[Advaita-l] What is 'aprAkRta' ?

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 6:07 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

>  2011/7/30 Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
>
> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:53 AM, V Subrahmanian
> > <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > This is the clarification Anandagiri gives to the words of the bhashyam
> > on
> > > BG 8.9:
> > >
> > > 'एतदप्रमेयं ध्रुवं' इति श्रुतिमाश्रित्याह -- अचिन्त्यरूपमिति। नहि परस्य
> > > किंचिदपि रूपादि वस्तुतोऽस्ति अरूपवदेव हीति न्यायात् कल्पितमपि
> > नास्मदादिभिः
> > > शक्यते चिन्तयितुमित्याह -- नास्येति।
> > >
> > > The *Brahmasutra bhashya reference given by Anandagiri is 3.2.14 and 15
> > > which pl. read.  There Badarayana (and Shankara) confirms that Brahman
> > has
> > > no form.
> > >
> >
> > RV: Thanks for the clarification. In BS 3.2.15  Sankara quotes 'He who is
> > called ether is the revealer of all forms and names. That within which
> > forms
> > and names are, that is Brahman' (*Kh*. Up. VIII, 14, 1). How is this
> > understood as Brahman is not a container of nescience or its effects?
>
>
> Even though Brahman, in absolute terms, is not the container.....yet
> keeping
> that in mind it would not be wrong to say that Brahman is the adhiShThAnam,
> substratum, of all names and forms.  For there are no real objects that are
> referred by names and forms; Brahman is the substance of all the 'objects'.
>  In the Bh.G.9.4 and 5 we have the teaching: All beings are there in The
> Lord.  Also, they are not there in the Lord.  This means, we have to give a
> locus, a support, for the beings in the creation for they cannot be by
> themselves, being paratantra.  They 'exist' on the sattaa borrowed from the
> Swatantra, Brahman.  The Lord clarifies that they do not really exist in
> Him
> meaning that they are only appearances in Him, with Him as the substratum.
>  The superimposed serpent does not stick to the rope though it is only
> because the rope is there one sees, by mistake, a serpent (something other
> than the rope) there.  In this way we can account for names and forms being
> 'within' Brahman.
>
> Regards,
> subrahmanian.v
>
> RV: Here the upanishadic verse quoted in Sankara Bhashya explicitly says
> that all names and forms are in the Nirguna Brahman. It would be better to
> ascertain what Sankara says in his commentary to this particular upanishadic
> verse instead of correlating with BG 9.4 and 5, which are with respect to
> material world and bodies not Lord's names and forms. I say this because in
> one place Kanchi Mahaperiyava, considered a stalwart advaitin by many, says
> that Nirguna Brahman is devoid of qualities does not mean it is nothing but
> that every thing is present in it as itself! My veda teacher, Late Sri
> Sundararama Ganapatigal, associated with Sringeri Mutt, said "Krishna is
> present as Brahman. Krishna's form is present as long as time exists and you
> exist" There was an example given by my mother, of course she did not know
> the source, that white light is devoid of particularities of red, blue and
> green and we say it is not red, not blue and not green. But through a prism
> it manifest all of them. Llike that Nirguna Brahman is not any of the
> particular saguna form but through maya He manifests all of them.
>