[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] Re: World is mind alone: Shankara

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Subbuji, Sadaji,

Thanks for a nice elaboration of various mantras and their bhashyas
establishing the world being nothing but the mind. The objection as to how
a micro individual can be talked of as the macro/ cosmic Ishvara is faced
and refuted in Agama prakaraNa of Mandukya bhAshya on third mantra words
"वैश्वानरः [आत्मनः] प्रथमः पादः" as follows. However, by this objection
itself it is clear that the mantra means exactly that the individual is the
cosmic person. The details are:

कथम् ‘अयमात्मा ब्रह्म’ इति प्रत्यगात्मनोऽस्य चतुष्पात्त्वे प्रकृते
द्युलोकादीनां मूर्धाद्यङ्गत्वमिति ?
(Opponent) When that innermost self which has four quarters is the context
by the expression “ब्रह्म is this self", the status of heaven, etc, being
the head, etc, as parts is mentioned?

नैष दोषः, सर्वस्य प्रपञ्चस्य साधिदैविकस्य अनेनात्मना चतुष्पात्त्वस्य
विवक्षितत्वात् ।
(Vedantin) This is not a defect, due to the intention of [the mantra words]
“one having four quarters” being [the presentation of] that entire creation
along with total in the form of this individual self.

This सङ्ग्रहवाक्य is elaborated by Bhashyakara further so:

एवं च सति सर्वप्रपञ्चोपशमे अद्वैतसिद्धिः ।
And in this manner [when the presentation of both individual and total is
done together], when there is resolution of the entire world, there is
establishment of non-duality.

सर्वभूतस्थश्च आत्मा एको दृष्टः स्यात् ; सर्वभूतानि चात्मनि ।
And one self would be understood as abiding in all beings; and all living
beings in [one] self.

‘यस्तु सर्वाणि भूतानि’ (ई. उ. ६) इत्यादिश्रुत्यर्थश्चैवमुपसंहृतः स्यात् ;
And in this manner, the meaning of the Shruti thus “Is. Up. 6: whereas one
who is in the form of all beings”, etc, would be reconciled;

अन्यथा हि स्वदेहपरिच्छिन्न एव प्रत्यगात्मा साङ्‍ख्यादिभिरिव दृष्टः स्यात् ;
Otherwise, indeed, the innermost self conditioned by one's own body would
be understood, similar to Sankhya, etc;

तथा च सति अद्वैतमिति श्रुतिकृतो विशेषो न स्यात्,
साङ्‍ख्यादिदर्शनेनाविशेषात् ।
And that being so, the distinction made by Shruti so “[the self being]
non-dual” would not be there, due to non-difference with Sankhya
philosophy, etc.

इष्यते च सर्वोपनिषदां सर्वात्मैक्यप्रतिपादकत्वम् ;
And the status of all Upanishads being the revealers of oneness of the self
in all is desirable;

ततो युक्तमेवास्य आध्यात्मिकस्य पिण्डात्मनो द्युलोकाद्यङ्गत्वेन
विराडात्मनाधिदैविकेनैकत्वमित्यभिप्रेत्य सप्ताङ्गत्ववचनम् ।
Therefore indeed, having considered oneness of this individual having gross
body in the form of total, Virat, having heaven, etc, as parts, the
statement of having seven parts is [but] proper.

‘मूर्धा ते व्यपतिष्यत्’ (छा. उ. ५-१२-२) इत्यादिलिङ्गदर्शनाच्च ।
Due to the observation of indicator thus “Ch. Up. 5.12.2: Your head would
have fallen off [if you meditate only a part of Virat as your head]”, etc.

विराजैकत्वमुपलक्षणार्थं हिरण्यगर्भाव्याकृतात्मनोः ।
The oneness of विराट् [with विश्व] is [also] for the purpose of
representation of हिरण्यगर्भ [with तैजस] and unmanifest self [with प्राज्ञ]।

उक्तं चैतन्मधुब्राह्मणे — ‘यश्चायमस्यां पृथिव्यां तेजोमयोऽमृतमयः पुरुषो
यश्चायमध्यात्मम्’ (बृ. उ. २-५-१) इत्यादि ।
And this is said in Madhubrahmana— “Br. Up. 2.5.1: this Hiranyagarbha who
is on this earth as effulgent and immortal being and who is this individual
being [are one]”, etc.

सुषुप्ताव्याकृतयोस्त्वेकत्वं सिद्धमेव, निर्विशेषत्वात् । एवं च
सत्येतत्सिद्धं भविष्यति — सर्वद्वैतोपशमे चाद्वैतमिति ॥
Whereas the oneness of प्राज्ञ and unmanifest is indeed established, due to
being undifferentiated. And that being so, this following will become
established—  there is non-duality on resolution of the entire duality.

गुरुपादुकाभ्याम्,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 8:31 AM, V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
[advaitin] <advaitin at yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 4:56 AM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
> kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Subbuji - PraNAms
>>
>> The sloka appears to refer to the macro cosmic person. Then there is a
>> jump to the microcosic individual jeeva and his mind in the explanation.
>>
>>