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

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu Shekhar prabhuji
Hare Krishna

//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.


  *   It’s Ok I am not objecting this definition just asking for the reference since as I told you I don’t know where bhAshyakAra or Sri SSS dealt with this BS (bAdhAyAm samAnAdhikaraNyaM) in detail.

//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.


  *   And IMHO the examples like mruttiketyeva satyaM ( examples of mrutvishesha & mrutsAmAnya), ghatAkAsha is nothing but mahAkAsha, this ornament is nothing but gold etc. said at various places are in this order only.


//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"?


  *   Same, no difference, that is the reason why I said I am stretching the same example.  Because of that itareya bh. example which I think more appropriate to explain the vishesha darshana of brahma and how nama rUpa vyakarana helps us to understand nirvishesha same Devadatta.

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.


  *   This is the sUtra bhAshya vAkya : sarvaM brahma iti sAmAnAdhikaraNyaM prapanchapravilApanArthaM nAnekarasatApratipAdanArthaM, here at the first place bAdhAyAm S not there but for the prapanchapravilApanarthaM (sublimation of world) and not to convey that brahman contains nAnArasa (multiplicity) we are inferring that this S is BS and not MS.  What is the sublimation of world here??  What shankara says on bAdhitAnuvrutti etc.  would throw more light on prapancha pravilApana or prapanchOpashamanaM.  But it has been said at numerous places that the effect (jagat) is of the nature of brahman but brahman is not of the nature of effect (jagat) for example : ya yevaM veda ahaM brahmAsmeeti sa idam sarvaM bhavati and at another place it says : arUpavadeva hi tatpradhAnatvAt, brahman is not this not this (neti neti) etc.  So what we can understand from this is sarvaM is brahma but brahman is NOT sarvaM because in brahman nAnAtva is not there it is eka eva adviteeyaM.  There is no siddhAnta hAni just because we are saying jagat svabhAva is brahman but brahman does not have jagat svabhAva.  By saying this what is the use, the use is nothing but doing the samanvaya of shruti vaakya which says brahman is both upAdAna and nimitta kAraNa, satyaNcha, anrutaMcha satyamabhavat yadidaM kimcha.  And it has to be noted that prapancha is pratyaksha gOchara or pratyaksha pramANita and brahman is Aprameya not available for pratyaksha pramANa, so to know the saMbandha or pratyaksha pramANita jagat and shAstra vAkya gamya brahman we have to use shAstra pramANa only which deals in pratyaksha gOchara jagat and aprameya brahma tattva.  So what shruti says about pratyaksha gOchara jagat, its origination, its material and efficient cause etc. that has to be taken as pramANa not through mere shushka tarka, shAstrAdhArita shrauta tarka.  If we ignore this and to that extent we are ignoring the shruti pramANa.


If mukhya S were to be there, the entity indicated by a table would be of same ontological status as that of Brahman.


  *   Not necessarily prabhuji, when we say ornament is gold we are saying ornament does not have existence apart from gold, it does not mean ornament as nAma rUpa enjoys the same status of gold.  Whether ornament is there or not gold is always gold.  But ornament cannot have any existence at any point of time apart from gold.

That is clearly not accepted by any AchArya of advaita. Hence, there is unanimity on this count.


  *   But one could definitely say that (based on shruti/bhAshya pramANa) that jagat when shred its visheshaNa it is nothing but brahman because of the simple rule there exists nothing apart from brahman.  Call it jagat or by any other name hardly matters here as long as we are talking about tattva.

Clay-pot example is for upAdAna kAraNa. Brahman is beyond kAraNatvam. Causality operates within ajnAna.


  *   This has been already agreed prabhuji kArya-kAraNa ananyatvaM is just to drive home the point brahman’s ekatvaM.  So kAraNatva is adhyArOpita on brahman.  2-2-38 talks about tAdAtmyalakshaNa saMbandha between kArya & kAraNa by brahma vAdins to ultimately advocate the Upanishad siddhAnta Atmaikatva.

The upAdAna kAraNa of sarvam is not Brahman but ajnAna.


  *   When sarvaM is perceived independently aloof from brahman (like jagat is asarvatvaM, abrahmatvaM etc.) it is avidyA drushti and whatever is seen through this avidyA drushti is adhyAsa.  But jagat which is Ishwara srushti is not avidyA srushti of jeeva, for this jagat parabrahma is the whole and sole reason and material.  There is a difference between sarpa in rajju and pot in clay.

Superimposing that in Brahman, we say Brahman is upAdAna kAraNa.


  *   Yes again but this is to say brahma is nirvishesha, nishkriya, niravayava, nirguNa but not to prove for jagat srushti avidyA is upAdAna kAraNa.  Talk jagat in light of brahman, Ishwara hetuka srushti is vedAnta maryAda says bhAshyakAra.  If this nAma rUpa itself is avidyAkruta you have to attribute still more/big avidyA to Ishwara who sees this before creation in his mind 😊

अस्य द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य यदुपादानकारणम्। अज्ञानं तदुपाश्रित्य ब्रह्मकारणमुच्यते  - says Sureshwara.


Ø     I am reading the taittireeya vArtika of Sri Sureshwara and its explanation by Sri SSS, would share more information in due course.

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.


Ø     The above is said in line with when jeeva detaches himself from jeevatva / jeevadharma what remains is Shuddha Chaitanya.  When jagat realized as not asarvaM abrahman etc. what remains is brahma tattva only.  Call it by any name, it is not necessarily jagat/Atman/brahman as it cannot be addressed by any name.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar