[Advaita-l] No Parinama in Brahman says Shankara Bhagavatpada

Praveen R. Bhat bhatpraveen at gmail.com
Thu Jun 27 03:26:31 EDT 2019

Namaste Chandramouliji and others,

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:22 PM H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Following line of reasoning can be tried.
> J (jagat) and  A (asat) are two entities which are nonexistant. Third
> Entity B (Brahman) which is Ever Existant, Changeless (Nitya) entity.
> Difference between J and A is that J can and does   derive from B its
> ability to Appear as an existant entity while A is unable to do so. This by
> its mere proximity to Brahman and not by any effort on the part of Brahman.
> ( Usual illustration of Sun and its activating effects  on entities in
> Jagat with no effort on the part of Sun . Needs no repetition ).   All
> changes are confined to  within Jagat. And none in Brahman. All experiences
> are for entities in Jagat, Again the ability to have experience derived by
> concerned entities  from  Brahman, with no change or experience for
> Brahman.
> This is the position of the Shruti.

True, but this was already covered with tucCha and mithyA. However, he is
not convinced as to how something non-existent can derive from brahman as
it is non-existent. If you say it is not tucCha kind of asat but mithyA
asat that derives, then the question he will ask is if it is same as
brahman or different from brahman just like Ramanujacharya kept on listing
one after another Aropa till he exhausted at seven, all of them are
answered with one anirvachanIya. This is a trap that logic has. One can't
help it. At a certain point, no logic will work. This logic appears so
strong that one may even doubt the Shruti; that is why we place Shruti as
the highest and only pramANa for AtmajnAna. If we think logic counters
Shruti, then that logic is wrong, it has no place in Shruti. If you ask for
another logic, none exists, else Shruti would have given it. netI netI is
the only resort. It is indeed mindboggling, but beyond that it is
undoubtedly easy. It is said that Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi couldn't even
see the difficulty that others face in such a straightforward jnAna! It is
pratyakShavat pratyakSha/ aparokSha/ sAkShAt. How then can anumAna based on
pratyakSha counter it!

On a related note, a mandAdhikArI doesn't mean mandabuddhi adhikArI, since
the person is very sharp to use logic. He is manda because he will crawl
for answers unless shraddhA brings in blessings for the question to be
dropped. Among others who don't have questions are of three types:
--one who doesn't have questions as all questions are seen through as
bogus; the questions are refuted as mithyA as and when they come up as one
doesn't slip from tattva; they are uttama or tending to uttama.
--one who has no questions, but as soon as one hears someone else's
question that one has not considered himself, stands answered with what one
has already learnt; they become madhyama.
--one who has no questions, since manana is insufficient and others'
questions become his own and he starts doubting all his knowledge and
perhaps even the path itself, losing any mandAdhikAra also he has. More
sAdhana is needed for chittashuddhi and sharpness of buddhi. A mandAdhikArI
is better since at least he has his own questions.

--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] */

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list