[Advaita-l] What is Krishna's 'tattva'?

[V Subrahmanian]

2017-11-21 17:38 GMT+05:30 Kalyan <kalyan_kg at yahoo.com>:

> Dear Sri Subbu
>
> The antaryAmi has to be either sopAdhika brahman or nirupAdhika brahman.
> Your mail gives me the impression that you treat it as both. Am I correct
> in my assessment?
>

From different points of view, they are either of these.  Sureshwara, in
the Vartika for this section says: The Antaryāmi, is the Superior, Directly
available, Bodiless, A-guṇa (nirguṇa), without a second. (33). By itself,
the antaryāmi, is without any organs, bodiless, nirguna, with no difference
whatever. Owing to the delusion that one has organs, body, etc. the
antaryāmi appears to be one endowed with body, etc.(37). Therefore He is to
be known as distinct from the pṛthvīdevatā (whom he controls).

>
> Having said that, I will use your quotations to show that the antaryAmi is
> the sopAdhika brahman.
>
> तत्र यं पृथिवी न वेद यं सर्वाणि भूतानि न विदुरिति च अन्ये नियन्तव्या
> विज्ञातारः अन्यो नियन्ता अन्तर्यामीति प्राप्तम् ;
> तदन्यत्वाशङ्कानिवृत्त्यर्थमुच्यते — नान्योऽतः — नान्यः — अतः अस्मात्
> *अन्तर्यामिणः* नान्योऽस्ति द्रष्टा ; तथा नान्योऽतोऽस्ति श्रोता ;
> नान्योऽतोऽस्ति मन्ता ; नान्योऽतोऽस्ति विज्ञाता । यस्मात्परो नास्ति द्रष्टा
> श्रोता मन्ता विज्ञाता, यः अदृष्टो द्रष्टा, अश्रुतः श्रोता, अमतो मन्ता,
> अविज्ञातो विज्ञाता, अमृतः सर्वसंसारधर्मवर्जितः सर्वसंसारिणां
> कर्मफलविभागकर्ता — *एष ते आत्मा अन्तर्याम्यमृतः* ; *अस्मादीश्वरादात्मनोऽन्यत्
> आर्तम्*
>
> Here, the meaning to be taken is that the antaryAmi devoid of upAdhis is
> the same as the Atman.
>

Shankara raises a question:  One would think that 'those who are impelled
are different and the impeller, antaryāmin, is different. With a view to
dispel the idea that the antaryāmin is different, it is stated by this
mantra......Other than the Antaryāmin, there is no seer, hearer, etc.
Shankara has cited this mantra ‘नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा’ (बृ. उ. ३ । ७ । २३)
(whose bhashyam is cited above) innumerable times in the prasthāna traya to
affirm the identity between the Supreme and the individual self. Since he
has commented here: apart from the antaryāmin, there is no other seer,
etc., the Supreme is antaryāmin according to his commentary.

In the Naiṣkarmyadiddhi, 2.42 Sureśvaracharya paraphrases the above BU
mantra 3.7.23. the concluding mantra of the antaryāmi brahmanam, and holds
it to be
denoting Nirguna Brahman:

उक्तयुक्तिं दृढीकर्तुमागमोदाहरणोपन्यासः .
आर्तमन्यद्दृशेः सर्वं "नेति नेती"ति चासकृत् .
वदन्ती निर्गुणं ब्रह्म कथं श्रुतिरुपेक्ष्यते .. ४२..
"महाभूतान्यहंकार"इत्येतत्क्षेत्रमुच्यते .
न दृशेर्द्वैतयोगोऽस्ति विश्वेश्वरमतादपि .. ४३..

The commentator Jnānottama cites the ‘नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा’ (बृ. उ. ३ । ७
। २३) of the antaryāmi brahmana in full as the shruti Sureshwara is
paraphrasing.


> We have the mANDUkya upanishad which does not call antaryAmi as
> Atman/turIya. The antaryAmi is the third quarter Ishwara, so one needs to
> do a proper samanvaya of the two statements from the two upanishads.
>

Exactly; I have already addressed this: In the Mandukya, the antaryāmin is
stated along with the third quarter, anātmā, and hence the identity is only
with the fourth which is specifically stated as the ātmā: sa ātmā, sa
vijneyaḥ [the turiya is the Atma; he is to be realized]. On the other hand,
the Br.Up. explicitly teaches 'you are the antaryāmi, eternal.',
innumerable times in that section. That  is the difference. Nowhere the
sopādhika Brahman is taught to be realized as oneself. It is upāsya
brahman. Whereas the nirupādhika alone is taught as jneya brahman, as in
the fourth quarter of the mandukya. That is the samanvaya.



> तस्य च परोपाधिनिमित्तः संसारः — यथा रज्जूषरशुक्तिकागगनादिषु
> सर्पोदकरजतमलिनत्वादि परोपाध्यारोपणनिमित्तमेव, न स्वतः, *तथा ; निरुपाधिको *निरुपाख्यः
> नेति नेतीति व्यपदेश्यः साक्षादपरोक्षात्सर्वान्तरः *आत्मा ब्रह्म अक्षरम् अ**न्तर्यामी प्रशास्ता
> औपनिषदः पुरुषः विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्मेत्यधिगतम् । *
>
> Here, by the term nirupAdhika, all limiting adjuncts are not denied. Only
> those that lead to samsAra are denied. Because, immediately preceding this,
> the transmigration of the self is described by Shankara as due to limiting
> adjuncts. So only those limiting adjuncts that lead to samsAra are
> subsequently denied. So the word "nirupAdhika" takes on a new meaning here.
> The antaryAmi meanwhile remains as the sopAdhika brahman but its upAdhis do
> not lead to samsAra.
>

Such an interpretation is not admissible. There is no gradation in
'nirupādhika'. It is either sopādhika or nirupādhika. Even if, for
argument's sake, a few upādhi-s remain, it is only sopādhika and not
nirupādhika. Shankara makes a clear distinction between: with-upādhi =
samsārin, without-upādhi = mukta. Anandagiri says exactly this: सोपाधिकस्य
आत्मनः संसारित्वमुक्त्वा निरुपाधिकस्य नित्यमुक्तत्वमाह - निरुपाधिक इति ।
Sri SSS also has said: (in Kannada): ātmanu svataḥ nirupādhikanāgi
iruvāga....[When the Atman, by itself, is nirupādhika..then it is taught to
be nirupākhya, ....antaryāmin....]

Regards
subbu

>
>
>
> Regards
> Kalyan
>
>
>