[Advaita-l] World is Flower in the Sky

[V Subrahmanian]

I find this discussion at this point quite interesting.  A question was
recently raised on the 'eka jIva vAda' and that whether indeed Shankara had
approved it.  A very nice note from Shri Anand Hudli had also appeared
where the message was that in the final stage Advaita is understood as a
necessary admission of eka jiva prakriyaa.

All the references in the sutra bhashya and other upanishad bhashyas
regarding creation, Ishwara, jivakarma, karma phala dAtA, etc. are on the
basis of nAnAjIva prakriyA, keeping in view that there are infinite number
of jIva-s.  This is in the vyAvahArika plane.  But the pAramArthika tattvam
of the Vedanta is available for realization only with the eka jIva
prakriyaa. Take for example, the very teaching of the 'tat tvam asi' of the
Chandogya.  Here, the Sat is taught as the jagat kAraNam, the source of
tejas, aapaH and prithivI and through their tRvRtkaraNam, the entire world
of beings/objects that include the various jIvas (their
bodies/mind/organs/karma/loka/bhoga). This is the nAnA jIva delineation.
But the teaching culminates in addressing Shvetaketu: tat (jagatkAraNam)
sat tvam asi. Naturally, in this teaching, the entire creation including
all the jivas are shown to be the content of the word 'tat' (Sat brahman)
which is what tvam is.  The one who realizes this also sees no world/jIva-s
as existing apart from him the Sat Brahman.  Thus, the eka jiva prakriyA is
well enshrined in the Upanishads.  This jnAni's consciousness is the
sattApradaa for the entire dRshyam jagat.  And whatever depends for its
fundamental sattA, reality/existence, on another entity has to be mithyA on
the basis of the ONLY example available in creation: rajju-sarpa for such a
phenomenon (the rajju is the sattApradA for the adhyasta sarpa for the
period the sarpa is held to be 'is').

The shAnkara prasthAna traya bhAShya is a fine source where, just like the
above Upanishad, one can see both the nAnAjIva prakriyA and the eka jIva
prakriyA, at the appropriate places.  In fact the very preamble to the BSB
is so vocative of eka jIva prakriyA.

The several instances I had pointed out from the bhashyam as especially
centering on eka jIva vAda could be recalled.  The GK bhashya and even the
very maandukya upanishad bhashya too has a great content of eka jIva
construct. A fine example is here:

In the mantra 5 'yatra supto na kanchana...' the jIva-s sushupti state is
being explained and he is named  praajna.  In the very next mantra 'eSha
(this/he is) sarveshvaraH...', the Upanishad itself connects the fifth
mantra to the sixth with the word 'eSha', a pronoun that has  'prAjna' of
the fifth mantra.  Thus, Anandagiri brings out the purport of the mantra:

prAjnasya Adhidaivikena antaryAmiNA saha abhedam gRhItvA visheShaNAntaram
darshayati - eSha iti. [The mantra, considering the identity of the prAjna
(jiva of the fifth mantra) with the antaryAmi of the sixth mantra, brings
out another attribute...]

On the same lines we can see this distinction in the stotra literature of
Shankara too.  In many verses of the shivanandalahari, for example, one can
see Shiva as the Creator, etc. and the jIva-s His dependents.  The Ganesha
pancharatnam, gauri dashakam, rAma/subrahmanya bhujangam etc. are ones
where the Deity-devotee(s) relationship is highlighted.  Even there the
Advaita bhaavana is subtly interwoven. On the other hand  verses such as
'nirvANaShaTkam, dashashlokI, ekashlokI, dakShiNAmUrti stotram' have the
stamp of eka jIva at the anusandhAnam stage.  Other verses like 'advaita
makaranda' are excellent examples of this category.

Of course, even one jiva is not there in the Advaitam Brahman of the
mAnDUkya seventh mantra method.

I would like to make one comment on the observation of Shri Venkatesh
Murthy on 'rajju sarpa and shasha viShANa' both being mithyA and therefore
non different.  It is agreed that the entire vyAvahArika prapancha - where
alone the differentiation between rajju-sarpa (adhyasta asat) and shasha
viShANa (atyanta asat) is valid - is unreal/mithyA from the pAramArthika
standpoint.  Thus, if it is said 'in a dream one encounters rajju-sarpa and
also talks about, for example, in a class in a dream, shashaviShANa and
differentiates it from the prAtibhAsika' and therefore both are mithyA' we
have to keep in mind that within the dream the difference between the two
categories is indeed valid and it was capable of bringing out their
difference to the student/s in the dream.  But just on the ground that both
did belong to the dream it would be wrong to attempt to remove their
difference in the vyAvahArika, waking, outside the dream.  For that matter,
even sAdhana and the veda are held to be unreal from the ultimate Advaitam
standpoint.  It is then alone correct to say that both rajju-sarpa
(prAtibhAsika) and atyanta asat are mithyA.  Also, as taught in the GK the
grounds of 'internal-external' that is available in the jaagrat is also
available in the dream the same way and since the dream is unreal the
jAgrat too that has the internal-external difference is unreal, is not
objected to.  We do keep that teaching in mind.


regards
subrahmanian.v

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Namaste
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:02 PM, vinayaka ns <brahmavadin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > > Both objects in waking and dream are imagined. No real object is there
> > > outside. No real object is there inside.
> > >
> > > All objects are imagined all objects are equally false. They are Asat.
> > You
> > > cannot say one shell silver is Mithya and another Rabbit Horns is Asat.
> > > Because you imagine silver shell and you imagine Rabbit horns also.
> They
> > > are same.
> > >
> > >
> >
> You said -
>
> > According to vEdAnta the 'ego' never creates the 'non-ego' . If that was
> > the case, then it is not at very different from solipsism.
> >
> > GK VP
> 15 Those that exist within the mind as subjective ideas and are known as
> unmanifested and those that are perceived to exist outside in a manifested
> form, both are mere objects of the imagination. Their difference lies only
> in the difference of the organs by means of which they are perceived.
>
> Adi Sankara Bhashya conclusion for this - Ata Kalpita Eva Jagradbhava Api
> Svapnabhavavaditi Siddham. Things in the waking are imagined like the
> things in dream. This is proved.
>
> If you say it is the Lord's imagination not me. The Lord has created this
> world.  Who is the Lord? Who is me? Both are same. They are not different.
> Only one Atma is there but by ignorance we think there is Lord and Jeevas
> and they are separate. We think Lord is ruling the Jeevas but it is one
> more imagination. There is no Lord separate from me there is no Jeeva
> separate from me.
>
> Only I am the one and only Jeeva. I am imagining the outside things in
> waking. I am imagining things in my dream also. There is no difference
> between waking and dream. Both are dreams only.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Wishes,
> >
> > Vinayaka
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> -Venkatesh
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>