कथं प्राणशब्दत्वं अव्याकृतस्य । "प्राणबन्धनं
हि सोम्य मनः"(छा.उ६ । ८ । २) इति श्रुतेः ।
ननु तत्र"सदेव सोम्य"(छा.उ६ । २ ।
१) इति प्रकृतं सद्ब्रह्म प्राणशब्दवाच्यम्
।
नैष दोषो बीजात्मकत्वाभ्युपगमात्सतः । यद्यपि तद्ब्रह्म प्राणशब्दवाच्यं तत्र तथापि जीवप्रसवबीजात्मकत्वं अपिरत्यज्य एव प्राणशब्दत्वं सतः सच्छब्दवाच्यता च । यदि हि निर्बीजरूपं विवक्षितं ब्रह्माभविष्यत् "नेति नेति"(बृ.उ.४.४.२)"यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते"(तै.उ.२.९)"अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथाविदितात्"(के.उ१.३) इत्यवक्ष्यत् । "न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते"(गीता.१३.१२) इति स्मृतेः । निर्बीजतयैव चेत्सति लीनानां सुषुप्तप्रलययोः पुनरुत्थानानुपपत्तिः स्यात् । मुक्तानां च पुनरुत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गो बीजाभावाविशेषात् । ज्ञानदाह्यबीजाभावे च ज्ञानानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गः ।
तस्मात्सबीजत्वाभ्युपगमेन एव सतः प्राणत्वव्यपदेशः सर्वश्रुतिषु च कारणत्वव्यपदेशः ।
अत एव"अक्षरात्परतः परः"(मु.उ२.१.२) ।
"सबाह्याभ्यान्तरो ह्यजः" (मु.उ२.१.२) ।
"यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते"(तै.उ२.९) ।
"नेति नेति"(बृ.उ४.४.१२) इत्यादिना बीजवत्वापनयनेन व्यपदेशः ।
तां बीजावस्थां तस्यैव प्राज्ञशब्दवाच्यस्य तुरीयत्वेन देहादिसंबन्धजाग्रदादिरहितां पारमार्थिकीं पृथग्वक्ष्यति ।
बीजावस्थापि न किञ्चिदवेदिषमित्युत्थितस्य प्रत्ययदर्शनाद्देहेऽनुभूयत एवेति त्रिधा देहे व्यवस्थितेत्युच्यते । ।२ । ।
regards
subrahmanian.v
--
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/CAKk0Te3HqxKSxsrJ3nO7AJv9RFX5vqUAtV-0hw-GAC43pc46wA%40mail.gmail.com.
praNAms Sri Suresh prabhuji
Hare Krishna
If avidya is the root cause for birth of ordinary jivas, what is the cause for the avatAra of jnAnIs like Sri Shankara and the Lord who are nityamuktas?
It is also said that these avatArAs are repeated in every kalpa. If it is said that it is due to their own sankalpa then it would make Brahman saguna. So how to reconcile nirguNatva/Nishkriyatva of Brahman with the avatArAs of nitya muktAs?
Ø As said above, all these are hold good in the module like SDV, just vyAvahArika and ultimately no srushti, no jnAni, no mumukshu and NO mOksha/ mukta-s.
The teaching in Vivek chUDAaNi - "BrahmAsrayA triguNAtmika mAyA asti" - points to the fact that mAyA continues to exist potentially as a dependent entity on Brahman. That would again make Brahman saguna.
Ø There is shakti and shakta abedha when it comes to mAya and Ishwara from this no Advaita hAni. But when it is said mAya is avidyA then there is anishta prasanga that brahman is having avidyA as his power. And some in Advaita would agree to this and argue: yes it is brahma who is having avidyA and this avidyA is having the locus in brahman even before the creation of jagat. The notorious mUlAvidyAvAda in the later vyAkhyAnakAra-s work which completely ignores the adhyAsavAda of shankara and propagates the mUlAvidyAvAda.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
praNAms
Hare Krishna
This is not reply to any mail, but sharing my observations jeeva, avyakta/mAya and avidyA. We have done and dusted sUtra bhAshya 1.4.3 in this list itself somany times earlier, so need for autopsy once again as there is nothing new has been said sofar.
By the way when we say avidyA is in the form of abhAva we say that it is jnana-abhAva that is called avidyA not that avidyA itself is abhAva, I hope one can understand the difference between avidyA is jnana abhAva AND avidyA is in itself abhAva.
First of all as we have been reiterating avidyA and mAya are not same. In srushti mAya is Ishwara shakti and avidyA is jeeva’s antaHkaraNa dOsha. There are ample of references in bhAshya to treat avidyA and mAya differently. Just by holding avidyAtmikA hi beeja shaktiH avyakta Shabda nirdeshya (1.4.3) and trying to strike the synonymity is futile exercise because avyakta and avidyA are used with different meanings everywhere. At one place, bhAshyakAra compares avidyA as poison (visha) and avyAkruta as anna this one example is enough to stop the imagination of synonymity between avidyA and mAya/avyakta. Mama svarUpabhUtA madeeya mAya says lord what is ‘svarUpa’ of lord / brahman is not avidyA but it is his svabhAva if the mAya = avidyA then avidyA would become brahman’s svarUpa and svabhAva that which cannot be eradicated with any quantity of jnana. Moreover brahmAtmaikya jnana should happen through the complete eradication of ajnAna and this nishesha nirmUlana of ajnAna happens through the determination of true nature of brahman. And interestingly to realize this true nature of brahman we need the nAmarUpAtmaka jagat if this jagat itself is not there brahman’s intrinsic nature could never have been determined warns bhAshyakAra : yadi hi nAmarUpa na vyAkreeyete tadA asyAtmanO nirupAdhikaM rUpaM prajnAna ghanAkhyaM ‘na pratikhyAyeta’. vidyA cannot create anything new nor it destroys anything that is already existing it only reveals what is really existing in its svarUpa and that svarUpa of jagat is brahman and jnana removes the abrahmatvaM and asarvatvaM of that jagat and the jnana does not spin the jagat in thin air nor making the jagat to vanish…na tu paramArthikaM vastu kartuM nivartayitum vA arhati brahmavidyA clarifies shankara. It is in this sense it has been said the sUkshma and stUla deha of jeeva is the effect of mAya and jeeva’s false identification with it is called adhyAsa (dehAtmabhAva, ahamkara, mamakAra) due to abhAva of his svarUpa jnana. When this wrong identification (anyathAgrahaNa/ vipareeta grahaNa) completely eradicated the jeeva would establishes himself in sarvAtmabhAva without identifying himself with limited compartment of his individual BMI.
मुक्तानां च पुनरनुत्पत्तिः । कुतः ? विद्यया तस्या बीजशक्तेर्दाहात्
praNAms Hare Krishna
After reading above bhAshya vAkya and thinking about equating avyAkruta with avidyA beeja shakti which has been completely burnt by jnana so that jnAni-s (mukta-s) would get punarAvrutti rahita mukti etc. I am getting additional doubt if avyAkruta jagat which is vyAkruta for the jnAni-s and ajnAni-s equally prior to jnana, if the jnAni’s vyAkruta jagat turns to ashes after jnana what happens to other ajnAni-s vyakruta jagat?? Is vyAkruta jagat is separate for each and every ajnAni?? And the ajnAni-s bodies also born from avyAkruta nAma rupa (unmanifested form) and this body is the base to experience the fruits of karma and if this avyakta is burnts by ones’ vidyA the beeja shakti of all the other jeeva-s also have been burnt to ashes and immediately after getting rid of avyAkruta (if at all this is the avidyA itself) all of them should have got realized without the efforts of their own!! Is it not?? We cannot bring-in here EJV to say all other jeeva-s are just imaginary because this bhAshyavAkya etc. talking about ‘some’ mukta-s and their subsequent birthless jnAna and ‘some’ other jeeva-s still in deep slumber (mahAsupti) with avidyA etc. And Ishwara, as we know, ishwaratva will be decided prakruti dvaya (prakruti dvayatvameva hi ishwarasya ishwaratvaM) if this avyAkruta prakruti itself burnt to ashes then ishwara is no more ishwara and in Advaita vedAnta IshwarAnugraha, ishwara kAruNya, he is karma phala dAta etc. goes for a big toss and Advaita Vedanta becomes nireeshwara vAda like sAnkhya. But ishwara as per Advaita is nityeshwara and he is avidyA vinirmukta (nityeshwaratvAt Ishwarasya).
And Ishwara’s mAya if equated with jeeva’s avidyA ( like comparing individual sushupti with mahAsupti / pralaya etc. to strike the conclusions that mAya=avidyA, illogically or out of context) then ishwara become jeeva and jeeva become Ishwara the difference between two in sadhana mArga would vanish and the path of progress taught in katha quoted in this very sUtra bhAshya would be pointless and fruitless.
So, when bhAshya talks about jnana is burning something it cannot be the jagat in its avyAkruta rUpa it must be something else, one needs to cautiously make the conclusion before equating mAya/avyakta with avidyA!!.
praNAms
Hare Krishna
This is not reply to any mail, but sharing my observations jeeva, avyakta/mAya and avidyA. We have done and dusted sUtra bhAshya 1.4.3 in this list itself somany times earlier, so need for autopsy once again as there is nothing new has been said sofar.
By the way when we say avidyA is in the form of abhAva we say that it is jnana-abhAva that is called avidyA not that avidyA itself is abhAva, I hope one can understand the difference between avidyA is jnana abhAva AND avidyA is in itself abhAva.
First of all as we have been reiterating avidyA and mAya are not same. In srushti mAya is Ishwara shakti and avidyA is jeeva’s antaHkaraNa dOsha. There are ample of references in bhAshya to treat avidyA and mAya differently. Just by holding avidyAtmikA hi beeja shaktiH avyakta Shabda nirdeshya (1.4.3) and trying to strike the synonymity is futile exercise because avyakta and avidyA are used with different meanings everywhere. At one place, bhAshyakAra compares avidyA as poison (visha) and avyAkruta as anna this one example is enough to stop the imagination of synonymity between avidyA and mAya/avyakta.
Mama svarUpabhUtA madeeya mAya says lord what is ‘svarUpa’ of lord / brahman is not avidyA but it is his svabhAva if the mAya = avidyA then avidyA would become brahman’s svarUpa and svabhAva that which cannot be eradicated with any quantity of jnana. Moreover brahmAtmaikya jnana should happen through the complete eradication of ajnAna and this nishesha nirmUlana of ajnAna happens through the determination of true nature of brahman. And interestingly to realize this true nature of brahman we need the nAmarUpAtmaka jagat if this jagat itself is not there brahman’s intrinsic nature could never have been determined warns bhAshyakAra : yadi hi nAmarUpa na vyAkreeyete tadA asyAtmanO nirupAdhikaM rUpaM prajnAna ghanAkhyaM ‘na pratikhyAyeta’. vidyA cannot create anything new nor it destroys anything that is already existing it only reveals what is really existing in its svarUpa and that svarUpa of jagat is brahman and jnana removes the abrahmatvaM and asarvatvaM of that jagat and the jnana does not spin the jagat in thin air nor making the jagat to vanish…na tu paramArthikaM vastu kartuM nivartayitum vA arhati brahmavidyA clarifies shankara.