the individual self, the Internal Ruler and the Immutable

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

A lucid bhashya passage Br. Up. III.viii.12

"What is the difference among them?

It is all due to limiting adjuncts, we reply: intrinsically there is neither difference nor identity among them, for they are by nature Pure Intelligence, homogeneous like a lump of salt... Therefore the unconditioned Self, being beyond speech and mind, undifferentiated and one, is designated as 'Not this, not this'; when It has the limiting adjunct of the body and organs, which are characterised by ignorance, desire and work, It is called the transmigrating individual self; and when the Self has the limiting adjunct of the power of eternal and unlimited knowledge (i.e. Maya), It is called the Internal Ruler and Ishvara. The same Self, as by nature transcendent, absolute and pure, is called the Immutable and Supreme Self. Similarly, having the limiting adjuncts of the bodies and organs of Hiranyagarbha, the Undifferentiated, the gods, the species, the individual, men, animals, spirits, etc., the Self assumes those particular names and forms... Therefore the above entities differ only because of their limiting adjuncts, but not otherwise, for all the Upanishads conclude: 'One only without a second' (Ch. VI. ii. 1)."

I noted his saying "neither difference nor identity" which can be understood: "not different from the standpoint of reality (substratum Self)" and "not identical from standpoint of appearance (upadhi identifications)". 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

 

It is all due to limiting adjuncts, we reply: intrinsically there is neither difference nor identity among them, for they are by nature Pure Intelligence, homogeneous like a lump of salt... Therefore the unconditioned Self, being beyond speech and mind, undifferentiated and one, is designated as 'Not this, not this'; when It has the limiting adjunct of the body and organs, which are characterised by ignorance, desire and work, It is called the transmigrating individual self; and when the Self has the limiting adjunct of the power of eternal and unlimited knowledge (i.e. Maya), It is called the Internal Ruler and Ishvara. The same Self, as by nature transcendent, absolute and pure, is called the Immutable and Supreme Self. Similarly, having the limiting adjuncts of the bodies and organs of Hiranyagarbha, the Undifferentiated, the gods, the species, the individual, men, animals, spirits, etc., the Self assumes those particular names and forms... Therefore the above entities differ only because of their limiting adjuncts, but not otherwise, for all the Upanishads conclude: 'One only without a second' (Ch. VI. ii. 1)."

I noted his saying "neither difference nor identity" which can be understood: "not different from the standpoint of reality (substratum Self)" and "not identical from standpoint of appearance (upadhi identifications)". 

I saw this pertinent comment of Jaishankar-ji in an earlier mail: "All upAdhis are anirvachaneeya  including the mUlAvidyA and are asat from the paramArtha standpoint. avidyA being ananya to brahman is what is conveyed by Ch Up 6th Chap, BG 2.16 and Br Su 2.1.14. As brahma-anyA the upAdhis don't have any existence."

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Bhaskar YR]

I saw this pertinent comment of Jaishankar-ji in an earlier mail: "All upAdhis are anirvachaneeya  including the mUlAvidyA and are asat from the paramArtha standpoint. avidyA being ananya to brahman is what is conveyed by Ch Up 6th Chap, BG 2.16 and Br Su 2.1.14. As brahma-anyA the upAdhis don't have any existence."

 

