[Advaita-l] [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-)

Bhaskar YR bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com
Thu Jan 4 00:09:28 EST 2024

praNAms Sri Vikram prabhuji
Hare Krishna

  *   Thanks for sharing such a comprehensive list of Advaita tenets.  It is really huge indeed and I am really happy that  I don't have to disagree with you at most of your observations ofcourse with different perspective.

  1.  The svarupa lakshana of Brahman is: existence (sat), real (satya), consciousness (chit), knowledge (jnana), bliss (ananda), eternal (nitya), infinite (anadi & ananta), full (purna), partless (avyaya), homogeneous (eka rasa), immutable (kutastha), unchanging (avikara), pure (suddha), devoid of any differentiation whatsoever (sajatiya, vijatiya, svagata abheda)
2. Per ekam-eva-advitiyam, there is no sajatiya or vijatiya or svagata bheda, whatsoever, in Brahman
3. Per neha-nanasti-kinchana, there is no plurality or 'other' or something 'else' whatsoever in Brahman
4. An infinite homogeneous partless immutable entity cannot have any attributes (viseshana), since an attribute is defined as a quality that is inseparable but distinct from the substance, and there cannot be any distinction in a completely abheda homogenous entity
5. This Brahman is designated as nirvisesha Brahman for the sake of convenience

  *   >    I completely agree with you.
6. Any quality associated with Brahman, that has in context or in relation something 'else', is only a tatastha lakshana of Brahman. This includes qualities such as sarvajna, sarvasakthi, sarveshvara, creator-sustainer-destroyer of the universe, antaryami, witness, being the locus for something else, etc.
7. These qualities are the attributes (viseshana) of Brahman and are distinct manifestations
8. Their relationship with Brahman is that of attribute-substance or shakti-shaktivan or possessed-possessor. In all these cases, they are inseparable but distinct from Brahman.
9. Brahman described as possessing these qualities is designated as savisesha Brahman for the sake of convenience
  *   >  sarvajnatva etc. is not exterior qualities of parabrahman it is inherent in brahman ( see tattu samanvayAt & next sUtra bhAshya and introductory bhAshya to Itareya up.)

10. Ontologically, sat is that which once ascertained as existing always remains unchanged across all time. Nirvisesha Brahman is sat.
11. Ontologically, asat is that which is never experienced as existing. Hare's horn is asat.

  *   >  The word asat has some other meaning as well for example in shruti asadvA edam agra aaseet etc. We cannot say everything comes out from atyata abhAva like shashavishANa.   In taittireeya bhAshya shankara gives meaning for both sat and asat.  And as per this asat is not hare's horn but something existing but changing.

12. Ontologically, mithya is that which is neither sat nor asat nor both (sadasat-vilakshana) - it appears to exist but later sublated. The universe of plurality, the viseshanas & sakthis of savisesha Brahman, snake on a rope, rope itself, mirage, double-moon are all examples of this mithya category. If you do not agree with this definition, please clarify what is the ontological status of a mithya entity.

  *   13. Anirvachaniya explicitly means the entity cannot be specifically described as sat or as asat or as both simultaneously - the reason why an object may appear to exist but later sublated. There may be other definitions, but if you do not agree with this definition, please clarify what is the right definition of anirvachaniya and if anirvachaniya is sat or asat or both or something else?

  *   anirvachaneeyatvaM attributed to mAyA shakti of Ishwara (nAma rUpa) bhAshyakAra gives examples of water, bubble, foam etc. to explain this.  I don't think anywhere shanakra gives the example of dviteeya Chandra, sarpa on rajju etc. to explain the anirvachaneeyatvaM of mAya.  For example : avyaktaa hi sA mAya tattva anyatva nirUpaNasya ashakhyatvaat, it is a-vyakta that is defying any unambiguous description whether it belongs to brahman and inherent to it or it is entirely different from it.  (su.bh. 1.4.3)

14. If the above two points are in agreement, then the ontological status of anirvachaniya is mithya
  *   >  mithyA is due to karaNa dOsha, for that appropriate examples are dviteeya Chandra, sarpa on rajju, silver in nacre etc. because here rajata, sarpa, second moon etc. are illusory / mithyA.  We have seen here in this list itself jagat is like sarpa on the rope hence it is illurory / mithyA etc.  But it is an other way round :  what an ignorant man sees or thinks as a snake is really an illusion, it was /is / never be there at any point of time hence deserved to be called as mithyA / illusion.  What actually he is seeing is a rope just confusing it for a sarpa.  Similarly what one cognizes as jagat as limited (parichinna) abrahma, asarvaM etc. is mithyA jagat but what actually there is brahmAbhinna jagat which you can call as jagat or brahman what is there is adviteeya brahma tattva.  It is because of this reason we say, that which is mithyA can never be anirvachaneeya.  anirvachaneeyatvaM can be explained only when both the kAraNa and kArya or shakti-shakta are simultaneously cognized either by direct perception ( like gold and ornament) or through the shAstra ( where jagat is pratyaksha but brahman is shAstra pramANita abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa for this jagat).  But where as mithyA is strictly related to the wrong (mis) conception of an object due to karaNa dOsha or due to some other reason and once we get rid of this dOsha the mithyA darshana of sarpa, rajata, second moon will not be there.  But whereas even after realizing that AbharaNa is nothing suvarNa, the vyAvahArika validity of suvarNAbharaNa would continue.  This is the difference between mithya and anirvachaneeya.  In the anirvachaneeya kArya kAraNa saMbandha, it has been told that its relation with its cause is one of identity.  And like kAraNa this kArya too trikAla abhAdhita.  It is not some ajnAni saying this it has been confirmed by 'brahmavAdins' clarifies bhAshyakAra : kAryakAraNa sambandhaH brahma vAdinaH katha eti chet??  Na, tasya tadAtmalakshaNa sambandOpapatteH.  One who knows the svarUpa of this kArya knows ONLY as the cause.  Sri SSS gives an example of a goldsmith view of his jewelry  in the shop as gold and his complete focus on gold and he is not so particular about its (gold's) nAma and rUpa.

15. In our current ignorance we believe the entire perceived universe of plurality and change has an independent existence. What is the actual ontological status of the universe and what is the ontological status of the universe as we believe it to be in our ignorance? Both mithya?

  *   >  Please see above, what is independent of brahman is mithyA there exists nothing apart from brahman.  If you see the jagat aloof from brahman it is mithyA jagat but when you see the svarUpa of jagat it is nothing but brahman and we stop calling it jagat and continue to realize it brahman only.
16. But let's say that through shastra and sadhana, we gain the knowledge that this universe is only a nama-rupa change of Brahman and is completely dependent on Brahman. What now becomes the actual ontological status of the universe and the ontological status of our perception of the universe? Still both mithya?
  *   >  If you see the definition of Samyak darshana, sarvAtma darshana, Atmaikatva drushti etc. you will come to know what is the status of jagat after Samyak jnana.

  *   17. Does the nitya-suddha-buddha-mukta-svarupa nirvisesha Brahman perceive or cognize the universe? Answer is no?

  *   dhAta yathA pUrvamakalpayatu is shruti vAkya and accepting the  Ishwara hetuka srushti is 'vedAnta maryAda' clarifies bhAshyakAra.

18. Is there the perception of this universe for the savisesha Brahman? Answer is yes?
  *   >  Yes, hence the jagat what we are seeing is brahma mAnasa pratyaya.

  *   19. Do you believe that, per "brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati", a knower of Brahman (jnani) verily becomes (is) Brahman? Is this savisesha Brahman or nirvisesha Brahman? Answer is nirvisesha Brahman?

  *   Yes he realizes that he is nirvishesha parabrahman and that is called svarUpa jnana it does not mean his sarvAtma bhAva should vanish in thin air that can happen only after the physical death of that jnani or mahApraLaya but that is not what propagated in sadyO mukti or jeevanmukti.  The jnana is something neither attained lOkAntara nor janmAntara nor attained in a state like samAdhi.  Please note the Atmaikatva jnana is vyavahAra bAdhita jnana but NOT vyavahAra abhAva jnana.

20. Does this knower of Brahman perceive or cognize the universe? Answer is no?

  *   aha Mannam, annaada, shlOkakarta is the shruti vAkya from this you can deduce the siddhAnta whether the brahmavida perceives the universe or not.  And your subsequent questionnaire completely pertains to adhyAsa bhAshya and its explanation etc. We can take it as a separate thread.  How for adhyAsa mulAvidyA is upAdAna, how jnAnAdhyAsa is different from arthAdhyAsa, how anirvachaneeya khyAti vAda is different from shankara's anubhava siddha adhyAsa vAda etc. etc.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list