[Advaita-l] dva suparNA

[Venkatraghavan S]

Chandramouli ji,

One example that comes to mind is in Taittariya Upanishad 3.8:

स यश्चायं पुरुषे । यश्चासावादित्ये । स एकः।

"He who is in this man, and he that is in the sun there, he is the same."

Others may have other examples.

Sada ji,
PraNAm. Thanks for the example.

Just a thought - not sure if the interpretation is correct. The sarvajna:
in that example indicates the "possession" of parA vidyA, and therefore I
believe would have to be for mAyA vishishta chaitanyam, not for shuddha
chaitanyam?

Regards,
Venkatraghavan
On 14 Nov 2015 15:31, "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>