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes, upAdhi (nAma rUpa / mAyA karya) is anirvachaneeya, shankara gives foam & water example, this mAyA is avidyA kalpita says shankara in 2-1-14 OK agreed.  But where it has been said avidyA (that too mUlAvidyA) is also included in this!!??  As I have already said the concept of mAyA has been explained differently at different context.  At one place it has been said mAyA is avidyA kalpita, and another place it is brahman’s upAdhi, at another place it is said mAyA is anirvachaneeya and in yet another place it is insisted that it is brahmAnanya (not different from brahman).  Now the question is that which has already been decided as mithyA how can it be explained as anirvachaneeya at the same time.  No one says there is anirvachaneeya sarpa on the rajju, the sarpa parikalpane on rajju is mithyA jnana it is not anirvachaneeya sarpa that causes us mithyA jnana.  So that which already been established as mithyA cannot be anirvachaneeya at the same time.  Mama svarUpa bhUtA madeeya mAya says lord krishna if the avidyA (mAya) itself is ‘svarUpa’ of the omniscient lord are we seeking this lord who is having avidyA as his svarUpa??  upAdhi is not avidyA, upAdhi is karaNa to know the brahman, manasaivamedaaptavyaM neha nAnAsti kiMchana, shamadamAdi susamskruta manaH Atma darshane karaNaM says bhAshyakAra.  If the mind itself which is upAdhi is avidyA are we using avidyA as karaNa to know the brahman??  And in the kArya-kAraNa prakriya gold ring (kArya) helps us to know the gold in the ring (kAraNa).  Though the ring is kevala nAma rUpa (vAchAraMbhaNa for the gold) it is there to teach us the nAmarUpAteeta parabrahman.  As we know the shape of the ring does not going to affect the gold in any way.  The gold is entirely independent from the ring but ring (or nAma rUpa) what we are seeing does not exist apart from gold.  It is because of this reason the ‘real’ knowledge of gold is not influenced by the ring though it act as the medium to convey the knowledge of gold.  And more importantly we have to know this truth through upAdhi-s (karaNa-nAma rUpa) only since we don’t have any other alternative.  Yadi hi nAma rUpa na vyaakriyate asyAtmanO nirupAdhikaM rUpaM prajnAnaghanAkhyaM na pratikhyAyayet says shankara in br. Bh. 2.5.19.  In vyavahAra where jeeva is identifying with his BMI has to use this karaNa to realize he is prajnAnaghana brahman and he is ultimately nirupAdhika and nirvishesha brahman. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Bhaskar YR]

I noted his saying "neither difference nor identity" which can be understood: "not different from the standpoint of reality (substratum Self)" and "not identical from standpoint of appearance (upadhi identifications)". 

 

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Point very well observed.  Ring is nothing but gold but gold is not ring (kArya has the kAraNa but kAraNa is nirvishesha and nirAkAra) bhAshyakAra in sutra bhAshya explains this by saying : ananyatvepi kAryakAraNayoH karyasya kAraNatmatvaM “” na tu kAraNasya kAryAtmatvaM””.  Elsewhere he further confirms all the names and forms real only with reference to their cause but independently by themselves they are unreal (chandogya bhashya 6.3.2 vikArajAtaM svatastu anrutameva). 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

See below.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 3:24 PM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I saw this pertinent comment of Jaishankar-ji in an earlier mail: "All upAdhis are anirvachaneeya  including the mUlAvidyA and are asat from the paramArtha standpoint. avidyA being ananya to brahman is what is conveyed by Ch Up 6th Chap, BG 2.16 and Br Su 2.1.14. As brahma-anyA the upAdhis don't have any existence."

 

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes, upAdhi (nAma rUpa / mAyA karya) is anirvachaneeya, shankara gives foam & water example, this mAyA is avidyA kalpita says shankara in 2-1-14 OK agreed.  But where it has been said avidyA (that too mUlAvidyA) is also included in this!!?? 

Jai: Shankara in BG Bh 14.3 clealry says avidyA is also an upAdhi - अविद्याकामकर्मोपाधिस्वरूपानुविधायिनं क्षेत्रज्ञं क्षेत्रेण संयोजयामि इत्यर्थः । - I bring the field (क्षेत्र) into association with the Knower of the field (क्षेत्रज्ञ) who conforms to the nature of the limiting adjuncts (उपाधि), viz. ignorance, desire and activity. This one reference is good enough to negate the absurd jnAna-abhAva concoction.

 

As I have already said the concept of mAyA has been explained differently at different context.  At one place it has been said mAyA is avidyA kalpita, and another place it is brahman’s upAdhi, at another place it is said mAyA is anirvachaneeya and in yet another place it is insisted that it is brahmAnanya (not different from brahman).  Now the question is that which has already been decided as mithyA how can it be explained as anirvachaneeya at the same time. 

Jai: That which is ascertained as mithyA alone can be explained as anirvachaneeya since it is not real but still is / was available for perception. All mithyA need not be like rajju-sarpa. I think SSS and followers got deluded by this analogy as they stretched it too much. Stick to the upanishad analogy of clay-pot, gold-lump, and iron-nail-cutter and it will make sense - how that which is still available for perception is also mithya / asat / anrtam and anirvachaneeya.

 

No one says there is anirvachaneeya sarpa on the rajju, the sarpa parikalpane on rajju is mithyA jnana it is not anirvachaneeya sarpa that causes us mithyA jnana. 

