mUlAvidyA adhyastha or anadhyastha??

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Sri SSS at one place says if the mUlAvidyAvAdins say mUlAvidyA is kevala adhyastha (avidyAkalpita / imagined / misconceived due to ignorance etc.) on brahman then I don’t have any problem in calling it as mUlAvidyA, but if someone says this mUlAvidyA is anadhyastha (not superimposed), not avidyAkalpita then I never ever accept it. 

 

May I know which vyAkhya has the reference that would say mUlAvidyA is not adhyastha and it is not avidyAkalpita and parallel to brahman?? 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Viswanath O K]

Okay. Let me express here my observation about that.

Whatever happened from Saguna Brahman (which is said as arising of Maya), till such vanishing, is all Unreal, this is my view.

In this, even if Brahma spoke few words, they are also unreal.

But, for the sake of Jnana, Brahma spoke few words - and that is this Upanishads. These words can be spoken out by Brahma by observing actions and knowledge attained in previous universe/Kalpa/etc., that doesn't matter, but these are the words of Jnana for realizing Oneself which one thinks one is ignorant of. Even if other schools of Hinduism speak different or some other religion like Buddhism negate God, all of them will attain Brahma Loka or Heaven and will attain such knowledge by hearing from Brahma himself.

To say rightly, these words are the end key for Videha Mukti Door as Brahma manifested all three bodies out of these words as this dream. Though they are unreal, they are like Red Pill given within the Matrix world.

Say, if you wish for another life, you might be born in this Kalpa, or maybe in another Kalpa or another Universe with 3 bodies manifested by another Brahma, and there the words of Upanishads might be different too (the form and shape of Red Pill can be different too), but those words there will be the Jnana of Self Realization there according to that Brahma. Like how the Encryption and Decoding happens to be different based on inventor, so is this words.

These are all unreal too (If you like to use the word Superimposed then fine).

Sorry for the lengthy mail, this is my Understanding and sorry if it is against any Guru's/traditions words.

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65810ADB884DD799B76DBFE7843EA%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

There are many commentators who have held that ajnana is mithya, that is ajnana is adhyasta and therefore not real, like rajjusarpa:

न्यायनिर्णयव्याख्या

………वा पृच्छ्यत इति विकल्प्याद्यौ प्रत्याह — मिथ्येति । मिथ्या च तदज्ञानं च तन्निमित्तमुपादानं यस्य सोऽध्यासस्तथा । तत्र मिथ्येत्युक्ते भ्रान्तिज्ञानप्राप्तावज्ञानमित्युक्तम् ।………

न्यायनिर्णयव्याख्या

……… मिथ्या च तदज्ञानं चेति विग्रहः तस्य भ्रान्तित्वं व्यवच्छिनत्ति — संसारेति । ………

पञ्चपादिका

………स्वरूपम् इतिवत् व्यपदेशमात्रं द्रष्टव्यम् । मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तः इति । मिथ्या च तदज्ञानं च मिथ्याज्ञानम् । मिथ्येति अनिर्वचनीयता उच्यते । अज्ञानमिति च………

आनन्दगिरिटीका (छान्दोग्य)

……… आरोपितसंसारित्वं वस्तुतो नाऽऽत्मन्यस्तीत्येतद्दृष्टान्तेन स्पष्टयति – न हीति । मिथ्या च तदज्ञानं चेति मिथ्याज्ञानं तेनाध्यस्तान्यविद्यमानान्येव विद्यमानवत्प्रतीतिमापादितानीति यावत् । ………

भाष्यरत्नप्रभाव्याख्या

……… अध्यासस्योपादानमाह - मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्त इति । मिथ्या च तदज्ञानं च मिथ्याज्ञानं तन्निमित्तमुपादानं यस्य स तन्निमित्तः । तदुपादान(तदुपादानक)* इत्यर्थः……

पूर्णानन्दीया

……… अज्ञानपदेन विवक्षितमर्थमाह – साक्षाज्ज्ञानेति । मिथ्या च तदज्ञानं च मिथ्याज्ञानं तत्प्रतिपादकं समासवाक्यरूपं यत्पदं तेनेत्यर्थः ।

All these commentators hold the ajnana to be adhyasta. In other words this ajnana is superimposed and will cease to be upon jnana.

Om

--

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji,

As far as I am aware, I don't think there is any commentator that has held that ajnAna is not adhyastha. Would be curious to know if that is not correct.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te31bTCpKLbW_uoYZY3C7251yrNNkUdY0zkEHpFkqfCmFQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Subbuji,

However, I would be surprised if SSS or anyone else said that avidyA is avidyAkRta, as that would have anavasthAdoSha. Such things are best left unsaid. I recall a discussion with our Gurukula's Acharya where we were discussing words used to explain avidyA/mAyA and I was countering as to why say mAyA is adhyasthA? He saw my natural AkAMkShA question that would follow and said immediately, you shouldn't ask "kena adhyasthA?" (After some hours of prodding into it through vyAkaraNa, I saw some differences in dhAtus in used to shun this kind of question, specifically the sthA dhAtu which is akarmaka). 

kAryAnumeyA mAyA, avidyA is anumeya from the perspective of the kArya.

PS: Good to see Purnanandiyatika is also on Advaita Sharada now. Thanks @Yogananda CS ji and team.

gurupAdukAbhyAm
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

[V Subrahmanian]

  I don't think any sane Advaitin would ever say avidya is as real as Brahman. To even suppose such a situation is far fetched. 

Praveen ji, it is interesting to note that conversation on avidya being caused.

Warm regards

subbu

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CACT7j-FfnOQsrJbhxkRpkY2qL%3D2s_fGTWUocTJFFNmHguCVDzg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Praveen ji,

In the advaita siddhi, this point is raised and addressed thus:

यदुक्तमस्याप्यारोपितत्वेनावरणसापेक्षत्वमिति, तन्न अज्ञानसंबन्धरूपस्यावरणस्यानादित्वेन चित्प्रकाश्यत्वेन च उत्पत्तौ ज्ञप्तौ स्थितौ वा स्वानपेक्षणात् । 

In relation to the argument that as that itself (asya = AvaraNa) was superimposed, there would be the need for another AvaraNa that would be the cause for the superimposition.

Not so, as the ignorance and its association with consciousness are beginningless, and because ignorance is itself known by consciousess, for its arising, cognition or persistence does not require another covering (for its superimposition on the self). 

The siddhikAra is refuting the charge of anavasthA on the basis of anAditva - this is the same argument cited by the bhAmatikAra to get around the defect of anyonyAshrayatva in suggesting that avidyA is jIvAshrita. 

Interestingly the siddhikAra also cites avidyA itself being revealed by consciousness as another reason for not requiring another avidyA for the superimposition of this avidyA onto consciousness - ie as every object of consciousness is mithyA, that includes avidyA also, because it also is revealed by consciousness alone.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CACT7j-FfnOQsrJbhxkRpkY2qL%3D2s_fGTWUocTJFFNmHguCVDzg%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Venkataraghavan-ji,

Is the statement that association of ignorance to consciousness is beginning less equivalent to the statement that the transmigrating Jiva is beginning less? 

Also, what is pramana for this beginninglessness of a. Avidya b. Jiva? Do we know directly from shabda or is it based on logic applied to related knowledge from shabda and pratyaksha?

thollmelukaalkizhu  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DUeAb2CeHjPtp0_g%3DestxQyBN-nZA_FA4jz-6jiqt5MQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Thanks Venkatji,

On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 3:49 PM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

In the advaita siddhi, this point is raised and addressed thus:

यदुक्तमस्याप्यारोपितत्वेनावरणसापेक्षत्वमिति, तन्न अज्ञानसंबन्धरूपस्यावरणस्यानादित्वेन चित्प्रकाश्यत्वेन च उत्पत्तौ ज्ञप्तौ स्थितौ वा स्वानपेक्षणात् । 

Yes, anAditva and sAkShivedyatva both should be quite convincing. 

The siddhikAra is refuting the charge of anavasthA on the basis of anAditva - this is the same argument cited by the bhAmatikAra to get around the defect of anyonyAshrayatva in suggesting that avidyA is jIvAshrita. 

yes, I recall about Bhamatikara using the same tarka.

Interestingly the siddhikAra also cites avidyA itself being revealed by consciousness as another reason for not requiring another avidyA for the superimposition of this avidyA onto consciousness - ie as every object of consciousness is mithyA, that includes avidyA also, because it also is revealed by consciousness alone.

On a related note, this is the only way the kartRkamavirodha of vRtti being svaviShayA as stated in Vedantaparibhasha can be resolved.

Kind rgds,

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Putran ji,

Responses in-line.

On Fri, 21 Jul 2023, 19:30 putran M, <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskaram Venkataraghavan-ji,

Is the statement that association of ignorance to consciousness is beginning less equivalent to the statement that the transmigrating Jiva is beginning less? 

Six entities are accepted in advaita siddhAnta as beginningless - 

जीव ईशो विशुद्धाचित् तथा जीवेशयोर्भिदा।

अविद्या तच्चितोर्योगः षडस्माकमनादयः।।

This is a famous ancient verse (source unknown) which says that 1) the jIva, 2) Ishvara, 3) their difference, 4) avidyA, 5) its connection to consciousness and 6) pure consciousness are admitted to be beginningless by us (ie advaitins).

The apparent division of the indivisible, beginningless Brahman into the jIva and Ishvara is because of a beginningless ignorance. Thus the jIva and Ishvara too are beginningless.

Also, what is pramana for this beginninglessness of a. Avidya b. Jiva? Do we know directly from shabda or is it based on logic applied to related knowledge from shabda and pratyaksha?

sampradAya - Shankaracharya refers to the beginninglessness in a few places, famously in the adhyAsa bhAShya. The mANDUkya kArika अनादिमायया सुप्तो यदा जीवः प्रबुध्यते  is also another pramANa for avidyA's and jIva's beginninglessness.

brahmasUtra - The sUtra न कर्माविभागादिति चेन्नानादित्वात् ॥ (2.1.35) and उपपद्यते चाप्युपलभ्यते च ॥ (2.1.36) are also pramANa-s  for the beginninglessness of samsAra and by implication the jIva and avidyA.

shruti - Shankaracharya in explaining the word उपलभ्यते in the sUtra shows how the ChAndogya shruti अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य नामरूपे व्याकरवाणीति (6.3.2) is evidence of the jIva being anAdi. The shruti सूर्याचन्द्रमसौ धाता यथापूर्वमकल्पयत् also is cited as the beginninglessness of samsAra.

smRti - न रूपमस्येह तथोपलभ्यते नान्तो न चादिर्न च सम्प्रतिष्ठा from the bhagavatgItA also is a pramANa shown for the beginninglessness of samsAra.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-oXZORn%2B_z1oRxa%2BQpKvGVf_QQ%2BH6hXwMni6G9GAEFhCw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Viswanath O K]

A Food for thought about this Beginning-less, in words of Shankara.

Gita Bhasya Chapter 13 verse 19 - Attached

If there is a problem in English translation between Eternal and Beginning-less, please let know, but this Bhashya for the verse is quite a Twist.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEkpWu_z6DNCNOpz7Nwp2kPpC%2BUj8A89N9N6Lg9%2Bkqeuxw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Praveen ji,

On Fri, 21 Jul 2023, 19:41 Praveen R. Bhat, <bhatp...@gmail.com> wrote:

Interestingly the siddhikAra also cites avidyA itself being revealed by consciousness as another reason for not requiring another avidyA for the superimposition of this avidyA onto consciousness - ie as every object of consciousness is mithyA, that includes avidyA also, because it also is revealed by consciousness alone.

On a related note, this is the only way the kartRkamavirodha of vRtti being svaviShayA as stated in Vedantaparibhasha can be resolved.

Yes, I remember your question to Sri Maheswaran AchArya and his response during the Vedanta Paribhasha classes. Are you attending the chitsukhi classes that are ongoing?

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

[Kalyan]

I checked this bhAshya and I am surprised that Sri Shankara calls Ishwara's prakRtis as eternal. 

ईश्वरस्य प्रकृती तौ प्रकृतिपुरुषौ उभावपि अनादि विद्धि? न विद्यते आदिः ययोः तौ अनादी। नित्येश्वरत्वात् ईश्वरस्य तत्प्रकृत्योरपि युक्तं नित्यत्वेन भवितुम्। 

anAdi would indicate beginningless while nitya is eternal (no beginning and no end). The mUla sloka itself uses only the word anAdi.

Warm Regards

[putran M]

Namaskaram Kalyan-ji,

One explanation by way of analogy is this: 

Kingkong and his power to jump the building are beginningless for the child (watching the movie) but ends when he grows up and realizes it is only (eternal) light projecting a nama-rupa appearance. The "jumping power" of KK is nothing but the power of light appearing so, in the context of the movie identification.

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/3f4ad900-5965-469a-b4ce-ddd910dc3276n%40googlegroups.com.

[Viswanath O K]

> I checked this bhAshya and I am surprised that Sri Shankara calls Ishwara's prakRtis as eternal. 

ईश्वरस्य प्रकृती तौ प्रकृतिपुरुषौ उभावपि अनादि विद्धि? न विद्यते आदिः ययोः तौ अनादी। नित्येश्वरत्वात् ईश्वरस्य तत्प्रकृत्योरपि युक्तं नित्यत्वेन भवितुम्। 

anAdi would indicate beginningless while nitya is eternal (no beginning and no end). The mUla sloka itself uses only the word anAdi.

Warm Regards

Namaste. Thank you for the reply. Yes, I had a doubt about that "eternal" as a translation, but Shankara does so, because if Ishwara's qualities are not considered eternal, then Ishwara loses Ishwaratvam, so Prakriti has to be Eternal.

To be in line with this topic, from that verse, the word "anAdi" is attributed not just to Purusha but also to Prakriti (also Purusha is also a Prakriti, like Jiva an element of Prakriti).

If so, then, everything becomes "anAdi". Not just Jiva,Ishwara,Ignorance which Venkatraghavan ji pointed out in a post in this reply, but every thing we see/experience becomes "anAdi" as the verse includes Prakriti as such and Shankara accepts it.

So, in this topic of "anAdi", we don't have to point particularly "this,this and this" - but "everything one knew, knows, remains unknown but will come to know, remains unknown ever - Purusha, Prakriti, Ishwara, all qualities, etc." all are "anAdi" even if temporarily experienced out of Creation. (doesn't matter it is Avyakta or Vyakata - as it is said qualities of Ishwara - i.e. Prakriti -  have to be Beginningless).

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/3f4ad900-5965-469a-b4ce-ddd910dc3276n%40googlegroups.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Viswanath-ji,

Namaste. Thank you for the reply. Yes, I had a doubt about that "eternal" as a translation, but Shankara does so, because if Ishwara's qualities are not considered eternal, then Ishwara loses Ishwaratvam, so Prakriti has to be Eternal.

To be in line with this topic, from that verse, the word "anAdi" is attributed not just to Purusha but also to Prakriti (also Purusha is also a Prakriti, like Jiva an element of Prakriti).

If so, then, everything becomes "anAdi". Not just Jiva,Ishwara,Ignorance which Venkatraghavan ji pointed out in a post in this reply, but every thing we see/experience becomes "anAdi" as the verse includes Prakriti as such and Shankara accepts it.

So, in this topic of "anAdi", we don't have to point particularly "this,this and this" - but "everything one knew, knows, remains unknown but will come to know, remains unknown ever - Purusha, Prakriti, Ishwara, all qualities, etc." all are "anAdi" even if temporarily experienced out of Creation. (doesn't matter it is Avyakta or Vyakata - as it is said qualities of Ishwara - i.e. Prakriti -  have to be Beginningless).

I wrote something similar recently:

Quote

There is the (lower) vyavaharika standpoint (based in ignorance) in which there is a jiva and there is a corresponding Ishvara in relation to the jiva - with their roles being different (one is karmi, doer of adhyasa; other is phaladaata, cause of srishti, etc.). The (higher) vyavaharika standpoint based in knowledge of the non-dual Self is that there is naught else but Ishvara and so everything that becomes an object of dualistic identification (seer, seen, self, not-self, whatever you can objectify by thought or word) is imagination/appearance/denotation of that Ishvara (Brahman+Maya). Therefore He is the second less upadana-nimitta karana for all jiva-jagat-ishvara manifest srishti and everything whatsoever identified within it. All this talk of jiva, its ajnana/adhyasa/imagination, “due to avidya”, then of a different ishvara, ishvara srishti “due to Maya” - ALL of it is Him appearing as-if. Srishti is of Ishvara and not jiva because jiva is itself an apparent projection of that Ishvara, a part of that srishti that is His imagination. The jiva-ishvara-jagat bheda of the lower vyavaharika standpoint is Mithya: it is perceived as-if existent and real but known by the jnani to be an apparition. The jnani therefore ‘sees’ the Self in All and All as appearance of Self.

This “higher” vyavaharika standpoint is given in the Mandukya karika & bhashya Chapter 2 (as per my reading of Sw. Gambhirananda’s translation).

Unquote

The BG bhashya also aligns with this perspective, per my reading.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Viswanath O K]

Great understanding.

To add up to it, in that the (higher) Vyavaharika of Ishwara, this word of "His" in (lower) Vyavaharika vanish there, only "Me" in all this Illusory Appearance. I am Ishwara - in that (higher) Vyavaharika - and all these are My own illusory dream and I am present everywhere in this dream being Lord of this.

And, about Paramarthika, You know.....

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-ozd_0KnufjWd59GDURABBkbgDNH8yjkYw4wSaBvyDE1g%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 8:58 PM Kalyan <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

I checked this bhAshya and I am surprised that Sri Shankara calls Ishwara's prakRtis as eternal. 

ईश्वरस्य प्रकृती तौ प्रकृतिपुरुषौ उभावपि अनादि विद्धि? न विद्यते आदिः ययोः तौ अनादी। नित्येश्वरत्वात् ईश्वरस्य तत्प्रकृत्योरपि युक्तं नित्यत्वेन भवितुम्। 

anAdi would indicate beginningless while nitya is eternal (no beginning and no end). The mUla sloka itself uses only the word anAdi.

It is 'nitya' for those who are in samsara and not trying for moksha. It is anitya/mithya for those who have attained the realization/trying for moksha. That's why in the shaastra 'anAdi' is 'sAnta' = there is an end to it when knowledge occurs.  In the Gita itself Krishna says: realized souls 'cross over/transcend maayaa'.  मायामेतां तरन्ति ते (7.14)

Maya is the name of that which does not exist, says Shankara. माया नाम वस्तु तर्हि ; नैवम् , सा च माया न विद्यते । मायेत्यविद्यमानस्याख्येत्यभिप्रायः ॥ Gaudapada Karika and Shankara Bhashya.

In the siddhanta, Maya and prakriti are names for the same power. Krishna too uses both names in the Gita. 

regards

subbu 

[Viswanath O K]

Namaste. 

> It is 'nitya' for those who are in samsara and not trying for moksha. It is anitya/mithya for those who have attained the realization/trying for moksha. That's why in the shaastra 'anAdi' is 'sAnta' = there is an end to it when knowledge occurs.  

True.

That's why Gita itself spoken in viewpoint of those "not really striving for moksha but delude like Arjuna try to renounce ignorantly" to push them towards correct path at the beginning stage,

But Advaita knowledge not spoken there. ☺️

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0D0CVbMPrfxxSs62Wppq-SD4oyjw4k7w1fmtjOAwy6MQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji,

In this context, Shankaracharya uses the word nitya to mean cause. There are two interpretations of the word anAdi given in the bhAShya - one as siddhAnta and another as pUrvapaksha.

siddhAnta

तौ प्रकृतिपुरुषौ उभावपि अनादी विद्धि, न विद्यते आदिः ययोः तौ अनादी । नित्येश्वरत्वात् ईश्वरस्य तत्प्रकृत्योरपि युक्तं नित्यत्वेन भवितुम् । 

pUrvapaksha

न आदी अनादी इति तत्पुरुषसमासं केचित् वर्णयन्ति । तेन हि किल ईश्वरस्य कारणत्वं सिध्यति । यदि पुनः प्रकृतिपुरुषावेव नित्यौ स्यातां तत्कृतमेव जगत् न ईश्वरस्य जगतः कर्तृत्वम् ।

In the siddhAntin's interpretation of the word anAdI as a bahuvrIhi compound, ie न विद्यते आदिः ययोः तौ अनादी - the two that don't have a cause, ie those which are not effects, ie those which are themselves causes - the meaning of the word अनादी is causes. 

In the pUrvapaksha interpretation of the word as a nan tatpuruSha compound, ie न आदी अनादी - the two that are not a cause, ie the two that are effects - the word अनादी means effects.

Shankara is saying puruSha and prakRti are nothing but Ishvara Himself, one cannot separate those two forms of prakRti from Him. As Ishvara is the ultimate cause, it is appropriate that Ishvara's prakRtis are also causes - नित्येश्वरत्वात् ईश्वरस्य तत्प्रकृत्योरपि युक्तं नित्यत्वेन भवितुम् । 

One should not interpret this gItA verse to say that puruSha and prakRti are effects of Ishvara because that will lead to several logical flaws - if they are taken to mean causes that are separate and independent of Ishvara, then Ishvara's creatorship of the universe would be lost, यदि पुनः प्रकृतिपुरुषावेव नित्यौ स्यातां तत्कृतमेव जगत् न ईश्वरस्य जगतः कर्तृत्वम् ।

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0D0CVbMPrfxxSs62Wppq-SD4oyjw4k7w1fmtjOAwy6MQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

To add up to it, in that the (higher) Vyavaharika of Ishwara, this word of "His" in (lower) Vyavaharika vanish there, only "Me" in all this Illusory Appearance. I am Ishwara - in that (higher) Vyavaharika - and all these are My own illusory dream and I am present everywhere in this dream being Lord of this.

Yes, it would make sense that Krishna himself speaks from this standpoint of realization and therefore freely uses "Me" even while taking into consideration that Arjuna is conditioned in the lower standpoint. For Arjuna, it likely appears as "He" or rather he acknowledges his own jiva identification and therefore assumes the natural position of a bhakta or sishya listening to his guru. 

That's why Gita itself spoken in viewpoint of those "not really striving for moksha but delude like Arjuna try to renounce ignorantly" to push them towards correct path at the beginning stage,

But Advaita knowledge not spoken there. ☺️

It doesn't mean Arjuna is naively ignorant, a common person not having done sravana before, as if we are somehow more fit for jnana yoga that "he was not taught in the Gita". In any case, as already said and I will say it again, we reject in this forum this viewpoint that Krishna does not teach advaita in the Gita. Perhaps if that was presented by a bonafide dvaitin or a purvapakshin from a traditional non-advaita school, it may be entertained for a while; but not from independent advaitins contradicting Shankara's assessment and elucidation. Shankara was able to see the Gita as moksha shastra and a source for advaita knowledge. He guides us in the bhashya to get the deeper understanding of the scripture. As he says in the introduction: (Sw. Gambhirananda trans.) "This scripture, viz the Gita, while particularly revealing the twofold dharma having Liberation as its goal and the supreme Reality, Brahman, called Vasudeva, as its subject matter, comes to have a special purpose, relationship, and subject-matter. Since from a clear knowledge of its purport all the human ends become fulfilled, therefore an effort is being made by me to expound it." So basically, this is not the place to be flaunting a dismissive opinion regarding this scripture vis-a-vis advaita. 

thollmelukaalkizhu 

 

On Fri, Jul 21, 2023, 10:54 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 8:58 PM Kalyan <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

I checked this bhAshya and I am surprised that Sri Shankara calls Ishwara's prakRtis as eternal. 

ईश्वरस्य प्रकृती तौ प्रकृतिपुरुषौ उभावपि अनादि विद्धि? न विद्यते आदिः ययोः तौ अनादी। नित्येश्वरत्वात् ईश्वरस्य तत्प्रकृत्योरपि युक्तं नित्यत्वेन भवितुम्। 

anAdi would indicate beginningless while nitya is eternal (no beginning and no end). The mUla sloka itself uses only the word anAdi.

It is 'nitya' for those who are in samsara and not trying for moksha. It is anitya/mithya for those who have attained the realization/trying for moksha. That's why in the shaastra 'anAdi' is 'sAnta' = there is an end to it when knowledge occurs.  In the Gita itself Krishna says: realized souls 'cross over/transcend maayaa'.  मायामेतां तरन्ति ते (7.14)

Maya is the name of that which does not exist, says Shankara. माया नाम वस्तु तर्हि ; नैवम् , सा च माया न विद्यते । मायेत्यविद्यमानस्याख्येत्यभिप्रायः ॥ Gaudapada Karika and Shankara Bhashya.

In the siddhanta, Maya and prakriti are names for the same power. Krishna too uses both names in the Gita. 

regards

subbu 

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0D0CVbMPrfxxSs62Wppq-SD4oyjw4k7w1fmtjOAwy6MQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B-hNKnLaN0U%3DQvxfFNp-JqCpGvehhq6TekpfD1SLsBRNAtyTg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Viswanath O K]

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji.

I can understand the analogy, but few things struck me there.

About "नित्यत्वेन" in Bhashya, and about "Creation,Maintanence,Destruction of universe".

If Prakriti is not accepted Eternal here, but Beginning-less and Ends at Dissolution or at Videha Mukti, then the question about Continuous creation, maintanence, and dissolution by Ishwara of the Universe comes into question. 

For Creation after Dissolution, Prakriti has to be as the quality for Cause of the Universe, and endlessly this Play has to go on.

Or, I have misunderstood about this in view of Advaita, and have to differently understand, please let me know.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEn0PJzsUr6iDvi%3DAH9EtYj57GS%3D5hxZ6GoBb-%3DWYtRtig%40mail.gmail.com.

[Viswanath O K]

Namaste Putran.

Sorry. I should have sticked to it in replying. Thank you for making me remember about the forum. When I speak about this, the place where I am vanish from my awareness, I have to cultivate such. You know, when I was in a Jiddu Krishnamurti forum, I myself in overwhelming Bhakthi to the Reclining Vishnu (like one in Srirangam) - forgotten the guidelines and Krishnamurti's teachings and went deeply on speaking about Vishnu there. It's a good learning now about the way this character behave in any speech/conversations, and I will keep it in mind and practice it for life.

Thank you.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-qRUZ46HzHzxfxx-jccy6dvR%2B52seMaTY6nLhCUN8inhw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Viswanath ji,

Responses in line.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2023, 08:39 Viswanath O K, <viswana...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji.

I can understand the analogy, but few things struck me there.

About "नित्यत्वेन" in Bhashya, and about "Creation,Maintanence,Destruction of universe".

If Prakriti is not accepted Eternal here, but Beginning-less and Ends at Dissolution or at Videha Mukti, then the question about Continuous creation, maintanence, and dissolution by Ishwara of the Universe comes into question. 

We have to differentiate between dissolution and mukti. 

At moksha, the mukta realises there was no world in the first place - not before, not now, not in the future. That means, there never was a prakRti, nor is it in existence now, nor in the future. 

At videhamukti, it is not that the jnAni is freed and the others continue, rather, there is no other. What he was hitherto taking to be the "other" - the world and other jIvas - he realises are nothing but himself. There is no question of prakRti ending, because it didn't exist at any point. To him, there is no "other", to the others, the world appearance continues until they see this truth for themselves.

Dissolution is different - the world ceases to exist in its manifested state. It reverts back to its primordial, unmanifest state - ie as prakRti. Thus the dissolution of the universe is not the dissolution of prakRti, rather it is the dissolution of the universe into prakRti.

In both dissolution and mukti, prakRti does not end at their respective instants.

Regards

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B-hNKkypQwTm6wAg1iBodk%2B6BaJ49an2a0NAR1QWJhr4gXt4Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Viswanath O K]

Namaste.

Namaste Viswanath ji,

Responses in line.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2023, 08:39 Viswanath O K, <viswana...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji.

I can understand the analogy, but few things struck me there.

About "नित्यत्वेन" in Bhashya, and about "Creation,Maintanence,Destruction of universe".

If Prakriti is not accepted Eternal here, but Beginning-less and Ends at Dissolution or at Videha Mukti, then the question about Continuous creation, maintanence, and dissolution by Ishwara of the Universe comes into question. 

We have to differentiate between dissolution and mukti. 

At moksha, the mukta realises there was no world in the first place - not before, not now, not in the future. That means, there never was a prakRti, nor is it in existence now, nor in the future. 

At videhamukti, it is not that the jnAni is freed and the others continue, rather, there is no other. What he was hitherto taking to be the "other" - the world and other jIvas - he realises are nothing but himself. There is no question of prakRti ending, because it didn't exist at any point. To him, there is no "other", to the others, the world appearance continues until they see this truth for themselves.

Dissolution is different - the world ceases to exist in its manifested state. It reverts back to its primordial, unmanifest state - ie as prakRti. Thus the dissolution of the universe is not the dissolution of prakRti, rather it is the dissolution of the universe into prakRti.

In both dissolution and mukti, prakRti does not end at their respective instants.

Regards

Venkatraghavan

Very True. I agree with it in terms of Mukti in view of Advaita, I was only speaking about it in normal other schools terms (like this Jiva gets liberated, and other Jivas goes on experiencing, and so creation,etc. still accepted by Jiva even though liberated), but as per Kaivalya Moksha it is accurate, no other here and all his like in dream, and when attained Videha Mukti then this dream vanish.

A slight doubt here. So, when spoken about Prakriti in your last statements "does not end at their respective instants", could you elaborate that more?

Is it like for Jivas, until every jiva attained Mukti, this Prakriti remains "eternal" for them?

How about Muktas related to that statement "does not end at the respective instant"? Even if one attained Jivan Mukti as in Advaita and sees no existence of Prakriti here, still Prakriti exists and does not end at that respective instant?

Please clarify your point, so that I can clearly understand what you point at, because when it comes to "anAdi" and "antha or anantha", this is very crucial and bit tricky.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEn6-crsXWALofVQCMrSJqszm73SE6Y2T0c9c7-FB%3DGi_A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste

On Sat, 22 Jul 2023, 10:52 Viswanath O K, <viswana...@gmail.com> wrote:

A slight doubt here. So, when spoken about Prakriti in your last statements "does not end at their respective instants", could you elaborate that more?

Is it like for Jivas, until every jiva attained Mukti, this Prakriti remains "eternal" for them?

When the jIva becomes a jnAni, he understands that there is no world nor prakRti in reality. For the ajnAni, the world continues to 'be real', until he becomes a jnAni. 

This is all spoken of provisionally, from the multiple jIva viewpoint. Let us not get into whether there are multiple or only one jIva, that is a topic outside the scope of this discussion.

How about Muktas related to that statement "does not end at the respective instant"? Even if one attained Jivan Mukti as in Advaita and sees no existence of Prakriti here, still Prakriti exists and does not end at that respective instant?

No, that was not the intended meaning. Something that never was, can never end either. This is what gauDapAdAchArya meant when he said प्रपञ्चो यदि विद्येत निवर्तेत न संशयः. Talk of cessation can only be possible for something that exists in the first place. But something that exists can never cease to be either. Thus there is no end either way.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B-hNKkuiEJFSii1_57ipOEwPFqyKDPsB5otXfWo-%3D%2BNdMNAKg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Viswanath O K]

Namaste.

Namaste

On Sat, 22 Jul 2023, 10:52 Viswanath O K, <viswana...@gmail.com> wrote:

A slight doubt here. So, when spoken about Prakriti in your last statements "does not end at their respective instants", could you elaborate that more?

Is it like for Jivas, until every jiva attained Mukti, this Prakriti remains "eternal" for them?

When the jIva becomes a jnAni, he understands that there is no world nor prakRti in reality. For the ajnAni, the world continues to 'be real', until he becomes a jnAni. 

This is all spoken of provisionally, from the multiple jIva viewpoint. Let us not get into whether there are multiple or only one jIva, that is a topic outside the scope of this discussion.

How about Muktas related to that statement "does not end at the respective instant"? Even if one attained Jivan Mukti as in Advaita and sees no existence of Prakriti here, still Prakriti exists and does not end at that respective instant?

No, that was not the intended meaning. Something that never was, can never end either. This is what gauDapAdAchArya meant when he said प्रपञ्चो यदि विद्येत निवर्तेत न संशयः. Talk of cessation can only be possible for something that exists in the first place. But something that exists can never cease to be either. Thus there is no end either way.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

Superb understanding. Thanks for clearing the way it is expressed.

In this way, will you also you mean "Jivas were not there, and also will not be, can never and either" in the perception of a Jnani as much as you said about Prakriti?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DhC3amZaabs_5Hy-j-MnWBhWrKuK7s8a9SsXRKYhBwcA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste

In this way, will you also you mean "Jivas were not there, and also will not be, can never and either" in the perception of a Jnani as much as you said about Prakriti?

No, there is a difference between the two. 

With the jIva, the sublation is of the adjunct, leaving the substratum, consciousness, intact. The jIvatva is denied, not the entity that is thought to possess that jIvatva.

With the prakRti, the sublation is of prakRti.

Words in their primary sense denote the visheShya (qualificand), not the visheShaNa (qualifier). In the case of the jIva, the visheShya is consciousness, the visheShaNa is ignorance / body mind adjuncts. Therefore, the term jIva in its primary sense denotes consciousness, but popularly refers to consciousness delimited by adjuncts.

The word prakRti on the other hand denotes the ignorance / mAyA that delimits consciousness in a primary sense.

Therefore while we can say there never was, is, will be prakRti, we cannot equivalently say there never was, nor is, nor will be a jIva.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

[Viswanath O K]

Thank you for sharing it.

If the Body, Life Force, and Mind itself is/are never there and never can be, then how can there be an entity called Jiva? Only when you accept there is a Body Mind Adjuncts as existing, then there can be an entity called Jiva.

Jiva, in Sanskrit, never can be called Consciousness, because it is an Adjuct with Life force. Only Ishwara/Brahman can be called Consciousness.

And, Adjuncts - Body, Mind, - Prakriti only when accepted its existence, it can delimit Consciousness, and can there be an entity called Jiva. When Prakriti is not accepted as "never can be" - then not Jiva too, only Ishwara/Brahman then.

That's why I quoted the Bhashya of Chapter 13 verse 19, where Shankara says Purusha is also a Prakriti, a quality of Ishwara and call as "Prakritis".

This can be debated as you point out in a different sense, but "when no Prakriti as that "never can be" - no Jiva too - only Pure Consciousness".

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEkgJsZj%3DpNBYsod9RR42rSQLdLHxQrBgOcm0aBnALmpoQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

I don't know the pramANa for your statements, but they are certainly not advaita's positions on the matter. 

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B-hNKk6p7hzbt2R%2BqG%3DC29bmXUzcxmfozHstt-assQUB4oX4w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Viswanath O K]

Namaste.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 at 21:20, Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't know the pramANa for your statements, but they are certainly not advaita's positions on the matter. 

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

Here Mandukya Karika Shankara Bhashya Translation,

Verse 3.48

Sanskrit text, IAST transliteration and English translation

न कश्चिज्जायते जीवः संभवोऽस्य न विद्यते ।
एतत्तदुत्तमं सत्यं यत्र किंचिन्न जायते ॥ ४८ ॥

na kaścijjāyate jīvaḥ saṃbhavo'sya na vidyate |
etattaduttamaṃ satyaṃ yatra kiṃcinna jāyate || 48 ||

48. No Jīva is ever born. There does not exist any cause which can produce it. This is the highest Truth that nothing is ever born.

Shankara Bhashya (commentary)

All these ideas regarding the discipline of the mind, evolution resembling the creation of forms from iron and clay, as well as the ideas regarding devotional exercises, are given as means1 to the realisation of the nature of the Ultimate Reality. They have, in themselves, no meaning whatsoever. The2 truth regarding the Ultimate Reality is that no Jīva is ever born. The Jīva whom one knows as the agent and the enjoyer is not born in any way whatsoever. Therefore, no cause can ever exist which may produce the Ātman which is, by nature, unborn and non-dual. In other words, no Jīva can ever be born, as the cause which may produce it does not exist. Of all the (relative) truths described above as means (for the realisation of the Ultimate Reality), this alone is the Supreme Truth that nothing whatsoever is ever born in or of that Brahman which is of the nature of the Ultimate Reality.

Then in Chapter 4 verse 58 of Mandukya Karika,

Sanskrit text, IAST transliteration and English translation

धर्मा य इति जायन्ते जायन्ते ते न तत्त्वतः ।
जन्म मायोपमं तेषां सा च माया न विद्यते ॥ ५८ ॥

dharmā ya iti jāyante jāyante te na tattvataḥ |
janma māyopamaṃ teṣāṃ sā ca māyā na vidyate || 58 ||

58. Those Jīvas (entities) or beings are said to be born. But that birth is never possible from the standpoint of Reality. Their birth is like that of an illusory object. That illusion, again, is non-existent.

Shankara Bhashya (commentary)

Those, again, who imagine the birth of the Jīvas and other entities, do so only through Saṃvṛti or the power of ignorance as stated in the preceding Kārikā. The Jīvas are seen to be born only through ignorance. But from the standpoint of the Supreme Reality no such birth is possible. This1 (supposed) birth of the Jīvas through ignorance, described above, is like the birth of objects through illusion (Māyā).

(Opponent)—Then there must be something real known as Māyā or illusion?

(Reply)—It is not so. That Māyā or illusion is never existent. Māyā or illusion is the name we give to something which2 does not (really) exist (but which is perceived).

Here, Shankara describes Maya too, which goes on as a long debate in Shankara/Advaita Schools. Maya never existent, so not real experience. This Experience is Illusion, not real, and clearly defined.

In my Understanding, Consciousness cannot perceive any Jiva here, because there never can be, and a Jnani who is Consciousness itself can see that.

Like this, in Mandukya Karika, Bhashyas are deep. As I watched your Videos ji about Mandukya Karika, I think you can point me rightly to what Shankara and Gaudapada say here with your clear understanding even if I misunderstood and if it is apt then will learn from it too.

I don't know about the exact Sanskrit words, if there is a contradiction in translation please let me know.

Thank you.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEkw3Ur9Wtgz%3DUwj9fK3-R-qQmPZ_jEaS7Eov35p%2Bo3_7Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste

Please go back and re-read what has been written - "no jIva was ever born" does not mean "there was no jIva".

Existence cannot have birth. That certainly does not mean it is non-existence.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B-hNKn7pmQnHkPROi8-GV8qMpFg-wXKk6rw0j8HqbQ%2BOxj6pQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Venkatji,

On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 6:31 AM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Please go back and re-read what has been written - "no jIva was ever born" does not mean "there was no jIva".

Existence cannot have birth. That certainly does not mean it is non-existence.

I agree. That is why jIva and saMsAra although both are seen as different from brahma in baddhAvasthA, in mukti, I like to see it as saMsAra goes away, because it is an appearance of brahma, but jIva doesn't go away, being brahma complete. Only jIvatva, meaning jIvabhAva goes away. There is a certain subtlety there, IMO, but very important. 

gurupAdukAbhyAm,

[V Subrahmanian]

Very interesting observation Praveen Ji, this theme of Brahman alone due to avidya assuming jivabhaava meaning bandha, and giving up that bhaava alone constituting mukti is stated by Bhashyakara several times can be seen here. A study of those instances constitutes a very valuable manana exercise:

https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/search/advanced?stringData=%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B5&toggleAllgrp1=&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Isha&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Kena_pada&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Kena_vakya&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Kathaka&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Prashna&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Mundaka&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Mandukya&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Taitiriya&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Aitareya&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Chandogya&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Brha&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Gita&check_bhashya%5B%5D=BS&submit=%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B7%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D

Sorry for not pasting a tiny URL.

Warm regards

subbu 

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CACT7j-FEo8ZmZyBM_Co%3DS4B5taM2y9rsSNOT1Yq2q691c7%2BowQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Praveen ji,

Yes ji. I had said precisely that in a previous mail. In addition:

The jIva has no birth and death because he (consciousness) is ever existent.

The world has no birth and death because it is never existent.

The denial of birth of the former does not deny the jIva's existence. The denial of death of the latter does not confirm the world's existence.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CACT7j-FEo8ZmZyBM_Co%3DS4B5taM2y9rsSNOT1Yq2q691c7%2BowQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Thanks Subbuji, Venkatji,

On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 9:19 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Very interesting observation Praveen Ji, this theme of Brahman alone due to avidya assuming jivabhaava meaning bandha, and giving up that bhaava alone constituting mukti is stated by Bhashyakara several times can be seen here. A study of those instances constitutes a very valuable manana exercise:

https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/search/advanced?stringData=%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B5&toggleAllgrp1=&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Isha&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Kena_pada&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Kena_vakya&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Kathaka&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Prashna&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Mundaka&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Mandukya&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Taitiriya&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Aitareya&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Chandogya&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Brha&check_bhashya%5B%5D=Gita&check_bhashya%5B%5D=BS&submit=%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B7%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8Dm.

And there is the beautiful praveshashruti to this very effect: anena jIvAtmanA anupraviShya.

Kind rgds,

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

 

 There certainly appear to be Shruti/Bhashya pramANAs for  **birth** of jIvAs. Just presenting one from Mandukya.

kArikA 1-6  //  प्रभवः सर्वभावानां सतामिति विनिश्चयः ।
सर्वं जनयति प्राणश्चेतोंशून्पुरुषः पृथक् ॥ ६ ॥ //

//  prabhavaH sarvabhAvAnAM satAmiti vinishchayaH |

sarvaM janayati prANashchetoMshUnpuruShaH pRRithak || 6 || //

Part of Bhashya thereon

//  अतः सर्वं जनयति प्राणः चेतोंशून् अंशव इव रवेश्चिदात्मकस्य पुरुषस्य चेतोरूपा जलार्कसमाः प्राज्ञतैजसविश्वभेदेन देवमनुष्यतिर्यगादिदेहभेदेषु विभाव्यमानाश्चेतोंशवो ये, तान् पुरुषः पृथक् सृजति विषयभावविलक्षणानग्निविस्फुलिङ्गवत्सलक्षणान् जलार्कवच्च जीवलक्षणांस्त्वितरान्सर्वभावान् प्राणो बीजात्मा जनयति, ‘यथोर्णनाभिः. . . यथाग्नेः क्षुद्रा विस्फुलिङ्गाः’ (बृ. उ. २ । १ । २०) इत्यादिश्रुतेः ॥ //

// ataH sarvaM janayati prANaH chetoMshUn aMshava iva raveshchidAtmakasya puruShasya chetorUpA jalArkasamAH prAj~nataijasavishvabhedena devamanuShyatiryagAdidehabhedeShu vibhAvyamAnAshchetoMshavo ye, tAn puruShaH pRRithak sRRijati viShayabhAvavilakShaNAnagnivisphuli~NgavatsalakShaNAn jalArkavachcha jIvalakShaNAMstvitarAnsarvabhAvAn prANo bIjAtmA janayati, ‘yathorNanAbhiH. . . yathAgneH kShudrA visphuli~NgAH’ (bRRi. u. 2 | 1 | 20) ityAdishruteH || //

Reference could be made to BSB  2-3-50 also.

BS 2-3-50  //  आभास एव च ॥ ५० ॥ //

BSB 2-3-50  //  आभास एव च एष जीवः परस्यात्मनो जलसूर्यकादिवत्प्रतिपत्तव्यः, न स एव साक्षात् , नापि वस्त्वन्तरम् ।…….//

//  AbhAsa eva cha eSha jIvaH parasyAtmano jalasUryakAdivatpratipattavyaH, na sa eva sAkShAt , nApi vastvantaram |  //

When the AbhAsa element goes away on mukti,  Brahman remains. Instead of understanding jIva remains but as Brahman, would it not be more appropriate to understand the position as Brahman remains.

My understanding.

Regards

Virus-free.www.avast.com

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CACT7j-GFSPcume3c1Gq0UUrKdRs-RAdWN-pcVY7Rs9Sm%2B3uRGA%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 5:40 PM H S Chandramouli <hschand...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste.

 

 There certainly appear to be Shruti/Bhashya pramANAs for  **birth** of jIvAs. Just presenting one from Mandukya.

Shankara has clarified in a few places as to what is meant by 'the birth of the jiva/Atma' :

Chandogya 6.2.3: बहु प्रभूतं स्यां भवेयं प्रजायेय प्रकर्षेणोत्पद्येय, यथा मृद्घटाद्याकारेण यथा वा रज्ज्वादि सर्पाद्याकारेण बुद्धिपरिकल्पितेन । 

'I shall become many and hence shall be born excellently - like the clay becomes many taking the forms of pot, etc. or the substratum rope, etc. are imagined to be snake, etc.  (He gives both parinami and vivarta analogies for Brahman 'born' as many jivas. 

In many places Shankara gives the analogy of space is stated to be 'born' etc. when pot, etc. get created, so too the jiva is said to be born/dead when body is attained / dead: Thus the birthless jiva is said to be born when body is attained:   

ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम्प्रथमोऽध्यायःद्वितीयः पादः सूत्रम् ६ - भाष्यम्

………, पर एवात्मा देहेन्द्रियमनोबुद्ध्युपाधिभिः परिच्छिद्यमानो बालैः शारीर इत्युपचर्यते । यथा घटकरकाद्युपाधिवशादपरिच्छिन्नमपि नभः परिच्छिन्नवदवभासते, तद्वत् । 

BSB 2.1.14:

एवमविद्याकृतनामरूपोपाध्यनुरोधीश्वरो भवति, व्योमेव घटकरकाद्युपाध्यनुरोधि । स च स्वात्मभूतानेव घटाकाशस्थानीयानविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितनामरूपकृतकार्यकरणसङ्घातानुरोधिनो जीवाख्यान्विज्ञानात्मनः प्रतीष्टे व्यवहारविषये ।

माण्डूक्योपनिषद्भाष्यम्कारिका - भाष्यम्

………यस्माद्यथा घटाकाशादिभेदबुद्धिनिबन्धनो रूपकार्यादिभेदव्यवहारः, तथा देहोपाधिजीवभेदकृतो जन्ममरणादिव्यवहारः, 

माण्डूक्योपनिषद्भाष्यम्कारिका - भाष्यम्

………पुनरप्युक्तमेवार्थं प्रपञ्चयति — घटाकाशजन्मनाशगमनागमनस्थितिवत्सर्वशरीरेष्वात्मनो जन्ममरणादिराकाशेनाविलक्षणः प्रत्येतव्य इत्यर्थः

माण्डूक्योपनिषद्भाष्यम्कारिका - भाष्यम्

पूर्वमपि परिहृत एवायं दोषः — स्वप्नवदात्ममायाविसर्जिताः सङ्घाताः, घटाकाशोत्पत्तिभेदादिवज्जीवानामुत्पत्तिभेदादिरिति ।

माण्डूक्योपनिषद्भाष्यम्कारिका

………आत्मा ह्याकाशवज्जीवैर्घटाकाशैरिवोदितः । घटादिवच्च सङ्घातैर्जातावेतन्निदर्शनम् ॥ ३ ॥ 

माण्डूक्योपनिषद्भाष्यम्कारिका

………घटादिषु प्रलीनेषु घटाकाशादयो यथा । आकाशे सम्प्रलीयन्ते तद्वज्जीवा इहात्मनि ॥ ४ ॥ ………

Om tat sat

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

Reg  // Thus the birthless jiva is said to be born when body is attained //,

Any reference to  ** birthless jiva ** ?

Regards

Virus-free.www.avast.com

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3kDsCm%2BSPz4%3DTaWbZFmqq0uPmiOG20upwoRiHcZSNCuA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouli ji

Please see the following mANDUkyakArikA-s and their bhAShya-s.

3.48 

न कश्चिज्जायते जीवः सम्भवोऽस्य न विद्यते ।

एतत्तदुत्तमं सत्यं यत्र किञ्चिन्न जायते ॥ ४८ ॥

Also 4.46

एवं न जायते चित्तमेवं धर्मा अजाः स्मृताः ।

एवमेव विजानन्तो न पतन्ति विपर्यये ॥ ४६ ॥

4.58

धर्मा य इति जायन्ते जायन्ते ते न तत्त्वतः ।

जन्म मायोपमं तेषां सा च माया न विद्यते ॥ ५८ ॥

4.93

आदिशान्ता ह्यनुत्पन्नाः प्रकृत्यैव सुनिर्वृताः ।

सर्वे धर्माः समाभिन्ना अजं साम्यं विशारदम् ॥ ९३ ॥

Regards

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdNNL5AFvVSzWAquQX9MO0-z_VFrewPLgDf3%2B%3DNY_K5V9Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Absolutely. Except for the third quarter of  4-58,  //  जन्म मायोपमं तेषां // , all the others speak of no birth for anything in the pAramArthik sense. This is not disputed at all. The discussion is really about // जन्म मायोपमं तेषां //. Birth for jIvAs is  admitted here.

Regards

Virus-free.www.avast.com

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEnDYassJ6XokdQiOAG-z8t4qO43_g2SJzjNjkeOrNV-hw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouli ji,

Exactly. If you go back and read how this discussion evolved and got to where it has, it will be clear that that's the sense (ie pAramArthika) in which no birth of the jIva was referred to by me.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdPxdqggm_Z%3DULkqqBns8mVG7iPkpipKEbygr49woEEjog%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

The Brahma sutra  उत्पत्त्यसम्भवात् ॥ ४२ ॥   2.2.42 is just about this: the originating of the jiva is impossible. The Bhashya says:  अत्र ब्रूमः — न वासुदेवसंज्ञकात्परमात्मनः सङ्कर्षणसंज्ञकस्य जीवस्योत्पत्तिः सम्भवति, अनित्यत्वादिदोषप्रसङ्गात् । उत्पत्तिमत्त्वे हि जीवस्य अनित्यत्वादयो दोषाः प्रसज्येरन् । ततश्च नैवास्य भगवत्प्राप्तिर्मोक्षः स्यात् , कारणप्राप्तौ कार्यस्य प्रविलयप्रसङ्गात् । प्रतिषेधिष्यति च आचार्यो जीवस्योत्पत्तिम् — ‘नात्माऽश्रुतेर्नित्यत्वाच्च ताभ्यः’ (ब्र. सू. २ । ३ । १७) इति । तस्मादसङ्गतैषा कल्पना ॥ ४२ 

The Bhashya cites another sutra  नात्माऽश्रुतेर्नित्यत्वाच्च ताभ्यः ॥ १७ ॥ 2.3.17 that also gives many shruti pramana-s for the jiva not originating.  It is interesting see this Bhashya. 

Om Tat Sat     

[Venkatraghavan S]

Exactly, thanks Subbuji.

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1FyKvKe_0bJSnB21%2BoKWP9svYOreLousa1UfvksMm6pQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

The jIva has no birth and death because he (consciousness) is ever existent.

 

Ø     Jeeva some clarification requested.  You said jeeva is aja and amara because he is consciousness. So, when jeeva realized that he is Atman/parabrahman his realization would be like :

Ø    (a) The ever-existent jeeva ( who does not have jeeva bhAva or jeevatva) as Chaitanya is brahman himself or

Ø    (b)  he is jeeva who eliminated his jeevatva/jeevabhAva and realized that he-is-brahman.  I hope you could see the difference in (a) and (b), in (a) jeeva losing itse self identity and completely merging in Chaitanya and in (b) Chaitanya maintains his identity as jeeva but has the complete realization that he is nothing but Chaitanya. 

 

we know (or as I know) jeevatva or parichinnatvaM, upAhita Chaitanya is only due to upAdhi (antaHkaraNa) once it is sublated what is there is Chaitanya (ghatAkAsha is mahAkAsha only once the ghata bhAva goes away) so here as per (a) what is there is mahAkAsha only.  But continuation of the existence of jeeva would gives us the impression that ghatAkAsha realizes that it is mahAkAsha after giving up the ghatAkAra bhAva.  So here some sort of individuality maintained ( like in this case : ghatAkAsha sans ghata Akaara and nAma) and said jeeva realizes that he is consciousness.  Let me explain my doubt here further with one more example.  If a wave in the ocean realized that it is not a wave but water, what sort of realization it is??  Is it wave realizing that I am water not wave but remains as wave without identifying itself in the names and forms of wave ( jeeva(wave) after eradicating the avidyA i.e. its nAma and rUpa (jeevatva or jeeva bhAva, like (b) above)?? Or river becoming ocean losing its nAma rUpa entirely and ONE with ocean water.   I think ahaM brahmAsmi, tattvamasi etc. gives us the impression that some jeeva would realize that it is brahman but at the same time maintaining its subtle individuality (b).  And it would also gives strength to argue that how adhyAsa is Ananta also!!  After one wave (wave-1) realizing that it is water and nothing but water (after the end of adhyAsa) look at the other wave (2) (yet to be realized that it is also water and nothing but water/or wave swayed by adhyAsa) and teaches it that: see you are not a wave (nAma/rUpa) you are water and what is here is ONLY water and nothing else.  The wave-2, too realizes this truth and acknowledges that wave 1 as its guru who taught the real svarupa of wave-2.  Here wave 1 & 2 realized that they are nothing but water but still there are innumerable waves in the ocean, yet to be realized that they are nothing but water (Ananta adhyAsa).   

 

The world has no birth and death because it is never existent.

 

Ø     The 2-1-6 bhAshya says the similarity between brahman and jagat is : is-ness i.e. the existence 😊 The nature of the is-ness of the brahman followed in the AkAsha etc.  And in taittereeya bhAshya also bhAshyakAra expresses the same opinion : brahmasvarUpAnugamAya cha AkAshAdyannamayAntaM kAryaM…the ‘svarUpa’ of brahman can be traced in the creation right from AkAsha to annamaya kOsha ( the bhautika stUla shareera).  Yes, world has the vikAra ( like vyAkruta avyAkruta etc.) but from this it cannot be said it is atyanta abhAva. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

This is further to my previous mail, almost same but with little changes to make it as a separate thread. 

 

jeevAtman’s  realization of The paramAtman

 

As per Advaita Vedanta, the tiny jIva has no birth nor death because he is ultimately in his svarUpa he is birthless and deathless parabrahman.  Jeevo brahmaiva na apara.  Jeeva is vishishta Chaitanya due to his identification with limited adjuncts ( upAdhi parichinna Chaitanya).  When jeeva got rid of his identification with limited adjuncts he is said to be free from this conditioned state (baNdha).  Here question arises is,  when jeeva after getting rid of his limited identification (upAdhi bAdhita jnana) continue as jeeva (without limitation) and identifies himself as limitless chaitanya or what remains is mere adviteeya jnAna IOW what remains after this jnana is ONLY pure Chaitanya.  When vAmadeva exclaimed he is manu / Aditya etc., when arjuna said he does not have shOka & mOha and got the knowledge, when Nachiketa realized the secret of death through yama, when shwetaketu realized his svarUpa - tattvamasi, when Rishi-s of yore realized ahaM brahmAsmi, when shankara realized shivOhaM, shivOhaM etc. it looks like there are some jeeva realized this truth after realizing the mithyatva of their relationship with their respective upAdhi-s BUT as the ‘jeeva’ (without jeeva bhAva or jeevatva) with some sort of individuality they identified themselves with secondless chaitanyam / parabrahman.  What exactly is this jeeva without jeevatva or jeeva bhAva??  Is there any room to declare that there are multiple jeeva-s (aneka jeeva) but they are all brahman only and nothing but brahman?? Like different waves in ocean is nothing but water??  The further dichotomy of this post realization scenario would be like this :

 

Scenario (a) :  The socalled jeeva ( who does not have jeeva bhAva or jeevatva) as Chaitanya is brahman himself and what was / is / will ever be is ONLY this Chaitanya and nothing else. 

 

Scenario (b) : He is jeeva,  who eliminated his jeevatva/jeevabhAva and realized that he-is-brahman (please note He as jeeva realizes that is brahman).  I hope one could see the difference in (a) and (b).  For further clarity,  in (a) jeeva losing it’s self-identity (which is mithya) and realizing what was / is / will ever be is ONLY Shuddha paripUrNa Chaitanya and in (b) the jeeva,  maintains its identity as jeeva but has the complete realization that he is nothing but Chaitanya. 

 

we know (or as I know) jeevatvaM or parichinnatvaM, upAhita Chaitanya is only due to upAdhi (antaHkaraNa which is kevala avidyAkruta adhyAsa,  jeevatvam in Atman is talamalanaadi parikalpitam says bhAshyakAra).  Once it is sublated what is there is Chaitanya only and nothing but Shuddha Chaitanya. For example, pot space (ghatAkAsha) is mere space (mahAkAsha) only once the ghata bhAva goes away .  So here as per Scenario (a) what is there is mahAkAsha only after the sublation of ghatAkAra / ghatAkAsha here no question of existence of ghatAkAsha without ghatAkAra after realizing that it is mahAkAsha. 

 

But as per Scenario (b),  continuation of the existence of jeeva (after giving up jeevabhAva/jeevatvaM) would give us the impression that ghatAkAsha realizes that it is mahAkAsha after giving up the ghatAkAra bhAva.  So here some sort of individuality maintained ( like in this case : ghatAkAsha sans ghata Akaara and nAma) and said jeeva realizes that he is consciousness or Shuddha paripUrNa chaitanya. 

 

Let me explain Scenario (a) &  (b) here with one more example.  If a wave in the ocean realized that it is not a wave but water, what sort of realization it is??  Is it wave realizing that I am water not wave but remains as wave without identifying itself in the names and forms of waveness?? The jeeva after eradicating the avidyA/adhyAsa i.e. its nAma and rUpa (jeevatva or jeeva bhAva, identifying himself with Shuddha chaitanya like (b) ?? Or river becoming ocean losing its nAma rUpa entirely and ONE with ocean water like (a)??  infact for this we have the mundaka shruti reference.   As I said above, ahaM brahmAsmi, tattvamasi etc. gives us the impression that some jeeva would realize that it is brahman but at the same time maintaining its subtle individuality (b).  And it would also gives strength to argue that how adhyAsa is anAdi and ananta also!!  After one wave (wave-1) realizing that it is water and nothing but water (after the end of adhyAsa) look at the other wave (2) (yet to be realized that it is also water and nothing but water/or wave swayed by adhyAsa) and teaches the jnAna that: see you are not a wave (nAma/rUpa) you are water and what is here is ONLY water and nothing else you and me not having nAma rUpa (waveness)  but we are water only nothing but water.  The wave-2, too realizes this truth and acknowledges that wave 1 as its guru who taught the real svarupa of wave-2 as water only.  Here wave 1 & 2 realized that they are nothing but water but still there are innumerable waves in the ocean, yet to be realized that they are nothing but water (ananta adhyAsa).   By accepting this jeeva after realization would help us to accommodate the avidyA lesha, prArabdha karma, digbhranti etc. to some jeeva paramArtha jnAni and also helps us to understand the  differentiation between exalted jeeva-s (like apAntaratama-s) and ordinary jeeva-s.

 

Just thinking aloud after reading after realization there exists jeeva but without jeevatvaM/jeeva bhAva but as consciousness / Chaitanya.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

There is no individuality to the jIva after realisation. The individuality is because of names and forms only, which are dropped as mithyA.

On the mithyAtva of the world, we have discussed this several times before.  If you have anything different to discuss there, we can, but I see no merit in going over ground that has been covered before.

Regards

Venka 

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581E806761B5929A303DDF18403A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

There is no individuality to the jIva after realisation. The individuality is because of names and forms only, which are dropped as mithyA.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

I have seen in these mails that there is ‘jeeva’ after realization but he does not have jeevatva or jeevabhAva.  I am just curious to know what is that jeeva apart from deha buddhi mana and ahamkara!! if it is Shuddha paripUrNa Chaitanya and nothing else why still we have to call it as jeeva and why we should separately giving the clarification that this jeeva does not have jeeva bhAva, he does not have birth and death etc.!!??  And another question if the jnAni’s individuality is not there, to whom we are going to attribute the prArabdha karma and avidyA lesha?? 

 

And with regard to world’s never existent status, yes we have done and dusted this topic somany times without any convincing conclusion based on shruti,yukti and anubhava.  Anyway we have to move on living with these different perceptions within the tradition 😊

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Venkatraghavan S
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 6:42 AM
To: Advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] mUlAvidyA adhyastha or anadhyastha??

 

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEnYJyfEsSsmo0NetYYthtKHZ387n0nVTqLaYGYvAwq3EQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji

On Wed, 26 Jul 2023, 11:32 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin, <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

There is no individuality to the jIva after realisation. The individuality is because of names and forms only, which are dropped as mithyA.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

I have seen in these mails that there is ‘jeeva’ after realization but he does not have jeevatva or jeevabhAva.  I am just curious to know what is that jeeva apart from deha buddhi mana and ahamkara!! if it is Shuddha paripUrNa Chaitanya and nothing else why still we have to call it as jeeva and why we should separately giving the clarification that this jeeva does not have jeeva bhAva, he does not have birth and death etc.!!??  And another question if the jnAni’s individuality is not there, to whom we are going to attribute the prArabdha karma and avidyA lesha?? 

He is pure consciousness only. You don't want to call him jIva, that is fine. Call him whatever, it doesn't make any difference what names one uses because he has no name or form. Why are you so worried about prArabdha karma / avidyA lesha etc when they are not real?

 

And with regard to world’s never existent status, yes we have done and dusted this topic somany times without any convincing conclusion based on shruti,yukti and anubhava.  Anyway we have to move on living with these different perceptions within the tradition 😊

 

Once there is brahmajnAna it will certainly be clear.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

He is pure consciousness only.

 

• Fine, thanks for the clarification.  nAma rUpa upAdhi rahita Chaitanya is Shuddha Chaitanya and it is parabrahman only.  I am just wondering the clarification with regard to the ‘subtelity’ of jeeva without jeeva bhAva or jeevatva and mitigating this jeeva with non-existent jagat etc.   

 

You don't want to call him jIva, that is fine. Call him whatever, it doesn't make any difference what names one uses because he has no name or form. Why are you so worried about prArabdha karma / avidyA lesha etc when they are not real?

 

Ø     They are not real??even after samyakjnAna shankara says organs would operate in its normal way (4^th chapter sUtra bhAshya) and talks about saMskAra rUpa avidyA giving the example of digbhraanta etc.  And tradition (??) says it is because of jnAni’s avidyA lesha and prArabdha karma and please note it is not vyAvahArika ajnAni drushti it is indeed the status of paramArtha jnAni.  There is a detailed discussions about this in this very group about jnAni’s sashareeratvaM and unembodied pure existence of jnAni.  Yes, we can call this Chaitanya by any name as it does not have any particular name, likewise after realization what is there is parabrahman only call it as jagat or brahman it hardly makes any difference.  Sarveshu brahmAdisthAvaraantareshu vishameshu sarvabhuteshu samaM nirvisheshaM brahmAtmaikatvavishayaM darshanaM jnAnaM yasya saH sarvatra samadarshanaH….if the world which is nothing but brahman from the bhUma drushti or paripUrNa drushti how can we say is non existent like hare’s horn??  From the vyAvahArika parichinna drushti we call jeeva with upAdhi saMbandha but same ‘jeeva’ is brahman in his svarUpa likewise jagat too parichinna when jeeva perceives it through his limited adjuncts (upAdhi) but it is too brahman only when realized there exists nothing but brahman it is too brahmAn only, call it by jagat or brahman. 

 

• From the Chaitanya drushti vijnAnAtma is not different from paramAtma likewise from the jada drushti also foam, wave, bubble etc. nothing but water.  As you know how shankara explains this in sUtra bhAshya 2-1-13. 

 

Once there is brahmajnAna it will certainly be clear.

 

Ø     What brahmavAdins say about the world is pramANa for us till we ourselves become brahma jnAni-s 😊 And these brahmajnAni addressed as Atmaikatva jnAni, Samyak jnAni, samadarshi etc. because they hardly see any difference in anna, annaada and shlokakarta.  Anyway, as you pointed out these things not worth for any more beatings when two different view points travelling parallelly with no hope of any meeting point 😊

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 9:02 AM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

There is no individuality to the jIva after realisation. The individuality is because of names and forms only, which are dropped as mithyA.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

I have seen in these mails that there is ‘jeeva’ after realization but he does not have jeevatva or jeevabhAva.  I am just curious to know what is that jeeva apart from deha buddhi mana and ahamkara!! if it is Shuddha paripUrNa Chaitanya and nothing else why still we have to call it as jeeva and why we should separately giving the clarification that this jeeva does not have jeeva bhAva, he does not have birth and death etc.!!??  And another question if the jnAni’s individuality is not there, to whom we are going to attribute the prArabdha karma and avidyA lesha?? 

The Shaastra, the Gita talks about that Jnani as inhabiting the body:

सर्वकर्माणि मनसा संन्यस्यास्ते सुखं वशी । 

नवद्वारे पुरे देही नैव कुर्वन्न कारयन् ॥ १३ ॥  5.13

The Jnani inhabits the body. 

Q: What is the use in this adjective as everyone inhabits the body?

A: An ajnani, with his body-identification, thinks 'I am in the house, on the ground or on the chair'. But he will not have the thought 'I inhabit the body'. On the other hand, the Jnani who has transcended the body-identification, can have the thought 'I am in the body'. That is the difference.     

In the Bhashya, Bhagavatpada brings out a very sublime Vedantic concept: 

तस्मिन् नवद्वारे पुरे देही सर्वं कर्म संन्यस्य आस्ते ; किं विशेषणेन ? सर्वो हि देही संन्यासी असंन्यासी वा देहे एव आस्ते ; तत्र अनर्थकं विशेषणमिति । उच्यते — यस्तु अज्ञः देही देहेन्द्रियसङ्घातमात्रात्मदर्शी स सर्वोऽपि ‘गेहे भूमौ आसने वा आसे’ इति मन्यते । न हि देहमात्रात्मदर्शिनः गेहे इव देहे आसे इति प्रत्ययः सम्भवति । देहादिसङ्घातव्यतिरिक्तात्मदर्शिनस्तु ‘देहे आसे’ इति प्रत्ययः उपपद्यते ।

Shankara also says in theBrahmasutra Bhashyam 4.1.15:

अपि च नैवात्र विवदितव्यम् — ब्रह्मविदा कञ्चित्कालं शरीरं ध्रियते न वा ध्रियत इति । कथं हि एकस्य स्वहृदयप्रत्ययं ब्रह्मवेदनं देहधारणं च अपरेण प्रतिक्षेप्तुं शक्येत ? श्रुतिस्मृतिषु च स्थितप्रज्ञलक्षणनिर्देशेन एतदेव निरुच्यते ।

Here Shankara says: A Jnani will have the aparoksha anubhava of (1) being Brahman and (2) at the same time being in a body too. No one can deny this, continues Shankara, 'This alone is spoken of as Sthitaprajna lakshana in the shruti and smritis.'

The Jnani's 'individuality', though unreal to him, does continue for the above purpose. Swami Vidyaranya has said that a Jnani can on purpose 'associate/identify' with the body mind complex: Panchadashi 11th chapter:

अविरोधिसुखे बुद्धिः स्वानन्दे च गमागमौ ।
कुर्वन्त्यास्ते क्रमादेषा काकाक्षिवदितस्ततः ॥ १२८॥
एकैव दृष्टिः काकस्य वामदक्षिणनेत्रयोः ।
यात्यायात्येवमानन्दद्वये तत्त्वविदो मतिः ॥ १२९॥
भुञ्जानो विषयानन्दं ब्रह्मानन्दं च तत्त्ववित् ।
द्विभाषाभिज्ञवद्विद्यादुभौ लौकिकवैदिकौ ॥ १३०॥
दुःखप्राप्तौ न चोद्वेगो यथा पूर्वं यतो द्विदृक् ।
गङ्गामग्नार्धकायस्य पुंसः शीतोष्णधीर्यथा ॥ १३१॥
इत्थं जागरणे तत्त्वविदो ब्रह्मसुखं सदा ।
भाति तद्वासनाजन्ये स्वप्ने तद्भासते तथा ॥ १३२॥
अविद्यावासनाप्यस्तीत्यतस्तद्वासनोत्थिते ।
स्वप्ने पूर्ववदेवैष सुखं दुःखं च वीक्षते ॥ १३३॥

128. The sage, looking now at the bliss of Brahman and now at such worldly objects as are not opposed to it, is like a crow that turns its eye from one side to another.

129. The crow has only a single vision which alternates between the right and left eye. Similarly the vision of the knower of Truth alternates between the two types of bliss (of Brahman and the world).

130. Enjoying both the bliss of Brahman taught in the scriptures and the worldly bliss unopposed to it, the knower of truth knows them both in the same way as one who knows two languages.

131. When the knower experiences sufferings, he is not disturbed by them as he would have been before. Just as a man half-immersed in the cool water of the Ganges feels both the heat of the sun and the coolness of the water, so he feels the misery of the world and the bliss of Brahman at the same time.

132. The knower of truth, experiencing the bliss of Brahman in the waking state experiences it also in the dreaming state, because it is the impressions received in the waking state that give rise to dreams.

133. The impressions of ignorance still continue in the dreaming state. So in a dream a wise man will experience sometimes joy and sometimes suffering, without being affected by either. warm regards

subbu

 

 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Hope we are not going back to never ending thread : jnAni’s BMI 😊

 

The Jnani's 'individuality', though unreal to him,

 

• Yes, it is unreal to him because his realization is that his/Atman’s svabhAva is ashareeratvaM only. 

 

does continue for the above purpose.

 

• For the sake of ajnAni-s, bystanders who are not capable enough to see beyond BMI and who are still identifying themselves with their own BMI would wrongly identify jnAni with BMI, his avidyAlesha, his prArabdha karma etc. are just in the view of onlookers only.  And this is what reiterated in all through those mails, which you have vehemently denied. 

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Bhaskar ji,

In my view the idea 'no BMI for the Jnani after he has had the realization, etc.' is valid only and only in this scenario:

 KArikA in the Gaudapada's composition:

न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिः न बद्धो न च साधकः । न मुमुक्षुर्नवै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता ॥ G.K. 2.32

There is neither dissolution nor creation, none in bondage and
none practicing disciplines. There is none seeking Liberation
and none liberated. This is the absolute truth. .

But when we talk of a Jnani, surely we are moving away from the above scenario to a scheme where there is the world, jivas are there, bondage is experienced, effort to release, and the released person.  In this scenario it is by default that the Jnani, his post-jnana life, his interactions with others, etc. are there. This cannot be avoided. We will be mixing standpoints if we deny all these. 

regards

subbu 

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581DD0817A26BC65E6081B18400A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.