[Advaita-l] Accounting for Brahman appearing as the world

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Sun Sep 10 13:24:28 EDT 2017

Dear All,

I think the various views/understandings expressed in this thread can be
reconciled.  In the book 'Sridakṣiṇāmūrtistotram Vol.1, on page 506 us a
subtitle: 6.6.14 Interpetation of the Mahavakya - Jahallakṣaṇā. There the
method is stated thus:

//In the school which speaks in terms of the ābhāsavāda prakriyā, the
primary senses of 'That' and 'thou' are taken either as ābhā-aviviktam
chaitanyam, i.e, Consciousness as not distinguished from the apparent
consciousness or as chidaviviktābhāsaḥ, i.e., the apparent consciousness as
not distinguished from the Consciousness, as pointed out by the
Nyāyaratnāvalī on the Siddhāntabindu (1). In the first case, the Mahāvākya
is to be understood by having recourse to partial abandonment i.e., the
bhāgatyāgalakṣaṇā as has been delineated above. In the second case,
however, it is to be understood by having recourse to the jahallakṣaṇā
i.e., the total abandonment of the primary senses of the words 'That' and
'thou' by pointing to the Consciousness that is the Substratum. On
sublation of what is illusorily regarded in parlance as the meaning of the
word 'thou', the Substratum that is the Consciousness, stands out. So also
in the case of the meaning of the word 'That.'//

It is this sublation, bādha, that is meant by 'apavāda' in the BSB 3.3.9
(that I had cited earlier). The Bhāṣyaratnaprabhā says:
बाधोऽपवादः.  The wrong identity with body-mind complex is given up through
right knowledge and the substratum Chit becomes apparent. The contingency
of 'aham nāsmi' too does not arise. This I understand is the same as sarvam
(jagat) brahma where the jagat is negated and the Substratum Brahman alone
stands out. The difference between bhāgatyāga.. and jahallak....is that in
the former the adhyasta part is given up, tyakta and the anandhyasta part
is retained. In the latter there is no recognition of parts (bhāga) and the
entire anubhūta vastu is given up which by itself gives place for the
substratum to come to the limelight. This is in agreement with what is
articulated by Sri SSS:  <<  The way the understanding of the nature “ this
stalk of a tree is a man only “ by a person completely negates the idea of
the tree stalk, the  understanding  “I am Brahman “ completely negates the
idea of “ I “( aham )  ( in anAtma, anything else ) >>.

I think the difference between the two lakṣaṇās lies in the way the
Acharyas have presented the thought; the end-result does not change.

warm regards

On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>

> Namaste Subbuji,
> 2017-09-10 15:29 GMT+05:30 V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>:
>> it appears that the bhāṣya part I cited from the BSB:
>> // अपवादो नाम — यत्र कस्मिंश्चिद्वस्तुनि पूर्वनिविष्टायां मिथ्याबुद्धौ
>> निश्चितायाम्, पश्चादुपजायमाना यथार्था बुद्धिः पूर्वनिविष्टाया मिथ्याबुद्धेः
>> निवर्तिका भवति — यथा
>> ​​
>> देहेन्द्रियसङ्घाते आत्मबुद्धिः, आत्मन्येव आत्मबुद्ध्या पश्चाद्भाविन्या ‘तत्त्वमसि’
>> (छा. उ. ६-८-७)
>> <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/php/format.php?bhashya=Chandogya&page=06&hval=%E2%80%98%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BF%E2%80%99%20%28%E0%A4%9B%E0%A4%BE.%20%E0%A4%89.%20%E0%A5%AC-%E0%A5%AE-%E0%A5%AD%29#Ch_C06_S08_V07> इत्यनया
>> यथार्थबुद्ध्या निवर्त्यते — यथा वा दिग्भ्रान्तिबुद्धिः
>> दिग्याथात्म्यबुद्ध्या निवर्त्यते — //  conveys the bādha
>> sāmānādhikaraṇya where the mithyābuddhi is dispelled, by samyagdarśana.
>> Can we rightly say that the aikya  sāmānādhikaraṇya is what is involved
>> here?
>> ​Yes, it can't really be anything else in अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
> ...
>> Some years ago a scholar told me that with reference to aham brahma too
>> it would be proper to adopt the bādha sāmānādhikaraṇya.
> ​​... I'm not sure what context this is in, although some similar view
> might exist as I mentioned later here. However, neither can aham be negated
> nor can brahma, so it cannot really be bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNyam.
>> The word 'apavāda' and its corresponding expression nivartyate seem to
>> give rise to this view.
> ​The word apavAda and the nivartyate is not indicating connection between
> aham and brahma, but between aham and associations with various sharIra​s
> as indicated by
>> देहेन्द्रियसङ्घाते
>> आत्मबुद्धिः, etc. Ergo, when a person says ahaM idaM sharIram, etc, there
> it is bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNyam, .
> In aham brahma the aikya sāmānādhikaraṇya could be accounted for post
>> tat-tvam padārtha shodhana, at the anubhava side.
> ​As I said earlier, the depth of ​ahaMpratyaya decides whether lakShaNA is
> needed or not, but it is aikyasAmAnAdhikaraNa with any type of lakShaNa.
> What is negated is association of ahaMpratyaya with mithyA sharIras. but
> ahaMpratyaya can never be negated, since it is aluptadRk.
> gurupAdukAbhyAm,
> --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