[Advaita-l] dva suparNA

[H S Chandramouli]

Sri Siva Senani  Ji and Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,



 It is not only with reference to PRB that Sri Bhagavatpada has interpreted
Kshetragna as referring to Iswara ( and not Brahman as mentioned by Sri
Venkatraghavan Ji ) . Even in BG Ch 13 quoted by Sri Siva Senani Ji , Sri
Bhagavatpada has interpreted the same way in his Bhashya on verse 2 quoted
below.



क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि सर्वक्षेत्रेषु भारत ।
क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोर्ज्ञानं यत्तज्ज्ञानं मतं मम ॥ २ ॥

भाष्यम्

क्षेत्रज्ञं यथोक्तलक्षणं चापि मां परमेश्वरम् असंसारिणं विद्धि जानीहि ।
सर्वक्षेत्रेषु यः क्षेत्रज्ञः
ब्रह्मादिस्तम्बपर्यन्तानेकक्षेत्रोपाधिप्रविभक्तः, तं निरस्तसर्वोपाधिभेदं
सदसदादिशब्दप्रत्ययागोचरं विद्धि इति अभिप्रायः ।



Only if Kshetragna is interpreted as Iswara will the first part of this
verse be meaningful, not if it is interpreted as Jiva.


 My 2 cents view.



Pranams and Regards



Chandramouli

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Sri Siva Senani,
>
> Great email. Thank you.
>
> Adi Shankara Bhagavatpada has a slightly different but nevertheless
> interesting interpretation to the mantra in his Brahma Sutra BhAshyam from
> a Paingi Rahasya BrAhmaNa (PRB) context in his commentary on sutra 1.2.12.
>
> To the pUrva pakshi who argues based on PRB that the birds refer to sattva
> (the eating bird) and kshetragya, Shankara replies by saying that the
> kshetragya here is "not presented here as endowed with such worldly
> qualities as agentship and doership" but is "presented as free from all
> worldly qualities and identical in nature with Brahman Itself" (Sw.
> GambhirAnanda's translation, p.125).
>
> Kshetragya in this context, is Brahman Itself.
>
> Don't want to confuse readers, but thought this was a different reading of
> the word 'kshetragya', to merit attention.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
> On 12 Nov 2015 19:01, "Siva Senani Nori via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > From: Harsha Bhat via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, 12 November 2015 7:37 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Fwd: Knowledge of Brahman
> >
> > Can any one tell ,what adi shankara says for dwe suparne mantra...Or in
> > other words can any one give english translation for dwe suparne mantra
> > from  shankaracharya bhashya..Please..
> > ------------------------
> > Before giving the gist of what Bhagavatpada says, a few words of
> > introduction are in order.
> > First, Saastra should be approached with Sraddhaa, i.e. a belief that
> both
> > the Saastras and Guru (Bhagavatpaada, in the present case) are right and
> > they can help us achieve the ultimate. Without this Sraddhaa, studying
> > Saastras will not achieve any purpose. In other words, their real purport
> > would not be understood. Specifically khanDana etc. should not precede
> > understanding, it should follow understanding. One should first read
> > prakaraNagranthas, understand the broad tenets of Saastra first and then
> > read in depth to appreciate the nuances and then engage with other
> schools
> > so that one's own understanding is tested and strengthened. Of course, if
> > after following a careful routine, if one is convinced that the school
> one
> > studied is flawed and another school is better, one should surely follow
> > whatever one deems best. Even so, what happens when one is in the process
> > of studying, but is confused by other thoughts, by suggestions etc.?
> Should
> > not the forum help? I would advise either isolation of the source of
> > confusion, or a period of purposeful study, rather than engagement with
> > second-hand summaries (it is like learning rocket science from
> Wikipedia).
> > However, still sometimes if it is inevitable, well, here goes the
> > explanation:
> > Second - this is both a preliminary and an introduction to the commentary
> > on the mantra - it needs to be understood that Vedic sentences, in the
> > context of an Advaita vs. Others kind of debate, are of two types:
> > BhedaSruti, emphasising difference, and AbhedaSruti, emphasising
> > non-difference. The existence of these two types of sentences is not
> > disputed by anybody. What happens, is depending on the school, one set of
> > sentences is given primacy and the other set is interpreted so as to
> > conform to one's own siddhaanta. Advaita "explains away" the various
> > bhedaSrutis according to non-Advaitins and the reverse is held to be true
> > by Advaitins. So what is the right interpretation? Obviously one would
> have
> > to take an overall view. Many western scholars, who do not suffer from
> > feelings of inadequacy and are supremely sure of their positions even
> > though they change over time (say Bertrand Russell or Noam Chomsky),
> take a
> > stance that they understand the intent of the Upanishads, of Sutrakara,
> of
> > Bhashyakar and that either the Sutrakara or Bhashyakara (why, even
> > UpanishadkRt in their view) erred, or deviated at such and such places.
> > Traditional scholars, who are more careful, tend to look to tradition
> > because the tradition consists of their wellwishers primarily. That's
> where
> > Sraddhaa comes in.
> > Now in the present mantra, Sankaracarya explains that the two birds
> > referred to are Jiva and Isvara. The same two are described as the
> > Ksharapurusha and Aksharapurusha by Bhagavaan in Purushottamapraaptiyoga
> > (Ch 15, verse 16) of Bhagavadgita. There, it will be recalled, is said:
> > उत्त्मः पुरुषस्त्वन्यः परमात्मेत्युदाहृतः (15.17) -- There is a third
> > purusha called Paramatman = Parabrahman. Here are extracts from the
> Bhashya
> > with  translation:
> > अयं हि वृक्ष ऊर्ध्वमूलोऽवाक्शाखोऽश्वत्थोऽव्यक्तमूलप्रभवः क्षेत्रसंज्ञकः
> > सर्वप्राणिकर्मफलाश्रयः, तं परिष्वक्तवन्तौ सुपर्णाविव
> > अविद्याकामकर्मवासनाश्रयलिङ्गोपाध्यात्मेश्वरौ ।
> > a) Atma, which has for an adjunct [1] a body that is the base for avidyA,
> > desire, karma and vAsanas (subconscious tendencie, or traces of earlier
> > actions) and b) Isvara are like two birds which clutched (embraced) a
> tree,
> > which has roots upwards, branches downwards, is called Asvattha (cross
> > reference BG 15.1 - 3), is born from the source called Avyakta [2], is
> > known as Kshetra (cf. BG 13.4), and is the substrate of the fruits of the
> > action of all creatures.
> > तयोः परिष्वक्तयोः अन्यः एकः क्षेत्रज्ञो लिङ्गोपाधिवृक्षमाश्रितः पिप्पलं
> > कर्मनिष्पन्नं सुखदुःखलक्षणं फलं स्वादु अनेकविचित्रवेदनास्वादरूपं स्वादु
> > अत्ति भक्षयत्युपभुङ्क्ते अविवेकतः ।
> > Of those two who have clutched the tree, one is the Kshetrajna (=Jeeva,
> > cf. BG, Ch. 13) who has resorted to the tree which is of the form of an
> > adjunct, due to lack of discrimination eats, i.e. consumes the fruit
> > Pippala, which is the result of karma, is of the nature of joy (sukham)
> and
> > sorrow (duHkham) and is tasty on account of the enjoyment of various
> > experience, .
> > अनश्नन् अन्यः इतरः ईश्वरो नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावः सर्वज्ञः
> > (सर्व)सत्त्वोपाधिरीश्वरो नाश्नाति । प्रेरयिता
> > ह्यसावुभयोर्भोज्यभोक्त्रोर्नित्यसाक्षित्वसत्तामात्रेण ।
> > The other, the eternal, blemishless, omniscient Isvara who is of the form
> > of consciousness, is liberated, and has (sarva)sattva [=maayaa] as an
> > adjunct, does not consume [the fruit].
> > स तु अनश्नन् अन्यः अभिचाकशीति पश्यत्येव केवलम् । दर्शनमात्रं हि तस्य
> > प्रेरयितृत्वं राजवत् ॥
> > He, the other who is not consuming, only witnesses. Like a king his
> > causal-agency[3] is being merely a witness.[4]
> > RegardsN. Siva Senani
> > [1] Upaadhi = adjunct. Adjunct is something which stands next to it,
> which
> > is not a part of it. For instance, when we say that a crystal has a rose
> > for an adjunct (the crystal, colourless, will actually look red due to
> the
> > rose placed next to it), the implication is that the qualities of the
> > adjunct are superimposed on the thing of interest. Here, the qualities of
> > avidyaa are imposed on Brahman and we call that entity as Jeeva. As Sri
> V.
> > Subrahmanyam pointed out sometime back, Isvara also is Brahman with
> avidyaa
> > as an adjunct. This is the reason, the two birds are called sakhaayau -
> two
> > entities are called sakhA when the reason for their manifestation is the
> > same: it is avdiyaa here.[2] Here avyakta means undifferentiated mAyA,
> also
> > called mUlaprakRti.[3] प्रेरयितृत्वम् = the property of being a
> प्रेरयिता,
> > one who causes. Here the sense is that Isvara causes the result of karma,
> > i.e. Isvara is the reason every creature per force suffers or enjoys the
> > result of its karma.[4] This concept of how Isvara causes the results of
> > Karma - darSanamaatreNa - is what differentiates Vedaanta from the
> variety
> > of Purvamimaamsaa which does not admit of God, or where Isvara has no
> role
> > either in creation (they don't admit creation, for the world is
> > beginningless for all that we know), sustenance (every one begets the
> > result of his Kama, and Isvara has no role) or dissolution (they don't
> > admit dissolution).
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>