[Advaita-l] Omniscience ..........

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

Sarvajnatva etc  are  Brahman. Shruti pramana < Brahman is Anantam >

Brahman is not Sarvajnatvam etc. Shruti pramana < Brahman is nirguna > .

How are both these apparently contradictory statements both valid. Sri
Bhagavatpada advances the Doctrine of Maya in support.

Regards


On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:41 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
>
> > In fact Sri Bhaskar ji has highlighted before the idea of
> > 'sarvajnatva, etc. are avidyAkalpita' by citing the famous statements
> from
> > the BSB 2.1.14.
> >
> > praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
> > Hare Krishna
> >
> > I disparately need some time to clarify all these things from bhAshya
> > perspective.  Anyway, here is the quick shot.  The bhAshya vAkya says
> > something like : sarvajnatvAdi vyavahAraH upapadyate. Here the word
> > vyavahAra is very important...In, upAdhi rahita Atman sarvajnatvAdi
> > vyavahAra, which is avidyAkalpita is not admitted (neha nAnAsti kiMchana)
> > but it does not anyway mean to say that brahman is devoid of jnAnaM and
> > shakti without the help of upAdhi, because shruti declaring that the
> > parabrahman is satyaM, jnAnam and anantaM brahma (vide tai.up.) !!
>
>
> Dear Sri Bhaskar ji,
>
> The above three are svarUpa lakShaNa where according to the bhashyam jnAnam
> is not 'sarvajnatvam' but 'jnapti = avabodhaH', objectless pure
> consciousness.  Pl. read the bhashyam for this word in the Taittiriya
> upanishad. Even in the Br.up. 'vijnAnam Anandam brahma' 3.9.28.7 Shankara
> gives the meaning: vijnAnam = vijnaptiH.
>
> In fact in the very first post in this thread I had cited the bhashyam for
> the Chandogya upanishad 8.1.5-
>
> संकल्पाः कामाश्च शुद्धसत्त्वोपाधिनिमित्ताः ईश्वरस्य, चित्रगुवत् । न स्वतः,
> नेति नेतीत्युक्त्वात् ।
>
> [sankalpAh kAmAshcha shuddhasattvopAdhinimittAH Ishvarasya, chitraguvat. na
> svataH, neti neti ityuktatvAt']
>
> The translation of the above is:
>
> //Wills and desires of God are caused by the limiting adjunct (upAdhi) of
> pure sattva, as a man is called 'Chitragu' when he is possessed of cows of
> various colors. [A person having cows of various colors is called
> 'chitragu', and the phrase does not mean that the person himself has many
> colors.  Similarly in the case of Brahman, true wills and desires are not
> the qualities of Brahman Itself, but caused the quality of sattva which is
> Its upAdhi.]  But they do not inhere in Him, since the UpaniShad declares,
> 'Not this, not this' (Br.2.3.6).//
>
> In the BSB 2.1.4 Shankara says:
>
> Br.sutra bhashyam 2.1.14:
>
> तदेवमविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेदापेक्षमेवेश्वरस्येश्वरत्वं सर्वज्ञत्वं
> सर्वशक्तित्वं च न परमार्थतो विद्यायापास्तसर्वोपाधिस्वरूप
> आत्मनीशित्रीशितव्यसर्वज्ञत्वादिव्यवहार उपपद्यते ।
>
> //Thus, * only in the realm of the ignorance-created *upAdhis are Ishwara's
> Lordship, Omniscience and Omnipotence, and not in the pAramArthika realm
> which implies that the ignorance-created upAdhis have been
> negated/dispelled by True knowledge.  In this post-negation scenario
> the ignorance-realm
> of Ishwara-Ishitavya (ruler-ruled) duality and omniscience, etc. do not
> have a place.//
>
>
>
> The above bhAshya vAkya  says only  that sOpAdhika Ishwara is vyavahArika
> > satya and this vAkya in arambhaNAdhikaraNa is not there to propagate the
> > idea that brahman without upAdhi is minus of his svabhAva i.e.
> sarvajnatva
> > and sarvashaktitva.
> >
>
> In fact the above vAkyam says quite the opposite of what you claim:
>
> // In this post-negation scenario the ignorance-realm of Ishwara-Ishitavya
> (ruler-ruled) duality and omniscience, etc. do not have a place.//  The
> bhashya is explicitly saying that Brahman minus those upAdhis does not give
> room for the ruler-ruled, omniscience, etc.vyavahara.
>
> In both the bhashya passages I have cited above, Shankara consistently
> maintains that 1. with upAdhi alone Brahman as Ishwara is omniscient,
> satyasankalpa, etc. and 2. these are not the inherent nature of Brahman.
>
> Nowhere does Shankara say that the svabhAva of Brahman is sarvajnatva and
> sarvashaktitva.  In fact these two are attributed to Brahman as Ishwara
> only in relation to jiva-jagat sRShTi. Without jIva-jagat there can be no
> omniscience, etc. to Ishwara for the simple reason that there is nothing
> that Ishwara can do.
>
>  If it is svabhAva, the jIva who is to realize his identity with Brahman
> (aham brahmAsmi, tattvamasi) will have to know that he is the omniscient
> Ishwara.  Such a contingency is not allowed in Advaita.  It is only a wrong
> understanding on the part of the non-advaitins that results in their
> criticism that Advaita equates the jiva with sarvajna Ishwara.  This
> criticism cannot be escaped in the above proposition of yours.
>
> In any case pl. provide the reference where Shankara says that sarvajnatva
> etc. are the svabhAva of Brahman.
>
> regards
> vs
>
>
>
> 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
>