A discussion with Chitta-ji

[Guest guest]

Ref> Msg.6 of Digest No. 2752

 

Namaste Chittaji:

 

 

 

Your words:

 

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.

 

 

 

A Response to the above:

 

 

 

Thanks very much Chittaji for providing that Part I of the situation. The Part

II of this is given below, to make the picture complete:

 

 

 

While introducing the NaantaH Prajnam.. Mantra 7 of the Mandukya, the Acharya

says: (translation mine only, so please be alert)

 

So'yamaatama, of the nature of both the Ultimately-true and the relatively-true

aspects, called by the name chatushpAd, Its relatively- true nature, a product

of Avidya, similar to the rope-snake etc., which is the pAdatraya, of the nature

of seed-and-sprout. Now, the abIjAtmakam (=the not-being-the-seed-of-Creation

nature of Turiya), Absolutely-true nature (of Atman), of the status of the rope

(of the rope-snake), is being expounded by NEGATING (niraakaranena) the

sthAnatraya (pAdatraya=vishwa, taijasa and praajna) that is similar to the

(superimposed)snake, etc. in the sequel, nAntaH prajnam etc. In the body of the

bhashyam the one-to-one negation of the three paadas, along with some other

intermediary states is stated. End translation.

 

 

 

Only now, after you drew my attention to the part you quoted, and after seeing

the one above quoted by me, I felt that the Upanishad is resorting to the

'AdhyAropa' in So'yamatma chatushpat and its 'Apavaada' in the NaantaH prajnam

mantras.

 

 

 

Chittaji, your words:

 

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.

 

 

 

A response:

 

The 'Adhyaropa-apavaada' nyaya is applicable to this case too. Not quoting for

the time being from any text, let me place before you my understanding of the

method of arriving at the 'aikyam' in Mahavakya, 'Tat tvam asi'. You know this

already, yet a brushing up for my sake. When the Upaadhi-associated Tat and

tvam are sought to be 'unified', there arises the incompatibility of

Sarvajnatvam and Sarvashaktimatvam of the Tat and the kinchijnatvam and

alpashaktimatvam of the tvam. Hence the need for giving up this approach and

take up only the 'shodhita' Tat and shodhita tvam, essentially the Tat and tvam

shorn of the above mentioned upadhis. Then the one Consciousness that is what

the Tat is as well as the tvam is, is arrived at and the aikyam becomes

possible.

 

 

 

Somewhere in the Taittiriyabhashyam there is a statement of Acharya:

Aanantya-pratipaadanaat (?) The delineation of Creation by the Sruti is only

to establish the Aanantyam, infinitude, of Brahman; the Sruti is not interested

in asserting a real creation. Thus, the Taittiriya vakyams,'Yato vaa imaani

bhutani jayante', which is the vishayavakyam for the Janmaadyasya YataH sutram

and the 'Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma, are considered to be the

Tatasthalakshanam and Svarupa lakshanam respectively of Brahman. The former is

not the intrinsic nature of Brahman, only an incidental one. The latter is the

intrinsic nature of Brahman. And that is why the latter is what is retained in

the Aikyam process and the former given up. Again the words, however

unpalatable they may be, 'avidyakruta-upaadhi'.etc. is used in case of

sarvajnatvam, etc. too.

 

 

 

Let me close, Chittaji. Let me swear, there is no malice intended at all. I

felt joy when that 'insight' came to me about the Mandukya mentioned above.

Satsanga is invaluable indeed. In the traditional set up, there is a regular

'chintanam' session. Two or more classmates come together, in the absence of

the Acharya, and take up the concluded topics for a threadbare analysis. That

is found immensely valuable.

 

 

 

Warm regards,

 

subbu

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photos – Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover

Photo Books. You design it and we’ll bind it!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Subrahmanian-ji,

 

Thank you for your insightful reply VS-ji. Let us both move from

adhyaropa to apavada to adhyaropa to apavada to adhyaropa to

apavada....

 

 

advaitin, V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v>

wrote:

 

You quote the following part of the bhashya:

 

"So'yamaatama, of the nature of both the Ultimately-true and the

relatively-true aspects, called by the name chatushpAd, Its

relatively- true nature, a product of Avidya, similar to the rope-

snake etc., which is the pAdatraya, of the nature of seed-and-

sprout. Now, the abIjAtmakam (=the not-being-the-seed-of-Creation

nature of Turiya), Absolutely-true nature (of Atman), of the status

of the rope (of the rope-snake), is being expounded by NEGATING

(niraakaranena) the sthAnatraya (pAdatraya=vishwa, taijasa and

praajna) that is similar to the (superimposed)snake, etc. in the

sequel, nAntaH prajnam etc. In the body of the bhashyam the one-to-

one negation of the three paadas, along with some other intermediary

states is stated. End translation."

 

(The term 'relative truth' is very interesting. I have never seen

half gold. But I've seen half a gold chain. What is true today wont

be true tomorrow. But what is true today will always be true as that

which was true today. There is Advaita and Dvaita in these two

statements, and both statements are true in both darshanas.)

 

VS-ji, I am aware of the part of the bhashya you quote. They don't

mean what you seem to be implying they mean. I will ask you two

questions which when answered will illuminate what the bhashya here

means. The questions are:

 

1. What does the negation of existence mean? Do you know where the

Acharya himself has explained it?

 

2. What does the snake-rope analogy mean? Do you know where the

Acharya himself has explained it?

 

Both these have been answered by the Acharya. Would you be kind

enough to reproduce them and them we shall continue the discussion?

If you wish I will reproduce them.

 

By the way, you did not answer my question on mistaking 'nothing'. It

would have helped to have that clarified when we initerpret vakhyas

such as the text quoted above that use words like 'Avidya'. I now see

how Purushartha-ji's words asking us to arrive at a meeting ground in

these discussions were full of wisdom.

______________

 

And then you say:

 

"The 'Adhyaropa-apavaada' nyaya is applicable to this case too. Not

quoting for the time being from any text, let me place before you my

understanding of the method of arriving at the 'aikyam' in

Mahavakya, 'Tat tvam asi'."

 

 

Are you implying that the Acharya has after all contradicted the

Brahma sutras regarding the material and efficient causality of

Brahman?

 

It is obvious that you (and many others) think that he has. I don't

think that he has. Please answer the questions I have asked above

(quoting the Acharya's words, not your own), and then adhyaropa-

apavada may turn out to have a different meaning than what you are

implying it has. When everything else is negated and only

Consciousness is said to be Existence (as in Sri Shankaracharya's

Nirvana Shatakam, for example) it does not negate even a speck of

dust in the universe. It is however beyond the power of speech to

articulate That Shakti of His, and one has to keep in mind that there

is no such thing as the absolute non-existence of a thing - not even

in Nyaya.

______________

 

 

You say:

 

"Somewhere in the Taittiriyabhashyam there is a statement of Acharya:

Aanantya-pratipaadanaat (?) The delineation of Creation by the Sruti

is only to establish the Aanantyam, infinitude, of Brahman; the Sruti

is not interested in asserting a real creation."

 

Do you mean that the Infinite leaves out creation? What kind of

Infinity is it that needs something to be negated for it to be

infinity? Do you know LOGICALLY how Brahman is realised to be

Infinite by negating creation?

 

Why does the sruti deliberately assert creation which everybody is

anyway seeing only for it to be negated later? Why not simply negate

what everybody sees? There will still be Conscousness left, no?

 

There is a very significant meaning to this deliberate assertion, and

it has a relation to adhyaropa-apavada and tathastha-swaroopa-

lakshanas in such a manner than the Poornatva of tathastha lakshana

is asserted in Brahman as its swaroopa lakshana. That is how Brahman

comes to be seen as Infinite by negating creation. It negates

visheshas, and when a vishesha is negated nothing is negated except a

limitation. But let us now restrict this discussion to Vikshepa

Shakti instead of getting into another topic involving still greater

subtleties. Please answer the two questions I asked above and then we

shall continue the discussion about Vikshepa Shakti (or about Brahman

who She is).

_______________

 

 

VS:

 

Let me close, Chittaji. Let me swear, there is no malice intended at

all.

 

CN:

 

Why do you speak about malice, VS-ji? Did I give you that impression?

Was I impolite? If so, please forgive me, that was not my intention';

neither is there malice in my heart. I think that Felipe, you, Rishi

and Purushartha have brought a New Dawn to this list!

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan