[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] Re: Gaudapada and Shankara say: the world is imagined by the jiva through avidya

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji
Hare Krishna

>  Here is my observation or you can consider it as my doubts since I have yet to see what Sri SSS talks about bAdhAyaM samANAdhikAraNyaM in the context of Atman / brahman as  jagat kAraNa and for the jagat brahman is abhinna material and efficient cause.   

SAmAnAdhikaraNya is defined as सामानाधिकरण्यं नाम भिन्नप्रवृत्तिनिमित्तानां शब्दानामेकस्मिन्नर्थे वृत्ति:। It is a relationship between two words.

>  Please let me know where I can find this definition??  Is it from the same  sUtra adhikaraNa bhAshya you quoted below  i.e. samAnAdhikAraNyaM prapancha pravilApanArthaM??   Or from some other advaitik text / prakaraNa??  

When two words have different pravritti-nimitta, i.e. when two words are used due to different reasons and yet they reside in same object i.e. they indicate the same object, then there is sAmAnAdhikaraNya-sambandha between those two words.  Pitcher is a synonym of pot. We can use either of the two words to indicate a pot. So, if someone says – pitcher is pot, then it is NOT an example of sAmAnAdhikaraNya because the causes of using the words pitcher and pot are not different. SAmAnAdhikaraNya applies only when the pravritti-nimitta of two words are different and yet the words reside in the same object.

>  OK prabhuji, this definition is clear to me.  How about if we say : pitcher/pot is clay??  Or is this assertion out of scope in the context of samAnAdhikAraNa??

When we say “सः अयं देवदत्तः”, then two words सः and अयं are used to indicate same object, Devadatta. However, the reasons for using these two words are different. सः is used to denote
Devadatta-qualified-with-time-t1-and-space-s1
(तद्देश-तत्काल-विशिष्ट-देवदत्त) whereas अयं is used to denote
Devadatta-qualified-with-time-t2-and-space-s2
(एतद्देश-एतत्काल-विशिष्ट-देवदत्त). Thus, it is a situation wherein there is sAmAnAdhikaraNya between the words सः and अयं.

>  Again this definition is also very clear prabhuji, yetaddesha, yetatkAla vishishta person is same as  taddesha, tatkAla vishishta person, perhaps we are pointing to the same Devadatta when he is folding his limbs (t1 & s1) or when he is stretching his limbs (t2 & s2).   We are pointing to same person ignoring or overlooking the t1,s1 & t2, s2 visheshaNas.  If I stretch is example (there is a reason for this, please see below) can we say this is same Devadatta once upon a time was all alone (single) without any recognizable social status but now that same devadatta has become husband to his wife, father of his kids, a teacher  in school etc.  when we remove these visheshaNa-s (lonely and various status) who remains there is 'sAmAnya' Devadatta.  

Badhayam sAmAnAdhikaraNya

A and B are said to be in bAdhAyAm sAmAnAdhikaraNya if the objects denoted by the literal meanings of the words A and B have different ontological status. For e.g. take the statement स्थाणुरयं पुरुषः – This post is a man. Here, a man was taken as a stump. The statement equating post to man does not have mukhya sAmAnAdhikaraNya as the entities denoted by the literal meaning of the word stump and man are different ontologically. Here, it is not a case of lakshaNA. It is a case where the object denoted by the literal meaning of stump is sublated completely and thus the word stump indicates the same entity which is indicated by another word.

>  Yes prabhuji, understood.  Here man is entirely different from post/stump hence ontologically have different status so even though we are saying this is a man but showing the stump. 

Application of sAmAnAdhikaraNya in advaita

In the Shruti “sarvam…..Brahm”, it is clear that there is sAmAnAdhikaraNya.
Now, it needs to be understood as to whether it is bAdha or mukhya. There is no debate here. It is bAdhAyAm-sAmAnAdhikaraNya. 

>  so far you explained very clearly about bAdha and mukhya and at one go, here, I am afraid, at the crucial juncture you hastened to conclude sarvaM is not brahman and brahman is altogether a separate concept (entity)which has nothing to do with sarvaM.   Just curious to know whether there is any concrete reference for us to understand bAdha (stump-man) and mukhya (same Devadatta in different time and space) sAmAnAdhikaraNa to explain in the context of sarvaM and brahman ??

It is just as “this stump is man”. The entity denoted by the literal meaning of the word “sarvam” is sublated completely and the indicated meaning i.e. Brahman is achieved. BhAshyakAra says –  ‘सर्वं ब्रह्म’ इति तु सामानाधिकरण्यं प्रपञ्चप्रविलापनार्थम्.

>  Yes very much true, sarvaM (nAnA) cannot be there in brahman (ekaM) so obviously there is a sound of duality when we say this sarvaM is that brahman.  In sarvAtmabhAva though there is sense of non-difference sarvaM indicates or implies there is difference and Atma implies non-difference. And this abedha is NOT bedha sahishNu abedha.  There is not even an iota of difference in brahman. This point,  we have discussed earlier also.  But whenever we are talking about 'sarvaM' this sarvaM is based on shruti is nothing but brahman, in that sense we are not comparing apple with oranges but talking about pot/pitcher which is nothing but clay.  At the beginning it was (brahma tattva) called by Atman and the same thing is now being called 'that'this' and Atman also.  See Itareya shruti bhAshya for example prior srushti/creation, there remained subject only to one word and one thought namely Atman/brahman (avyAkruta has been equated with brahman in sUtra bhAshya itself); now, after srushti ( in its vyAkruta rUpa) the jagat is available for many words and thoughts and also is available to one and only word and thought, i.e. Atman.  So it is Devadatta only when he is outside the house or sleeping inside the house.  When mind go outward it is sarvAtmabhAva when one realizes his svarUpa it is ekamevAdviteeyaM jnana.  Both svarUpa jnana and sarvAtmabhAva not exclusive to each other it is one and the same.  With this I would like to say, jagat / brahma saMbandha is more of same Devadatta at different times or pot / pitcher is always mrut sAmAnya only even when we are seeing kArya and kArya saMbandhita vyavahAra.  So, samAnAdhikaraNa should not deny the existence of jagat but it sublates the jagatvaM ( or abrahmatvaM or asarvatvaM) of jagat.  So what remains after this bAdhita jnana is brahman only and nothing but brahman.  

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar