[Advaita-l] Knowledge of Brahman

[V Subrahmanian]

A few years ago, Vidwan Sri Mani Dravid Sastrigal, in a Tamil talk on the
references to 'bheda' in the Brahma sutras had made an interesting
observation:

In the Dvṣ suparṇa mantra the word 'tayoḥ anyaḥ pippalam svādvatti' does
not show any real difference between the two: jiva and Ishvara.  For a true
bheda to be indicated there is a vyakarana requirement, as per a sutra,
that a panchami has to be used. Hence, the mantra, if it wanted to show
jiva as different from Ishvara would have to say: tasmāt anyaḥ.  The tayoḥ
anyaḥ only means 'of the two, one is doing this....and the other
is...doing...'

And in the subsequent mantra: the word '*anyam* īśam' there is the word
anya which means 'other'.  Here too, the reference is not to show any
difference between the jiva and Ishvara but only that jiva who is
identified with the body, now identifies himself with the 'other' that is
Atma, which is only 'other' than/from the body.

So, there is no place anywhere in the Veda where there is a *real* (as per
the non-advaitins) difference-indicating word is present.  On the other
hand, there are several aikya-teaching sentences in the Veda which alone
have become the problematic ones for the non-advaitins forcing them to
labor giving convoluted and extremely artificial explanations to them.

regards
vs

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Sri Harsha,
>
> You said:
>
> "In dwe suparne matra says even in moksha there are two birds,So,according
> to vedas only second bird (Bhudhi) exists even in moksha"
>
> This is not true. Not every statement in VedA is a mahAvAkya talking about
> paramArtha satyam. The dvA suparNa mantra refers to vyavahAra only, where
> the second bird (chidAbhAsa) is apparently engaged in activities, while the
> first (kUtastha) is the the silent sAkshi. This mantra does not talk about
> their aikyam explicitly, but that doesn't mean that their aikyam is not
> true.  There are several other vAkyams that talk about aikyam, which is the
> ultimate reality, or as you say, "what exists in moksha".
>
> In general, bheda vAkyas can be reconciled with abheda (the former as
> vyAhArika satya, and the latter being the pAramArthika satya), but if you
> take bhedA as ultimate reality, the abhedA vAkyas will be rendered
> meaningless, and no VedA vAkya can be dismissed as meaningless.
>
> In interpreting Veda mantras one needs to consider the VedA as a whole,
> because if one statement/mantra is taken in isolation it may lead only to a
> partial understanding, sometimes even a wrong one.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>