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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

//And this is what is explained in the sarvAtmabhAva, Samyak darshana and
Atmaikatva.  And elsewhere bhAshyakAra says sarvAtmabhAva or Atmaikatva
darshana is itself what is being called mOksha.//

sarva is a product of avidyA. To aver sarva-AtmatA, there has to be
perception of sarva. That is admissible only in SDV wherein avidyA-lesha
has to be admitted to enable perception of sarva.

//So, mOksha in this sense is kevalaarthavAda as per you.//

sarvAtma-bhAva is admissible only in SDV. As per DSV, this is arthavAda.

//Now, please explain what is self realization in the module of DSV??  If
the realization is not possible in this module and the aspirant has to
elevate himself to AV then you have to accept that SDV which is arthavAda
(!!??) also explained in terms of mOksha but its subsequent advanced step
DSV sans any realization.//

Moksha is removal of avidyA by jnAna. That is the singular definition
applicable across all models be it SDV or DSV. In SDV, there is perception
of sarva after Moksha which makes the description arthavAda. In DSV, there
is no perception post-Moksha, and hence there is nothing in Shruti
regarding DSV post-jnAna which can be said to be arthavAda. In ajAtivAda,
there is no Moksha, no bandha. It is not that SDV or DSV is being stated as
arthavAda. It is the description of state of Mukta which is stated as
arthavAda.


 //And what is the nature of that jeeva ?? //


It is defined as avidyA-pratibimbita-chaitanya.





//And it is really surprising that you are clinging to this statement
despite the fact that bhashya spends considerable time in explaining
jnAni’s Samyak darshana, Atmaikatvam which is mOksha and it is still not
clear to me what is the characteristics of the jeeva in DSV where there is
neither jnAni, mukti etc. but ONLY jeeva and he has to strive to realize
AV!!??  What for he has to elevate himself to AV when there is no jnAni
nothing is there in DSV??  Don’t you see any self-contradiction here??//


There is no contradiction. All concepts are well presented. BhAshya
statements are within the framework of SDV. You should also see the
contradiction between pAnchabhautika-srishTi and waking=dream. They are
mutually exclusive depiction of world.


 //When avidyAlesha (any traces of avidyA) is there he cannot be called
‘mukta’ it is as simple as that.  And continuation of jnAni’s deha does not
mean he is having remnants of avidyA because jnAni’s realization is that
dehAtmabhAva is itself avidyAkruta.//


Sir, this is really hilarious. Deha is a product of avidyA. Sarva is a
product of avidyA. It is simple. Without avidyA, how are you postulating
deha for jnAnI? That avidyA-lesha is not contradictory to jnAna has been
well explained in bhAshya within SDV framework.


//When bhAshyakAra says in jnAni katrutva and bhOktrutva is sublated and
even his normal act like bhikshAtana is only in the eyes of onlookers
without ascribing to the jnAni how can we accept the statements like jnAni
‘alone’ has to ‘bear’ the fruits of his karma.  Don’t you know how
bhAshyakAra explains jnAni’s karma phala distributed to his kith and kin
and pApa phala to his enemies and how he is free from all saNchita AgAmi
and prArabdha etc.//


These are all valid statements within the framework of SDV. In DSV, when
you rise from dream, there are no dream-fellows left for distribution of
your karma-fala. The dream world is no longer there. See, if you are ok
with deha for jnAnI, then what is the problem in that deha bearing fruits
of karma.


//YES, and that is why prArabdha does not mean remnants of avidya and it is
not an impediment to self-realization/mOkshAvasthA.//


PrArabdha itself is product of avidyA sir. How can it remain when avidyA is
not there.



//When the jnAni realized that he is not imprisoned in the tiny BMI, how
can he continue to be there in that shareera and identify himself with that
shareera to bear the fruit??  dehAtmabhAva is the fundamental error and
when this error is eradicated by the paripUrNa jnana how can he still say :
ahamidaM mamedaM??//


again, this deha and that deha and the idea of sarva itself is product of
avidyA. If avidyA is completely annihilated, this deha, that deha and sarva
cannot be there. Simple. These are valid in SDV only.



