Response to Chittaji's comment (Vikshepa Shakti)

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Subrahmanian-ji,

 

First of all, let me tell you that I have been relishing your posts

on this list, especially since they are imbued with a sense of

bhakti. Then I read your replies to Bhaskar Prabhuji and I realised

that you were a great scholar as well. If I am doing 'battle' here

with you, it is only because I am trying to follow (pathetically of

course) in the footsteps of Sri Hanuman who dared to do battle with

Lord Ramachandra. But Sri Hanuman was a personification of perfect

Vedic speech while I am totally ignorant of the Sanskrit language, a

deficiency of mine (in addition to the many others) that you will

have to bear with.

 

Now with reference to your post 29728....

 

 

advaitin, V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v>

wrote:

 

 

VS:

 

I think the reason for your obvious discomfiture on reading my

tailpiece was caused by your reading the word creating power as

creative power. I was careful in choosing my words.

 

CN:

 

But Subramanian-ji, you were also careful in choosing your words to

avoid placing the creative and the creating power in Brahman. That is

the real cause of my discomfiture. I don't see how the creating power

can be in anything other than That which has the creative power.

 

 

VS:

 

But what I was meaning by creating power, sometimes referred to

as 'srjanaatmikaa shakti', of Avidya was the carrying in its womb the

seed of the to-be-manifested variegated world.

 

CN:

 

Avyakta has a womb? I thought that avyakta was ajnana and Brahman was

the yoni, the womb, of the universe.

 

But if you were to say that avyakta, which is nidra, is the

obstruction that prevents the created world from being seen as

Brahman, then it would make sense to me. Avyakta becomes the seed of

creation only because it is the seed of duality that makes the

created world seem to be a separate thing from Brahman.

 

 

VS:

 

This avyakta state was what I was meaning. Surely this is not a very

desirable state for otherwise the Mandukya would not have gone on to

teach the Turiya as prapanchopashamam shantam shivam advaitam and the

one to be realised as liberating knowledge.

 

CN:

 

True, duality is not a desirable state. It causes undesirable things

like sorrow.

 

(An aside: Duality is not a desirable state, but, ironically, it is

desire (iccha) that is the spring-source from which the Leela of

duality is made to play.)

 

 

VS:

 

The Avyakta carries within it the possibility of shanta-vilakshanam,

shiva-vilakshanam and advaita-vilakshanam.

 

CN:

 

Yes, the state of deep sleep comes to have these vilakshanams, but

they are not within it. Are these vilakshanams the attributes of

avyakta? Isn't it because avyakta is 'nothing' standing between the

jiva and Brahman that the shantatva, Shiva-tattva and advaitatva of

Brahman reflects in the jiva in the avyakta (undifferentiatedness) of

deep sleep?

 

 

VS:

 

What I meant was the need to recognise a causal state prior to

adhyasa which was what was taught in the various verses that I was

referring to.

 

CN:

 

There is adhyasa in the causal state as well. In deep-sleep, the self

is mistaken to be nothing. That is why the Self that is always self-

aware is mistaken to be not-aware in deep sleep. Anyway, I recognise

this causal state, so we shall move on.

 

 

VS:

 

And someone who does not recognise this causal Avidya was going

against the teaching of the scriptures.

 

CN:

 

I agree. We have to recognise it in the matrix of duality.

 

 

VS:

 

I think you are referring to my possible mention somewhere of the

avaranashakti obtaining in sleep state as the cause for the

subsequent vikshepa that the waking and dream states are.

 

CN:

 

Yes, I am. Also, at the cosmological level, the avyakta being the

seed of the duality of the subtle and the gross worlds.

 

 

VS:

 

For the Gaudapada karika 13 of the Agamaprakaranam:

 

Dvaitasya agrahanam...

Bija-nidra-yutaH PrAjnam...

 

Shankara comments:

for the second line, bija nidra-yutaH = tattva-apratibodho nidra =

the non-apprehension of the Truth is nidra. Saiva cha vishesha-

pratibodha-prasavasya bijam = that alone, the nidra, is the seed for

the state characterised by the perception of particularities.

Saa biija nidra, tayaa yutaH praajnaH= the praajna is endowed with

this non-apprehension.

 

CN:

 

I believe you are mixing up the obstructing power that gives rise to

duality with the creating power of Brahman. If you read the quoted

text again, you will see that it refers to the perception of

particularities and not to any creating power of avyakta. A

particularity is the limitedness of sabda-Brahman. So, what you take

to be the creating power of avyakta is essentially the power to

obstruct the infinitude that lies in Brahman, and because of which

only the vishesha (particularity) of the world is seen, whereas the

world that is non-differentiated from Brahman is infinite and nir-

vishesha. Since this avyakta is an obstructing power and not a

creating power, it is fit to be called avaranashakti and not creating

power.

 

 

VS:

 

This is called the avaranashakti as a result of which the vikshepa

occurs.

 

CN:

 

How can light bathe the world as a result of the power of darkness?

If the light was always bathing the world, then the power of darkness

can limit the extent to which the light bathes the world, but not

otherwise. Doesn't Brahman have an inherent power of vikshepa?

 

Shall we look at this vikshepa-avarana again in the light of the

Acharya's bhashya? We both agree I think that vikshepa is the showing

forth of the world. According to sruti, the power to show forth is

Brahman. This power to show forth is eternal in Brahman because the

creating power of Brahman is not different than his omniscience which

is the eternal effulgence of Brahman Itself. How do I say this? I say

it because there are two sutras in the Brahman Sutras specifically on

this topic and Sri Shankaracharya says in the bhashya on these sutras

that Brahman is the material and efficient cause of the universe on

account of His omniscience. Would you, Sri Subrahmanian-ji, be

implying that the Acharya's bhashya has contradicted the sutras on

which the bhashya is supposed to be an explanation? I believe there

is a need for the prasthana-traya bhashyas to be read in their

entirety before we conclude that avaranashakti is the cause of

vikshepa. Yes, I am aware that the Acharya says in some places that

avidya is the cause of creation, but this locution is meant to be

taken only in a secondary sense but not as a negation of the

intrinsic vikshepa shakti of Brahman which is not different than

Brahman Himself. The key words in the text quoted by you

are 'perception of particularities'. So let us look at what Sri

Shankarachrya says elsewhere about visheshas being included in the

samanya.

 

"For all names, the differentiations such as Yajnadatta and Devadatta

springs from it, this generality of names, like particles of salt

from the salt rock. And an effect is not separate from its cause.

Also particulars are included in the general. How does the relation

of general and particulars apply here? It, sound in general, is their

Saman, so called because of sameness. For it is common to all names,

which are its own particular forms. Another reason is that the

particular names, being derived from it, are not different from it.

And we see that something that is derived from another is not

different from it, as a jar, for instance, is not different from

clay." (Br.Up. I, VI,1)

 

Now also read how the Acharya speaks in the Mandukya Upanishad

bhashya (I,2) about Vishva, Taijasa and Prajna merging in Turiya:

 

"In the text, 'This Self is Brahman', this very Self that will be

presented as divided into four parts is being pointed out as one's

innermost Self by the gesture of hand. Sah ayam atma, that Self that

is such, that is signified by Om and exists as the higher and lower

Brahman, is catuspat, possessed of four quarters, like a coin

(karsapana), but not like a cow, As the fourth (Turiya) is realised

by successively merging the earlier three, starting from Visva, the

word pada (in the case of Visva, Taijasa, Prajna) is derived in the

instrumental sense of that by which something is attained, whereas in

the case of Turiya the word pada is derived in the objective sense of

that which is achieved".

 

Notice how the spheres of Vishva, Taijasa and Prajna (the three

quarters) are not negated, but they lose their particularities by

being merged into the Turiya, the fourth quarter.

 

Now let us go back to the interpretation of the Karika bhashya that

you had quoted. It says: "Saiva cha vishesha-pratibodha-prasavasya

bijam = that alone, the nidra, is the seed for the state

characterised by the perception of particularities." Thus, the world

comes to be a created thing by showing forth the limitedness of

particularities (visheshas) by obstructing its infinitude.

 

What does this creation mean? The Acharya says that the omniscience

of Brahman is not different than Brahman Itself because Brahman is

Pure Knowledge. And the omnipotence of Brahman is not different than

His omniscience. Brahman creates not through action, but by the

actionlessness of His omniscience. That is why Lord Krishna says that

He is actionless in His actions. Isn't His actionlessness in creation

the true meaning of His omnipotence - that He creates without any

effort at all?

 

His creation is His intrinsic Nature. Let me give you an example to

illustrate how the vikshepa shakti of the Lord is said to 'act'. It

is like the river that flows. It is the nature of the river to flow.

It is the nature of a dam to obstruct the flow. When the mighty flow

of the river gets blocked by the dam, and only a steam flows out

through its sluice gates, does it mean that the cause of the flow of

the limited steam is due to the obstructing power of the dam? The

nature of flowing is not transferred to the dam even though in a

secondary sense we may say that the dam has caused the flow to become

limited. The power (shakti) of flowing forever belongs to the river

and the shakti of obstructing forever belongs to the dam. Likewise,

vikshepashakti as well as vikshepa forever belong to Brahman, and the

obstructing power forever belongs to avyakta.

 

 

VS:

 

Regarding the 'no thing' that you say about the nidra, I am not very

familiar. This may be perhaps of my normally being 'friendly' with

the Sanskrit terminology. Pl. tell me what it is that you mean, in a

way that I can appreciate it.

 

CN:

 

'No thing' is the English word 'nothing' split into two to make it

clearer (I thought). It should be nothing strange or no strange thing

that the one is the same as the other. :-)

 

 

Brahman is forever growing beyond the horizons of the grasping mind.

That Brahman has Vikshepa Shakti and that She is same as Him should

be nothing strange or no strange thing.

 

Om Namah Shivaya

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Subrahmanian-ji,

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

> When the mighty flow of the river gets blocked by the dam,

> and only a steam flows out through its sluice gates, does

> it mean that the cause of the flow of the limited steam is

> due to the obstructing power of the dam?

 

Please read 'steam' as 'stream'.

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan