[Advaita-l] jivas' abode during deep sleep/praLaya

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Wed Dec 12 12:04:21 CST 2012

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hari Om, Subbuji,
> Its surely a good coincidence that I was just debating this since the past
> few days with someone out here. To my surprise, today we visited this exact
> reference of Bhagavatpada's bhAShya, but as I remember this bhAshya occurs
> at 2nd Karika after 6th Mandukya mantra, not 2nd mantra itself. (This is
> meant only FYI for those wanting to refer to Sw.Gambhirananda's
> translation).

Thanks for the correction.

> Bhagavatpada does say here that it is not the seedless brahman that is
> meant, but the unmanifested, quoting two doshas that would accrue if it
> were to be the seedless brahman that the jIva merges into during suShupti.

Thanks again as I am saved of a separate explanation for Sri Bhaskar ji's
objection.  I would request him to read this bhashya (mAndukya kArikA 1.2)
in the original at home as his computer system does not show devanagari

> However, in his bhAShya on Brahma Sutra 1.4.18, he says the following:
> <ÊiÉ SÉ ºÉÖ¹ÉÖÎ{iÉEòɱÉä SÉ {É®äúhÉ ¥ÉÀhÉÉ VÉÒ´É BEòiÉÉÆ MÉSUôÊiÉ | Sw.
> Gambhirananda translates pareNa brahman as Supreme Self, while some other
> book quotes this as highest brahman. Could you pls explain how these two
> bhAShyA-s seemingly different mean the same thing? In other words, how is
> avyAkRta same as pareNa brahman?

This again is a very pertinent question.  And this instance shows how  in
order to correctly understand the method of Advaita one has to study all
the three of the prasthAnatraya bhashya.

In that BSB Shankara cites many upanishadic sentences to show that creation
comes from Brahman.  Put simply, Brahman is jagatkAraNam.  But whether it
is nirguNa or saguNa is a question that Shankara has touched upon here and
there.  For example in the Mandukya kArikA bhashya 1.2 that I have cited
from (just after the cited portion) Shankara says:

//Hence Existence is referred to as prANa (in the Ch.Up.), and in all the
Upanishads. It is spoken of as the cause in all the Upanishads by *assuming*
It (for the time being) to be the seed of others (the whole creation).  And
it is because of this that It is referred to - *by refuting Its causal
state* - in such Vedic texts as, 'Superior to the akshara (mAyA) (Mund.
2.1.2), 'from which speech turns back (Tai.2.2), etc.  That Supremely Real
State, *free from causality, relation with body, etc. and modes of waking
etc.* of that very entity that is called prAjna, will be spoken separately
in Its aspect as the Turiya.//

Here we can appreciate the 'adhyaaropa - apavAda' prakriyA.  Brahman is
first taught as the cause (adhyAropa) and later this caushood is negated

It is in places such as this that we get a clarification on the 'kind' of
Brahman that is the cause and the 'kind' of Brahman that is not the cause.
Both are Para Brahman, as for example the Tai.Up: yato vA imAni bhUtAni
jAyante....tad vijijnAsasva, tad brahma iti'.  But this Brahman that this
Upanishad asks one to enquire into and realize is only saguNa brahman, as
Shankara has clarified in the Mandukya karikA bhashya we have just seen.

When I said, citing the Bh.Gita 8th ch. that the beings come / emerge from
the avyAkRta, it is only mAyA.  But since mAyA cannot be a cause
independent of Me, the Lord, Brahman, we have to understand that it is the
saguNa brahman.  When causehood is associated It, Para Brahman, is saguNa
Brahman.  When causehood is negated, for self-realization and moksha
purpose, It is Para Brahman alone, but nirguNa Brahman, Turiya.  That
explains your question on the BSB 1.4.18 where Shankara says that the
creation emerges from Para Brahman.

When the BSB refutes the sAnkhya's pradhAna, the jaDa,  as the source of
the world, it establishes Brahman, the chetana, as the source.  However, in
all such places what is meant by Brahman is saguNa Brahman.  NirguNa
Brahman, though called by the name Para Brahman, is specified only when it
comes to realizing It.

I hope I have replied the particular questions you have raised.  In case
more is wanting, pl. specify and we shall seek further clarifications from
the bhashyam/s.


> dhanyo'smi,
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
> [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
> 2012/12/12 V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> > ...
> > कथं प्राणशब्दत्वं अव्याकृतस्य  ।  "प्राणबन्धनं हि सोम्य मनः"(छा.उ६  । ८
>> > ...
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list