[Advaita-l] Pramana for adhyaropa apavada

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Venkata sriram P
<venkatasriramp at yahoo.in>wrote:

> Namaste,
>
> ////
>
> I'm only talking about descriptive statements. The statements that describe
> brahman as having form, performing action etc. are negated by statements
> that describe brahman as not having form, not performing action. Does it
> not make the former
> untrue though required for upasana?
>
> //
>
> Here are the excerpts from "guru-kripA-vilAsaM" which is a dialogue between
> Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati Swamigal and a devotee.
>
> /////
>
>
> bhakta: How is it not uchitaM?
>
> AchAryAr: If the upAsakA remains in happiness having darshan of the
> VaikuNThAdi MUrtis, it would amount to the upAsakA becoming the bhoktA (one
> who experiences) and that MUrti becoming the bhogyaM (that which is
> experienced). The bhoktA is always AtmA, cetana (animate, intelligent,
> conscious); bhogyaM is always anAtmA, achetana (not the AtmA,
> inanimate/without consciousness). Therefore, if this man is having darshan
> of that Divya MUrti and experiencing happiness, it can only be that he
> makes that MUrti bhogyam and thereby anAtmA and jaDaM (inanimate). This is
> a great apachAraM (spiritual offence).
>
> Advaitins would not give room to such apachAraM. They would only accept
> the kaivalya padavi (path to Unity) as MokShaM, where the bhedaM
> (difference, distinction) of bhoktA-bhogyaM ceases into a state of unity of
> both.
>


We have a verse that puts the Advaita Bhakti in perspective:

This verse is very useful in understanding the a-viShyatva nature of
Brahman:

शिव इत्यहमित्युभौ न भिन्नौ शिव
एवाहं अहं शिवः स एव ।
यदि नैवं अनात्मता शिवस्य प्रसरेत्
अशिवत्वमात्मनोऽपि ॥
[The two, Shiva and I, are not different. 'Shiva' is 'I' alone and 'I' is/am
'Shiva' indeed.  If such were not the case then 'Shiva' will end up as
'anAtmA' (since anything other than the Atman, aham, is anAtma. And
therefore jaDa, anitya, like a pot) And not just that, Atman will
become a-shiva,
amangala. This is because if aham, atman, is not admitted to be Shiva, it is
only 'ashiva', amangala, inauspicious. Surely, none would like the prospect
of being inauspicious.]

It may be remembered here 'Shiva' is not the saguNa Ishwara, but the Supreme
Brahman.  And 'aham' is not the paricchinna jIva but the shodhita tvam
padArtha.

If one thinks of Shiva as Ishvara and as separate from the AtmA, then Shiva
becomes anAtmA and AtmA becomes limited. When one removes both jIvatvam and
Ishvaratvam through shodhita tvam padArtha and tat padArtha, the non-duality
of the AtmA is realized.

The AchArya has said that all the four types of mukti like sArUpyam,
sAmIpyam, sAlokyam and
sAyujyam (if bheda is maintained) are not absolute mokSha.



>
> Apart from this, if it is a mUrti it could only be within limits. It would
> not be uchitaM to say that only it is the Paratattvam. As an udAharaNam
> (example), let us take MahAVishNu. It is seen in his mUrti as holding up a
> chakraM (disc) in the right hand and a shangkham (conch) in the left hand.
> But there would be space between his bhujaM (arm) and the hand that holds
> the disc, right? Would there be BhagavAn in that space? If he is not there,
> the sarva-vyapakatvaM for the Bhagavan would be gone. If he is there, the
> concept that the very MUrti with those limbs is BhagavAn would be gone?
> Does BhagavAn pervade only that space? He pervades the space of his stance,
> the VaikuNThaM he resides in, and all the fourteen worlds? Without creating
> the space in him where he is not there, how can a MUrti be created?
> Therefore, to think that what is with MUrti is only BhagavAn, since it
> 'does hAni to' (ruins) his sarva-vyApakatvaM, would only be apachAraM.
>

This point has been stated in the 'vyAsa-tAtparya-nirNayaH' by Sri AyyaNNa
dIkShitaH in the second section on saguNa brahman.

regards
subrahmanian.v

>
> Therefore, for the Divya MUrtis in VaikuNThAdi, except that we can ascribe
> the vyavahArika satyam (practical, conditional reality) as done for all the
> padArthas (material objects) in the world, we cannot ascribe paramArthika
> satyam (absolute reality). Based on the tAratamyas (gradations,
> proportions) in the vyavahArika satyam we say that those LokAs are nityam
> (eternal) and satyam (real). So long as there is bheda-buddhi for us
> (tendency to distinguish) for us, all these worlds are only real.
>
> In the stage we are in today, we need to only indulge in karma and upAsana
> as prescribed in the ShAstras, and since we are anarha (unworthy,
> unsuitable) to inquire into what the Paratattvam would be like in the stage
> of uttama jnAnaM (highest knowledge), it would only be a waste to debate
> about that--there is no doubt about it. When that state is reached, the
> Tattvam would be intelligible of its own. And there would be no time for
> arguments then.
>
> ////
>
> regs,
> sriram
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>