[Advaita-l] Power of Brahman

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Srinath ji,
Hope you are well.

>
>
> There is no rule that object of knowledge has necessarily a non-chaitanya
> vastu. When I know myself, both the subject and object are me, and very
> much sentient being. Shruti clearly say nArAyaNaM mahajnyEyaM. So?
>
When you say I know myself, the I and myself in the sentence are not
Brahman, they are Brahman with the mind as upAdhi. Therefore what you are
saying is that the sAkshi knows the mind. Here there is a object and a
subject that are not the same, so there is no kartr karma virodha.

When Shruti says nArAyaNam mahAjneyam it is saying Brahman is the one to be
known. Here there is no object at all, there is only subject, but the
knowing is not a kriyA, it is non objectification, so there is no kartr
karma virodha as there is no karma itself.

>
>
>>
>> So what does knowing Brahman mean in advaita?
>>
>> The Kena mantra नाहं मन्ये सुवेदेति नो न वेदेति वेद च illustrates this
>> beautifully. The student says - I do not consider that I know Brahman, nor
>> do I consider that I do not know Brahman at all, for I do know it.
>>
>> Thus when the student says नो न वेदेति वेद च, he is saying I the Self, am
>> Brahman, the knower of Brahman - ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्.
>>
>>
> This contradicts Shankara's assertion in BU 2.4.14:
> taM kena vijAnIyAt" yena vijAnAti, tasya karaNasya, vij~neye
> viniyuktatvAt. j~nAtushca j~neya eva hi jij~nAsA, na Atmani; na ca
> agneriva AtmA Atmani viShayaH; na ca aviShaye j~nAtuH j~nAnamupapadyate;
> tasmAt yena idaM sarvaM vijAnAti, "taM vij~nAtAraM"
> kena karaNena ki vA anyaH vijAnIyAt, yadA tu punaH paramArthavivekini
> brahmavidi vij~nAtaiva kevali.advayi vartate, taM vij~nAtAraM are kena
> vijAnIyAditi.
>
> Please note the explicit denial "na cha agneriva AtmA Atmani viShayaH:"
> (The Self is not an object of knowledge for the Self.)
>

It does not contradict shankarAchArya's statement because if you read a few
lines before your quote from BU 2.4.24, he says विजानीयात् ; सर्वत्र हि
कारकसाध्या क्रिया ; अतः कारकाभावेऽनुपपत्तिः क्रियायाः ; क्रियाभावे च
फलाभावः । तस्मात् अविद्यायामेव सत्यां क्रियाकारकफलव्यवहारः, न ब्रह्मविदः —
आत्मत्वादेव सर्वस्य, न आत्मव्यतिरेकेण कारकं क्रियाफलं वास्ति ; न च अनात्मा
सन् सर्वमात्मैव भवति कस्यचित् ; तस्मात् अविद्ययैव अनात्मत्वं परिकल्पितम् ;
न तु परमार्थत आत्मव्यतिरेकेणास्ति किञ्चित् ; तस्मात्
परमार्थात्मैकत्वप्रत्यये क्रियाकारकफलप्रत्ययानुपपत्तिः । अतः विरोधात्
ब्रह्मविदः क्रियाणां तत्साधनानां च अत्यन्तमेव निवृत्तिः ।
Therefore, he argues that there is neither a kriyA nor a kAraka in Atma
jnAna. If there is neither a kriyA nor a kAraka, there is no kartr karma
virodha either. However we cannot say there is no knower because, as he
says in your quote, परमार्थविवेकिनो ब्रह्मविदो विज्ञातैव केवलोऽद्वयो वर्तते.

Regards
Venkatraghavan


>