[Advaita-l] Re: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 2, Issue 21

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

As you can see, I am responding to older emails. Feel free to drop the 
discussion if things have already been covered before.

>to all these 'darshana' thinkers that were before him,  an upAdAna-kAraNa
>modifies itself to become the effect.   So,  what dvaita school says is
>whatever you have called kAraNa -  that which is nirvikAra in it is
>Parabrahman
>to me.   All these so called kAraNas are mere "Aiswarya dyOtikaa".
>This is madhwa-siddhAnta.

Then what about that which is sa-vikAra in any or all of these kAraNas? Not 
parabrahman? Then, your siddhAnta is no longer that parabrahman is jagadeka 
kAraNa. Or is parabrahman simultaneously saviKAra and nirvikAra? Also, when 
you say, "nirvikAra in it", do you mean to say parabrahman is a part of 
something else? If so, what is "para" about it?

>Why restrain sootras to fix only one vishaya-vAkya,  when it can fix many
>vishaya-vAkyas ?

sUtra-s fix vishaya-s. The vAkya-s are supplied by commentators, and as you 
know, they differ among one another. Some sUtra-s are indeed traditionally 
accepted to fix many vishaya-vAkyas. The IkshateH sUtra fixes IkshaNa in the 
context of jagat-sRshTi, and therefore similar vAkyas from upanishads other 
than chAndogya are also referred to here, e.g. "sa Ikshata lokAn nu sRja 
iti" - aitareya, "sa IkshAcakre" - praSna. All of these references are to 
IkshaNa in the context of creation of the universe.

However, one cannot randomly supply every Sruti VAkya that uses the word 
Ikshati, without the context of jagat-sRshTi. This is where concern for 
context is important. The sentence you cited,

>"IkshatE"  also appears in "parAt param purishayam purusham IkshatE".

is from praSna upanishad, and it refers to one, who through upAsanam of the 
three mAtra-s of aum-kAra, sees (Ikhsate) the parama purusha in brahmaloka. 
This is a reference to krama-mukti. FYI, in advaita vedAnta, this is 
perfectly accepted, but we also point out that this aumkAropAsanA taught in 
praSna upanishad is crucially different from that taught in mANDUkya, 
because it leaves out the fourth.

In any case, the above vAkya is not a reference to the creation of the 
world. Moreover, this IkshaNa belongs to the jIva who has attained 
brahmaloka. It is not a reference to the IkshaNa by which the parama purusha 
creates. Inasmuch as you would maintain an intrinsic and eternal distinction 
between jIva and brahman, according to your own principles, the 
abovementioned praSnopanishad vAkya cannot be a vishaya-vAkya for the sUtra 
in question.

Finally, look at the basic structure of the first pAda of the first adhyAya 
of the brahmasUtra. From the IkshateH sUtra onwards, the sUtrakAra 
exhaustively refers to chAndogya. Then, from the Anandamaya sUtra onwards, 
he exhaustively refers to taittirIya. That is why he says "kAmAc ca 
nAnumAnApekshA" in the Anandamaya adhikaraNa, because it is taittirIya that 
says, "so 'kAmayata". Now, do think about what is the anumAna for which 
there is no apekshA in the vedAnta. Having thus established that brahman is 
the sole sRshTi-sthiti-laya kAraNa, the sUtra goes back to various 
descriptions, as antaH, as AkASa, as prANa and as jyoti, in chAndogya, and 
then as prANa in kauShItakI upanishad. The very reason why there are two 
separate sUtra-s referring to prANa (ata eva prANaH and prANas tathAnugamAt) 
in the same adhyAya is that the sUtrakAra wishes to separate two different 
vishaya-vAkyas that talk of prANa. Notice how the samanvaya proceeds, taking 
representative texts from upanishads of the trayI - sAma, yajus and Rg 
veda-s. The bogeyman criticism of punarukti does not arise at all. And as 
far as understanding the sUtra is concerned, you cannot jump from one 
upanishad text to another at will, just because you want to criticize the 
advaita interpretation of the sUtra.

>Just would like to know how "Om svApyayAt Om"  is interpreted by you.

With a reference to the chAndogya text "svapiti ... svam apiti."

Regards,
Vidyasankar

ps. I will be busy for the rest of the week, so no more responses from me 
for a while.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus