The Dialogue
jIva - antharyAmi samvAdam :a supplement to avidyA vritti
I would think the presence and the existence are the same. One should be able to see in and through the manifestations that which is antaryAmin the very existence because on which mAya plays.
The presence and existence aren’t the same, since the ‘presence’ is perceived due to superimposition & reflection, whereas existence is that which is ‘subjectively’ conceived & is identified only to Brahman ‘kArya Brahman’ - saguNam. ‘Presence’ is availed only because of mithyAjnAna and not by any other means. Advaita justifies the ‘presence’ only at vyAvahArika level. Note: the existence should be subjected even at paramArthika level, the failure of which leads nirIshwara nyAya which advaita never prompts. ‘Presence’ is known only by nAma rUpa lakshnanA’s while existence is realized even without such (devoid of nAma rUpa lakshanA’s). It must not be wrong to say that the existence of presence is false while the presence of existence alone (satEva) is ‘sat’. Further, it is not right to say mAya playing on the antharyAmin. Brahman is Maya. Maya is real. Barhman said “bahu syAm’ to distort the avyakta which was nirvikalpa. When doing so yajus ashtakam notes ‘taDa sadEva sanmanO kurutE syAmiti’ : he manifests without nAma rUpA’s – presense is hence an adjunct and not same as existence. The distortion was due to the manifestation thru mAya = Brahman. The antharyAmin is the vital existence in ‘jIva’. Thus vivarana schools points out that mAya is centrifugal to Brahman and not to jIvan. (It projects jIvan). The true knowledge of which would make one realize the coincidence.
jIva - antharyAmi samvAdam :a supplement to avidyA vritti
As per advaita the multifarious jiiva is due to multifarious karmas which are anAdi. I thought visisTaadvaita also relates the jiiva utpaatti to anAdi avidya due to multifarious karma only. The avidya is not knowing the sheSha sheShi bhAva. I am not sure if there is jiiva-jIva bhinnatvam in VaikunTa after salvation - there should be but on what basis, I do not know - tAra tamya bhedas should be there moxa too since MahAlaxmi is different from viSvaksena, nArada etc. In dvaita there are hierarchies of jiivas each one only enjoying their pot full of happiness and there are some jiivas in eternal hell. Ramanuja does not subscribe to that but yet there is jiiva-jiiva binnatvam although each one is enjoying the infinite happiness in moxa.
First of all the influence of karma never has any impact on jIva. The Atman according to advaita is common. Undifferentiated with Brahman. the jIvAtma bedha is completely baseless as explained by Adi Sankara in his Bagawad gItA bAsya. Ironically RamAnujA in his gItA bAshya (2:12) states that ‘Evam bagavatha: sarvEswarAth, AtmAnAm paraspara ca bEdha: pAramArtika iti bagavataivOktamiti pratIyate pAramArtikAnityatvOpadE samayE aham, tvam, imE sarvE vayamiti vyapadEshAth
The bAshya affirms paraspara jIva bEdam. The term imE emphatically stresses jIva bEdam proclaimed by rAmAnujA. Here aAdi Sankara in his commentary issues that ‘dehEbEtAbiprAyEna bahuvacanam nAtma bEdAbiprayEna ie., the multiplicity here denotes the dEha bEdam and not the Atma bEdam to jIvA’s. the material multiplicity is only due to mAya, wherein the commonness is merely diversified.
In visishtAdvaita philosophy, avidya means, not knowing the truth about ‘sarIra sarIri bAva’ ie., jIvAtman is different from paramAtman and the former the sarIra for the latter. (The ‘sEsa sEshi bAva’ is an organ for prapatthi). For them, the jiva bEda (wrongly mentioned as jIva binnatvam) persists even in Vaikunta. jIva’s are three by classification. Bakta, mukta & nitya. MahAlakshmi and visvaksEnAdI’s are nitya-muktA’s. The tAra tamya bedha prevails with the sajadIya beda category ( visajIya bEda & svagAta bEda are the other two) which ascribes special distinction to MahAlakshmi from other nithya-muktA’s. As far as these differences are concerned Adi Sankara categorically rejects such, as he declares nitya caitanya alone is sat, which is not influenced by these guna visEsA’s. The svagAta bEda is also rejected since nithya caitanya is nirvisEsa. In utpathyasambavAdhikaranam of Brahma sUtra, Adi shankara does not accept the jIva utpathi prescribed by the pAncarAtra Agama.Adi Sankara identifies the incompatibility of kArana kArya bEda in jIva utpatthi by stating ‘kArana prAptau kAryasya pravilaya prasangAt’; also, he mentions ‘utpatthi matvEhi jIvasya anityatvAdi dOshaprasangatvAt’ as jIva utpatthi regards anityatvam to the same which is contrary to vEda vAkyAs. In the end ridicules the pAcharAtra Agama by quoting ‘nAtma asctE nityatvAt ca dAbhya: (BS:2-3-17)
Realization of ayam Atma brahma is involves all the appearance of duality is due to mAya. They should be simultaneous rather than prerequisites. Needs some clarification.
Here, I would like to mention what Adi Sankara pointed out; ‘asyA Brahma vidyAyA angatvEna samnyAso vidhitsitAh’ie., shruti wishes to ‘enjoin’ renunciation as ‘subsidiary’ to acquisition of knowledge of supreme which will tend to liberation. Sommenting upon this SurEswarAcArya terms renunciation as a separate process, pointing out that renunciation ‘naishkArmyam’ is a separate process.it is hence clear that only the dissolution of avidya transpiring to liberation is simultaneous, while the acquisition of knowledge (mAya as Brahman) and renunciation (naishkArmyam) are none but prerequisites. Particularly in sambanda vArtika, vArtikakAra mentions that ‘it is only he who has given up action attains liberation ‘through’ knowledge’. Knowledge acquisition is thus an intermediary state towards the dissolution of avidya to attain mOksha. NaishkArmyam is a mode for which subsidiary nodes becomes essential one of which is by knowing mAya is Brahman. Further more, in BUBV verse 33 declaring that suddhAtma attains mOksha in the ‘first stage’ by means of sense organs being properly controlled. This is hence a subsidiary process towards liberation aiding BrahmajnAna. In verse 34 he states that renunciation ‘precedes’ knowledge.
First of all the influence of karma never has any impact on jIva. The Atman according to advaita is common. Undifferentiated with Brahman. the jIvAtma bedha is completely baseless as explained by Adi Sankara in his Bagawad gItA bAsya. Ironically RamAnujA in his gItA bAshya (2:12) states that ‘Evam bagavatha: sarvEswarAth, AtmAnAm paraspara ca bEdha: pAramArtika iti bagavataivOktamiti pratIyate pAramArtikAnityatvOpadE samayE aham, tvam, imE sarvE vayamiti vyapadEshAth
The bAshya affirms paraspara jIva bEdam. The term imE emphatically stresses jIva bEdam proclaimed by rAmAnujA. Here aAdi Sankara in his commentary issues that ‘dehEbEtAbiprAyEna bahuvacanam nAtma bEdAbiprayEna ie., the multiplicity here denotes the dEha bEdam and not the Atma bEdam to jIvA’s. the material multiplicity is only due to mAya, wherein the commonness is merely diversified.
In visishtAdvaita philosophy, avidya means, not knowing the truth about ‘sarIra sarIri bAva’ ie., jIvAtman is different from paramAtman and the former the sarIra for the latter. (The ‘sEsa sEshi bAva’ is an organ for prapatthi). For them, the jiva bEda (wrongly mentioned as jIva binnatvam) persists even in Vaikunta. jIva’s are three by classification. Bakta, mukta & nitya. MahAlakshmi and visvaksEnAdI’s are nitya-muktA’s. The tAra tamya bedha prevails with the sajadIya beda category ( visajIya bEda & svagAta bEda are the other two) which ascribes special distinction to MahAlakshmi from other nithya-muktA’s. As far as these differences are concerned Adi Sankara categorically rejects such, as he declares nitya caitanya alone is sat, which is not influenced by these guna visEsA’s. The svagAta bEda is also rejected since nithya caitanya is nirvisEsa. In utpathyasambavAdhikaranam of Brahma sUtra, Adi shankara does not accept the jIva utpathi prescribed by the pAncarAtra Agama.Adi Sankara identifies the incompatibility of kArana kArya bEda in jIva utpatthi by stating ‘kArana prAptau kAryasya pravilaya prasangAt’; also, he mentions ‘utpatthi matvEhi jIvasya anityatvAdi dOshaprasangatvAt’ as jIva utpatthi regards anityatvam to the same which is contrary to vEda vAkyAs. In the end ridicules the pAcharAtra Agama by quoting ‘nAtma asctE nityatvAt ca dAbhya: (BS:2-3-17)
Realization of ayam Atma brahma is involves all the appearance of duality is due to mAya. They should be simultaneous rather than prerequisites. Needs some clarification.
Here, I would like to mention what Adi Sankara pointed out; ‘asyA Brahma vidyAyA angatvEna samnyAso vidhitsitAh’ie., shruti wishes to ‘enjoin’ renunciation as ‘subsidiary’ to acquisition of knowledge of supreme which will tend to liberation. Sommenting upon this SurEswarAcArya terms renunciation as a separate process, pointing out that renunciation ‘naishkArmyam’ is a separate process.it is hence clear that only the dissolution of avidya transpiring to liberation is simultaneous, while the acquisition of knowledge (mAya as Brahman) and renunciation (naishkArmyam) are none but prerequisites. Particularly in sambanda vArtika, vArtikakAra mentions that ‘it is only he who has given up action attains liberation ‘through’ knowledge’. Knowledge acquisition is thus an intermediary state towards the dissolution of avidya to attain mOksha. NaishkArmyam is a mode for which subsidiary nodes becomes essential one of which is by knowing mAya is Brahman. Further more, in BUBV verse 33 declaring that suddhAtma attains mOksha in the ‘first stage’ by means of sense organs being properly controlled. This is hence a subsidiary process towards liberation aiding BrahmajnAna. In verse 34 he states that renunciation ‘precedes’ knowledge.
Is verbiage different from Brahman? Verbiage as well as indulgence are also to be recognized as expression of Brahman too . 'pasyam me yogamaiswaram'.
No one can differ in saying contemplation , verbiage, indulgence etc is due to avidya. When vArtikakAra denotes avidyAstamayO mOksa, it means that the contemplation of subject through verbiage and so on must synchronize coherently. The dawn and dusk of such contemplation must end with nirvisEsa tatva alone. Though verbiage is considered as an expression it is innate to the ongoing process attaining brahmajnAna. The very principle of advaita outweighs such vidhi vAkyAs, since it may end up in the transgression of reality. Once the contemplation through verbiage prevails, it automatically makes the Brahman as its object which is contrary to Upanishad vAkyas. The knowledge is thus sought by meditation and realization and not by contemplation through verbiage which is negligible. (TUBV 2.633-4)
No one can differ in saying contemplation , verbiage, indulgence etc is due to avidya. When vArtikakAra denotes avidyAstamayO mOksa, it means that the contemplation of subject through verbiage and so on must synchronize coherently. The dawn and dusk of such contemplation must end with nirvisEsa tatva alone. Though verbiage is considered as an expression it is innate to the ongoing process attaining brahmajnAna. The very principle of advaita outweighs such vidhi vAkyAs, since it may end up in the transgression of reality. Once the contemplation through verbiage prevails, it automatically makes the Brahman as its object which is contrary to Upanishad vAkyas. The knowledge is thus sought by meditation and realization and not by contemplation through verbiage which is negligible. (TUBV 2.633-4)
The presence and existence aren’t the same, since the ‘presence’ is perceived due to superimposition & reflection, whereas existence is that which is ‘subjectively’ conceived & is identified only to Brahman ‘kArya Brahman’ - saguNam. ‘Presence’ is availed only because of mithyAjnAna and not by any other means. Advaita justifies the ‘presence’ only at vyAvahArika level. Note: the existence should be subjected even at paramArthika level, the failure of which leads nirIshwara nyAya which advaita never prompts. ‘Presence’ is known only by nAma rUpa lakshnanA’s while existence is realized even without such (devoid of nAma rUpa lakshanA’s). It must not be wrong to say that the existence of presence is false while the presence of existence alone (satEva) is ‘sat’. Further, it is not right to say mAya playing on the antharyAmin. Brahman is Maya. Maya is real. Barhman said “bahu syAm’ to distort the avyakta which was nirvikalpa. When doing so yajus ashtakam notes ‘taDa sadEva sanmanO kurutE syAmiti’ : he manifests without nAma rUpA’s – presense is hence an adjunct and not same as existence. The distortion was due to the manifestation thru mAya = Brahman. The antharyAmin is the vital existence in ‘jIva’. Thus vivarana schools points out that mAya is centrifugal to Brahman and not to jIvan. (It projects jIvan). The true knowledge of which would make one realize the coincidence.
posted by Antharyami at
3:52 AM
0 Comments
