brahman's svarupas.
- No prabhuji, nAma rUpa pratyaksha has the brahman as its reality, but brahman is, in its svarUpa, nirvikAri and nirvishesha. To know / realize that brahman is nirvikAri and nirvishesha we need the nAma rUpAtmaka jagat. bhAshyakAra says : had the Brahman not created the world at all, we would never have known its inherent svarUpa as prajnAnaghana. To realize ONLY the clay is reality we need to analyze the pot, pitcher, jar etc. as clay is in its svarUpa nirvikAri and nirvishesha. This would be clear from the example for nAmarUpAtmaka clay (pot, jar etc.) and only clay (mrut sAmAnya). The shape of the pot, jat etc. have appeared in the clay but clay continues to be clay and only clay whether this shape exists or does not exist. This means that the shape does not affect the clay in any way. Hence there is saying : effect is nothing but cause as it does not have any independent existence apart from it’s cause whereas cause is NOT an effect as it is NOT dependent on effect.
Svarupa is an upadhi that is an intrinsic structural variation, differentiation or deformation within Brahman.
- Again, upAdhi helps us to know the intrinsic svarUpa of nirvikAri and nirvishesha brahman. Again we will take the example of clay-pot and clay. The pot helps us to recognize the clay. Therefore it is vAchAraMbhaNa for the clay. It is (pot etc.) only a name and a shape. What does it mean is that the shape of the pot does not affect the clay in any way. The clay (mrut sAmAnya) is totally independent of the pot though we recognize it only through the pot. That is why the knowledge of clay is not influenced by the pot. The knowledge might come from either a clay pot, a clay pitcher, or a clay jar or whatever name & forms made up of clay. Through whatever name and form clay comes, the knowledge of clay is the same /uniform (sAmAnya jnAna of clay) The distinction in the shapes does not make them different from the clay. It is a distinction without difference. This situation is to be understood as: the pot etc. are just an upAdhi for the clay i.e. upAdhi (an adjunct) is the thing which distinctly shows up an otherwise unknowable object.
Together the set of svarupa-upadhis is the Upadhi called Maya that is one with Brahman (because the upadhis are constitutionally only Brahman). Pratyaksha reveals Brahman in the context of each svarupa upadhi.
Ø It has been already said in the srushti prakriya, mAya is ‘shakti’ of parameshwara and this shakti is the kAraNa for the kArya prapancha. For the nAmarUpAtmaka jagat it is mAyAshakti is the kAraNa and this shakti is not at all different from shaktivaNta. In this context mAya is brahmAbhinna as there is no difference between shakti and shaktimAn.
This knowledge of Brahman in the real svarupa-upadhi context is different from the adhyasa that is due to avidya; but the duality of svarupas does not contradict the non-duality of the Atma shining in all of them.
- When there is realization that ‘mruttiketyeva satyaM’ there is no question about duality. He is the food, he is the food eater and he is the creator of food as well.
Once we realize that Atma in all, we are liberated.
- Yes that is what bhAshyakAra says. It has been explained in somany ways, this is called sarvAtmabhAva, Samyak darshana, Atmaikatva vidyA, bhUma drushti etc.
imo "PSA" agrees with the basic framework above but the difference is this: Maya is not the repository of (the knowledge of) the real svarupas of Brahman. Brahman being nirguna, nirvisesha has no svarupa intrinsic/real to It.
- However bhAshyakAra himself says sarvajnatva inherent (svabhAva) of the brahman.
Now, all that said from the theoretical comparative standpoint, it may be more useful if people of each camp explain why they think the other party's realization of Brahman cannot truly liberate the jiva from fearlessness and suffering (or whatever practical else jivanmukti constitutes).
- mUlAvidyAvAdins say even in paramArtha jnAni there is avidyAlesha so whatever he realizes when he is physically living is gauNa (not so important) the real thing (real mOksha) happens to ONLY after the physical death of that jnAni as continuation of body is due to prArabdha karma and due to association of this prArabdha janita body the jnAni continues to have the avidyAlesha ( the strong reason for seeing the duality even after realization of ekatva jnAna) and to literally experience this Atmaikatva jnAna they (mUlAvidyAvAdins) prefer to have the experience of nirvikalpa samAdhi or shedding the mortal coil.
putran M
- No prabhuji, nAma rUpa pratyaksha has the brahman as its reality,
- but brahman is, in its svarUpa, nirvikAri and nirvishesha.
- To know / realize that brahman is nirvikAri and nirvishesha we need the nAma rUpAtmaka jagat.
- bhAshyakAra says : had the Brahman not created the world at all, we would never have known its inherent svarUpa as prajnAnaghana. To realize ONLY the clay is reality we need to analyze the pot, pitcher, jar etc. as clay is in its svarUpa nirvikAri and nirvishesha. This would be clear from the example for nAmarUpAtmaka clay (pot, jar etc.) and only clay (mrut sAmAnya). The shape of the pot, jat etc. have appeared in the clay but clay continues to be clay and only clay whether this shape exists or does not exist. This means that the shape does not affect the clay in any way. Hence there is saying : effect is nothing but cause as it does not have any independent existence apart from it’s cause whereas cause is NOT an effect as it is NOT dependent on effect.
Svarupa is an upadhi that is an intrinsic structural variation, differentiation or deformation within Brahman.
- Again, upAdhi helps us to know the intrinsic svarUpa of nirvikAri and nirvishesha brahman. Again we will take the example of clay-pot and clay. The pot helps us to recognize the clay. Therefore it is vAchAraMbhaNa for the clay.
Ø It has been already said in the srushti prakriya, mAya is ‘shakti’ of parameshwara and this shakti is the kAraNa for the kArya prapancha. For the nAmarUpAtmaka jagat it is mAyAshakti is the kAraNa
and this shakti is not at all different from shaktivaNta. In this context mAya is brahmAbhinna as there is no difference between shakti and shaktimAn.
- When there is realization that ‘mruttiketyeva satyaM’ there is no question about duality. He is the food, he is the food eater and he is the creator of food as well.
- However bhAshyakAra himself says sarvajnatva inherent (svabhAva) of the brahman.
- mUlAvidyAvAdins say even in paramArtha jnAni there is avidyAlesha so whatever he realizes when he is physically living is gauNa (not so important) the real thing (real mOksha) happens to ONLY after the physical death of that jnAni as continuation of body is due to prArabdha karma and due to association of this prArabdha janita body the jnAni continues to have the avidyAlesha ( the strong reason for seeing the duality even after realization of ekatva jnAna) and to literally experience this Atmaikatva jnAna they (mUlAvidyAvAdins) prefer to have the experience of nirvikalpa samAdhi or shedding the mortal coil.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625F89B87CD64B74D4CAE278459A%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I guess you will be off for the weekend now. But I jotted down my thoughts.
Ø Yes prabhuji, to avoid addictions to this, I don’t want to look at any mails during weekends and unfortunately during week days also my participation in discussions during office hours is at the mercy of my boss 😊 He often reminds me by saying : we are not paying you here in office for the Vedanta discussions 😊
- No prabhuji, nAma rUpa pratyaksha has the brahman as its reality,
Yes, I guessed I was not following you correctly, at least that you would object to my interpretation.
There is a difference between saying snake-perception has Rope as adhishtanam/reality, vs Pot perception has Clay as reality.
Ø Yes prabhuji the difference between these two analogies is subtle but significant though seems to be used for the same purpose. Former is showing brahman’s nirvikAratva and the later one is jagat’s upAdAna kAratva as brahman.
Snake-ness is pure imagination on the Rope. Potness is an intrinsic reality of the Clay. Pot is a real "essential knowledge-form" that is in Clay and which is (brought into manifestation by Clay, or atleast) revealed through pratyaksha pramana. Snake has nothing to do with Rope. So long as it is seen, the Rope also appears as having its knowledge and manifesting/cognizing the snake. That is how the rope is known in this standpoint, as if somehow really associated to the snake. This is vyavaharika satya - but it is all imagination/adhyasa with reference to the knowledge of the Rope.
- Very aptly described prabhuji. Yes, rope-snake analogy always reveals the fact that for misconceiving the rope as snake, the existing rope is nimitta though this nimitta rope does not have any intrinsic changes, we the ajnAni-s see the snake in place of rope. We, as ajnAni-s, just see the imagined parts of a rope and sAdrushya (similarities) between rope-snake, like curved, coiled shape of rope give rise to the cognition of serpent, the imagined parts of brahman could give rise to the Jagat. Therefore, this imagination is only done by us (by avidyAvanta-s) or the jeeva who has the qualified knowledge about the rope. Whereas in the pot-clay analogy, the purpose is to convey the message of the shruti that though the jagat (pot) has emanated from brahman (clay), the latter is still vyavahAraateeta (transactionless). Even here, without dropping the idea of creation (creation of pot from clay), it is to be reconciled with the transaction lessness of brahman (clay) shruti says mruttiketyeva satyaM.
- bhAshyakAra says : had the Brahman not created the world at all, we would never have known its inherent svarUpa as prajnAnaghana. To realize ONLY the clay is reality we need to analyze the pot, pitcher, jar etc. as clay is in its svarUpa nirvikAri and nirvishesha. This would be clear from the example for nAmarUpAtmaka clay (pot, jar etc.) and only clay (mrut sAmAnya). The shape of the pot, jat etc. have appeared in the clay but clay continues to be clay and only clay whether this shape exists or does not exist. This means that the shape does not affect the clay in any way. Hence there is saying : effect is nothing but cause as it does not have any independent existence apart from it’s cause whereas cause is NOT an effect as it is NOT dependent on effect.
I don't think PSA is contradicting any of this.
- They argue that it is all second level teachings, mere arthavAda but for us, the uttamaadhikAri-s, jagat is tuccha, never ever existent one.
That Brahman is Ishvara in above sense in the vyavaharika (imagination) standpoint.
- vyAvahArika jagat is satya not the imagination of the tiny jeeva and Ishwara is the srushtikarta of this stupendous jagat and this Ishwara hetuka srushti never ever an imagination of conditioned jeeva.
If you say "i see pot", then the adhishtanam is known as Clay with reference to the pot-perception.
- Yes, after realizing the adhishtAnaM though cognition of pot (nAma rUpa ) continues we have the svarUpa jnAna of that nAma rUpa i.e. clay.
But implicit to this analogy is the affirmation of reality of pot-namarupa in Clay, thus knowing Clay as the source/cause of a real pot appearance. The seer-seen (Clay-pot) framework remains the duality-based context for these considerations.
Ø It is NOT duality, it is non-duality which has been realized in duality…HE is the karaNaM (the tools) kAraNaM (the cause) kartA ( the doer).
SSS-group says this Clay-pot framework is the reality where there are two different types real-knowledge of Clay - which means Brahman is the source and repository of the duality.
Ø Again if you could permit me to rephrase this, I would say : the clay pot framework is drive us to the siddhAnta that clay is the only reality behind the pot and there is no duality whatsoever in clay. Before, after and during the existence of pot, clay is the ONLY satya and the nAma rUpAtmaka pot does not have any independent existence apart from clay. nAma rUpa duality is pratyaksha pramANita ( a valid knowledge as per pratyaksha pramANa) where as ekatva behind nAmarUpAtmaka jagat is shAstra pramANita which is also a valid knowledge as per Shabda pramANa.
PSA: The non-duality ("nirguna" etc) of Clay that is affirmed even while retaining the duality of pot-appearance (as another aspect of reality) is itself a dualistic superimposition (the snake) on the adhishtanam; it is not the absolute adhishtanam non-duality of Brahman that alone is satya.
This is not a negation of the Clay-pot vyavaharika satya but that even such a standpoint is ultimately only adhyasa on the true non-dual Reality, and therefore all particular knowledge within the relative standpoint can only be understood as being "mithya".
Ø Prabhuji what is mithyA here?? The seeing of second moon, seeing of snake in place of rope, silver in the nacre is mithya jnAna (wrong knowledge/misconception) which goes after the dawn of yathArtha jnAna, but jagat does not disappear like mithyA vastu after realization of brahma jnAna, it is equally available for both jnAni and ajnAni. But ajnAni sees this aloof from him whereas jnAni sees it nothing different from HIM. His realization is : I am anna, annaada and shlokakarta.
I can understand someone saying "snake" is just vacharambhana for rope because it has nothing to do with rope. But "pot" implies its existence in the manifesting-potential of Clay in some real sense, so it is more than vacharambhana.
- Even the pot is mere vAchAraMbhaNa like snake prabhuji nothing more than this. But yes, bhAshyakAra very clearly says this jagat is NOT just like snake in place of rope!!! However, we don’t get any knowledge of pot’s cause when the pot is cognized independently apart from clay. The purpose of understanding the pot is to realize the svarUpa of pot i.e, clay. By knowing one thing all is known. Just by knowing the rules of additions all additions can be done irrespective of different numbers with different combinations. In that sense all the effects are only vAchAraMbhaNa, special shapes and names, to make the cause known. It is only through them we can understand the cause which is changeless. vAchAraMbhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyaM mruttiketyeva satyaM is the shruti vAkya.
- mUlAvidyAvAdins say even in paramArtha jnAni there is avidyAlesha so whatever he realizes when he is physically living is gauNa (not so important) the real thing (real mOksha) happens to ONLY after the physical death of that jnAni as continuation of body is due to prArabdha karma and due to association of this prArabdha janita body the jnAni continues to have the avidyAlesha ( the strong reason for seeing the duality even after realization of ekatva jnAna) and to literally experience this Atmaikatva jnAna they (mUlAvidyAvAdins) prefer to have the experience of nirvikalpa samAdhi or shedding the mortal coil.
Sudhanshu-ji has written a response to Michael-ji on this very objection.
I was more thinking from a layman perspective: we think jnana liberates the jiva from fear and suffering.
- Yes, that is the very purpose of obtaining the svarUpa jnAna. Jeeva stops identifying himself with BMI he realizes his sarvAtma bhAva, no fear, no suffering, no avidyA, no bondage whatsoever as he himself is brahman. Brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati is the assurance of Upanishads.
If each side is particular that the other's understanding is not final or is incorrect, then how will such an understanding not be sufficient, or will obstruct, the practical expected results of moksha (i.e. like freedom from fear, abidance in bliss etc)?
Ø Due to the introduction of avidyA lesha even in paramArtha jnAni in PSA works, jeevanmukti is NOT free from avidyA lesha.
putran M
Ø Yes prabhuji, to avoid addictions to this, I don’t want to look at any mails during weekends and unfortunately during week days also my participation in discussions during office hours is at the mercy of my boss 😊 He often reminds me by saying : we are not paying you here in office for the Vedanta discussions 😊
Ø Yes prabhuji the difference between these two analogies is subtle but significant though seems to be used for the same purpose. Former is showing brahman’s nirvikAratva and the later one is jagat’s upAdAna kAratva as brahman.
- vyAvahArika jagat is satya not the imagination of the tiny jeeva and Ishwara is the srushtikarta of this stupendous jagat and this Ishwara hetuka srushti never ever an imagination of conditioned jeeva.
Ø It is NOT duality, it is non-duality which has been realized in duality…HE is the karaNaM (the tools) kAraNaM (the cause) kartA ( the doer).
and the nAma rUpAtmaka pot does not have any independent existence apart from clay.
Ø Prabhuji what is mithyA here?? The seeing of second moon, seeing of snake in place of rope, silver in the nacre is mithya jnAna (wrong knowledge/misconception) which goes after the dawn of yathArtha jnAna, but jagat does not disappear like mithyA vastu after realization of brahma jnAna, it is equally available for both jnAni and ajnAni. But ajnAni sees this aloof from him whereas jnAni sees it nothing different from HIM. His realization is : I am anna, annaada and shlokakarta.
- Even the pot is mere vAchAraMbhaNa like snake prabhuji nothing more than this. But yes, bhAshyakAra very clearly says this jagat is NOT just like snake in place of rope!!! However, we don’t get any knowledge of pot’s cause when the pot is cognized independently apart from clay. The purpose of understanding the pot is to realize the svarUpa of pot i.e, clay. By knowing one thing all is known. Just by knowing the rules of additions all additions can be done irrespective of different numbers with different combinations. In that sense all the effects are only vAchAraMbhaNa, special shapes and names, to make the cause known. It is only through them we can understand the cause which is changeless. vAchAraMbhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyaM mruttiketyeva satyaM is the shruti vAkya.
putran M
This is like a dream.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Smileys or not, that's excellent personal discipline; these new-age channels of both knowledge and entertainment, we all have to keep figuring out (and I am still struggling to) a balance about how we use them.
- Yes we have to be judicious even we are using these social media accounts for spiritual growth or philosophical knowledge improvement. I have seen even aged people active late midnights writing something or forwarding something to the group, I definitely think this is some sort of addiction !!!
The good thing is it lets me answer more slowly.
Ø Yes prabhuji, these discussions can always wait as we know this is not something guru-shishya saMvAda on 1:1 basis in adhyAtmika sAdhana😊
The way I see it: If jagat has Brahman as real upadana, then the vikara that is the basis for identification of jagat (or Brahman as-if jagat), that vikara has to have Brahman as its locus (because there is no other reality), it is Brahman's vikara/knowledge that it brings/cognizes to manifestation.
Ø Again it is otherway round..for identifying the unitary adhishtAnaM vikAra is the source…but in unitary source there is no vikAra..for identifying the clay as the unitary source the vikAra pot,pitcher etc. are there and through this vikAra source only we could able to identify and realize that ONLY clay is the satya. bhAshyakAra clarifies this like this : if name and form not distinguished then the adjunctless nature of this mass of intelligence (prajnAna ghana) Atman would not have been known. The names and forms (vikAra) is there to say the adhishtAnaM (mrut sAmAnya) in its svarUpa vikAra-less.
Thus jagat-identification of Brahman and jagat karanatva-association in Brahman come and go together.
- Yes, but point to be noted here is the pot which is having the particular naama rUpa having the svabhAva of clay and its existence depends entirely upon clay but clay for its existence not dependent on nAma rUpa. In sUtra bhAshya bhAshyakAra clarifies this : Though we speak a lot about the non-difference of the kAraNa and the kArya, it only means that the kArya (effect) is only a form of the cause; but its opposite does not apply, that is, the cause (kAraNa) is not a form of the effect (kArya). It is the purpose behind shruti saying : mruttiketyeva satyaM. ONLY clay is satyaM.
If we talk about jagat-pratyaksha, then there is a seer (say, jnani or ajnani) for whom that is pratyaksha. The nondual Self is now divided into seer and seen. Division implies a duality of two different entities, identities, selves; one is the seer claiming Self and the other is his not-self seen. The beeja-vikara (Maya=Avidya, for psa) for this division is therefore admitted as a part of or in conjunction with the unitary Self.
Ø No question of duality when it is said he is the karaNaM, kAraNam and karta ( he is seen, he is seer and he is the act of seeing as well). Though transactionally we are seeing the duality here, though for all practical purposes there is difference between enjoyer, enjoyable and enjoyment the source of these ‘socalled’ duality is eka eva adviteeyaM. If you want to know more about this bhOktru-bhOgya-bhOga for which brahman is the source you can refer to sUtra bhAshya 2-1-13.
But when we consider with reference to the paramarthika standpoint (psa: that alone denotes truth of Brahman), both this division and its supposed vikara, both the jagat-identification of Brahman and the jagat upadana/nimitta karanatva-association in Brahman, are realized as adhyasa/imagination on the nirvikara Self. This Self-knowledge negates their satyatvam, and so they can at most be admitted by the jnani as mithya, in any context or standpoint that prima-facie speaks in their dualistic terms (as-if real).
- It has been said several times that jnAni-s drushti is NOT mithyA drushti but it is satya drushti, Samyak drushti, Atmaikatva drushti, the drushti that always fetch him the knowledge that ekatvaM and NOT mithyatvaM. For him nAma rUpa also sadAtmanaiva satyam, if that is not the case if he has to literally experience the ‘adrushya’ of mithyAvastu darshana like snake disappearance after obtaining the knowledge of rope…that jagat vikAra should vanish all of a sudden immediately after obtaining the knowledge of svarUpa which is nirvikAra or nirvishesha…but jagat is not going anywhere it is equally available for both jnAni and ajnAni…ajnAni sees the jagat independently apart from brahman but jnAni sees the ‘same jagat’ as brahman. In that sense it means that it is one with the cause while we are perceiving it. Even now, when we are (ajnAni-s) perceiving it as jagat thinking that nirvikAri brahman sitting aloof from it, it is, as per scriptures /shAstra it is one with it’s cause. But for us the ajnAni-s now it appears as if it is different. Therefore, when it is said about utpAdya kArya (the effect is produced) the underlying fact is that it appears as if it is different from the cause; and when we say ‘the effect is lost’ we mean that the effect which was as if different from its cause became one with the cause. The jnAni’s drushti is like this even though he is seeing the effect which is pratyaksha pramANita his knowledge firmly established in it’s (jagat’s) kAraNa and that knowledge he would obtain from shAstra pramANa.
This is like a dream. I see "Ramu" in the dream. Then I appear as the seer and Ramu as my seen, in the dream. It is (vyavaharika) satya to say "That seen Ramu is My (or my mind's) projection." and "Ramu's beeja-vikara is already and always in Me (or my mind)." Therefore I am the upadana-nimitta karana (Ishvara) for the imagined Ramu. Note that once we take this viewpoint (rooting the entire dream in the Seer-Self), there is no real meaning to "tiny Ramu's imagination". For I am the sole seer and projector of whatever happens in tiny Ramu. It is all My imagination.
Ø Yes, one is at the micro level and another one is at the macro level. Hence samashti jagat is being addressed as brahma mAnasa pratyaya and individual’s Svapna (vyashti) is jeeva mAnasa pratyaya. By the way, when bhAshyakAra talks about Ishwara, Ishwara hetuka srushti etc. he firmly differentiates between Svapna prapancha and vyAvahArika jaagrat prapancha and insists that there is not even an iota of pAramArthika in Svapna prapancha and accepting Ishwara as the cause of transactional prapancha is ‘vedAnta maryAda’.
- vyAvahArika jagat is satya not the imagination of the tiny jeeva and Ishwara is the srushtikarta of this stupendous jagat and this Ishwara hetuka srushti never ever an imagination of conditioned jeeva.
We have to get over this "tiny jiva" (Ramu) business. (imu) The contention is that Self is nondual, nirvikara, and hence if there is any talk of duality, it is only as an appearance, imagination, cognition due to the coeval causal factor called Maya=Avidya. Brahman is known as Ishvara, and vyavaharika jagat, tiny jiva and its imaginations, big ishvara and his creations, are all His imagination.
Ø Is there any need to talk about anything about ‘His imagination’ when there is ONLY secondless reality?? But when it comes to creation and related talks it is Ishwara who creates this jagat and NOT jeeva. And Ishwara created this jagat for the sake of jeeva and jeeva ( even siddha – yogi purusha, who has occult powers also) is not capable of creating this jagat and it is the sole and exclusive power of Ishwara…that is what siddhAnta says about the concepts of Ishwara-jeeva-jagat.
"Vyavaharika jagat is satya" would imply that jagat-vikara/vritti is an intrinsic part of nirvikara Brahman. That would be a self-contradiction.
