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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Praveen ji
Thank you for the clarifications. I still don't follow why it's wrong to
say that

> 2. Or we could use bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNyam plus jahAjahallakShaNa with
> brahma shabda being understood as saguNam brahma, to arrive at the same
> GYAnam . (SDV ?)
>
What I had in mind was अहंशब्दस्य ( चिदाभासस्य ) ब्रह्मणा
  बाधायां  सामानाधिकरण्यं  । >>,
>
Please ignore the SDV part in my quote.

Om
Raghav




On 10-Sep-2017 7:46 PM, "Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Raghavji, Chandramouliji,
>
> ​Combining responses to both of your mails ​here (and including another
> that just came up).
>
> ​
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> ​​
>
>
> > ​
> > ​
> > 1. Is it jahAjahallakShaNa vRtti or is it jahadajahallakShaNa vRtti?
> > ​ ​
> > ​
> > ​
> > Perhaps both usages are right?
>
> ​IMO, only 2nd usage is right. There is no Paninian rule I can see to drop
> dakAra of first pada jahAd.​
>
>
> (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
>
> ​This is different. If I recall right, being masculine, mahat gets a nakAra
> from an Agama, becomes mahant, takes a upadhAdIrghatvam, becomes mahAnt and
> then t undergoes lopa, and later napopaH prAtipadikAntasya would drop
> nakAra also, thereby leaving mahA which combines with Atman as mahAtman.
> This declines as mahAtmA later.
>
>
> > ​
> > You had written that sarvaM brahma implies bAdhAyam sAmAnAdhikaraNyam
> > between the 2 words.
> >
> > On the other hand, 'aham brahma' implies aikya sAmAnAdhikaraNyam. (In the
> > nirguNam interpretation)
> >
> > But how does this gel with the idea that aikya sAmA..  obtains only in
> > cases like brAhmaNaH dvijottamaH etc.
> >
> ​I don't understand the "only" part and why it doesn't gel.
>
>
> > Another  query related to the same issue - I understand samAnAdhikaraNyam
> > as being a relationship between words. And  on the other hand lakShaNA
> > vRtti kicks in at the level of sentence analysis and understanding.
>
> ​You're right.​
>
>
>
> > I
> > assume that the padArtha-s (word meanings)  have to be ascertained first
> > before deciding whether or not to use lakShaNA .
> >
> ​I meant that ahaM in the sentence needs lakShaNA only based on what is the
> meaning of the word ahaM taken. You may not need lakShaNA at all, which is
> why I gave all possible options I could.
>
>
> > Now in the case of aham brahma, there are only 2 words in the sentence.
> You
> > wrote that we use jahallakShaNa.
> >
> > I understand you to be saying the following - we can understand 'aham
> > brahma asmi' in these 2 ways.
> >
> > 1. We can claim aikyasamAnAdhikaraNyam betweem aham and brahma words and
> > the use jahallakShaNA to arrive at mahAvAkyaGYAnam with the word brahma
> > being taken as nirguNam brahma. ( DSV?)
> >
> As stated earlier many combinations are possible based on what is ahaM and
> what ​is brahma, jIva and brahma are upahita or not. Finally, the 4th
> sAmAnAdhikaraNya rule has to apply, so at whichever side there is upAdhi in
> the equation, that should be removed by jahatii lakShaNa. If it is on both
> sides, it should be removed by jahadajahallakShaNA/ bhAgatyAgalakShaNA. I
> don't see any need for SDV/ DSV classification here.
>
>
> > 2. Or we could use bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNyam plus jahAjahallakShaNa with
> > brahma shabda being understood as saguNam brahma, to arrive at the same
> > GYAnam . (SDV ?)
> >
> ​If you use bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNyam, you will remove brahma to yield "aham
> nAsmi, brahmaiva asti", or ahaM to yield "brahma nAsti ahameva asmi", both
> erroneous.
>
> BTW, there is another mail I see with a Vicharasagara quote.
> > << अहंशब्दस्य  द्वावर्थौ ;  तत्र  कूटस्थस्य  ब्रह्मणा
> मुख्यसामानाधिकरण्यं,
> > चिदाभासस्य  बाधायां  सामानाधिकरण्यं  च  । >>,
> >
> >
> >
> > << ahaMshabdasya  dvAvarthau ;  tatra  kUTasthasya  brahmaNA
> > mukhyasAmAnAdhikaraNyaM,  chidAbhAsasya  bAdhAyAM  sAmAnAdhikaraNyaM
> cha  |
> > >>,
> >
> >
> >
> > The issue is elaborated in the succeeding portions of the topic. SVBS
> does
> > not cover  ऐक्यसामानाधिकरण्यं  (aikyasAmAnAdhikaraNyaM ) in the text.
>
> The author is shown to have used mukhyasAmAnAdhikaraNyam and
> bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNyam in ahaM brahmAsmi and there being no word called
> aikyasAmAnAdhikaraNyam. The first and last are synonyms. The middle one is
> the same as my reply given to Subbuji as it is talking of analysis of
> ahaMpada wherein the association with adhyasta upAdhis are taken as AtmA.
> That is sharIrAH na santi ahameva asmi or chidAbhAsaH/ manaH nAsti ahameva
> asmi. This is then equated in ahaM brahmAsmi with
> mukhya-/aikya-sAmAnAdhikaraNyam.
>
> 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] */
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>