[Advaita-l] dva suparNA

[H S Chandramouli]

Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,


I am continuing with the discussion so that all aspects can be covered.The
issue perhaps can be viewed from another aspect also.I am presenting it
here without any conclusion from my side as my knowledge of sanskrit is
poor and the question itself could be wrong. If so I may please be excused.
But I do hope to get the answer from knowledgeable persons here. The
Mundaka Bhashya sentence under consideration is << अनश्नन् अन्यः इतरः ईश्वरो
 नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावः सर्वज्ञः सत्त्वोपाधिरीश्वरो नाश्नाति ।  >>.
All the qualifying words नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावः , सर्वज्ञः , सत्वोपाधिः
,  ईश्वरः etc are in masculine gender . ( Hope I am correct ) . Is Nirguna
Chaitanyam referred to in masculine gender anywhere else ?? Please clarify.


Regards


Chandramouli

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Sri Chandramouliji,
>
> I agree with your analysis below.
>
> I went back to Swamiji's talk - the synopsis is that Brahman and Iswara
> both refer to saguNa chaitanyam in shAstra (as vAchyArtha). For the sake of
> communication, AchAryas have formed a convention. We have been using Iswara
> for saguNa, and Brahman for nirguNa for convenience.
>
> My question was slightly different - is the use of the terms
> sattvopadhirIshvara and sarvajna in Mundaka BhAshyam pointing to saguNa
> chaitanyam or nirguNa chaitanyam? As Sri Subbuji has explained, both terms
> are to be interpreted as referring to nirguNa chaitanyam only.
>
> RE PRB in Vichara Sahara, Swamiji said that in dvA suparNa, the two birds
> are not jivAtma and paramAtma at all. They are referring two portions of
> the same jivAtma - chidAbhAsa/manas and sAkshi. So that cannot be quoted to
> argue for jivAtma/paramAtma bheda.
> I haven't gotten round to his Brahma Sutra classes, so I don't know what
> information he provided 're PRB when he taught 1.2.12.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
> On 14 Nov 2015 03:52, "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,
>>
>>
>>
>>  I really did not mean understanding the  identity between
>> Brahman/Chaitanyam and Iswara as in the Soham ( identity between Chaitanyam
>> and Jiva ) context. That would , in my view , be explaining away the issue
>> rather than explaining the issue. Soham is a far more difficult concept as
>> we are by  instinct used to consider Jiva and Iswara as entirely different
>> entities with all the well known different characteristics. It is much
>> easier with Brahman and Iswara. We are with relative ease comfortable with
>> the understanding that both the words refer to the same entity , only
>> difference being the presence or absence of mAyA . mAyA can be understood
>> as a visheshana for one and the same entity Chaitanyam. With the visheshana
>> , the same Chaitanyam appears as Iswara . There is no change in the entity
>> as such. The difference is even less striking when it is recalled that mAyA
>> , being ever a kArana vastu  is always unmanifest , its presence being
>> inferred only from manifest kArya vastus . The position is somewhat akin to
>> a musician on and off the stage. On stage he is a musician , but off stage
>> we consider him as like any of us .
>>
>>
>>
>>  Apart from all this I do agree that it would have been much simpler if
>> the same word is used or the same entity in all all places. But that
>> applies to so many other words as well.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Incidentally I distinctly remember that SP has covered this aspect of
>> PRB in one of his talks , but I do not remember what exactly was said nor
>> where exactly he covered it . In all probability it is in the Vichara
>> Sagara context itself.I am sure you would be able to connect it up. When
>> you do , please let me know also.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Warm Regards
>>
>>
>>
>>  Chandramouli
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sri Chandramouli ji,
>>>
>>> Thank you. I will go back and review the relevant section of vichAra
>>> sAgara. As you say, whether AchArya was referring to Brahman / Iswara in
>>> different contexts, the understanding ultimately is,  soham.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Venkatraghavan
>>> On 13 Nov 2015 13:08, "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Reg  << "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. >>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Since you are following Vichara Sagara talks by Swami Paramarthananda
>>>> closely, it is easier for me to answer your question better by referring
>>>> you to the relevant portion therein. Please refer to topic 185, pp 103-105
>>>> of the book and the associated talk by SP. I do not recollect the talk
>>>> number. I am sure you are keeping track of it. From memory , I recall that
>>>> in his talk SP mentioned that he would give the gist of issue ( Brahma and
>>>> Iswara ) at that stage of his talks and that he would revert back to it at
>>>> a later stage for more elaborate discussion  after  the entire subject of
>>>> Vichara Sagara is completed. Otherwise , according to him , it is difficult
>>>> to grasp the full significance of the issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  The general gist of it is that Mayavishishta Chaitanyam is the
>>>> Vachyartha for the word “ Brahman “ and Mayarahita Chaitanyam is the
>>>> Lakshyartha for the same word. Accordingly  both the words “ Iswara “ and “
>>>> Brahma “ lead to the same knowledge/understanding , and should not be
>>>> treated as different entities .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  You may like to refer to the book and talk for clarity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chandramouli
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
>>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>