[Advaita-l] Anadimatparambrahma

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste.

There is another inconsistency in taking 'anaadi matparam  brahma' to mean
that the Lord is different from the jiva:  In the very second verse of this
chapter it was declared that the kshetrajna, the observer consciousness, in
every kshetram, observed, is none other than the Lord/Brahman/Isvara.
Having established / declared / taught that identity, it would be incorrect
on the part of the Lord to later say that He is the Lord of the eternal
jiva.

//This interpretation also tallies with the Lord's opinion in
BG 7.5 that jiva bhutam is apara prakrti and mamaivamso jivaloke.//

The wording of the verse 7.4 is:

भूमिरापोऽनलो वायुः खं मनो बुद्धिरेव च ।
अहंकार इतीयं मे भिन्ना प्रकृतिरष्टधा ॥

In the above verse the Lord is giving a list of the jaDa prakRti that forms
His lower nature called aparA prakRti.  This name 'aparA prakRti' appears
only in the next verse:7.5 -

*अपरे*यं इतस्त्वन्यां *प्रकृतिं* विद्धि मे पराम् ।
जीवभूतां महाबाहो ययेदं धार्यते जगत् ॥

So, those words 'aparaa prakRti' pertain to the inert things enumerated in
the earlier verse.  Having said that, the Lord proceeds to state what
constitutes His higher nature, parA prakRti:  jIvabhUtAm ....  This word *does
not *refer to aparaa prakRti but only refers to the consciousness principle,
parA prakRti (as distinguished from the insentient jaDa prakRti constituted
of bhUmi, aapaH, ...ahankaara).  The words 'yayaa idam jagat dhaaryate'
means:  The consciousness principle is the one that sustains, validates,
enlivens as it were, the jaDa prakRti, the Lord's lower nature.  Thus the
higher (consciousness) nature is the one that supports the lower (inert)
nature.

In fact, by using the word 'jeeva' here, the Lord signifies that the
observer consciousness , the jiva, is none other than the very higher nature
of Bhagavan. The word 'jeevabhUtAm' means: that which has 'become' (bhUtaa)
jiva.  In Tamil it is expressed as: ஜீவனாக ஆன (ஆகியுள்ள). This itself shows
that it is Brahman that has 'become', 'appearing' as the jiva. ब्रह्मैव
स्वाविद्यया संसरति इव. This observer consciousness is termed 'kshetrajna' in
the first verse of the 13th chapter.  There in 13.2 the Lord says: this
kshetrajna, the observer consciousness, in all kshetrams (inert body-mind
apparatus) is none other than He the Lord Himself.  In other words, the Lord
only reiterates the observer jiva's identity with Him in the 13.2 which He
had already indicated thru the word 'jeevabhUtaam' in the 7.5 verse.
Shankaracharya in the Bhashya to 7.5 explicitly states:  prakRShTaam
jeevabhUtAm = kshetrajna lakshaNaam prANadhaaraNanimittabhUtaam...

The dhAtu 'jeev' has the meaning of 'prANadhAraNa'.  This the Lord says is
His higher nature: parA prakRti.  The word in 7.5 that says that it is His
prakRti is :  मे.  That confirms, from the very words of the Lord, that the
sentient, conscious, observer principle in the world as distinct from the
insentient observed universe is none other than Brahman, ParamAtma.

Thus, verses  7.5 and 13.2 give out the abheda in undisputable terms.
Having so declared, why would the Lord bring out a difference between
Himself and the observer jiva in the 13.12 while teaching the Jneyam Brahman
the knowledge of which will result in liberation?

The verse 15.17 the Lord says:  mamaivaamsho jivaloke....Here the Lord is
teaching that it is His very 'amsha', a reflection, that has *become *the
jiva as kartaa bhoktaa, etc. in samsara.  Even here we can see the word
'jeevabhUtaH' and appreciate the meaning we saw in the above instance. How
can there be a part in Brahman as It is impartite consciousness?  That is no
problem as this 'finitude'  is due to the upAdhi created by avidya.  So,
Brahman's jiva-appearance as a finite samsari is only due to avidya.  Even
here, in this verse, it is only abheda that is taught by the Lord, the
apparent bheda caused only by avidya.

The word 'amsha' has an interesting parallel.  In the Purusha sUktam we have
this mantra: पादोऽस्य विश्वा भूतानि, त्रिपादस्य अमृतं दिवि (His one quarter
part is what is manifesting as the entire universe and its beings and the
other three quarters remain untainted by the universem प्रञ्चोपशमम् as
taught in the Mandukya Upanishad 7th mantra.)  The question arises:  Are
there these four parts in Brahman?  The answer again is:  No, Brahman is
Impartite, prajnAnaghanaH, aanandaghana, chidghana, sattaamaatra shareeram.
Yet, the Veda imposes a part-concept in Brahman just to explain to us that
it is only due to maya, avidya, that Brahman appears as the universe and
that the whole of Brahman is not so 'affected' and the major 'part' of It is
available for seekers as shuddha Brahman.

// The Lord says in 2.61 that a sthitha prajna also meditates on Vasudeva as
the Supreme
(*tani sarvani samyamya* *yukta asita mat-parah* BG 2.61).//

A detailed study (of about 100 pages) focusing on this verse is available as
a pdf in the Advaita L website.  This study has taken up the interpretation
of the dvaita and vishishtadvaita schools as well for a critical analysis.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v