[Advaita-l] How is AkAsha Niravayava

Sudhanshu Shekhar sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com
Tue Jun 18 22:48:23 EDT 2019


Hari Om Praveen ji, Venkataraghavan ji, V Subramanian ji,

I discussed the issue with Smartha Rahul ji also. He made a reference to
Ratnaprabha on Brahma Sutra 2.3.7 which holds the sAvayatva of AkAsha on
the basis of its being kArya-dravya, which is pretty logical.

Further I saw in BS 2.3.7 itself the explanation by BhAshyakAra
- यच्चोक्तमेतत् — शब्दाच्चेति — तत्रामृतत्वश्रुतिस्तावद्वियति ‘ अमृता
दिवौकसः’ इतिवद्द्रष्टव्या ; उत्पत्तिप्रलययोरुपपादितत्वात् ; ‘*
आकाशवत्सर्वगतश्च नित्यः’ (शत. ब्रा. १० । ६ । ३ । २)
इत्यपि प्रसिद्धमहत्त्वेनाकाशेनोपमानं क्रियते निरतिशयमहत्त्वाय, न
आकाशसमत्वाय* — यथा ‘ इषुरिव सविता धावति’ इति क्षिप्रगतित्वायोच्यते, न
इषुतुल्यगतित्वाय — तद्वत्

Now, I think this explanation is decisive. It is not that AkAsha is
sarva-gata and nitya actually. Shruti use the well-known-sarvagatatva and
nityatva of AkAsha to indicate the niratishaya-sarvagatatva and nityatva of
Brahman. The Shruti is not to indicate equality with AkAsha. Similarly, the
usage of word Amrita for AkAsha (Antariksha)  in 2.3.3
Brihadaranyakopanishad is equated with the amritatva of devatAs and not
actual amritatva which is possible only for Brahman.

So, this reference also explains the niravayavatav of AkAsha in 13.27 and
elsewhere in my opinion. It is not that AkAsha is niravayava actually, on
account of it being a karya-dravya as held by Ratna-Prabha. But the
prasiddha-niravayavatva of Akasha is just used as a simile. It is not the
niratishaya-niravayavatva of Brahman.

Sudhanshu.

On Tue 18 Jun, 2019, 14:22 V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 12:07 PM Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the Brahmasutra references, Subbuji. Venkataraghavanji has
> also
> > quoted the same reference. Overall, one thing is clear that we have
> > exception seen when it comes to AkASha/Maya/avidyA, as no independent
> tarka
> > can be perfect. How so can likely be answered only by mAyayA sarvasya
> > sambhavAt.
> >
>
> Very well stated Praveen ji, even in the very cited sutra bhashya/s we have
> two crucial statements that are relevant to this discussion:
>
> 1.  तर्काप्रतिष्ठानात्सावयवत्वमेवेति चेत् - the non-settling nature of
> (kevala) tarka is stated, though, here by the purvapakshin (sankhya)
>
> 2. That we have to rely on shabda, shruti alone in certain things:
>
> शब्दमूलं च ब्रह्म शब्दप्रमाणकम् , नेन्द्रियादिप्रमाणकम् ;
> तद्यथाशब्दमभ्युपगन्तव्यम्  Brahma (and Maya) have to be seen as taught by
> the shruti; both are beyond sense perception and we have to accept what the
> shruti says in their respect.
>
> In some place the Bhashyakara has said 'while the Pradhana of the sankhya
> is based on tarka, the shakti, maya, of the Vedantin is based on shabda,
> veda.' The Sankhya has tried to argue that his jagat kaaraNam is also
> admitted by shabda and that is refuted strongly by showing that the avyakta
> of the upanishad is not the pradhana of the sankhya.
>
> warm regards
> subbu
>
> >
> > Kind rgds,
> > --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] */
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://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