[Advaita-l] Omnipresence

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 8:31 PM Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> Dvaitins hold Brahman is vastutaH unlimited "in-spite of" presence of other
> entities. Presence (or absence) of other entities has no bearing on B's
> aprichinnatvaM.


First, the proper meaning of 'vastu paricchinnatvam' that the Advaitin
specifies needs to be clearly understood. If a real, independent, entity
other than Brahman exists, then Brahman is limited by that vastu. Since
Dvaita has already accepted that everything other than Brahman has only a
paratantra satyatva, existence dependent on Brahman, the dravya, etc. you
talk of in the sequel citing the Bhagavatam, is not the equivalent of the
'different' entity that the Advaitin specifies. Hence the explanation is
not valid.

What the Bhagavatam proposes to convey by that shloka is brought out by
Sridhara Swamin in the commentary thereof:  dravya is upadanam. karma, etc.
are nimittam. Jiva is the bhokta. All these are enabled to function because
of the anugraha of Brahman. (In Advaita this is stated to be 'saannidhya'
of Brahman).  [If that anugraha is not there, then these will cease to be
functional, which is tantamount to their non-existence. They will perish.
The context of this shloka in the Bhagavatam is the adhidaivika,
adhibhautika and adhyatmika levels in srishTi.

In another angle, each indirya has its anugraahaka devataa, for example
Surya for chakshus. Due to the karma (papa) of the jiva, the adhishthaatru
devataa Surya will withdraw its anugraha and the jiva will be rendered
totally sightless or poor sightedness.  The same is the case with the
hypothetical situation the Bhagavtam is talking about. Sri
Viraraghavacharya of Ramanuja school also says: By His anugraha dravya,
etc. derive sattaa, sthiti and pravrutti.

Thus, the dravya etc. are all not independently real entities which can
result in vastu paricchinnatvam.  For the Advaitin the dravya, etc. are all
only appearances, their sattaa is Brahman and they, as nama and rupa, are
mithya. So, there is no occasion of vastu parichhinnatvam from them for
Brahman.  On the other hand, when they are admitted to be real and
different from Brahman (even though they are dependently real),  like a pot
being  absolutely different from cloth, ('....tattvato bhinaaaH') this
paricchinnatvam is unavoidable. This is because there is an 'abhava' of
Brahman in them and their abhava in Brahman, which is anyonya abhava,
bheda.  Thereby Brahman cannot be PurNa; it will be apUrNa forever.

regards
subbu





> This can be better understood if you know the very
> existence of other non-B entities cannot independently exist on themselves.
> Madhva quotes Bhagavata in this context saying Substance, action, time,
> innate disposition, the jIva, all exist by the grace of God; if He neglects
> them they cease to exist.
>
> dravyakarma ca kalaSca svabhAvo jIva eva ca
> yadanugrahatah santi na santi yadupekShaya || (Bhagavata 2.10.12)
>
>
> This is how Dvaita understands the real meaning of Brahman's majestic
> unlimitedness and independence in-spite of existence of jIva and jada.
>
> /sv
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://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
>