[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Shankara accepts BhAvarUpa ajnana BSB 4.1.15

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji
Hare Krishna

adhyAropa-apavAda is built-in in both SDV and DSV. These are self-contained models wherein AA is utilised.


Ø     As per shankara whatever we talk about brahman and at the same time taking something else also into consideration is just adhyArOpita and finally needs to do apavAda once the purpose is served.  There is no self contained models which is FREE from AA atleast that is what needs to be understood when we say brahman is eka eva adviteeyaM and neha nAnAsti kiMchana as per Advaita/shruti’s ultimate stand / parama siddhAnta.  These are all upAya to teach that ultimate truth and do not hold water on its own to give an exclusive status to any one particular prakriya.

EJV and DSV are synonyms.


  *   Where we can find more details about this similarity in shankara’s PTB??  Eka jeeva vAda has been explained if we hold the samashti antaHkaraNOpAdhi for Atman.  Shankara explained this in Su.bh. that it is pure being (brahman) alone that is spoken of as a jeeva ‘owing to connection with the association with upAdhi.  As per this, we talk of one particular jeeva ‘so long as’ bondage continues as attaching itself to ONE upAdhi.  evaM sati yAvadekOpAdhigata bandhanivruttiH tAvadekajeeva vyavahAraH.   Here only bhAshyakAra talks about nAnA jeeva considering the nAnA upAdhi (individual antaHkaraNa-s as they are many).  And when it is talked about eka jeeva vAda it is not about the jeeva who is conditioned (avidyAvanta) it is in the view of mahAn Atma or hiraNyagarbha or prathamaja (for example katha shruti) where he is having samashti antaHkaraNa upAdhi.

SDV and DSV are sequential. DSV succeeds SDV. ajAti is the pAramArthika truth. No adhyAropa-apavAda is employed here.


Ø     All these models including AV (which is supposed to be teaching ultimate truth) are coming under the big umbrella (prakriya – teaching module) because AV when taken as the TEACHING method to drive home the point about nirvikAri, nirvishesha brahman, in that teaching process there is a teacher, student and teaching about nanirOdhO nachOtpattiH etc. So, the teaching process of AV is too within the sphere of adhyArOpa since there is no teaching as such possible in paramArtha since there is nothing there apart from brahman.

//In that sense, even DSV also arthavAda only not pAramArthika.//

Non-pAramArthika does not mean arthavAda.


Ø     OK, then please clarify, what exactly DSV talking about when it is neither paramArtha nor arthavAda??  You said first SDV and subsequently DSV both are modules and sequential,  on which merit (what basis) you are categorizing DSV is arthavAda and DSV is neither paramArtha nor arthavAda!!??  Just curious to know more about this categorization.

//In the pAramArthika what is there is brahman ONLY and nothing but brahman.  So, why this special emphasis that ONLY SDV is arthavAda?? //

Portions of Shruti dealing with jIvanmukti are stated as arthavAda in DSV.


  *   For that matter AV is the only darshana shAstra would offer this special and exclusive gift to its followers i.e. sadyO mukti, Jeevan mukti while living in this very body!!  If this itself termed as kevalArthavAda then AV too on par with some dualistic doctrines.

Other portions of Shruti which deal with Brahma-jnAna are not accepted as arthavAda. Why should they be treated as arthavAda in DSV?


Ø     It is because of the simple reason that DSV too within the realm of vaidika vyavahAra and not the paramArtha jnana in itself.

//What is the special weight that DSV would carry to deduce advaita's parama siddhAnta??//

It is sequential to SDV. It is just prior to ajAtivAda. That is why special weight. It is for uttam adhikArI. The parama siddhAnta is ajAti. That is achieved by sublating DSV.


Ø     You have given a good explanation why DSV is not paramArtha and how it is lying in between DSV and AV. What is NOT there in paramArtha needs to be considered as either vyavahAra or prAtibhAsika. It is curious to know the module DSV fits in which compartment here.   And it would be better to know more about the differentiation between SDV and DSV and its sequential order as per PTB.  If it is not detailed in PTB then I think it would be better to understand these modules as per PTB only.  And  on the surface understanding of these modules what I think is these are two different view points and it is wrong to assert one particular module is superior to another.  In kArika there is some clarification with regard to this I reckon.  If we accept the external things inevitably we have to accept the consciousness which objectifies the external world.  And in the same manner if we accept the consciousness i.e. vijnAna or buddhivrutti (drashtru in DSV) then obviously we have to accept the existence of drushya i.e. external world, if not his drashtruva will not be determined.  There is no independent or exclusive existence of either of srushti or drushti.

//BTW, if we ready to push-aside the SDV as mere arthavAda then we have to say almost 99% of whole shruti and bhAshya are mere arthavAda 😊//

Stating a portion as arthavAda is not pushing aside.


  *   But indirectly you are implying it is something inferior to DSV and also if I am right you are suggesting that SD vAdins should elevate themselves to DS to finally realize AV.

arthavAda is as much a pramANa as vidhi-vAkya. There is unity in the purport of vidhi-vAkya (injunctions) and arthavAda. They mutually desire each other. So, it is not pushing aside.


Ø     So SDV is not mOksha sAdhana module and whatever said in favour of SD it is not mOksha/jnAna para but vidhi para!!

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar