[Advaita-l] A vichAra on Swatantra & Paratantra (Independent & dependent Realities)

Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 12 02:53:07 CDT 2010

He wanted to be many but not to become any different from himself. What does Madhvacharya say on this?
Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Sat, 4/10/10, Shrisha Rao <shrao at nyx.net> wrote:

From: Shrisha Rao <shrao at nyx.net>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] A vichAra on Swatantra & Paratantra (Independent & dependent Realities)
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Saturday, April 10, 2010, 6:07 PM

El abr 10, 2010, a las 10:44 p.m., V Subrahmanian escribió:

> [ Shankaracharya comments on the portion: तद्विष्णोः परमं पदम्
> (KaThopaniShat 1.3.9) thus:
> तद्विष्णोः *व्यापनशीलस्य* ब्रह्मणः परमात्मनो वासुदेवाख्यस्य परमं प्रकृष्टं
> पदं स्थानं सतत्त्वमित्येतद्यदसौ आप्नोति विद्वान् -  (That man of knowledge
> reaches the end of the road, i.e. the very supreme goal to be reached beyond
> samsAra.  He becomes free from all the worldly bondages.  That is the
> highest place, i.e. the very nature, of *ViShNu,* of *the all-pervading
> Brahman*, of the Supreme Self, who is called Vasudeva.)
> For the name 'ViShNu' of the Vishnusahasranaama too, in the Bhashya,
> Shankaracharya gives a similar meaning, as one of the many.  Surely, in
> Advaita the ultimate goal, as different from saguNa brahma loka, is Moksha
> and that is what is meant by the above BhAshya on the term 'ViShNu'.   The
> term 'VAsudeva' too has a meaning that is different from saguNa Ishwara.]

Yes, and again, that is the point.  In this line of analysis, the qualities of Brahman such as जगत्कारणत्व are considered व्वावहारिक, not पारमार्थिक as would appear from your analysis.  I am not aware of any instance where the पारमार्थिक is considered by Śankara or other classical authors as the controller of the व्वावहारिक, or where the two are represented as independent and dependent, unlike what you have said.  Even in instances like इन्द्रो मायाभिः पुरुरूप ईयते and मायां तु प्रकृतिं विद्यात् मायिनं तु महेश्वरम् where a controller and controlled relationship is posited, this is happening at the व्यावहारिक plane only, something that e.g., Rāmānuja notes and criticizes.  The
 पारमार्थिक does not control anything; it is just सत्ता.

On your other piece, it is correct that Madhva/Jayatīrtha see Vishnu as स्वगतभेदविवर्जित.  However, it is addressing only whether the word मात्रम् is reasonable, not the comments न च `वाचारम्भण'शब्दोऽपि मिथ्यात्वे प्रसिद्धः and तस्मिन्पक्षे, `नामधेय'शब्दः, `इति'शब्दश्च व्यर्थस्स्यात्.  We can each speculate on what responses to this could be, but it would be nice to know what a classical Advaitic response (by one of the acknowledged masters) has been.


Shrisha Rao

>>  subrahmanian.v

Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list