Yet another Mahavakya in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
253 views
Skip to first unread message
V Subrahmanian
Oct 22, 2021, 6:07:15 AM10/22/21
to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
In the Brahmasutra Bhashya 4.3.43 there is a discussion about the status of the entity that experiences sleep/transmigrates (exits the body upon death). As part of this discussion, Shankara cites the following passage Br.Up.4.4.22/
of the intellect. The Atman lives i.n that ether conltaining the intellect. Or the meaning may be that theBy the demonstration of desire, work and ignorance...as attributes of the, non-Self, the self-effulgent Atman that has been set forth in the passage in question is here freed from them and transformed into the Supreme Self, and it is emphatically stated, 'It is the Supreme Self, and nothing else'; it is directly spoken
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad mantra 4.4.22:
स वा एष महानज आत्मा योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु य एषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशस्तस्मिञ्छेते सर्वस्य वशी सर्वस्येशानः सर्वस्याधिपतिः स न साधुना कर्मणा भूयान्नो एवासाधुना कनीयानेष सर्वेश्वर एष भूताधिपतिरेष भूतपाल एष (only a part of this very lengthy mantra is cited here. One could read the entire mantra, translation, the bhashya translation (by Swami Madhavananda, Advaita Ashrama.)
22. That great, birthless Self which is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs, lies in the ether that is within the heart.
Bhashya of the above passage: स इति उक्तपरामर्शार्थः ; कोऽसौ उक्तः परामृश्यते ? तं प्रतिनिर्दिशति — य एष विज्ञानमय इति — अतीतानन्तरवाक्योक्तसंप्रत्ययो मा भूदिति, यः एषः ; कतमः एषः इत्युच्यते — विज्ञानमयः प्राणेष्विति ; उक्तवाक्योल्लिङ्गनं संशयनिवृत्त्यर्थम् ; उक्तं हि पूर्वं जनकप्रश्नारम्भे ‘कतम आत्मेति योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ३ । ७) इत्यादि । एतदुक्तं भवति — योऽयम् ‘विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु’ इत्यादिना वाक्येन प्रतिपादितः स्वयं ज्योतिरात्मा, स एषः कामकर्माविद्यानामनात्मधर्मत्वप्रतिपादनद्वारेण मोक्षितः परमात्मभावमापादितः — पर एवायं नान्य इति ; एष सः साक्षान्महानज आत्मेत्युक्तः । योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेष्विति यथाव्याख्यातार्थ एव । य एषः अन्तर्हृदये हृदयपुण्डरीकमध्ये य एष आकाशो बुद्धिविज्ञानसंश्रयः, तस्मिन्नाकाशे बुद्धिविज्ञानसहिते शेते तिष्ठति ; अथवा सम्प्रसादकाले अन्तर्हृदये य एष आकाशः पर एव आत्मा निरुपाधिकः विज्ञानमयस्य स्वस्वभावः, तस्मिन् स्वस्वभावे परमात्मनि आकाशाख्ये शेते ;
Hence the words, 'That great,' etc., recapitulating what has been stated. That refers to something already mentioned.What is it? It is pointed out by the words, 'Which is identified with the intellect,' etc., which are intended to preclude any reference to the Self just mentioned
(verse 20). Which one is meant then? The answer is: Which is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs. The passage is quoted for settling the doubt, for at the beginning of Janaka's questions it has been stated, 'Which is the self?-This (infinite
entity) that is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs,' etc. (IV. iii. 7). The idea is this: By the demonstration of desire, work and ignorance as attributes of the, non-Self, the self-effulgent Atman that has been set forth in the passage in question is here freed from them and transformed into the Supreme Self, and it is emphatically stated, 'It is the Supreme Self, and nothing else'; it is directly spoken
·Of as the great, birthless Self. The words, 'Which is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the ·organs,' have been already explained and have the same meaning here. Lies in the ether that is within the lotus of the heart, the ether (Akasa) that is the seat(verse 20). Which one is meant then? The answer is: Which is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs. The passage is quoted for settling the doubt, for at the beginning of Janaka's questions it has been stated, 'Which is the self?-This (infinite
entity) that is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs,' etc. (IV. iii. 7). The idea is this: By the demonstration of desire, work and ignorance as attributes of the, non-Self, the self-effulgent Atman that has been set forth in the passage in question is here freed from them and transformed into the Supreme Self, and it is emphatically stated, 'It is the Supreme Self, and nothing else'; it is directly spoken
of the intellect. The Atman lives i.n that ether conltaining the intellect. Or the meaning may be that theBy the demonstration of desire, work and ignorance...as attributes of the, non-Self, the self-effulgent Atman that has been set forth in the passage in question is here freed from them and transformed into the Supreme Self, and it is emphatically stated, 'It is the Supreme Self, and nothing else'; it is directly spoken
·Of as the great, birthless Self. The words, 'Which is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the ·organs,' have been already explained and have the same meaning here.
To put the Mahavakya in a crisp manner: योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु ...स वा एष महानज आत्मा [That consciousness, jiva, that is situated amidst the organs...he alone is the Great unborn Self.]
Sri Mani Dravid Sastrigal said that this mantra Br.Up.4.4.22 is a mahavakya while explaining the Brahma Sutra Bhashya.
From the mantra too we can appreciate that it is with a view to realize this self that one renounces all. The Neti Neti is also part of this mantra.
Thus, we have an unambiguous mahavakya here. 'Aham Brahmasmi' of 1.4.10 of this very Upanishad is quite a popular one indeed.
regards
subbu
Vinodh
Oct 22, 2021, 11:06:00 AM10/22/21
to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Namaskaram,
Thank you for sharing this "mahavakya".
This brings up the following question in my mind: what makes a vakya a "mahavakya"?
For example, the Taittiriya Upanishad contains something very similar to what is described in the vakya mentioned above in two different places:
In Sikshavalli, 6th Anuvaka:
sa ya eṣo'ntarhṛdaya ākāśaḥ | tasminnayaṃ puruṣo manomayaḥ | amṛto hiraṇmayaḥ || 1 ||
स य एषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशः । तस्मिन्नयं पुरुषो मनोमयः । अमृतो हिरण्मयः ॥ १ ॥
1. Here, in this bright space within the heart, is He, that Soul who is formed of thought, undying, full of light.
In Brahmanandavalli, 1st Anuvaka:
तदेषाऽभ्युक्ता । सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म ॥ २ ॥
tadeṣā'bhyuktā | satyaṃ jñānamanantaṃ brahma || 2 ||
2. On that, this has been chanted: “Real, Consciousness, Infinite is Brahman;....”
“ .... यो वेद निहितं गुहायां परमे व्योमन् । सोऽश्नुते सर्वान् कामान् सह । ब्रह्मणा विपश्चिता ॥” इति ॥ २ ॥
“ .... yo veda nihitaṃ guhāyāṃ parame vyoman | so'śnute sarvān kāmān saha | brahmaṇā vipaścitā ||” iti || 2 ||
2. “....Whoso knoweth the one hid in the cave in the highest heaven attains all desires together, as Brahman, as the Wise.”
For example, the Taittiriya Upanishad contains something very similar to what is described in the vakya mentioned above in two different places:
In Sikshavalli, 6th Anuvaka:
sa ya eṣo'ntarhṛdaya ākāśaḥ | tasminnayaṃ puruṣo manomayaḥ | amṛto hiraṇmayaḥ || 1 ||
स य एषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशः । तस्मिन्नयं पुरुषो मनोमयः । अमृतो हिरण्मयः ॥ १ ॥
1. Here, in this bright space within the heart, is He, that Soul who is formed of thought, undying, full of light.
In Brahmanandavalli, 1st Anuvaka:
तदेषाऽभ्युक्ता । सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म ॥ २ ॥
tadeṣā'bhyuktā | satyaṃ jñānamanantaṃ brahma || 2 ||
2. On that, this has been chanted: “Real, Consciousness, Infinite is Brahman;....”
“ .... यो वेद निहितं गुहायां परमे व्योमन् । सोऽश्नुते सर्वान् कामान् सह । ब्रह्मणा विपश्चिता ॥” इति ॥ २ ॥
“ .... yo veda nihitaṃ guhāyāṃ parame vyoman | so'śnute sarvān kāmān saha | brahmaṇā vipaścitā ||” iti || 2 ||
2. “....Whoso knoweth the one hid in the cave in the highest heaven attains all desires together, as Brahman, as the Wise.”
Similar to the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad mantra 4.4.22, the above two also describe the Purusha hidden inside the space (cave) of the heart (hrdaya-akasha). Likewise, one of them (from Sikshavalli) describes this Purusha as being manomaya and the other (from Brahmanandavalli) says jnanam is a defining characteristic of Brahman, and these two descriptions appear to be equivalent to the part about the Jiva being vijnanamaya in the quote from Br. Up because they talk about the this Purusha or Brahman having the fundamental characteristic of consciousness (because of which it is manomaya or vijnanamaya and can cognize things (jnanam)). Therefore, both the above vaakyas from the Taittiriya Upanishad are also essentially pointing to the conscious entity that is in the hrdaya-akasha.
--
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/CAKk0Te1K71a8m-1zA0%3Dz7PB3%2BXYHiaE-qKfGBQ%2B3x_%3DecD9now%40mail.gmail.com.
Raman M
Oct 22, 2021, 11:17:07 AM10/22/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
On Fri, 22 Oct, 2021, 20:35 Vinodh, <vinod...@gmail.com> wrote:
Namaskaram,
Thank you for sharing this "mahavakya".This brings up the following question in my mind: what makes a vakya a "mahavakya"?
as far as i have understood, a maha vakya is one that describes the jeeva/brahma aikyam explicitly.
Vinodh
Oct 22, 2021, 11:34:12 AM10/22/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Thanks.
I just reflected on this definition and it appears to fit with the well-known ones:
ayam ātmā brahma / tat tvam asi / aham brahmasmi - here it jiva-brahma aikyam is clear.
prajñānam brahma - if the prajnanam is taken to be the consciousness of the jiva then this is also talking about jiva-brahma aikyam.
However, it does not appear to fit with the Brihardaranyaka / Taittiriya Upanishad quotes above because they are either talking about only the jiva or only the brahman.
Then I wonder why Sri Mani Dravid Shastri calls the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad quote above a mahavakya. I was guessing that perhaps a mahavakya is description by meditating on which a person can realize the Truth. Perhaps by meditating on the vijnanamaya jiva, i.e., the consciousness as ajaa (unborn and therefore eternal) one realizes the Truth and this is why the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad quote is a mahavakya?
--
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/CAGZa1N9zS3GchknPcuQ_3yBZ1kbb%2B3rhLR%2B67mdO%2BpH1rCCtEQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Venkatraghavan S
Oct 22, 2021, 12:21:05 PM10/22/21
to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Namaste,
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 4:34 PM Vinodh <vinod...@gmail.com> wrote:
Then I wonder why Sri Mani Dravid Shastri calls the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad quote above a mahavakya.
Because the mantra is स वा एष महानज आत्मा योऽयं विज्ञानमयः is essentially so'yam - ie conveying the identity of sah with ayam. sah (He), mahAn (the Great), ajah (Unborn one), which refers to Brahman, is the same as ayam vijnAnamayah, this conscious jIva.
I was guessing that perhaps a mahavakya is description by meditating on which a person can realize the Truth. Perhaps by meditating on the vijnanamaya jiva, i.e., the consciousness as ajaa (unborn and therefore eternal) one realizes the Truth and this is why the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad quote is a mahavakya?
No meditation is necessary, knowing the truth that jIva is Brahman is sufficient. A mahAvAkya does not convey a meditation, it simply reveals that the jIva is Brahman.
Regards
Venkatraghavan
Vinodh
Oct 22, 2021, 6:18:10 PM10/22/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
On Fri 22. Oct 2021 at 21:51, Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:
Namaste,On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 4:34 PM Vinodh <vinod...@gmail.com> wrote:Then I wonder why Sri Mani Dravid Shastri calls the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad quote above a mahavakya.Because the mantra is स वा एष महानज आत्मा योऽयं विज्ञानमयः is essentially so'yam - ie conveying the identity of sah with ayam. sah (He), mahAn (the Great), ajah (Unborn one), which refers to Brahman, is the same as ayam vijnAnamayah, this conscious jIva.
Thank you for the clarification. This makes sense!🙏
I was guessing that perhaps a mahavakya is description by meditating on which a person can realize the Truth. Perhaps by meditating on the vijnanamaya jiva, i.e., the consciousness as ajaa (unborn and therefore eternal) one realizes the Truth and this is why the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad quote is a mahavakya?No meditation is necessary, knowing the truth that jIva is Brahman is sufficient. A mahAvAkya does not convey a meditation, it simply reveals that the jIva is Brahman.
If meditation is taken to mean “upasana” (imagining one thing to be like another for the purpose of worshipping), it is right that a mahavakya conveys no such upasana. This is because a mahavakya is simply conveying a fact, and is not conveying any action (meditation is also an action).
However, by “meditation” here, I mean the mananam and nididhyasanam of the statement (that is, a thorough analysis and reflection on the statement) that reveals that jiva is Brahman until one attains firm conviction of this Truth. Why is this required?
By knowing a mahavakya, do we all immediately “know” the truth that jiva is Brahman? Clearly, we all seem to “know” that jiva is Brahman because we have heard it, but do we still not fall under the illusion of maya?
So what does it really mean to “know” the truth? Is it the same as “knowing” the mahavakya as an object of knowledge (like we know “this is a blue lotus”)? Clearly not, because if so, by simply “hearing” this statement one “knows” it, but this does not seem to liberate one from the spell of maya. Therefore one has to go beyond “knowing” the truth, wherein there is still the difference of knower and known, to having the firm conviction in the truth, wherein all subject-object differences disappear completely, at which point the one knowing and the one known are no longer seen as separate. At this point, one no longer knows the truth, but rather one is identical with the truth.
Of course, for those whose minds have become purified through karma and bhakti, just hearing (i.e., knowing) the mahavakya (sravanam) immediately results in such a realization and all subject-object differences disappear. However, for those of us who have not attained that level of purity of mind yet, a meditation (read mananam + nididhyasanam, i.e., repeated analysis and reflection) on the statements conveying the truth is still necessary. In a way, this sort of meditation on the mahavakya is also just purifying the mind until the truth of the mahavakya shines through clearly.
RegardsVenkatraghavan
--
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/CAL34aEmviJ0ywOTeMMxZ0%3DDxNugnT%2B%2BNu3ABzJY9wsbuHmJZOA%40mail.gmail.com.
V Subrahmanian
Oct 23, 2021, 3:34:24 AM10/23/21
to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 3:36 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:
In the Brahmasutra Bhashya 4.3.43
The sutra reference is 1.3.43 and not as stated above.
regards
subbu
Venkatraghavan S
Oct 23, 2021, 4:29:53 AM10/23/21
to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Namaste Vinodh ji
On Fri, 22 Oct 2021, 23:18 Vinodh, <vinod...@gmail.com> wrote:
If meditation is taken to mean “upasana” (imagining one thing to be like another for the purpose of worshipping), it is right that a mahavakya conveys no such upasana. This is because a mahavakya is simply conveying a fact, and is not conveying any action (meditation is also an action).However, by “meditation” here, I mean the mananam and nididhyasanam of the statement (that is, a thorough analysis and reflection on the statement) that reveals that jiva is Brahman until one attains firm conviction of this Truth. Why is this required?
This is also an action only.
By knowing a mahavakya, do we all immediately “know” the truth that jiva is Brahman? Clearly, we all seem to “know” that jiva is Brahman because we have heard it, but do we still not fall under the illusion of maya?
That is not the problem of the sentence, that is an issue with the knower. The mahAvAkya does not attain the status of mahAvAkya because a nididhyAsana on it reveals the truth. Rather the sentence itself reveals the truth of identity. If the listener cannot accept it, more refinement is required. Therefore the definition of mahAvAkya is simply that which reveals the identity between Brahman and the jIva.
For example in the samkshepa sharIraka it is said:
पुरुषापराधमलिना धिषणा।
निरवद्यचक्षुरुदयापि यथा।
न फलाय भर्छु विषया भवति।
श्रुतिसम्भवापि तु तथात्मनि धीः।।
Just like the king clearly saw Bharcchu with defect-free eyes, he still mistakes him for a ghost because of defects present in the king's mind. Similarly the faultless mahAvAkya pramANa also reveals the truth, but defects present in the seeker may lead him to think that he has not understood and more is required to know the truth.
The reference is to a story where Bharcchu a king's minister is trapped in a forest and some of the other ministers spread a false story that he died while waging a war. The king goes to the same forest while hunting and sees Bharcchu, but because of the incorrect vAsana-s created by the lies thinks that what he is seeing is a ghost and runs away in fear.
So what does it really mean to “know” the truth? Is it the same as “knowing” the mahavakya as an object of knowledge (like we know “this is a blue lotus”)? Clearly not, because if so, by simply “hearing” this statement one “knows” it, but this does not seem to liberate one from the spell of maya.
No, if one understands the sentence meaning of mahAvAkya in the manner of "this is a blue lotus" it means they have not understood it, that's all.
Therefore one has to go beyond “knowing” the truth, wherein there is still the difference of knower and known, to having the firm conviction in the truth, wherein all subject-object differences disappear completely, at which point the one knowing and the one known are no longer seen as separate. At this point, one no longer knows the truth, but rather one is identical with the truth.
One need not go beyond knowing for that to happen. What you say above is the sentence meaning conveyed if one has understood it properly.
nididhyAsanam happens after the truth has been revealed by shravaNam. Its purpose is not to reveal a new truth. Its purpose is to remove the habitual vAsana-s that act as obstructors to the acceptance of the truth already revealed by shravaNam.
That is why in traditional advaita works, only shravaNam, and that too mahAvAkya shravaNam, is the antaranga sAdhana - the direct means - for moksha.
The notion of jnAnAt mokshah also is on the basis that the mahAvAkya shravaNam itself is sufficient for moksha. The position that for moksha, one needs to go beyond knowing through the performance of nididhyAsanam - has been refuted in the second varNakam of the samanvayAdhikaraNa of the brahmasUtra bhAShya, where Shankaracharya refutes this view of the prAbhAkara.
Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan
--Of course, for those whose minds have become purified through karma and bhakti, just hearing (i.e., knowing) the mahavakya (sravanam) immediately results in such a realization and all subject-object differences disappear. However, for those of us who have not attained that level of purity of mind yet, a meditation (read mananam + nididhyasanam, i.e., repeated analysis and reflection) on the statements conveying the truth is still necessary. In a way, this sort of meditation on the mahavakya is also just purifying the mind until the truth of the mahavakya shines through clearly.--RegardsVenkatraghavan
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/CAL34aEmviJ0ywOTeMMxZ0%3DDxNugnT%2B%2BNu3ABzJY9wsbuHmJZOA%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/CAC%2BJcJKwyEKD_xBwvLc3yq8HuhYpTMT590hUOTrHX6HVG5OS8g%40mail.gmail.com.
Bhaskar YR
Oct 23, 2021, 5:35:34 AM10/23/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
praNAms
Hare Krishna
If meditation is taken to mean “upasana” (imagining one thing to be like another for the purpose of worshipping), it is right that a mahavakya conveys no such upasana. This is because a mahavakya is simply conveying a fact, and is not conveying any action (meditation is also an action).
Ø Yes, meditation is purusha taNtra, kartuM, akartum anyathAkartum shakyaM says sUtra bhAshya. dhyAna is vidhi para as per yOga whereas in Advaita vedAnta dhyAna is not something that is explained in ashtanga yOga and not vidhipara but jnana para. But bhAmati relates dhAraNa-dhyAna-samAdhi with Advaita-s sAdhana sharavaNa, manana and nidhidhyAsana and darshana, darshana as per bhAmati is samAdhi which is experienced in an inert state of mind.
However, by “meditation” here, I mean the mananam and nididhyasanam of the statement (that is, a thorough analysis and reflection on the statement) that reveals that jiva is Brahman until one attains firm conviction of this Truth. Why is this required?
Ø In bruhadAraNyaka bhAshya AchArya explains what is shravaNAdi sAdhana, shravaNaM is listening and understanding the shruti vAkya, mananaM is contemplating the shruti vAkya in line with shrutyanugraheeta tarka ( mantavyaH tarkataH) and nidhidhyAsanaM means synching the contemplating vichAra till it is realized. For some (uttamOttama adhikAri), as you mentioned below, this realization happens just by shravaNaM without taking the subsequent steps i.e. mananM and nidhidhyAsanaM. But here point to be noted is here shravaNAdi sAdhana not just on traditionally believed mahAvAkya/s but vedAnta vAkya / shabda / shruti vAkya in general.
By knowing a mahavakya, do we all immediately “know” the truth that jiva is Brahman? Clearly, we all seem to “know” that jiva is Brahman because we have heard it, but do we still not fall under the illusion of maya? So what does it really mean to “know” the truth? Is it the same as “knowing” the mahavakya as an object of knowledge (like we know “this is a blue lotus”)? Clearly not, because if so, by simply “hearing” this statement one “knows” it, but this does not seem to liberate one from the spell of maya.
Ø Yes that is right, it is just an additional knowledge included in data base in our mind and nothing more or less than that. My teacher used to say, one shishya after being convinced that he is indeed brahman, asked his guru : OK OK, now I am completely convinced that I am brahman, so what’s next !!?? 😊 this sort of mere intellectual understanding that I am brahman is nothing but another face of avidyA.
Therefore one has to go beyond “knowing” the truth, wherein there is still the difference of knower and known, to having the firm conviction in the truth, wherein all subject-object differences disappear completely, at which point the one knowing and the one known are no longer seen as separate. At this point, one no longer knows the truth, but rather one is identical with the truth.
Ø Hence there is lot of difference in mere ‘knowing’ and ‘realizing’. So the question is till what time we have to do the shravaNAdi sAdhana or how many times we have to do nidhyAsanaM to elevate ourselves from mere knowing to realizing?? Shankara replies no need to ask this question, it is not a sane question if someone asks till what time we have to cook raw rice to eat it. So till what time sAdhana till we don’t get mundane doubts like this 😊 bhidhyate hrudaya granthiH, chidyante sarva saMshayAH says mundaka.
- Just few of my thoughts.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
Vinodh
Oct 23, 2021, 7:25:15 AM10/23/21
to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Sri Venkatraghavan ji,
Thank you for your response. If I understood you correctly, then I believe that we are both aligned on the following:
1. A mahavakya reveals the Truth about jiva-brahma-aikyam.
2. Shravanam of a mahavakya alone is enough for realization of the Truth, provided that one has a pure mind that allows to understand it clearly.
3. If there are obstructions in one's mind, like one's vasanas, mananam and nididhyasanam are required to remove them in seeing the Truth that has already been revealed by shravanam. However, the mananam and nididhyasanam are not revealing anything new beyond what the shravanam has already revealed.
Please do excuse my limited ability of expression which may have stood in the way of accurately conveying my thoughts. However, I believe there are no points I disagreed with earlier. I was just trying to convey that simply knowing (i.e., listening to) a mahavakya is not enough for those who have not attained the purity of mind. In this case, further reflection on the mahavakya is needed to remove the obstruction in their mind to realize the Truth conveyed by the mahavakya.
Sri Bhaskar ji,
Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. It is indeed worth noting the points you mention: the difference between dhyana for sake of a result vs. dhyana for sake of jnana, the shravanadi sadhana not just on mahavakyas but on all of shabda in general, and need to keep performing this sadhana until the Truth is realized (like cooking the rice until it is cooked!).
It is also worth noting that shravanadi are called "sadhana" merely out of limitation of language and from the point of view of an ajnani. This is because the Truth, which is eternally present, need not need be attained as a siddhi after performing some action. The "sadhana", if anything, is just the apparent removal of the illusion blocking the Truth from the point of view of an ajnana. Due to one's false the notion of agency and wrong assumption of subject-object differences, an ajnani keeps performing this "sadhana", until the point where one removes all apparent illusions at which point only the Truth remains and there is neither a sadhaka nor a sadhana.
Om tat sat 🙏
--
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/AM7PR06MB6581A4407EC4D686B04C047A84819%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Bhaskar YR
Oct 23, 2021, 7:57:28 AM10/23/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
It is also worth noting that shravanadi are called "sadhana" merely out of limitation of language and from the point of view of an ajnani. This is because the Truth, which is eternally present, need not need be attained as a siddhi after performing some action.
praNAms Sri Vinod prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Yes, jnApakaM hi shAstraM na tu kArakaM, shAstra would teach us only bhUta vastu ( that which is already exists) and it does not create anything new. shravaNAdi sAdhana is ofcourse for the ajnAni, who still see the pramAtru, pramANa and prameya triputi rvyavahAra. For him the direct means is shravaNAdi sAdhana says bhAshyakAra : sAkshAdeva cha kAraNatvAt shravaNamanananidhidhyAsanAnAm because shruti itself says AtmA vA Are drashtavyaH shOtavyaH, maNtavyO nidhidhyAsitavyaH.
Vinodh
Oct 23, 2021, 8:23:34 AM10/23/21
to A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta, adva...@googlegroups.com
Very nicely said along with the appropriate quotes of the Acharya and the Sruti, Sri Bhaskarji. 🙏
--
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/AM7PR06MB6581E749C38E742DC6BE953A84819%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Raghav Kumar
Oct 23, 2021, 8:43:11 AM10/23/21
to 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin
Namaste Venkatraghavan ji
I recollect many Acharyas mentioning tasmAdva etastmAt atmana AkAshassambhUtaH etc as a mahavAkya since tasmAt and etAsmAt are in samAnAdhikaraNyam. That part is quite clear. There are thus many mahAvAkyas other than the four canonical ones.
But one clarification on mananam etc being action -
However, by “meditation” here, I mean the mananam and nididhyasanam of the statement (that is, a thorough analysis and reflection on the statement) that reveals that jiva is Brahman until one attains firm conviction of this Truth. Why is this required?
This is also an action only.
Mananam and nidhidhyAsanam (in the context of Advaita vedAnta) are of the nature of vastu-tantra manovRttis - being pramANa-based and serve only to highlight the Gyaanam itself. They are surely different from upAsana (be it even nirguNa upAsana) which is puruSha-tantra.
For example mithyAtva niscaya through the yukti using the prasiddha hetu would be part of mananam. Does such mananam constitute karma/upAsana? It would appear not. The yuktis used in mananam only give rise to "seeing rightly" and removing false notions. All such pramANa vyApAra is not really karma, don't you think? I do understand the commonality of the result being pratibandhaka nivRtti for both karma/upAsanam and mananam/nidhidhyAsanam. Yet I understand the latter to be not karma. Is that tenable?
Om
Raghav
--
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
Vinodh
Oct 23, 2021, 9:07:21 AM10/23/21
to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Sri Venkatraghavan ji and other respected scholars, an additional question strikes me about "mahavakya" upon further reflection.
Was this word "mahavakya" ever used by Shankara Bhagavadpada himself? What is the first known usage of this word?
Namaskaram 🙏
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1947574708.379741.1634992981122%40mail.yahoo.com.
Venkatraghavan S
Oct 24, 2021, 3:23:29 AM10/24/21
to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Namaste Raghav ji,
On Sat, 23 Oct 2021, 13:43 'Raghav Kumar' via advaitin, <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Mananam and nidhidhyAsanam (in the context of Advaita vedAnta) are of the nature of vastu-tantra manovRttis - being pramANa-based and serve only to highlight the Gyaanam itself. They are surely different from upAsana (be it even nirguNa upAsana) which is puruSha-tantra.
shankarAchArya in the samanvayAdhikaraNa bhAShya differentiates between dhyAna and jnAna thus:
क्रिया हि नाम सा, यत्र वस्तुस्वरूपनिरपेक्षैव चोद्यते, पुरुषचित्तव्यापाराधीना च
Action is that which is enjoined, independent of the nature of a thing , and is subject to the individual's mental activity.
वस्तुस्वरूपनिरपेक्षैव - e.g. to create a pot, there is no requirement for the pot to be present prior to its creation, whereas to know a pot, the pot has to be present. The knowledge of a thing expects the existence of the thing, it cannot create the thing.
पुरुषचित्तव्यापाराधीना - action is also dependent on the person's desire. Unless he desires it, the person will not act.
ध्यानं चिन्तनं यद्यपि मानसम् , तथापि पुरुषेण कर्तुमकर्तुमन्यथा वा कर्तुं शक्यम् , पुरुषतन्त्रत्वात् ।
Meditation though being a mental thought, it is possible for a person to perform, not perform or perform in a different way, it being subject to the person's will.
