[Advaita-l] Omniscience, etc. only due to upAdhi
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Sun Dec 29 11:10:26 CST 2013
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:26 PM, H S Chandramouli
<hschandramouli at gmail.com>wrote:
> H S CHANDRAMOULI
> Dear Sri Subrahmanianji/ Sri Bhaskarji,
> I must confess i am a bit confused about the nature of disagreement here.
> Sri Sji has written
> <Actually only with sarvajnatvaM, sarvashaktitvaM etc. Brahman (nirguNa.
> Turiya) is called Ishwara (saguNa, sixth mantra of mAnDUkya - ESha
> sarvajnaH...antaryAmi...). That is the way Advaita distinguishes Brahman
> from Ishwara.>
> Brahman and Iswara are two different levels of reality. This very important
> aspect is not broughtout in the above statement which almost leads one to
> conclude that the two are of the same level of reality. In my opinion this
> is what Sri Bji also has mentioned ( correctly in my view ). Vivarta
> principle starts right here. Hence sarvajnatva etc are all in the sphere of
> avidya only.
*It goes without saying, from what is said by me above, that nirguNa
brahman alone is the pAramArthika satyam and saguNa is
> Sri Sji also makes the following statement.
> <Now, the 'everything', in other words, the entire creation, jagat, is
> 'existing' ONLY on the 'sat', existence, of the Sat, Brahman. Thus the
> world enjoys only a dependent existence, paratantra sattaa, and never an
> independent existence, swatantra sattaa. The ONLY example for such a
> phenomenon is the rope-snake.>
> This also i think is misleading. For example vedanta itself advances the
> argument that pot exists only because of the clay. In fact all cause and
> effect reasoning ( effect is not different from cause ) on which vedanta
> places emphasis is about dependent existence only. But this is not vivarta
> which the rope snake example is. In advaita sidhanta, Brahman to Iswara is
> vivarta , and all creation from Iswara downwards is considered as parinama
> conforming to cause and effect reasoning. Since the first cause Iswara is
> vivarta in Brahman all else following that is automatically vivarta in
> I am really not clear about what Sri Sji wanted to convey. From whatever i
> understood i thought some clarity is called for. Hopefully i have
> contributed towards that end. This should also clarify all the other points
> mentioned by Sri Bji.
*In the Chandogya the three examples of clay, gold and iron, are used to
teach the reality of the cause and the unreality of the effects. 'vikAro
anRtam' says Shankara, thereby admitting only vivarta vAda and not pariNAma
vAda everywhere in the BSB (ArambhaNAdhikaraNam) and in the Taittiriya
bhAAShya for satyam definition. *
> Incidentally i might add here a slightly different meaning given to the
> word " sarvajnam " in Mandukya karika verse 3-36 Bhashyam. The Bhashyam
> states quote < ata eva sarvam cha tat jna svarupam cha iti sarvajnam >
> unquote. ( Because it is everything as well as of the nature of Chaitanyam
> ( chaitanya svarupam ) it is sarvajnam ).
*This is an exception. It refers to nirguNa brahman, jnapti, Pure
non-objective Consciousness, which meaning Shankara gives to the word
'jnAnam' of the Tai.up. When Shankara negates 'sarvjnatvam', etc. in the
BSB 2.1.14 it is not the above kArikA concept.*
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 11:18 PM, V Subrahmanian
> <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
> > > praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
> > > Hare Krishna
> > >
> > > 'Omniscience' is the word generally used to connote the sanskrit term
> > > 'sarvajnatvam'. 'Knowledge' of 'everything' implies that the possessor
> > of
> > > such a knowledge is different from the 'everything' and the
> > > Thus, just as a person who 'knows' something is different from that
> > thing,
> > > and without that thing in place no knowledge of it is possible for the
> > > person, the Vedantic Brahman too cannot be inherently possessed with
> > > knowledge of 'everything' unless that 'everything' is existing.
> > >
> > > > as I said in another form, yes, I do agree that sarvajna,
> > > etc. which denote Ishawara's are valid only in the sphere of avidyA
> > > kshEtra where sarva is different from the 'knower'. But, when it comes
> > to
> > > inherent nature of brahman, even in the absence of 'everything'
> > > the knower's knowledge (jnAna) does not suffer from any obstruction
> > > sarvajnatvaM, sarvashaktitvaM etc. are svarUpa lakshNa of the brahman
> > > whereas savajna and sarvashakta are the qualities of the mAyA upahita
> > > Ishwara ( who has shuddha sattva as his upAdhi).
> > Actually only with sarvajnatvaM, sarvashaktitvaM etc. Brahman (nirguNa.
> > Turiya) is called Ishwara (saguNa, sixth mantra of mAnDUkya - ESha
> > sarvajnaH...antaryAmi...). That is the way Advaita distinguishes Brahman
> > from Ishwara.
> > The adjectives such as sarvajnatvaM, sarvashaktitvaM etc. can be given to
> > > brahman synonymously such as nityashuddha, nirvikAra since there are
> > > inherent nature of brahman.
> > While attributing sarvajnatvaM, sarvashaktitvaM etc. to Brahman we see
> > these as taTasthalakShaNa and not svarUpalakShaNa. 'Inherent' means
> > svarUpa.
> > > In sUtra bhAshya while arguing against sAnkhyA's pradhAna
> > > kAraNa, shankara says how the first and foremost (without second) would
> > be
> > > the chetana cause of this creation which has 'intelligence'. And to
> > > this intelligence it does not require any body, mind, etc. shankara
> > > quotes the up. maNtra that says : that which sees without eyes, that
> > which
> > > hears without ears, that which moves without legs etc.
> > In BSB 1.4.3 (tadadhInatvAt arthavat) Shankara has said:
> > // But this primal state is held by us to be subject to the Supreme Lord,
> > but not as an independent thing. That state has to be admitted, because
> > serves a purpose. Without that latent state the creatorship of the Lord
> > cannot have any meaning, inasmuch as God cannot act without His power (of
> > mAyA)...// (p.249 of Sw.Gambhirananda)
> > In 184.108.40.206 (IkShaternAshabadAt) Shankara cites the mantras that you have
> > quoted above (without eye....)
> > अपिचाविद्यादिमतः संसारिणः शरीराद्यपेक्षा ज्ञानोत्पत्तिः स्यान्न
> > ज्ञानप्रतिबन्धकारणरहितस्येश्वरस्य ।
> > मन्त्रौ चेमावीश्वरस्य शरीराद्यनपेक्षतामनावरणज्ञानतां च दर्शयतःऽन तस्य
> > कार्यं
> > करणं च विद्यते न तत्समश्चाभ्यधिकश्च दृश्यते। परास्य शक्तिर्विविधैव
> > स्वाभाविकी ज्ञानबलक्रिया चऽ (श्वेता. ६.८) इति। ऽअपाणिपादो जवनो ग्रहीता
> > पश्यत्यचक्षुः स शृणोत्यकर्णः। स वेत्ति वेद्यं न च तस्यास्ति वेत्ता
> > तमाहुरग्र्यं पुरुषं महान्तम्ऽ (श्वेता. ३.१९) इति च ।
> > That is only to show that a body is not required for Ishwara to have
> > powers. The mantras are not cited to deny the shakti which is
> > required for Ishwara (Brahman) to be a creator, etc. In fact that
> > to see without eyes, etc. is only due to this mAyAshakti. For, the
> > advitIya brahman, Turiya, there is nothing that requires to be seen,
> > touched, etc. Only in the realm of creation (the first three pAda-s of
> > mAnDUkya) is there occasion for shakti. The seventh mantra negates even
> > this Ishwaratvam.
> > So, in order to be a sRShTikartA, Brahman has to be 'aided' by a shakti,
> > which is paratantra to It. So, naturally, the upAdhi is admitted by
> > Shankara while differentiating Vedanta from sAnkhya's pradhAna. In the
> > above quoted portion Shankara no doubt refutes the pradhAna of the
> > but accepts the pradhAna with a different name and most importantly, as
> > adhIna of brahman while the sAnkhya holds pradhAna as swatantra. In any
> > case Shankara makes Brahman saguNa by admitting this shakti when Brahman
> > has to be a creator, etc.
> > > So, IMHO, existence of 'everything' is not a mandatory requirement to
> > > prove brahman's sarvajnatvaM and sarvashaktitvaM.
> > It is essentially with a view to explain the 'everything' the shakti is
> > admitted. 'No shakti, no creation.'
> > > Do we doubt the self-luminous nature of sun and its illuminating
> > > just because of absence of objects that needs illumination?? Kindly
> > > clarify.
> > >
> > That is not admitted to be a capacity; by default when objects are within
> > the sun's range they get illumined but not by choice of the Sun. 'savitA
> > prakAshate' is what constitutes the apt description of the sun. 'savitA
> > prakAshayati' is a concession, by taking into account the things other
> > the sun. In the same way Brahman is chit. In order to relate It to
> > world the shakti is attributed. The very word sarvajnatvam is relative
> > sarva, created, nAnAtva. To be sarvajna, Ishwara has to depend on the
> > sarva. Sarva is antithetical to Ekam. While the Vedanta siddhAnta is
> > eva advitIyam, sarvam is the paratantra dvaita prapancha.
> > warm regards
> > subbu
> > >
> > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> > > bhaskar
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > >
> > > For assistance, contact:
> > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> 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