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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

A follow up...
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.

Are you saying that the bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNyam mentioned in the vichAra
sAgara commentary, in analyzing 'ahaM brahma ' by negating the adhyAsa
upAdhis of ahaM,  amounts to mukhya-/aikya-sAmAnAdhikaraNyam  alone?

Om



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
>