[Advaita-l] dva suparNA

[H S Chandramouli]

Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,



Reg  <<  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."
>> ,



 the Bhashya for the above reads as follows.



<< तदेतन्मीमांसाफलमुपसंह्रियते - स यश्चायं पुरुष इति । यः गुहायां निहितः
परमे व्योम्नि आकाशादिकार्यं सृष्ट्वा अन्नमयान्तम्, तदेवानुप्रविष्टः, सः य
इति निश्चीयते । कोऽसौ? अयं पुरुषे । >> .



Translation  ( Sri Mahadeva Shastri )  << He who is hid in the cave in the
highest heaven ,who , having emanated akasa and the rest in the universe
down to the physical body ( annamaya ) , has entered into that very
universe , is here spoken of as “ this one who “ –Who is here referred to ?
The one in this body ( Purusha ).>>



Quite clearly Iswara is referred to , This bhashya also reinforces the
understanding that Sakshi is Iswara only.



I must reiterate that my understanding continues to be the same as I
mentioned earlier , that there is no difference between Nirguna Chaitanyam
and Iswara as an entity , difference being only in the aspect. But I am
continuing with the discussion as it clarifies our understanding as
different viewpoints would come come out.



Regards

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

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