[Advaita-l] svabhAva of Atman IS 'sarvajnatvaM'
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Tue Jan 7 00:31:44 CST 2014
praNAms Sri Srinath Vedagarbha prabhuji
By the way, the name 'vedagarbha' really a very 'artha garbhita' name
prabhuji. I really like it. Now coming back to the topic :
If sarva is ArOpita, then jnAna about such aarOpita sarva is not yathArtha
but a brAnti.
> Kindly note we are not treating sarva as kevala ArOpita in this
context, hence we are attributing sarvajnatvaM to Ishwara and
asarvajnatvam to brahma. Yes, from the siddhAnta drushti, the sarva is
the mAya which is conjured up by avidyA (i.e. avidyAkalpita) but this
avidyAkalpita dOsha would not touch the jnA i.e. self because it is sarva
dOsha dUra vishuddhAtma. But taking the attribution of the sarva the
shAstra keeps the name to the self as sarvajna. So, in shankara bhAshya
words like Ishwara, brahman, Atman etc. have been used interchangeably.
According to him, brahman in relation to the appearance of the universe
and its seed form (avyAkruta rUpa) is treated as Ishwara for the purpose
This would render brahman as having avidya!
> no not exactly.. but in some school it is accepted that brahman is
endowed with mUlAvidyA. Anyway let that matter be aside. What I am trying
to say here is, brahman is the nature of pure consciousness, ever free
from any defects, and all knowing and all powerfull (see the very first
sUtra & shankara bhAshya ) and shankara attributes omniscient source to
the brahman in the second sUtra. Here adjectives are given to brahman
synonymously such as nitya shuddha. Hence to point out the true nature of
brahman these words are used again through the attribution of 'sarva'.
>From this standpoint, by goind through these bhAshya vakya-s one can say
these are svarUpa lakshaNa-s or brahman and not tatastha lakshaNa. Here
point to be noted that the upAdhi (mAyOpAdhi) of the 'sarva' is conjured
up by avidyA. So the real nature of brahman is absolute and non-dual. And
this nitya-shuddha mukta svarUpa Atman/chetana which also have the
svabhAva of sarvajnatvaM. Just see what shankara says in sUtra bhAshya :
na hi nitya mukta svarUpAt sarvajnAt IshwarAt anyaschetanO dhAturdviteeyO
vedAntArthanirUpanAyAM upalabhyate..here shankara continues to quote some
shruti vAkya-s like nAnyOtOsti drashtA shrOtA mantA vijnAtA, tattvamasi,
ahaM brahmAsmi etc. to substantiate his claim
You need to ask yourself a question -- in what sense having sarvajnatvam
svabhAva for Brahman is superior when such jnAna about aaropita sarva is a
> As I said above, it is not mere ArOpita in the above context of
So, either say sarvajnatvam is only to Ishwara and Ishwara himself is
aaropita; or say sarvajnatvam is natural svabhAva of Brahman but "sarva"
NOT aaropita (but as sattya as Brahman itself). You cannot have part from
one and part from another one. This looks like another case of bhAga-tyAga
nyAya to me!
> keeping some aspect of brahman (Ishwara) as sarvajna and keeping some
other aspect of brahman minus of this nature reminds me 'ardhakukkuti
nyAya' :-)) anyway, I have cleared my stand to the best of my ability
above. You are welcome to disagree with me prabhuji.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list