Jai: How did the parikalpane happen? rajju ajnAna covered the raju and so rajju-vishesha-jnAna could not take place and then the projection happens based on similarity etc. for which again the upAdAna is ajnAna vritti in mind which is lighted up by the sAkshi to produce the erroneous cognition. The mithya-jnAna is due to mithyA-ajnAna. 

 

So that which already been established as mithyA cannot be anirvachaneeya at the same time.  Mama svarUpa bhUtA madeeya mAya says lord krishna if the avidyA (mAya) itself is ‘svarUpa’ of the omniscient lord are we seeking this lord who is having avidyA as his svarUpa??

 

 

Jai: Bhagavan says 

ईश्वरः सर्वभूतानां हृद्देशेऽर्जुन तिष्ठति । 

भ्रामयन्सर्वभूतानि यन्त्रारूढानि मायया ॥ 18.61

The Lord remains at the seat of the intellect of all beings, Arjuna, causing all beings to move, revolve, by (the magic of his) mAyA, (like) those (figures) which are mounted on a machine (are made to revolve). 

Bhasyakara says  मायया च्छद्मना भ्रामयन् तिष्ठति इति सम्बन्धः ॥

So Bhagavan's mAyA deludes the jIvas into action. So what is mAyA for Bhagavan is avidyA for the jIva. That is why it is said Isvara's samashti mAyA upAdhi is विशुद्धसत्त्वप्रधाना and individual jIva's upAdhi is मलिनसत्त्वप्रधाना.  Since brahman alone appears as jIva too, BhasyakAra in Br Up. 1.4.10 bhashya accepts that brahman alone has ajnAna as jIva and brahman knows itself as brahman to become sarvAtma (mukta). 

 

upAdhi is not avidyA,

Jai: Correct but avidyA is upAdhi as bhashyakAra points out.

 

upAdhi is karaNa to know the brahman, manasaivamedaaptavyaM neha nAnAsti kiMchana, shamadamAdi susamskruta manaH Atma darshane karaNaM says bhAshyakAra.  If the mind itself which is upAdhi is avidyA are we using avidyA as karaNa to know the brahman?? 

Jai: avidyA as an upAdhi is kAraNa (brahma) ananya. What is the problem in this? The entire dvaita pranpancha is avidyA / mAyA upAdhi krita and avidyA / mAyA also is mithyA like its kArya, the vyakta jagat. So all of them are negated revealing the true nature of brahma-atma. This jnAnam also has to take place only in one's mind like any other knowledge but this knowledge (akhandAkAra-vritti) negates the very knower, establishing one as just a limitless conscious being.

 

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581721A3A76134D9715366E841B9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

Others are answering you already, with scriptural references. I don't know what I can add. I already gave my way of thinking (am tagging below from past mails). As I said before, I don't use the word avidya in general, opting maya when referring to shakti of Ishvara/Brahman and ajnana/adhyasa when referring to ~ ignorance. If I did use it independently, I will probably use it in the ignorance sense because that would be immediately natural to the word "a-vidya". However, I am not averse to accepting the extended usage in the tradition and in the bhashya where avidya is used interchangeably with maya in a higher standpoint; explanations in my quotes below.

I also see that you are agreeing Shankara uses the terms in multiple senses at different places. That to me is another reason why it should not be a big contradiction to advaita if "avidya" and "maya" are used equivalently in a suitable primal sense. I realize you don't agree to this but I don't see a compelling reason to dismiss all the references given by the traditionalist side.

(As per Swami Gambhirananda's translation) 

BSB 2.1.14: "Name and Form constitute the seeds of the entire expanse of phenomenal existence, and which are conjured up by nescience, are, as it were, non-different from the omniscient God, and they are non-determinable either as real or unreal, and are mentioned in the Vedas and the Smritis as the power, called Maya, of omniscient God, or as prakriti. But omniscient God is different from them, as is known from the Upanishadic text, "That which is Space (Brahman) is the accomplisher of name and form. That in which they subsist is Brahman" (Ch. VIII. xiv.1). ... "Let me manifest name and form" (Ch. VI. iii. 2), ... Thus .. God conforms to the limiting adjuncts - name and form - created by nescience. And within the domain of empirical existence, He rules it over the selves which identify themselves with the intellects and are called creatures, and which though identical with Himself, conform ... to the assemblages of bodies and senses created by name and form that are called up by nescience. Thus God's rulership, omniscience, and omnipotence are contingent on the limiting adjuncts conjured up by nescience; but not so in reality can such terms as "the ruler", "the ruled", "omniscience", etc. be used with regard to the Self shining in Its own nature after the removal of all limiting adjuncts through illumination."

This name and form anirvachaneeya jagat is available for the ajnani jiva, the jnani jiva and to Ishvara who are themselves God (Brahman+Maya) conforming to limiting adjuncts created (projected) by nescience (Avidya=Maya). The ajnani is subject to ajnana/avidya in the ignorance sense as well, whereas the jnani and ishvara who have illumination know that such limited cognitions are not so in reality. They have knowledge/cognition of the Real even amidst the reflected cognition of the unreal (name-form). 

-----------------------------------

Quote

When duality (nama-rupa) is seen separately in any sense whatsoever and one speaks (based on shastra drishti) of Brahman/Self being the non-dual Reality of that duality, then implicit to such a standpoint is the affirmation in Brahman of the intrinsic shakti to project/see itself as that separate or changing nama-rupa duality; and this we call Maya-shakti of Brahman. 

If in that duality-movie, the jiva is said to see this and do that, then the jiva is being associated with its own shakti to manifest in consciousness what it does. Because the jiva's shakti is operating under the spell of avidya or ajnana, it may be referred to as avidya-shakti. 

But this distinction of maya-shakti in Ishvara and avidya-shakti in jiva is superfluous because from the standpoint of knowledge, the entire movie reduces to being the Screen's (Brahman's) projection; and hence the different identifications of shakti reduce to a fundamental shakti in Brahman, that I still refer to as Maya (ala Mandukya karika 2.12) and I think is what traditionalists call Mulaavidya. 

Unquote

Quote

Once you admit adhyasa, it belongs to the Self as there is nothing apart from Self. "I am the one who is doing (is cause for) this adhyasa". And the Self seen in the context of your admitted adhyasa is then known as the projector or cause or doer of this adhyasa. But what is the Self? The shastra says it is not the jiva or the mind but is Brahman, the reality of All. Hence, this adhyasa has the Maya of Brahman as root cause. The universe of adhyasa/ajnana/avidya is only the vikshepa of Brahman+Maya.

Unquote

Quote

The connotation of delusion typically applies to the karmi jiva (and not the karmaphaladaata Ishvara) within the appearance/movie projected by Maya. Therefore we can say Brahman, the wielder of Maya, appears to be deluded as it were, in the context of that jiva-identification...

Both Ishvara and Jiva are "as it were" manifestation/appearance of Brahman in conjunction with Maya. So, the (iccha-jnana-kriya) shakti of jiva (call it avidya-shakti impelling ajnanis) and of Ishvara (call it maya-shakti) are non-different from the unitary shakti (call it Maya or Avidya) associated with Brahman that manifests as it were the jiva and Ishvara.

Unquote

So in this viewpoint, even the world seen erroneously by the jiva due to ... avidya [ala ignorance] is still part of the vikshepa of Brahman+Maya. The traditionalist (as I understand) does not find conflict therefore in identifying avidya with the Maya of Brahman, when understood from a higher standpoint. 

Here is Jaishankar-ji expressing a similar understanding:

Quote

There is no problem whether avidyA or mAyA is used. mAyA is used only to show that isvara is not under the sway of his own mAyA like a magician is not fooled by his own magic, while the jIva is deluded by avidyA / mAyA.

The same bija / kAraNa is[/]can [be] called as mAyA with reference to Isvara and avidyA with reference to jIva.

Unquote

thollmelukaalkizhu

--

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

(reality. They have knowledge/cognition of the Real even amidst the reflected cognition of the unreal (name-form). 

I mention these 2 types of cognition as referred to in bhashya BG 2.16. 

My understanding of debate:

What irks some is why are we talking of anything (name-form) being unreal when there is only Brahman and moreover that the Jnani who knows Sarvam Brahman has also this second type of cognition which (according to them) should be regarded strictly as a product of the ajnani-jiva’s “avidya”/adhyasa and not Brahman’s Maya/“Avidya”.

The other side grants this Advaita drishti or paramarthika standpoint where the Real alone stands affirmed, but that the vyavaharika standpoint founded on the seer-seen divide (and in which name-form seen can be regarded real) is not absent to a jnani when he is himself being identified in that standpoint. Removing ajnana about Self as adhishtana does not amount to making the reflected consciousness vanish for that Jnani. Hence the name-form seen (standing opposite to seer) is mithya (unreal/asap with reference to paramarthika) and affirmed in this vyavaharika as manifest-Brahman or as conjured by Brahman’s Maya=Avidya. 

thollmelukaalkizhu 

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

What irks some is why are we talking of anything (name-form) being unreal when there is only Brahman and moreover that the Jnani who knows Sarvam Brahman has also this second type of cognition which (according to them) should be regarded strictly as a product of the ajnani-jiva’s “avidya”/adhyasa and not Brahman’s Maya/“Avidya”.

The other side grants this Advaita drishti or paramarthika standpoint where the Real alone stands affirmed, but that the vyavaharika standpoint founded on the seer-seen divide (and in which name-form seen can be regarded real) is not absent to a jnani when he is himself being identified in that standpoint. Removing ajnana about Self as adhishtana does not amount to making the reflected consciousness vanish for that Jnani. Hence the name-form seen (standing opposite to seer) is mithya (unreal/asap with reference to paramarthika) and affirmed in this vyavaharika as manifest-Brahman or as conjured by Brahman’s Maya=Avidya. 

One can also think a bit in a sankhya manner, that vyavaharika standpoint posits a Purusha-Prakriti duality where Purusha is satya and advaitam (unlike in sankhya) - the Adhishtana Screen, and separate and independent from this still Purusha is Prakriti/Maya/Avidya, the shakti that conjures/projects/superimposes the nama-rupa movie, including self-identifications, onto the Screen. 

From here we can look at it in the two ways:

1. So long as there is experience of duality however, this Maya/Avidya that conjures it is intrinsic to and inseparable from its locus Brahman (that alone confers existence to anything posited in any sense); hence we can only know the adhishtana in this standpoint as Brahman+Maya; and all the duality as the Purusha's manifestation by recourse to its Power of Maya. If you see "pot" in Clay, then it is because in that standpoint, the Clay appears/projects (is manifest) as pot; if you take the intrinsic standpoint of Clay, then no question of pot.

2. Even though nama-rupa derives existence and identity from Brahman on which it appears, the source Maya/Avidya cannot be said to have locus in Brahman. If you see "snake" in Rope, it is not the Rope that appears/projects as snake, but a separate anirvachaneeya power that makes the rope appear as snake.

Note that a sankhya-like dualistic construct can aid in retaining the paramarthika sanctity to Brahman even in vyavaharika standpoint by throwing all duality onto a separate cause Maya/Avidya. Perspective 2 tries to follow this. Perspective 1 does not quite admit this explicit duality of a still Shiva and an independent mad Kali dancing on Him: there is 'One', always one and yet appearing as many. Rather than getting overly caught in "which is right?", we can allow for "different approaches can be useful to highlight advaita tattva".

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Pardon me for the brevity in my reply, have to handle too many issues amidst official work and hardly have any support in this list, of late  feeling isolated though there are some mute readers in this list are very active in FB in the group exclusively dedicated to discuss Sri SSS works and view points😊

 

 

(reality. They have knowledge/cognition of the Real even amidst the reflected cognition of the unreal (name-form). 

 

I mention these 2 types of cognition as referred to in bhashya BG 2.16. 

 

Ø     jnAni’s drushti is based on satyatva drushti or Atmaikatva drushti or samyak drushti it is eka darshana ( seeing ONLY the gold in different ornaments like a goldsmith)

 

My understanding of debate:

 

What irks some is why are we talking of anything (name-form) being unreal when there is only Brahman and moreover that the Jnani who knows Sarvam Brahman has also this second type of cognition which (according to them) should be regarded strictly as a product of the ajnani-jiva’s “avidya”/adhyasa and not Brahman’s Maya/“Avidya”.

 

Ø     Ishwara’s mAyA kArya like kAraNa abAdhita ( trikAla abAdhita satyaM) what is being negated after jnana is ajnAni’s mithyA kalpita jagat which is ajnAna janya.  I have given example for this based on bhAshya.

 

The other side grants this Advaita drishti or paramarthika standpoint where the Real alone stands affirmed, but that the vyavaharika standpoint founded on the seer-seen divide (and in which name-form seen can be regarded real) is not absent to a jnani when he is himself being identified in that standpoint. As

 

• Mere seeing the rock as rock not ajnAna as it is uniformly available for the cognition to everyone.  Seeing the rock different from him attributing the separate/independent existence to it aloof from its substratum is ajnAna or parichinna drushti.  bhAshyakAra explains this as abrahma / asarvam / aviveka drushti.

 

Removing ajnana about Self as adhishtana does not amount to making the reflected consciousness vanish for that Jnani. Hence the name-form seen (standing opposite to seer) is mithya (unreal/asap with reference to paramarthika) and affirmed in this vyavaharika as manifest-Brahman or as conjured by Brahman’s Maya=Avidya. 

 

Ø     paramArtha jnana is not vyvahAra abhAva jnana it is vyavahAra bAdhita jnana from that drushti for the jnAni everything is brahman and nothing but brahman.  His drushti is satyAtma drushti not mithyA drushti as his realization fetch him the bhUma drushti in which he realizes there was / is / never be a thing that can be labelled as ‘anAtma’.  bhAshyakAra is quite explicit in this. 

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

Pardon me for the brevity in my reply, have to handle too many issues amidst official work and hardly have any support in this list, of late  feeling isolated though there are some mute readers in this list are very active in FB in the group exclusively dedicated to discuss Sri SSS works and view points😊

In that case we are always isolated by numbers, ~ 3-5 vocal participants at any point of time. Now it is 1 vs 2+1; but at least you know you have support defending SSS elsewhere. And you also seem not as inclined to respond to the others. I am sort of the weak link when it comes to deciphering your sanskrit words and quoting back shastra.

I will leave it here having given my understanding and you have stated the SSS position. If any of the silent members, of either side or seeking clarity, raise questions or objections over our mails, I will get back on it.

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

(reality. They have knowledge/cognition of the Real even amidst the reflected cognition of the unreal (name-form). 

 

I mention these 2 types of cognition as referred to in bhashya BG 2.16. 

 

Ø     jnAni’s drushti is based on satyatva drushti or Atmaikatva drushti or samyak drushti it is eka darshana ( seeing ONLY the gold in different ornaments like a goldsmith)

 

My understanding of debate:

 

What irks some is why are we talking of anything (name-form) being unreal when there is only Brahman and moreover that the Jnani who knows Sarvam Brahman has also this second type of cognition which (according to them) should be regarded strictly as a product of the ajnani-jiva’s “avidya”/adhyasa and not Brahman’s Maya/“Avidya”.

 

Ø     Ishwara’s mAyA kArya like kAraNa abAdhita ( trikAla abAdhita satyaM) what is being negated after jnana is ajnAni’s mithyA kalpita jagat which is ajnAna janya.  I have given example for this based on bhAshya.

 

The other side grants this Advaita drishti or paramarthika standpoint where the Real alone stands affirmed, but that the vyavaharika standpoint founded on the seer-seen divide (and in which name-form seen can be regarded real) is not absent to a jnani when he is himself being identified in that standpoint. As

 

• Mere seeing the rock as rock not ajnAna as it is uniformly available for the cognition to everyone.  Seeing the rock different from him attributing the separate/independent existence to it aloof from its substratum is ajnAna or parichinna drushti.  bhAshyakAra explains this as abrahma / asarvam / aviveka drushti.

 

Removing ajnana about Self as adhishtana does not amount to making the reflected consciousness vanish for that Jnani. Hence the name-form seen (standing opposite to seer) is mithya (unreal/asap with reference to paramarthika) and affirmed in this vyavaharika as manifest-Brahman or as conjured by Brahman’s Maya=Avidya. 

 

Ø     paramArtha jnana is not vyvahAra abhAva jnana it is vyavahAra bAdhita jnana from that drushti for the jnAni everything is brahman and nothing but brahman.  His drushti is satyAtma drushti not mithyA drushti as his realization fetch him the bhUma drushti in which he realizes there was / is / never be a thing that can be labelled as ‘anAtma’.  bhAshyakAra is quite explicit in this. 

 

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581390854A3D4AE89A54907841A9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

I am sort of the weak link when it comes to deciphering your sanskrit words and quoting back shastra.

 

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Oh!! If that is what your impression about my attention to your mails henceforth I would like to take back seat when responding to your mails.  The only intention behind prioritizing your mails was I felt you are neutral and not prejudiced to something.  I am sorry I never ever felt you are an soft target to push my coins…

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

By all means take a back or front seat. That was my impression however. If Subbu-ji and Jaishankar-ji, who are traditionalists claiming traditional learning, are too prejudiced to prioritize, then this is a dead end debate. That is not to say I cannot be a hard target if I wanted to be one; just that the topic does not rile me up as much. Take what you say about paramartha jnana for a jnani. That is not something of a great violation to the spirit of traditional advaita in my opinion. I called it something like standpoint 2 before, as opposed to standpoint 3 of an ajnani. Jnani has awareness/knowledge of Gold no matter the ring or bangle appearance. You have knowledge of Light in the movie of name-forms. That is actually a point of samanvaya with the traditionalist (what constitutes jnana in a jnani, even if not whether it is constant in terms of mind-awareness). We are both in agreement that the movie appearance is not negated for a jnani who sees and knows it as light. Then what about the movie appearance? It is the play of Light alone, the manifestation of Ishvara=Brahman+Maya. As you said, "1-1-2 bhAshyakAra says this jagat is in super order and for this Ishwara is the ONLY cause nobody/nothing else." 

Traditionalist may say something more about the Brahman or the definition of avidya, but they are not losing sleep over your ideas on jnana. What you say has the essence of what matters. That they regard name-form vs self, seen vs seer, divide as itself an appearance, belonging to a lower (vyavaharika) order of reality, and hence the name-form seen as constituting mithya drishti ("conjured by nescience, anirvachaneeya, mentioned as power called maya" BSB 2.1.14) - yes that is something they will be at odds with you. But these are secondary things. I think because SSS followers are attacking, traditionalists will come back at them; otherwise the main thing above we are in agreement about. I am a soft target in part because this is a logical debate for me that is not going to put essence of advaita at risk; I have to make it a big deal only if provoked or attacked and forced to defend my views.

thollmelukaalkizhu

--

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/AM7PR06MB6581A8B381D3581F6CD9B22C841A9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 5:09 PM putran M <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

By all means take a back or front seat. That was my impression however. If Subbu-ji and Jaishankar-ji, who are traditionalists claiming traditional learning, are too prejudiced to prioritize, then this is a dead end debate. That is not to say I cannot be a hard target if I wanted to be one; just that the topic does not rile me up as much. Take what you say about paramartha jnana for a jnani. That is not something of a great violation to the spirit of traditional advaita in my opinion. I called it something like standpoint 2 before, as opposed to standpoint 3 of an ajnani. Jnani has awareness/knowledge of Gold no matter the ring or bangle appearance. You have knowledge of Light in the movie of name-forms. That is actually a point of samanvaya with the traditionalist (what constitutes jnana in a jnani, even if not whether it is constant in terms of mind-awareness). We are both in agreement that the movie appearance is not negated for a jnani who sees and knows it as light. 

I don't think Bhaskar ji can accept that the movie appearance is not negated for a jnani who sees and knows it as light. Actually SSS does not accept jnAna-adhyAsa and arthAdhyAsa categorization. Also for SSS destruction of avidyA is destruction of adhyAsa. So he will come back and deny what you think is an agreement. Most probably he will say that jnAni seeing the negated movie appearance is only a projection of an ajnAni!

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

 

I don't think Bhaskar ji can accept that the movie appearance is not negated for a jnani who sees and knows it as light. Actually SSS does not accept jnAna-adhyAsa and arthAdhyAsa categorization. Also for SSS destruction of avidyA is destruction of adhyAsa. So he will come back and deny what you think is an agreement. Most probably he will say that jnAni seeing the negated movie appearance is only a projection of an ajnAni!

Possibly I misunderstood statements like "Ishwara’s mAyA kArya like kAraNa abAdhita ( trikAla abAdhita satyaM)" and " paramArtha jnana is not vyvahAra abhAva jnana". They seemed to accept that Ishvara's maya karya and vyavahara remain in some rudimentary "seen opposed to seer" sense for a jnani as well (except he sees/knows only Brahman/Self in them). I assumed this is analogous to the movie analogy where duality of colour display remains even when the movie content is negated as asat, and yet it is simultaneously known as only Light. 

thollmelukaalkizhu