[Advaita-l] when eyes are closed / opened

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> आँख खोलने पर •सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म • है। when eyes are opened  • sarvaM
> khalvidaM brahma •
>
> >  But according to some when eyes are opened 'everything is mithyA not
> sarvaM khalvidaM brahma because this 'sarvaM' is mithyA...The witnessing
> consciousness is the ONLY satya everything else is mithyA because brahma
> satya, jaganmithyA jeevobrahmaiva nAparaH... And when eyes (mind) are
> closed through yOga sAdhana in the nirvikalpa samAdhi jnAni practically
> experiences that 'neha nAnAsti kiMchana' :-)
>
>
>
> Says Sri SSS for the Bhāṣya vākya at the end of BGB 2.16:
>
>
>
>
>
> heege kAraNavuLLa (vAgiruvadarinda) dehAdigaLu mattu dvandvagaLu emba
> asattige iruvikeyilla. ...neenū (O Arjuna) tattvadarshigaLa dRuShTiyannu
> AshrayisikonDu shokavannU mohavannU biTTu shItoShNagaLE muntAda
>  dvandvagaLannu 'idu kAryavAddarimda bisilukurureya neerinante asatte
> Agiddu husiyAgi tOruttide' endu manassinalli nishcayisikoNDu taDeduko endu
> abhiprAya.
>
>
>
> Thus, the message to Arjuna from the BGB 2.16 is: O Arjuna, you too,
> following the vision of the Knowers, look upon the dualities such as the
> body and the changing objects which all have a cause, as 'since this is
> caused, it is non-existent like the water of the mirage and thus, is
> falsely appearing (as sat).'
>
>
>
> Hence, for Shankara and Sri SSS, the 'sarvam khalvidam brahma' means: all
> this is only appearing falsely with Brahman as the substratum.
>
> Those who can read Kannada see this page:
>
>
>
> praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
>
> Hare Krishna
>
>
>
> Those who know the Kannada understand what exactly  Sri SSS saying here
> based on shankara bhAshya.  He is obviously talking about the asatyatva of
> ‘dvandva-s’ like sheeta-ushNa, rAga-dvesha, sukha-duHkha, jaya-apajaya etc.
> born due to dehAdi adhyAsa.  geetAchArya talking about the arjuna’s vishAda
> and attachment towards his kith and kin and not arjuna’s kalpita
> kurukshetra field and there bheeshma drOnAdi warriors J Yes, dvandvagaLa
> asattige iruvekeyillaa because dvandva is avidyAkalpita which is the cause
> of arjuna’s untimely ‘vishAda’.  Geetaachaarya, bhAshyakAra and Sri SSS
> saying get rid of these dvandva-s be a sthita prajna who has
> samadarshitva.  Duhkeshu anudvignamahAH, sukheshu vigataspruhaH,
> veetarAgabhayakrodhaH sthitadheeH muniH uchyate..And from this
> samadarshitva what he achieves??  vidyA vinaya sampanne braHmaNe gavi
> hastini shunischaivashvapAkesha samadarshitva established…This is what is
> called bheda buddhi nivrutti and NOT bhedAkAra nirvutti…or it is not
>  vyavahAra abhAva sthiti it is vyavahAra bAdhA sthiti.  We have crossed
> swords somany times on this very issue is it not?? Let us leave it aside J
>

Dear Bhaskar ji,

Sri SSS is saying:  *dehAdigaLu mattu* dvandvagaLu emba asattige
iruvikeyilla.  Note the word 'dehAdigaLu mattu..' So, he is not restricting
the asattva to mere dvandvagaLu, on the other hand, he is also including
dehAdigaLu, body, etc. The etc. will extend to the whole drshya prapancha.
Further, in this bhāṣya itself Shankara says: तदसत्त्वे सर्वाभावप्रसङ्ग इति
चेत् , न ; सर्वत्र बुद्धिद्वयोपलब्धेः, सद्बुद्धिरसद्बुद्धिरिति । tadasattve
(if everything is negated as being kArya (which is non-different from
kAraNa, as kAraNa alone is taught as satya and vikAra, kArya as mithyA),
will there not be sarvAbhAva prasanga? The siddhAntin replies: No,
everywhere, in every experience, we have sadbuddhi and asadbuddhi. While
asadbuddhi keeps on changing (in pot is-experience, cloth is-experience),
the sadbuddhi ('is' does not change, but only cloth, pot etc. change.).
So, Shankara is clearly meaning the entire experienced world and not merely
the pairs of duality like cold-heat etc.

And Shankara concludes: तस्माद्देहादेः द्वन्द्वस्य च सकारणस्य असतो न विद्यते
 भाव इति । TasmAt dehAdeH dvandvasya cha sakAraNasya asataH na vidyate
bhAvaH iti (Therefore the bodies etc. and the pairs of opposites which have
causes and which are asat, have no existence. This is the purport of the
verse.  तथा सतश्च आत्मनः अभावः अविद्यमानता न विद्यते, सर्वत्र अव्यभिचारात्
इति अवोचाम ॥  And, Sat that is the Atman has no abhAva, non-existence, as
It is always present without getting negated, as we have said already.

Thus, Shankara is very clear that 'everything' including the bodies, etc.
and the pairs of opposites, are asat. That alone has Sri SSS stated, which
I annotated. So, it is not merely dvandva-s that Shankara is negating as
asat, but the bodies, etc. and the entire created world of names and forms.
Otherwise, there was no need for him to raise the purvapaksha of
'sarvAbhAvaprasanga.'  In fact the discussion in the Gita itself started
with Arjuna becoming disturbed on the prospect of Bhishma, etc. dying. So,
the loss of their bodies was highlighted by Krishna. That idea was
developed to cover pairs of opposites also and the grand culmination in the
2.16 negating the entire creation.

>
>
> And now, I don’t know why you are often unnecessarily  bringing Sri SSS
> name here  when you yourself have your own reservations with regard to Sri
> SSS’s interpretations.  When I quoted Sri SSS with regard to jagat
> mithyatva you openly criticized him for his jarred interpretation and see
> the contradiction between starting and ending of his article and concluded
> that he is deviating from the siddhAnta etc.
>

This is a fact and I had demonstrated that with his own words. Though he
correctly intended to say the world is mithyā, he did not properly
articulate it at the end. This is what I showed.


> It is because of this reason only I always hesitate to mention Sri SSS
> name and avoid quoting Sri SSS directly from his works.  When I myself
> avoiding this exercise,  prabhuji-s your goodself,  who is no more a good
> friend of Sri SSS’s interpretations and observations,  can always do better
> without bringing Sri SSS name in these discussions…is it not??  Just think
> over it…!!
>

My intention of presenting Sri SSS's words while discussing with you is
with the aim of showing that sometimes he was not concurring with the views
that you hold.

warm regards
subbu

>
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>
> bhaskar
>
>
>