[Advaita-l] Need some help

Bhaskar YR bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Fri May 25 04:31:56 EDT 2018

praNAms Sri Sada prabhuji
Hare Krishna

>  Bit free time at office, thinking penetratingly into these lakshaNa-s before finding the source in shankara's prasthAna traya bhAshya.  

>  with regard to bhAga tyAga lakshaNa, to get the lakshyArtha of tat and tvaM we have to do tyAga of bhAga which is not common between tat and tvaM, after doing  this tyAga what  remains  in common between tat and tvaM is one and ONLY one.  So, to prove that 'that devadatta' ( x person)  is indeed 'this devadatta' (y person) we have to deduct all contradictions (dissimilarities) between that ( x )  and this ( y )  and to establish the fact that Y is nothing but X some part (bhAga) needs to be deducted (tyAga) from both X and Y.  Here the doubt of the dvaitin is when there is only one without second brahman where is the question of two i.e. tat and tvaM and where is the requirement of doing bhAga tyAga??  Hold on, you cannot come-up with your pet theory that  in paramArtha there is only one without second but in vyavahAra there are two.  Since you are accepting in vyavahAra there are two i.e. jeeva-Ishwara, you cannot apply this lakshaNa to prove anything worthy of identity in vyavahAra and in paramArtha no need for any lakshaNa when there is only one without second.  So, bhAga-tyAga lakshaNa neither good in vyavahAra nor valid in paramArtha, so if at all you want to validate this lakshana to prove the ekatva you have to have two not ONE.  Hence dvaita (duality) prevailed :-) 

>  with regard to jahat-ajahat lakshana I don’t know how it is going to establish ekatvaM and adviteeyaM since in this lakshaNa we have to heavily depend on lakshyArtha by introducing the entirely different thing from its vAchyArtha.  For example :  if we say 'there is a tea shop in ulsoor lake' as per  jahat lakshaNa we have to understand that it is not ulsoor lake (vAchyArtha) it is on the land near to ulsoor lake the tea shop is there...likewise in ajahat lakshaNa, when I say :  that brown is running fast by looking at the horse race, the brown is not pertains to colour but to horse, the brown horse is running fast when compared to other coloured horses.  Here also even though we are retaining vAchyArtha we are bringing in something more (horse)  included into it to get the lakshyArtha.  In the tat tvaM asi, what else we have to bring to understand this 'Ikyata' by using the  ajahat lakshaNa ??  I am not clear. 

>  Anyway, I may be erred in understanding this lakshaNa itself but still I am not clear why we should not use these same lakshaNa-s to bring the identity between brahma and jagat when we are using these lakshaNa-s to prove the identity between jeeva and brahman !!??  One may argue jagat is jada (inert) no need for any comparison with Chaitanya brahma ...but shankara in Itareya up. Clarifies Chaitanya is in sUkshma rUpa in jagat like tree, mountain rock etc. which is more vivid in jeeva / jangama-s.  And elsewhere shankara to strike the similarity between jagat and its kAraNa, says both are 'asti' the 'IS' ness.  The existence is the similarity between jagat and brahman.  One is pariNAmi nitya and another one is kUtastha nitya and the tyAga what we have to here is changeness of jagat.  

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list