[Advaita-l] dva suparNA
H S Chandramouli
hschandramouli at gmail.com
Fri Nov 13 01:29:43 CST 2015
Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,
The discussion on PRB in the BSB 1-2-12 is with reference to the Purva
Paksha which interprets the PRB verse as referring to Satva ( mind ) and
Kshetragna ( embodied soul/Jiva ) for “ the two birds “. The answer given
by the Sidhantin is that there is no contradiction with the view taken by
PRB as “ Kshetragna “ is not presented there ( in PRB ) as endowed with
such worldly qualities as agentship and enjoyership ( kartriktva and
bhoktriktva ) . On the other hand it is presented as free from all worldly
qualities and identical in nature with Brahman itself ( with pure
Consciousness ). The word चैतन्यमात्रस्वरूपाः ( from your quote ) is to be
understood as “ of the nature of Chaitanyam “ and not as Chaitanyam (
Nirguna Brahman ) itself. Why so ?? Because the Shruti in this verse is
talking of Chaitanyam embracing the body ( vriksha ) meaning thereby
Chaitanyam with body as Upadhi ( Sopadhika Brahman ) .
In the BG also , Kshetragna is Sakshi and not Nirguna Brahman , for the
same reason as set out above.
It may be interesting to point out here ( though not directly relevant )
that even in Advaita Sidhi , during discussion with the Dvaitin , the
Advaitin has no hesitation in accepting Sopadhika Brahman ( Sakshi ) as
Mithya while contending that only Brahman is Sathyam.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> Namaste Sri Chandramouliji,
> Good to hear from you! Interesting observation.
> I believe in BSB 1.2.12 AchArya is referring to Brahman quite explicitly.
> He says:
> न ह्यत्र शारीरः क्शेत्रग्यः कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वादिना संसारधर्मेणोपेतो
> विवक्ष्यते । कथं तर्हि? सर्वसंसारधर्मातीतो ब्रह्मस्वभाव
> And he goes on to quote क्शेतररग्यं चापि मां विद्धि in support of equating
> क्शेत्रज्ञ and ब्रह्म!
> Because the second bird does not have kartritva/bhoktritva and from
> AchArya's use of chaitanyamAtram in describing Brahma svabhAva, it's
> probably reasonable to conclude he is referring to nirguNa brahman?
> On 13 Nov 2015 05:56, "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sri Siva Senani Ji and Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,
>> It is not only with reference to PRB that Sri Bhagavatpada has
>> interpreted Kshetragna as referring to Iswara ( and not Brahman as
>> mentioned by Sri Venkatraghavan Ji ) . Even in BG Ch 13 quoted by Sri Siva
>> Senani Ji , Sri Bhagavatpada has interpreted the same way in his Bhashya on
>> verse 2 quoted below.
>> क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि सर्वक्षेत्रेषु भारत ।
>> क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोर्ज्ञानं यत्तज्ज्ञानं मतं मम ॥ २ ॥
>> क्षेत्रज्ञं यथोक्तलक्षणं चापि मां परमेश्वरम् असंसारिणं विद्धि जानीहि ।
>> सर्वक्षेत्रेषु यः क्षेत्रज्ञः
>> ब्रह्मादिस्तम्बपर्यन्तानेकक्षेत्रोपाधिप्रविभक्तः, तं निरस्तसर्वोपाधिभेदं
>> सदसदादिशब्दप्रत्ययागोचरं विद्धि इति अभिप्रायः ।
>> Only if Kshetragna is interpreted as Iswara will the first part of this
>> verse be meaningful, not if it is interpreted as Jiva.
>> My 2 cents view.
>> Pranams and Regards
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>> Sri Siva Senani,
>>> Great email. Thank you.
>>> Adi Shankara Bhagavatpada has a slightly different but nevertheless
>>> interesting interpretation to the mantra in his Brahma Sutra BhAshyam
>>> a Paingi Rahasya BrAhmaNa (PRB) context in his commentary on sutra
>>> To the pUrva pakshi who argues based on PRB that the birds refer to
>>> (the eating bird) and kshetragya, Shankara replies by saying that the
>>> kshetragya here is "not presented here as endowed with such worldly
>>> qualities as agentship and doership" but is "presented as free from all
>>> worldly qualities and identical in nature with Brahman Itself" (Sw.
