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

[Ravi Kiran]

Namaste Sri Chandramouliji

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 5:34 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Sri Ravi Ji,
>
>
>
> Sorry for the late response. My net connection was down again. Due to
> extensive upgradation of the infrastructure in my location, I am afraid
> this type of disruptions will continue for the next several months.
>
>
>
> Reg your query  << Does it imply, there is no ऐक्यसामानाधिकरण्यं taking
> place here, with the arising of aikya jnAna ? >>,
>
>
>
> I am not sure if I have understood your question properly.  I will answer
> it the way I have understood. If this is wrong understanding, please
> clarify your query.  ऐक्यसामानाधिकरण्यं (aikyasAmAnAdhikaraNyaM) is not
> an event to take place. It is part of an analysis of Shruti vAkya to arrive
> at a definitive conclusion (tAtparya) as regards its import.
>

Yes, I am interested to know this sruti vAkya analysis for interpreting
अहं  ब्रह्मास्मि, based on your response on Sep 11.

>From that response, wanted to know, if you are ruling out ऐक्यसामानाधिकरण्यं
in lieu of बाधसामानाधिकरण्यम् mentioned there, in interpreting the above
mahA vAkya ?



> As per advaita sidhAnta, Atman and Brahman are one and the same is the
> conclusion. With aikya jnAna established, the analysis is complete. So
> where is the question of any further  ऐक्यसामानाधिकरण्यं
> (aikyasAmAnAdhikaraNyaM) ?.
>
>
>
> Reg  << ** Atman and Brahman are the same entity.**
>
>
>
> How is such Knowledge generated ? Is it only by negation ? >>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes. By  the negation (bAdha) of the wrong understanding of “aham” in the
> mahA vAkya “aham brahmAsmi”. How it is generated was discussed sometime
> back in the thread on “akhandAkAra vritti” in which you also participated.
> You may like to refer to that thread for further clarity.
>
>
>
> The “negation” should be with reference to a mahA vAkya only. For
> instance, bAdhasAmAnAdhikaranyam applied in the case of “sarvam Brahma”
> does not lead to the above type of Knowledge because “sarvam Brahma” is not
> a mahA vAkya.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
Thanks