[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: [advaitin] Re: Gaudapada and Shankara say: the world is imagined by the jiva through avidya

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar Ji,

//Please let me know where I can find this definition??  Is it from the
same  sUtra adhikaraNa bhAshya you quoted below  i.e. samAnAdhikAraNyaM
prapancha pravilApanArthaM??   Or from some other advaitik text /
prakaraNa??//

I have found this definition in Tattva anusandhAnam. It is in
Sanskrit-Hindi available in PDF on Dakshninamurti math website. However,
this definition is accepted by one and all. In ashTadhyAyI 1.4.105, it is
so defined in TattvabodhinI. Also, same definition is used in
VishishTadvaita works also. This is universally accepted.

//OK prabhuji, this definition is clear to me.  How about if we say :
pitcher/pot is clay??  Or is this assertion out of scope in the context of
samAnAdhikAraNa??//

If the lakshya of both words, pitcher and clay, is mrittikA and the
lakshyatA-avachchedaka is mrittikA-tva, then yes, "pitcher is clay" is an
example of mukhya-sAmAnAdhikaraNya (where the literal meanings of both
words are of same ontological status). To explain the concept further,
"gold is sand" - this statement can also be an example of mukhya
sAmAnAdhikaraNya, provided the lakshya is mUlyahIna-vastu and
lakshyatA-avachchedaka is mUlyahIna-vastu-tva.

//If I stretch is example (there is a reason for this, please see below)
can we say this is same Devadatta once upon a time was all alone (single)
without any recognizable social status but now that same devadatta has
become husband to his wife, father of his kids, a teacher  in school etc.
 when we remove these visheshaNa-s (lonely and various status) who remains
there is 'sAmAnya' Devadatta.//

How is your example different from "sah ayam devadatta"?

//so far you explained very clearly about bAdha and mukhya and at one go,
here, I am afraid, at the crucial juncture you hastened to conclude sarvaM
is not brahman and brahman is altogether a separate concept (entity)which
has nothing to do with sarvaM.   Just curious to know whether there is any
concrete reference for us to understand bAdha (stump-man) and mukhya (same
Devadatta in different time and space) sAmAnAdhikaraNa to explain in the
context of sarvaM and brahman ??//

There is a debate in advaita as to whether "aham brahma asmi" is mukhya
sAmAnAdhikaraNya or bAdhAyAm sAmAnAdhikaraNya. While VivaraNa holds it to
be mukhya, Sureshwara holds it to be bAdhAyAm. Though this difference is
only on the face of it, as VivaraNa holds jIva to be pratibimba which is
same as bimba and hence while indicating mukhya S, it has kUTastha as the
intended meaning (Panchadashi explains this). However, prima facie, there
is a debate regarding mukhya of bAdha in case of 'aham brahma asmi'.

In case of 'sarvam khalu idam brahma', there is no debate. All AchAryAs
accept it to be bAdhAyAm sAmAnAdhikaraNya. Hence my statement. The
pravritti-nimitta of both words sarvam and Brahman is different and yet
they indicate same thing, hence there is sAmAnAdhikaraNya. If mukhya S were
to be there, the entity indicated by a table would be of same ontological
status as that of Brahman. That is clearly not accepted by any AchArya of
advaita. Hence, there is unanimity on this count.

//Yes very much true, sarvaM (nAnA) cannot be there in brahman (ekaM) so
obviously there is a sound of duality when we say this sarvaM is that
brahman.  In sarvAtmabhAva though there is sense of non-difference sarvaM
indicates or implies there is difference and Atma implies non-difference.
And this abedha is NOT bedha sahishNu abedha.  There is not even an iota of
difference in brahman. This point,  we have discussed earlier also.  But
whenever we are talking about 'sarvaM' this sarvaM is based on shruti is
nothing but brahman, in that sense we are not comparing apple with oranges
but talking about pot/pitcher which is nothing but clay.  At the beginning
it was (brahma tattva) called by Atman and the same thing is now being
called 'that'this' and Atman also.  See Itareya shruti bhAshya for example
prior srushti/creation, there remained subject only to one word and one
thought namely Atman/brahman (avyAkruta has been equated with brahman in
sUtra bhAshya itself); now, after srushti ( in its vyAkruta rUpa) the jagat
is available for many words and thoughts and also is available to one and
only word and thought, i.e. Atman.  So it is Devadatta only when he is
outside the house or sleeping inside the house.  When mind go outward it is
sarvAtmabhAva when one realizes his svarUpa it is ekamevAdviteeyaM jnana.
Both svarUpa jnana and sarvAtmabhAva not exclusive to each other it is one
and the same.  With this I would like to say, jagat / brahma saMbandha is
more of same Devadatta at different times or pot / pitcher is always mrut
sAmAnya only even when we are seeing kArya and kArya saMbandhita
vyavahAra.  So, samAnAdhikaraNa should not deny the existence of jagat but
it sublates the jagatvaM ( or abrahmatvaM or asarvatvaM) of jagat.  So what
remains after this bAdhita jnana is brahman only and nothing but brahman.//

Clay-pot example is for upAdAna kAraNa. Brahman is beyond kAraNatvam.
Causality operates within ajnAna. The upAdAna kAraNa of sarvam is not
Brahman but ajnAna. Superimposing that in Brahman, we say Brahman is
upAdAna kAraNa. अस्य द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य यदुपादानकारणम्। अज्ञानं तदुपाश्रित्य
ब्रह्मकारणमुच्यते  - says Sureshwara.

The removal of jagata-tva is removal of jagat becuase both jagat-tva and
jagat are product of ajnAna. You don't have any sarpa after removal of
sarpa-tva as both sarpa and sarpa-tva are product of ajnAna. Jagata-tva is
in jagat and not in Brahman. Table-tva is in table and not in Brahman. You
don't have a table without table-tva. Table is swarUpa-adhyasta in Brahman.
Rajju does not have sarpa-tva. Rajju has rajju-tva. Sarpa is
swarUpa-adhyasta in rajju and that sarpa has sarpa-tva. Sarpa-tva and sarpa
go away together as both are products of ajnAna.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.