- Again not so prabhuji, let us go back to pot-clay example. Here pot is vyAvahArika satya, for all practical purposes we use pot but not clay is it not?? In this sence the cause is different from the effect, the effect, the pot is available for vyavahAra (transaction) but not the cause. The pot can be created- small or big or in different shapes / designs which holds water, which helps us to store something in it and it can also be destroyed after some time, But the clay (mrut sAmAnya) is not created, nor small nor big, it does not serve any of our practical purposes it is not destroyed. But point to be noted here is the effect, pot, would not be available for vyavahAra if it were independent of clay. Hence effect is nothing but cause but cause is something independent of effect. For the jagat brahman is the kAraNa but brahman in its svarUpa nirvikAri and nirvishesha.
Therefore vyavaharika jagat is an adhyasa on Brahman,
- Seeing the jagat different from brahman is adhyAsa drushti, avidyA drushti, parichinna drushti, upAdhi parichinna drushti but in jnAna drushti brahman is everything. sarvaM khalvidaM brahma, satyaMchaanrutaMcha satyamabhavat yadidaM kiMcha, asserts shruti.
Ø It is NOT duality, it is non-duality which has been realized in duality…HE is the karaNaM (the tools) kAraNaM (the cause) kartA ( the doer).
The first sentence everyone agrees. The second would be understood as: He is imagined as and in kAraNam, etc. The knower-knowing-known duality is adhyasa on Self.
- The second sentence is just an extension of the first sentence 😊
Everything dualistic affirmed in that standpoint, if we are talking of prama regarding them, then we have already shifted attention away from the adhishtanam - no longer are they simply vacharambhana-identifiers of Self for us.
Ø I am not able to understand this statement. Your explanation about the prama appears to me as bhrama !! Please elaborate.
and the nAma rUpAtmaka pot does not have any independent existence apart from clay.
If pot has existence in clay and is dependent on clay, then the nature of this existence and dependence is where there is disagreement.
Either we can treat pot as a vacharambhana identifier for nirvikara, non-dual clay (like the word Brahman) and not bring in the question of their existence, meaning, knowledge etc. Or we can consider that Clay is imagined as-if having pot-rupa but in truth the pot has neither existence in nor dependence on clay - hence pot is mithya. Or, we identify clay as actual upadana for the dualistic pot imagination (Its projection, rupa), which means clay has pot-vikara inherent in it and as you put it,
- Perhaps my lack of proper communication skills (language limitations) forced you to think in a converse way. Let me try to explain it once again, see, when the effect is manifest, it obviously exists because we are perceiving it. Therefore, it should have been present even before, because nothing can come into existence that did not exist earlier. Similarly, even when the effect is not perceived during dissolution it cannot be non-existent because, nothing which exists can cease to exist. (reference vide geeta bhAshya). Now where does the effect exist before its appearance and after its disappearance?” It exists as one with its cause. So, for the vikAra Aspada (adhishtAnaM) is nirvikAri brahman and vikAra is the shakti of brahman / Ishwara and there is no difference between shakti and shaktivanta. And this shakti (sarvajnatva, sarvashaktitva, sarvavyApakatva etc.) is inherent in brahman and these are ‘svabhAva’ of brahman vide sUtra bhAshya 1-1-4.
"pot does not have any independent existence apart from clay." PSA would not accept the last position as satya; it is also adhyasa.
- I am not that much worried about PSA conclusions after all it is just PSA conclusion not bhAshyakAra’s 😊
Keep Prof Vk-ji's advice in mind every now and then :)
Ø What is that Prof VK-ji’s advice??
putran M
Ø Again it is otherway round..for identifying the unitary adhishtAnaM vikAra is the source…but in unitary source there is no vikAra..for identifying the clay as the unitary source the vikAra pot,pitcher etc. are there and through this vikAra source only we could able to identify and realize that ONLY clay is the satya. bhAshyakAra clarifies this like this : if name and form not distinguished then the adjunctless nature of this mass of intelligence (prajnAna ghana) Atman would not have been known. The names and forms (vikAra) is there to say the adhishtAnaM (mrut sAmAnya) in its svarUpa vikAra-less.
- Yes, but point to be noted here is the pot which is having the particular naama rUpa having the svabhAva of clay and its existence depends entirely upon clay but clay for its existence not dependent on nAma rUpa. In sUtra bhAshya bhAshyakAra clarifies this : Though we speak a lot about the non-difference of the kAraNa and the kArya, it only means that the kArya (effect) is only a form of the cause; but its opposite does not apply, that is, the cause (kAraNa) is not a form of the effect (kArya). It is the purpose behind shruti saying : mruttiketyeva satyaM. ONLY clay is satyaM.
Ø No question of duality when it is said he is the karaNaM, kAraNam and karta ( he is seen, he is seer and he is the act of seeing as well). Though transactionally we are seeing the duality here, though for all practical purposes there is difference between enjoyer, enjoyable and enjoyment the source of these ‘socalled’ duality is eka eva adviteeyaM.
- It has been said several times that jnAni-s drushti is NOT mithyA drushti but it is satya drushti, Samyak drushti, Atmaikatva drushti, the drushti that always fetch him the knowledge that ekatvaM and NOT mithyatvaM. For him nAma rUpa also sadAtmanaiva satyam, if that is not the case if he has to literally experience the ‘adrushya’ of mithyAvastu darshana like snake disappearance after obtaining the knowledge of rope…that jagat vikAra should vanish all of a sudden immediately after obtaining the knowledge of svarUpa which is nirvikAra or nirvishesha…but jagat is not going anywhere it is equally available for both jnAni and ajnAni…ajnAni sees the jagat independently apart from brahman but jnAni sees the ‘same jagat’ as brahman. In that sense it means that it is one with the cause while we are perceiving it.
Ø Is there any need to talk about anything about ‘His imagination’ when there is ONLY secondless reality?? But when it comes to creation and related talks it is Ishwara who creates this jagat and NOT jeeva. And Ishwara created this jagat for the sake of jeeva and jeeva ( even siddha – yogi purusha, who has occult powers also) is not capable of creating this jagat and it is the sole and exclusive power of Ishwara…that is what siddhAnta says about the concepts of Ishwara-jeeva-jagat.
"Vyavaharika jagat is satya" would imply that jagat-vikara/vritti is an intrinsic part of nirvikara Brahman. That would be a self-contradiction.
- Again not so prabhuji, let us go back to pot-clay example. Here pot is vyAvahArika satya, for all practical purposes we use pot but not clay is it not?? In this sence the cause is different from the effect, the effect, the pot is available for vyavahAra (transaction) but not the cause. The pot can be created- small or big or in different shapes / designs which holds water, which helps us to store something in it and it can also be destroyed after some time, But the clay (mrut sAmAnya) is not created, nor small nor big, it does not serve any of our practical purposes it is not destroyed. But point to be noted here is the effect, pot, would not be available for vyavahAra if it were independent of clay. Hence effect is nothing but cause but cause is something independent of effect. For the jagat brahman is the kAraNa but brahman in its svarUpa nirvikAri and nirvishesha.
Therefore vyavaharika jagat is an adhyasa on Brahman,
- Seeing the jagat different from brahman is adhyAsa drushti, avidyA drushti, parichinna drushti, upAdhi parichinna drushti but in jnAna drushti brahman is everything. sarvaM khalvidaM brahma, satyaMchaanrutaMcha satyamabhavat yadidaM kiMcha, asserts shruti.
- see, when the effect is manifest, it obviously exists because we are perceiving it. Therefore, it should have been present even before, because nothing can come into existence that did not exist earlier. Similarly, even when the effect is not perceived during dissolution it cannot be non-existent because, nothing which exists can cease to exist. (reference vide geeta bhAshya). Now where does the effect exist before its appearance and after its disappearance?” It exists as one with its cause. So, for the vikAra Aspada (adhishtAnaM) is nirvikAri brahman and vikAra is the shakti of brahman / Ishwara and there is no difference between shakti and shaktivanta. And this shakti (sarvajnatva, sarvashaktitva, sarvavyApakatva etc.) is inherent in brahman and these are ‘svabhAva’ of brahman vide sUtra bhAshya 1-1-4.
Ø What is that Prof VK-ji’s advice??