>>> GambhirAnanda's translation, p.125).
>>> Kshetragya in this context, is Brahman Itself.
>>> Don't want to confuse readers, but thought this was a different reading
>>> the word 'kshetragya', to merit attention.
>>> On 12 Nov 2015 19:01, "Siva Senani Nori via Advaita-l" <
>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>> > From: Harsha Bhat via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>>> > Sent: Thursday, 12 November 2015 7:37 PM
>>> > Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Fwd: Knowledge of Brahman
>>> > Can any one tell ,what adi shankara says for dwe suparne mantra...Or in
>>> > other words can any one give english translation for dwe suparne mantra
>>> > from shankaracharya bhashya..Please..
>>> > ------------------------
>>> > Before giving the gist of what Bhagavatpada says, a few words of
>>> > introduction are in order.
>>> > First, Saastra should be approached with Sraddhaa, i.e. a belief that
>>> > the Saastras and Guru (Bhagavatpaada, in the present case) are right
>>> > they can help us achieve the ultimate. Without this Sraddhaa, studying
>>> > Saastras will not achieve any purpose. In other words, their real
>>> > would not be understood. Specifically khanDana etc. should not precede
>>> > understanding, it should follow understanding. One should first read
>>> > prakaraNagranthas, understand the broad tenets of Saastra first and
>>> > read in depth to appreciate the nuances and then engage with other
>>> > so that one's own understanding is tested and strengthened. Of course,
>>> > after following a careful routine, if one is convinced that the school
>>> > studied is flawed and another school is better, one should surely
>>> > whatever one deems best. Even so, what happens when one is in the
>>> > of studying, but is confused by other thoughts, by suggestions etc.?
>>> > not the forum help? I would advise either isolation of the source of
>>> > confusion, or a period of purposeful study, rather than engagement with
>>> > second-hand summaries (it is like learning rocket science from
>>> > However, still sometimes if it is inevitable, well, here goes the
>>> > explanation:
>>> > Second - this is both a preliminary and an introduction to the
>>> > on the mantra - it needs to be understood that Vedic sentences, in the
>>> > context of an Advaita vs. Others kind of debate, are of two types:
>>> > BhedaSruti, emphasising difference, and AbhedaSruti, emphasising
>>> > non-difference. The existence of these two types of sentences is not
>>> > disputed by anybody. What happens, is depending on the school, one set
>>> > sentences is given primacy and the other set is interpreted so as to
>>> > conform to one's own siddhaanta. Advaita "explains away" the various
>>> > bhedaSrutis according to non-Advaitins and the reverse is held to be
>>> > by Advaitins. So what is the right interpretation? Obviously one would
>>> > to take an overall view. Many western scholars, who do not suffer from
>>> > feelings of inadequacy and are supremely sure of their positions even
>>> > though they change over time (say Bertrand Russell or Noam Chomsky),
>>> take a
>>> > stance that they understand the intent of the Upanishads, of
>>> Sutrakara, of
>>> > Bhashyakar and that either the Sutrakara or Bhashyakara (why, even
>>> > UpanishadkRt in their view) erred, or deviated at such and such places.
>>> > Traditional scholars, who are more careful, tend to look to tradition
>>> > because the tradition consists of their wellwishers primarily. That's
>>> > Sraddhaa comes in.
>>> > Now in the present mantra, Sankaracarya explains that the two birds
>>> > referred to are Jiva and Isvara. The same two are described as the
>>> > Ksharapurusha and Aksharapurusha by Bhagavaan in
>>> > (Ch 15, verse 16) of Bhagavadgita. There, it will be recalled, is said:
>>> > उत्त्मः पुरुषस्त्वन्यः परमात्मेत्युदाहृतः (15.17) -- There is a third
>>> > purusha called Paramatman = Parabrahman. Here are extracts from the
>>> > with translation:
>>> > अयं हि वृक्ष ऊर्ध्वमूलोऽवाक्शाखोऽश्वत्थोऽव्यक्तमूलप्रभवः क्षेत्रसंज्ञकः
>>> > सर्वप्राणिकर्मफलाश्रयः, तं परिष्वक्तवन्तौ सुपर्णाविव
>>> > अविद्याकामकर्मवासनाश्रयलिङ्गोपाध्यात्मेश्वरौ ।
>>> > a) Atma, which has for an adjunct  a body that is the base for
>>> > desire, karma and vAsanas (subconscious tendencie, or traces of earlier
>>> > actions) and b) Isvara are like two birds which clutched (embraced) a
>>> > which has roots upwards, branches downwards, is called Asvattha (cross
>>> > reference BG 15.1 - 3), is born from the source called Avyakta , is
>>> > known as Kshetra (cf. BG 13.4), and is the substrate of the fruits of
>>> > action of all creatures.
>>> > तयोः परिष्वक्तयोः अन्यः एकः क्षेत्रज्ञो लिङ्गोपाधिवृक्षमाश्रितः पिप्पलं
>>> > कर्मनिष्पन्नं सुखदुःखलक्षणं फलं स्वादु अनेकविचित्रवेदनास्वादरूपं स्वादु
>>> > अत्ति भक्षयत्युपभुङ्क्ते अविवेकतः ।
>>> > Of those two who have clutched the tree, one is the Kshetrajna (=Jeeva,
>>> > cf. BG, Ch. 13) who has resorted to the tree which is of the form of an
>>> > adjunct, due to lack of discrimination eats, i.e. consumes the fruit
>>> > Pippala, which is the result of karma, is of the nature of joy
>>> (sukham) and
>>> > sorrow (duHkham) and is tasty on account of the enjoyment of various
>>> > experience, .
>>> > अनश्नन् अन्यः इतरः ईश्वरो नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावः सर्वज्ञः
>>> > (सर्व)सत्त्वोपाधिरीश्वरो नाश्नाति । प्रेरयिता
>>> > ह्यसावुभयोर्भोज्यभोक्त्रोर्नित्यसाक्षित्वसत्तामात्रेण ।
>>> > The other, the eternal, blemishless, omniscient Isvara who is of the
>>> > of consciousness, is liberated, and has (sarva)sattva [=maayaa] as an
>>> > adjunct, does not consume [the fruit].
>>> > स तु अनश्नन् अन्यः अभिचाकशीति पश्यत्येव केवलम् । दर्शनमात्रं हि तस्य
>>> > प्रेरयितृत्वं राजवत् ॥
>>> > He, the other who is not consuming, only witnesses. Like a king his
>>> > causal-agency is being merely a witness.
>>> > RegardsN. Siva Senani
>>> >  Upaadhi = adjunct. Adjunct is something which stands next to it,
>>> > is not a part of it. For instance, when we say that a crystal has a
>>> > for an adjunct (the crystal, colourless, will actually look red due to
>>> > rose placed next to it), the implication is that the qualities of the
>>> > adjunct are superimposed on the thing of interest. Here, the qualities
>>> > avidyaa are imposed on Brahman and we call that entity as Jeeva. As
>>> Sri V.
>>> > Subrahmanyam pointed out sometime back, Isvara also is Brahman with
>>> > as an adjunct. This is the reason, the two birds are called sakhaayau
>>> - two
>>> > entities are called sakhA when the reason for their manifestation is
>>> > same: it is avdiyaa here. Here avyakta means undifferentiated mAyA,
>>> > called mUlaprakRti. प्रेरयितृत्वम् = the property of being a
>>> > one who causes. Here the sense is that Isvara causes the result of
>>> > i.e. Isvara is the reason every creature per force suffers or enjoys
>>> > result of its karma. This concept of how Isvara causes the results
>>> > Karma - darSanamaatreNa - is what differentiates Vedaanta from the
>>> > of Purvamimaamsaa which does not admit of God, or where Isvara has no
>>> > either in creation (they don't admit creation, for the world is
>>> > beginningless for all that we know), sustenance (every one begets the
>>> > result of his Kama, and Isvara has no role) or dissolution (they don't
>>> > admit dissolution).
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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/
>>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>> For assistance, contact:
>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list