Just for a change

[Guest guest]

Adding heat to the issue Swami Vidyaranya takes a completely different

stand sponsoring the view to claim `Iswaro Narayanakya iti

niyamanasya stiti hetutvarupatvAt Visno tatAtvAt anEnAntharyAmi

Saguna Brahma svarupam iti Spastam'. Please throw more light on

these points please.

With Narayana Smrti,

Devanathan.J

 

Dear shri Devanathan,

In the bhAshya on Br. up. 3.8.12. Sri Sankara says;

nityaniratishayajnAnashaktyupAdhiH

AtmA antaryAmI Ishvara ucyate.

" The Self with the power of eternal and exceptional knowledge as upAdhi is

called antaryAmi and Ishvara " . He is therefore saguna brahman.

 

In Br. Up. 3.7.3—bhAshya it is said:--

 

Such an Isvara, called Narayana, who controls the deity of the earth, from

within is the antaryami about whom you have asked.

 

Here also the antaryAmi is saguna brahman.

 

Moreover, the general understanding is that there can be a witness (sAkshi)

only when we postulate some thing to be witnessed. So there can be a sakshi

only when the existence of the world is postulated. Similarly there can be

an Inner controller (antaryAmi) only when there is some thing to be

controlled. We can associate the world only with brahman associated with

mAyA and not pure brahman. The world is a pariNAma of mAyA. So what we see

as the world is brahman with mAyA as upAdhi.

 

 

 

Moreover, the jIva is defined as antahkaraNa-visishTa-caitanyam.

The sAkshi is antahkaraNa-upahita-caitanyam.

 

So sAkshi must have an upAdhi.

Please give the exact references of the statements which you say support the

view that sAkshi or antaryAmi is unconditioned brahman, so that we can

examine them further.

S.N.Sastri