ज्ञानं तु प्रमाणजन्यम् । प्रमाणं च यथाभूतवस्तुविषयम् ।
Whereas knowledge is born from a pramANa. pramANa has as its object, the thing as it is.
अतो ज्ञानं कर्तुमकर्तुमन्यथा वा कर्तुमशक्यम् ।
Therefore it is not possible for there to be a choice with regard to something being known, unknown, or known in a different way.
केवलं वस्तुतन्त्रमेव तत् ; न चोदनातन्त्रम् , नापि पुरुषतन्त्रम् ;
It is subject only to the thing. It is neither subject to an injunction, nor is it subject to a person's will.
My contention is that both manana and nididhyAsana are puruShatantra only - in the sense that both require puruSha prayatna. The former is the deliberate operation of reasoning for the purpose of removing prameya asambhAvana and the latter is the deliberate entertainment of brahmAkAra vRtti. So they are very much subject to kartum-akartum-anyathAkartum.
For example mithyAtva niscaya through the yukti using the prasiddha hetu would be part of mananam. Does such mananam constitute karma/upAsana? It would appear not. The yuktis used in mananam only give rise to "seeing rightly" and removing false notions. All such pramANa vyApAra is not really karma, don't you think? I do understand the commonality of the result being pratibandhaka nivRtti for both karma/upAsanam and mananam/nidhidhyAsanam. Yet I understand the latter to be not karma. Is that tenable?
One could say that manana is anumAna based, but unlike the situation where one sees the smoke in the mountain and automatically infers fire - ie even without setting out with the sankalpa "I shall now infer fire in the mountain", that fire jnAna happens automatically when one sees the smoke and that triggers the samskAra of the concomitance between fire and smoke - here one is deliberately invoking yukti-s in manana.
However I don't think nididhyAsana can be classified into any of the six pramANa-s.
Even if aparoksha jnAna arises following manana and nididhyAsana, it is the mahAvAkya pramANa that gives rise to it, the other two are supporting causes.
Regards,
Venkatraghavan
Venkatraghavan S
Oct 24, 2021, 4:18:55 AM10/24/21
to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Namaste Vinodh ji,
Upon doing a search for the word mahAvAkya in advaitasharada, it appears only once in the prasthAna traya bhAShya-s.
In the devatAdhikaraNa of the brahmasUtra, in the sUtra भावं तु बादरायणोऽस्ति हि ॥ ३३ ॥ (1.3.33), Shankaracharya raises a pUrvapaksha wherein he uses the word mahAvAkya in the sentence - न हि महावाक्येऽर्थप्रत्यायकेऽवान्तरवाक्यस्य पृथक्प्रत्यायकत्वमस्ति ;
However here the word mahAvAkya does not mean jIva brahma aikya bodhaka vAkya, it means a combination of words or sentences that serve to convey a unitary import. Jaimini in his pUrvamImAmsA sUtra has defined a vAkya as अर्थैकत्वात् एकं वाक्यम् - that is, a vAkya is not merely a sentence - it is a combination of words that together conveys one meaning. So if one sentence conveys two meanings, it is not vAkya, but two. Conversely, if there are many sentences that together convey the same meaning, then together they are one vAkya - this is called vAkyaikavAkyatA.
Here the context is the pUrvapakshi arguing that devatAs do not have the right to brahmajnAna, because the portions that talk of them having attained liberation occur in arthavAda portions which have ekavAkyatA with a vidhi and the mahAvAkya (the compound vAkya consisting of the vidhi and arthavAda taken as a unitary whole) has meaning only in the injunction. Therefore, when the mahAvAkya is conveying one meaning (do the act), we must ignore the arthavAda portions (avAntara vAkya) because a part of a vAkya cannot be said to have a meaning when that part in conjunction with the rest of the vAkya conveys a unitary meaning.
That is by the by and not relevant to the topic.
The only other reference by Shankaracharya that I could find is in the Vivekachudamani - here the meaning of mahAvAkya is a vAkya that conveys the meaning of the identity of jIva and Brahman.
संलक्ष्य चिन्मात्रतया यदात्मनो -
रखण्डभावः परिचीयते बुधैः ।
एवं महावाक्यशतेन कथ्यते
ब्रह्मात्मनोरैक्यमखण्डभावः ॥ २५१ ॥
Regards,
Venkatraghavan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJJgomJExO2N5KvVQ8BGkX5NQ8B7fs6f8nWsk3LoUvxdPg%40mail.gmail.com.
Venkatraghavan S
Oct 24, 2021, 4:22:23 AM10/24/21
to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Read this sentence as: "So if one sentence conveys two meanings, it is not one vAkya, but two. "
Vinodh
Oct 24, 2021, 9:17:49 AM10/24/21
to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Thank you very much for your detailed response, Sri Venkatraghvan ji. So it is Shankaracharya himself who uses the word "mahavakya" with the meaning of identity of jiva and Brahman in Vivekachudamani. 🙏
In your response to Sri Raghav ji, you say "My contention is that both manana and nididhyAsana are puruShatantra only - in the sense that both require puruSha prayatna.". Would you also agree that mahavakya shravana also falls under the same category of manana and nididhyasana? Or do you see it differently? If you do not see any difference, why do you attribute aparoskha jnana only to mahavakya pramana with the other two being supporting causes? If you do see it differently, how do you explain the difference given that shravana also requires an action from the purusha just like the other two do?
Namaskaram 🙏
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEkJy-rdQJqAOb%3DOQFcBAu9Q6_v8QQZMUarWtw-_gdy_CA%40mail.gmail.com.
Prasad
Oct 24, 2021, 10:45:13 AM10/24/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Dear Vinodhji
Just as an addendum to the discussion here - here is a relevant clip I liked very much from something I saw recently - https://youtu.be/irWw8QGCbbc?start=1112&end=1385 - this is Swami Dayananda Saraswati ji (in his own characteristic humour) explaining the idea of Vastutantram wrt Jnaanam (of any kind).
The key statement in this for me was - "Your will has no place (in knowing), it made you sit here, that's it .___.. your ahamkaara, your ego, your pride, have no role to play [in knowing], they are centred on I (will), but here you are just yourself as a conscious being, through a means of knowing connected to the object, knowledge takes place"
Contrast this with karma where all of these do influence the performance and also the result of the karma. In the case of jnaanam, making a choice to come and listen to the Guru is a choice (as is mananam and nididhyaasanam). The seeker may end up either knowing or not knowing the Self. But when knowing happens, there is no choice to know the Self as something which it is not. This result (the nature of knowledge) is not dependent on the seeker. When the seeker knows, there is no choice in the resultant knowledge that "I am Brahman".
My two cents.
Regards,
- Prasad
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJLLYGr3gCrG3J2VLDD%2BYJ6CCr%3D8YJWPF4_NB9LWPzeqKg%40mail.gmail.com.
My Journal ::
http://www.dropofeternity.blogspot.com
http://www.dropofeternity.blogspot.com
Venkatraghavan S
Oct 24, 2021, 11:52:37 AM10/24/21
to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Namaste Vinodh ji,
Would you also agree that mahavakya shravana also falls under the same category of manana and nididhyasana?
No, it does not. shabda pramANa does not need any action from the hearer to give rise to jnAna.
If you do see it differently, how do you explain the difference given that shravana also requires an action from the purusha just like the other two do?
The mahAvAkya does not depend on the desire or will of the individual to reveal its object - as long as the hearer understands the language and has a functioning sense of hearing, it will give rise to shAbdajnAna, without necessitating the individual to act in a particular manner or think in a particular manner. He will understand even if he does not want to.
Hence jnAna is not puruShatantra, dependent on the desire of the knower, it is vastutantra.
The unique thing about shabda pramANa is that it is capable of giving rise to aparoksha jnAna sometimes.
Specifically, the mahAvAkya is capable of giving rise to aparoksha jnAna. The object of the mahAvAkya tattvamasi is consciousness, which is the nature of the hearer himself.
When the mahAvAkya is heard and the hearer understands that the tat and tvam padArtha must refer to consciousness by lakshaNa, in order for there to be identity referred to by the word asi, the sentence meaning that it reveals is consciousness free from all upAdhi-s except the vRtti itself. Therefore, the vRtti avacChinna chaitanya is naturally one with the viShaya chaitanya, which has the same existence as the pramAtA's chaitanya. The conditions of the shAbdajnAna and viShaya to be pratyaksha are met.
Regards,
Venkatraghavan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJLLYGr3gCrG3J2VLDD%2BYJ6CCr%3D8YJWPF4_NB9LWPzeqKg%40mail.gmail.com.
Akilesh Ayyar
Oct 25, 2021, 1:40:24 AM10/25/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Some miscellaneous quotations prompted by this discussion (emphases added):
"Once the scriptures have declared Brahman to be the first Cause, reasoning etc. may be taken advantage of in so far as they do not contradict the scriptures, but rather supplement them, in ascertaining the sense of the Vedanta texts. ... this kind of reasoning include the hearing of the texts (sravana), thinking about their meaning (manana), and meditation on them (nididhyasana). This leads to intuition. By intuition is meant that mental modification (vritti) of the mind (citta) which destroys our ignorance about Brahman." --Brahma Sutra Bhasya 1.1.3
"[T]exts like 'The atman is to be realized'... are intended to turn the mind of the aspirant from things external, which keep one bound to this relative existence, and direct it inwards... The comprehension of Brahman includes hearing, reasoning, and meditation. Mere hearing does not result in full comprehension of realization of Brahman." --BSB 1.1.4
"...Brahman is not known only by those whose heart is not purified, but those who are purified realize It in the state of samadhi when ignorance is destroyed. That this is so is known from the sruti: "Some wise man, however, with his eyes turned inside and wishing for immortality saw the Self within." (Ka. Upanishad 2.4.1); also Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.8." --BSB 3.2.24
"The meaning of the sentences like 'Thou art That', i.e., one is Brahman ever free, does not become manifest on account of the non-discrimination of the (implied) meaning of the word 'Thou'. It is for the purpose of discriminating the meaning of that word and for no other purpose that the method of agreement and contrariety has been described. For when the meaning of the word ' thou' is discriminated by the negation of the ego subject to unhappiness from the meaning of the word 'I' one becomes perfectly sure of the nature of the Innermost Self. And then the meaning of the sentence viz., One Pure Consciousness, becomes manifest like a... fruit placed on one's palm." --Upadesha Sahasri, Chapter 18:181-183
"The renunciation of all actions in order to know the (implied) meaning of the word 'thou' becomes the means (to Self-Knowledge) according to the teaching, [Br. U. 4.4.23] 'controlling the internal and external senses.'" --US 18:222
It seems to me that understanding the meaning of the mahavakya is a process that Sankara implies is no mere dry scholarly endeavor. It is one that involves intuition in samadhi proceeding from a discrimination of the real meaning of the "I." That discrimination is enabled through control of the senses, meaning, a turning inward of attention away from the changing objects of the world. That & that alone is what the ignorance-destroying sentences accomplish. They are not really about the comprehension of any particular "fact" about two "entities" like "jiva" and "Brahman." Brahman is after all not an entity.
To understand the sentences, one must turn the mind inward to discern the I, and in the process, notice the wrongness of the extremely subtle false ideas of identification with the ego. Those false notions destroyed, the new ideas also vanish, their purpose fulfilled, as when matter and anti-matter collide. In the resulting silence, Brahman "manifests Itself, being self-luminous."
Akilesh Ayyar
Spiritual guidance - http://www.siftingtothetruth.com/
ᐧ
ᐧVenkatraghavan S
Oct 25, 2021, 2:17:24 AM10/25/21
to Advaitin
Namaste
What is the source of these translations?
I just read the brahma sUtra bhAShya to 1.1.3 and 1.1.4 and cannot find a Sanskrit equivalent to "this kind of reasoning include the hearing of the texts (sravana), thinking about their meaning (manana), and meditation on them (nididhyasana). This leads to intuition."
and
"Mere hearing does not result in full comprehension of realization of Brahman."
In fact the entirety of the quote from 1.1.3 seems to have no equivalent in the original. Are you sure this is the right sUtra? I think it must be the previous sUtra 1.1.2, but even there, there are large sections of the translation that don't have an equivalent in the bhAShya.
Prima facie, this doesn't look like a faithful translation. A lot of interpolation seems to be going on.
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/CAJbmbsGTQiT4deNjM98d7c3fJy5WoWtyjRVMnPt%3DSE7hEoLfRA%40mail.gmail.com.
Akilesh Ayyar
Oct 25, 2021, 2:28:52 AM10/25/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaste,
These are from the Swami Vireswarananda translation of BSB, and from the Swami Jagadananda translation of Upadesha Sahasri.
ᐧ
ᐧTo view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEm2-H8YRe6gCmeyNwBDrw31UziTmEbJw6p54k7QDCT9zA%40mail.gmail.com.
Akilesh Ayyar
Oct 25, 2021, 2:33:11 AM10/25/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Oops -- you are absolutely right. The first quote is from 1.1.2, not 1.1.3. My apologies.
ᐧ
ᐧOn Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 2:17 AM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEm2-H8YRe6gCmeyNwBDrw31UziTmEbJw6p54k7QDCT9zA%40mail.gmail.com.
Bhaskar YR
Oct 25, 2021, 4:17:09 AM10/25/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
praNAms Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna
the hearing of the texts (sravana), thinking about their meaning (manana), and meditation on them (nididhyasana). This leads to intuition."
and
"Mere hearing does not result in full comprehension of realization of Brahman."
- Perhaps you can look into the bhAshya vAkya in bruhadAraNyaka 2-4-5, nAnyathA sharvaNa mAtreNa….etc. The order of shravaNa, mananaM and nidhidhyAsaM also you can find here. nidhidhyAsitavyaH nishchayena dhyAtavyaH etc. But I don’t think, irrespective of adhikAra bedha, this vAkhya making mananaM and nidhidhyAsanam as mandatory in all cases after shrvaNa during the Atma vijnAna sAdhana.
Venkatraghavan S
Oct 25, 2021, 5:59:24 AM10/25/21
to Advaitin
Namaste Bhaskar ji,
Agreed, the requirement for manana and nididhyAsana is not being denied. If you recall, the discussion started off with what constitutes a mahAvAkya - the answer to this was: a sentence that reveals the identity of brahman with jIva is a mahAvAkya. This then moved to whether the sentence reveals the identity or whether a meditation on the sentence reveals it. Thereafter, the central thrust behind the discussion became whether shravaNam is the primary cause of liberation, or is it manana and nididhyAsana?
