[Advaita-l] dva suparNA

[Venkatraghavan S]

"If it is nirguNa Brahman in both places, why did AchArya use the terms
सर्वज्ञः and सत्त्वोपाधिरीश्वर:?"

In mundaka bhAshyam, I suppose by sattva in sattvopAdhirIshvara:, he is
keeping in mind, the PRB vakyam referring to the first bird as sattvam, or
mind, and not shuddha sattva guNam.

Therefore, by sattvopAdhirIshvara:, AchArya means *Ishvara (nirguNa Brahman
/ kUtastha) that has sattvam (mind) as his upAdhi*, and not *he who has
shuddha sattvam as upAdhi, that (saguNa) Ishvara *.

That still leaves sarvagya:. Any thoughts?

Regards,
Venkat

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Sri Subbuji,
> Once again, a fantastic email. We are really grateful for your
> contributions!
>
> With respect to the mundaka bhAshyam, by using the terms सर्वज्ञः and सत्त्वोपाधिरीश्वर:
> in describing the second bird AchArya seems to be indeed referring to
> Iswara.
>
> Whereas in Brahma SUtra 1.2.12 by using terms such as
> "सर्व्सम्सारधर्मातीत: ब्रह्मस्वभाव चैतन्य्मात्र्स्वरूप:" and  "अविक्रियात्
> क्षेत्रग्यस्य", he seems to be referring to nirguNa Brahman.
>
> If it is nirguNa Brahman in both places, why did AchArya use the terms
> सर्वज्ञः and सत्त्वोपाधिरीश्वर:?
>
> Jaldhar ji,
>
> "I think the crucial concept in the two birds metaphor is embodiment.  It
> is the identification with pleasure and pain (and all the other pairs of
> dualities) which has made the first bird suffer.  But within the living
> body there is also calm and freedom which is represented by the second bird
> and to recognize this will eventually lead the embodied 'I' beyond limited
> identification with a body."
>
> I agree completely.
>
>
> Chandramouli ji
>
> "Hence in my view it is sufficient , in understanding the Bhashya/Shruti ,
>  to distinguish between Jiva on the one hand and Brahman(
> nirguna)/Iswara(saguna)/Kutastha/Sakshi on the other ( to be understood
> contextually and according to individual temperament of the sadhaka)."
>
> In general, I would tend to agree with you. Based on the context, one can
> understand which term is being referred to. However, in this case, as
> pointed by you, with respect to the same mantra, ShankarA seems to refer to
> a sarvagya Isvara in one place and nirguNa chaitanyam in another. I would
> like to understand how to interpret Shankara's seemingly different
> treatment of the second bird in Mundaka vs Paingi Rahasya Brahmana (as
> occurring in BSB 1.2.12).
>
> Any thoughts on this would be helpful.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:41 AM, V Subrahmanian
> <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>