[Advaita-l] Two Advaitic verses with a profound combined purport

[V Subrahmanian]

Wow, Venkat ji, upon reading your post (below) I was reminded of a Bhamati
vaakyam which I had cited earlier in this forum. I searched for it and
landed on this post of Feb 2018:

A pithy sentence seminal to Advaita from the Bhamati

 A very significant statement of the
author of the bhAmatI.  Says Sri Vachaspati Mishra in the gloss to the
Bhashya on the sutra: 2.1.14 तदनन्यत्वं आरम्भणशब्दादिभ्यः -  ‘ न
खल्वनन्यत्वमित्यभेदं ब्रूमः, किंतु भेदं व्यासेधामः ...(by
non-difference we do not suggest identity; but only negate absolute
difference…). By imposing identity between the cause, clay, and the
effect, pot, a difficulty would arise where the practical
utility/parlance cannot be accomplished.  When a man wants a pot to
store water/cook rice, etc., he goes to a potter to buy one.  In case
the potter hands him a lump of clay saying ‘take this, for is not the
pot the same as clay?’, that would be an undesirable situation.  This
is not the way Advaitins want the cause-effect non-difference to be
understood.  All that is intended is to wipe out any idea of absolute
difference between the cause and the effect.  One not given to enquiry
holds the effect and the cause as two distinct real entities.  This
view is not conducive to the understanding of the fundamental reality,
tattva.  The correct view of appreciating the non-difference of the
effect from its material cause without jeopardizing the practical
parlance, vyavahAra, is to understand, by enquiry, that the two, the
cause and effect, are not two distinct, real entities; one cause alone
appears, through imagined/superimposed name and form, as many effects.
 The fundamental reality, however, is one only which is neither the
cause nor the effect.

[This is also a part of the post of Feb 2018 :-)]
Sri Venkat ji had pointed out that this sentence of the Bhamati is hidden
in the Advaita Siddhi:  and the siddhikAra - अभेदे
कार्यकारणभावव्याहत्या कथंचिदपि भेदस्यावश्याभ्युपेयत्वात्.

A fine input from the Bhamati for contemplation, mananam.  I request others
to post such gems from the Bhamati.  Dr. Maheswaran Nambuthiri of Chennai
had made a doctoral study on the Mimamsa references in the Bhamati.

regards
subbu

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 2:20 PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Raghav ji,
>
> One difference between the two statements is that the former is aikya
> sAmAnAdhikaraNya, whereas the latter is bAdha sAmAnAdhikaraNya. In both
> cases, there is only one entity after the sAmAnAdhikaraNya - Brahman - but
> the sAmAnAdhikaraNya involved is different. The former is identity, the
> latter is sublation.
>
> If the intended meaning of the sentences are slightly different from the
> above, one can say that the former statement is one of identity, whereas
> the latter statement is one of non-difference. There is a difference
> between the two - only one entity is possible for identity, whereas two
> entities are involved in the non-difference in question. To explain:
>
> The first statement is of identity  - the jIva is absolutely identical with
> Brahman. As a relationship requires two entities, there can be no
> relationship between jIva and Brahman. This is like saying A=A.
>
> The second statement is of non-difference. The world is non-different from
> its cause, Brahman. The relationship is one of AdhyAsika tAdAtmya - the
> existence that is Brahman, is superimposed onto the world, and vice versa -
> the world is superimposed upon Brahman. This is like saying A=B. A and B
> are two entities which are being equated in one respect.
>
> As Madhusudana Sarasvati argues in the advaita siddhi - अभेदे
> कार्यकारणभावव्याहत्या कथंचिदपि भेदस्यावश्याभ्युपेयत्वात् | नच
> 'तदनन्यत्वमारम्भणशब्दादिभ्य' इत्यधिकरणविरोध: ; उपादानव्यतिरेकेनोपदेयं
> नास्तीत्यस्यैव तदर्थत्वात् | - As identity would mean that the very notion
> of cause and effect is contradicted, some difference between the two must
> necessarily be accepted (when speaking of the non-difference of the effect
> from the cause). Nor does it contradict the section "There is
> non-difference, on account of texts that speak of origin etc" (from the
> brahma sUtra), for the meaning of that section is only to teach that the
> effect is non-existent apart from / in the absence of the cause.
>
> Thus ananyatvam does not mean identity, it means the non-existence of the
> effect independent of the cause (mithyAtva).
>
> Finally, yes, both kAraNatva and kArya kAraNa ananyatva are spoken of only
> from a vyAvahArika viewpoint.
>
> Kind regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 12:17 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula <
> raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you for the clarification. A little following up....I was examining
> > the similarity/dissimilarity between the two statements
> > jIva is Brahman
> > jagat is Brahman
> >
> > Both statements have validity in different contexts; yet jIva and Jagat
> > are not 'related to' Brahman in the same way. What would be the best way
> to
> > look at the dissimilarity between the above two statements?
> >
> > Did you meant to say that the first statement is pAramArthikam while the
> > second statement is from a vyAvahArika dRShTi, since it still retains
> > kAraNatvam as upAdhi of Brahman ?
> >
> > Om
> > Raghav
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun 31 Mar, 2019, 7:34 PM Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Namaste Raghav ji,
> >> You had asked, "Like even a pot is clay being always non-separate from
> >> its
> >> substratum, can we make the statement jagat is (kAraNa-dRShtyA)
> brahman?"
> >>
> >> Such a statement can be made only from a vyAvahArika standpoint, not
> from
> >> pAramArthika dRShTi. The kAraNatva of Brahman is also a superimposition
> >> upon Brahman. There is no pAramArthika kArya kAraNa bhAva between jagat
> and
> >> Brahman.
> >>
> >> In paramArtha, there is no world at all. Only Brahman exists.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Venkatraghavan
> >>
> >> On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, 14:03 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, <
> >> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Namaste Venkatraghavan ji
> >>> Thank you for your lucid observations.
> >>> A small follow-up question.
> >>>
> >>>  jagat is kAryam and Brahman is kAraNam, and applying
> >>> karyakAraNa-ananyatva-nyAya, jagat is non-separate from its adhiSThAnam
> >>> viz., brahman.  Like even a pot is clay being always non-separate from
> >>> its
> >>> substratum, can we make the statement jagat is (kAraNa-dRShtyA)
> brahman?
> >>> (Since jagan-mithyAtvam and (kAryasya) jagatah kAraNa-ananyatvaM mean
> the
> >>> same. )
> >>>
> >>> Also one more point is that jIva and brahman do not enjoy an
> >>> adhiSTheya-adhiSThAna sambandha like pot and clay. Whereas jagat and
> >>> Brahman enjoy such a relation. Therefore while it is true that all that
> >>> exists is Brahman (moxam ekam varjayitvA sarvam anRtam), and both the
> >>> statements 'jIva is Brahman' and 'jagat is Brahman' are tenable in the
> >>> pAramArthika sense, still, we can never say jIva is  mithyA whereas we
> >>> can
> >>> definitely say jagat is mithyA , unlike the jIva.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Om
> >>> Raghav
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue 26 Mar, 2019, 4:43 PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l, <
> >>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Namaste Bhaskar ji,
> >>> >
> >>> > You had asked:
> >>> >
> >>> > "When both these (jeeva and jagat) have both lakshya and lakshaNa
> >>> aspects
> >>> > and satyatvaM is already attributed to brahman in the very first
> >>> statement
> >>> > (brahma satya) why this partiality in jeeva-jagat analyzation and
> >>> > concluding  that only jeeva is satyaM ( brahma = satya, jeeva =
> brahman
> >>> > hence jeeva is satya) and jagat is mithyA??  Why we should not
> consider
> >>> > upalakshya in both jeeva and jagat and declare satya or why we should
> >>> not
> >>> > consider upalakshaNa aspect in both jeeva and jagat and say mithyA??"
> >>> >
> >>> > There are two reasons. The first is grammatical, and the second is
> >>> related
> >>> > to the process of moksha.
> >>> >
> >>> > As you know, to arrive at any sentence meaning, we need to understand
> >>> the
> >>> > word meaning first. And in understanding any word, the first
> >>> word-meaning
> >>> > considered is the word's primary meaning, mukhyArtha.
> >>> >
> >>> > However, when the primary meaning of the words constituting the
> >>> sentence
> >>> > leads to an illogical connotation (anvaya anupapatti),  impeding the
> >>> rise
> >>> > of sentence meaning, or if the intended meaning of the sentence is
> lost
> >>> > (tAtparya anupapatti), one resorts to lakshaNA and takes the
> >>> lakshyArtha -
> >>> > the secondary or implied meaning of the words. The lakshyArtha may
> >>> only be
> >>> > taken if taking the mukhyArtha is problematic.
> >>> >
> >>> > In the sentence jIvo brahmaiva nApara:, if we take primary meaning of
> >>> the
> >>> > word jIva, the sentence meaning conveying oneness of the jIva with
> >>> Brahman
> >>> > would be rendered logically impossible. Further the tAtparya of the
> >>> > sentence to convey abheda of jIva with shuddha chaitanya - which is
> the
> >>> > parama tAtparya of all shruti and the knowledge
> >>> > of which is the cause of moksha - would be lost.
> >>> >
> >>> > Hence by necessity, we discard the primary meaning of the word jIva
> and
> >>> > take the lakshyArtha - which is shuddha chaitanya.
> >>> >
> >>> > In the case of the sentence jaganmithyA, the jagat, whose mithyAtva
> is
> >>> > intended to be conveyed in the sentence, is the primary meaning of
> the
> >>> word
> >>> > 'jagat'. There is no anvaya anupapatti and tAtparya anupapatti by
> >>> taking
> >>> > the primary meaning. Thus, there is no need to discard the primary
> >>> meaning
> >>> > of the word jagat and take up the secondary meaning.
> >>> >
> >>> > Thus we have grammatically valid reasons for taking the jIva to be
> the
> >>> same
> >>> > as chaitanya, whereas the world is taken in its primary sense - to be
> >>> the
> >>> > world that we interact with daily.
> >>> >
> >>> > Coming to the second reason. As you know, moksha in advaita is
> through
> >>> > jnAna. Such a jnAna should be capable of removing the cause of
> samsAra
> >>> for
> >>> > it to be capable of leading to moksha. The cause of samsAra is
> >>> ignorance of
> >>> > the self - not knowing who one is really. That ignorance leads to the
> >>> > imagined division of the self into an "I" and "it/they". The "I" is
> the
> >>> > jIva, in the primary sense, and the "it" is the jagat, in the primary
> >>> > sense.
> >>> >
> >>> > For ignorance, the cause of samsAra, to be removed by knowledge,
> >>> knowledge
> >>> > and ignorance must have the same object. The ignorance we are talking
> >>> about
> >>> > has only Brahman as its object - and nothing else. There is nothing
> >>> else
> >>> > other than Brahman to objectify. So, knowledge too must only have
> >>> Brahman
> >>> > as its object. It cannot have any other thing apart from Brahman as
> its
> >>> > object, for it to be capable of removing ignorance. Thus, the
> >>> knowledge of
> >>> > "I" the jIva, where "I"/ the jIva contains any aspect of avidyA
> within
> >>> it,
> >>> > will be incapable of removing ignorance and conferring moksha. Hence,
> >>> it is
> >>> > said that in the jIva brahma analysis, jIva is stripped of every
> >>> aspect of
> >>> > ignorance. But how to do that?
> >>> >
> >>> > Merely wishing something away does not mean that it ceases to exist.
> >>> > If ignorance
> >>> > is real, how can one strip away ignorance from the jIva? The jIva is
> >>> > everyday faced with the world which constantly reminds him of his
> >>> ignorance
> >>> > and limitation. So as long as the world is real, it limits the jIva,
> >>> and
> >>> > this limitation is real, and oneness with Brahman is impossible.
> >>> >
> >>> > Here is where jaganmithyAtva comes in. If the world is unreal, the
> >>> > limitation of the jIva is unreal. Hence it is taught that ignorance,
> >>> and
> >>> > its projection, the world, do not exist. There is no multiplicity
> here
> >>> > whatsoever, says the shruti. Like the appearance of the non-existent
> >>> silver
> >>> > in the shell and the dream world within the dream, it is proven that
> >>> the
> >>> > entire world is a mere appearance in Brahman.
> >>> >
> >>> > Until this unreality of the world is understood, the removal of
> >>> limitation
> >>> > and ignorance from the jIva is impossible.
> >>> >
> >>> > Therefore, the establishment of the mithyAtva of the world is a
> >>> necessary
> >>> > pre-condition for the establishment in oneness, which is the cause of
> >>> > moksha. It is no surprise therefore that AchAryas in the advaita
> >>> tradition
> >>> > have taken great pains in establishing the mithyAtva of the world,
> >>> prior to
> >>> > arriving at jIva brahma aikya.
> >>> >
> >>> > It is for this reason that the very first sentence of the advaita
> >>> siddhi is
> >>> > this - तत्र अद्वैतसिद्धेर्द्वैतमिथ्यात्वसिद्धिपूर्वकत्वात्
> >>> द्वैतमिथ्यात्मेव
> >>> > प्रथममुपपादनीयम् ।
> >>> >
> >>> > Kind regards,
> >>> > Venkatraghavan
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >>> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >>> >
> >>> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> >>> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >>> >
> >>> > For assistance, contact:
> >>> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >>> >
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >>>
> >>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> >>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >>>
> >>> For assistance, contact:
> >>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >>>
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>