//His realization that he is not kartru / bhOktru / pramAtru etc. not the
result of post jnana, jnana helps him to realize he was not kartru /
bhOktru even when he was in the spell of avidyA.  There is exquisite
bhAshya vAkya to clarify this point.  Whether it is just from the point of
view of SDV hardly a matter since it is talking about the ‘paramArtha
jnAni’ the brahma jnAni.//


The concept of "was", "is" itself is product of avidyA. JnAnI entertaining
these ideas is not possible without avidyA. That is acceptable in SDV but
not in DSV. Depictions of "paramArtha-jnAnI" are considered as arthavAda in
DSV.



*//*Who said he does not see the world??  He sees it as brahmamayaM, jnana
mayaM and there exists nothing but brahman.  What is removed here is
abrahmatvaM and asarvatvaM of the world which is against parichinna drushti
due to avidyA.//


Sir ji. World is a product of avidyA. If he continues to see the world,
then avidyA continues to exist. Brahman being immutable cannot appear as
chair and table. avidyA appears as chair and table and being superimposed
in Brahman, Brahman is said to be the upAdAna of world and not in the
literal sense. Table and chair being Brahman contradict B's immutability.


//Explained by shruti itself.  Brahman is sarvaM, sarvaM khalvidaM brahman
there exists nothing but brahman. And it is bedha buddhi nivAraNa NOT
bedhaakaara nivAraNa.  And it is called sarvAtmabhAva termed by bhAshyakAra
and equated to mOksha.  sarvAtmabhAva mOkshO vidyAphalaM kriyAkAraka phala
shUnyaM.//


And hence the immutability of Brahman goes for a toss. sarvam khalvidam
Brahman is bAdha-sAmAnAdhikaraNya. That has already been discussed.



//At one place at the same time both jnana and avidyA or traces of avidyA
cannot stay because it is like saying light and kinchit darkness staying
together. He is seeing the world in its tattva he is not seeing kArya
keeping aloof the kAraNa,  For the jnAni podium is wood and wood itself
appearing as podium and there is no existence for the podium apart from
wood.  ( just heard this lecture from sarvapriyaananda Swamiji which Sri
Subbu prabhuji shared elsewhere).//


This is all unacceptable because of immutability of Brahman. Brahman cannot
appear as anything. Simple. All appearance is due to avidyA which is
adhyasta in Brahman. Sureshvara has cleared this confusion in one go - अस्य
द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य यदुपादानकारणम्। अज्ञानं तदुपाश्रित्य ब्रह्मकारणमुच्यते.
So, if you are seeing chair and table, avidyA is there. And that is why, if
you posit perception post-jnAna, avidyA-lesha has to be admitted. How it is
not contradictory to jnAna is well explained earlier in SDV.


//The perception of the jnAni is brahman and brahman alone.  His perception
is not like I am sAkshi and due to avidyA/lesha I am still seeing world
outside of me!!??  Na, that is not sarvAtmabhAva, sarvAtmabhAva is
tattvamAdhyAtmikaM drushtvA tattvaM drushtvA tu ‘bAhyataH’ because for the
brahma jnAni :  brahmaivedaM amrutam purastAt, brahma pashchAt, brahma
dakshiNottareNa, adhaschOrdhvaM cha prasrutaM brahmaivedaM vishvamidaM
varishTam.//


Sarva is Brahman is a statement of bAdha-sAmAnAdhikaraNya. Please don't
start thinking that Brahman is appearing like chair and table in your front
and back. That is against immutability.


If you posit perception post-jnAna, avidyAlesha is admitted. If you posit
non-perception, this is DSV. Here avidyAlesha and prArabdha are not
admitted.


//You call it arthavAda and it is just from inferior module of SDV, but
bhAshyakAra without attributing these special adjectives explains true
svarUpa of jagat for which brahman is both upAdAna and nimitta kAraNa.//


BhAshyakAra ke words ko thoda samajhna bhi padega na. He says Brahman is
upAdAna and is immutable. What does it mean? It is through ajnAna.



//All these scenarios have validity only if we assume jnAni would achieve
something supernatural and jnana is something vyavahAra abhAva mysterious
avasthA vishesha jnana…But we don’t say that 😊 It is just bhUta vastu
Vishaya jnana, the realization of what is existing.//


There is no jnAnI as such to decode his behaviour and him attaining
something supernatural. Everything is my imagination. Ramana, VasisTha,
Shankara are my imaginations. What supernatural would my imaginations
attain? In my dreams also, there were many jnAnIs appearing. It proves
nothing. Moksha is awakening from this dream. From the dream perspective,
if it is supernatural, so be it.


I have written a little freely. Apologies if I sounded harsh somewhere.

Regards.