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

[Venkatraghavan S]

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.

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

> 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
>>>
>>
>