[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: avidyA is adhyasta (superimposed) in AtmA

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

Whatever makes sense to you, can be considered as your prakriya. I am not
really addressing these quotes to you.

One more place where Bhashyakara makes it clear

सर्वश्रुतिषु च ब्रह्मणि आत्मशब्दप्रयोगात् आत्मशब्दस्य च
प्रत्यगात्माभिधायकत्वात् , ‘एष सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा’ (मु. उ. २ । १ । ४) इति च
श्रुतेः परमात्मव्यतिरेकेण संसारिणोऽभावात् — ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्’ (छा. उ. ६ । २
। १) ‘ब्रह्मैवेदम्’ (मु. उ. २ । २ । ११) ‘आत्मैवेदम्’ (छा. उ. ७ । २५ । २)
इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः युक्तमेव अहं ब्रह्मास्मीत्यवधारयितुम् ॥   - बृ. उ. भा  २
। १ । २०

sarvaśrutiṣu ca brahmaṇi ātmaśabdaprayogāt ātmaśabdasya ca
pratyagātmābhidhāyakatvāt , ‘eṣa sarvabhūtāntarātmā' (mu. u. 2 । 1 । 4) iti
ca śruteḥ paramātmavyatirekeṇa saṃsāriṇo'bhāvāt — ‘ekamevādvitīyam' (chā.
u. 6 । 2 । 1) ‘brahmaivedam' (mu. u. 2 । 2 । 11) ‘ātmaivedam' (chā. u. 7 ।
25 । 2) ityādiśrutibhyaḥ yuktameva ahaṃ brahmāsmītyavadhārayitum ॥ - bṛ. u.
bhā 2 । 1 । 20

with love and prayers,
Jaishankar

On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 3:20 PM Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com>
wrote:

> praNAms Acharya Sri Jaishankar prabhuji
>
> Hare Krishna
>
>
>
> My humble thoughts on this bhAshya vAkya :
>
>
>
> tasmāt parabrahmavyatirekeṇa saṃsārī nāma na anyat vastvantaramasti ।
> tasmātsuṣṭhūcyate ‘brahma vā idamagra āsīt tadātmānamevāvet ahaṃ
> brahmāsmīti' (bṛ. u. 1 । 4 । 10) —' nānyadato'sti draṣṭṛ nānyadato'sti
> śrotṛ' ityādiśrutiśatebhyaḥ । tasmāt parasyaiva brahmaṇaḥ satyasya satyaṃ
> nāma upaniṣat parā ॥ iti bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣyam dvitīyādhyāyasya
> prathamaṃ brāhmaṇam ॥
>
>
>
>    - It is simply saying there is no multiplicity in Chaitanya and it is
>    ekaM eva adviteeyaM.  This bhAshya vAkya is not meant to prove Ashraya and
>    Vishaya but it is only saying brahman is the ONLY satyasya satyaM.  I hope
>    you agree with me that the whole scriptural teaching, sAdhana,
>    AcharyOpadesha etc. meant for the jeeva to realize that he is brahman.  It
>    is not there to declare that the jneya brahman (brahman to be realized) is
>    the Ashraya and Vishaya for avidyA.  Since jeeva is also nothing but
>    brahman and jeeva Chaitanya is nothing but that ‘eka rasaM’, It is
>    addressed to jeeva only as brahman not brahman as jeeva.  It is the same
>    jeeva that realizes that he is brahman by getting rid of avidyA or if I say
>    the same in other terms, he realizes that he is nirguNa nirvishesha brahman
>    by (figuratively) acquiring the paramArtha vidyA. By holding the bhAshya
>    vAkya-s like above, we cannot build an argument that since brahman is alone
>    at the beginning, he himself becomes jeeva by gaining the avidyA or by
>    losing his innate nitya Shuddha buddha mukta svarUpa. As we all know and as
>    said above, by sAdhana, IshwarAnugrana, AcharyOpadesha the paramArtha jnAna
>    can be acquired, but it cannot be lost or OTOH, avidyA can be effaced but
>    not acquired afresh. In the same bruhadAraNyaka there is story of prince
>    lost his parents and brought up by hunter and thought that he is hunter by
>    birth and later realized he is not hunter but from royal family.  It is
>    something like this, The right way of narrating this story is hunter
>    (jeeva) realizing his true nature and became king (brahman) and definitely
>    not other way round i.e. prince acquiring ignorance and became hunter.
>
>
>
>    - As I do with others,  I cannot continue this discussion with your
>    goodself with some sort of freedom and free expression, hence just sharing
>    my thoughts and will take it whatever you say in reply.
>
>
>
>    - Humble praNAms once again
>
>
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>
>
>
> bhaskar
>
>
>