[Advaita-l] manyu-sUktaM - as per dvaita siddhAnta
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Thu Mar 19 13:26:01 CDT 2015
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> 'vEdEschha sarvEbhedEva vEdyaH' .
> > But Krishna did not make such a statement.
When citing texts pl. use the right spelling:
vedaiśca sarvaiḥ ahameva vedyaḥ (is the correct form). The above line can
be rendered correctly thus: vedaiśca sarvaiḥ bheda eva vedyaḥ.
> You're right, aham means Brahman only, but you see by including jIva also
> into the scope of "aham" (by virtue of identity), then sarva vEda should
> have been jIva para also, but Krishna did not mean that either, or did He?
How can that be, for there is the 'eva' in the teaching?
> Also, another difficulty, by saying "aham is vEdya from vEda", it
> automatically makes that aham as jnEya-brahman, which is not nirguNa
> brahman but upAsya brahman and hence lower.
This is not correct. For, in the BG 13th ch., we have 'jñeyam yat tat
pravakṣyāmi yat jñātvā amṛtam aśnute - and proceeds to teach its nature by
adhyāropa - apavāda nyāya:
ज्ञेयं यत्तत्प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वामृतमश्नुते ।
अनादिमत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते ॥ १२ ॥
सर्वतःपाणिपादं तत्सर्वतोक्षिशिरोमुखम् ।
सर्वतःश्रुतिमल्लोके सर्वमावृत्य तिष्ठति ॥ १३ ॥
सर्वेन्द्रियगुणाभासं सर्वेन्द्रियविवर्जितम् ।
असक्तं सर्वभृच्चैव निर्गुणं गुणभोक्तृ च ॥ १४ ॥
And verses 15, 16 and 17. One can read the Shānkara bhāṣya for all these
to get the advaitic interpretation.
This is to be especially noted ; the chapter is discriminating between
kṣetra and the kṣetrajña. At the beginning itself the Lord has taught:
क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि सर्वक्षेत्रेषु भारत ।
And this kśetrajña (knower of the kṣetra) is different from the kṣetra
which alone is vedya, that is, objective. This is jaḍa. The knower,
kṣetrajna is taught as the one to be known, jneya, for realization. That
does not make the kṣtrajna, aham, an object. The rest of the verses in
that chapter also teach how there has been a mix-up between puruṣa,
chetana, and prakṛti, kshetra, jaḍa and the need to discriminate. When
this is done, the kshetra, the jaḍa, is what one thought to be oneself, the
body, mind, etc. is separated and the kṣetrajña, aham, (mām viddhi) the
knower for whom the body-mind and the entire world is 'idam' (iidam
sharīram kaunteya kshetram...) is clearly realized. This 'aham' is not
realized as 'idam'. Only if 'aham' were to be taught to be realized as
idam will the objection that it is viṣaya, objective, and therefore upāsya,
Hence, the 'aham eva vedyaḥ' is to be understood in the above manner and
not as idam. In the Kenopaniṣad we have: tadeva brahma tvam viddhi .na
idam yadidam upāsate, for which Shankara has commented: Brahman is not that
which is meditated (upāsya) as something 'idam', anātmā. Whatever is not
aham, atmā. is idam, anātmā. So the Kenopanishat teaches that
Atman/Brahman is not 'idam'.
The confusion between upāsya and jñeya brahman is to be clearly set right
by the above study. Just because the word 'vedyaḥ' is there, it does not
amount to an objective knowledge. That is the limitation of language.
Without using such language the Shruti cannot teach at all. It has to go
to silence mode if no words can be used. That is why we have the famous
'Atmā vā arey, draṣṭavyaḥ, śrotavyaḥ, mantavyaḥ, nididhyāsitavyaḥ' in the
Br.up. By the first word here one might get the feeling that Atma is an
object and therefore has to be seen, known. That upanishad itself has
taught that it is to be known as 'aham brahma asmi'. So, the mere words
vedyaḥ, jneyaḥ, viddhi, draśṭvyaḥ, etc. do not make the ātman/brahman an
> So, it seems by saying 'vEdEschha ahmEva vEdyaH' Krishna also implying
> sarvEbhedEva vEdyaH', but you know I may be wrong :)
> 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