[Advaita-l] Two Advaitic verses with a profound combined purport
H S Chandramouli
hschandramouli at gmail.com
Tue Mar 26 11:57:08 EDT 2019
Namaste Raghav Ji,
Reg << 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. ) >>,
Perhaps my response corresponds to what Sri Subrahmanian Ji has brought out
in his reply. I only wanted to draw your attention to the first sentence
above. You have mentioned BOTH kAryam-kAraNam and adhiSThanam-adhyArOpa
(word missing in your sentence, but added by me for completion)
relationship between jagat and Brahman. You are free to select one of
them only. They are not synonymous.
You have also referred to clay-pot relationship. The dundubhi-veena-shankha
illustration in BU is on par with the clay-gold-iron illustration in CU.
But the Bhashya on BU is far more elaborate especially on the significance
of three drishtAntas (illustrations) in for a one nad the same
dArshtAnta. Another advantage is its extensive coverage by Swami
Sureswaracharya in his vArtika on BUB. BUBV 2-4-286 to 302 refers. Verse
294 is a quote from Upadesha Sahasri while verse 295 is a quote from CU.
Conclusion in verse 302
<< बोधाविशेषादथवा भेद एव न विध्यते ॥
कार्यकारणयोस्तत्त्वमुभयोरविलक्षणम् ॥ >>
<< bodhAvisheShAdathavA bheda eva na vidhyate ||
kAryakAraNayostattvamubhayoravilakShaNam || >>.
That Brahman is kArya-kAraNa vilakshaNa is no doubt found in most of the
Upanishads. However since you specifically mentioned pot-clay illustration
in this regard, and of course this topic has been discussed any number of
times here, I thought of bringing to your attention the BU context.
Sorry for this interruption in your discussion. This post is only for
information. May be made use of as deemed fit.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 7:56 PM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> 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
> > 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
> > definitely say jagat is mithyA , unlike the jIva.
> > Om
> > Raghav
protected online with Avast Free Antivirus. Get it here — it’s free forever.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list