On Bramhan,ParamAtma and BhagavAn Features of Gaudiya VaishNavas

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha Para-bramhaNE namaH

SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaH

 

namO nArAyaNa!

 

Dear devotees,

 

Appended is aDiyEn's reply to a devotee who is a Gaudiya

VaishNava, but is open-minded to learn our siddhAnta and

switch-over if he finds it as the right siddhAnta.

 

There are many contradictions in GV/ISKCON books regarding their

philosophical standpoints on some issues. For instance, their

concept of " Impersonal Bramhan " equated to the effulgence from

Lord's divine-body is also equated with the " Attributeless

Bramhan " of advaitins. aDiyEn has pointed out couple of instances

wherein the latter idea is stated in ISKCON's Bhagavad-GIta.

aDiyEn has listed lots of questions to ponder over by a GV to

state what is their siddhAnta. It will be useful for the SVs also

who are knowledged in GV siddhAnta as a ready reckoner to converse

with learned GVs. It will surely put them in back-seat with certain

inherent difficulties in their siddhAnta + various ISKCON Books with

contradictions etc. In the end, the explanation for a verse in

SrImad BhAgavatam is given as per our PUrvAchArya. That verse is

the pramANa which they cite for their siddhAnta of the existence of

three different aspects of Supreme Reality as BhagavAn,ParamAtma

and Impersonal Bramhan. It is abundantly clear that the explanation

to that verse by SrI BhaktivEdAnta SwAmi of ISKCON / GVs in general

is no-where near what the verse actually conveys.

 

Archives contain more information on GVs siddhAnta in contrast

with what that of Ours.

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan.

---------------------------

Dear ....,

 

Thanks for your information regarding the " Impersonal Bramhan " of

GVs. But, there are many instances wherein SrI PrabhupAda conveys

that " Impersonal Bramhan " of GVs is the " Attributeless Bramhan "

conceived by advaitins. For instance, kindly look into BG 12.5

wherein he writes " ....There is evidence in the Vedic Literature

that worship may be saguNa and nirguNa - of the Supreme possesing

or not possesing attributes. ... " . The purport clearly drives home

this point and also look into 12.1 purport.

 

Anyway, whether its the attributeless bramhan of advaitins Or

as you have explained, both are not acceptable as explained by SV

AchAryas. I am aware of how Bramhan is translated in various places

by GV AchAryas.

 

The light emanating from Lord's body is a property of the

Suddha-Sattva tattva {in being luminous}. But that light by itself

is not a part of the " Bramha tattva / Supreme Tattva " . The

statements like " NArAyaNa is Siva " , " NArAyaNa is InDra " , " NArAyaNa

is Anand " and " Anand is NArAyaNa " , " Siva is NArAyaNa " are all vaild

and follows from SarIra-SarIri relation as these are SamAnAdhikaraNa

sentences <Sanskrit Grammar>. From the former statements, one can't

conclude that Siva,InDra and Anand are other aspects of Supreme

Reality and that they are of the same tattva of Bramhan. Lord

KrishNa lists various things like " I am Skanda " , I am this and

I am that ..... As long as difference exists between two substances,

they are only different. Their identity can be said only by applying

the SarIra-SarIri bhAva {internal implicit relation} due to their

inseparable nature as a Substance and its inseparable attribute.

----------------

 

Please do ponder over the following questions :

 

Do GVs accept that all these three features of

Supreme Reality (SR) are eternal ?

 

What is exactly the ParamAmta feature < Is it the all pervading

jn~Ana with all kalyANa guNas Or only the four-handed feature of

SR seated in the body of various species => Not all-pervading ? >.

Does it mean that only after PraLaya the ParamAtma manifestation

comes into play ?

