avidyā is the swabhāva of rope
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
Again one more standard diversion from bhAshya to prove arthAdhyAsa over jnAnAdhyAsa. We should not ‘over read’ the snake-rope example just because bhAshyakAra additing the word avidyA here. Can rope which is jada anAtma can have the avidyA as its svabhAva?? How can it get rid of its own ‘svabhAva’ when it is inherently one with itself!!?? So too much reading between the lines would not help us to understand the context and purpose of this example. Moreover when it comes to AkAshAdi srushti it is clearly said it is mAyA shakti of the para brahman. And for those avidyA is not mAyA and again mAyA shakti is abhinna from Ishwara, for them this out of context linking of mAya with avidyA shakti is quite weird. Therefore, the purpose of the rope-snake example in kArika or anywhere in PTB is NOT to teach that the snake is nonexistent nor rope itself is having the avidyA, hence appearing itself as rope !!. Its purpose is to remove the ignorance of the rope (or about the rope) and give its right knowledge as the rope itself appearing like a snake. This is to be remembered always whenever linking these examples out of context. For that matter, kArikAkAra himself subsequently says the same thing. Just as only the rajju remains after negating all the imaginations of snake etc. and bhAshyakAra endorses that during the bhrAnti kAla and bAdhita kAla ‘rajju’ remains AS IT IS without undergoing any change at any point of time. When all the imaginations are discarded, one comes to know that all this is Atman or parabrahman only.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
PS: Anyway, as long as clapping crowd is there these things can flow freely without much objection 😊
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
To keep it KISS, as per this kArikA bhAshya, bhAshyakAra announcing that ‘sarpa’ is ‘created’ in rajju and not imagined whereas elsewhere he himself saying that jagat is just imagined by tiny jeeva due to his avidyA and NOT created by Ishwara 😊
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!
bhaskar
Sudhanshu Shekhar
To keep it KISS,
as per this kArikA bhAshya, bhAshyakAra announcing that ‘sarpa’ is ‘created’ in rajju and not imagined
whereas elsewhere he himself saying that jagat is just imagined by tiny jeeva due to his avidyA and NOT created by Ishwara 😊
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
I had to search Google for the meaning of KISS. I reproduce it for the benefit of others - "Keep it simple, stupid".
Ø As per my understanding it is ‘keep it short and simple’ ( I learnt this from my son, who often uses this abbreviated form in his mails 😊 Now I learnt from you that it is better to KISS when we come across something stupid 😊
as per this kArikA bhAshya, bhAshyakAra announcing that ‘sarpa’ is ‘created’ in rajju and not imagined
Bhāṣya says that snake is created. Period. This does not mean that it implies - "it is not imagined".
Ø Read that bhAshya bhAga in light with shruti and corresponding kArika…it is not there to advocate the stupid statements like snake is created but not imagined and jagat is imagined and not created and there is no difference between creation and imagination. I think you must have heard something like mAyA satkArya vAda which is quite different from bhrAnti vAda.
Because creation is nothing but imagination.
Ø Since you have already searched the meaning of the KISS, better to find the difference between imagination and creation as well from the same source 😊
whereas elsewhere he himself saying that jagat is just imagined by tiny jeeva due to his avidyA and NOT created by Ishwara 😊
Bhāṣya is understood when one appreciates that creation is imagination.
Ø The bhAshya-s purpose is better served when one understands the Ishwara’s role in creation and jeeva’s problem and suffering due to his own imagination.
H S Chandramouli
Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,
In your earlier post, you had stated
// In Māṇḍūkya-kārikā 1.6, Bhāṣyakāra says -
यथा रज्ज्वां प्राक्सर्पोत्पत्तेः रज्ज्वात्मना सर्पः सन्नेवासीत् , एवं सर्वभावानामुत्पत्तेः प्राक्प्राणबीजात्मनैव सत्त्वमिति Clearly, Ācārya is talking about creation of snake in rope //.
In your latest post, the following statements appear
// Because creation is nothing but imagination //.
// Bhāṣya is understood when one appreciates that creation is imagination //.
In Karika 1-6 also which you had cited, the kArikA mentions ** सर्वं जनयति प्राण…… ** ( ** sarvaM janayati prANa……** ).
Notice the use of the terms ** उत्पत्तेः ** ( ** utpatteH ** ) and ** जनयति ** ( ** janayati ** ). Can these Sanskrit terms be also interpreted as referring to ** imagination ** and not ** creation ** ??.
Regards--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDVLgCvuPgk1iJTMc5KMNTO0KPEi2gik2Fh9KtyWZSK%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
Again to KISS : this kArika very clearly talking about that all beings manifest from the unmanifest existence, prabhavaH sarvabhAvANAM sataamiti vinishchayaH, in the form of prANa, causes the ‘birth’ of all separately ( sarvaM janayati). But as usual, it has been turned and twisted to suite the theory of mUlAvidyA which is having the brahmAshraya and in addition to that, there is an attempt to prove that this mUlAvidyA is the very ‘svabhAva’ of that brahman!! Here, even though there is a term avidyA in kArikA bhAshya ( will have to search for the full portion of bhAshya) in the example of rajju-sarpa, I am sure that it does not ring a bell at all to advocate the statement like avidyA is the very svabhAva of parishuddha Chaitanya.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Notice the use of the terms ** उत्पत्तेः ** ( ** utpatteH ** ) and ** जनयति ** ( ** janayati ** ). Can these Sanskrit terms be also interpreted as referring to ** imagination ** and not ** creation ** ?
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
Very clearly the bhāṣya and ṭīkā say that this ignorance is the swabhāva of the substratum rope. [The word rope is used due to tādātmya-adhyāsa of rope with rope-avacchinna-caitanya.]
So, rope-avacchinna-caitanya needs to be accepted to be locus of ajñāna.
- These two statements quite evidently endorse the view that it is neither jada (anAtma / rope in itself) nor Chaitanya (paripUrNa anavacchinna Chaitanya) is the locus of ajnAna but it is only jada (anAtma) with avacchinna (contioned / limited) Chaitanya that is the locus of avidyA. I don’t know how this rope avacchinna Chaitanya is different from my example of Mr.Chair and it is also very clear from the above that Atma (kUtastha nirvishesha) Atma which is sat-chit-ananda is not the locus of avidyA (brahmAshrita mUlAvidyA goes for a six with this 😊). And avidyA/ adhyAsa svAbhAva is better suited to Mr. Chair (rope-avacchinna Chaitanya) as we have the bhAshya anAdirananto naisargikOdhyAsaH. OTOH if any one tries to paste the avidyA to parabraman it is obviously shruti / bhAshya / yukti viruddha as all Astika Advaita jignAsu-s know that in shruti it has been declared that brahman is satchidAnanda (Absolute Existence-Consciousness-Bliss) and is kevala nirguNa (attributeless) and more importantly it is nitya Shuddha buddha mukta (eternally pure, conscious, and free) and if at all there is any talk about ajnAna / avidyA and as a result suffering etc. it is only belongs to the jeeva (parichhinna Chaitanya) and this avidyA is the ignorance within the individual soul (antaHkaraNa yukta chaitanya) that creates the illusion of being separate from Brahman and forcing oneself to think that he is abrahma / asarvaM etc. SiddhAnta says brahman is never under the influence of avidyA nor he is the locus of avidyA instead, it emphasizes the fact that brahman is the witness (sAkshi) to both vidyA & avidyA.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
These two statements quite evidently endorse the view that it is neither jada (anAtma / rope in itself) nor Chaitanya (paripUrNa anavacchinna Chaitanya) is the locus of ajnAna but it is only jada (anAtma) with avacchinna (contioned / limited) Chaitanya that is the locus of avidyA.
I don’t know how this rope avacchinna Chaitanya is different from my example of Mr.Chair and it is also very clear from the above that Atma (kUtastha nirvishesha) Atma which is sat-chit-ananda is not the locus of avidyA (brahmAshrita mUlAvidyA goes for a six with this 😊). And avidyA/ adhyAsa svAbhAva is better suited to Mr. Chair (rope-avacchinna Chaitanya) as we have the bhAshya anAdirananto naisargikOdhyAsaH.
OTOH if any one tries to paste the avidyA to parabraman it is obviously shruti / bhAshya / yukti viruddha as all Astika Advaita jignAsu-s know that in shruti it has been declared that brahman is satchidAnanda (Absolute Existence-Consciousness-Bliss) and is kevala nirguNa (attributeless) and more importantly it is nitya Shuddha buddha mukta (eternally pure, conscious, and free) and if at all there is any talk about ajnAna / avidyA and as a result suffering etc.
it is only belongs to the jeeva (parichhinna Chaitanya) and this avidyA is the ignorance within the individual soul (antaHkaraNa yukta chaitanya) that creates the illusion of being separate from Brahman and forcing oneself to think that he is abrahma / asarvaM etc. SiddhAnta says brahman is never under the influence of avidyA nor he is the locus of avidyA instead, it emphasizes the fact that brahman is the witness (sAkshi) to both vidyA & avidyA.
So, it is pointless to claim jīva as the āśraya of ajñāna. Jīva, jagata and Iśwara are all three imagined in shuddha-ātmā. And hence, none of these can be ajñāna-āśraya.
H S Chandramouli
Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,
Reg // I am not saying that these words उत्पत्ति and जनयति literally refer to imagination.
They refer to creation.
However, I am saying that creation is accepted as nothing but imagination in Advaita Vedānta //,
I am not aware of such a statement being admitted in Advaita SiddhAnta, at least as far as the SiddhAnta advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada is concerned. What you have stated practically amounts to selfcontradiction considering the Sanskrit terms used in respect of the same.
Reg // In case of SDV, however, despite the world being imaginary, it is given a higher order than dream world. It is held to be sequential while dream is simultaneous etc //,
Hmm. Gradation in Imagination !!. Never came across such a postulate so far in my studies. Again, in so far as the Advaita SiddhAnta advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada is concerned. It would be good if you can point to any references in this regard, especially in Sanskrit.
However in my understanding the SiddhAnta accepts gradation in असत् ( asat ). There is no gradation in सत् ( sat ). VyAvahArika, PrAtibhAsika and atyanta asat are all different grades of असत् ( asat ) . They refer to different grades of Existence or Creation . Not Imagination.
Reg Sri Anandagiri AcharyAs comment on kArikA 1-7 you have cited, it relates to the view advanced by some thinkers that Dream Creation as well as mAyic Creation are real, as real as the jAgrat Creation. The swa-mata refers to that. It may be pointed out that kArikAs 1-7 to 1-9 list several views advanced by thinkers regarding Creation.
Regards
Sudhanshu Shekhar
I am not aware of such a statement being admitted in Advaita SiddhAnta, at least as far as the SiddhAnta advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada is concerned. What you have stated practically amounts to selfcontradiction considering the Sanskrit terms used in respect of the same.
Reg // In case of SDV, however, despite the world being imaginary, it is given a higher order than dream world. It is held to be sequential while dream is simultaneous etc //,
Hmm. Gradation in Imagination !!. Never came across such a postulate so far in my studies. Again, in so far as the Advaita SiddhAnta advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada is concerned. It would be good if you can point to any references in this regard, especially in Sanskrit.
However in my understanding the SiddhAnta accepts gradation in असत् ( asat ). There is no gradation in सत् ( sat ). VyAvahArika, PrAtibhAsika and atyanta asat are all different grades of असत् ( asat ) . They refer to different grades of Existence or Creation . Not Imagination.
Reg Sri Anandagiri AcharyAs comment on kArikA 1-7 you have cited, it relates to the view advanced by some thinkers that Dream Creation as well as mAyic Creation are real, as real as the jAgrat Creation. The swa-mata refers to that. It may be pointed out that kArikAs 1-7 to 1-9 list several views advanced by thinkers regarding Creation.
H S Chandramouli
Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,
The questions you have posed are fundamental questions well addressed in the Bhashya. Such questions posed by great Acharyas of various hues were debated with them by Sri Bhagavatpada to their satisfaction. What I have understood from the Bhashya is adequate for svArtha ( my personal understanding ). Not for parArtha ( for convincing others ). You may like to refer to those texts for satisfying your doubts. I dont intend to enter into any debates. My participation in these discussions is for svArtha, and to the extent others are also satisfied with my views or feel directed to appropriate texts, I feel satisfied with my contribution.
Not keen on debates which I know from personal experience do not contribute to knowledge. Kindly excuse.
Regards
H S Chandramouli
Namaste Sudhanshu JI,
Someone pointed out to me that it would have been more appropriate for me to withdraw from the discussion after responding to the questions already posed by you. As such I am presenting my views on the same. I will try and use the same methodology you have adopted so that my views are unambiguously conveyed. The views are in line with my understanding of Advaita SiddhAnta as advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada.
Reg // So, as per your understanding of advaita siddhānta, creation is not imagination (kalpanā)? If creation is not kalpanā, then creation becomes paramārtha. Anything which is not paramārtha is kalpanā //
And
// Define asat whose gradation you accept //.
No. Anything which is not paramārtha is असत् ( asat ) . With this broad definition of असत् ( asat ), Creation is असत् ( asat ). It is not imagination (kalpanā). It is experienced nonexistence.
Reg // Gradation itself is an imagination //,
In the current context, the answer is No. Gradation of Creation which is termed असत् ( asat ) is based on experience. The vyAvahArikA and prAtibhAsika grades are combined when referred to as mithyA.
Reg // In swa-mata, "swa" refers to whom? //.
It refers to the proponents of the respective views. Anyway this is not relevant for the current discussion and hence can be ignored.
Regards
Sudhanshu Shekhar
No. Anything which is not paramārtha is असत् ( asat ) . With this broad definition of असत् ( asat ), Creation is असत् ( asat ). It is not imagination (kalpanā). It is experienced nonexistence.
In the current context, the answer is No. Gradation of Creation which is termed असत् ( asat ) is based on experience. The vyAvahArikA and prAtibhAsika grades are combined when referred to as mithyA.
It refers to the proponents of the respective views. Anyway this is not relevant for the current discussion and hence can be ignored.
V Subrahmanian
Shankara says this in the Br.up.Bh.1.4.10 (aham brahmasmi passage):
Objection: We do not say that Brahman has no superimposition of attributes other than Itself, as in the case of a mother-of-pearl, but rather that Brahman is not the cause of the superimposition of these attributes onto Itself, nor is It the author of ignorance.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBW_p4A8Fn%3DVh%3DaYsr-J%2B8GSK8fZTJc30CTKnM3t8R%3DTQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
आश्रयस्याश्रयि संभवति । तदनपेक्षस्य च तस्य निस्स्वभावत्वात् । एतेभ्य एव हेतुभ्यो नानात्मविषयमज्ञानं संभवतीति ग्राह्यम् । एवं तावन्नानात्मनोऽज्ञानित्वं नापि तद्विषयमज्ञानम् । पारिशेष्यादात्मन एवास्त्वज्ञानं
तस्याज्ञोऽस्मीत्यनुभवदर्शनात् ।
That ignorance cannot be a self-existent principle and therefore, it must be admitted that it belongs to some subject of knowledge and is concerning some object of knowledge. We have determined that there are two categories, the Self and the non-Self. Of the two, it is evident that the non-Self cannot be the locus of ignorance. Its very nature is ignorance and surely there could be no additional ignorance in a locus which is itself of the nature of ignorance. Even if this were possible, what new feature could this further ignorance add to the original ignorance? The non-Self could never acquire knowledge and only if the possibility of knowledge is there, could there be ignorance of the nature of the privation of knowledge. Further, the non-Self is itself a product of ignorance. What exists already cannot be dependent on what is brought into being by itself. The non-Self has no nature of its own independent of ignor- ance. These very same reasons go to show that the ignorance is not about the non-Self. Therefore the subject of ignorance is not the non-Self; nor is ignorance about the non-Self. By the principle of elimination ignorance takes place in the Self.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2Z0hD-x9XZtXgOF%3DQmBQi1k8Q-hZ3TWs6oPwMwUjWGRQ%40mail.gmail.com.
N V Vathsan
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDdN-uQTo6ZLkx3wKzDtiHXPuVuoSSFjGw9cEbB%2B-S1mw%40mail.gmail.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
Shankara says this in the Br.up.Bh.1.4.10 (aham brahmasmi passage):
However, it is not admitted that any conscious entity other than Brahman is the author of ignorance or subject to error. Witness such Shruti texts as, "There is no ..
Ø A standard shelter to vyAkhyAna followers to prove brahmAshrita avidyA from bhAshya 😊 However, whenever someone tries to paste the avidyA to brahman or brahmAshrita avidyA or brahma svarUpa / svabhAva itsef avidyA ( the latest one from recent post 😊) from the bhAshya vAkya-s like above, we simply guide them to sUtra bhAshya 4-1-3, where bhAshyakAra declares that if you know that you are brahman then there is no ajnAna to anyone whatsoever & geeta bhAshya 13-2 where bhAshyakAra again proved and clarified that avidyA is NOT the dharma of kshetrajna. Here clarification given is : in all aspects the pratyaya-s like agrahaNa, saMshaya, anythagrahaNa as also their causes should INVARIABLY become the dharma (attribute) of a nigadita (particular) karaNa (instrument or means of action or sense organ) and NOT the dharma of the kshetrajna. Hence above bhAshya to be understood that it is the jeeva ( who cognizes / operates through his sense organs) should be having the avidyA, it has to be understood like that only because in the language of shAstra he is none other than brahman (jeevo brahmaiva na aparaH)…And, by this, we cannot argue in such a way that since jeeva is brahman and there is no second chaitanya apart from brahman, brahman itself is avidyAvanta!! This reverse order is not permitted in advaita vedAnta, all we can say is jeeva is brahman but brahman is not the jeeva. Those who read the above bhAshya portion completely would come to know this clear distinction between jeeva as parichinna Chaitanya and brahman is paripUrNa nitya Shuddha Chaitanya. For the sake of clarity I am re-producing this bhAshya portion :
- In the matter of brahman, avidyA cannot exist at all, is it not?? The answer is : it is not proper to say so, since the vidyA has been instructed with the purport of realizing brahman. If no one misconceives rajana in shukti, is there any requirement to say : this is shukti only not rajata?? No, likewise if there were no avidyA with regard to brahman then shAstra would not have instructed us to realize brahman and that brahman is ONE and ONE ALONE and ALL THIS IS VERILY SAT ( sadevedaM sarvaM, brahmaivedaM sarvaM, AtmaivedaM sarvaM, nedam dvaitamastyabrahma etc.). And after accepting this, pUrvapaxi says brahman is not an ajna (ignorant one) who is responsible for superimposing a dharma which does not belong to it…For this siddhAnti clarifies, it is accepted that brahman is neither ajna nor associated with bhrAnti…BUT IF YOU SAY THAT apart from brhaman there exists another Chetana who is bhrAnta etc. we do not agree.
- It is quite clear from the above bhAshya that this statement is not the pramANa vAkya to prove brahmAshrita avidyA or brahma svarUpa (svabhAva) itself is avidyA, rather it is evident that all these issues crop up only in the dvaita vyavahAra which is the result of adhyAsa. AvidyA is just like pratyaya (in day to day transaction mithyA pratyaya rUpa) it is just antaHkaraNa dharma (geeta 13-2). There is absolutely no approval whatsoever by shri bhAshyakAra to advocate the theories like : avidyA is reposed or taking shelter in Atman itself or avidyA which is something solid (bhAvarUpa jada vastu) that can cover brahman itself or this avidyA is the very svabhAva of brahman.
- Brahman’s svarUpa / svabhAva itself avidya!! My god, what an apasiddhAnta is this!! If before jeeva bhAva and his transaction due to avidyA etc. brahman at the very beginning itself having this avidyA then it is nothing but absolute dvaita, no amount of jeeva sAdhana can help the brahman to get rid of his own svabhAva (very nature). Brahman should do separate sAdhana to get rid of it’s own avidyA but a loss!! Since this avidyA is his own nature I don’t think any amount of sAdhana on his part would help him to overcome his instinctive nature and whatever jeeva gains through sAdhana, that ultimate goal / brahman itself is having the avidyA/ajnAna as his own nature, in short, jeeva’s realization of brahman is avidyAvanta brahman😊
- It has been repeated many times, jeeva can become / realize that he is brahman by gaining vidyA through sAdhana OTOH brahman which is nitya Shuddha. Buddha, mukta, satchidaananda cannot get the avidyA to become jeeva / avidyAvanta. jnA adhikaraNa and urkrAntigatyadhikaraNa etc. very clearly saying though jeeva is of the nature of brahman brahman is NOT of the nature of jeeva…
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare Krishna
You have not understood the discussion correctly. Swabhāva is avidyā-lakshaṇā-prakṛti. It is not the swarūpa of Brahman.
Ø To KISS : so according to you / vyAkhyAna svabhAva of brahman (bhAvAbhAva vivarjita brahman) is having the svabhAva and that svabhAva is called avidyA !!😊 so the question now is, how the nirvikAri brahman cultivated this type of svabhAva in his svarUpa?? If you say, no, this svabhAva is not cultivated one it is the very nature of brahman then I will ask if it is not gained and it is his only his inherent nature then what is the difference between his svarUpa and svabhAva?? When his svarUpa is nirvikAri can he have avidyA as his svabhAva??
To equate ajṅāna as swarūpa of Brahman as the view of bhāṣya/vyākhyāna is akāṇḍa-tāṇḍava.
Ø IMO pasting the avidyA to the svabhAva of brahman (!!??) and keeping its nirvikAri svarUpa intact and at the same time tainted with avidyA svabhAva is also totally unwarranted and an eccentric expression by the vyAkhyAnakAra-s in an attempt to push the debilitating theory of mUlAvidyA.
Sudhanshu Shekhar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB6638DA32A1BD3FA29C824FB584042%40VI1PR06MB6638.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Have you read bhāṣya of Gītā 5.14?
- You are a par excellence tArkika in this group, without giving much heed to shAstra, sampradaya and Acharya wanted to check each and everything in the lens of logic, how can you, without addressing the logical fallacies in your understanding simply direct me to some bhAshya 😊 What if I simply point out to you the bhAshya vAkya that Ishwara/brahman is sarvajna and sarvashakta and in his svabhAva he is nitya Shuddha, buddha, mukta ( nityashuddhabuddhamukta svabhAvaM) and he is NOT like shAreeri?? Would you blindly accept jeeveshwara vibhAva without considering any context ?? So, for those prakruti (mAya) and avidyA is not the same these bhAshya references do not ring any alarming bells 😊
Sudhanshu Shekhar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB66388581F6EE41F149674AD984042%40VI1PR06MB6638.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Bhaskar YR
Ok Bhaskar ji. Will reply in due course of time when sufficient motivation comes to reply.
praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji
Hare Krishna
OK think and reply prabhuji I am not in a hurry, how brahman can have within himself two different compartments one against another i.e. svarUpa and svabhAva…how can he cultivates svabhAva of avidyA when his true nature is (svarUpa) nirvishesham?? And how he who is having the svabhAva (nityashuddhabuddhamukta svabhAvaM) can also have the avidyA as his svabhAva at the same time or is he going to switch over from one to another as per the influence of his own avidyA svabhAvaM etc. vyAkhyAna must have answered all these questions somewhere while promoting the svabhAva of brahman as avidyA..I reckon that would be an interesting reading to understand the fate of brahman in the books of later vyAkhyAnakAra-s😊
V Subrahmanian
praNAms
Hare Krishna
Shankara says this in the Br.up.Bh.1.4.10 (aham brahmasmi passage):
However, it is not admitted that any conscious entity other than Brahman is the author of ignorance or subject to error. Witness such Shruti texts as, "There is no ..
Ø A standard shelter to vyAkhyAna followers to prove brahmAshrita avidyA from bhAshya 😊 However, whenever someone tries to paste the avidyA to brahman or brahmAshrita avidyA
or brahma svarUpa / svabhAva itsef avidyA ( the latest one from recent post 😊) from the bhAshya vAkya-s like above, we simply guide them to sUtra bhAshya 4-1-3, where bhAshyakAra declares that if you know that you are brahman then there is no ajnAna to anyone whatsoever & geeta bhAshya 13-2 where bhAshyakAra again proved and clarified that avidyA is NOT the dharma of kshetrajna.
Here clarification given is : in all aspects the pratyaya-s like agrahaNa, saMshaya, anythagrahaNa as also their causes should INVARIABLY become the dharma (attribute) of a nigadita (particular) karaNa (instrument or means of action or sense organ) and NOT the dharma of the kshetrajna. Hence above bhAshya to be understood that it is the jeeva ( who cognizes / operates through his sense organs) should be having the avidyA, it has to be understood like that only because in the language of shAstra he is none other than brahman (jeevo brahmaiva na aparaH)…And, by this, we cannot argue in such a way that since jeeva is brahman and there is no second chaitanya apart from brahman, brahman itself is avidyAvanta!! This reverse order is not permitted in advaita vedAnta, all we can say is jeeva is brahman but brahman is not the jeeva. Those who read the above bhAshya portion completely would come to know this clear distinction between jeeva as parichinna Chaitanya and brahman is paripUrNa nitya Shuddha Chaitanya. For the sake of clarity I am re-producing this bhAshya portion :
- In the matter of brahman, avidyA cannot exist at all, is it not?? The answer is : it is not proper to say so, since the vidyA has been instructed with the purport of realizing brahman. If no one misconceives rajana in shukti, is there any requirement to say : this is shukti only not rajata?? No, likewise if there were no avidyA with regard to brahman then shAstra would not have instructed us to realize brahman and that brahman is ONE and ONE ALONE and ALL THIS IS VERILY SAT ( sadevedaM sarvaM, brahmaivedaM sarvaM, AtmaivedaM sarvaM, nedam dvaitamastyabrahma etc.). And after accepting this, pUrvapaxi says brahman is not an ajna (ignorant one) who is responsible for superimposing a dharma which does not belong to it…For this siddhAnti clarifies, it is accepted that brahman is neither ajna nor associated with bhrAnti…BUT IF YOU SAY THAT apart from brhaman there exists another Chetana who is bhrAnta etc. we do not agree.
- It is quite clear from the above bhAshya that this statement is not the pramANa vAkya to prove brahmAshrita avidyA or brahma svarUpa (svabhAva) itself is avidyA, rather it is evident that all these issues crop up only in the dvaita vyavahAra which is the result of adhyAsa. AvidyA is just like pratyaya (in day to day transaction mithyA pratyaya rUpa) it is just antaHkaraNa dharma (geeta 13-2). There is absolutely no approval whatsoever by shri bhAshyakAra to advocate the theories like : avidyA is reposed or taking shelter in Atman itself or avidyA which is something solid (bhAvarUpa jada vastu) that can cover brahman itself or this avidyA is the very svabhAva of brahman.
- Brahman’s svarUpa / svabhAva itself avidya!! My god, what an apasiddhAnta is this!! If before jeeva bhAva and his transaction due to avidyA etc. brahman at the very beginning itself having this avidyA then it is nothing but absolute dvaita, no amount of jeeva sAdhana can help the brahman to get rid of his own svabhAva (very nature). Brahman should do separate sAdhana to get rid of it’s own avidyA but a loss!! Since this avidyA is his own nature I don’t think any amount of sAdhana on his part would help him to overcome his instinctive nature and whatever jeeva gains through sAdhana, that ultimate goal / brahman itself is having the avidyA/ajnAna as his own nature, in short, jeeva’s realization of brahman is avidyAvanta brahman😊
- It has been repeated many times, jeeva can become / realize that he is brahman by gaining vidyA through sAdhana OTOH brahman which is nitya Shuddha. Buddha, mukta, satchidaananda cannot get the avidyA to become jeeva / avidyAvanta. jnA adhikaraNa and urkrAntigatyadhikaraNa etc. very clearly saying though jeeva is of the nature of brahman brahman is NOT of the nature of jeeva…
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB6638DA5ED2827EE36D0780FA84042%40VI1PR06MB6638.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
Hare Krishna
These mails CC were going to Sri ChandramouLi prabhuji, I removed the CC as he is not interested in discussing these things. Hope he wont mind. Coming back to your mail :
It is not Shankara who is unambiguously stating that Avidya is for Brahman (NB) but it is based on the mantra/vakya that Shankara says so: ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीत्तदात्मानमेवावेदहं ब्रह्मास्मीति तस्मात्तत्सर्वमभवदिति ॥ Br.Up. 1.4.10 (Aham Brahmasmi).
- Please note even ‘before creation’ the mUlavidyAvAdins attributes avidyA to brahman, so brahma va edamagra Asit which is ekamevAdviteeyaM is either to be understood it is before creation one without second or one with avidyA to ‘become’ ‘all’….brahmAshrita avidyA propagates the theory of latter i.e. brahma with anirvachaneeya avidyA which has the locus in brahman itself would subsequently prompts brahman for the creation. OTOH above shruti saying ahaM brahmAsmeeti tasmAttatsarvamabhavat..if you want to read this DUE TO avidyA brahma become sarvaM and this is what shruti insisting, the siddhAnta ekamevAdviteeya satyatvaM of brahman which is shruti siddhAnta mercilessly diluted.
The Veda states: Even before knowing 'I am Brahman,' it was Brahman alone. Upon knowing this, it shed its finitude. Thus, it is a case of 'Brahman realizing its true nature and becoming freed'. The vakya is not constructed: the jiva realized "Aham Brahmasmi."
- Yes this is what I reiterated in my previous mail as well. In the language of shAstra there is no jeeva as separate Chaitanya, he is brahman only na aparaH…he ( the jeeva) was / is / will always brahman only irrespective of whether he is knowing this or not. And he only with the susamskruta mana, shAstra and Acharya upadesha through shravaNAdi sAdhana realizes that ahaM brahmAsmi or I am THAT secondless truth. It is jeeva who will get rid of his avidyA and realizes his true nature and it is obviously wrong to say that brahman itself has created avidyA for Itself or that brahman itself is confused? As per siddhAnta Ishwara is always avidyA vinirmukta.
In fact the Chandogya too says: अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य’ (छा. उ. ६ । ३ । २) Brahman has entered the bodies as the jivas. Thus it is Brahman that appears endowed with avidya, performs sadhana, and seemingly attains liberation.
- Who is that Chetana apart from brahman?? There is no second Chetana so it is shAreeri due to his upAdhi saMbandha thinks that he is abrahma, asarvaM etc. the shAstra teaches him
that he is secondless hope you agree shAstra is teaching these things to nirvikAri / nirvishesha brahman to realize its true nature. We cannot say brahman through its antaHkaraNa does the sAdhana etc. it is jeeva who is Chetana, shareerAdhyaksha, prANavanta
( chetanaH shareeraadhyakshaH prANANAM dhArayitA jeevaH) he is not parameshwara as long as he is entangled in his own BMI..he is the one kartA, bhOkta he is the experiencer of saMsAra sukha-duHkha, he is the dharmAdharma sAdhaka and finally he is the one realizes
his dvandvAteeta svarUpa. In this scenario, jeeva is sAdhaka and parameshwara is jneya brahma…we cannot mix this and say parabrahman is ajnAni and has to do sAdhana etc. I am really surprising why these very simple things cannot be graspable!!??
or brahma svarUpa / svabhAva itsef avidyA ( the latest one from recent post 😊) from the bhAshya vAkya-s like above, we simply guide them to sUtra bhAshya 4-1-3, where bhAshyakAra declares that if you know that you are brahman then there is no ajnAna to anyone whatsoever & geeta bhAshya 13-2 where bhAshyakAra again proved and clarified that avidyA is NOT the dharma of kshetrajna.
Who ever stated that avidya is the dharma of the kshetrajna? In fact the dialogue in BGB 13.2 only clarifies that even avidya is an object, vishaya, for the sākshi, kshetrajna. And it can't be the dharma/property of the Atman. If it were kshetrajna-dharma, it could never leave him.
- First please educate me what is the difference between one’s dharma and svabhAva and how these two aspects are quite different from one’s svarUpa. You might have read the argument that brahman has the svabhAva of avidyA though it is not his svarUpa. Please come out with clear explanation about dharma and svabhAva and prove how bhAshya endorses brahman is having the svabhAva of avidyA and kshetrajna dharma is not avidyA but Vishaya to him (external to him). Can svabhAva of brahman can leave him?? and how do you do the samanvaya between 1.4.10 of bruhad bhAshya and 13.2 of geeta bhAshya to prove that at one place brahman itself having avidyA and at other place avidyA is not the dharma of kshetrajna since avidyA is Vishaya and some vyAkhyAna which says brahman’s very svabhAva is avidyA!!.
This charge of yours is exactly what is termed: akāṇḍa tāṇḍava. अनुक्तोपालम्भः objecting something that has not been stated.
- First be clear in the definitions with regard to svabhAva, svarUpa, dharma etc. how it is applicable in the topic : brahman’s dharma is not avidyA but svabhAva is avidyA while in his svarUpa he is nirvikAri and nirvishesha…Note, you cannot bring the concept of jeeva here as you are not accepting avidyA (in all three forms) is jeeva’s antaHkaraNa dOsha but promoting the theory brahman’s svabhAva itself avidyA.
V Subrahmanian
praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
Hare Krishna
These mails CC were going to Sri ChandramouLi prabhuji, I removed the CC as he is not interested in discussing these things. Hope he wont mind. Coming back to your mail :
It is not Shankara who is unambiguously stating that Avidya is for Brahman (NB) but it is based on the mantra/vakya that Shankara says so: ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीत्तदात्मानमेवावेदहं ब्रह्मास्मीति तस्मात्तत्सर्वमभवदिति ॥ Br.Up. 1.4.10 (Aham Brahmasmi).
- Please note even ‘before creation’...
Shankara says: Brahman, which created and entered the universe and is in the body, was Brahman alone and also all this before It knew It was Brahman. That is, Brahman, before knowing "I am Brahman," was Brahman, the sarvatma. It somehow came to be taught by an acharya who instructed, "You are not a samsari...". Shankara uses the *napumsaka tat*, not the *pullinga*, to denote the *jiva*. So, the Upanishad and Shankara are taking about Brahman alone as the one subject to avidya, performing sadhana, and achieving realization. It is given that all this is ultimately adhyaropita. So, the Brahmashrita avidya is taught by the Upanishad and endorsed by Shankara. If someone is okay with jiva having avidya, what is wrong in saying Brahman has avidya on the same rule: // In the language of shAstra there is no jeeva as separate Chaitanya, he is brahman only na aparaH// ? In fact, in the siddhanta, even the jiva is not truly avidyavan; avidya is only aagantuka, not a svarupa of the jiva.
- the mUlavidyAvAdins attributes avidyA to brahman, so brahma va edamagra Asit which is ekamevAdviteeyaM is either to be understood it is before creation one without second or one with avidyA to ‘become’ ‘all’….brahmAshrita avidyA propagates the theory of latter i.e. brahma with anirvachaneeya avidyA which has the locus in brahman itself would subsequently prompts brahman for the creation. OTOH above shruti saying ahaM brahmAsmeeti tasmAttatsarvamabhavat..if you want to read this DUE TO avidyA brahma become sarvaM and this is what shruti insisting, the siddhAnta ekamevAdviteeya satyatvaM of brahman which is shruti siddhAnta mercilessly diluted.
The Veda states: Even before knowing 'I am Brahman,' it was Brahman alone. Upon knowing this, it shed its finitude. Thus, it is a case of 'Brahman realizing its true nature and becoming freed'. The vakya is not constructed: the jiva realized "Aham Brahmasmi."
- Yes this is what I reiterated in my previous mail as well. In the language of shAstra there is no jeeva as separate Chaitanya, he is brahman only na aparaH…he ( the jeeva) was / is / will always brahman only irrespective of whether he is knowing this or not. And he only with the susamskruta mana, shAstra and Acharya upadesha through shravaNAdi sAdhana realizes that ahaM brahmAsmi or I am THAT secondless truth. It is jeeva who will get rid of his avidyA and realizes his true nature and it is obviously wrong to say that brahman itself has created avidyA for Itself or that brahman itself is confused? As per siddhAnta Ishwara is always avidyA vinirmukta.
In fact the Chandogya too says: अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य’ (छा. उ. ६ । ३ । २) Brahman has entered the bodies as the jivas. Thus it is Brahman that appears endowed with avidya, performs sadhana, and seemingly attains liberation.
- Who is that Chetana apart from brahman?? There is no second Chetana so it is shAreeri due to his upAdhi saMbandha thinks that he is abrahma, asarvaM etc. the shAstra teaches him that he is secondless hope you agree shAstra is teaching these things to nirvikAri / nirvishesha brahman to realize its true nature. We cannot say brahman through its antaHkaraNa does the sAdhana etc. it is jeeva who is Chetana, shareerAdhyaksha, prANavanta ( chetanaH shareeraadhyakshaH prANANAM dhArayitA jeevaH) he is not parameshwara as long as he is entangled in his own BMI..he is the one kartA, bhOkta he is the experiencer of saMsAra sukha-duHkha, he is the dharmAdharma sAdhaka and finally he is the one realizes his dvandvAteeta svarUpa. In this scenario, jeeva is sAdhaka and parameshwara is jneya brahma…we cannot mix this and say parabrahman is ajnAni and has to do sAdhana etc. I am really surprising why these very simple things cannot be graspable!!??
or brahma svarUpa / svabhAva itsef avidyA ( the latest one from recent post 😊) from the bhAshya vAkya-s like above, we simply guide them to sUtra bhAshya 4-1-3, where bhAshyakAra declares that if you know that you are brahman then there is no ajnAna to anyone whatsoever & geeta bhAshya 13-2 where bhAshyakAra again proved and clarified that avidyA is NOT the dharma of kshetrajna.
Who ever stated that avidya is the dharma of the kshetrajna? In fact the dialogue in BGB 13.2 only clarifies that even avidya is an object, vishaya, for the sākshi, kshetrajna. And it can't be the dharma/property of the Atman. If it were kshetrajna-dharma, it could never leave him.
- First please educate me what is the difference between one’s dharma and svabhAva and how these two aspects are quite different from one’s svarUpa. You might have read the argument that brahman has the svabhAva of avidyA though it is not his svarUpa. Please come out with clear explanation about dharma and svabhAva and prove how bhAshya endorses brahman is having the svabhAva of avidyA and kshetrajna dharma is not avidyA but Vishaya to him (external to him). Can svabhAva of brahman can leave him?? and how do you do the samanvaya between 1.4.10 of bruhad bhAshya and 13.2 of geeta bhAshya to prove that at one place brahman itself having avidyA and at other place avidyA is not the dharma of kshetrajna since avidyA is Vishaya and some vyAkhyAna which says brahman’s very svabhAva is avidyA!!.
This charge of yours is exactly what is termed: akāṇḍa tāṇḍava. अनुक्तोपालम्भः objecting something that has not been stated.
- First be clear in the definitions with regard to svabhAva, svarUpa, dharma etc. how it is applicable in the topic : brahman’s dharma is not avidyA but svabhAva is avidyA while in his svarUpa he is nirvikAri and nirvishesha…Note, you cannot bring the concept of jeeva here as you are not accepting avidyA (in all three forms) is jeeva’s antaHkaraNa dOsha but promoting the theory brahman’s svabhAva itself avidyA.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB66382D77199F2E90C4BCFEAB84042%40VI1PR06MB6638.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
Hare Krishna
- OK before closing office my last mail today. Thanks to rare free time at office today 😊
Please note that in this mantra, "idam agrey" means not 'before creation', but 'even before knowing itself as I am Brahman.' The bhashya makes this clear:
Ø Don’t you think this knowing not knowing etc. valid only when there is the knower (pramAtru) and then there is pramANa and prameya?? The jeeva’s fate explained here…not that brahman himself having these type of trifle doubts about himself…he is nitya buddha..(always /eternally svarUpa sthita).
Shankara says: Brahman, which created and entered the universe and is in the body, was Brahman alone and also all this before It knew It was Brahman. That is, Brahman, before knowing "I am Brahman," was Brahman, the sarvatma. It somehow came to be taught
by an acharya who instructed, "You are not a samsari...".
- See here all this has been said in dvaita vyavahAra where Acharya teaches his shishya…shastra will not take special trouble to specify every time that it is jeeva as this jeeva ultimately in svarUpa brahman and nothing but brahman.
Shankara uses the *napumsaka tat*, not the *pullinga*, to denote the *jiva*.
- Yes, but this jeeva what is having in its is tat only….see tat and tvam padArtha in chAndOgya…though tvaM in svarUpa nothing but tat, uddaalaka taken all the trouble to teach shwetaketu YOU are THAT.
So, the Upanishad and Shankara are taking about Brahman alone as the one subject to avidya, performing sadhana, and achieving realization.
- So according to this, brahman is (not jeeva) having the antaHkaraNa having the avidyA performing the sAdhana and achieving the realization…so there is no talk about shaareeri (jeevaatma) in sAdhana prakaraNa 😊
It is given that all this is ultimately adhyaropita.
- In this prakriya (adhyArOpa apavAda) brahman is NOT the avidyAvanta…there is shAstra adhyArOpa and there is jeeva’s adhyArOpa but before all this there is nothing like this vyavahAra in brahman itself to say : brahman becomes jeeva by acquiring avidyA or by losing his nitya jnAna svarUpa.
So, the Brahmashrita avidya is taught by the Upanishad and endorsed by Shankara.
- Not really, brahman has been taught nitya Shuddha buddha mukta svabhAvaM.
If someone is okay with jiva having avidya, what is wrong in saying Brahman has avidya on the same rule:
- Reverse order is apasiddhAnta…we can say ring is gold not gold is ring.
// In the language of shAstra there is no jeeva as separate Chaitanya, he is brahman only na aparaH// ?
In fact, in the siddhanta, even the jiva is not truly avidyavan; avidya is only aagantuka, not a svarupa of the jiva.
Ø Yes, even in the day to day vyavahAra also pratyagAtma / vijnAnAtma is not the custodian of avidyA…hence kindly spare brahman from avidyA 😊
- the mUlavidyAvAdins attributes avidyA to brahman, so brahma va edamagra Asit which is ekamevAdviteeyaM is either to be understood it is before creation one without second or one with avidyA to ‘become’ ‘all’….brahmAshrita avidyA propagates the theory of latter i.e. brahma with anirvachaneeya avidyA which has the locus in brahman itself would subsequently prompts brahman for the creation. OTOH above shruti saying ahaM brahmAsmeeti tasmAttatsarvamabhavat..if you want to read this DUE TO avidyA brahma become sarvaM and this is what shruti insisting, the siddhAnta ekamevAdviteeya satyatvaM of brahman which is shruti siddhAnta mercilessly diluted.
There is no dilution of ekamevadviteeya satyatvam even if Brahman is admitted to have avidya. This is because, the Upanishad itself has said: even before knowing I am Brahman, it was Brahman, the All.
- See once again your own statement he is ekamevaadviteeya satyaM and at the same time it is having avidyA!!??
So, the question of dilution never arises.
- Definitely arises as there is avidyAvanta brahman sitting pretty even before any talk about jagat and jeeva 😊
The one only without a second infinite Brahman status is amply protected by the Upanishad and Shankara.
- Yes, but unfortunately not by vyAkhyAnakAra-s as they have pasted the avidyA to nirvishesha brahman.
This vakya itself implies that the intervening avidya is not real. If it was real, then the question of ekamevadviteeyam being lost/diluted arises. But such is not the case.
Ø If that is the truth, what great thing is going to be achieved by pasting the avidyA to brahman?? Don’t you better served if we accept jeeva ( Chaitanya which is having the upAdhi saMbandha) that is suffering from anAdi avidyA/adhyAsa and ultimately through sAdhana realizes that his svarUpa is avidyArahita paripUrNa Chaitanya??
V Subrahmanian
praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
Hare Krishna
- OK before closing office my last mail today. Thanks to rare free time at office today 😊
Please note that in this mantra, "idam agrey" means not 'before creation', but 'even before knowing itself as I am Brahman.' The bhashya makes this clear:
Ø Don’t you think this knowing not knowing etc. valid only when there is the knower (pramAtru) and then there is pramANa and prameya?? The jeeva’s fate explained here…not that brahman himself having these type of trifle doubts about himself…he is nitya buddha..(always /eternally svarUpa sthita).
Brihadaranyaka Bhashya: 2.5.15:
यथा मधुब्राह्मणे दर्शितं तथा — तस्मात् ब्रह्मविज्ञानात् एवँलक्षणात् पूर्वमपि, ब्रह्मैव सत् अविद्यया अब्रह्म आसीत् , सर्वमेव च सत् असर्वमासीत् — तां तु अविद्याम् अस्माद्विज्ञानात् तिरस्कृत्य ब्रह्मवित् ब्रह्मैव सन् ब्रह्माभवत् , सर्वः सः सर्वमभवत् ।
Akilesh Ayyar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0xo0%3D_v4yroNqaFTxJJ6xFtXauwHq3fE-VopYRFmVY6A%40mail.gmail.com.