[Advaita-l] dva suparNA

[V Subrahmanian]

One clinching factor that decides whether an entity is saguna brahman or
nirguna brahman is this:

In that particular passage (text) is that entity taught as jñeya or
upāsya?  If the teaching is for instance like: yo veda nihitam guhāyām
so'śnute sarvān ....' it is clear that this is an instruction to know,
realize leading to moksha.  So, this case in the Taittiriya is nirguna
brahman.

Similarly in the Mundaka mantra too, the second bird is taught as the
lakshya, the one to be known, realized. Hence it is nirguna brahman. In the
antaryami brahmanam of Br.up. too it is the mahāvākya that is given out.
This is also nirguna brahman. In BG 18th ch.: Ishvaraḥ sarvabhūtānām ...
also is nirguna brahman only.  That is what is taught in different words in
the Br.up. antaryāmi brahmanam.

Nowhere in such cases is the entity taught as upāsya or leading to krama
mukti.

regards
vs

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 10:42 AM, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,
>
>
>
> Reg  <<  One example that comes to mind is in Taittariya Upanishad 3.8:
>
> स यश्चायं पुरुषे । यश्चासावादित्ये । स एकः।
>
> "He who is in this man, and he that is in the sun there, he is the same."
> >> ,
>
>
>
>  the Bhashya for the above reads as follows.
>
>
>
> << तदेतन्मीमांसाफलमुपसंह्रियते - स यश्चायं पुरुष इति । यः गुहायां निहितः
> परमे व्योम्नि आकाशादिकार्यं सृष्ट्वा अन्नमयान्तम्, तदेवानुप्रविष्टः, सः य
> इति निश्चीयते । कोऽसौ? अयं पुरुषे । >> .
>
>
>
> Translation  ( Sri Mahadeva Shastri )  << He who is hid in the cave in the
> highest heaven ,who , having emanated akasa and the rest in the universe
> down to the physical body ( annamaya ) , has entered into that very
> universe , is here spoken of as “ this one who “ –Who is here referred to ?
> The one in this body ( Purusha ).>>
>
>
>
> Quite clearly Iswara is referred to , This bhashya also reinforces the
> understanding that Sakshi is Iswara only.
>
>
>
> I must reiterate that my understanding continues to be the same as I
> mentioned earlier , that there is no difference between Nirguna Chaitanyam
> and Iswara as an entity , difference being only in the aspect. But I am
> continuing with the discussion as it clarifies our understanding as
> different viewpoints would come come out.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Chandramouli ji,
> >
> > One example that comes to mind is in Taittariya Upanishad 3.8:
> >
> > स यश्चायं पुरुषे । यश्चासावादित्ये । स एकः।
> >
> > "He who is in this man, and he that is in the sun there, he is the same."
> >
> > Others may have other examples.
> >
> > Sada ji,
> > PraNAm. Thanks for the example.
> >
> > Just a thought - not sure if the interpretation is correct. The sarvajna:
> > in that example indicates the "possession" of parA vidyA, and therefore I
> > believe would have to be for mAyA vishishta chaitanyam, not for shuddha
> > chaitanyam?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Venkatraghavan
> > On 14 Nov 2015 15:31, "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,
> >>
> >>
> >> I am continuing with the discussion so that all aspects can be
> >> covered.The issue perhaps can be viewed from another aspect also.I am
> >> presenting it here without any conclusion from my side as my knowledge
> of
> >> sanskrit is poor and the question itself could be wrong. If so I may
> please
> >> be excused. But I do hope to get the answer from knowledgeable persons
> >> here. The Mundaka Bhashya sentence under consideration is << अनश्नन्
> >> अन्यः इतरः ईश्वरो नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावः सर्वज्ञः
> सत्त्वोपाधिरीश्वरो
> >>  नाश्नाति ।  >>. All the qualifying words नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावः ,
> सर्वज्ञः
> >> , सत्वोपाधिः ,  ईश्वरः etc are in masculine gender . ( Hope I am correct
> >> ) . Is Nirguna Chaitanyam referred to in masculine gender anywhere else
> ??
> >> Please clarify.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >>
> >> Chandramouli
> >>
> >> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dear Sri Chandramouliji,
> >>>
> >>> I agree with your analysis below.
> >>>
> >>> I went back to Swamiji's talk - the synopsis is that Brahman and Iswara
> >>> both refer to saguNa chaitanyam in shAstra (as vAchyArtha). For the
> sake of
> >>> communication, AchAryas have formed a convention. We have been using
> Iswara
> >>> for saguNa, and Brahman for nirguNa for convenience.
> >>>
> >>> My question was slightly different - is the use of the terms
> >>> sattvopadhirIshvara and sarvajna in Mundaka BhAshyam pointing to saguNa
> >>> chaitanyam or nirguNa chaitanyam? As Sri Subbuji has explained, both
> terms
> >>> are to be interpreted as referring to nirguNa chaitanyam only.
> >>>
> >>> RE PRB in Vichara Sahara, Swamiji said that in dvA suparNa, the two
> >>> birds are not jivAtma and paramAtma at all. They are referring two
> portions
> >>> of the same jivAtma - chidAbhAsa/manas and sAkshi. So that cannot be
> quoted
> >>> to argue for jivAtma/paramAtma bheda.
> >>> I haven't gotten round to his Brahma Sutra classes, so I don't know
> what
> >>> information he provided 're PRB when he taught 1.2.12.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Venkatraghavan
> >>> On 14 Nov 2015 03:52, "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Dear Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>  I really did not mean understanding the  identity between
> >>>> Brahman/Chaitanyam and Iswara as in the Soham ( identity between
> Chaitanyam
> >>>> and Jiva ) context. That would , in my view , be explaining away the
> issue
> >>>> rather than explaining the issue. Soham is a far more difficult
> concept as
> >>>> we are by  instinct used to consider Jiva and Iswara as entirely
> different
> >>>> entities with all the well known different characteristics. It is much
> >>>> easier with Brahman and Iswara. We are with relative ease comfortable
> with
> >>>> the understanding that both the words refer to the same entity , only
> >>>> difference being the presence or absence of mAyA . mAyA can be
> understood
> >>>> as a visheshana for one and the same entity Chaitanyam. With the
> visheshana
> >>>> , the same Chaitanyam appears as Iswara . There is no change in the
> entity
> >>>> as such. The difference is even less striking when it is recalled
> that mAyA
> >>>> , being ever a kArana vastu  is always unmanifest , its presence being
> >>>> inferred only from manifest kArya vastus . The position is somewhat
> akin to
> >>>> a musician on and off the stage. On stage he is a musician , but off
> stage
> >>>> we consider him as like any of us .
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>  Apart from all this I do agree that it would have been much simpler
> if
> >>>> the same word is used or the same entity in all all places. But that
> >>>> applies to so many other words as well.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>  Incidentally I distinctly remember that SP has covered this aspect of
> >>>> PRB in one of his talks , but I do not remember what exactly was said
> nor
> >>>> where exactly he covered it . In all probability it is in the Vichara
> >>>> Sagara context itself.I am sure you would be able to connect it up.
> When
> >>>> you do , please let me know also.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>  Warm Regards
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>  Chandramouli
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Venkatraghavan S <
> agnimile at gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Sri Chandramouli ji,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you. I will go back and review the relevant section of vichAra
> >>>>> sAgara. As you say, whether AchArya was referring to Brahman /
> Iswara in
> >>>>> different contexts, the understanding ultimately is,  soham.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Venkatraghavan
> >>>>> On 13 Nov 2015 13:08, "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Reg  << "Hence in my view it is sufficient , in understanding the
> >>>>>> Bhashya/Shruti ,
> >>>>>>  to distinguish between Jiva on the one hand and Brahman(
> >>>>>> nirguna)/Iswara(saguna)/Kutastha/Sakshi on the other ( to be
> >>>>>> understood
> >>>>>> contextually and according to individual temperament of the
> sadhaka)."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In general, I would tend to agree with you. Based on the context,
> one
> >>>>>> can
> >>>>>> understand which term is being referred to. However, in this case,
> as
> >>>>>> pointed by you, with respect to the same mantra, ShankarA seems to
> >>>>>> refer to
> >>>>>> a sarvagya Isvara in one place and nirguNa chaitanyam in another. I
> >>>>>> would
> >>>>>> like to understand how to interpret Shankara's seemingly different
> >>>>>> treatment of the second bird in Mundaka vs Paingi Rahasya Brahmana
> (as
> >>>>>> occurring in BSB 1.2.12).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Any thoughts on this would be helpful. >>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  Since you are following Vichara Sagara talks by Swami
> >>>>>> Paramarthananda closely, it is easier for me to answer your
> question better
> >>>>>> by referring you to the relevant portion therein. Please refer to
> topic
> >>>>>> 185, pp 103-105 of the book and the associated talk by SP. I do not
> >>>>>> recollect the talk number. I am sure you are keeping track of it.
> From
> >>>>>> memory , I recall that in his talk SP mentioned that he would give
> the gist
> >>>>>> of issue ( Brahma and Iswara ) at that stage of his talks and that
> he would
> >>>>>> revert back to it at a later stage for more elaborate discussion
> after
> >>>>>>  the entire subject of Vichara Sagara is completed. Otherwise ,
> according
> >>>>>> to him , it is difficult to grasp the full significance of the
> issue.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  The general gist of it is that Mayavishishta Chaitanyam is the
> >>>>>> Vachyartha for the word “ Brahman “ and Mayarahita Chaitanyam is the
> >>>>>> Lakshyartha for the same word. Accordingly  both the words “ Iswara
> “ and “
> >>>>>> Brahma “ lead to the same knowledge/understanding , and should not
> be
> >>>>>> treated as different entities .
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  You may like to refer to the book and talk for clarity.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Chandramouli
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> >>>>>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dear Sri Subbuji,
> >>>>>>> Once again, a fantastic email. We are really grateful for your
> >>>>>>> contributions!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> With respect to the mundaka bhAshyam, by using the terms सर्वज्ञः
> and
> >>>>>>> सत्त्वोपाधिरीश्वर:
> >>>>>>> in describing the second bird AchArya seems to be indeed referring
> to
> >>>>>>> Iswara.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Whereas in Brahma SUtra 1.2.12 by using terms such as
> >>>>>>> "सर्व्सम्सारधर्मातीत:
> >>>>>>> ब्रह्मस्वभाव चैतन्य्मात्र्स्वरूप:" and  "अविक्रियात्
> क्षेत्रग्यस्य",
> >>>>>>> he
> >>>>>>> seems to be referring to nirguNa Brahman.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If it is nirguNa Brahman in both places, why did AchArya use the
> >>>>>>> terms
> >>>>>>> सर्वज्ञः and सत्त्वोपाधिरीश्वर:?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jaldhar ji,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "I think the crucial concept in the two birds metaphor is
> >>>>>>> embodiment.  It
> >>>>>>> is the identification with pleasure and pain (and all the other
> >>>>>>> pairs of
> >>>>>>> dualities) which has made the first bird suffer.  But within the
> >>>>>>> living
> >>>>>>> body there is also calm and freedom which is represented by the
> >>>>>>> second bird
> >>>>>>> and to recognize this will eventually lead the embodied 'I' beyond
> >>>>>>> limited
> >>>>>>> identification with a body."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I agree completely.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Chandramouli ji
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Hence in my view it is sufficient , in understanding the
> >>>>>>> Bhashya/Shruti ,
> >>>>>>>  to distinguish between Jiva on the one hand and Brahman(
> >>>>>>> nirguna)/Iswara(saguna)/Kutastha/Sakshi on the other ( to be
> >>>>>>> understood
> >>>>>>> contextually and according to individual temperament of the
> >>>>>>> sadhaka)."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In general, I would tend to agree with you. Based on the context,
> >>>>>>> one can
> >>>>>>> understand which term is being referred to. However, in this case,
> as
> >>>>>>> pointed by you, with respect to the same mantra, ShankarA seems to
> >>>>>>> refer to
> >>>>>>> a sarvagya Isvara in one place and nirguNa chaitanyam in another. I
> >>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>> like to understand how to interpret Shankara's seemingly different
> >>>>>>> treatment of the second bird in Mundaka vs Paingi Rahasya Brahmana
> >>>>>>> (as
> >>>>>>> occurring in BSB 1.2.12).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Any thoughts on this would be helpful.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>> Venkatraghavan
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:41 AM, V Subrahmanian
> >>>>>>> <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> 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
>