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

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Tue Mar 26 10:26:05 EDT 2019

Raghav ji,

Even as you were typing and posting this reply/response, I was doing the
same in our Whatsapp group:

hanks for the detailed presentation.  If we consider the statement 'sarvam
khalvidam brahma', we have the 'equation' jagat (idam) = Brahman. Jagat is
jadam, vishaya, paricchinna, drshya, etc. whereas Brahman is quite the
opposite of jagat. Hence, in order to arrive at the equation we have to
take the true svarupa of jagat by discarding the aaropitamsha, that is,
naama-rupa. This is done due to safeguarding the tatparya of the vakya
which is teaching 'the jagat is non-different from Brahman.' When the
svarupa of jagat is realized as Brahman, the cause alone, the equation fits
seamlessly. In this case too the central advaitic teaching of
jaganmithyatva' is present. The baadhaayaam saamaanaadhikaranyam in the
form of 'what was wrongly known/seen as silver is actually the shell' is
expressed as 'what was wrongly taken to be the world is actually Brahman.'
Shankara has used this analogy in the BGB for 'brahmarpanam brahma
havih...' verse.


On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 7:53 PM 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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list