Adhyasa-Adhyropa discussion (stages of speech)

[Guest guest]

Dear Chittaranjanji,

 

I do not know about the stages of speech and related subjects well,

but I will try to say a few things since it is an important subject to

examine.

 

"The Vedas say that this universe was created by speech. What is

created is the 24 tattvas starting from ahamkara, chitta, manas,

buddhi down to prithvi. So, speech (name) is prior to manas."

 

This is correct, but here speech is used in an abstract sense and not

connected with the unifying aspect of nama.

 

The question is, what stage of speech gives an object like a table get

its unity? As you say, it has to be a stage where nama has emmerged.

It cannot be at the Paravak since at this stage of speech, the table

has no unity since there is no nama-rupa yet.

 

So now we must ask, the table's unity, which is given by nama, is it

given in pashyanti or madhyama stage? I would say it is given in

pashyanti stage since madhyama is thought-construct but generally the

unitariness of objects is recognized even in the absence of specific

thought-constructs. However, by your own admission, the pashyanti

speech arrises in the mind. Arrising in the mind, the the particular

instance of pashyanti speech is very subtle mental activity, and is

encompassed within the mind. Since it is at pashyanti level that the

unitariness of a table evolves, and pashyanti is encompassed by the

mind, I don't see any reason why one shouldn't say that the mind gives

the nama, therefore unitariness of the table. If the mind wern't

there, nama-rupa couldn't arrise as pashyanti speech (because where

could it arrise in the absence of mind?) and the table would not have

unitariness,

 

I'm not sure if this makes any sense,

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Rishi-ji,

 

 

advaitin, "risrajlam" <rishi.lamichhane@g...>

wrote:

> I do not know about the stages of speech and related

> subjects well,

 

That is okay. I was not knowing about these stages of speech until

quite recetly when I came across the Vakhiyapadiyam of Bhartrahari.

Then I realised that it was expaining in greater detail the

conditions of speech that Sri Shankaracharya mentions in the bhashya

to one particular sutra if the Brahma Sutras. The most exciting part

of the entire discovery was that Bhartrahari started his exposition

of speech with the following verse:

 

vivartate rthabhavena prakriya jagato yatah

 

The explanation provides illumination to the phenomenon by which

manifestation takes place without the actual birth of the object (or

the world). Vivarta is the coming into being of objects which remain

essentially aja or unborn. It illuminates the principle or power of

the word to unfold in such a way that ajatavada is subsumed in the

principle of vivartavada. Maya is then the birth of that which is

always already born which is another way of saying that it is aja.

 

> "The Vedas say that this universe was created by speech. What is

> created is the 24 tattvas starting from ahamkara, chitta, manas,

> buddhi down to prithvi. So, speech (name) is prior to manas."

>

> This is correct, but here speech is used in an abstract sense

> and not connected with the unifying aspect of nama.

 

By abstract we mean a concept that is 'abstracted' from

the 'concrete' thing of the world. The concept of a thing in the mind

we call 'abstract' and the 'real' thing in the world we

call 'concrete'. When we think of a table, for example, we say that

what is in the mind is an abstract notion of the table. But this

abstract notion is nothing but a table. What differs between the

table in the mind (which we call an abstract notion) and the table in

the world is not a difference with respect to the table as an object

but it is a difference with respect to the modality through which the

same table is made manifest in two ways. This difference in modality

pertains to the modality of cognition and not to the difference in

the object. In one the cognition takes the form of imagination and in

the other it takes the form of perception. It is this difference that

is pointed out by the Upanishad as relating to the spheres of Vishva

and Taijasa. Since the object remains as the same object irrespective

of the modality through which it is manifested, the unity of the

object is not detrimented in any way.

 

> The question is, what stage of speech gives an object like

> a table get its unity? As you say, it has to be a stage

> where nama has emmerged. It cannot be at the Paravak since

> at this stage of speech, the table has no unity since there

> is no nama-rupa yet.

 

But there is nama-rupa even in paravak. It is unfolded and is

anahata - it is the unstruck nama-rupa in the great Silence of

Brahman.

 

> So now we must ask, the table's unity, which is given by

> nama,

 

The name does not give unity to the object. The name is a unity and

therefore it corresponds to a unitary meaning. That unitary meaning

of the name is the unitary object. By saying that the name gives

unity to the object, it is not meant that the unity gets created by

virtue of the name; it only means that the name being one, it

proceeds like the arrow that goes to its target which is also one

(the object). But this oneness of the name and the oneness of the

object is always prsistent in Brahman. It is also called Ritam and is

the basis of dharma.

 

But your question is not completely misplaced. You are referring to

the cognition of oneness rather than the inherent oneness of the

object. Asking such questions is important to extricate oneself from

the idealistic notions that we normally come to have when trying to

understand Advaita. Advaita is the illumnation of principles in the

Self and also the nature of Brahman's Maya to display these eternal

principles in the three modalities. The three modalities are sleep,

dream and waking. The names for these three modalities are A, U and M

and together (as the unity of AUM) they represent the Oneness of

Brahman in which the three are One.

 

> is it given in pashyanti or madhyama stage? I would say it

> is given in pashyanti stage since madhyama is thought-construct

> but generally the unitariness of objects is recognized even

> in the absence of specific thought-constructs. However, by

> your own admission, the pashyanti speech arrises in the mind.

> Arrising in the mind, the the particular instance of pashyanti

> speech is very subtle mental activity, and is encompassed

> within the mind. Since it is at pashyanti level that the

> unitariness of a table evolves, and pashyanti is encompassed

> by the mind, I don't see any reason why one shouldn't say

> that the mind gives the nama, therefore unitariness of the

> table. If the mind wern't there, nama-rupa couldn't arrise

> as pashyanti speech (because where could it arrise in the

> absence of mind?) and the table would not have unitariness,

>

> I'm not sure if this makes any sense,

 

 

It does make sense. But it all relates to the cognition of the unity

of objects and not to the essential unity of objects which are always

existing in Brahman as the Divine Ritam. Ritam is called the Lower

Prakriti of Brahman. When the Higher Prakriti of Brahman is Known the

Lower Prakriti is completely known because there is no second entity

apart from the Higher Brahman. It is Brahman, one without a second,

and it is to be known as Purnam, says the Upanishads.

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan