Guest guest Posted October 1, 2007 Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 Several members have given very informative notes on vyAvahArika. I wish to add a few points. We have to make a distinction between 'vyAvahArika plane' and 'vyAvahArika standpoint'. We are all in the vyAvahArika plane. The upanishads which speak about brahman are also in the vyAvahArika plane. All teachings, all discussions, all relationships such as teacher and disciple, are also only in the vyAvahArika plane. Not only this world, but all the higher worlds, including brahmaloka are within the vyAvahArika plane. SrI Sankara says in his bhAshya on gItA 8.16 that brahmaloka is also limited by time. In the pAramArthika plane there is no SAstra, no guru, no Sishya. There is only brahman and there is no one even to say that there is nothing other than brahman. But even though we are in the vyAvahArika plane, we can speak from the vyAvahArika standpoint as well as the pAramArthika standoint. When we accept the existence of the world and when we speak of brahman as the cause of the universe or as the witness of the actions of the jIvas we are speaking from the vyAvahArika standpoint. From the pAramArthika standpoint brahman is pure consciousness without any attributes. It is not a cause nor a witness because we can speak of a cause only in relation to an effect and we can speak of a witness only when there is some thing to be witnessed. When there is nothing other than brahman there is neither effect nor cause and neither witness nor any thing to be witnessed. From this standpoint we cannot even say that it is all-pervading because there is nothing else for it to pervade.brahman is described as omniscient, omnipotent, etc., only when it is associated with mAyA and so that is only from the vyAvahArika standpoint. The upanishads speak about brahman from both the standpoints. When it speaks of brahman with attributes, that is, brahman associated with mAyA, it is speaking from the vyAvahArika standpoint. When the upanishad speaks about brahman without attributes it is speaking from the pAramArthika standpoint. As far as nirguNa brahman is concerned, the taittirIya upanishad says that " words as well as the mind recede from it without reaching it " . This is because words can, by their primary meaning, denote only substances which have either a quality, or an activity, or a relationship with some other known substance. brahman has no such quality, etc., and so it vannot be denoted by the primary meaning of any word. It is because of this that lakshyartha or implied meaning has to be resorted to for getting the meaning of the mahAvAkyas such as 'tat tvam asi'. brahman is described as satyam, jnAnam, anantam--- existence, consciousness, infinite, in the taitt.up. but it has been explained by SrI Sankara in his bhAshya that these words do not describe brahman in a positive manner; they only say that brahman is different from all that is unreal, all that is insentient, and all that is finite. Thus brahman can be spoken of from the pAramArthika standpoint only in a negative manner. Another instance of such a description is the words " neti, neti " , which mean that brahman is different from everything that we experience in the universe. Here brahman is described by the method of adhyAropa and apavAda---superimposition and negation. SrI Snkara says in his bhAshya on br. up. * **2.3.6.*:-- How is it sought to describe brahman, the Truth of truth? By the elimination of all differences due to limiting adjuncts, the words " Neti, neti " refer to something that has no distinguishing mark, such as name, form, action, heterogeneity, species or qualities. Words refer to things through one or more of these marks. But brahman has none of these distinguishing marks. Therefore it cannot be described as, " It is such and such " , as we can describe a cow by saying, " There moves a white cow with horns " . brahman can be described only by the superimposition of name, form and action. When, however, we wish to describe its true nature, free from all differences due to limiting adjuncts, the only way is to describe it as –not this, not this. It mustbe said that even the mahAvAkya 'tat tvam asi " and the other mahAvakyAs are also from the vyAvahArika standpoint. From the pAramArthika standpoint there is no 'tvam' or jiva different from brahman and so there can be no such statement where the identity of two entities is postulated. S.N.Sastri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2007 Report Share Posted October 3, 2007 When we accept the existence of the world and when we speak of brahman as the cause of the universe or as the witness of the actions of the jIvas we are speaking from the vyAvahArika standpoint. From the pAramArthika standpoint brahman is pure consciousness without any attributes. It is not a cause nor a witness because we can speak of a cause only in relation to an effect and we can speak of a witness only when there is some thing to be witnessed. When there is nothing other than brahman there is neither effect nor cause and neither witness nor any thing to be witnessed. From this standpoint we cannot even say that it is all-pervading because there is nothing else for it to pervade.brahman is described as omniscient, omnipotent, etc., only when it is associated with mAyA and so that is only from the vyAvahArika standpoint. praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji Hare Krishna Yes, shankara in sUtra bhAshya clearly says Ishwara's attributes like omniscience, omnipotence etc. etc. are valid only in vyAvahArik plane, but in reality parabrahman is nirguNa & nirvishEsha. In short we can say vyAvahArika view point is nothing but the *view of ignorance* in which we distinguish the knower and known (pramANa-pramEya drushti). vyavahAra in a broader sense includes not only thought & expression but also our behaviour based upon them. If I see a snake in place of rope & run away due to fright, it is called mithyA vyavahAra, while seeing rope as rope or treating the actual object as it is in saMyag vyavahAra or right behaviour. But as you said in your mail, the ultimate shAstra drushti is that all our ideas, speech & conduct are based on lOka vyavahAra due to our wrong identification of ourselves with BMI. Because of this wrong identity, we invariably makes the distinction between pramAtru & pramEya. Hence shankara says in adhyAsa bhAshya *sakala loukika & vaidika vyavahAra including mOksha is avidyAtmaka... I think, to understand shankara vEdAnta, clear understanding of these two different view points are very much essential...Shankara beautifully explains these two view points in gIta bhAshya (18 -17). While on the subject, I would like to mention here, the state of sushpti also to be analysed from these two different view points to arrive at two different conclusions... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.