 

What is the substance " Impersonal Bramhan " ? Is it also basically

" jn~Ana " , but with limited other attributes {ie.devoid of kalyANa

guNas etc} Or is it " light " {tEjas} ? <The counterpart of " prAkruta

tEjas " is " suddha-sattva tEjas " > Or Is it the " Attributeless

Bramhan " as postulated by advaitins ? Or It is also exactly

BhagavAn in all aspects, but a jIvAtma in realizing only certain

attributes of BhagavAn, conceives BhagavAn to be the " Impersonal

Bramhan " and later, if a jIvAtma understands much more attributes

of BhagavAn, it will realize that the substance is actually

" BhagavAn " and not merely " Impersonal Bramhan " with limited

attributes as it understood before ?.

 

What is the substance BhagavAn ? Is it jn~Ana with various

attributes/Saktis like ParamAtma feature,Bramhan feature,Chit,achit

...Or Is it jn~Ana with all these attributes/Saktis, but essentially

non-different from its Saktis too ?

 

What is the exact definition of Sakti <ex:What is meant by

jIvAtmas are a particular type of Saktis of BhagAvan - If this is

an acceptable statement> ? How are BhagavAn and Sakti related ? Is

Sakti a relation that exists between BhagavAn and other Substances

like JIvAtma ? Or Is it that the very substances like jIvAtma etc

are themselves the Saktis? - If so how are BhagavAn and these

Saktis related ? Why are they called as Saktis of BhagavAn ?

Is Sakti same as Bh.RAmAnuja's definition of " SarIra " ? If not,

how does it differ ?

 

What is " acintya-bhEda-abhEda " ? If bhEda implies the difference

in the essential nature of the substances like SR,chit and achit,

What is implied by the " abhEda " aspect ? Is it because BhagavAn

and His Saktis are basically non-different, though they are treated

as different with different essential natures of thier own ? - If

so what is the nature of such treatment ? - Is it that a jIvAtma

conceives only the difference due to its association with mAyA

while there is non-difference too simultaneously between a substance

and its attributes ? Or Is it because of the non-separable nature

of the Substance and its attributes, that the abhEda statements can

be understood using the samAnAdhikaraNam principle of Sanskrit

{Interpretation of ViSishTAdvaitins} ? Why is the relationship

between BhagavAn and His Saktis " achintya " (inconceiveble) - Is it

because both are different and simultaneously non-different in

their essential nature {ie. A logical Contradiction Or

Impossibility exists in calling two different substances as even

essentially same and non-different => Achintya ; ex: If one says

that Flower and its attribute smell are different due to their

essential nature and equally non-differnt too due to their

essential nature - Its logically not possible}. If BhagavAn and His

Saktis are only non-different in their essential nature, whats the

need of calling the relationship as " achintya " , when it is easily

conceivable ? Inconceivability Or achintyatvam arises only when

there is a logical contradiction.

 

What is meant by Lord and His Names are non-different ?

Are they non-different in their essential nature Or Is it that

due to their potency of cleansing our sins etc they are said so ...

With the understanding that Holy Name is achEtana consisting of

Sabdas and it is again Lord who through it grants the needed

potency ?

 

What is meant by Lord and His Divine-Form are non-different? When

SAstras say " Lord's eyes are beautiful " , " He has a beautiful body "

etc, it automatically implies two substances - Lord and His

Body/eyes, with Lord being the possesor of the latter. Is Lord and

say His eyes are essentially same ?

 

Is it that Supreme Reality (SR) in association with a particular

Sakti is cognized as " BhagavAn " , and SR with another Sakti is

cognized as " ParamAtma " etc {ie. SR + one of its specific Sakti

is BhagavAn etc}, Or Is it that BhagavAn is one Sakti of SR,

ParamAtma is one another Sakti of SR, Impersonal-Bramhan is one

Sakti of SR, chit is one another Sakti of SR etc Or Is it that

" BhagavAn " by Himself is the SR and BhagavAn's various Saktis are

ParamAtma,Impersonal Bramhan, Chit etc ?

 

What is meant by devotees in the most advanced stage of ecstacy/

prEma bhakti think that they {ex:Gopis} are non-different from

BhagavAn ? Do they realize their " abhEda " aspect of being

non-different from BhagavAn {ie. Sakti and the Possesor of Sakti

are both different and non-different in their essential nature

=> Now, they realize their non-differenceness, though previously

they experienced the differenceness ?}. If not, what is that

" non-differenceness " experienced ? - The internal relationship

of being a specific Sakti of BhagavAn Or Essentially same as

BhagavAn ?

 

Since in SrI VaikUNtham/Goloka the maximum ecstacy is obtained,

will all the muktas be immersed in the realization of being

non-different from BhagavAn {as Gopis experienced here itself as

stated by GVs}? If the basic philosophy is that Both Difference

and Non-Difference are equally there in the essential nature

between a Substance and its attribute, {BhagavAn and His Sakti

jIvAtma}, then one as a mukta <with topmost ecstacy> should be

experiencing both these contradicting things simultaneously and not

only one aspect individually; Is it not ?

 

I would like to stop here .....Any position that is taken different

from that of ViSishTAdvaita for the above questions is thoroughly

refuted by various SV AchAryas with many pramANas that the

pUrvapaksham will violate, with good discussion and arguments.

 

-------------------------

 

Reg the SrImad BhAgavatam verse (1.2.11) on BhagavAn, ParamAtma and

Bramhan :

 

vadanti tat tattva-vidaH tattvam yat jn~Anam advayam |

bramha iti paramAtma iti bhagavAn iti SabdyatE || (1.2.11)

 

The following is the summary of what has been rightly explained by

the SrI VaishNava AchArya SrI VIrarAghavAchArya :

 

The previous verse " .....jIvasya tattva-jijn~AsA na arthaH .... "

(1.2.10) states that, the objective of a jIvAtma is

" tattva-jijn~Asa " ie.Knowledge of the " Tattva " / Enquiry into

Tattva. The next verse (1.2.11), states as to which " Tattva " it is.

 

< Note: Basically it is the Bramhan. The very first sUtra in VEdAnta

SUtras state about the " Bramha jijn~Asa " >.

 

anvayam in English :

 

tattva-vidaH : Wise-Men knowledged about this Tattva

vadanti : say

tattvam : tattvam <The jijn~Asa of which is a jIvAtma's

objective>

tat : as that

 

advayam : <advayam :

jn~Anam a-dvayam = advitIyam => No equal Or Superior ;

a-avayam = No avaya-bhEda => No internal

distinctions through various parts {ie.No

distinctions in its essential nature <svarUpa>

anywhere ; ex:Not like a body which has various

distinctions like ear,nose,hand, etc};>

 

<jn~Anam :

jn~Ana svarUpa (DivyAtma-SvarUpa) possesing

jn~Ana (dharma-bhUta-jn~Ana)>

 

advayam jn~Anam => jn~Anam which is advayam

 

yat : which is

SabdyatE : sounded so

bramha iti : as Bramha <Not the four-headed bramha>

paramAtmA iti : as ParamAtmA

bhagavAn iti : and as BhagavAn.

 

anvayam in Sanskrit :

 

yat advayam jn~Anam bramha iti paramAtma iti bhagavAn iti SabdyatE

tat tattvavidaH tattvam vadanti

 

<The above is the anvayam for Tamil also, which has the same

structure as Sanskrit, as other Indian Languages are. In English,

the verb has to come next to the Subject/sth of that stature,

while in Sanskrit the verb gets placed in the end. So, some to

and fro adjustments needs to be made while changing the anvayam

order of Sanskrit into English>.

 

This verse simply states that the Tattva- The Supreme Entity,

is the " advayam-jn~Anam " , which is denoted by the Sabdas Or words

ParamAtma, Bramhan and BhagavAn. These three words are the SAmAnya

and ViSEsha Sabdas for denoting the Supreme Reality which is

the " advayam jn~Anam " . For instance, in Upanishad statements like

" Sat Eva sOmya idam agra aaseet " , " bramhavA idam agra aaseet " ,

" aatmavA idam agra aaseet " and " ekO ha vai nArAyaNa aaseet " , which

state about the Jagad-KAraNa entity {which existed before PraLaya},

the words Sat, Bramha, aatma and nArAyaNa denote the same entity

which is the Supreme Reality {Note: Bramhan is defined in the sUtra

" janmAdyasya yataH " -Brahman as that from which proceeds the jagat,

gets maintained and dissolved}. " Sat " which means " Existence " can

refer God,chit and achit. Hence, it is a " sAmAnya " {General} Sabda.

Similarly so is the word " Bramhan " which can denote any of the three

entities. " Aatma " can refer both jIvAtma and God-the ParamAtma.

Hence, it is also a sAmAnya Sabda, but " ViSEsha " {Specific} when

compared to " Sat " and " Bramha " . NArAyaNa Sabda is a ViSEsha Sabda,

since it denotes only the Supreme Reality-God. Similarly, in this

verse, Bramhan,ParamAtma and BhagavAn have the sAmAnya-ViSEsha

sambandha, with one being more specific to the other.

 

This verse has nothing to do with the existence of three separate

entities Bramhan, ParamAtmA and BhagavAn as various aspects of

the one supreme-reality, which is defined as the " advayam jn~Anam " .

Upanishads refer the Supreme-Reality as " Bramhan " in many places and

Upa-bramhanas {explanatory texts of brahmaNa-the Upanishads, like

IthihAsa-purANas,pA~ncarAtra} refer the supreme-reality as

" ParamAtmA " and " BhagavAn " too. This fact is used in this verse.

 

Now that the Supreme-Reality is " advayam jn~Anam " , kindly revisit

the questions above on SR,BhagavAn,Bramhan and ParamAtma. More

characterists on this " jn~Anam " are described in Upanishads and

Bramha-SUtras (ex:Which is Satyam,anantam,amalam,aanandam,possesor

of guNas {basically various states of its dharma-bhUta-jn~Anam},

possesor of divine-form etc). While jIvAtma is also " jn~Anam " , it

is only aNu and not vibhu {all-pervading}. There are many other

differences between these two substances.

 

In general, all the entities can be categorized into two as

Dravya ( " Substance " ) and adravya (Non-Dravya and that which can

only be as an inseparable attribute of Dravya). There are totally

six Dravyas viz. ISvara/BhagavAn/Para-Bramhan, jIvAtma,

dharma-bhUta jn~Ana, Suddha-Sattva, Prakruti and kAla. Rest all

are adravyas like sattva,rajas,tamas {the three attributes of

prakruti; The substance Suddha-Sattva which is also called as

" Nitya-VibhUti " is the counter-part of Prakruti in being the

substance with which whole SrI-VaikUNTha is made up of,including

the divine body of Lord; Suddha-Sattva does not have the adravyas

rajas and tamas as its attribute}, Sabda (sound), rUpa(colour),

rasa(taste) etc.

 

For other informations, kindly refer to SrI SMS Chari's

" Fundamentals of ViSishTAdvaita " .

 

I have some tight work in the following days ...Will write

to you again during the Week-End if possible on VishNu-PurANa,

difference between Lord and His Form etc ....

 

regards,

anand.

[Guest guest]

Anand K Karalapakkam wrote:

 

> SrI:

> SrI Lakshminrusimha Para-bramhaNE namaH

> SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaH

>

> namO nArAyaNa!

>

> Dear devotees,

 

A typo :

 

> If BhagavAn and His

> Saktis are only non-different in their essential nature, whats the

> need of calling the relationship as " achintya " , when it is easily

> conceivable ?

 

It should read as :

 

If BhagavAn and His Saktis are only *different* in their essential

nature, whats the need of calling the relationship as " achintya " ,

when it is easily conceivable ?

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> Appended is aDiyEn's reply to a devotee who is a Gaudiya

> VaishNava, but is open-minded to learn our siddhAnta and

> switch-over if he finds it as the right siddhAnta.

>

> There are many contradictions in GV/ISKCON books regarding their

> philosophical standpoints on some issues. For instance, their

> concept of " Impersonal Bramhan " equated to the effulgence from

> Lord's divine-body is also equated with the " Attributeless

> Bramhan " of advaitins. aDiyEn has pointed out couple of instances

> wherein the latter idea is stated in ISKCON's Bhagavad-GIta.

> aDiyEn has listed lots of questions to ponder over by a GV to

> state what is their siddhAnta. It will be useful for the SVs also

> who are knowledged in GV siddhAnta as a ready reckoner to converse

> with learned GVs. It will surely put them in back-seat with certain

> inherent difficulties in their siddhAnta + various ISKCON Books with

> contradictions etc. In the end, the explanation for a verse in

> SrImad BhAgavatam is given as per our PUrvAchArya. That verse is

> the pramANa which they cite for their siddhAnta of the existence of

> three different aspects of Supreme Reality as BhagavAn,ParamAtma

> and Impersonal Bramhan. It is abundantly clear that the explanation

> to that verse by SrI BhaktivEdAnta SwAmi of ISKCON / GVs in general

> is no-where near what the verse actually conveys.

>

> Archives contain more information on GVs siddhAnta in contrast

> with what that of Ours.

>

> aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

> anantapadmanAbhan.

> ---------------------------

> Dear ....,

>

> Thanks for your information regarding the " Impersonal Bramhan " of

> GVs. But, there are many instances wherein SrI PrabhupAda conveys

> that " Impersonal Bramhan " of GVs is the " Attributeless Bramhan "

> conceived by advaitins. For instance, kindly look into BG 12.5

> wherein he writes " ....There is evidence in the Vedic Literature

> that worship may be saguNa and nirguNa - of the Supreme possesing

> or not possesing attributes. ... " . The purport clearly drives home

> this point and also look into 12.1 purport.

>

> Anyway, whether its the attributeless bramhan of advaitins Or

> as you have explained, both are not acceptable as explained by SV

> AchAryas. I am aware of how Bramhan is translated in various places

> by GV AchAryas.

>

> The light emanating from Lord's body is a property of the

> Suddha-Sattva tattva {in being luminous}. But that light by itself

> is not a part of the " Bramha tattva / Supreme Tattva " . The

> statements like " NArAyaNa is Siva " , " NArAyaNa is InDra " , " NArAyaNa

> is Anand " and " Anand is NArAyaNa " , " Siva is NArAyaNa " are all vaild

> and follows from SarIra-SarIri relation as these are SamAnAdhikaraNa

> sentences <Sanskrit Grammar>. From the former statements, one can't

> conclude that Siva,InDra and Anand are other aspects of Supreme

> Reality and that they are of the same tattva of Bramhan. Lord

> KrishNa lists various things like " I am Skanda " , I am this and

> I am that ..... As long as difference exists between two substances,

> they are only different. Their identity can be said only by applying

> the SarIra-SarIri bhAva {internal implicit relation} due to their

> inseparable nature as a Substance and its inseparable attribute.

> ----------------

>

> Please do ponder over the following questions :

>

> Do GVs accept that all these three features of

> Supreme Reality (SR) are eternal ?

>

> What is exactly the ParamAmta feature < Is it the all pervading

> jn~Ana with all kalyANa guNas Or only the four-handed feature of

> SR seated in the body of various species => Not all-pervading ? >.

> Does it mean that only after PraLaya the ParamAtma manifestation

> comes into play ?

>

> What is the substance " Impersonal Bramhan " ? Is it also basically

> " jn~Ana " , but with limited other attributes {ie.devoid of kalyANa

> guNas etc} Or is it " light " {tEjas} ? <The counterpart of " prAkruta

> tEjas " is " suddha-sattva tEjas " > Or Is it the " Attributeless

> Bramhan " as postulated by advaitins ? Or It is also exactly

> BhagavAn in all aspects, but a jIvAtma in realizing only certain

> attributes of BhagavAn, conceives BhagavAn to be the " Impersonal

> Bramhan " and later, if a jIvAtma understands much more attributes

> of BhagavAn, it will realize that the substance is actually

> " BhagavAn " and not merely " Impersonal Bramhan " with limited

> attributes as it understood before ?.

>

> What is the substance BhagavAn ? Is it jn~Ana with various

> attributes/Saktis like ParamAtma feature,Bramhan feature,Chit,achit

> ...Or Is it jn~Ana with all these attributes/Saktis, but essentially

> non-different from its Saktis too ?

>

> What is the exact definition of Sakti <ex:What is meant by

> jIvAtmas are a particular type of Saktis of BhagAvan - If this is

> an acceptable statement> ? How are BhagavAn and Sakti related ? Is

> Sakti a relation that exists between BhagavAn and other Substances

> like JIvAtma ? Or Is it that the very substances like jIvAtma etc

> are themselves the Saktis? - If so how are BhagavAn and these

> Saktis related ? Why are they called as Saktis of BhagavAn ?

> Is Sakti same as Bh.RAmAnuja's definition of " SarIra " ? If not,

> how does it differ ?

>

> What is " acintya-bhEda-abhEda " ? If bhEda implies the difference

> in the essential nature of the substances like SR,chit and achit,

> What is implied by the " abhEda " aspect ? Is it because BhagavAn

> and His Saktis are basically non-different, though they are treated

> as different with different essential natures of thier own ? - If

> so what is the nature of such treatment ? - Is it that a jIvAtma

> conceives only the difference due to its association with mAyA

> while there is non-difference too simultaneously between a substance

> and its attributes ? Or Is it because of the non-separable nature

> of the Substance and its attributes, that the abhEda statements can

> be understood using the samAnAdhikaraNam principle of Sanskrit

> {Interpretation of ViSishTAdvaitins} ? Why is the relationship

> between BhagavAn and His Saktis " achintya " (inconceiveble) - Is it

> because both are different and simultaneously non-different in

> their essential nature {ie. A logical Contradiction Or

> Impossibility exists in calling two different substances as even

> essentially same and non-different => Achintya ; ex: If one says

> that Flower and its attribute smell are different due to their

> essential nature and equally non-differnt too due to their

> essential nature - Its logically not possible}. If BhagavAn and His

> Saktis are only non-different in their essential nature, whats the

> need of calling the relationship as " achintya " , when it is easily

> conceivable ? Inconceivability Or achintyatvam arises only when

> there is a logical contradiction.

>

> What is meant by Lord and His Names are non-different ?

> Are they non-different in their essential nature Or Is it that

> due to their potency of cleansing our sins etc they are said so ...

> With the understanding that Holy Name is achEtana consisting of

> Sabdas and it is again Lord who through it grants the needed

> potency ?

>

> What is meant by Lord and His Divine-Form are non-different? When

> SAstras say " Lord's eyes are beautiful " , " He has a beautiful body "

> etc, it automatically implies two substances - Lord and His

> Body/eyes, with Lord being the possesor of the latter. Is Lord and

> say His eyes are essentially same ?

>

> Is it that Supreme Reality (SR) in association with a particular

> Sakti is cognized as " BhagavAn " , and SR with another Sakti is

> cognized as " ParamAtma " etc {ie. SR + one of its specific Sakti

> is BhagavAn etc}, Or Is it that BhagavAn is one Sakti of SR,

> ParamAtma is one another Sakti of SR, Impersonal-Bramhan is one

> Sakti of SR, chit is one another Sakti of SR etc Or Is it that

> " BhagavAn " by Himself is the SR and BhagavAn's various Saktis are

> ParamAtma,Impersonal Bramhan, Chit etc ?

>

> What is meant by devotees in the most advanced stage of ecstacy/

> prEma bhakti think that they {ex:Gopis} are non-different from

> BhagavAn ? Do they realize their " abhEda " aspect of being

> non-different from BhagavAn {ie. Sakti and the Possesor of Sakti

> are both different and non-different in their essential nature

> => Now, they realize their non-differenceness, though previously

> they experienced the differenceness ?}. If not, what is that

> " non-differenceness " experienced ? - The internal relationship

> of being a specific Sakti of BhagavAn Or Essentially same as

> BhagavAn ?

>

> Since in SrI VaikUNtham/Goloka the maximum ecstacy is obtained,

> will all the muktas be immersed in the realization of being

> non-different from BhagavAn {as Gopis experienced here itself as

> stated by GVs}? If the basic philosophy is that Both Difference

> and Non-Difference are equally there in the essential nature

> between a Substance and its attribute, {BhagavAn and His Sakti

> jIvAtma}, then one as a mukta <with topmost ecstacy> should be

> experiencing both these contradicting things simultaneously and not

> only one aspect individually; Is it not ?

>

> I would like to stop here .....Any position that is taken different

> from that of ViSishTAdvaita for the above questions is thoroughly

> refuted by various SV AchAryas with many pramANas that the

> pUrvapaksham will violate, with good discussion and arguments.

>

> -------------------------

>

> Reg the SrImad BhAgavatam verse (1.2.11) on BhagavAn, ParamAtma and

> Bramhan :

>

> vadanti tat tattva-vidaH tattvam yat jn~Anam advayam |

> bramha iti paramAtma iti bhagavAn iti SabdyatE || (1.2.11)

>

> The following is the summary of what has been rightly explained by

> the SrI VaishNava AchArya SrI VIrarAghavAchArya :

>

> The previous verse " .....jIvasya tattva-jijn~AsA na arthaH .... "

> (1.2.10) states that, the objective of a jIvAtma is

> " tattva-jijn~Asa " ie.Knowledge of the " Tattva " / Enquiry into

> Tattva. The next verse (1.2.11), states as to which " Tattva " it is.

>

> < Note: Basically it is the Bramhan. The very first sUtra in VEdAnta

> SUtras state about the " Bramha jijn~Asa " >.

>

> anvayam in English :

>

> tattva-vidaH : Wise-Men knowledged about this Tattva

> vadanti : say

> tattvam : tattvam <The jijn~Asa of which is a jIvAtma's

> objective>

> tat : as that

>

> advayam : <advayam :

> jn~Anam a-dvayam = advitIyam => No equal Or Superior ;

> a-avayam = No avaya-bhEda => No internal

> distinctions through various parts {ie.No

> distinctions in its essential nature <svarUpa>

> anywhere ; ex:Not like a body which has various

> distinctions like ear,nose,hand, etc};>

>

> <jn~Anam :

> jn~Ana svarUpa (DivyAtma-SvarUpa) possesing

> jn~Ana (dharma-bhUta-jn~Ana)>

>

> advayam jn~Anam => jn~Anam which is advayam

>

> yat : which is

> SabdyatE : sounded so

> bramha iti : as Bramha <Not the four-headed bramha>

> paramAtmA iti : as ParamAtmA

> bhagavAn iti : and as BhagavAn.

>

> anvayam in Sanskrit :

>

> yat advayam jn~Anam bramha iti paramAtma iti bhagavAn iti SabdyatE

> tat tattvavidaH tattvam vadanti

>

> <The above is the anvayam for Tamil also, which has the same

> structure as Sanskrit, as other Indian Languages are. In English,

> the verb has to come next to the Subject/sth of that stature,

> while in Sanskrit the verb gets placed in the end. So, some to

> and fro adjustments needs to be made while changing the anvayam

> order of Sanskrit into English>.

>

> This verse simply states that the Tattva- The Supreme Entity,

> is the " advayam-jn~Anam " , which is denoted by the Sabdas Or words

> ParamAtma, Bramhan and BhagavAn. These three words are the SAmAnya

> and ViSEsha Sabdas for denoting the Supreme Reality which is

> the " advayam jn~Anam " . For instance, in Upanishad statements like

> " Sat Eva sOmya idam agra aaseet " , " bramhavA idam agra aaseet " ,

> " aatmavA idam agra aaseet " and " ekO ha vai nArAyaNa aaseet " , which

> state about the Jagad-KAraNa entity {which existed before PraLaya},

> the words Sat, Bramha, aatma and nArAyaNa denote the same entity

> which is the Supreme Reality {Note: Bramhan is defined in the sUtra

> " janmAdyasya yataH " -Brahman as that from which proceeds the jagat,

> gets maintained and dissolved}. " Sat " which means " Existence " can

> refer God,chit and achit. Hence, it is a " sAmAnya " {General} Sabda.

> Similarly so is the word " Bramhan " which can denote any of the three

> entities. " Aatma " can refer both jIvAtma and God-the ParamAtma.

> Hence, it is also a sAmAnya Sabda, but " ViSEsha " {Specific} when

> compared to " Sat " and " Bramha " . NArAyaNa Sabda is a ViSEsha Sabda,

> since it denotes only the Supreme Reality-God. Similarly, in this

> verse, Bramhan,ParamAtma and BhagavAn have the sAmAnya-ViSEsha

> sambandha, with one being more specific to the other.

>

> This verse has nothing to do with the existence of three separate

> entities Bramhan, ParamAtmA and BhagavAn as various aspects of

> the one supreme-reality, which is defined as the " advayam jn~Anam " .

> Upanishads refer the Supreme-Reality as " Bramhan " in many places and

> Upa-bramhanas {explanatory texts of brahmaNa-the Upanishads, like

> IthihAsa-purANas,pA~ncarAtra} refer the supreme-reality as

> " ParamAtmA " and " BhagavAn " too. This fact is used in this verse.

>

> Now that the Supreme-Reality is " advayam jn~Anam " , kindly revisit

> the questions above on SR,BhagavAn,Bramhan and ParamAtma. More

> characterists on this " jn~Anam " are described in Upanishads and

> Bramha-SUtras (ex:Which is Satyam,anantam,amalam,aanandam,possesor

> of guNas {basically various states of its dharma-bhUta-jn~Anam},

> possesor of divine-form etc). While jIvAtma is also " jn~Anam " , it

> is only aNu and not vibhu {all-pervading}. There are many other

> differences between these two substances.

>

> In general, all the entities can be categorized into two as

> Dravya ( " Substance " ) and adravya (Non-Dravya and that which can

> only be as an inseparable attribute of Dravya). There are totally

> six Dravyas viz. ISvara/BhagavAn/Para-Bramhan, jIvAtma,

> dharma-bhUta jn~Ana, Suddha-Sattva, Prakruti and kAla. Rest all

> are adravyas like sattva,rajas,tamas {the three attributes of

> prakruti; The substance Suddha-Sattva which is also called as

> " Nitya-VibhUti " is the counter-part of Prakruti in being the

> substance with which whole SrI-VaikUNTha is made up of,including

> the divine body of Lord; Suddha-Sattva does not have the adravyas

> rajas and tamas as its attribute}, Sabda (sound), rUpa(colour),

> rasa(taste) etc.

>

> For other informations, kindly refer to SrI SMS Chari's

> " Fundamentals of ViSishTAdvaita " .

>

> I have some tight work in the following days ...Will write

> to you again during the Week-End if possible on VishNu-PurANa,

> difference between Lord and His Form etc ....

>

> regards,

> anand.

>

> Srimate Sri Laksminrisimha Divya Paduka Sevaka

> Srivan Satakopa Sri Narayana Yatindra Mahadesikaya Nama:

>

>