[Advaita-l] reply to sadanandaji's queries

[Antharyami]

Hari Om,
Sadanandaji,

*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)

* 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.

-- 
Antharyami
[J.Devanathan]