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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,

>
> I am sorry, I don’t think so.
>

Even if we assume he meant so (that svarUpa=adhisTAna), I am fair in my own
> stand that since MS distinguishes between those two terms (svarUpa vs
> adhisTAna)(otherwise why he is doing niShEda?)  I took Sri.Bhaskara-ji also
> meant the same.
>

It is for him to mention what he means, but whatever he meant, the only way
in advaita for pAramArthika satya to be associated with jagat is as the
adhiShThAna, the substantial reality behind the changing nAmarUpa. The
nAmarUpa is mithyA,‌‌‌ and the unchanging existence behind the world is
Brahman.

As shankarAchArya states in the gItAbhAShya
यद्विषया बुद्धिर्न व्यभिचरति, तत् सत् ; यद्विषयाव्यभिचरति, तदसत् ; इति
सदसद्विभागे बुद्धितन्त्रे स्थिते, सर्वत्र द्वे बुद्धीसर्वैरुपलभ्येते
समानाधिकरणे न नीलोत्पलवत् , सन् घटः, सन् पटः, सन् हस्ती इति । एवं
सर्वत्र तयोर्बुद्ध्योः घटादिबुद्धिः व्यभिचरति । तथाच दर्शितम् । न तु
सद्बुद्धिः । तस्मात् घटादिबुद्धिविषयः असन् , व्यभिचारात् ; न तु
सद्बुद्धिविषयः, अव्यभिचारात् ॥

Thus by referring to svarUpa as real, if Bhaskar ji meant the changing
nAmarUpa as nAmarUpa is real, then that is not advaita siddhAnta.

However, if he is talking of the unchanging reality behind all the changing
names and forms, as the only thing real, then he would be consistent with
siddhAnta.


> On the philosophical note -- why svarUpa is equated with adhisTAna in the
> school?  To the question what is the svarUpa of silver in the illusion? If
> you deny reality to it, then you are denying reality to adhisTAna shell. On
> the other hand, if you assert  reality for the svarUpa of silver (just
> because you want to preserve reality to adhisTAna shell), you are asserting
> reality to silver as it is presented.
>

svarUpa is not being equated with adhiShThAna. I'm saying that the only
aspect of the vastu svarUpa that is preserved after the niShedha is the
adhiShThAna.

The reason for this is because the niShedha itself is vyAvahArika, having
Brahman as its adhiShThAna and it cannot negate it's own adhiShThAna.

A question may arise here - if some aspect of the object is preserved after
negation, how can it be svarUpeNa niShedha - a total negation of the
object?

We have to see the context of where svarUpeNa niShedha occurs in the
advaita siddhi. It is in the context of the second definition of mithyAtva
- pratipannopAdhau traikAlika niShedha pratiyogitvam.

Thus, there are two entities here - the upAdhi, and the vastu which is seen
in the upAdhi. The niShedha here is the negation of the object, not the
upAdhi itself.

When the world and Brahman are treated as separate (as is intended in the
context it appears in the advaita siddhi), we talk of adhiShThAna and
Aropitam and do a svarUpeNa niShedha of Aropitam.

However, when Brahman is taken as part of the object svarUpa, every aspect
of the object different from Brahman is negated and only the unchanging
Brahman remains. Thus all that remains of every object in the world is
Brahman.

This is the sarvAtmabhAva spoken of in Shruti.

In the bhAShya of the muNdaka mantra ब्रह्मैवेदममृतं पुरस्ताद्ब्रह्म
पश्चाद्ब्रह्म दक्षिणतश्चोत्तरेण ।
अधश्चोर्ध्वं च प्रसृतं ब्रह्मैवेदं विश्वमिदं वरिष्ठम्, shankarAchArya
says: *यत्तज्ज्योतिषां
ज्योतिर्ब्रह्म, तदेव सत्यम् ; सर्वं तद्विकारः वाचारम्भणं विकारो
नामधेयमात्रमनृतमितरदित्येतमर्थं* विस्तरेण हेतुतः प्रतिपादितं निगमनस्थानीयेन
मन्त्रेण पुनरुपसंहरति — ब्रह्मैव उक्तलक्षणम् , इदं
यत् पुरस्तात् अग्रेऽब्रह्मेवाविद्यादृष्टीनां प्रत्यवभासमानं तथा
पश्चाद्ब्रह्म तथा दक्षिणतश्च तथा उत्तरेण तथैवाधस्तात् ऊर्ध्वं च
सर्वतोऽन्यदिव कार्याकारेण प्रसृतं प्रगतं नामरूपवदवभासमानम् । किं बहुना,
ब्रह्मैवेदं विश्वं समस्तमिदं जगत् वरिष्ठं वरतमम् । अब्रह्मप्रत्ययः
सर्वोऽविद्यामात्रो रज्ज्वामिव सर्पप्रत्ययः । ब्रह्मैवैकं परमार्थसत्यमिति
वेदानुशासनम् ॥

Every a-brahma pratyaya is only born out of ignorance, like the snake
appearance in a rope. The one Brahman alone is the ultimate reality - this
is the ultimate teaching of the Veda.

Thus everything other than Brahman has  svarUpeNa niShedha, and all that
remains is  Brahman.

This is what I was trying to convey earlier in my response.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan