[Advaita-l] Did Vyaasa mean Athaato Vishnu Jijnaasaa or Shiva Jijnaasaa?

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2:42 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Who/What is Brahman?
>>
>> Shruti itself ask the question 'Why Brahman is called 'Brahman'? ' ataH
>> kasmAt ucchatyE bhahmEti ? The answer comes from the same shruti
>> 'brihantO asmin hi guNAha' . That's how idea of Brahman as ananta-guNa
>> pUrNa.
>>
>
> Guṇas are attributed to Brahman for the purpose of upāsana. That Brahman
> which is to be known, realized, is taught as:
>
> Tat 'eva' Brahma tvam viddhi, nedam yadidam upāsate. Kenopaniṣad.  That
> alone is Brahman that you have to know (which impels the sense organs)
> and is not that which people meditate upon as 'idam', this, as an object.
>
> Finding this detrimental to his siddhānta, Madhva broke that word
> 'upāsate' into three: upa, āsa, te. 'That one who is sitting near you and
> controlling you' is Brahman and not 'this jivarupam'.  Yet the mantra has
> been rendered without the word shown as 'upāsa te':
>
>
Of course, guNapUrNa brahman is indeed upAsana yOgya. The above mantra does
not say such guNapUrNa is *ONLY* for upAsana. The 'idam' usage is warn
aspirant not to think salagrAmAdi pratIka-s themselves as Brahman.


>
>> The same idea is echoed in mahA nArayaNa Upanishad's assertion "tad
>> Eva brahma paramaM kavInaam". It says about deity Who is sarvOttama resting
>> on the seprpent. At the very end, this Upanishad concludes with assertion
>> 'tad Eva brahma paramam kavInaam'. Kavi-s (jnyAni-s) call this being only
>> (tad Eva) as 'paramaM Brahma'. Please note the prefix 'paramaM' in case
>> anyone were to say such deity is gouNI brahman. Thus, vishNu only is
>> Parabrahma according to this pramANa.
>>
>> Also, when it come to the term 'Atma', we have shruti saying AtatatvAchha
>> mAtrutvAdAtmEti paramO hariH | AtmA bhAsAstadanyE tu na heYtEShAM
>> tatA guNAH ||
>>
>> Krishna's direct words in this sense nails the dispute on who is known
>> from
>> all of shAstra-s -- 'vEdEschha sarvErahamEva vEdyaH'
>>
>
> In the Kathopanishad 1.2.15 in reply to Nachiketa's question which itself
> defines Brahman, we have:
>
> सर्वे वेदा यत्पदमामनन्ति तपांसि सर्वाणि च यद्वदन्ति ।
> यदिच्छन्तो ब्रह्मचर्यं चरन्ति तत्ते पदं सङ्ग्रहेण ब्रवीम्योमित्येतत् ॥ १५ ॥
>
> All the vedas teach that state to be reached and all austerities are
> followed for that purpose, I shall say about it in brief: Om is that.
>
> And after that what follows is all about the nature of this Brahman and
> nowhere any guṇas are brought in.
>

Isn't it your usage 'nature of this Brahman' rejects idea that Brahman is
devoid of viShESha?



> Thus, Krishna is meaning this Brahman alone by the word 'Me', and not he,
> the person who was born on a particular day and departed on another.
>

Who said Krishna is a 'person'? Your argument is based on wrong pUrvapaxa.



>
>> Not all sUtra-s are about advaitic nirguNa bahman -- for example, second
>> sUtra is about creation and under advaitic reading this sUtra is talking
>> about creator gouNI brahman and not nirguNa brhamn.
>>
>
> Not so. The janmādi sutra and the mantra underlying it is taken by
> Advaitins as meaning both the svarupa and taṭastha lakshana of Brhaman. It
> is the vivartopādāna kāraṇam of the world.  See this explanation by a
> scholar, especially the last line in the image:
>
> http://www.mediafire.com/download/bgdg8b677p43513/janm%C4%81disutra_RKS.pdf
>
> Thus the jijñāsya Brahman is not a gauṇī (saguṇa) but mukhyam, nirguṇam.
>
>
if janmAdi karaya-s of Brhman is taken as svarUpa laxaNa, which means two
things -- Brhman is not nirviShEsha/nishkriya, and this jagat is not avidya
kalpita but Brahma kalpita. Also, it leads to vIkArtvam of Brahman if
vivartopādāna argument is supplied.



> Presenting Brahman as a person, with a body, resting on a serpent-couch,
> etc. is symbolic, to help the initial aspirant to think of the abstract
> Tattvam.
>
>>
>>
I'm not sure where are you getting this idea Brahman as a person. I do not
think any school of vedAnta says this.

/sv