[Advaita-l] How is AkAsha Niravayava

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:18 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hari Om Praveen ji, Venkataraghavan ji, V Subramanian ji,
>
> I discussed the issue with Smartha Rahul ji also. He made a reference to
> Ratnaprabha on Brahma Sutra 2.3.7 which holds the sAvayatva of AkAsha on
> the basis of its being kArya-dravya, which is pretty logical.
>
> Further I saw in BS 2.3.7 itself the explanation by BhAshyakAra
> - यच्चोक्तमेतत् — शब्दाच्चेति — तत्रामृतत्वश्रुतिस्तावद्वियति ‘ अमृता
> दिवौकसः’ इतिवद्द्रष्टव्या ; उत्पत्तिप्रलययोरुपपादितत्वात् ; ‘*
> आकाशवत्सर्वगतश्च नित्यः’ (शत. ब्रा. १० । ६ । ३ । २)
> इत्यपि प्रसिद्धमहत्त्वेनाकाशेनोपमानं क्रियते निरतिशयमहत्त्वाय, न
> आकाशसमत्वाय* — यथा ‘ इषुरिव सविता धावति’ इति क्षिप्रगतित्वायोच्यते, न
> इषुतुल्यगतित्वाय — तद्वत्
>
> Now, I think this explanation is decisive. It is not that AkAsha is
> sarva-gata and nitya actually. Shruti use the well-known-sarvagatatva and
> nityatva of AkAsha to indicate the niratishaya-sarvagatatva and nityatva of
> Brahman. The Shruti is not to indicate equality with AkAsha. Similarly, the
> usage of word Amrita for AkAsha (Antariksha)  in 2.3.3
> Brihadaranyakopanishad is equated with the amritatva of devatAs and not
> actual amritatva which is possible only for Brahman.
>
> So, this reference also explains the niravayavatav of AkAsha in 13.27 and
> elsewhere in my opinion. It is not that AkAsha is niravayava actually, on
> account of it being a karya-dravya as held by Ratna-Prabha. But the
> prasiddha-niravayavatva of Akasha is just used as a simile. It is not the
> niratishaya-niravayavatva of Brahman.
>
> Sudhanshu.
>

Most of the above is already admitted. No one has suggested absolute
nityatva of akasha. Even sarvagatatva of akasha is superseded by Atman
since Akasha is only adhyasta in Atman.  The Ratnaprabha observation is
worth pursuing:  Smarta Rahul shared me an image too but since images are
not allowed in this group I am giving only this:

रत्नप्रभाभाष्य ब्रह्मसूत्र २.३.७ ( यावद्विकारं तु विभागो लोकवत् ) में आकाश
कार्यद्रव्य होनेसे उसका निरवयवत्व असिद्ध है (क्योंकि सिद्धान्तमें
कार्यद्रव्यमात्र ही सावयव माना जाता है ) - ऐसा कहा गया ; (सावयव होनेपर भी )
---> आकाश में सर्वमूर्तद्रव्यसंयोगत्व स्वीकार करना अनुचित है क्योंकि तब
आकाशमें वर्षा, वायु, अग्नि आदि के संयोग से भीगना इत्यादि स्वीकार करनारूप
अनर्थप्राप्ति होगी ~ शंकरानंदी टीका , गीता , अध्याय १३, श्लोक २६
यदि रत्नप्रभा की बात माने तो १३.२६ में भाष्यकार द्वारा आकाश को निरवयव कहना
आत्मा का नित्यत्व समझाने हेतु एक लोकप्रसिद्धि का अनुवादमात्र मानना पड़ेगा,
सिद्धान्तवाक्य नहीं ;

But we have not seen Bhashyakara's word anywhere denying niravayatva for
akasha. A Madhva scholar told me some years ago that Madhva accepts akasha
as savayava only but did not give reference where he has said, etc.

The Panchikarana based savayavatva of akasha that I proposed a couple of
days back seems to be endorsed by Ratnaprabha. पञ्चीकरणादस्पर्शत्वमसिद्धम्
|

regards
subbu



On Tue 18 Jun, 2019, 14:22 V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 12:07 PM Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks for the Brahmasutra references, Subbuji. Venkataraghavanji has
>> also
>> > quoted the same reference. Overall, one thing is clear that we have
>> > exception seen when it comes to AkASha/Maya/avidyA, as no independent
>> tarka
>> > can be perfect. How so can likely be answered only by mAyayA sarvasya
>> > sambhavAt.
>> >
>>
>> Very well stated Praveen ji, even in the very cited sutra bhashya/s we
>> have
>> two crucial statements that are relevant to this discussion:
>>
>> 1.  तर्काप्रतिष्ठानात्सावयवत्वमेवेति चेत् - the non-settling nature of
>> (kevala) tarka is stated, though, here by the purvapakshin (sankhya)
>>
>> 2. That we have to rely on shabda, shruti alone in certain things:
>>
>> शब्दमूलं च ब्रह्म शब्दप्रमाणकम् , नेन्द्रियादिप्रमाणकम् ;
>> तद्यथाशब्दमभ्युपगन्तव्यम्  Brahma (and Maya) have to be seen as taught by
>> the shruti; both are beyond sense perception and we have to accept what
>> the
>> shruti says in their respect.
>>
>> In some place the Bhashyakara has said 'while the Pradhana of the sankhya
>> is based on tarka, the shakti, maya, of the Vedantin is based on shabda,
>> veda.' The Sankhya has tried to argue that his jagat kaaraNam is also
>> admitted by shabda and that is refuted strongly by showing that the
>> avyakta
>> of the upanishad is not the pradhana of the sankhya.
>>
>> warm regards
>> subbu
>>
>> >
>> > Kind rgds,
>> > --Praveen R. Bhat
>> > /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one
>> know
>> > That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>