It is in this context that it was said that the mahAvAkya, being shabda pramANam, is the pramAkaraNam, the primary cause for the valid cognition of Brahman, and mananam and nididhyAsanam are supportive causes. Hence, in response to Raghav ji yesterday, it was said "Even if aparoksha jnAna arises following manana and nididhyAsana, it is the mahAvAkya pramANa that gives rise to it, the other two are supporting causes."
This particular reference, bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad 2.4.5 is relevant to the discussion and thank you very much for bringing it to light. The Anandagiri TIkA to this bhAShya is particularly illuminating and pertinent to our discussion. Pasting it here for reference:
श्रवणस्य प्रमाणविचारत्वेन प्रधानत्वादङ्गित्वं मनननिदिध्यासनयोस्तु तत्कार्यप्रतिबन्धप्रध्वंसित्वादङ्गत्वमित्यङ्गाङ्गिभावेन यदा श्रवणादीन्यसकृदनुष्ठानेन समुच्चितानि तदा सामग्रीपौष्कल्यात्तत्त्वज्ञानं फलशिरस्कं सिध्यति । मननाद्यभावे श्रवणमात्रेण नैव तदुत्पद्यते । मननादिना प्रतिबन्धाप्रध्वंसे वाक्यस्य फलवज्ज्ञानजनकत्वायोगादित्यर्थः ।
shravaNa, being an enquiry into the pramANa (shruti), it is the pradhAna (the primary) and hence the angi (the main), whereas as manana and nididhyAsana serve to destroy the obstacles in its (shravaNam's) result (being brahmapramA, the valid cognition of Brahman), are anga. Thus, as they have an anga-angi, part-whole relationship, when shravaNa etc (manana, nididhyAsana) are performed multiple times in unison, the strengthening of the causative factors (for the rise of brahmajnAna) leads to the attainment of the highest result. In the absence of manana, and only through shravaNam, that cannot happen. What this means is that in the absence of the destruction of the obstacles (to bramajnAna) through manana etc, the sentence will not produce a fruitful cognition.
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/AM7PR06MB6581EDA47DD03FD96A76E6D884839%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Vinodh
Oct 25, 2021, 7:46:16 AM10/25/21
to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Sri Venkatraghavan ji and Sri Prasad ji, thank you for the clarification that knowing does not involving any desire (or will) of the knower. It seems to make sense, especially with Dayanand Saraswathi's examples. In the video, he points to a cup and says "this is a paper cup". That this is a paper cup does not depend on the will or desire of the knower. As Sri Venkatraghavan ji had also mentioned earlier in this thread, Shankaracharya has made a similar observation about knowing:
ज्ञानं तु प्रमाणजन्यम् । प्रमाणं च यथाभूतवस्तुविषयम् ।
Whereas knowledge is born from a pramANa. pramANa has as its object, the thing as it is.
अतो ज्ञानं कर्तुमकर्तुमन्यथा वा कर्तुमशक्यम् ।
Therefore it is not possible for there to be a choice with regard to something being known, unknown, or known in a different way.
केवलं वस्तुतन्त्रमेव तत् ; न चोदनातन्त्रम् , नापि पुरुषतन्त्रम् ;
It is subject only to the thing. It is neither subject to an injunction, nor is it subject to a person's will.
As sravana (which is a form of knowing through hearing) is not dependent on the will (or desire) of the listener, it appears therefore that it is not similar to manana and nididhyasana, which do require the person to perform a particular action through his will.
Moreover, the last email by Sri Venkatraghavan ji gives a very nice analogy of manana and nididhyasana being angas (parts or supporting causes) of the main cause of Brahmajnana, which is sravanam (which is the angi). In this way, it does appear that manana and nididhyasana, while required (in most cases) for the fruition of sravana into Brahmajnana, are not necessarily in the same category as sravana.
However, in this context, another question arises. If knowing does not involve any desire of the knower, why does the Brahma Sutra start by talking about the desire to know Brahman (brahma-jijnasa)? How does one interpret this given that Acharya says "ज्ञानं कर्तुमकर्तुमन्यथा वा कर्तुमशक्यम् ।" (it is not possible for there to be a choice with regard to something being known, unknown, or known in a different way)?
Namaskaram 🙏
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEm04j0WxFvP3CUx7cb0UCJ4VLjzs7HMeAiqPp-JfgRcGw%40mail.gmail.com.
Bhaskar YR
Oct 25, 2021, 8:02:30 AM10/25/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
praNAms
Hare Krishna
I am not able to understand this googlegroups.com vyavahAra 😊 I have received Sri Vinod prabhuji’s mail in my inbox whereas not received the mail of Sri Venkataraaghavan prabhuji !!! Sri Venkat prabhuji have you written your mail addressing Advaita-L group or Advaitin group?? I think I am not getting any mails from Advaita-L group.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Vinodh
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 5:16 PM
To: Advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Yet another Mahavakya in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJLbjiaP07nDjibTGsWVU0qBottatZd8ZinDdsn2Eya7YA%40mail.gmail.com.
Venkatraghavan S
Oct 25, 2021, 9:07:56 AM10/25/21
to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Namaste Vinodh ji,
The act of shravaNa can also be subject to a vidhi - how should one listen, what should they be wearing, how they should be seated, from whom should one listen etc (also see Sri Chandramouli's references from the bRhadAraNyaka bhAShya vArttika), but once the shabda is heard, it automatically leads to knowledge - there can be no vidhi in shabda pramANa leading to knowledge.
The jijnAsA in the first sUtra is not a jnAna vidhi, rather the word jijnAsA is interpreted by lakshaNa to mean enquiry, vichAra. That is, the sUtra means one must enquire into vedAntic sentences that talk of Brahman. This is precisely because there can be no vidhi in relation to a desire, let alone a desire to know. One cannot enjoin "you must like this".
In the advaita siddhi, this is stated thus:
जिज्ञासापदे तु ज्ञाधातुनेष्यमाणज्ञानलक्षणाङ्गीकारानङ्गीकारमतभेदेऽपि सन्प्रत्ययस्य विचारे जहल्लक्षणाभ्युपगमस्योभयत्र तुल्यत्वात् शक्यार्थपरित्यागेऽपि विधितात्पर्यनिर्वाहात् नामुख्यार्थत्वम्
In the term jijnAsa, even though there are two schools of thought regarding whether it is knowledge that is denoted by the root "jna", based on whether knowledge is capable or not capable of being the object of desire, both schools accept that the suffix "san" is interpreted by jahallakshaNA to mean vichAra, enquiry. Therefore, even where the primary denotation is given up, as this is done to preserve the import of the injunction, this does not mean that the primary meaning is renounced.
Hence the meaning of brahmajijnAsA kartavyA is brahmavichAra: kartavyah.
Regards,
Venkatraghavan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJLbjiaP07nDjibTGsWVU0qBottatZd8ZinDdsn2Eya7YA%40mail.gmail.com.
Vinodh
Oct 25, 2021, 9:18:19 AM10/25/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Makes perfect sense, thank you very much for the clarifications, Sri Venkatraghavan ji. 🙏
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEmibyqsW7T5%2BDUOpkmsXNOQcd2KRCmGktSn%2BPEn%3DF9%3Djg%40mail.gmail.com.
Venkatraghavan S
Oct 25, 2021, 2:34:50 PM10/25/21
to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Bhaskar ji, I believe I replied to your email, which was from the advaitin group.
Regards,
Venkatraghavan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65810613A2C212CE2A01158D84839%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
V Subrahmanian
Oct 25, 2021, 10:27:36 PM10/25/21
to A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta, Venkatraghavan S, Advaitin
There is also the well known instance of Janaka becoming instantly enlightened upon hearing what is known as the Siddha Gita that he perchance heard while on a walk. The verse carried the message: we meditate upon that truth that is beyond the knower knowing known triad.
Regards
subbu
On Tue, 26 Oct 2021, 1:45 am Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l, <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
Namaste Anand ji,
That is a wonderful quote, not sure where it occurs! Yes it is possible for
one to recollect what one heard in shravaNam and that recollection leads to
the cognition of Brahman, provided the obstacles that prevented the rise of
brahmajnAna in the past have subsequently been overcome in the intervening
period. We do hear stories of Mahatmas who ostensibly attain brahmajnAna
without any shAstra abhyAsa in the present birth, simply on account of some
samskAra triggering the recollection of the mahAvAkya which leads to jnAna
the present.
However, moksha is not an event that occurs due to jnAna though, it is ones
nature. The vRtti simply removes the veil that obscures it.
Regards,
Venkatraghavan
Venkatraghavan S
Oct 26, 2021, 4:46:14 AM10/26/21
to A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta, Advaitin
I don't recall seeing any exact reference to this.
The statement below is by arthApatti. If mahAvAkya shravaNam leads to jnAna and that has already happened, but jnAna hasn't arisen, it follows that there must be some pratibandha, obstacle, to its rise. If later, something removes that obstacle and the samskAra from prior vedAnta sAdhana is also activated, jnAna can arise.
We are only discussing the possibility of such a thing, not saying this is how it will happen.
Even though this is not a direct reference, in 6.43 of the Bhagavat Gita, Shankaracharya says:
तत्र योगिनां कुले तं बुद्धिसंयोगं बुद्ध्या संयोगं बुद्धिसंयोगं लभते पौर्वदेहिकं पूर्वस्मिन् देहे भवं पौर्वदेहिकम् । यतते च प्रयत्नं च करोति ततः तस्मात् पूर्वकृतात् संस्कारात् भूयः बहुतरं संसिद्धौ संसिद्धिनिमित्तं हे कुरुनन्दन ॥ ४३ ॥
and Anandagiri comments on the word prayatna as प्रयत्नः श्रवणाद्यनुष्ठानविषयः.
The buddhisamyoga in the verse is the samskAra of shravaNa etc from the prior birth. Because of the samskAra from the prior birth, he engages in more sAdhana now to attain the jnAna that he couldn't attain before.
If this is true for the recollection of shravaNa done from a prior birth, it must be more so for the recollection from a shravaNa done in the same birth.
Regards,
Venkatraghavan
On Tue, 26 Oct 2021, 09:00 H S Chandramouli, <hschand...@gmail.com> wrote:
Namaste.Reg << Yes it is possible for
one to recollect what one heard in shravaNam and that recollection leads to
the cognition of Brahman, provided the obstacles that prevented the rise of
brahmajnAna in the past have subsequently been overcome in the intervening
period >>,Can you please cite any Bhashya reference for this, that recollection also can lead to cognition of Brahman. My understanding is that this is not admitted by Sri Bhagavatpada. Realization is coterminus with MahAvAkya shravaNam as per Sri Bhagavatpada.Regards
Bhaskar YR
Oct 28, 2021, 5:57:42 AM10/28/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
praNAms
Hare Krishna
Eversince I heard about repetition of shravaNAm till the dawn of paramArtha jnana, I have following mundane or you can say mischievous thought about practical implication of this repetition of shravaNAm everytime before mananaM and nidhidhyAsanam. But was bit hesitant to share but triggered again after reading the below, could not resist :
There do not seem to be any references to say that shravaNam has to be done afresh once again after manana and nidhidhyAsanam have already removed the samshaya and viparyaya obstacles.
> Suppose, let us say, a guru teaches the brahma vidyA to his shishya through taittereeya upanishat, (pancha kOsha viveka etc. from all the three valli-s) shishya promptly and religiously hears (shravaNa) it and due to his limitations he could not understand/realize the jnana enshrined in these shruti vAkya-s. So teacher, with all compassion instructs his (manda - madhyama adhikAri) shishya to do mananaM and nidhidhyAsanaM on what he heard so that one fine day he would get jnAna. First day gone, no result, second day, since it is a fresh day and since there is a time gap since he first heard this from his teacher, whether he has to hear the same shruti vAkya from his teacher afresh Or simply he has to recollect whatever he heard from his teacher and continue to do mananaM etc. on that shruti vAkhya which he already heard yesterday?? If it is later then it is not shravaNaM but it is part of mananaM only, if it is former then teacher would have heave load of work, teaching everyday to his shishya same shruti vAkya afresh till his shishya's manaNam, nidhidhyAsanaM fetch him the ultimate result. I don’t think this type of jnana sAdhana recommended anywhere.
Also if it is insisted that hearing the words tat tvam asi from the outside is required once again after SMN, then the samskAra can be used to utter the words aloud by oneself because tAtparya niscaya is already present.
> If it is allowed the repetition by oneself without the help of any external source then it cannot be a shravaNa afresh but it is part and parcel of whatever already heard and recollecting it, that is mananam only Is it not!!?? Just remembering the mahAvAkya tattvamasi and before contemplating the meaning of tat, tvaM padArtha-s with the help of tarka and shrutyukta anubhava.
Once tAtparya niscaya is there, it does not seem logical to assert the need for once again repeating the entire long shravaNa process over again.
> Yes, bhAshyakAra elsewhere says depending upon the power and intensity of sAdhana (sAdhana veerya) jnana may dawn in the very janma in which he did the Atma jnana sAdhana or he may get the result in the next janma (janmAntarOtpatti jnana or jnAnAtishaya). But once you get the jnana or once the svarUpa jnana dawns there is no question of obstacles obscuring this jnana. Atma vishayaM vijnAnaM yatkAlaM tatkAla 'eva' tadvishayAjnAnatirObhAvaH syAt clarifies in bruhadAraNyaka.
> And last but not least it is strange that there has been talk about the dawn of paramArtha jnana AND mukti as if these are separate events would happen at different time!! The mOksha is neither jnana phala nor jnana kArya.
Hare Krishna
Eversince I heard about repetition of shravaNAm till the dawn of paramArtha jnana, I have following mundane or you can say mischievous thought about practical implication of this repetition of shravaNAm everytime before mananaM and nidhidhyAsanam. But was bit hesitant to share but triggered again after reading the below, could not resist :
There do not seem to be any references to say that shravaNam has to be done afresh once again after manana and nidhidhyAsanam have already removed the samshaya and viparyaya obstacles.
> Suppose, let us say, a guru teaches the brahma vidyA to his shishya through taittereeya upanishat, (pancha kOsha viveka etc. from all the three valli-s) shishya promptly and religiously hears (shravaNa) it and due to his limitations he could not understand/realize the jnana enshrined in these shruti vAkya-s. So teacher, with all compassion instructs his (manda - madhyama adhikAri) shishya to do mananaM and nidhidhyAsanaM on what he heard so that one fine day he would get jnAna. First day gone, no result, second day, since it is a fresh day and since there is a time gap since he first heard this from his teacher, whether he has to hear the same shruti vAkya from his teacher afresh Or simply he has to recollect whatever he heard from his teacher and continue to do mananaM etc. on that shruti vAkhya which he already heard yesterday?? If it is later then it is not shravaNaM but it is part of mananaM only, if it is former then teacher would have heave load of work, teaching everyday to his shishya same shruti vAkya afresh till his shishya's manaNam, nidhidhyAsanaM fetch him the ultimate result. I don’t think this type of jnana sAdhana recommended anywhere.
Also if it is insisted that hearing the words tat tvam asi from the outside is required once again after SMN, then the samskAra can be used to utter the words aloud by oneself because tAtparya niscaya is already present.
> If it is allowed the repetition by oneself without the help of any external source then it cannot be a shravaNa afresh but it is part and parcel of whatever already heard and recollecting it, that is mananam only Is it not!!?? Just remembering the mahAvAkya tattvamasi and before contemplating the meaning of tat, tvaM padArtha-s with the help of tarka and shrutyukta anubhava.
Once tAtparya niscaya is there, it does not seem logical to assert the need for once again repeating the entire long shravaNa process over again.
> Yes, bhAshyakAra elsewhere says depending upon the power and intensity of sAdhana (sAdhana veerya) jnana may dawn in the very janma in which he did the Atma jnana sAdhana or he may get the result in the next janma (janmAntarOtpatti jnana or jnAnAtishaya). But once you get the jnana or once the svarUpa jnana dawns there is no question of obstacles obscuring this jnana. Atma vishayaM vijnAnaM yatkAlaM tatkAla 'eva' tadvishayAjnAnatirObhAvaH syAt clarifies in bruhadAraNyaka.
> And last but not least it is strange that there has been talk about the dawn of paramArtha jnana AND mukti as if these are separate events would happen at different time!! The mOksha is neither jnana phala nor jnana kArya.
Bhaskar YR
Oct 29, 2021, 7:21:48 AM10/29/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
praNAms
Hare Krishna
Sent this to Advaita-L bounced back hence sending to advaitin group assuming that both lists have almost same members.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
Thank you.
With best regards, List Admin Advaita-l
Hare Krishna
Sent this to Advaita-L bounced back hence sending to advaitin group assuming that both lists have almost same members.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
-----Original Message-----
From: Advaita-l <advaita-...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> On Behalf Of advaita...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 4:50 PM
To: Bhaskar YR <bhask...@hitachienergy.com>
Subject: RE: [Advaita-l] Fwd: [advaitin] Yet another Mahavakya in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
You are not a member of advaita-l. Please visit http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/lists/ and subscribe first before sending a message.
From: Advaita-l <advaita-...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> On Behalf Of advaita...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 4:50 PM
To: Bhaskar YR <bhask...@hitachienergy.com>
Subject: RE: [Advaita-l] Fwd: [advaitin] Yet another Mahavakya in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you.
With best regards, List Admin Advaita-l
Satyan Chidambaran
Oct 29, 2021, 8:45:07 AM10/29/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaste Bhaskarji,
The tradition tells a story in this regard. There was a king who was surrounded by ministers. But his favorite was a minister called Bharchu.
The other ministers were jealous of Bharchu. So they plotted to have the kingdom looted by some thieves etc. The king appointed some
ministers to counter the thieves but they told the king: "you always praise Bharchu but in the time of a calamity, you ask us to deal with it.
Why don't you ask Bharchu to deal with it?" Bharchu, on hearing this, immediately volunteered. and set off to the forest to fight them. Subsequently
Bharchu won, but in the meantime the ministers lied to the king that Bharchu died in the battle. The king was saddened by this news but then he had to do his duty, so
he appointed a new minister. Now, the new minister made sure that Bharchu doesn't reenter the kingdom and the news of Bharchu being alive
doesn't reach the king. Bharchu, knowing of all this, becomes a renunciate but continue to live in the forest. The ministers are still concerned that
the king might see Bharchu somewhere and therefore poison the king's mind that Bharchu has become a ghost. "He is killing everyone he sees and therefore if
someone spots him, it is better to run away", they told the king. The king believes all this. Now, one day the king goes to the forest to hunt, and he spots a renunciate
deep in the forest. He goes closer to do his namaskAra, but when he looks, he sees it is Bharchu! So pratyaksha pramANam, which is an unassailable pramANam in
laukika matters reports to him that 'This renunciate is Bharchu!' but then the king takes Bharchu to be a ghost and runs away.
Now this story is used to illustrate that sometimes, even when a pramANam gives rise to the desired vRRitti, it may not be taken as knowledge
due to lack of shraddhA (in the case of the king) or some such other pratibandha.
Thus, a pratibandha, in some cases can obstruct a vRRitti from acting like a GYAna vRRitti and do its job, which is to destroy ignorance.
So ignorance can continue in presence of a pratibandha even though the pramANa janya vRRitti may be there. If you ask such a person, are you a mukta,
he will say I have studoied Vedanta, I have done shravaNam, I have done mananam, nididhyAsanam etc, I know I am Bramhan, but....., There will always be some
but....that indicates that the aGYAnam is continuing! But as soon as the pratibandha is removed, the pramANa janya vRRitti destroys the aGYAnam, So one continues
to be an aGYAni until the vRRitti does its job, which is possible only when the pratibandha is removed.
Hope this clarifies.
Regards,
--Satyan
--
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+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB6592685E5246D861F4FFA19784879%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
praNAms
Hare Krishna
This will continue to be the case until the last janma mandated by that special karma phala is taken. When the last janma is taken, the special karma phala is totally exhausted, the pratibandha is automatically removed. The same vRRitti which was incapable of acting as an aGYAnA nAshaka GYAna vRRitti now suddenly acts like a GYAna vRRitti and destroys aGYAnam. The job is done!
> So jnana pratibandhaka here is karma phala !! In other words jnana vrutti is much weaker than karma phala. The ajnAna nAshaka jnana vrutti has to wait till karma phala finishes its dominance and paramArtha bodhaka jnana vrutti is at the mercy of more powerful karma phala. Is this what we have to understand from above or else am I missing / misreading somewhere?? Please clarify.
a student has done shravaNam, has parokSha GYAnam but doesn't yet have aparokSha GYAnam. He can come to the aham brahmAsmi vRRitti with the help of the mahAvakyam but it doesn't destroy his aGYAnam. There is presence of some pratibandha tha blocks the vRRitti from acting like a GYAna vRRitti.
> shravaNa can give only parOksha jnana and it will become aparOksha only after the exhaustion of pratibaNdha which blocks the ahaM brahmAsmi vrutti. So what exactly is this ahaM brahmAsmi vrutti which is parOksha?? Is it something different from our intellectual understanding that we are brahman, the knowledge which we gained just like any other objective thing?? Shruti gives the example of dashamaH to establish the fact that shravaNa can / will give aparOksha jnana. When the tenth man knows that he indeed that tenth man whether it is parOksha or aparOksha?? Shruti vAkya-s teach us tattvamasi, neti neti, Atmaivedam, ekamevAdviteeyam etc. all these mere parOksha jnana bOdhaka vAkya-s or aparOksha jnana bodhaka mahAvakya-s? not able to understand.
Hare Krishna
This will continue to be the case until the last janma mandated by that special karma phala is taken. When the last janma is taken, the special karma phala is totally exhausted, the pratibandha is automatically removed. The same vRRitti which was incapable of acting as an aGYAnA nAshaka GYAna vRRitti now suddenly acts like a GYAna vRRitti and destroys aGYAnam. The job is done!
> So jnana pratibandhaka here is karma phala !! In other words jnana vrutti is much weaker than karma phala. The ajnAna nAshaka jnana vrutti has to wait till karma phala finishes its dominance and paramArtha bodhaka jnana vrutti is at the mercy of more powerful karma phala. Is this what we have to understand from above or else am I missing / misreading somewhere?? Please clarify.
a student has done shravaNam, has parokSha GYAnam but doesn't yet have aparokSha GYAnam. He can come to the aham brahmAsmi vRRitti with the help of the mahAvakyam but it doesn't destroy his aGYAnam. There is presence of some pratibandha tha blocks the vRRitti from acting like a GYAna vRRitti.
> shravaNa can give only parOksha jnana and it will become aparOksha only after the exhaustion of pratibaNdha which blocks the ahaM brahmAsmi vrutti. So what exactly is this ahaM brahmAsmi vrutti which is parOksha?? Is it something different from our intellectual understanding that we are brahman, the knowledge which we gained just like any other objective thing?? Shruti gives the example of dashamaH to establish the fact that shravaNa can / will give aparOksha jnana. When the tenth man knows that he indeed that tenth man whether it is parOksha or aparOksha?? Shruti vAkya-s teach us tattvamasi, neti neti, Atmaivedam, ekamevAdviteeyam etc. all these mere parOksha jnana bOdhaka vAkya-s or aparOksha jnana bodhaka mahAvakya-s? not able to understand.
Vinodh
Oct 29, 2021, 11:05:36 AM10/29/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaskaram Sri Satyam ji,
Thank you for sharing the story of Bharchu, which I found very interesting. 🙏
Do I understand correctly that, in this story, the king’s correct aparoksha jnanam (direct knowledge) of seeing Bharchu with his eyes were subverted by his incorrect paroksha jnanam (indirect knowledge) through his ministers that Bharchu is dead? In other words, he appears to have believed the indirect (and incorrect) information from the other ministers which he hadn’t verified himself and, because of this (wrong) belief, his direct (and correct) information from his own eyes was overlooked and thought be wrong?
If my understanding is correct, is the relevant analogy that one’s aparoksha jnanam of the Advaitic Truth is subverted by one’s *incorrect* paroksha jnanam of Dvaita (and not by the correct paroksha jnanam of the Advaitic Truth)? In other words, just like the incorrect paroksha jnanam given by the ministers that Bharchu is dead makes the king think that the Bharchu before his very eyes is a ghost, the incorrect paroksha jnanam of Dvaita that there is a difference between the knower and known etc. is making one think that the aproskha jnanam of the Truth which one experiences all the time is not actually there? If yes, then this means that even the correct paroksha jnanam (like shravanam etc.) are only required to remove the incorrect paroksha jnanam because the aparoksha experience of the Atman is ever-present.
What I am trying to say is that, at all times, we are like the king looking directly at Bharchu, that is, we have the aparoksha jnanam of our Atman all the time, but because of incorrect paroksha jnanam, we seem to be denying it just like the king denying Bharchu being alive in front of his eyes because he was misinformed (wrong paroksha jnanam) by someone that he is dead.
All that needs to happen is for someone in the forest who knows Bharchu to tell the king that he is indeed alive. Hearing this correct paroksha jnanam, the king’s wrong paroksha jnanam that he is dead would be removed and he would embrace Bharchu. In this way the correct paroksha jnanam removes the wrong paroksha jnanam, while the aparoksha jnanam is always present right in front of him. Similarly, the correct paroksha jnanam of the Atman removes the wrong paroksha jnanam, while the aparoksha jnanam is always with us.
In this sense, the aparoksha jnanam is nothing new that we are unfamiliar with. It is just something we have been lead to believe is not true all along. By removing this false belief with the correct paroksha jnanam, we are able to embrace the aparoksha jnanam that was always with us.
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/1788455715.2963254.1635511500129%40mail.yahoo.com.
Satyan Chidambaran
Oct 29, 2021, 12:21:29 PM10/29/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaste Vinodh-ji,
Comments below in green:
Namaskaram Sri Satyam ji,
Thank you for sharing the story of Bharchu, which I found very interesting. 🙏
Do I understand correctly that, in this story, the king’s correct aparoksha jnanam (direct knowledge) of seeing Bharchu with his eyes were subverted by his incorrect paroksha jnanam (indirect knowledge) through his ministers that Bharchu is dead? In other words, he appears to have believed the indirect (and incorrect) information from the other ministers which he hadn’t verified himself and, because of this (wrong) belief, his direct (and correct) information from his own eyes was overlooked and thought be wrong?
Generally, the term aparokSha GYAnam is used for direct knowledge of oneself, the subject. In this case, as the object of knowledge was Bharchu, who is outside but proximate, I would prefer to use pratyakSha GYAnam.
We cannot call the vRRitti that was generated in the king's mind as pratyakSha GYAnam (direct knowledge) because it did not destroy his ignorance. Thus, the correct vRRitti that could have functioned as GYAnam was generated, but
it did not function as GYAnam because the king had shraddhA in the words of the ministers, and hence he understood what his eyes (pratyakSha) revealed as false. You are right that what he gained from the ministers was incorrect parokSha GYAnam,
and that acted like a pratibandha.
If my understanding is correct, is the relevant analogy that one’s aparoksha jnanam of the Advaitic Truth is subverted by one’s *incorrect* paroksha jnanam of Dvaita (and not by the correct paroksha jnanam of the Advaitic Truth)? In other words, just like the incorrect paroksha jnanam given by the ministers that Bharchu is dead makes the king think that the Bharchu before his very eyes is a ghost, the incorrect paroksha jnanam of Dvaita that there is a difference between the knower and known etc. is making one think that the aproskha jnanam of the Truth which one experiences all the time is not actually there? If yes, then this means that even the correct paroksha jnanam (like shravanam etc.) are only required to remove the incorrect paroksha jnanam because the aparoksha experience of the Atman is ever-present.
AtmA is self evident. The existence of AtmA doesn't need any proof. When I say I am, I don't need to consult anybody. "I know that I exist" without using any pramANa. What one is ignorant about is what this "I am" is. Hence, one has taken oneself
to be this limited body/mind etc in ignorance. With shravaNam, one gets parokSha GYAnam from avAntara vAkyas which inform one of the existence of Brahman: Bramha asti. But mahAvAkyas such as "aham BrahmAsmi" (or any other mahAvAkya for that matter) should give rise to aparokSha GYAnam, not parokSha GYAnam. Only aparokSha GYAnam gained from the Shruti can destroy self-ignorance, not parokSha GYAnam. parokSha GYAnam says "There is Bramhan". aparokSha GYAnam says "I am Bramhan". The former doesn't liberate, only the latter does.
