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

Venkatraghavan S agnimile at gmail.com
Wed May 25 02:35:44 CDT 2016

You are very welcome, Chandramouliji. Thank you for giving me the
opportunity to visit the bhAshya.

<<The problem is the same Bhashya is presented by the SDV advocates also in
support of their stance.  >>

I don't see this as a problem. The same piece of art can mean different
things to different people. That in itself need not invalidate the truth of
what each one sees.

On 25 May 2016 8:25 a.m., "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com>

> Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,
> Namaste.
> Thank you for this citation as well as for the earlier references as well.
> The problem is the same Bhashya is presented by the SDV advocates also in
> support of their stance.  However I do not intend to contest your view in
> this regard.
> Regards
> 2016-05-25 2:12 GMT+05:30 Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>:
>> Sri Chandramouliji,
>> To add to my previous email on Br. 1.4.10, the pUrvapakshin asks: is it
>> not improper for us to say that avidyA is located in Brahman?
>> ब्रह्मण्यविद्यानुपपत्तिरिति चेत्
>> To this, Shankara says:
>> न, ब्रह्मणि विद्याविधानात्। न हि शुक्तिकायां रजताध्यारोपणेऽसति
>> शुक्तिकात्वं ज्ञाप्यते - चक्षुर्गोचरापन्नायाम् — ‘इयं शुक्तिका न रजतम्’ इति
>>>> No, because knowledge regarding Brahman has been prescribed. In the
>> absence of the (false) silver superimposed on the (real) shell, the
>> shell-ness is directly known as its available for the eyes to see. "This is
>> shell, not silver" - such a statement will not arise.
>> (Therefore because knowledge of Brahman has been prescribed, it follows
>> that there must be ignorance in Brahman)
>> तथा ‘सदेवेदं सर्वम्’ (छा. उ. ६-८-७) ‘ब्रह्मैवेदं सर्वम्’ (?) ‘आत्मैवेदं
>> सर्वम्’ (छा. उ. ७-२५-२) ‘नेदं द्वैतमस्त्यब्रह्म’ (?) इति
>> ब्रह्मण्येकत्वविज्ञानं न विधातव्यम्, ब्रह्मण्यविद्याध्यारोपणायामसत्याम् ।
>> Therefore (Shankara continues), shruti vAkyas like "all this is Sat
>> only", "all this is Brahman only", "all this is Atma", "this duality has no
>> existence apart from Brahman", etc. that  attest to the knowledge of the
>> unity of Brahman would not have been prescribed if the superimposition of
>> attributes on Brahman had not happened because of ignorance.
>> To this, the purvapakshin says:
>> न ब्रूमः — शुक्तिकायामिव ब्रह्मण्यतद्धर्माध्यारोपणा नास्तीति ; किं तर्हि
>> न ब्रह्म स्वात्मन्यतद्धर्माध्यारोपनिमित्तम् अविद्याकर्तृ चेति
>> We are not saying that there is no superimposition of non-Brahman
>> attributes onto Brahman (we are not saying it is unlike the superimposition
>> on the shell). Then what? We are saying that Brahman cannot be the cause of
>> the superimposition of non Brahman attributes onto itself. Also, Brahman
>> cannot be the author of the ignorance.
>> To this, Shankara says:
>> भवत्येवं नाविद्याकर्तृ भ्रान्तं च ब्रह्म । किन्तु नैव अब्रह्म अविद्यकर्ता
>> चेतनो भ्रान्तोऽन्य इष्यते
>> OK, so be it. Let us say that Brahman is not the author of ignorance, and
>> is not the one that is deluded. However, there is no other conscious entity
>> other than Brahman that can be the author of ignorance, or who can be
>> deluded.
>> And then AchArya gives a lot of shruti and smriti support for his point
>> that apart from Brahman, there is no other conscious entity that can be
>> deluded— ‘नान्योऽतोऽस्ति विज्ञाता’ (बृ. उ. ३-७-२३)- There is no other
>> knower; ‘नान्यदतोऽस्ति विज्ञातृ’ (बृ. उ. ३-८-११) - There is no other
>> knower; ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (छा. उ. ६-८-७) - You are That; ‘आत्मानमेवावेत् अहं
>> ब्रह्मास्मि’ (बृ. उ. १-४-१०) - It knew only itself as "I am Brahman";
>> ‘अन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति, न स वेद’ (बृ. उ. १-४-१०) - He who  worships
>> another god thinking, "He and I are different" does not know, and such
>> shrutis, इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः;  and smritis: स्मृतिभ्यश्च —‘समं सर्वेषु
>> भूतेषु’ (भ. गी. १३-२७) - the same in all beings; ‘अहमात्मा गुडाकेश’ (भ. गी.
>> १०-२०) - I'm the self of all beings, O Arjuna;  ‘शुनि चैव श्वपाके च’ (भ.
>> गी. ५-१८) - the wise men view all creatures the same - be it the dog, or he
>> that eats dog ; and Vedic mantrAs like ‘यस्तु सर्वाणि भूतानि’ (ई. उ.
>> ६)‘यस्मिन्सर्वाणि भूतानि’ (ई. उ. ७) इति च मन्त्रवर्णात्
>> In summary, from Br.1.4.10 bhAshya it can be understood that
>> 1) avidyA which is located in Brahman.
>> 2) the meaning of avidyA here is the direct meaning of the word, namely,
>> ignorance. It is ignorance of Brahman's own nature that leads Brahman to
>> think it is not Brahman, and to superimpose non Brahman attributes onto
>> itself.
>> 3) Brahman is the author of the superimposition itself, the avidyA karta.
>> 4) Brahman is the deluded one also.
>> From the previous email (below), it becomes clear that
>> 5) Brahman is the Ishvara that projects the world.
>> 6) Brahman is the student.
>> 7) Brahman itself learns it's true nature and becomes realised.
>> Hence the statement, ब्रह्मैव स्वाविद्यया संसरति स्वविद्यया मुच्यते च"
>> इति बृहदारण्यकभाष्यात् - Brahman itself because of ignorance of its own
>> nature transmigrates, and Brahman itself becomes of right knowledge of its
>> true nature becomes liberated.
>> Therefore, in my opinion, which you may/may not agree with:
>> 1) Eka JIva vAda has shruti support.
>> 2) It relies on shruti and uses shruti-compatible-reason only.
>> 3) It is compatible with ShAnkara bhAshya.
>> Regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>> On 24 May 2016 5:11 p.m., "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list