[Advaita-l] Accounting for Brahman appearing as the world
Praveen R. Bhat
bhatpraveen at gmail.com
Sun Sep 10 10:15:47 EDT 2017
Namaste Raghavji, Chandramouliji,
Combining responses to both of your mails here (and including another
that just came up).
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> 1. Is it jahAjahallakShaNa vRtti or is it jahadajahallakShaNa vRtti?
> Perhaps both usages are right?
IMO, only 2nd usage is right. There is no Paninian rule I can see to drop
dakAra of first pada jahAd.
(Some years back a swami was given the name mahadAtmAnanda but when a
> scholar pointed out that it was grammatically incorrect it was corrected to
> mahAtmAnanda. In other words mahat + AtmA = mahAtmA , not mahadAtmA. Thats
> why I got the doubt.
> I have seen swami shuddhabodhanandaji using the term jahAjahallakShaNa
This is different. If I recall right, being masculine, mahat gets a nakAra
from an Agama, becomes mahant, takes a upadhAdIrghatvam, becomes mahAnt and
then t undergoes lopa, and later napopaH prAtipadikAntasya would drop
nakAra also, thereby leaving mahA which combines with Atman as mahAtman.
This declines as mahAtmA later.
> You had written that sarvaM brahma implies bAdhAyam sAmAnAdhikaraNyam
> between the 2 words.
> On the other hand, 'aham brahma' implies aikya sAmAnAdhikaraNyam. (In the
> nirguNam interpretation)
> But how does this gel with the idea that aikya sAmA.. obtains only in
> cases like brAhmaNaH dvijottamaH etc.
I don't understand the "only" part and why it doesn't gel.
> 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.
> assume that the padArtha-s (word meanings) have to be ascertained first
> before deciding whether or not to use lakShaNA .
I meant that ahaM in the sentence needs lakShaNA only based on what is the
meaning of the word ahaM taken. You may not need lakShaNA at all, which is
why I gave all possible options I could.
> 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?)
As stated earlier many combinations are possible based on what is ahaM and
what is brahma, jIva and brahma are upahita or not. Finally, the 4th
sAmAnAdhikaraNya rule has to apply, so at whichever side there is upAdhi in
the equation, that should be removed by jahatii lakShaNa. If it is on both
sides, it should be removed by jahadajahallakShaNA/ bhAgatyAgalakShaNA. I
don't see any need for SDV/ DSV classification here.
> 2. Or we could use bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNyam plus jahAjahallakShaNa with
> brahma shabda being understood as saguNam brahma, to arrive at the same
> GYAnam . (SDV ?)
If you use bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNyam, you will remove brahma to yield "aham
nAsmi, brahmaiva asti", or ahaM to yield "brahma nAsti ahameva asmi", both
BTW, there is another mail I see with a Vicharasagara quote.
> << अहंशब्दस्य द्वावर्थौ ; तत्र कूटस्थस्य ब्रह्मणा
> चिदाभासस्य बाधायां सामानाधिकरण्यं च । >>,
> << ahaMshabdasya dvAvarthau ; tatra kUTasthasya brahmaNA
> mukhyasAmAnAdhikaraNyaM, chidAbhAsasya bAdhAyAM sAmAnAdhikaraNyaM
> The issue is elaborated in the succeeding portions of the topic. SVBS does
> not cover ऐक्यसामानाधिकरण्यं (aikyasAmAnAdhikaraNyaM ) in the text.
The author is shown to have used mukhyasAmAnAdhikaraNyam and
bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNyam in ahaM brahmAsmi and there being no word called
aikyasAmAnAdhikaraNyam. The first and last are synonyms. The middle one is
the same as my reply given to Subbuji as it is talking of analysis of
ahaMpada wherein the association with adhyasta upAdhis are taken as AtmA.
That is sharIrAH na santi ahameva asmi or chidAbhAsaH/ manaH nAsti ahameva
asmi. This is then equated in ahaM brahmAsmi with
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list