What I am trying to say is that, at all times, we are like the king looking directly at Bharchu, that is, we have the aparoksha jnanam of our Atman all the time, but because of incorrect paroksha jnanam, we seem to be denying it just like the king denying Bharchu being alive in front of his eyes because he was misinformed (wrong paroksha jnanam) by someone that he is dead.
An aGYAnI doesn't have aparokSha GYAnam at any time. Only a GYAnI has it all the time. And that aparokSha GYAnam has to arise from shravaNam only.
All that needs to happen is for someone in the forest who knows Bharchu to tell the king that he is indeed alive. Hearing this correct paroksha jnanam, the king’s wrong paroksha jnanam that he is dead would be removed and he would embrace Bharchu. In this way the correct paroksha jnanam removes the wrong paroksha jnanam, while the aparoksha jnanam is always present right in front of him. Similarly, the correct paroksha jnanam of the Atman removes the wrong paroksha jnanam, while the aparoksha jnanam is always with us.
In this sense, the aparoksha jnanam is nothing new that we are unfamiliar with. It is just something we have been lead to believe is not true all along. By removing this false belief with the correct paroksha jnanam, we are able to embrace the aparoksha jnanam that was always with us.
The point of the Bharchu story is that just as in the king's case, even though the pratyakSha pramANa did its job of creating the vRRitti, it did not destroy ignorance because of some pratibandha.
Similarly, it is possible that one gets the aham brahmAsmi vRRitti from Shruti but it doesn't operate as a GYAna vRRitti due to some pratibandha. Only when the pratibandha is removed, the aham brahmAsmi vRRitti
functions as a GYAna vRRitti and destroys aGYAnam. Then only one can say that one has aparokSha GYAnam.
Regards,
--Satyan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJJGw2KbmwjPfstArV8FhGkbO-3iBBTzPsQfdJ0BX%3DqOyA%40mail.gmail.com.
Vinodh
Oct 30, 2021, 7:45:03 AM10/30/21
to Advaitin
Sri Satyan ji,
Thank you for your clarifications on the analogy of story with respect to jnana vritti. I was attempting to extend the analogy beyond the jnana vritti generated by mahavakyas to the direct experience of "I" in the following way:
From
"Similarly, it is possible that one gets the aham brahmAsmi vRRitti from Shruti but it doesn't operate as a GYAna vRRitti due to some pratibandha. Only when the pratibandha is removed, the aham brahmAsmi vRRitti functions as a GYAna vRRitti and destroys aGYAnam. Then only one can say that one has aparokSha GYAnam."
to
"Similarly, even though one is directly aware (i.e. has aproksha jnanam) of the Self as "I", it is overshadowed due to some pratibandha. When the pratibandha is removed, this experience of "I" shines through as aparokSha GYAnam."
The reasoning behind this thought, which perhaps did not come out too clearly in my previous email is the following.
Aparoksha jnanam is essentially the direct experience of the Self. This Self is always with us, even when we are in deep sleep. In this sense, is it not correct to say that this jnanam (I am using "jnanam" to mean the cognition of the Self) is always there with one and therefore is very direct (hence aparoksham) but just that it seems as though hidden by other wrong notions (just like Bharchu is right there in front of the king directly visible to him, but he denies this fact because of other wrong notions)? If so, then this jnanam is nothing new that one gets after the ajnana is destroyed, but rather something that just remains when the ajnanam is destroyed, is it not? And if this is nothing new, it would not be right to say "Then only one can say that one has aparokSha GYAnam." because "then only" implies that it was absent prior to this point.
In essence, I am just restating what you mean with "AtmA is self evident. The existence of AtmA doesn't need any proof. When I say I am, I don't need to consult anybody. "I know that I exist" without using any pramANa.".
On the other hand, despite experiencing this very direct Atma of ours every moment, we still have vrittis such as "What one is ignorant about is what this "I am" is.". In other words, this vritti of "I am ignorant about what this 'I am' is" is our very ajnanam.
It is like the king looking at Bharchu right in front of his eyes and thinking "is this really Bharchu? What this is this thing that looks like Bharchu? I do not know.". In the same way, although we are able to assert confidently with direct experience of the Self that "I exist", we still entertain doubts like "but what this is 'I'", because perhaps we are looking for some special mystical revelation to make us better informed about this "I". I am saying that this doubt in itself is the ajnanam, When this vritti of doubt is removed, what remains as the experience of "I" is the aparoksha jnanam, which was always with us all along. In other words, new jnanam is created when the ajnana vrittis are destroyed.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1139972699.3048238.1635524441198%40mail.yahoo.com.
Satyan Chidambaran
Oct 30, 2021, 9:40:48 AM10/30/21
to Advaitin
Namaste Vinodhji,
Please consider the tenth man analogy. The tenth man was already experiencing himself all the time. What he lacked was not any new experience, but,
the knowledge that he himself was the tenth man. Thus, he had sAmAnya GYAnam about himself (I am a man), but the visheSha GYAnam (I myself am the tenth man I am seeking) was missing.
Similarly, we all have the sAmAnya GYAna (I am), but then due to ignorance of not having the visheSha GYAnam (I am Bramhan), I end up superimposing the body/mind on
myself and say I am this body/mind. But I am seeking Bramhan/limitlessness that I already am. Only the visheSha GYAnam "I am Bramhan" puts an end to the seeking,
You wrote:
Aparoksha jnanam is essentially the direct experience of the Self.
aparokSha GYAnam is not just direct experience of the Self. In fact, even during aGYAna kAla, also there is direct experience of the Self as the self evident "I", but due to aGYAnam,
I take the Self to be the limited jIva.
aparokSha GYAnam is direct knowledge that the ever experienced Self is Bramhan.
You wrote:
And if this is nothing new, it would not be right to say "Then only one can say that one has aparokSha GYAnam." because "then only" implies that it was absent prior to this point.
The experience of AtmA was not absent, so the experience is nothing new, but the knowledge of what this AtmA is (= Bramhan) was absent, So the knowledge is certainly something new, the experience being the same.
Please think about the tenth man example. That may be a closer example to what you are trying to convey, as opposed to BharcChu example. The latter is only used for illustrating a
special case to indicate that the GYAna vRRitti is obstructed and hence doesn't destroy aGYAnam due to some pratibandha.
Regards,
--Satyan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJKmrMVA8Jo6kBNe22dy4cg-djqaPejmbPGY3wmsPria8Q%40mail.gmail.com.
Vinodh
Oct 30, 2021, 1:04:31 PM10/30/21
to Advaitin
Thank you for your reply, Sri Satyan ji.
Do I understand correctly that in your explanation you distinguish the "experience" of the Truth (i.e., the experience of "I" or the Self) from the "knowledge" of the Truth (i.e., the knowledge that the "I" experienced by oneself is what is present everywhere)? If yes, would it really be "aparoksha jnanam" if the experience of it is different from the knowledge about it?
In contrast, consider this alternative: the experience of the Truth (i.e., the experience of "I") is already the aparoksha jnanam. That everything else, i.e., the mind, body, senses, other external objects, are not same as this experience of "I" is the ajnanam. When this ajnanam is removed with the jnana vritti induced by "all this is the Self", etc., only the experience of "I" remains, which is the aparoksha jnanam.
To elaborate, consider the analogy of the rope and snake (or stream of water etc.). Only the rope exists. That a snake or a stream of water etc. exists is the ajnanam. When this ajnanam is removed with the jnana vritti that "the snake is essentially the rope", what remains is the rope. In this case, even the jnana vritti that destroys the ajnanam is part of ajnanam. Because the snake is not really existing, it is only an illusion. Still, the jnana vritti says "the snake (which does not exist) is essentially the rope". In this sense, it is ajnanam because it is referring to a non-existent entity (snake) and saying that it is the same as another existing entity (rope). However, by doing so, it identifies the snake with the real and existing entity, rope, making the illusion of snake (the ajnanam) disappear. What remains is the rope.
In the same way, the mind, body, senses, other objects in this world do not really exist. However, they are all imagined to exist, and this is the ajnanam. Saying that all this is the Self, which is the jnana vritti that destroys ajnanam, is also part of this very ajnanam. Because in reality only the Self exists and it is advitiyam. Still the jnana vritti says "all this is the Self". In this sense, it is part of ajnanam because it is referring to non-existent things (mind, body, senses, etc.) and saying that this is the same as an existing entity (Self, which is self-evident). By doing so, it identifies all the non-existant entities (which are imagined due to avidya) with the existing and self-evident entity, Atman, making the illusion of “reality” of jagat disappear. What remains is the Atman, which was always experienced directly.
This is why Gaudapadacharya says that there is really no one who is in bondage and no one who is being liberated. Did the snake ever exist for it to disappear? Only the rope exists. The snake was just an imagination. In the same way, only the Atma exists, which we all know exists because we know it as our Self. Everything else is a mere imagination, including the jnana vritti that says that the Brahman is the Atma.
Therefore, the aparoksha jnanam of the Self is always there. It is only the ajnanam regarding the anatma, which is an illusion, that gets destroyed by such jnana vrittis. No new experience or knowledge is gained because of the jnana vrittis. This is my understanding.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1711240524.3296944.1635601196482%40mail.yahoo.com.
Satyan Chidambaran
Oct 31, 2021, 2:41:58 AM10/31/21
to Advaitin
Namaste Vinodh-ji,
Thanks for your clarifications. It looks like you are not using the term 'aparokSha GYAnam" in the same sense as is intended by the tradition.
You wrote:
The experience of the Truth (i.e., the experience of "I") is already the aparoksha jnanam
If experience of the "I" is aparokSha GYAnam, you would need to explain why there are any aGYAnIs at all in the world!
aparokSha GYAnam should immediately destroy ignorance. Thus, ignorance should never co-exist with aparokSha GYAnam.
So there should be no aGYAnIs at all because everyone has the experience of "I" which according to you is aparokSha GYAnam.
You wrote:
"Therefore, the aparoksha jnanam of the Self is always there"
I would rephrase it as "Therefore, the Self is always there". Please note that I have deliberately omitted "aparokSha GYAnam of the" for the following reason:
At the absolute level, pAramArthika satyam, only Bramhan or the Self really exists. There is no tripuTI. There is no knower knowledge, known triad. There is no experiencer, experienced, experienced triad.
AtmA/Bramhan is beyond all three. It is only in vyAvahArika that the jIva exists and the jIva has the experience of being limited and the jIva seeks knowledge (aparokSha GYAnam).
aparokSha GYAnam being "knowledge" is a part of the knower, knowledge, known triad. All forms of GYAnam exist in the mind only, whether it is parokSha or aparokSha,
whether it is of the objects or of the Self. And the mind is mithyA. So also, the aparokSha GYAnam is also mithyA and that mithyA aparokSha GYAnam alone destroys the aGYAnam just as
dream water quenches dream thirst. In fact, we can assert that only an aparokSha GYAnam that is mithyA can destroy aGYAnam that is mithyA because the destroyer-destroyed relationship
has to exist in the same order of reality. Thus, the svarUpa GYAnam of Bramhan (satyam GYAnam anantam) cannot destroy aGYAnam. Satyam Bramhan happily co-exists with mithyA aGYAnam,
as those two belong to different levels of reality! Which is why we have aGYAnIs everywhere!
We need a vRRitti in the mind (which is the aparokSha GYAnam) which arises as a result of the mahAvAkya called akhaNdAkAravRRitti and that alone destroys the aGYAnam. After that,
the vRRitti also subsides having done its job. Only Bramhan remains. But that Bramhan that remains is not aparokSha GYAnam, the vRRitti that destroyed aGYAnam was aparokSha GYAnam.
If we are talking about absolute reality, pAramArthika satyam, there is no ignorance, no seeker, no progress, no bondage and no liberation. All of these are at the vyAvahArika mithyA level.
aparokSha GYAnam is the stage in the progress of the aGYAnI seeker where self-ignorance is destroyed and he becomes a GYAnI. This is why vidyArANya in panchadashI says the following:
Vidyāraṇya narrates the story of the tenth man in Pañcadaśī 7.23-7.27. In verse 7.33, Vidyāraṇya mentions these seven stages and then follows a discussion on them
अज्ञानमावृतिस्तद्वद्विक्षेपश्च परोक्षधीः ।
अपरोक्षमतिः शोकमोक्षस्तृप्तिर्निरङ्कुशा ||३३||
ajñānamāvṛtistadvadvikṣepaśca parokṣadhīḥ ।
aparokṣamatiḥ śokamokṣastṛptirniraṅkuśā ||33||
These are the seven stages of a Jīva: ignorance, covering of what is, projection of what is not, indirect knowledge, direct knowledge, freedom from sorrow and limitless fulfilment.
Note that Bramhan is never affected by any of these stages, and is free of all these stages that belong only to a jIva.
Regards,
--Satyan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJ%2B%3DLrongC%2BEac6bVQQfVxyBvnjG6yWceZHUcCEg5YesRw%40mail.gmail.com.
Vinodh
Oct 31, 2021, 7:40:47 AM10/31/21
to Advaitin
Thank you very much for your patience and for your clarification, Satyan ji. Indeed, it appears that I have been using aparoksha jnanam differently than intended by the tradition. If aparoksha jnanam is understood by the tradition to be the vritti in the mind that destroys ajnanam, then I stand corrected. Such a vritti that destroys ajnanam indeed does not exist all the time. What I mentioned about us knowing that "I exist" is certainly not a vritti that destroys ajnanam (you had also pointed this out earlier), and therefore this vritti is not "aparoksha jnanam" as understood in the tradition.
This makes me curious as to how one refers to this direct knowledge (or experience) of the Self as "I exist". I am not referring to the body or even the ahamkaara by this word "I", but the "I" that persists in all three states of waking, dream, and sushupti as the very essence of existence itself. The reason I had referred to it as "aparoksha" is because it is direct and self-evident (and it is not pratyaksha or paroksha), and it is also "jnanam" because this is a vritti is created in the mind. Is there a word for it in the sampradaya? I believe it is simply referred to as "aham sphurana" by Ramana Maharshi, if I am not mistaken.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1361890435.3434127.1635662442081%40mail.yahoo.com.
Satyan Chidambaran
Oct 31, 2021, 7:45:21 AM10/31/21
to A. Discussion Group for Advaita Vedanta, Advaitin
Namaste Raghavji,
You wrote:
it would have to be given some qualification such as sapratibandhaka Gyaanam or paroxa-GYAnam - some moniker short of calling it GYAna-vRtti.
Yes, it seems a bit difficult to name it! It could be called a vRRitti that looks very similar to, but doesn't function as a GYAna vRRitti. It could also be
called an upAsana vRRitti as one superimposes Bramhan status on oneself, but doesn't accept it or know it as a fact.
sapratibandhaka GYAnam seems like like a good word as well, but since the noun is GYAnam and adjective is sapratibandhaka, it makes it sound
like a type of GYAnam, but it is aGYAnam only!
In case of the Rishi Apaantara Tamas, from what I read he was already a GYAnI but had multiple janma prArabdha.
Interesting. Is there a reference for this? NiscahaladAsa is asserting here that if one had multiple-janma-prArabdha, then GYAnam can only
arise in the last janma. He explains in another section that for a GYAnI, there is no travel. Without travel, there can be no next janma.
Hence, it is not possible to say that prArabdha remains and therefore there is another janma for a GYAnI. Please see the below snippet.
वेदस्यायम् सिद्धान्त: - ज्ञानिन: प्राणा: लोकान्तरम् वाSस्मिल्लोके देहान्तरम् वा न प्रप्नुवन्ति । अपि तु अत्रैव अन्त:करणमिन्द्रियाणि च सम्प्रलीयन्ते । प्राणस्य गमनम् विना
शरीरान्तरम् न प्राप्यते । तस्मात् ज्ञानिन: प्रारब्धशेषबलाच्छरीरान्तरम् जायेतेति कथनम् न सम्भवति ।
टिप्पणि:
" न तस्य प्राणा: उत्क्रामन्ति ।" "अत्र ब्रह्म समश्नुते" इति श्रुते:" ।
So it seems contrary to what NishaladAsa is saying that Rishi Apaantara Tamas was already a GYAnI, but still had follow on janmAs?
Thanks for reminding me of that extension to the joke. I recall hearing it in one of SwamijIs talks, or someone telling me about that
second laugh for the same joke, but I had forgotten that part!
Regards,
--Satyan
On Saturday, October 30, 2021, 10:07:17 PM GMT+5:30, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula <raghav...@gmail.com> wrote:
Namaste Satyan ji
Thank you for your post. And happy to see you are on advaita-l as well!
The ineffective vRtti which arises initially upon shravaNam but is unable to destroy avidyA - it would have to be given some qualification such as sapratibandhaka Gyaanam or paroxa-GYAnam - some moniker short of calling it GYAna-vRtti. Otherwise the
"चरम एव जन्मनि ज्ञानम् ( ज्ञानवृत्ति:) जायेत" (the Gyaanam arises *only* in the last birth)
would not be reasonable. (word in bracket is mine).
It may be more of a semantic difference but the idea is - the pratibandhakas we talk of are w.r.t. GYAnam arising or w.r.t. GYAna phalam being produced - that makes a difference. In case of the Rishi Apaantara Tamas, from what I read he was already a GYAnI but had multiple janma prArabdha. In contrast, there could be other cases like Vamadeva where as Sri Nischala Dasa says "चरम एव जन्मनि ज्ञानम् जायेत".
The two cases seem slightly different?
Raghav
P S.
A small aside...Regarding the example given by Pujya Swami Dayanandaji about the delayed understanding of a joke as an example of how shravaNam may generate the GYAna vRtti after a delay, I was reminded of the "extended" anecdote told by him.
I recollect Swami Dayanandaji saying something like this-
"One joke can generate *many* laughs. I related a joke in the class and some students laughed because they got it. One mAmA did not get it immediately but some days later he came and met me. The maamaa said that although he did not get the joke when I related it in the class, after he went home, he was having a relaxing shower ... and suddenly the joke dawned on him and he laughed heartily. Then the maamaa explained how he figured out the joke. Listening to his explanation of the joke, I laughed...because he *still* had not got it...!!!"
On Fri, 29 Oct, 2021, 12:03 pm Satyan Chidambaran, <saty...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Namaste Raghavji, Bhaskarji, Venkatraghavanji,Very interesting points Raghavji!Three points in this regard:1) Swami Dayanandaji used to give an example of a person who is told a joke by his friend. He doesn't get it at that point, and the one who told the joke is a bit disappointed. But a few days later, when showering with water falling on his bald head, that person recalls the joke. Perhaps the warm water falling on his head improved the blood circulation or perhaps due to some other reason reason which we cannot pinpoint, his joke understanding pratibandha was removed. He suddenly got the meaning of the joke and has a hearty laugh! Thus the same words have a delayed result.2) With regards to vAmadeva, vichAra sAgara discusses this point in detail (please see reference below from Topic 467). sAdhu nishchaladAsa says that generally an action produces an adRRiShTa karma phala which is experienced in entirety in some future janma and exhausted completely in that janma itself. However, there are certain rare cases in which a single action produce a karma phalam which cannot be exhausted in one janma but requires multiple janmas to exhaust. Now,let us consider the case of a sAdhaka who has such a karma phala fructifying which has to yield its result over multiple janmas. In that case, even if such a sAdhaka is qualified and does shravaNam, such a karma phala which mandates more janmas will act like a pratibandha. After shravaNam, the shAstra janya aham brahmAsmi vRRitti may be there, but that vRRitti will not act like a GYAna vRRitti (as in case of bharcChu kathA example, bharcChu directly saw his minister but could not accept that it was his minister due to some pratibandha). Hence, that vRRitti is unable to destroy aGYAnam. This will continue to be the case until the last janma mandated by that special karma phala is taken. When the last janma is taken, the special karma phala is totally exhausted, the pratibandha is automatically removed. The same vRRitti which was incapable of acting as an aGYAnA nAshaka GYAna vRRitti now suddenly acts like a GYAna vRRitti and destroys aGYAnam. The job is done!यत्रैकेन कर्मणा अनेक शरीराणि जायन्ते, तत्र चरम एव जन्मनि ज्ञानम् जायेत, न तु पूर्वतन शरीरेषु ।अनेक शरीरप्रदप्रारब्धस्य तत्र प्रतिबन्धकत्वात् । यथा (१) विषयासक्ति: (२)बुद्धिमान्द्यम् (३) भेदवादिद्वैवैतशास्त्रवचनविश्वासश्चेत्यादिर्ज्ञानप्रतिबन्ध: तथाविलक्षणप्रारब्धमपि ज्ञानप्रतिबन्धकमेव । प्रतिबन्धसद्भावदशायां क्रियमाणम् ज्ञानसाधनीभूतंश्रवणमननादिकं सर्वं प्रतिबन्धकनिवृत्त्यनन्तरमेव चिरकालप्रतिबद्धमपि प्रथमजन्मकृतमेव सत्शरीरान्तरे ज्ञानमुत्पादयति । तद्यथा "वामदेवस्य किलर्षे: पूर्वजन्मनि कृतश्रवणदेरपिप्रारब्धकर्ममफलभूतेनैकेनेव शरीरेण शेषभूतेन बलवता प्रतिबन्धात् न ज्ञानम् उद्भूतम् श्रवणद्यनुष्ठायदशायमेव । शरीरपातेन शरीरानन्तरप्राप्तिसमये पूर्ववजन्ममकृतमेव श्रवणदिकम् तस्यगर्भ एव ज्ञानम् जनयति स्म ।3) panchadashIkAra in Chapter 9 extensively discusses this situation where a student has done shravaNam, has parokSha GYAnam but doesn't yet have aparokSha GYAnam. He can come to the aham brahmAsmi vRRitti with the help of the mahAvakyam but it doesn't destroy his aGYAnam. There is presence of some pratibandha tha blocks the vRRitti from acting like a GYAna vRRitti. VidyAraNya suggests nirguNa brahma upAsana. The nirguNa bramha upAsanadoesn't directly contribute to rise of GYAnam. However, the puNyam that the upAsana generates counters the pratibandha. When the pratibandha is removed, the same vRRitti becomes a GYAna vRRitti and destroys aGYAnam.Regards,--SatyanOn Thursday, October 28, 2021, 01:33:53 PM GMT+5:30, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:Namaste Venkatraghavan ji
There do not seem to be any references to say that shravaNam has to be done
afresh once again after manana and nidhidhyAsanam have already removed the
samshaya and viparyaya obstacles.
Also if it is insisted that hearing the words tat tvam asi from the outside
is required once again after SMN, then the samskAra can be used to utter
the words aloud by oneself because tAtparya niscaya is already present.
Once tAtparya niscaya is there, it does not seem logical to assert the need
for once again repeating the entire long shravaNa process over again.
In laukika cases, samskAra is not regarded as a independent pramANa, but
the samskAra of shravaNam has the capacity to produce vRttis which then
remove the avidyA. It is shravaNam alone that is producing the GYAnam even
in laukika cases.
Even in the initial shravaNam, the use of air waves and the indriya golakas
for receiving the vAkyas is permitted. Also there is a time delay between
the utterance by the Guru and hearing by the student. These physical
transmission mechanisms (avAntara kAraNas) do not alter the fact that it is
shravaNam alone that is the cause of the GYAnam.
Laukika examples are plentiful. A lecture on physics or maths by the
Acharya is not understood when initially heard but later by dwelling on
what is heard, the laukika GYAnam of physics or some mathematical theorem
does indeed arise in the case of manda madhyama students.
In such laukika cases of Gyaanam arising after a time delay, the samskAra
is accepted as facilitating the pramANa giving rise to Gyaanam. Even in
such "delayed" Gyaanam the samskAra is not the pramANam but it does play a
facilitative role.
It can be asserted that same holds for GYAnam produced by shravaNam
facilitated by its samskAra.
Even in the case of the immediate arising of GYAnam upon shravaNam , as
indicated in brahma sUtra bhAShya (1.3.28) on shabda pramANam in
devatAdhikaranam, the samskAra of the varNas of the words of 'tat' and
'tvam' produces the vAkya GYAnam (upon 'asi' being heard) and without the
facilitative role played by the samskAra of the chronologically earlier
words tat and tvam whose sounds are no longer present, the Gyaanam does not
arise. Therefore the mere mediacy of samskAra in the shravaNam process does
not render a given GYAnam as "not due to shravaNam".
Om
Satyan Chidambaran
Nov 1, 2021, 6:54:58 AM11/1/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaste Vinodhji,
Happy to know that we are on the same page!
Please see dakShiNAmurti Stotram
बाल्यादिष्वपि जाग्रदादिषु तथा सर्वास्ववस्थास्वपि
व्यावृत्तास्वनुवर्तमानमहमित्यन्तः स्फुरन्तं सदा ।
स्वात्मानं प्रकटीकरोति भजतां यो मुद्रयाभद्रया
तस्मै श्रीगुरुमूर्तये नम इदं श्रीदक्षिणामूर्तये ॥७॥
This verse refers to the “I am” that continues unchanged in all states from childhood, to youth, to old age, in waking, dream, deep sleep and I own up all those states as mine by saying I was a child, the same I now am young, I am old, I dreamt, I slept, I am now awake. The AtmA persists in all these states and that is what leads to my experience of “continuity“ across these states that have nothing else in common. The continuing “I am” is called “aham iti antaH sphuraNam”. Please see the meaning of this verse as explained by Swami Paramarthanandaji here from page 192
https://arshaavinash.in/index.php/download/dakshinamurthy-stotram-by-swami-paramarthananda/
Can also be called AtmAnubhavaH as explained in the above note.
Regards,
—Satyan
On 31-Oct-2021, at 5:58 PM, Vinodh <vinod...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJJM3244o5fb3RUM3_1mp1cnxFWGcpZo4qkmYQ0xms%3DCMg%40mail.gmail.com.
Vinodh
Nov 1, 2021, 10:02:45 AM11/1/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Thank you very much for clarifying this with the link to Dakshinamurthy Sthothram, Satyanji. 🙏
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/33CFC7C0-5012-4148-A5E6-E3E6D452AE5C%40yahoo.com.
Raman.M
Nov 3, 2021, 1:51:19 AM11/3/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Thank you all for a wonderful and enlightening exchange of thoughts and contents
Ram Ram
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/33CFC7C0-5012-4148-A5E6-E3E6D452AE5C%40yahoo.com.
suresh srinivasamurthy
Nov 3, 2021, 3:07:28 PM11/3/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaste Satyan-ji,
You wrote:
At the absolute level, pAramArthika satyam, only Bramhan or the Self
really exists. There is no tripuTI. There is no knower knowledge, known triad. There is no experiencer, experienced, experienced triad.
AtmA/Bramhan is beyond all three. It is only in vyAvahArika that the jIva exists and the jIva has the experience of being limited and the jIva seeks knowledge (aparokSha GYAnam).
AtmA/Bramhan is beyond all three. It is only in vyAvahArika that the jIva exists and the jIva has the experience of being limited and the jIva seeks knowledge (aparokSha GYAnam).
Who
is the one that is currently making / teaching the above and others like myself listening and trying to understand the same.
It cannot be just jada/BMI and it cannot also be Nirguna Brahman as it is non-dual and there is no triputi.
This question is still unanswered in my mind and appreciate if you could clear the same.
Namaste,
Suresh
Suresh
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Raman.M <mram...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2021 5:51 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2021 5:51 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/025501d7d076%24d5556220%2480002660%24%40gmail.com.
Satyan Chidambaran
Nov 4, 2021, 2:36:48 AM11/4/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaste Suresh-ji,
Just as Gold appears as different ornaments such as a ring, a bangle, and a necklace etc. that don't have any substantial existence of their own apart from from Gold,
but have different names/forms/functions, so also Bramhan (with mAyA) appears as the entire vyAvahArika jagat that includes the Guru, shiShya and
shAstram, all of which don't have any independent reality apart from Bramhan.
Yes, the BMI is jada. But the mind, being made of subtle pancha-bhUtas, is able to reflect consciousness that is the svarUpa of Bramhan just as a bucket of water can reflect the sun
and appears to shine by itself. Thus, the inert BMIs (of both the Guru and the shiShya or any other jIva for that matter) become sentient, but it is only due to consciousness that is
borrowed from Bramhan, not due to any inherent consciousness in the BMI. The shiShya finds that his BMI is sentient, and not knowing who he really is being ignorant of his own Bramhan nature,
superimposes the limited attributes of the BMI upon himself, thus taking himself (who is in reality Bramhan!) to be nothing but the BMI. There is a mixup, an error, adhyAsa, just as a colorless crystal placed next to
a red flower appears red and that redness of the crystal is taken to be the reality by those ignorant of the colorless nature of the crystal. The Guru, on the other hand, knows that the limited individuality that
appears is not the absolute reality, it is only mithyA, and he knows that he himself is essentially none other than Bramhan, the substratum of the entire show.
Hope this clarifies.
Regards,
--Satyan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY2PR06MB2781227CC6A3F6AF7D80E923A98C9%40TY2PR06MB2781.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com.
suresh srinivasamurthy
Nov 4, 2021, 11:55:41 AM11/4/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaste Satyan-ji,
Thank you for nicely summarizing the adhyAsa bhAshya.
But my question is about the 'self' that is currently embodied. Non-identification with the BMI is fine. But BMI derives its existence from the self which remains as
the owner/controller of BMI. This self at the root of BMI is always real/original and not a reflection.
Does this not make the self saguna?
As Brahman is nirupAdhika / everywhere / sarvAtma / adhishTAna, should we not recognize the same Brahman/gold in all name/forms - teacher-student-shAstram?
IMHO the teacher of Nirguna Brahman will always be Saguna in the form of one's own teacher/AchArya and there is inseparable relation between them
🙂
Regards,
Suresh
From: 'Satyan Chidambaran' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/2049094123.1052672.1636007801244%40mail.yahoo.com.
Satyan Chidambaran
Nov 5, 2021, 3:12:29 AM11/5/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaste Suresh-ji
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Comments below in Green.
You wrote:
But my question is about the 'self' that is currently embodied.
There is no self that is currently embodied in reality. It is only in ignorance that one talks about a self being really embodied. If you are talking about the "seeming" embodiment of the self,
then that is fine
You wrote:
But BMI derives its existence from the self which remains as the owner/controller of BMI.
Yes, BMI derives its existence from the Self which is Bramhan. But Bramhan being asa~ngaH is neither the owner nor the controller. Bramhan is relation-less existence, consciousness.
It just provides the adhiShThAnam for the entire show like rope is the adhiShThAnam for the snake, but the rope has no other relationship with the snake.
You wrote:
This self at the root of BMI is always real/original and not a reflection.
That is correct.
Does this not make the self saguna?
In absolute terms Bramhan being asa~ngaH adhiShThAnam is nirguNa. But at vyAvahArika level, it appears as saguNa, just as in absolute terms it is only Gold that exists,
but Gold appears as ornaments with name/form. In its svarUpa, Bramhan is nirguNa. Any attributes that we associate with it are mithyA, they belong to the names and forms.
Hence, those mithyA attributes cannot affect satyam Bramha and cannot change Bramhan in any manner for there can be no relationship between entities that belong
to different orders of reality. Mirage water can never wet the sand. Bramhan remains essentially nirguNaH and nirvikAraH.
As Brahman is nirupAdhika / everywhere / sarvAtma / adhishTAna, should we not recognize the same Brahman/gold in all name/forms - teacher-student-shAstram?
We do. We are saying that the teacher-student-shAstram are in reality Bramhan only!
IMHO the teacher of Nirguna Brahman will always be Saguna in the form of one's own teacher/AchArya and there is inseparable relation between them 🙂
In order to teach, and to learn, we have to come down to the SaguNa vyavahAra. At pAramArthika level, there is no teaching or learning possible.
When it comes to one's vyavahAra/kriyA, one should act appropriately taking names and forms into account! Just because one is an advaitin, one cannot say that
the money in your pocket is the same as the money in my pocket because everything is Bramhan ;-) Same applies in presence of the Guru, there is a feeling of
respect and gratitude and one acts accordingly even if one is an advaitin.
भावाद्वैतम् सदा कुर्यात् क्रियाद्वैतम् न कर्हिचित् ।
अद्वैतम् तिषु लोकेषु नाद्वैतम् गुरुणा सह ।।
bhāvādvaitam sadā kuryāt kriyādvaitam na karhicit ।
advaitam tiṣu lokeṣu nādvaitam guruṇā saha ।।
advaitam tiṣu lokeṣu nādvaitam guruṇā saha ।।
Regards,
--Satyan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY2PR06MB2781BEE5F101DD5B6CAD5A4DA98D9%40TY2PR06MB2781.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com.
suresh srinivasamurthy
Nov 5, 2021, 4:07:55 PM11/5/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaste Satyan-ji,
Apologies for repeated questions.
You wrote:
There
is no self that is currently embodied in reality. It is only in ignorance that one talks about a self being really embodied. If you are talking about the "seeming" embodiment of the self, then
that is fine.
If there is no Self/Brahman in the body, then from where and how it is deriving its existence?
Regards,
Suresh
Suresh
From: 'Satyan Chidambaran' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 7:10 AM
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/35500221.1453146.1636096248250%40mail.yahoo.com.
suresh srinivasamurthy
Nov 5, 2021, 4:36:54 PM11/5/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaste Satyan-ji,
Probably what you mean is that the Self/Brahman is in the body as well as outside and so
not limited to one particular body. 🙂
Even then it becomes saguna as it sustains the body/world without getting itself affected.
Regards,
Suresh
Suresh
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of suresh srinivasamurthy <sure...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 8:07 PM
Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 8:07 PM
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/PS1PR06MB2776B2F2B96BAA603480008AA98E9%40PS1PR06MB2776.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Satyan Chidambaran
Nov 6, 2021, 1:26:17 AM11/6/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaste Suresh-ji,
Comments in green.
You wrote:
If there is no Self/Brahman in the body, then from where and how it is deriving its existence?
Please see the wording carefully. I never said that there is no Self/Bramhan in the body. Bramhan
being all pervading, there is no place where it is not! I said that "There is no self that is currently
embodied in reality." The Self/Bramhan is only "seemingly embodied".
Lets say you are wearing a shirt and I am wearing a Jacket. I meet you face to face and address you as "Namaste Shirt-ji!". You would
think that I need some special medical help! And if you acknowledge and respond to me as "Namaste Jacket-ji", both of us would need
that same special medical assistance! But that is clearly not the case. We are both smarter than that! We both see through the costume at the
essential person wearing the costume and don't get confused into mistaking the costume for the person.
But then when it comes to Bramhan, why is there this confusion? The body is a cloak from the standpoint of Bramhan.
Just as you remain as Suresh-ji whether you wear the shirt or not, and I remain as Satyan whether I wear the jacket or not,
Bramhan remains as Bramhan whether it is embodied or not.
Another example: if you are an actor playing the role of a beggar wearing the costume of a beggar.
Do you really become the beggar? Not at all. You are essentially in reality still the actor, but just seemingly
playing a certain role wearing a certain costume.
The same is the case with Bramhan that in a manner of speaking "wears" the body/mind costume, and
plays a certain roles (father, son, Guru shiShya etc) in vyAvahArika, but it is in reality independent of the
BMI costumes and roles.
Regards,
--Satyan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY2PR06MB2781E396CB43357794F5739CA98E9%40TY2PR06MB2781.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com.
suresh srinivasamurthy
Nov 6, 2021, 1:16:52 PM11/6/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaste Satyan-ji,
You wrote:
The body is a cloak from
the standpoint of Bramhan. Just as you remain as Suresh-ji whether
you wear the shirt or not, and I remain as Satyan whether I wear the jacket or not, Bramhan
remains as Bramhan whether it is embodied or not.
If the same Brahman is identified whether it is embodied or not, then why reject the embodied Brahman as mithya?
Identifying the same Brahman in all name/forms leads to the same non-dual Brahman and sustains parspara bhAvana also.
IMHO embodied Brahman is the Saguna sarvAntaryAmi Vishnu as all Vaidhikas when they do achamanam - chant AchutAya/AnantAya/GovindAya namah/swAha. Unembodied Brahman
is Shiva who is Nirguna NirAkAra. They both stand for Truth and Dharma and the oneness between them needs to be realized
🙂
Namaste
Suresh
From: 'Satyan Chidambaran' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 6, 2021 5:22 AM
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1195172679.1789529.1636176175052%40mail.yahoo.com.
Satyan Chidambaran
Nov 7, 2021, 2:34:51 AM11/7/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Sureshji,
Comments in green.
You wrote:
Why reject the embodied Brahman as mithya?
There is no Bramhan that was/is/ever will be really embodied!
It is ascribing reality to the embodiment that is rejected as ignorance. If it is taken as an apparent or seeming
embodiment, we have no problem with it.
You wrote:
embodied Brahman is the Saguna sarvAntaryAmi Vishnu...
Unembodied Brahman is Shiva who is Nirguna NirAkAra...
and the oneness between them needs to be realized
Not so. Both shiva and vishnu are saguNa Bramhan only (for both are Bramhan "associated with" name, form and function), and the
oneness between them is already realized when one sees them both as nirguNa Bramhan that they really are 
When BhagavatpAda Adi shankarAchArya was asked to condense the essence of advaita in one shloka, He had responded:
"Bramha satyam jagat mithyA jIvo brahmaiva nAparaH". If there is no need to categorize anything as mithyA at all, why did
He even need to use that word?
The answer is that the jagat is experientially there, but really not there. The jagat cannot be said to be non-existent
because it is experienced, but at the same time, it cannot be said to be existent because its reality is sublated with knowledge.
Hence, jagat is mithyA. And jagat includes all names and forms.
Please also see these references from Bhagavad Gita:
Krishna says "all beings rest in Me" and "beings do not rest in Me". Such a contradiction can only be resolved by bring in mithyAtvam
of the jagat.
With this, I believe that I have answered the questions you started off with. I don't think I have anything more to add.
Thanks for sharing your views.
Regards,
--Satyan
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY2PR06MB2781963CF931ED0B80441991A98F9%40TY2PR06MB2781.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com.
suresh srinivasamurthy
Nov 8, 2021, 7:51:42 PM11/8/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaste Sri Satyan ji,
There are many pramANas for the existence of Atman/Brahman in the body and here is one:
Brahman in the body is the prasiddha Brahman according to Shankara BSB and this is identified with the
Shruti prasiddha NirguNa Brahman.
The Aikya of Shiva/Rudra and Vishnu (yes, with attributes) is available in the following mantra from Sri Rudram:
Om Namo Bhagavate RudrAya Vishnave mrutyurme pAhi.
Also in B.Gita Sri Krishna identifies himself with kAla who is none other than Rudra who is mahAkAla/laya karta.
Ofcourse fanatic devoties of Vishnu and Shiva may not agree with the above
🙂
While the Advaitic Brahman points to the unknowable and unthinkable, the same truth is also manifesting
and announcing its existence through every name and form. The following Shankara B.Gita bhAshya states
that explicitly.
I am in agreement with whatever you have written with regard to Nirguna Brahman. But there are pramANas to prove that the same Nirguna Brahman can manifest as Ishwara to protect ajyAnIs like me.
🙂
DhanyOsmi,
Suresh
From: 'Satyan Chidambaran' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 7, 2021 7:34 AM
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/971705317.1979686.1636270483895%40mail.yahoo.com.
Bhaskar YR
Nov 10, 2021, 1:34:45 AM11/10/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
praNAms Sri Suresh Prabhuji
Hare Krishna
There are many pramANas for the existence of Atman/Brahman in the body and here is one:
Brahman in the body is the prasiddha Brahman according to Shankara BSB and this is identified with the
Shruti prasiddha NirguNa Brahman.
Ø And in the bhAshya itself there is a mention of existence of two Atma-s in shareera !! One is jeevaatma whose existence restricted only to shareera and another Atma (paramAtma / Ishwara) is not only in shareera but he is sarvavyApi. But this does not mean there are two Chaitanya-s in one shareera, contextually without doing the siddhAnta hAni of AtmaikatvaM we have to understand all these vAkyas.
The Aikya of Shiva/Rudra and Vishnu (yes, with attributes) is available in the following mantra from Sri Rudram:
Om Namo Bhagavate RudrAya Vishnave mrutyurme pAhi.
Ø Yes this aikya is same not only shiva & rudra but sakala jeevarAshi as the Chaitanya behind ALL is ONE. yekO devaH sarvabhuteshu gudhaH, sAkshi cheetah kevalO nirguNascha says shvetAshvatara. Is there any difference between Chaitanya in me and Chaitanya that we worship in shiva/vishNu ?? absolutely no, because this chaitanya / svarUpa jnana is upAdhi vishesha rahita jnana. That is the reason why a jnAni who realized his svarUpa exclaims in ecstasy chidAnanda rUpaH shivOhaM shivOhaM.
Also in B.Gita Sri Krishna identifies himself with kAla who is none other than Rudra who is mahAkAla/laya karta.
Ofcourse fanatic devoties of Vishnu and Shiva may not agree with the above 🙂
Ø That is dvaitins’ problem we cannot help it. They can even argue for ages which is more powerful weapon whether sudarshana chakra in vishNu’s hand or trishul in shiva’s hand 😊
While the Advaitic Brahman points to the unknowable and unthinkable, the same truth is also manifesting
and announcing its existence through every name and form. The following Shankara B.Gita bhAshya states
that explicitly.
Ø Yes but it is just an upAya to teach the nirvisheshatva of brahman. In that sense kAryAkArOpi kAraNarupameva satyaM. And it is for this reason only Advaita holds for the jagat the brahman is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNaM.
I am in agreement with whatever you have written with regard to Nirguna Brahman. But there are pramANas to prove that the same Nirguna Brahman can manifest as Ishwara to protect ajyAnIs like me. 🙂
Ø Absolutely true. For maNda and madhyama adhikAri-s or ajnAni-s like us, personification of nirguNa, nirAkAra, nirvishesha brahman is very much required like above. Here nirguNa brahman with full of compassion *see* the ajnAni-s like us and would like to *become* soPAdhika kArya / apara brahman or Ishwara and *bestow* the krama mukti etc. But for the advaitins like us, nirguNa nirvishesha brahman is final and supreme even there is equal mention of upAsya and jneya brahma in shruti-s. The verdict given by bhAshyakAra in vedAnta sUtra bhAshya 3-2-14. If there is any conflict between saguNa and nirguNa brahman we chose nirguNa aspect of brahman only as final because it is the shruti tAtparya ultimately.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages