[Advaita-l] Power of Brahman

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:52 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>> The term 'Knower of Brahman' is an oxymoron in Advaita. As it implies two
>> things 'Knower' and 'Brahman'. Do not forget Brahman in Advaita has no
>> kartu-karma virOdha of knowing itself. "na cha agneriva AtmA Atmani
>> viShayaH: "  says Shankara.
>>
>
> The 'knower' is a person in Advaita. He only realizes himself to be none
> other than Brahman. 'Brahmavit Brahmaiva' says the shruti.  Brahman, as the
> assumed jiva, can know Brahman.
>
> Br.Up. bhashya 2.4.14:
>
>  येन विजानाति, तस्य करणस्य, विज्ञेये विनियुक्तत्वात् ; ज्ञातुश्च ज्ञेय एव
> हि जिज्ञासा, न आत्मनि ; न च अग्नेरिव आत्मा आत्मनो विषयः ; न च अविषये
> ज्ञातुः ज्ञानमुपपद्यते ; तस्मात् येन इदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं विज्ञातारं केन
> करणेन को वा अन्यः विजानीयात् — यदा तु पुनः परमार्थविवेकिनो ब्रह्मविदो
> विज्ञातैव केवलोऽद्वयो वर्तते, तं विज्ञातारं अरे केन विजानीयादिति ॥
>
> Translation by Swami Madhavananda:
>
> The knower may desire to know not about itself, but about objects. As fire
> does not burn itself, so the self does not know itself, and the knower can
> have no knowledge of a thing that is not its object. Therefore through what
> instrument should one know the knower owing to which this universe is
> known, and who else should know it? And when to the knower of Brahman who
> has discriminated the Real from the unreal there remains only the subject,
> absolute and one without a second, through what instrument, 0
> Maitreyi, should one know that Knower?
>
>
That is not correct interpretation of munDaka vAkya.

What is the context here? Why are you talking about epistemology (self does
not know itself etc.) ?

When upanishadic  teaches   'brahmaiva bhavati' , what exactly is meant by
that ? Note the power of 'bhavati' a forward looking term. Does it mean
jIvAtman actually becomes Brahman?. Does it mean Brahamn was not there
before one who knows and come into existence after that? Even if you hold
jIva was upAdhi sahita Brahman, that does not hold. Brhamn of Veda never
comes into bondage to begin with in order for you to say Jiva "ralizes" it
is Brahamn. Brahman of Veda never gets into states of ignorance.

Then a question may arise. What does 'brahmatva' for a jeevAtman mean ?. To
attain brahmatva means to reach completeness. 'bRuMhitatva' means
'expanding' , 'growing'. In the state of mOksha, a JivAtman has reached his
maximum potential and nothing more of jnyAna or Ananda can be added to that
state. This is what is meant by 'reaching completeness'.

The pramANa for this interpretation is several, just to quote some samples;

1. The taittirIya upanishad says brahmavid ApnOti paraM (the knower of
brahman attains the highest)
2. brahmatvaM bRuMhitatvaM syAt jIvAnAM na parAtmatA | asvatantrasya
jIvasya kuto nitya svatantratA | iti skAndhE |


Full vAkya of munDaka - VI.9 shruti is like this;

sa yo ha vai tat paramaM brahma veda brahmaiva Bavati nAsyA&brahmavit kule
Bavati |
tarati SokaM tarati pApmAnaM guhAgranthiByo vimukto amRuto Bavati || 9 ||

Correct interpretation is thus;

The one who is fit for shAstra ( स यो sa yO ) who indeed (ह वै ha vai )
gets that knowledge of Brahman, The Highest ( तत् परमं ब्रह्म वेद tat
paramam brahma vEda) he will reach his completeness ( ब्रह्मैव भवति
brahmaiva bhavati ). In his lineage ( अस्य कुले asya kule ) people who are
ignorant of Brahman ( अब्रह्मवित् abrahmavit ) will not be born ( न भवति na
bhavati ). He will cross over all dukha. ( tarati SokaM तरति शोकं ). He
will cross over all his sins. ( तरति  पाप्मानं tarati pApmAnaM). He will
become free ( विमुक्तो vimukto) from all of worldly desires, ignorance, etc
that are stationed in his heart as knots ( गुहाग्रन्थिभ्यो guhAgranthiByo )
and attains mOksha ( अमृतो भवति amRuto bhavati ).



>
> 'Knower of Brahman'  concept applies only in Dvaita (irrespective of once
> accepts Sri. Raghavendra Swamin is one or not).
>
> If someone knows Brahman as 'object' such is not the Upanishadic Brahma
> jnanam.
>

There is no rule that viShya of jnAna cannot be another chaitanya vastu.
Shruti clearly say 'nArayaNaM maha jnEyaM'. Couple this with another
statement 'tad Eva paramaM brahma kavInAM' addressing to NarayaNa. What do
we have at the end? NarayaNa is para-brahman, and such Brahman is (maha)
vishya of knowledge. So?

The rule (Brahman cannot be object of knowledge) is quite invalid and
anti-anubhava and antivedic. Everyone has knowledge of type 'I know
myself'. So the 'object' here 'myself' becomes jaDa?

/sv