[Advaita-l] Omniscience, etc. only due to upAdhi

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

There is absolutely no doubt that the Upanishads declare Brahman alone is
Satyam . I have not disputed this. I was mentioning about one of the
techniques ( prakriya ) adopted by the Upanishads to drive home this point.
In this prakriya the Upanishads do ascribe reality to this creation to
begin with and followsup with reducing the variety in creation by tracing
them to their karana. For example all things to sthula bhutas, then to
sukshma bhutas followed by individual bhutas etc. It is during this process
that it adopts the principle that karya ( effect ) is not different from
its karana ( cause ) .


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:06 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 11:07 AM, H S Chandramouli <
> hschandramouli at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Dear Sri Subrahmanianji,
> >
> > When in the Tai UP it is said <  akashadvayuh vayoragnih > etc is it to
> be
> > understood that vayu,agni etc are vivarta in akasha,vayu respectively?? I
> > dont think your contention is correct.
>
>
>
> Namaste
>
> Thw sRShTi krama shown above is also found with the first two elements
> implicitly included in the Chandogya 6th ch,  Pl. go thru the bhashyam for
> 6.2.3 and the other mantras thereafter.  The upanishad itself is negating
> the reality of the elements agni, ApaH and pRthvI and thru that the entire
> creation.  All thru this, the thread: vAchArambhaNam vikAro nAmadheyam
> mRttiketyeva satyam is kept alive.  The anRtatvam of the effect and the
> satyatvam of the primal Cause alone is taught by the shruti.  Whenever
> satyam-anRtam is stated invariably it is the vivartavAda that is meant.
> Thus even the shruti does not approve of pariNAma but upholds only
> vivarta.
>
> In pariNAma the cause undergoes a transformation, vikAra.  Shankara, in the
> famous definition of satyam in Tai.up. bhashyam explicityly says: vikAra is
> anRtam:
>
> यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं यन्न व्यभिचरति, तत् सत्यम् ।  यद्रूपेण
> > यन्निश्चितं तत् तद्रूपं व्यभिचरति, तदनृतमित्युच्यते । अतो विकारोऽनृतम्,
> > ’वाचारंभणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’, एवं सदेव सत्यम्
> > इत्यवधारणात् ।
> >>* //As for satyam, a thing is said to be satyam, true, when it does not
> change
> *>* the nature that is ascertained to be its own; and a thing is said to be
> *>* unreal when it changes the nature that is ascertained to be its own.
>  Hence
> *>* a mutable thing is unreal, for in the text, ‘All transformation has
> speech
> *>* as its basis, and it is name only.  Clay as such is the reality.’
> (Chandogya
> *>* Up. 6.1.4), it has been emphasized that, that alone is true that Exists
> *>
>
> * (Ch.Up. 6.2.1)*
>
>
> *He also says that the Chandogya asserts that the Sat, kAraNam alone
> is satyam.  If the kAraNam is admitted to undergo vikAra, it cannot be
> sat;*
>
>
> *it will also be asat. *
>
>
> regards
> vs
>
>
>
> > Advaita sidhanta uses both vivarta
> > and parinama vada extensively. The entire adhyaropa apavada prakriya is
> > based on these two vadas. In fact that is how advaita sidhanta makes use
> of
> > the arguments of sankhya syatem till prakriti level. It is at this level
> > advaita takes recourse to vivarta vada while sankhya sticks to prakriti
> as
> > real.
> >
> > The last statement in my mail regarding another explanation for sarvajnam
> > was only for information and not with reference to the earlier
> discussions.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:40 PM, V Subrahmanian
> > <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:26 PM, H S Chandramouli
> > > <hschandramouli at gmail.com>wrote:
> > >
> > > > H S CHANDRAMOULI
> > > >
> > > > Dear Sri Subrahmanianji/ Sri Bhaskarji,
> > > >
> > > > I must confess i am a bit confused about the nature of disagreement
> > here.
> > > > Sri Sji has written
> > > >
> > > > <Actually only with  sarvajnatvaM, sarvashaktitvaM etc. Brahman
> > (nirguNa.
> > > > Turiya) is called Ishwara (saguNa, sixth mantra of mAnDUkya - ESha
> > > > sarvajnaH...antaryAmi...).  That is the way Advaita distinguishes
> > Brahman
> > > > from Ishwara.>
> > > >
> > > > Brahman and Iswara are two different levels of reality. This very
> > > important
> > > > aspect is not broughtout in the above statement which almost leads
> one
> > to
> > > > conclude that the two are of the same level of reality. In my opinion
> > > this
> > > > is what Sri Bji also has mentioned ( correctly in my view ). Vivarta
> > > > principle starts right here. Hence sarvajnatva etc are all in the
> > sphere
> > > of
> > > > avidya only.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *It goes without saying, from what is said by me above, that nirguNa
> > > brahman alone is the pAramArthika satyam and saguNa is
> > > mithyA/vyAvahArika/paratantra.  *
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Sri Sji also makes the following statement.
> > > >
> > > >  <Now, the 'everything', in other words, the entire creation, jagat,
> is
> > > > 'existing' ONLY on the 'sat', existence, of the Sat, Brahman.  Thus
> the
> > > > world enjoys only a dependent existence, paratantra sattaa, and never
> > an
> > > > independent existence, swatantra sattaa.  The ONLY example for such a
> > > > phenomenon is the rope-snake.>
> > > >
> > > > This also i think is misleading. For example vedanta itself advances
> > the
> > > > argument that pot exists only because of the clay. In fact all cause
> > and
> > > > effect reasoning ( effect is not different from cause ) on which
> > vedanta
> > > > places emphasis is about dependent existence only. But this is not
> > >  vivarta
> > > > which the rope snake example is. In advaita sidhanta, Brahman to
> Iswara
> > > is
> > > > vivarta , and all creation from Iswara downwards is considered as
> > > parinama
> > > > conforming to cause and effect reasoning. Since the first cause
> Iswara
> > is
> > > > vivarta in Brahman all else following that is automatically vivarta
> in
> > > > Brahman.
> > > >
> > > > I am really not clear about what Sri Sji wanted to convey. From
> > whatever
> > > i
> > > > understood i thought some clarity is called for. Hopefully i have
> > > > contributed towards that end. This should also clarify all the other
> > > points
> > > > mentioned by Sri Bji.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *In the Chandogya the three examples of clay, gold and iron, are used
> to
> > > teach the reality of the cause and the unreality of the effects.
>  'vikAro
> > > anRtam' says Shankara, thereby admitting only vivarta vAda and not
> > pariNAma
> > > vAda everywhere in the BSB (ArambhaNAdhikaraNam) and in the Taittiriya
> > > bhAAShya for satyam definition.    *
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Incidentally i might add here a slightly different meaning given to
> the
> > > > word " sarvajnam " in Mandukya karika verse 3-36 Bhashyam. The
> Bhashyam
> > > > states quote < ata eva sarvam cha tat jna svarupam cha iti sarvajnam
> >
> > > > unquote. ( Because it is everything as well as of the nature of
> > > Chaitanyam
> > > > ( chaitanya svarupam ) it is sarvajnam ).
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *This is an exception.  It refers to nirguNa brahman, jnapti, Pure
> > > non-objective Consciousness, which meaning Shankara gives to the word
> > > 'jnAnam' of the Tai.up.  When Shankara negates 'sarvjnatvam', etc. in
> the
> > > BSB 2.1.14 it is not the above kArikA concept.*
> > >
> > > *Regards*
> > >
> > > *vs*
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 11:18 PM, V Subrahmanian
> > > > <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
> > > > > > Hare Krishna
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'Omniscience' is the word generally used to connote the sanskrit
> > term
> > > > > > 'sarvajnatvam'.  'Knowledge' of 'everything' implies that the
> > > possessor
> > > > > of
> > > > > > such a knowledge is different from the 'everything' and the
> > > > 'knowledge'.
> > > > > > Thus, just as a person who 'knows' something is different from
> that
> > > > > thing,
> > > > > > and without that thing in place no knowledge of it is possible
> for
> > > the
> > > > > > person, the Vedantic Brahman too cannot be inherently possessed
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > knowledge of 'everything' unless that 'everything' is existing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >  as I said in another form, yes, I do agree that sarvajna,
> > > > sarvashakta
> > > > > > etc. which denote Ishawara's are valid only in the sphere of
> avidyA
> > > > > > kshEtra where sarva is different from the 'knower'.  But, when it
> > > comes
> > > > > to
> > > > > > inherent nature of brahman,  even in the absence of 'everything'
> > > > (sarva)
> > > > > > the knower's knowledge (jnAna) does not suffer from any
> obstruction
> > > > since
> > > > > > sarvajnatvaM, sarvashaktitvaM etc. are svarUpa lakshNa of the
> > brahman
> > > > > > whereas  savajna and sarvashakta are the qualities of the mAyA
> > > upahita
> > > > > > Ishwara ( who has shuddha sattva as his upAdhi).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually only with  sarvajnatvaM, sarvashaktitvaM etc. Brahman
> > > (nirguNa.
> > > > > Turiya) is called Ishwara (saguNa, sixth mantra of mAnDUkya - ESha
> > > > > sarvajnaH...antaryAmi...).  That is the way Advaita distinguishes
> > > Brahman
> > > > > from Ishwara.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The adjectives such as sarvajnatvaM, sarvashaktitvaM etc. can be
> > given
> > > to
> > > > > > brahman synonymously such as nityashuddha, nirvikAra since there
> > are
> > > > > > inherent nature of brahman.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > While attributing sarvajnatvaM, sarvashaktitvaM etc. to Brahman we
> > see
> > > > > these as taTasthalakShaNa and not svarUpalakShaNa.  'Inherent'
> means
> > > > > svarUpa.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >  In sUtra bhAshya while arguing against sAnkhyA's pradhAna
> > > > > > kAraNa, shankara says how the first and foremost (without second)
> > > would
> > > > > be
> > > > > > the chetana cause of this creation which has 'intelligence'.  And
> > to
> > > > have
> > > > > > this intelligence it does not require any body, mind, etc.
> shankara
> > > > here
> > > > > > quotes the up. maNtra that says : that which sees without eyes,
> > that
> > > > > which
> > > > > > hears without ears, that which moves without legs etc.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In BSB 1.4.3 (tadadhInatvAt arthavat) Shankara has said:
> > > > >
> > > > > // But this primal state is held by us to be subject to the Supreme
> > > Lord,
> > > > > but not as an independent thing. That state has to be admitted,
> > because
> > > > it
> > > > > serves a purpose.  Without that latent state the creatorship of the
> > > Lord
> > > > > cannot have any meaning, inasmuch as God cannot act without His
> power
> > > (of
> > > > > mAyA)...// (p.249 of Sw.Gambhirananda)
> > > > >
> > > > > In 1.1.1.5 (IkShaternAshabadAt) Shankara cites the mantras that you
> > > have
> > > > > quoted above (without eye....)
> > > > >
> > > > > अपिचाविद्यादिमतः संसारिणः शरीराद्यपेक्षा ज्ञानोत्पत्तिः स्यान्न
> > > > > ज्ञानप्रतिबन्धकारणरहितस्येश्वरस्य   ।
> > > > >
> > > > > मन्त्रौ चेमावीश्वरस्य शरीराद्यनपेक्षतामनावरणज्ञानतां च दर्शयतःऽन
> तस्य
> > > > >  कार्यं
> > > > > करणं च विद्यते न तत्समश्चाभ्यधिकश्च दृश्यते। परास्य शक्तिर्विविधैव
> > > > श्रूयते
> > > > > स्वाभाविकी ज्ञानबलक्रिया चऽ (श्वेता. ६.८) इति। ऽअपाणिपादो जवनो
> > ग्रहीता
> > > > > पश्यत्यचक्षुः स शृणोत्यकर्णः। स वेत्ति वेद्यं न च तस्यास्ति वेत्ता
> > > > > तमाहुरग्र्यं पुरुषं महान्तम्ऽ  (श्वेता. ३.१९) इति च   ।
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That is only to show that a body is not required for Ishwara to
> have
> > > > > powers.  The mantras are not cited to deny the shakti which is
> > > > essentially
> > > > > required for Ishwara (Brahman) to be a creator, etc.  In fact that
> > > > ability
> > > > > to see without eyes, etc. is only due to this mAyAshakti.  For, the
> > > > > advitIya brahman, Turiya, there is nothing that requires to be
> seen,
> > > > > touched, etc.  Only in the realm of creation (the first three
> pAda-s
> > of
> > > > > mAnDUkya) is there occasion for shakti.  The seventh mantra negates
> > > even
> > > > > this Ishwaratvam.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So, in order to be a sRShTikartA, Brahman has to be 'aided' by a
> > > shakti,
> > > > > which is paratantra to It.  So, naturally, the upAdhi is admitted
> by
> > > > > Shankara while differentiating Vedanta from sAnkhya's pradhAna.  In
> > the
> > > > > above quoted portion Shankara no doubt refutes the pradhAna of the
> > > > sAnkhya
> > > > > but accepts the pradhAna with a different name and most
> importantly,
> > as
> > > > > adhIna of brahman while the sAnkhya holds pradhAna as swatantra. In
> > any
> > > > > case Shankara makes Brahman saguNa by admitting this shakti when
> > > Brahman
> > > > > has to be a creator, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >  So, IMHO, existence of 'everything' is not a mandatory
> requirement
> > > to
> > > > > > prove brahman's sarvajnatvaM and sarvashaktitvaM.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It is essentially with a view to explain the 'everything' the
> shakti
> > is
> > > > > admitted.  'No shakti, no creation.'
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Do we doubt the self-luminous nature of sun and its illuminating
> > > > capacity
> > > > > > just because of absence of objects that needs illumination??
> > Kindly
> > > > > > clarify.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That is not admitted to be a capacity; by default when objects are
> > > within
> > > > > the sun's range they get illumined but not by choice of the Sun.
> > > 'savitA
> > > > > prakAshate' is what constitutes the apt description of the sun.
> > 'savitA
> > > > > prakAshayati' is a concession, by taking into account the things
> > other
> > > > than
> > > > > the sun.    In the same way  Brahman is chit.  In order to relate
> It
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > world the shakti is attributed.  The very word sarvajnatvam is
> > relative
> > > > to
> > > > > sarva, created, nAnAtva.  To be sarvajna, Ishwara has to depend on
> > the
> > > > > sarva. Sarva is antithetical to Ekam.  While the Vedanta siddhAnta
> is
> > > > ekam
> > > > > eva advitIyam, sarvam is the paratantra dvaita prapancha.
> > > > >
> > > > > warm regards
> > > > > subbu
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> > > > > > bhaskar
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>