[Advaita-l] Seeking clarification on Bri. Up. Mantra 1-4-2

kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Tue Apr 22 09:59:20 CDT 2014

Subhanuji - PraNAms

You can send the information whenever you have a chance. No need to hurry. I am concentrating on the rest of the Madhukanda for my own study and contemplation. 

Hari Om!

On Tue, 4/22/14, subhanu via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

 Subject: [Advaita-l] Seeking clarification on Bri. Up. Mantra 1-4-2
 To: "Advaita-l List email" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2014, 10:43 AM
 Chandramouli wrote:
 “This is what is not acceptable to Sri Sadanandaji as I
 according to whom if knowledge were to arise without any
 further instruction
 then he should have got the knowledge in the previous birth
 itself. In support
 of his contention that further instruction only could lead
 to knowledge he
 cites the bhagavatham incident. As I could see from the
 vartika, no other
 reason is adduced except the above which according to the
 Acharya is quite
 satisfactory as per reasons given thereof.”
 Sri Sadananda wrote:  
 “If you can clarify the sidhanta that followed the
 objection and how it address the objection, that is
 “If your feel Shankara’s sidhaanta following the
 objection addresses the issue or if you feel that vaartika
 addresses the objection posed in a different way please let
 me know.” 
 I have fully understood the crux of the issue that Sri
 Sadandanda has raised. I
 had started writing a response to Sri Sadananda when I saw
 Sri Chandramouli’s
 response with which I largely concur, including that
 Suresvara follows his
 teacher but amplifies considerably each step of the
 argument. (one
 clarification: the smriti quoted in BUBV 1.4.79 is not manu
 smriti as you
 suggest but is vāyupurāṇa 1.1.3
 ज्ञानमप्रतिमं यस्य
 वैराग्यं च जगत्पतेः।
 ऐश्वर्यञ्चैव धर्मश्च
 Note the vārtikā as apratigham and the purana has
 apratimam). I would just add the following to Sri
 Chandramouli’s comments:
 siddhānta of the tradition is satisfied with the
 response given in BUBV 1.4.77-81 etc including the smriti
 authority quoted in BUBV
 1.4.79 where, in the case of the Lord, such sahasiddhatva is
 sufficient to
 explain how the knowledge arose in this life. As I
 previously mentioned, the
 how when and why of the rise of knowledge in Virāj is
 incidental to the main
 point of the illustration, and the objection is answered in
 detail in the vārtikā
 more in the spirit of completeness than anything else.
 Remember, all
 illustrations have their utility up to a point.
 you were really uncomfortable with the seeming contradiction
 that, if knowledge
 somehow arose in this birth, then it could have easily
 arisen in the previous
 birth when the knowledge was only partial, then you can take
 the implication
 from Suresvara’s detailed response in BUBV 77-90 and in
 other places that the
 exact combination of factors that give rise to the knowledge
 accruing have, for
 whatever reason, come about in this current life for Virāj,
 and not in the previous
   3)   Anandagiri gives a
   detailed explanation in his commentary on BUBV 1.4.79
 that throws more light
   on the vārtikā. It is too long to give
   here, but I will just provide the last sentence for
 context: ukta-driṣṭāntāt
   vaishāradyam gamyate’tastasya brahmāsmīti
 jñānamapyāchāryādyapekṣām vinā
   smaryamāṇa-vākyādeva syādityarthah. 
 you have access to it, brihadāranyaka-vārtikā-sāra (BVS)
 1.4.40-50 gives further
 colour to the position from the traditional point of view.
 For example we have
 in BVS  1.4.43-44: sahasiddhatva vachasā
 parāpeksā  nivāryate. na janmakāla evāsya
 jñāna-sadbhāva ucyate.  āchārya-nirapekṣatve
 shushrūṣādir anarthatām. Prāpnoti chet
 svayambhātavedānām astvanarthatā. 
 in summary, the knowledge arose from remembrance and
 of what he learned in the previous life and not through any
 teacher etc in this
 current life, and such circumstances for the knowledge to
 accrue now and not
 before only fructified in this current life. 
 Now, I suspect you will remain unsatisfied with the
 traditional position on this matter so I offer the following
 thought which you
 may/may not agree with: When
 “The Lord” is invoked for an instruction on Brahman
 beyond name and form, there
 might inevitably be what seems to be a “get out of jail”
 moment invoking simply
 the Lord’s desire that something did/did not happen at a
 particular moment in
 time, beyond which the illustration ceases to have utility.
 Whenever adhyāropa-apavāda
 prakriyā is being used, then Suresvara’s advice at
 2.3.219 is always beneficial
 to keep front and centre, to not lose focus on the true
 goal: sākṣādbrahmatva-siddhyartham
 ādeshoy’am athochyate. Sri Sadananda, I can try and scan
 and send you the vārtikā
 and vārtikā-sāra sections in full for your own study if
 you like. I can do this
 when I return from my business travel after the next 10 days
 (I will be in
 Miami and Phoenix then back to Mumbai)
 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