[Advaita-l] Eka jiva vada and nana jiva vada.

[V Subrahmanian]

I am unable to make out what exactly the correspondent is trying to say
here.  It is wrong to say traditionalists discard the mandukya and
vivekachudamani.  If he is looking for the popular advaitic view of the
illusoriness of the world from a source other than the two cited works,
here is one:

In the brahmasutra bhashyam 3.2.1.4 (on the nature of dreams) Shankara says:

na cha viyadAdisargasyaapi Atyantikam satyatvamasti.  pratipaditam hi
'tadananyatvam...' BSB 2.1.14 ityatra samastasya prapanchasya
mAyAmAtratvam.  .....

//And yet the creation of space, etc. also has no absolute reality; for
under the aphorism...2.1.14 we showed that the whole creation is but mAyA.
But before the realization of the identity of the self with Brahman,
creation counting from space, etc. continues just as it is, whereas the
creation within dream is abrogated every day.  Hence the statement that
dream is merely mAyA has  a special significance.//

In another (upanishad) (reference not immediately available) bhashyam
Shankara says, ..// the upanishad itself thinks that the waking is
non-different from the dream state...//

This view of the correspondent:  // Living connected, a jīvan mukta acts
"lokasaṁgrahamevārthaṁ sampaśyan kartum arhasi."//  on the nature of
kaivalya is not admissible in Vedanta.  The jivanmukta operates in the
world as long as the body lasts.  Upon the dissolution of the body there is
no entity left to be identified as a jivan/mukta.  There is no duality then
whatsoever.  That is the meaning of kaivalya: kevalasya bhAvaH.

subrahmanian.v

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Ramesam Vemuri <vemuri.ramesam at gmail.com>wrote:

> One of my friends has sent the following message re: eka jIva vAda.
>
> I will be grateful if the learned members would like to cite Upanishadic
> pramANa  and / or offer their valuable comments/observations.
>
> regards,
>
> *********
> The Message:
>
> "Traditionalists do not consider either māṇḍūkya bhāṣya or vivekacūḍāmaṇi
> as authentic works of śaṅkara for this very reason. Their statement is
> based on the reading of śaṅkara's bhāṣyas on taitirīya and other upaniṣads
> vis-a-vis these texts. Gauḍapāda had a huge buddhist influence (at his time
> they were his primary pūrvapakṣa). Also it is a well known fact that
> māṇdukya upaniṣad has only 12 verses, which gauḍapāda extended into
> hundreds of kārikas. I would appreciate if you can give any pramāṇa direct
> from the upaniṣads themselves than from prakaraṇa granthas whose
> authenticity as its regards its authorship is debated.
>
> Also, it is my considered opinion that there can be no advaita without
> īśvara, because the equation tat tvam asi is between īśvara and jīva.
> Bhakti refers to the relationship of the jīva with īśvara.
>
> kaivalya does not mean aloneness; aloneness leads to alienation. Humans are
> born connected and kaivalya to me is to discover this connection with
> everything that there is, through the understanding of the basic oneness of
> its substratum. Living connected, a jīvan mukta acts "lokasaṁgrahamevārthaṁ
> sampaśyan kartum arhasi."
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>