[Advaita-l] Which one is first in the creation sequence

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः *www.lalitaalaalitah.com


2014-03-05 21:17 GMT+05:30 श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com>:

> ​​
>  H:
>
> The words " mayopadhika Iswara " and " mayavishishta Iswara " are both used
> frequently in the literature on vedanta. Many times in the same work
> itself. Both refer to Ishwara only contextually in all the places.
>
> But while explaining the concept of Iswara they consider maya ( avidya ) as
> visheshana to Chaitanya from the standpoint of Iswara and same maya (
> avidya ) as upadhi from the standpoint of Chaitanya.
>
> This corresponds to antahkarana as being visheshana to Chaitanya from the
> standpoint of jiva while the same antahkarana is an upadhi to Chaitanya
> from the standpoint of Sakshi ( kutastha ) .
>
>
> What is the word corresponding to Sakshi at the level of maya as described
> above.
>
> L:
> ईश्वरसाक्षीपदमेव वेदान्तपरिभाषाकारेण ईश्वरसम्बन्धिप्रत्यक्षस्य
> मायोपहितचैतन्यरूपस्य निरूपणाय प्रयुक्तम् । तथा हि तद्वाक्यानि :
>
> *तदुपहितं चैतन्यम् ईश्वरसाक्षी । तच्च अनादि , तदुपाधेर्मायाया अनादित्वात्
> ।*
>
> *मायावच्छिन्नं चैतन्यञ्च परमेश्वरः ।*
>
> *मायाया विशेषणत्वे ईश्वरत्वम् उपाधित्वे साक्षित्वम् इति
> ईश्वरसाक्षित्वयोर्भेदः न तु धर्म्मिणोरीश्वरतत्साक्षिणोः ।*
>
> इति ।
>
> तथा च एकस्यैव धर्म्मिणः चैतन्यस्य ईश्वरसाक्षित्वेन व्यवहारो भवति मायाया
> उपाधित्वेन ग्रहणे इति वेदान्तपरिभाषाकारस्य रीतिः । ईश्वरस्य
> ईश्वरसाक्षिणश्चाभेद एव , एकस्यैव चैतन्यस्य तत्तत्सञ्ज्ञकत्वात् ।
>
> अत्र विशेषणोपाध्योर्भेदस्तदुक्तः स्मर्त्तव्यः । तथा हि
>
> *विशेषणञ्च कार्य्यान्वयि वर्त्तमानं व्यावर्त्तकम् उपाधिश्च कार्य्यानन्वयी
> व्यावर्त्तको वर्त्तमानश्च ।*
>
> इति ।
>
> इत्थं यदा जगत्कारणत्वेन चैतन्यस्य निरूपणं क्रियते तदा मायाया विशेषणत्वेन
> तस्येश्वरपदवाच्यत्वम् । यदा तु ईश्वरीयज्ञानत्वेन तस्यैव चैतन्यस्य निरूपणं
> क्रियते तदा मायाया जडत्वेन कार्य्यानन्वयित्वात् तस्यैव चैतन्यस्य ईश्वरपदभाज
> ईश्वरसाक्षित्वेन ईश्वरीयप्रत्यक्षत्वेन व्यवहारो भवति ।
>

Author of ​vedAntaparibhAShA​

​uses the term 'IshvarasAxI' to denote the 'direct perception related to
Ishvara', which is mAyopahita-chaitanya.
Thus he said:
*mAyopahita-chaitanya is Ishvara-sAxI. That is begining-less, because so is
it's upAdhi.*

*mAyAvachchhinna-chaitanya is Ishvara.*


*When mAyA is considered visheShaNa, then it is Ishvaratvam; when upAdhi,
then sAxitvam - is the difference of Ishvaratva and sAxitva; and not of
Ishvara and sAxI.*
So, A single entity, which is consciousness, is known as Ishvara-sAxI when
mAyA is considered upAdhi - is the way paribhAShAkAra explians.
Ishvara and sAxI are one because the same thing is called with both names.

Here we should remember what is said about difference of visheShaNa and
upAdhi:
*That which is 'related to effect', present and separating from others, is
called visheShaNa. That which is 'not related to effect', present and
differentiating, is called upAdhi.*

So, when chaitanya is denoted as 'cause of all', then mAyA is visheShaNa
and hence the chaitanya is called Ishvara.
When the same chaitanya is denoted as 'pratyaxa related to Ishvara', then
mAyA being jaDa(useless for the revelation/illuumination of objects) is
upAdhi and hence the same chaitanya which was termed 'Ishvara' is called
Ishvara-sAxI or Ishvara-pratyaxa.
​

>  H:
>
> Is it Bimbachaitanya?
>
>
> L:
>
> अत एव यदा बिम्बचैतन्यस्येश्वरत्वं तदा तस्यैव बिम्बस्यैव ईश्वरसाक्षित्वमपि
> इति ज्ञेयम् ।
>
> मायायाः परं बिम्बत्वप्रयोजिकायाः कार्य्यान्वयित्वं न वा इत्यादाय
> विशेषणत्वोपाधित्वे भवतः तदादाय च तस्य ईश्वरत्वसाक्षित्वव्यवहारौ ।
>

​Hence, when bimba-chaitanya is Ishvara, then the same bimba-chaitanya is
Ishvara-sAxI also.
​


> H:
> That is my question. The two terms mayavishishta and mayopadhika are both
> used to address Iswara.
>
>
> L:
>
> सत्यम् ।
>

​True.
​


>  H:
>
> My doubt is how can the same Iswara have maya as his upadhi as well as be
> endowed with it ?
>
>
> L:
>
> तत्र विचार्य्यैव निर्णेयं यत् उपाधिपदेन विशेषणं विवक्षितं न वा ।
>

​You should decide after considering whether the word 'upAdhi' means
'visheShaN' or not.
​


>  H:
>
> After all Iswara is Chaitanya + maya.
>
> Upadhi cannot be part of the vastu itself.
>
>
> L:
>
> वस्तुत्वं तु शुद्धस्यैवास्मन्मते । तच्च निरवयवम् । अत एव युक्तमेवोक्तं
> स्यात् यदि एतदभिप्रेतं स्यात् ।
>
> न च तथा विवक्षितं मिथ्याभूतस्येश्वरस्यैवात्र विचार्य्यत्वात् । अत एव
> अयुक्तमिदं वचः ।
>
> अथापि ईश्वरस्य विशिष्टचैतन्यत्वेन सांशत्वमभ्युपेयमेव ।
>
> किञ्च भवतैवोक्तं ‘
> ​​
> Iswara = Chaitanya + maya’ इति अतः सांशत्वमेवेश्वरस्य ।
>
>
​In our system, only shuddha-chaitanya is vastu. That is devoid of parts.
Hence, if you meant 'shuddha' in your sentence, then you were correct.
But, that is not the case because we are talking about Ishvara. So, you
appear wrong.

We have to accept that Ishvara has parts because Ishvara is
vishiShTa-chaitanya.
What more, you yourself said that :
​
​
Iswara = Chaitanya + maya
So, Ishvara has parts.

I don't know how correct is my translation because I don't know equivalents
of saMskR^ita-words and rules of English-Grammar well. Even then I hope it
will be able to express my views.