[Advaita-l] Accounting for Brahman appearing as the world

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste Sri Praveen

You are right. If Badhayam Samanadhikaranyam is not accepted it becomes
Parinama Vada only. But Advaita is not Parinama Vada. It is Vivarta Vada.
After Bhranti is over the Snake is not seen. In Badhayam Samanadhikaranyam
the Badhita Vastu will be Vyavaharika or Pratibhasika but not Paramarthika.
It will not be seen after realization. But Pot is seen even after realizing
it is Mud only. Therefore this is Parinama Vada.

Sri Bhaskara is saying as if Pot will be there even after Brahman is
realized because everything is Brahman. Again we are slipping down to
Parinama Vada. This is closer to Visistadvaita than Advaita. Because they
also say all the Cit and Acit Vastus are real and the body of Brahma.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Venkateshji,
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Joke can be turned back to you. If everything like a Jada Vastu Pot is
>> Brahman for you why not the Bhranta Jeeva also. That Bhranta Jeeva also is
>> Brahman only because in this Universe there is nothing but Brahman only.
>> Brahman is Jada, He is Chetana Vastu, Jnani and Bhranta also. Therefore
>> let
>> Bhranta Jeeva Brahman create everything and become even more Bhranta. But
>> he is still Brahman only.
>>
>
> ​Thanks for highlighting an important point​. This is unfortunately lost
> on many who take the literal interpretation of sarvaM brahma; that is
> without bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNyam! The orthodox Vedanta process is to
> necessarily know the jaganmithyAtvam before sarvaM brahma, else there is a
> great chance of misunderstanding as we see in hippie-styled, anything-goes
> as Vedanta moderners these days. The orthodox tradition with the TikAkAras,
> vyAkhyAnakAras, etc, do not allow such self-styled interpretations. If the
> jaganmithyAtvam was not meant, but only sarvaM brahma, Shruti need not
> spend her breath on elaborate adhyAropa and then do apavAda. Both would be
> purposeless. It would simply suffice to say sarvaM brahma and be done with
> it. What else is there to talk of? Nothing. One great Swamiji, an excellent
> Vedanta teacher, says such statements are like instructions to swallow a
> pumpkin!
>
> However, Shruti thankfully doesn't do so. Else, that would make nAmarUpa
> also brahman! Instead, there is an empirical reality given to this
> kAryaprapancha, said that it is all kAraNAdabhinna and then a rug is pulled
> from under the feet of the seeker by saying: don't get comfortable, it is
> all mithyA nAmarUpa and therefore, kAraNAd abhinna. So, it is all
> bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNyam, meaning sarvaM nAsti, brahmaiva asti. The pot isn't
> there, only clay is there; it is completely erroneous to say that the name
> "pot" and form of pot exists, since it does not; only the cause clay
> *appears* in the form of pot with the name-tag "pot". Else, its like saying
> *appearance* is also brahman. The point cannot be stretched enough that
> appearance is not brahman. Shruti exhausts Herself showing this point over
> and over in all prakriyAs.
>
> It is important to ponder on what is name and what is form. An excellent
> lead is why Shruti says anena jIvena AtmanA anupravishya, nAmarUpa
> vyAkaravANi, *not* AbhyAm nAmarUpAbhyAm anupravishya... and precisely why
> Bhagavatpadacharya's shlokArdha reads jaganmithyA jIvo brahmaiva, not
> jagadbrahmaiva jIvo brahmaiva. :)
>
> gurupAdukAbhyAm,
> --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] */
>



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh