[Advaita-l] Accounting for Brahman appearing as the world
Raghav Kumar Dwivedula
raghavkumar00 at gmail.com
Sun Sep 10 08:03:57 EDT 2017
Namaste Praveen ji
You had written that sarvaM brahma implies bAdhAyam sAmAnAdhikaraNyam
between the 2 words.
On the other hand, 'aham brahma' implies aikya sAmAnAdhikaraNyam. (In the
But how does this gel with the idea that aikya sAmA.. obtains only in
cases like brAhmaNaH dvijottamaH etc.
Another query related to the same issue - I understand samAnAdhikaraNyam
as being a relationship between words. And on the other hand lakShaNA
vRtti kicks in at the level of sentence analysis and understanding. I
assume that the padArtha-s (word meanings) have to be ascertained first
before deciding whether or not to use lakShaNA .
Now in the case of aham brahma, there are only 2 words in the sentence. You
wrote that we use jahallakShaNa.
I understand you to be saying the following - we can understand 'aham
brahma asmi' in these 2 ways.
1. We can claim aikyasamAnAdhikaraNyam betweem aham and brahma words and
the use jahallakShaNA to arrive at mahAvAkyaGYAnam with the word brahma
being taken as nirguNam brahma. ( DSV?)
2. Or we could use bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNyam plus jahAjahallakShaNa with
brahma shabda being understood as saguNam brahma, to arrive at the same
GYAnam . (SDV ?)
Kindly correct the above or clarify
One reference from archives relevant to the topic.
On 10-Sep-2017 2:47 PM, "Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Namaste Raviji,
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com>
> > Namaste Sri Praveen Ji
> > Just a clarification below ..
> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> Thanks for highlighting an important point. This is unfortunately lost
> >> on
> >> many who take the literal interpretation of sarvaM brahma; that is
> >> bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNyam!
> > can you elaborate on this bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNyam
> If the adhikaranam as body-mind complex ( wrongly referred to as aham by
> > ignorance) and
> > the adhikaranam as Kutastha Atman ( referred to as aham, after the
> > of pramA from maha vAkya), is one and the same, why the word samAna or
> > sAmAnya is used, to show equality, as if there are 2 adhikaranams ?
> Looks like you are translating samAna as "similar", which is an incorrect
> translation. So lets revisit the definition of samAnAdhikaraNa by which the
> usage samAna will be clear. So what is सामानाधिकरण्यम्?
> It is the status of समानाधिकरणम् which is defined so:
> समानविभक्तिकानां भिन्नप्रवृत्तिनिमित्तानां पदानाम् एकस्मिन् अर्थे
> तात्पर्यं/ वृत्तिः समानाधिकरणम्। For the words to be in समानाधिकरण
> , in our sentence सर्वं ब्रह्म
> There should be more than one word
> : in our case
> , सर्वम् and ब्रह्म
> They should be in the same case
> : both are in first case and number here.
> basis to use the word should be different:
> सर्वम् is used for जगत् and ब्रह्म is used for प्रत्यगात्मा
> / ईश्वरः/ निर्गुणब्रह्म
> They should have commitment to reveal the same entity:
> This is a grey-area to be dealt with and it is for this that the entire
> pursuit is and which is known through the महावाक्य। Just as we have to
> लक्षणा in सोऽयं देवदत्तः or तत्त्वमसि, here also we can't take the
> meaning. It is more of जहल्लक्षणा done here. सर्वं नास्ति, ब्रह्मैव
> So, the statement of grammatical construct showing equal locus of two
> is analysed and the last point has to be valid for the statement to make
> sense. Therefore, it is called as बाधसामानाधिकरण्यम्, a compound broken in
> two ways:
> - बाधेन सामानाधिकरण्यम्, same locus arrived at by/ due to negation of
> सर्वम् or
> - बाधायां सति सामानाधिकरण्यम्, meaning same locus arrived at *when
> (after)* negation of सर्वम् is done.
> This is what
> जगन्मिथ्यात्वनिश्चयः, ascertainment of the world being mithyA.
> This part is expressed in श्लोकार्धः as जगन्मिथ्या।
> Since, here, the adhikaranam being the same, the 2 references ( aham as BMI
> > or Atman), are just notions or vRttis of the mind, where one (aham as
> > gets sublated, with the arising of atmaikatva jnAna ?
> The grammatical constructs are analysed here, as per मीमांसाशास्त्रम्। What
> you talk of is the conclusion arrived at,
> being the
> result of the analysis
> of this सामानाधिकरण्यम्।
> This cannot be brought in at the analysis stage itself, since the result
> cannot precede the cause of the result. Also please note that सर्वं ब्रह्म
> is different from अहं ब्रह्म। This is the part of श्लोकार्धः expressed as
> जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः। Here, it is not बाधसामानाधिकरण्यम्, but
> ऐक्यसामानाधिकरण्यम्, wherein there is no लक्षणा needed as प्रत्यगात्मा जीवः
> is निर्गुणब्रह्म।
> However, there are some who endlessly repeat their own अध्यासः that जीवः is
> भ्रान्तजीवः। For their sake, this is then explained in two ways then: is
> ब्रह्म here निर्गुणम् or सगुणः ईश्वरः? If former, please do जहल्लक्षणा from
> the side of जीवः to understand. If latter, do जहदजहल्लक्षणा/ भागत्यागलक्षणा
> from the side of जीवः as well as ईश्वरः।
> I hope this answers the questions raised.
> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। */
> 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