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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 9:31 AM, H S Chandramouli
<hschandramouli at gmail.com>wrote:

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

Anantam is the svarUpalakShaNa of Brahman, along with satyam, jnAnam in the
Taittiriyopanishad.  It means: trividha pariccheda shUnyam: desha, kAla,
vastu pariccheda is not there for Brahman.  If sarvajnatvam is held to be
Brahman's svarUpa lakshanam, then the jiva who is alpajna will / can be
held against Brahman's vijAteeyabheda rahitatva.  To explain, Brahman is
vijAteeya bheda rahitam/ there is no entity that is un-brahman,
not-brahman.  jiva will qualify to be an example for there existing
something 'other' than brahman.  That is why the upAdhi-s sarvajnatvam and
alpajnatvam of both ishwara and jiva are denied to arrive at the
adviteeyatvam of Brahman.

regards
vs

>
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>