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

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Sun Sep 10 23:31:59 EDT 2017

Dear Raghav ji,

With reference to the Tat, the sense gained generally is: a saguṇa entity
that is the Lord of the universe being the cause, sustainer, etc. This is
also actually Chit alone.


On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Subbu ji
> Thank you for the explanations.
> You are saying that the resolution of jagat as brahma (by bAdha) is not
> entirely different from 'conventional ahaM' resolving in to its
> adhiShThAnaM brahma in the case where ahaM and brahma are having the
> primary meaning of cid-avivikta-abhAsaH where the primary meaning is
> *entirely* given up through jahallakShaNA and in such a case we could hold
> that bAdhasAmAnAdhikaraNyam does indeed hold  in this 'second case' ?
> Just need some more clarity about the word cid-avivikta-abhAsaH ... Or to
> put it a little in detail below
> On 10-Sep-2017 10:54 PM, "V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> 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
> 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.
> This second case is not clear to me ... Tvam pada primary meaning being
> cid-avivikta-abhAsaH  'apparent consciousness not distinguished from
> Consciousness' ,  is comprehensible  but what would be the primary meaning
> of the word 'That' in the second case, 'apparent consciousness not
> distinguished from Consciousness'? This phrase is not clear esp. in the
> context of 'That'.
> Also on a different note, isn't jahallakShaNA also used in the case where
> 'tvam pada' is still having paricchinatvaM while tat-pada is nirguNam
> brahma?
> 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:
> बुद्धिपूर्वकाभेदारोपोऽध्यासः,
> 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.
> Now my doubt is clearer...I can understand tvam-shabda the anubhUta vastu
> being,  'given up for' / resolving in to,  its adhiSThAnaM but what would
> it mean to say that tat-padam or brahma as *anubhUta vastu* is given up?
> 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 ) >>.
> Thank you
> Om
> Raghav
> I think the difference between the two lakṣaṇās lies in the way the
> Acharyas have presented the thought; the end-result does not changing
> warm regards
> _______________________________________________
> 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