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

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Wed Jun 5 13:23:47 CDT 2013

On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
> //'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.//
> >  I could not read the Sanskrit in your mail...and even in Sri Subhanu
> mails too the transliterated Sanskrit words were showing some squares and
> triangles:-)) Anyway, both these quotes and I can also recall another
> shloka in the name of shankara which ends in chidAnanda rUpaH shivOhaM
> shivOhaM too says something like this.  But I think treating the nAma rUpa
> as avidyA kruta helps sAdhaka to disassociate himself from the attachment.
>  Hence Krishna advises arjuna, who is shOka-mOha tapta to see the falsity
> of this nAma rUpa..But when it comes to the exclusive perception of samyak
> jnAni, shankara is quite unambiguous.  Just see these couple of  bhAshya
> vAkya-s :   pUrvaM avidyayA asarva Aseet punarvidyayA avidyApanaye sarvO
> bhavati,  tadidaM apyetarhi ya evaM veda ahaM brahmAsmeeti sa idaM sarvaM
> bhavati  and yasmin brahmaNi paNchapancha janAH..avyAkrutAkhya...OtaMcha
> prOtaMcha ...amrutaM brahma manyE ahaM, na chAhaM AtmAnaM tataH anyatvena
> jAne..These bhAshya vakya-s would definitely convey the post jnAna period
> of jnAni, who sees everything as HIM and everything from HIM only. another
> vAkya in  chAdOgyA bhAshya shankara says before jnAna jnAni would think
> srushti ityAdi by somebody else but after realization jnAni realizes that
> all srushti ityAdi from HIM only.

In the Bh.gitA itself we have the instruction:

'tattvavit tu mahAbAho, guNakarmavibhAgayoH. guNAH guNeShu vartanta iti
matvA na sajjate' 3.28 [The knower of the truth about guNa

'indriyANi indriyArtheShu vartanta iti dhArayan...5.9.

In the 2.16 the teaching is about the two-fold realization of a tattvavit:
1. na asataH bhAvo vidyate and 2. na sataH abhAvo vidyate.  ubhayorapi
....They have the realization of both the nature of the Atman and the
knowledge about the nature of the anAtman.  This instruction is again
stated in different words in the last verse of the 13th chapter:  1. the
viveka between kshetra and kshetrajna and knowing oneself to be the
kshetrajna and 2. bhUtaprakRti mokSham cha: shankara comments for this:
bhUtAnAm prakRti avidyAlakShaNA avyaktAkhyA tasyAH abhAvagamanam cha.
Knowledge of both the Atman and the non-existence of the anAtman.  If only
the first is there, it will be un-vedAntic/un-advaitic realization where
there will be the separation from kshetra but the kshetra will continue to
be real. To preclude this the verse and the bhashya make so much emphasis
on the latter too.

In the Ishopanishat first mantra the bhashya specifies the kind of
knowledge/realization with which the entire jagat is to be 'covered':

// 'ahameva idam sarvam iti paramArtha satyarUpeNa, anRtam idam sarvam
carAcaram AcChAdanIyam svena paramAtmanA':  One can see the translation.
The important feature of this is: 1. the satyam here is paramArtha satyam
and not vyaavahArika and 2. as a result of this, the sarvam charAcharam is
held to be anRtam/false.' //

In the examples you have shown one aspect is stated, but it implies the
other aspect too, as explicitly shown in these examples by Shankara

> It is not, therefore, the shuddha brahman. Shankara gives reasons thereof.
> >  I always have a doubt on context of assertions like this.

Whatever be the context, the matter discussed is about the 'type' of
brahman obtaining in suShupti/pralaya.

//tasmAt jnAnadAhyabIjAbhAve cha jnAnArthakyaprasangaH' [Therefore if there
is no 'seed' that is burnt by Jnana, the instruction of the shruti on
JnAnam will be futile] 'tasmAt bIjatva-abhyupagamenaiva sataH
prANatvavyapadeshaH sarvashrutiShu cha kAraNatvavyapadeshaH' [Therefore
only by admitting the 'seed'-presence in Brahman (sopadhikabrahman) the Sat
(brahman) is denoted by the word 'prANa' (in 'prANabandhanam hi somya
manaH' of the chandogya which Shankara cites in this paragraph) in  ALL
shruti passages and WHEREVER brahman is specified as the cause of

There cannot be a more unambiguous statement from the bhashya on this
topic: 1. the brahman with which the jIva attains sat-sampatti in sushupti
/ pralaya is the sabIja brahman.  In the above bhashya Shankara is talking
about the jnAnavirodhi ajnAnabIjam because it is the jnAnadAhyam.  If there
were no positive entity, there is no way of calling it jnAnadAhyam, a
subject matter (object) of jnAnena dahanam.  2. Whenever brahman is spoken
of as the cause of creation/sustenance it is again this sabIja brahman

The thinking that there is no avidyA in deep sleep has arisen because of
the mistaken idea that the jIva has satsampatti with the shuddha svarUpam.
It is this idea that Shankara refutes in the above bhashya by giving a
ruling that is to be applied as a rider whenever one talks about avidya in
sushupti/jagatkAraNa brahman: it is the sopAdhika brahman and NOT the
nirupAdhika brahman with which satsampatti is had in sleep.  In the Br.up.
the sleep state is given as an analogy for moksha.  An analogy does not
tally with the matter taught in all respects.  Here, the common features
are: 1. no vyakta dvaita anubhava (avyakta dvaita is there in bIjarUpa) 2.
there is sukha anubhava even without any viShaya. 3. advaita anubhava.

In liberation the avyakta dvaita is also not there.

>  sushupti
> viveka has been compared with muktAvasta / viveka, if it is mere kArya
> brahma shankara would not have done that.  While talking about jeeva's
> svarUpa in sushupti, shankara says in sUtra bhAshya svamapeethObhavati,
> here sva means Atman not kArya brahman as you are inferring
> here..apeetobhavati means he attains his own real self...Here we cannot
> assert that his own real self here is 'kArya brahma'

It is not shuddha Atman either.  Otherwise, as Shankara has countered in
the mandukya bhashya I cited above, the jiva will never return from that
satsampatti.  Yad gatvA na nivartante ...that is the shuddha svarUpa.  What
you have said above is to be read along with the passage I have cited.
That is why that passage assumes supreme importance in the prasthAnatraya
bhashya, occupying the status of a ruling.

> !!  And more vivid
> declaration by shankara in sUtra bhAshya : sushupti kAle cha 'PARENA
> BRAHMANA' jeevaH ekathaM gachchanti...Here do you mean to say pareNa
> brahma is kArya brahma or saguNa brahma??

Yes. Parabrahman is also sometimes refered to mean the sopAdhika brahman to
differentiate it from mAyA.  Again  that sentence of Shankara is to be read
along with the ruling stated by me.

>  More importantly our own
> anubhava of sushupti does not teach us it is the state where upAdhi rahita
> jeeva would merge in upAdhi sahita, vyAvahArika saguNa brahma who has his
> existence ONLY in avidyA vyavahAra !!??

It is only because we cannot analyse our sushupti anubhava does the shruti
comes to aid our understanding.


> >  Anyway, I request other  prabhuji-s too share their view points on
> this.  So that we can enrich our knowledge on our own unknown avasthA i.e.
> sushupti :-))
> 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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list