[Advaita-l] Shankara and DrishTi-SrishTi vAda - eka jeeva vaada

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sri Chandramouli-ji,
Sorry to belabour the point, but I wanted to point relevant sections within
BrihadAraNyaka 1.4.10 bhAshya which refer to the concept, that it was
Brahman alone that thought itself to be samsAri, and it is that Brahman
alone that upon realisation understood that it was everything all along.

ब्रह्मणि साधकत्वकल्पनास्मदादिष्विव, अपेशला —
‘तदात्मानमेवावेत्तस्मात्तत्सर्वमभवत्’ इति — इति चेत्, न, शास्त्रोपालम्भात्
; न ह्यस्मत्कल्पनेयम् ; शास्त्रकृता तु ; तस्माच्छास्त्रस्यायमुपालम्भः ; न च
ब्रह्मण इष्टं चिकीर्षुणा शास्त्रार्थविपरीतकल्पनया स्वार्थपरित्यागः कार्यः ।
न चैतावत्येवाक्षमा युक्ता भवतः ; सर्वं हि नानात्वं ब्रह्मणि कल्पितमेव
‘एकधैवानुद्रष्टव्यम्’
(बृ. उ. ४-४-२०)  ‘नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन’ (बृ. उ. ४-४-१९)  ‘यत्र हि द्वैतमिव
भवति’ (बृ. उ. ४-५-१५)  ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (छा. उ. ६-२-१) इत्यादिवाक्यशतेभ्यः,
सर्वो हि लोकव्यवहारो ब्रह्मण्येव कल्पितो न परमार्थः सन् —
इत्यत्यल्पमिदमुच्यते — इयमेव कल्पनापेशलेति ॥
Here the pUrvapakshin says: To say from the passage "तदात्मानमेवावे
त्तत्सर्वमभवत्" that Brahman is a seeker (a sAdhaka), like us, is totally
inappropriate.
AchArya replies: Its not inappropriate at all - because that's what the
ShAstra says. It is not something imagined by us, but the ShAstra only says
this.  So your accusation is aimed at ShAstra itself! And you, being
someone who wishes to please Brahman, should not contradict the real
meaning of scriptures by imagining things contrary to ShAstra. You should
not lose patience with this only, because every form of plurality is
imagined only in hundreds of Upanishad vAkyas - ‘एकधैवानुद्रष्टव्यम्’ (बृ.
उ. ४-४-२०)  ‘नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन’ (बृ. उ. ४-४-१९)  ‘यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति’
(बृ. उ. ४-५-१५)  ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (छा. उ. ६-२-१) - etc. All worldly
activities (and the world itself) is only imagined in Brahman, not real.
When you condemn this idea as inappropriate, you say very little indeed.

तस्मात् — यत्प्रविष्टं स्रष्टृ ब्रह्म, तद्ब्रह्म, वै-शब्दोऽवधारणार्थः, इदं
शरीरस्थं यद्गृह्यते, अग्रे प्राक्प्रतिबोधादपि, ब्रह्मैवासीत्, सर्वं च इदम्
; किन्त्वप्रतिबोधात् ‘अब्रह्मास्मि असर्वं च’ इत्यात्मन्यध्यारोपात् ‘कर्ताहं
क्रियावान्फलानां च भोक्ता सुखी दुःखी संसारी’ इति च अध्यारोपयति ;
परमार्थस्तु ब्रह्मैव तद्विलक्षणं सर्वं च । तत् कथञ्चिदाचार्येण दयालुना
प्रतिबोधितम् ‘नासि संसारी’ इति आत्मानमेवावेत्स्वाभाविकम् ;
अविद्याध्यारोपितविशेषवर्जितमिति एव-शब्दस्यार्थः ॥

Therefore, by the word Brahman, what is referred to is the Brahman that
projected the universe and entered into it. By adding "वै" an emphasis is
added to the idea that this Brahman which is (now) perceived as being
inside the body, was indeed Brahman only, and everything, in the beginning
- even before realisation. However, owing to ignorance, it superimposes on
itself the notion "I am not Brahman, I am not everything" and "I am a doer,
with associated karmAs, and an experiencer of the results of the karmAs. I
am a samsAri, happy, miserable, etc.". In reality Brahman is free from all
these imagined notions. Then somehow awakened by a compassionate teacher
who says that "you are not a samsAri", it becomes (realises) its natural
self. The use of "एव " is to convey the meaning that the natural state of
itself is free from the differentiations superimposed by ignorance.

By this section, it becomes apparent that it is Brahman alone that imagines
itself to be a samsAri due to ignorance, it is Brahman alone that projects
the world and enters it, and it is Brahman alone that realises what it is
through the dawn of knowledge. This is a result which is very consistent
with eka jIva vAda.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan