[Advaita-l] Whether darkness is bhava - Vivarana Prameya Samgraha of Shri Vidyaranya

[V Subrahmanian]

While commenting on the mantra सत्यं च अनृतं च सत्यमभवत् ”satyam cha anRtam
cha Satyam abhavat’ (Taittiriya Up. II.6) Sri Shankaracharya says: satyam =
vyavaharavishayam since this is being mentioned in the context of ‘sRishti’
of the world. He adds: this is not paramArthasatyam (absolute reality)
since Brahman alone indeed is paramArtha satyam. This vyavaharavishayam
satyam is only Apekshikam, relative, empirical.
He explains: when compared to the water in a mirage, the water (that we
actually use for drinking, etc.) is real. This is what is meant by
‘vyavaharika satyam’.
That which is not thus real is anRtam, unreal.
सत्यं च व्यवहारविषयम्, अधिकारात्, न परमार्थसत्यम्; एकमेव हि परमार्थसत्यं
ब्रह्म । इह पुनः व्यवहारविषयमापेक्षिकं मृगतृष्णिकाद्यनृतापेक्षया उदकादि
सत्यमित्युच्यते । अनृतं च तद्विपरीतम् । किं पुनरेतत् सर्वं सत्यमभवत्
परमार्थसत्यम् ।//satyam cha vyavahaaraviShayam, adhikArAt, na
paramaarthasatyam; ekameva hi paramaarthasatyam Brahma. iha punaH
vyavahaaraviShayamaapekShikam mRgatRShNikAdyanRtaapekShayA udakAdi
satyamucyate. anRutam cha tadvipareetam. kim punaretat sarvam satyamabhavat
paramArthasatyam…//

>From the above bhashya we understand that even the anRta, like mirage
water, shuktr-rajatam etc. is also bhAvarUpa. The mantra says: Brahman
'became' all this. Only hare's horn is not admitted as bhAvarupa as it is
abhAva, atyanta abhava. That is why this category has not been included by
the above shruti. Bhavarupa does not also mean paramarthika satyam.

regards
subbu

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 11:01 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshu ji
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > 1. //Shankara clearly says that tamas, included in the list and tejas as
> > well...constitute the adhidaivatam and that they are all devatas // You
> > mean tamas i.e. the outside darkness itself is the adhidaivata?
>
>
>
> Every adhidevatA has an adhibhautika aspect. This adhibhautika aspect too
> is bhAvarUpA. That adhibhautika aspect does not physically constrain them
> like in the case of lower beings like human beings. We are asked to face
> the physical Sun and address him with mantras etc. So the physical or
> adhibhautika aspect of a devatA is inseparably associated with him. At the
> same time, the devatAs can assume forms and teach and be taught like Surya
> was taught by Krishna (in a previous incarnation) and Surya taught
> Yajnavalkya and Manu etc.
>
> For many of us, it's easier to conceive of the inseparable connection
> between this physical Universe as a whole and the 'devatA' viz., VirAt,
> whose form we are experiencing. He pervades this physical universe but can
> also assume specific forms in certain contexts of Bhaktapur and rishis etc
> . Each devatA is an aspect of this One cosmic devatA and enjoys a similar
> *inseparable* connexion with some adhibhautika entity like sUrya, manas,
> tamaH, dik etc.(whether sthUla or sUxma).
>
> When
> > Prithivi does not refer to the astronomical prithivi, then how can tamas
> > refer to the outside darkness? Tamas represents Mritya devata. That is
> > quite clear.
>
>
>
> When this physical Earth is worshipped or in some cases
> exploited/disrespected, then Prithvi devatA is worshipped or in those other
> cases disrespected. Prithvi devatA is not unrelated to the physical
> Prithvi, as you suggest. It's only that they (devatAs) have the power to
> assume anthropomorphic forms at will. That's why they are exalted and not
> merely physically constrained  like humans who 'live in' bodies. Since
> Shruti is not just doing  anuvAda of physical realities, the word Prithvi
> in Shruti  is not referring merely to the adhibhautika physical Earth but
> it refers to the adhidevatA aspect whose adhibhautika manifestation is
> experienced by us as this physical Earth.
>
> >
> > 2. The question is whether a devata must necessarily refer to a positive
> > objective entity. There is no such rule. For example direction.
>
>
> Are you suggesting that direction (dik), is also abhAvarUpA? In the shrauta
> paramparA, dik is also bhAvarUpa (it is experienced positively as 'ayam
> daxiNah paxaH' etc., as Subbuji mentioned) and it's devatAs are ishAnan,
> niRRta etc.
>
> This word bhAvarUpa does not mean it has to be something grossly
> objectifiable like chairs etc. The sUxma entities like manas etc are
> apanchIkRta and yet they represent the  adhibhautika aspect of  a devatA.
> It's  not as if the  adhibhautika  aspect of an adhidevatA has to be only
> be made of pancIkRta bhUtas like in the case of the physical Sun etc. As I
> understand, both tamaH and dik are bhAvarUpa and they have adhibhautika
> (darkness and direction) and adhidaivika aspects. So your example of dik
> only shows that dik and tamas are both bhAvarUpas.
>
>
> Om
>
> Raghav
>
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>