[Advaita-l] Fwd: dva suparNA

[H S Chandramouli]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] dva suparNA
To: Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>


Sri Venkatraghavan Ji ,

Reg  << I agree with your comment that shAstra uses the terms Brahman and
Iswara interchangeably, but I believe the concepts are different.>>,

I think it is time to sign off with the conclusion that we agree to
disagree. I enjoyed the discussion and learnt a lot from the same . I hope
same is the case with you too.

Regards

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouli ji,
>
> The quote I referenced occurs at the end of Taittiriya Anandavalli after
> talking about the gradation of Ananda in the various beings.
>
> Acharya connects that "सः" in सः यश्चायं पुरुषे at the end of Anandavalli,
> with the same ब्रह्म that occurs in the start of Anandavalli:
>
> ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परं । तदेषाभ्युक्ता । सत्यं ज्ञानं अनन्तं ब्रह्म ।...
>
> *यो वेद निहितं गुहायां परमे व्योमन् ...तस्मात् वा एतस्मात् आत्मनः आकाशः
> संभूतः। आकाशात् वायुः । ... अन्नात् पुरुषः।*
>
> Both nirguNa and saguNa aspects are spoken of in the beginning of
> Anandavalli, and since the same references are made at the end in AchArya's
> bhAshyam that you quoted below, both aspects  can be said to be implied in
> स यश्चायं पुरुषे.
>
> I agree with your comment that shAstra uses the terms Brahman and Iswara
> interchangeably, but I believe the concepts are different.
>
> Further, we must accept that nirguNa chaitanyam and our understanding of
> the absolute non-difference with 'Him' is the ultimate tAtparyam of the
> VedA.
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> On 15 Nov 2015 05:12, "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>