[Advaita-l] Re The stance of the upadeshasaahasrii on Ignorance, Deep Sleep

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms Sri Subhanu Saxena prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
>
> If you could permit me, I'd like to share my couple of observation :
>
> Nāmarūpa is exclusively labelled as fashioned by ignorance in Shankara and
> Suresvara’s system eg BSB 2.1.14, and is taken as neither the same or
> different from that because we have not known atman.
>
> >  Here I have small doubt...From whose point of view it has been said
> that this nAma & rUpa is avidyAkalpita and cannot be categorically said
> brahman or otherwise??  Is it sAdhaka / jignAsu's point of view??  Since
> all these upadesha-s in shAstra & bhAshya  is for jignAsu only, we can say
>
> that 'anirvachaneeya' nAma rUpa  teaching too is meant for jignAsu only.
> What would be the perception of paramArtha jnAni about the 'same' nAma
> rUpa, after the dawn of ekatva jnAna??  whether he says 'all these nAma
> rUpa' is avidyAkruta' or whatever you see as nAma rUpa is nothing but
> THAT??  I think avidyAkruta nAma rUpa has been insisting from the
> sAdhaka's point of view who has to do 'nityAnityavastu viveka' and 'samyak
>
> drushti' has been emphasized from the jnAni's ekamevAdviteeya realization.
>
>  Kindly clarify.
>

Dear Bhaskar ji,

Two instances I recall as references for the above question of yours:

1. At the end of the BGB 2.16 Shankara says:

//त्वमपि तत्त्वदर्शिनां दृष्टिमाश्रित्य शोकं मोहं च हित्वा शीतोष्णादीनि
नियतानियतरूपाणि द्वन्द्वानि 'विकारोऽयमसन्नेव मरीचिजलवन्मिथ्यावभासते' इति
मनसि निश्चित्य तितिक्षस्व इत्यभिप्रायः।।//
//Therefore, you too, by adopting the vision of the men of realization and
giving up sorrow and delusion, forbear the dualities, heat, cold, etc. --
some of which are definite in their nature, and others inconstant --,
mentally being convinced that this (phenomenal world) is changeful, verily
unreal and appears falsely like water in a mirage. This is the idea.//


2. The second verse of the manIShA panchakam:
ब्रह्मैवाहमिदं जगच्च सकलं चिन्मात्रविस्तारितं *सर्वं चैतदविद्यया
त्रिगुणयाऽशेषं मया कल्पितम् |* इत्थं यस्य दृढा मतिः सुखतरे नित्ये परे
निर्मले चाण्डालोऽस्तु स तु द्विजोऽस्तु गुरुरित्येषा मनीषा मम ||२||

//'I am brahman, this entire world is an appearance in the Pure
consciousness, all this is an imagination by me out of avidyA' such a firm
conviction whoever has with regard to the Supreme Self, .....is the Guru.
Such is My conclusion.//



> The question is, does an ignorance have a presence in the superimposed
> state of deep sleep  when the faculties for empirical transaction are not
> present. The answer is that it cannot because it is an imagined notion of
> the nature of “I do not know”,
>
> >  The argument of some traditional scholars is like this :  though
> sushupti is upAdhi rahita, ekeebhUta state, we cannot say sushupti itself
> is mOksha state because the same avdiyA jeeva comes back to jAgrat 'after'
>
> sushupti anubhava.  And even if there is agrahaNa or jnAnAbhAva rUpa
> avidyA is there ( if not bhAva rUpa, mUlAvidyA) we need to have Ashraya
> for that agrahaNa rUpAtmaka avidyA in sushupti. As there is no upAdhi and
> no more jeeva bhAva in sushupti, the locus of this jnAnAbhAva avidyA
> should be someone apart from jeeva, i.e. brahman only.  For brahmAshrita
> avidya they quote Br.up. bhAshya (1.4.10) kiM tu naivAbrahma avidyAkartA
> chetanO bhrAnta anya ishyate..And another potent for the existence of
> kAranAvidyA in sushupti is kArika bhAshya of shankara where he says :
> prAjnastu beejabhAvenaiva baddhaH, tattvApratibodha mAtrameva hi beejaM
> prajnatve nimittaM...
>

More than any other bhashya vakyam this is the one that decides on the
above issue:

The ruling has been given by Shankara in the mandukya karika bhashya 1.2
already cited by me:


//*It is spoken of as the cause in all the upanishads by assuming it for
the time being to be the seed of others*.  And it is because of this that
It is referred to - by refuting Its causal state - in such Vedic texts as
'.....That supremely real state - free from causality, relating with body,
etc. and modes of waking etc.  of that very entity ....as the Turiya....//


Shankara here distinguishes between two 'states' of Brahman: 1. that which
obtains in the sushupti/pralaya as the causal state: sabIjAvasthA.  It is
this conditioned-brahman Shankara avers, every jiva goes into during
sushupti/pralaya. It is not, therefore, the shuddha brahman. Shankara gives
reasons thereof.

2. that which is ever pure, untouched by any creation/jivas which is taught
as the turiya in the seventh mantra of the mandukya upanishat.  It is this
brahman that is vijneyaH for liberation.  It is this brahman attaining
which there will be no return to samsara.

To read this part of the bhashya in the original will give the necessary
effect.


regards

subrahmanian.v