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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

//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.//

SDV and DSV both employ adhyAropa-apavAda as both have the problem of
creation to solve. Through AA, nishprapancham prapanchyate. In ajAti-vAda,
there is no creation, hence there is no AA either.



*//*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.//


Wherever waking and dream are equated, it is DSV. It is also obviously EJV.
They have been stated to be synonyms in SIddhAnta Bindu. PTB does not use
such nomenclature. We can easily understand though. In SDV, creation is
sequentially through panchabhUtAs. In DSV, it is simultaneous like a dream.
Such differentiation is well laid out in PTB. At one place in BSB 2.2.29,
AchArya will vehemently argue that waking and dream are not same while in
AItareya, He will equate waking, dream and sushupti as dream. So,
difference of SDV and DSV is well presented.

When waking is equated to dream, concepts of HiraNyagarbha etc also become
a theoretical construct. avidyA-pratibimbita-Chaitanya is referred as jIva.
Samasthi antahkaraNa etc are also not applicable here.


//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.//

There is no creation in ajAti-vAda. Hence, there is no teacher, teaching
etc therein.



//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. //


You can check Samkshepa ShArIraka 2.81 onwards and the tIkA thereupon by
MadhusUdan SaraswatI. It is simple. In SDV, waking is differentiated from
dream. In DSV, they are equated. You can yourself analyze, which one is
more logical.

// on which merit (what basis) you are categorizing DSV is arthavAda and
DSV is neither paramArtha nor arthavAda!!?//

You can check Eka-jIva-vAda-vichArah in advaita-siddhi. The portions of
Shruti which deal with jIvanmukti are stated in DSV to be arthavAda as they
have unity of purport with vidhi-vAkya and they seek to praise
Brahma-jnAna. Their vAchya-artha i.e. dwAra-bhUta artha is not literally
accepted. In DSV, there has been no jnAnI ever. Everything is my
imagination becuase waking is same as dream. Shankara, RamaNa, VasisTha all
are part of my dream, who am the only jIva. So what jIvanmukti are we
talking about? Thus, the dwarbhUta-artha is ignored and dwarI-artha is
taken which is eulogy of Brahma-jnAna.

That DSV is not paramArtha is clear because in paramArtha, there is no
drishTi, there is no srishTi. That is ajAti.


//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.//

I don't understand what you mean here. When there is no body, no follower,
no jIvanmukti in ajAti-vAda, I don't know how it can be equated with
dualistic doctrines.



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


Portion of Shruti which deal with Brahma-jnAna deal with abAdhita-vastu
which is Brahman. That is a paramArtha-vastu. Hence, they are accepted as
pramANa even in DSV on account of being abAdhita-vastu-vishayaka. Please
check VedAnta SiddhAnta MuktAvalI in this regard.



//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.//


DSV equated waking and dream. It considers waking world as prAtibhAsika at
the same footing as dream. SDV categorises waking world as vyAvahArika
satya.


//And it would be better to know more about the differentiation between SDV
and DSV and its sequential order as per PTB.//


SDV implies pAchabhautika creation through panchikaraNa. DSV implies
simultaneous creation like dream. There is instance in Aitareya and
MANDUkya wherein latter is preferred. I am not citing references as you
would be aware of that.


//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.//


prakriyA is as per the adhikArI. Depending on the adhikArI, prakriyA is
presented. There will be automatic elevation from SDV to DSV and then to
ajAti.



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


SDV is moksha-sAdhana through paramparA. Not directly. 2.83 Samkshepa
ShArIraka may be checked.


Regards.