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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Subbu ji

Thank you for clarifying with some really germane references from bhAShya.

I have a query.

1. Is it jahAjahallakShaNa vRtti or is it jahadajahallakShaNa vRtti?
Perhaps both usages are right?

(Some years back a swami was given the name mahadAtmAnanda but when a
scholar pointed out that it was grammatically incorrect it was corrected to
mahAtmAnanda. In other words mahat + AtmA = mahAtmA , not mahadAtmA. Thats
why I got the doubt.

I have seen swami shuddhabodhanandaji using the term jahAjahallakShaNa in
his books )

Om
Raghav

On 10-Sep-2017 3:29 PM, "V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Thank you Sri Praveen ji for the detailed reply.
>
> In this part of your post: //अहं ब्रह्म। This is the part of श्लोकार्धः
> expressed as जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः। Here, it is not बाधसामानाधिकरण्यम्,
> but ऐक्यसामानाधिकरण्यम्,
> wherein there is no लक्षणा needed as प्रत्यगात्मा जीवः is निर्गुणब्रह्म।//
>  it appears that the bhāṣya part I cited from the BSB:
>
> // अपवादो नाम — यत्र कस्मिंश्चिद्वस्तुनि पूर्वनिविष्टायां मिथ्याबुद्धौ
> निश्चितायाम्, पश्चादुपजायमाना यथार्था बुद्धिः पूर्वनिविष्टाया मिथ्याबुद्धेः
> निवर्तिका भवति — यथा देहेन्द्रियसङ्घाते आत्मबुद्धिः, आत्मन्येव आत्मबुद्ध्या
> पश्चाद्भाविन्या ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (छा. उ. ६-८-७)
> <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?
> bhashya=Chandogya&page=06&hval=%E2%80%98%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%
> A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B8%E0%
> A4%BF%E2%80%99%20%28%E0%A4%9B%E0%A4%BE.%20%E0%A4%89.%20%E0%
> A5%AC-%E0%A5%AE-%E0%A5%AD%29#Ch_C06_S08_V07>
> इत्यनया
> यथार्थबुद्ध्या निवर्त्यते — यथा वा दिग्भ्रान्तिबुद्धिः
> दिग्याथात्म्यबुद्ध्या निवर्त्यते — //  conveys the bādha sāmānādhikaraṇya
> where the mithyābuddhi is dispelled, by samyagdarśana. Can we rightly say
> that the aikya  sāmānādhikaraṇya is what is involved here? Some years ago a
> scholar told me that with reference to aham brahma too it would be proper
> to adopt the bādha sāmānādhikaraṇya. The word 'apavāda' and its
> corresponding expression nivartyate seem to give rise to this view.
>
> In aham brahma the aikya sāmānādhikaraṇya could be accounted for post
> tat-tvam padārtha shodhana, at the anubhava side.
>
> Please let me have your thoughts.
>
> regards
> subbu
>
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > ​​Namaste Raviji,
> >
> > ​
> > On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Namaste Sri Praveen Ji
> > >
> > > Just a clarification below ..
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
> > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> ​Thanks for highlighting an important point​. This is unfortunately
> lost
> > >> on
> > >> many who take the literal interpretation of sarvaM brahma; that is
> > without
> > >> bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNyam!
> > >
> > >
> > > can you elaborate on this bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNyam
> > >
> > If the adhikaranam as body-mind complex ( wrongly referred to as aham by
> > > ignorance) and
> > > the adhikaranam as Kutastha Atman ( referred to as aham, after the
> > arising
> > > of pramA from maha vAkya),  is one and the same, why the word samAna or
> > > sAmAnya is used, to show equality, as if there are 2 adhikaranams ?
> > >
> >
> > ​​
> > Looks like you are translating samAna as "similar", which is an incorrect
> > translation. So lets revisit the definition of samAnAdhikaraNa by which
> the
> > usage samAna will be clear. So what is सामानाधिकरण्यम्?​
> >
> > ​It is the status of समानाधिकरणम् which is defined so:
> > समानविभक्तिकानां भिन्नप्रवृत्तिनिमित्तानां पदानाम् एकस्मिन् अर्थे
> > तात्पर्यं/ वृत्तिः समानाधिकरणम्। For the words to be in समानाधिकरण
> > ​, in our sentence सर्वं ब्रह्म​
> > —
> >
> >    -
> >
> >    There should be more than one word
> >    ​: ​in our case
> >    , सर्वम् and ब्रह्म​
> >    -
> >
> >    They should be in the same case
> >    ​
> >    ​
> >    ​: both are in first case and number here.
> >    -
> >
> >    ​The
> >    basis to use the word should be different​:
> >    ​​
> >    सर्वम् is used for जगत् and ब्रह्म is used for प्रत्यगात्मा
> >    ​/ ईश्वरः/ निर्गुणब्रह्म​
> >    ।​
> >    -
> >
> >    They should have commitment to reveal the same entity​:​
> >    This is a grey-area to be dealt with and it is for this that the
> entire
> >    pursuit is and which is known through the महावाक्य। Just as we have to
> > do
> >    लक्षणा in सोऽयं देवदत्तः or तत्त्वमसि, here also we can't take the
> > literal
> >    meaning. It is more of जहल्लक्षणा done here. सर्वं नास्ति, ब्रह्मैव
> > अस्ति।
> >
> > ​So, the statement of grammatical construct showing equal locus of two
> > things​
> >
> > ​is analysed and the last point has to be valid for the statement to make
> > sense. Therefore, it is called as बाधसामानाधिकरण्यम्, a compound broken
> in
> > two ways:
> >
> >    - बाधेन सामानाधिकरण्यम्, same locus arrived at by/ due to negation of
> >    ​सर्वम् or
> >    - बाधायां सति सामानाधिकरण्यम्, meaning same locus arrived at *when
> >    (after)* negation of सर्वम् is done.
> >
> > This is what
> > ​is ​
> > जगन्मिथ्यात्वनिश्चयः, ascertainment of the world being mithyA.
> > ​ This part is expressed in श्लोकार्धः as जगन्मिथ्या। ​
> >
> >
> > Since, here, the adhikaranam being the same, the 2 references ( aham as
> BMI
> > > or Atman), are just notions or vRttis of the mind, where one (aham as
> > BMI)
> > > gets sublated, with the arising of atmaikatva jnAna ?
> > >
> > The grammatical constructs are analysed here, as per मीमांसाशास्त्रम्।
> What
> > you talk of is the conclusion arrived at,
> > आत्मैकत्वज्ञानम्
> > ​ ​
> > ​being the
> > result of the analysis
> > ​ of this सामानाधिकरण्यम्।
> >  This cannot be brought in at the analysis stage itself, since the result
> > cannot precede the cause of the result. Also please note that सर्वं
> ब्रह्म
> > is different from अहं ब्रह्म। This is the part of श्लोकार्धः expressed as
> > जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः। Here, it is not बाधसामानाधिकरण्यम्, but
> > ऐक्यसामानाधिकरण्यम्, wherein there is no लक्षणा needed as प्रत्यगात्मा
> जीवः
> > is निर्गुणब्रह्म।
> >
> > However, there are some who endlessly repeat their own अध्यासः that जीवः
> is
> > भ्रान्तजीवः। For their sake, this is then explained in two ways then: is
> > ब्रह्म here निर्गुणम् or सगुणः ईश्वरः? If former, please do जहल्लक्षणा
> from
> > the side of जीवः to understand. If latter, do जहदजहल्लक्षणा/
> भागत्यागलक्षणा
> > from the side of जीवः as well as ईश्वरः।
> >
> > ​I hope this answers the questions raised.
> >
> > गुरुपादुकाभ्याम्।
> > प्रवीणभट्टः।
> > /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। */​
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>