[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Understanding Srimad Bhagavad Gita from the perspectives of Visishtadvaita and Advaita - an exposition

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Shri Sudhanshu ji,

Apologies for the delay, but really appreciate your feedback and deeper
technical nuances. I agree with your comments, particularly some of those
that I believe are closely oriented to DSV. But the audience, including
myself, are fairly new to structured vedanta as a whole and hence the intro
article has been written just to cover enough basics, at a higher level
(akin classical physics versus quantum), prior to plunging into the
teachings of SBG. Few specific points that I would like to seek
clarifications are included below.



On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:11 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
Similarly, one of the very nature of the non-Self, particularly the aspect
> called ahamkara, is its ability to misunderstand the qualities of the
> non-Self as the qualities of the pervasive Self
>
>
>
> *//It is the quality of not ahamkara per se, but of sAbhAsa-ahamkAra.//*
>


This is based on SBG-3.27. In your statement, am I correct in understanding
"ahamkara" to imply the inert material "I" aspect of antahkarana and
"sabhasa-ahamkara" as the Chaitanya conditioned by this ahamkara?


>
>
> A popular example for adhyasa includes the perception of a rope as a snake
> in a dim-lit room; wherein the qualities of the rope (size, shape, color,
> position etc.) are superimposed with the qualities of the mental image of
> a snake (sentience, poisonous, dangerous) and the resulting entity -
> snake with the appropriate size, shape, color, position etc. - appears to
> exist on the ground
>
>
>
> *//No. Out of ajnAna-of-chaitanya-delimited-by-rope, an unreal snake is
> produced. The adhyAsa is between this unreal snake and
> chaitanya-delimited-by-rope. The snake is Kalpita-vishesha, idam is AdhAra
> whereas chaitanya-delimited-by-rope is adhishThAna.//*
>
>
>


For the intended audience, this is a practical approximation. But agreeing
with the nuances. We have had a good recent discussion on the significance
of the snake being "Kalpita-vishesha" in this forum.


>
>
>
> Similarly, under the influence of ahamkara, perceiving the non-Self as the
> Self is adhyasa or Mithya jnana or false knowledge; and the recognition
> of the true nature of the Self as-it-is, without any superimposition of
> non-Self, is true discriminating knowledge or Satya jnana
>
>
>
> *//Here, it is to be noted that non-self is swarUpa adhyasta in self but
> self has samsarga-adhyAsa in non-self. ahmakAra is also swarUpa-adhyAsa.
> The cause of adhyAsa is avidyA and not ahamkara.//*
>
>
>


Agreed on the details. The influence of ahamkara is again from SBG-3.27.


>
>
> This adhyasa or false knowledge is also called as avidya or ignorance or
> delusion; and since this adhyasa is the very nature of material
> principle, vasanas / Karma are also technically called as avidya
>
>
> *//No. adhyAsa is kArya and avidyA is material cause of adhyAsa.//*
>


Although this has been a point of debate within Advaita, I believe this is
a good enough approximation for the intended audience. Going deeper
initially will confuse more.


>
>
> This avidya is an inherent nature of the antahkarana (inner instrument -
> mind, intellect, memories, ahamkara)
>
>
>
> *//No. avidyA is material cause of entire world.//*
>


Same as above.


>
>
> The resulting entity of the adhyasa of the Self and the individual
> antahkarana is said to be the individual Jiva
>
>
>
> *//More precisely, adhyAsa between ahamkara and
> ajnAna-adhyAsa-vishishTa-chaitanya.//*
>
>

Could you please clarify this point? Particularly
"ajnana-adhyasa-visishta-chaitanya"? What is a good reference text for this
term?


>
>
> The individual Jiva is said to possess the combined qualities of the Self
> and non-Self; the sentience principle or pure Consciousness or pure jnana
> being the very nature (svarupa), whereas the sense of limited
> individuality (‘I’) and changing agentship (knower, doer, enjoyer) as its
> attributes
>
>
>
> *//There is no swarUpa adhyAsa of chaitanya in ahamkara. There is only
> samsarga-adhyAsa.//*
>
>
>


I will need to reflect more on whether this is an important high-level
nuance. My point is that at a high level adhyasa is mutual. Furthermore,
even in the result of the adhyasa - namely the jiva - the nature (svarupa)
of jiva is said to be immutable whereas the attributes (viseshana) of the
jiva are said to be changing.


>
>
The agentship, as an attribute of the Jiva, brings about the sense of being
> the ‘knower’ or ‘experiencer’ (subject); the distinction of the antahkarana
> with other objects brings about the distinction of ‘known’ or ‘experienced’
> (object); and the individual BMI itself, through sense organs and mind,
> acts as the ‘means of experience’ or ‘means of knowledge’ (means); the
> result in the individualized distinct experience or knowledge of the
> object, and is also called objective experience or objective knowledge
>
>
>
> *//vyAvahArika Kartirtva belongs to antah-karaNa. The kartritva of
> ahamkara is prAtibhAsika.//*
>
>
>


Could you please clarify this as well? Ahamkara is an aspect of antahkarana
(alongside manas, buddhi and chitta). Then, what specifically in
antahkarana possess kartirtva in vyavaharika?


> Therefore, the very experience or knowledge of the individual subject, and
> the corresponding triputi, is only the result of adhyasa or avidya; but
> actually, all activities (no exceptions whatsoever) are performed by the
> BMI alone (under the influence ofKarma) and the Self is a mere constant
> witness; the ahamkara aspect of antahkarana superimposes this agency and
> makes it appear that the Jiva is the doer
>
>
> *//Doership is of antah-karaNa. Atman has prAtibhAsika kartirtva owing to
> tAdAtmya-adhyAsa between antah-karaNa and Atman. Due to samsarga adhyAsa of
> Atman with ahamkara, ahamkara gets prAtibhAsika kartritva.//*
>
>
>
> In other words, the Self conditioned by the limited individual antahkarana
> is the Jiva; the Jiva is said to be influenced by the individual vasanas
> / Karma / avidya
>
>
>
> *//In technical language, sAbhAsa-ahamkAra is jIva. A difference is made
> between antah-karaNa and ahamkara.//*
>


Could you please provide more details on this difference here? Per VP jiva
is antahkarana-avacchina-chaitanya.


>
>
> A similar discussion on the collective scale gives rise to Brahman
> conditioned by collective antahkarana as the Isvara; Isvara is said to
> possess or control the collective vasanas / Karma also called as prakruti
> or maya
>
>
>
> *//Yes. In SDV. Different description is for DSV.//*
>
>

IMHO SDV === classical physics; DSV === quantum physics. The general intent
for the current audience is SDV.


>
>
> While a Jiva is said to be under the influence of individualized avidya
> due to limited knowledge, Isvara, on the other hand, is said to control
> the collective maya because of unlimited omniscience
>
>
>
> *//Maya and avidyA are same. The difference is of Shuddha sattva and
> malina sattva.//*
>
>

Maya is said to be trigunatmika; particularly in its role as the material
cause of the world. However, Isvara as conditioned by Maya is
shuddha-sattva.

prostrations,
Vikram