[Advaita-l] Question about Avaccheda vada

[V Subrahmanian]

2018-02-10 8:36 GMT+05:30 Aditya Kumar <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com>:

> Thanks for the relevant passages. This actually is very good. I had
> specifically mentioned reflection theory "as we understand today".


Even the theory 'as understood today', whatever that might mean, does not
contradict Advaita. Ishwara is Brahman reflected in maya and jiva is
Brahman reflected in avidya. This can happily explain advaita.  Only the
reflecting mediums are different.  If you want water example, you can have
different types/magnitudes of water bodies for the reflection and use the
theory.

vs


> In both cases, the jala surya example is not the same as reflection theory
> that is now understood. Even in this example of reflection of sun in water,
> what or where is ishwara? There is just jiva brahman and their aikya.
> --------------------------------------------
> On Sat, 10/2/18, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Question about Avaccheda vada
>  To: "Aditya Kumar" <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com>
>  Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
> vedanta.org>, "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
>  Date: Saturday, 10 February, 2018, 2:48 AM
>
>
>
>  On Sat,
>  Feb 10, 2018 at 7:58 AM, Aditya Kumar <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com>
>  wrote:
>  Namaste,
>
>
>
>  If we try to remain faithful to Shankara bhashyas, a lot of
>  concepts seem alien to early Advaita Vedanta
>
>
>
>  (1) The fact is that Avaccheda vada is the most preferred
>  theory endorsed by Gaudapada Shankara and Vachaspati. The
>  reflection theory cannot be found in original bhashyas
>  "as we understand today".
>  There are several instances of
>  reflection analogy used by Shankara. One is:  BGB
>  15.7:
>
>
>  ममैवांशो जीवलोके
>  जीवभूतः
>  सनातनः ।
>  मनःषष्ठानीन्द्रियाणि
>  प्रकृतिस्थानि कर्षति
>  ॥ ७ ॥ भाष्यम्ममैव
>  परमात्मनः नारायणस्य,
>  अंशः भागः अवयवः एकदेशः
>  इति अनर्थान्तरं
>  जिवलोके जीवानां लोके
>  संसारे जीवभूतः कर्ता
>  भोक्ता इति प्रसिद्धः
>  सनातनः चिरन्तनः ; यथा
>  जलसूर्यकः सूर्यांशः
>  जलनिमित्तापाये
>  सूर्यमेव गत्वा न
>  निवर्तते च तेनैव
>  आत्मना गच्छति, एवमेव ;
>  यथा
>  घटाद्युपाधिपरिच्छिन्नो
>  घटाद्याकाशः आकाशांशः
>  सन्
>  घटादिनिमित्तापाये
>  आकाशं प्राप्य न
>  निवर्तते । अतः
>  उपपन्नम्
>  उक्तम् ‘यद्गत्वा
>  न निवर्तन्ते’ (भ. गी.
>  १५ ।
>  ६) इति ।
>
>  Here, in one place, Shankara gives both the pratibimba and
>  avaccheda examples to convey the same point.
>
>
>  ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम्द्वितीयोऽध्यायःतृतीयः
>  पादः सूत्रम् ५० -
>  भाष्यम्………
>  आभास एव च एष जीवः
>  परस्यात्मनो जलसूर्यकादिवत्प्रतिपत्तव्यः,
>  न स एव साक्षात् , नापि
>  वस्त्वन्तरम् ।
>  अतश्च………
>  BSB
>  3.2..
>
>
>  अत एव
>  चोपमा सूर्यकादिवत् ॥
>  १८ ॥ भाष्यम्यत एव च
>  अयमात्मा चैतन्यरूपो
>  निर्विशेषो
>  वाङ्मनसातीतः
>  परप्रतिषेधोपदेश्यः,
>  अत एव च
>  अस्योपाधिनिमित्तामपारमार्थिकीं
>  विशेषवत्तामभिप्रेत्य
>  जलसूर्यकादिवदित्युपमा
>  उपादीयते
>  मोक्षशास्त्रेषु —
>  ‘यथा ह्ययं
>  ज्योतिरात्मा
>  विवस्वानपो भिन्ना
>  बहुधैकोऽनुगच्छन् ।
>  उपाधिना क्रियते
>  भेदरूपो देवः
>  क्षेत्रेष्वेवमजोऽयमात्मा’
>  इति, ‘एक एव हि भूतात्मा
>  भूते भूते
>  व्यवस्थितः । एकधा
>  बहुधा चैव दृश्यते
>  जलचन्द्रवत्’ (ब्र. बिं.
>  १२) इति चैवमादिषु ॥ १८
>  ॥
>
>  In fact the reflection theory comes out as a favourite of
>  Shankara very often. The Upanishads too give this analogy
>  often. See the Kathopanishat.
>
>  Nonetheless confining to the topic,
>  if we have explain Jiva ishwara and brahman from Avaccheda
>  theory, we have few pointers :
>
>  (a) The idea that ishwara is another ghata or mathakasha
>  cannot be found in the original works of Gaudapada, Shankara
>  and Vachaspati Misra.
>
>  If it is explicitly stated by
>  someone, there is nothing wrong in having it as the very
>  idea of Ishwara as non-jiva and non-NB is quite happily
>  admitted by all Acharyas of all times.
>  vs
>
>  (b) When we speak of Ishwara as the creator, the creatorship
>  is imagined or superimposed or mistaken or as Subrahmanianji
>  said, adhyaropa done by shastras. In any case, the delusion
>  is that of jiva and Ishwara remains the same throughout as
>  akarta, samsara guna vargita.
>
>  (c) That Ishwara the creator has sattva guna as predominant
>  - this idea cannot be found in prasthana traya bhashya. As
>  indicated in another thread, Ishwara is without any guna
>  vishesha or guna sambandha. Else it will be a samsari.
>
>  (d) The idea that a predominant sattva guna does not veil
>  the self is another concept alien to SD itself.
>
>
>
>  Hence my understanding is that, by the potency of Ishwara,
>  the true nature of Jiva is veiled. In this state there is
>  jiva-ishwara, but on release there is no jiva-ishwara only
>  brahman. So at no point does Ishwara sets out to create and
>  hence justifiably there cannot be any guna karma association
>  for ishwara whether in vyavaharika or paramarthika.
>
>
>
>
>