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

[H S Chandramouli]

Reg  << Why does Shankara say that names and forms are sarvajnasya
Ishvarasya
AtmabhUta (ie they are part of him), and later say sarvajna: Ishvara:
tAbhyAm anya: (ie he is different from them)?
​ >>,

The important word
इव
​ (
 iva
​)​
​appears to be
 misssing from
​t​
he translation.
​I think t
his leads to the question mark.​

Regards

2017-11-22 12:40 GMT+05:30 Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>:

> Yes, the effect is non different from the cause. However it does not mean
> the cause is same as the effect.
>
> Please read the full bhAShya of 2.1.14.
>
> Especially: सर्वज्ञस्येश्वरस्यात्मभूते इवाविद्याकल्पिते
> नामरूपेतत्त्वान्यत्वाभ्यामनिर्वचनीये
> संसारप्रपञ्चबीजभूतेसर्वज्ञस्येश्वरस्य मायाशक्तिः प्रकृतिरिति
> चश्रुतिस्मृत्योरभिलप्येते ; ताभ्यामन्यः सर्वज्ञ ईश्वरः,
>
> Why does Shankara say that names and forms are sarvajnasya Ishvarasya
> AtmabhUta (ie they are part of him), and later say sarvajna: Ishvara:
> tAbhyAm anya: (ie he is different from them)?
>
> *Thus, the effect is non different from the cause, but the cause is
> different from the effect.*
>
> Continuing,
>  एवमविद्याकृतनामरूपोपाध्यनुरोधीश्वरो भवति,
> व्योमेवघटकरकाद्युपाध्यनुरोधि ; स च
> स्वात्मभूतानेवघटाकाशस्थानीयानविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितनामरूपकृ
> तकार्यकरणसङ्घातानुरोधिनो
> जीवाख्यान्विज्ञानात्मनः प्रतीष्टेव्यवहारविषये ;
> *तदेवमविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेदापेक्षमेवेश्वरस्येश्वरत्वं
> सर्वज्ञत्वंसर्वशक्तित्वं च, न परमार्थतो विद्यया
> अपास्तसर्वोपाधिस्वरूपेआत्मनि ईशित्रीशितव्यसर्वज्ञत्वादिव्यवहार
> उपपद्यते ;  *
> He is saying that Ishvara's omniscience, etc are contingent upon the
> avidyAtmaka upAdhi, and without such an upAdhi there is no rulership,
> omniscience etc.
>
> To summarise, the same bhAShya passage says
> 1) the world is non different from Brahman
> 2) names and forms, which are as though conjured by ignorance, are the
> seeds of the world, and are part of Ishvara.
> 3) However Ishvara is different from them.
> 4) His omniscience depends on the upAdhi conjured up ignorance.
> 5) Free of upAdhi, there is neither ruler, nor ruled, nor omniscience etc.
>
> The only way these multiple statements can simultaneously hold true is if
> they are being said from two frames of reference. In vyavahAra, you have
> names and forms from ignorance, out of which this world appears. Such a
> world is non different from Brahman. However Ishvara, whose omniscience
> stems from an upAdhi conjured up by ignorance, is different from them.
>
> In paramArtha, there is no ignorance, thus no upAdhi, nor names and forms
> and no world. Talk of non difference with Brahman is absurd here, because
> there is only one entity, so there is neither difference nor non
> difference.
>
> It is knowledge of such a upAdhi rahita Brahman that is moksha, thus there
> is no point holding on to ananyatvam of kArya, look at the kArya kAraNa
> atIta vastu.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On 22 Nov 2017 4:26 a.m., "Durga Prasad Janaswamy via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Hari Om,
> >
> > Pranams.
> >
> > Everything not Brahman is asat.
> >
> > mithyA is non-difference from, i.e.non-existence in isolation from,
> > Brahman.
> >
> > Brahma Sutra: 2.1.14
> > अभ्युपगम्य चेमं व्यावहारिकं भोक्तृभोग्यलक्षणं विभागम् ‘ स्याल्लोकवत्’ इति
> > परिहारोऽभिहितः ; न त्वयं विभागः परमार्थतोऽस्ति, यस्मात्तयोः
> > कार्यकारणयोरनन्यत्वमवगम्यते । कार्यमाकाशादिकं बहुप्रपञ्चं जगत् ; कारणं
> परं
> > ब्रह्म ; तस्मात्कारणात्परमार्थतोऽनन्यत्वं व्यतिरेकेणाभावः
> > कार्यस्यावगम्यते ।
> >
> > Swami Gambhirananda's translation:
> > Assuming, for the sake of argument, an empirical difference between the
> > experiencer and the things experienced, the refutation (under the
> previous
> > aphorism) was advance by holding that "the distinction can well exist as
> > observed in common experience". But in reality, this difference does not
> > exist, since a non-difference between those cause and effect is
> recognized.
> > The effect is the universe, diversified as space etc. and the cause is
> the
> > supreme Brahman. In reality it is known that the effect has
> non-difference
> > from, i.e.non-existence in isolation from, that cause.
> >
> > regards
> > -- durga prasad
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Namaste Sri Sreenivasa Murthy,
> > > To clarify, all my email is saying that there is nothing beyond you -
> > > nothing outside, nothing inside. The methodology given in shruti - neti
> > > neti is also saying that. There is nothing to memorize, nothing to
> > > interiorize, only stuff to be given up. Every conception of Brahman is
> > not
> > > Brahman. Everything not Brahman is mithyA. Everything mithyA is to be
> > given
> > > up.
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Venkatraghavan
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>