[Advaita-l] Can a mithyA-vastu produce an effect? असत्यवस्तुनः अर्थक्रियाकारित्वम्

[V Subrahmanian]

2011/5/31 ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj at yahoo.com>

> Namaste,
>
> It is only like saying brahman is everything that is bound and not bound.
> Advaitic position is that brahman is the sakshi and not bhokta, so there is
> no
> avidya or vidya or bandha or moksha. The whole cycle of bandha and moksha
> is for
> the bhokta, the upadhi samuccaya, and brahman is what shines in all of
> that,
> undifferentiated from them. So there is only adhyasa of bandha and moksha.
>

All this is not disputed.  It would be nice to see what Shankara says in the
Br. up.1.4.10 (aham brahma asmi bhashyam) on the 'karta, bhokta' -

// *तस्माद्यत्प्रविष्टं  स्रष्टृ ब्रह्म तद्ब्रह्म *।  This He says to
clarify that the Brahman that appears to be bound is verily the Brahman that
is the creator and indweller Brahman.  He further says:

   - // इदं शरीरस्थं यद्गृह्यतेऽग्रे प्राक्प्रतिबोधादपि ब्रह्मैव आसीत्सर्वं
   चेदम् । किन्तु अप्रतिबोधात् अब्रह्म अस्म्यसर्वं च
इत्यात्मन्यध्यारोपात्कर्ताऽहं
   क्रियावान्फलानाञ्च भोक्ता सुखी दुःखी संसारी इति च अध्यारोपयति ।
   परमार्थतस्तु ब्रह्मैव, तद्विलक्षणं सर्वञ्च । तत्कथञ्चिदाचार्येण दयालुना
   प्रतिबोधितं नासि संसारीत्यात्मानमेवावेत्स्वाभाविकम् ।
   अविद्याध्यारोपितविशेषवर्जितमित्येवशब्दस्यार्थः । //

That conscious entity that is available in the body is Brahman alone.  But
owing to ignorance It thinks that 'I am not Brahman and am not 'all' (but
finite).'  With this superimposition this Brahman alone thinks that 'I am
the doer and the enjoyer/experiencer of the fruits of karma, happy,
miserable' which are also only superimpositions. And upon being instructed
that 'you are not a samsaari', It knows Its  true, natural, self. Shankara
also brings out the significance of the 'एव’ contained in the 'आत्मानं एव
अवेत्’. The 'eva' being that 'without the superimpositions'.

Not just here, even in the Chandogya Upanishad 6.3.2 Shankara says that it
is Brahman alone that appears as the samsari:

// *अचिन्त्यानन्तशक्तिमत्याः देवतायाः बुद्ध्यादिसंबन्धचैतन्याभासः
देवतास्वरूपविवेकाग्रहणनिमित्तः सुखी दुःखी मूढः इत्याद्यनेकविकल्पप्रत्ययहेतुः
*। //

Here too, the context is the creation alone. And the Brahman discussed is
this creator alone.

>
> This is not the sense in which Sri Ramanuja quotes Advaita. His evaluation
> is in terms of bandha and moksha being real transformations that happen to
> brahman. Which is obviously not Advaitic position.
>

This is very true.  That is why I pointed out the 'iva' in that sentence as
crucial.  Non-advaitins think that Advaita holds that there is a real
transformation of Brahman as jiva.  They have never been able to come out of
this misunderstanding about Advaita.

>
> Secondly, this is not a "statement of Advaitic position" but only an
> admission in the phenomenal sense.
>

True.  All explanations hold good only in the phenomenal sense.  In the
absolute sense there is no speech at all.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v

>
>