[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Extremely powerful reasoning for 'Aham Brahmasmi' in the Bh.Gita

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

One important point:

Whether the chidAbhAsa is mithyA?

Regards.

On Sat, 21 Oct, 2023, 5:07 pm H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namase Sudhanshu Ji,
>
> In my understanding, Chaitanya AbhAsa is not jada (inert). It is as much
> sentient as pratibimba. While Pratibimba is like a red rose in a mirror,
> AbhAsa is like the redness in a crystal. The complete rose is not
> reflected, but certain attributes of the same, namely redness in this
> illustration, appears in the crystal. Same is the case with the two
> different versions in respect of Chaitanya. That does not make AbhAsa any
> less sentient than pratibimba. Both the versions claim sentiency for their
> respective versions. Both are associated with the * I * sense and are
> understood as the प्रमातृ (pramAtRRi), the jIva element in all वृत्तिज्ञान
> (vRRittij~nAna), knowledge gained through the sense organs. This is also
> mistakenly understood as  Kshetrajna in the state of ignorance.
>
> It is this pratibimba or AbhAsa which illumine all objects in  वृत्तिज्ञान
> (vRRittij~nAna), knowledge gained through the sense organs. So how can the
> Chaitanya AbhAsa be understood aa jada (inert) ?.
>
> Reg  what you have mentioned // The chit-AbhAsa in ahamkAra does reveal
> objects but is itself revealed by
> sAkshI. That is to say, sAbhAsa-ahankAra is revealed by
> avidyA-upahita-chaitanya which is sAkshI. The revealing by jIva is known as
> vyavasAya whereas revealing of (jnAta, jneya and jnAna) all three together
> is anuvyavasAya. So, jIva is also known/revealed by sAkshI //
>
> my understanding is different.
>
> Objects are revealed or illumined by the pratibimba or AbhAsa as the case
> may be in all वृत्तिज्ञान (vRRittij~nAna), knowledge gained through the
> sense organs. This knowledge is of the nature // I know the pot //. The
> object *pot* is revealed or illumined by * I * , the pratibimba or AbhAsa
> as the case may be. This is the vyavasAya you have mentioned. But objective
> knowledge is not complete with this. It just ends with the वृत्ति
> (vRRitti). It is momentary. This knowledge is  immediately replaced by the
> next वृत्तिज्ञान (vRRittij~nAna). The first वृत्तिज्ञान (vRRittij~nAna)
> must be registered in the mind. This वृत्तिज्ञान (vRRittij~nAna) itself
> is revealed or illumined by the sAkshi which has for its object jnAta,
> jneya and jnAna all three together. This is the anuvyavasAya mentioned by
> you. वृत्तिज्ञान (vRRittij~nAna) has for its object the vastu, but sAkshi
> j~nAna has for its object वृत्तिज्ञान (vRRittij~nAna) itself. That is
> what is registered in the mind for further processing. Ultimately all
> knowledge is as revealed by the sAkshi only. But in our understanding, we
> mistakenly understand the knowledge to have been revealed by the प्रमातृ
> (pramAtRRi), the jIva.
>
> I believe with this correction, the rest of the issues stand resolved.
>
> This is my understanding.
>
> Regards
>
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 2:04 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Namaste V Subramanian ji,
>>
>> //That the jiva is mithya is agreed. But what is mithya there is the
>> anAtmA, kshetra, aspect. The Chit aspect is Brahman. To say that the
>> kshetrajna is jneya will be conflicting with the 13th chapter, that is my
>> concern. That chapter is there to discriminate the Kshetrajna, Pure
>> consciousness, exemplified by the Ravi analogy in the 33 rd verse. So, it
>> is kevala prakasha svarupa, of the first sentence of the Adhyasa bhashya.
>> The kshetram stands opposed to it and is the 'tamas' of the Adhyasa
>> bhashya. The last verse of the 13th chapter has this message: One has to
>> discriminate oneself from the kshetram (the body mind complex that one had
>> taken to be oneself) and identify oneself as kshetrajna and also know the
>> kshetram to be mithya, abhAvagamana, as the bhashya says. In this scheme
>> the kshetrajna can't be mithya since he is not jneya. Rather he is the
>> prakAsha(ka). This is my understanding.//
>>
>> I am in full agreement with each word of yours if pratibimba-vAda is the
>> model.
>>
>> In the scheme of AbhAsa-vAda only, I had raised my view.
>>
>> Do you think that jIva, in its entirety, is not mithyA even in
>> AbhAsa-vAda?
>>
>> Regards.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>