Posted by: adbhutam | April 21, 2016

PRAṆĀMA RĀMĀYAṆAM – SANSKRIT-TAMIL

‘Praṇāma rāmāyaṇam’ – Sanskrit – Tamil

The above work, a verse-composition based on the Valmiki Ramayana, authored by Pattamaḍai Sri Subrahmanya Sastriṇaḥ (1830-1910), consisting of 680 verses over the six kāṇḍa-s, was first published in 1970.  Now, the book is republished with a fine Tamil Translation.  This book contains the verses in Devanagari, a Tamil transliteration and a translation by Sri Rāmā Ghanapāṭhinaḥ.    

Since the images cannot be attached to this post, pl. view them here:
Posted by: adbhutam | April 18, 2016

SUTASAMHITA CHANDOGYA UPANISHAT – PART 11

Sutasamhitā Chāndogya Upaniṣat  Part 11
 

The above article is available for reading here:
Posted by: adbhutam | March 23, 2016

A FINE RESOURCE CENTER FOR SĀDHANA

A Fine Resource Centre for Sādhana

 

A friend in Bangalore has prepared a file detailing the resources at his disposal which can be gainfully utilized by sādhakas. The file can be downloaded from the link given below.  Please share the file with your friends and other sites.
Posted by: adbhutam | March 17, 2016

UPANISHAD ARTICLE SERIES – MARCH 2016

Here are two articles in the Upanishad Article series:

The concluding part of the Prashnopanishad:

http://advaita-academy.org/the-prasnopani%E1%B9%A3at-part-17/

Part 10 of the Sūtasamhitā Chandogya Upanishad:

http://advaita-academy.org/the-sutasamhita-part-10/

Posted by: adbhutam | March 13, 2016

THE ALL-PERVADING ADVAITIC BRAHMAN

The Advaitic Brahman is All-pervading

The idea that the Brahman of the Vedanta is all-pervading is well enshrined in the Bhāṣya-s of Shankaracharya.  Here is a short exposition on the topic along with a few peripheral ones too.

In the following blog it is said:

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/search?q=chandrika

//Coming back, the above verse by Sureshvara is a beautiful word play comparing Ganga to Vedantic knowledge, and is also a double entendre on the name ‘Shankara’, which stands for both the name of the Acharya as well as Rudra who bears the Ganga as his crown. So is “padAnuga” too a word play dwelling on two meanings – Ganga’s abiding place (lotus feet of viShNu) as well as the supreme inherent nature (adhiShThAnam)  as nirguNa caitanya that the saguNa brahman (viShNu) abides in (by virtue of sattva upAdhIs).//

Response:

The claim above ‘saguNa brahman (viShNu)’ has no basis in Shankara’s prasthāna traya bhāṣyas. Shankara has very clearly stated in the kāryādhikaraṇa that ‘saguṇam kāryam aparam’ which makes the saguṇa Brahman an effect and lower in status. Nowhere in the bhāṣyas has Shankara stated ‘Viṣṇu’ as an effect, a created one. Nor has he specified ‘Viṣṇu’ to be ‘lower.’

Blog:

//Hence, “padAnugA” refers to that brahma vidyA that “follows” (figuratively, as it were) the reality-consciousness-bliss, the true nature of (viShNor vyApanashIlasya jagatkAraNasya) the saguNa-brahman Lord Vishnu, who is the all-pervading creator of the universe. (nirguNa brahman cannot have attributes such as sarvavyApakatva and jagatkAraNatva).//

Response:

Again, the idea of ‘saguṇa Brahman = viṣṇu’ has no basis in Advaita. Also, the statement ‘(nirguNa brahman cannot have attributes such as sarvavyApakatva and jagatkAraNatva)’ is not a correct representation of Advaita. For instance in the Mundakopanishad 3.2.6 bhashya Shankara says:

 

परामृताः परम् अमृतम् अमरणधर्मकं ब्रह्म आत्मभूतं येषां ते परामृता जीवन्त एव ब्रह्मभूताः, परामृताः सन्तः परिमुच्यन्ति परि समन्तात्प्रदीपनिर्वाणवद्भिन्नघटाकाशवच्च निवृत्तिमुपयान्ति परिमुच्यन्ति परि समन्तान्मुच्यन्ते सर्वे, न देशान्तरं गन्तव्यमपेक्षन्ते । ‘शकुनीनामिवाकाशे जले वारिचरस्य वा । पदं यथा न दृश्येत तथा ज्ञानवतां गतिः’ (मो. ध. १८१-९) ‘अनध्वगा अध्वसु पारयिष्णवः’ (?) इति श्रुतिस्मृतिभ्याम् ; देशपरिच्छिन्ना हि गतिः संसारविषयैव, परिच्छिन्नसाधनसाध्यत्वात् । ब्रह्म तु समस्तत्वान्न देशपरिच्छेदेन गन्तव्यम् यदि हि देशपरिच्छिन्नं ब्रह्म स्यात्, मूर्तद्रव्यवदाद्यन्तवदन्याश्रितं सावयवमनित्यं कृतकं च स्यात् । न त्वेवंविधं ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति । अतस्तत्प्राप्तिश्च नैव देशपरिच्छिन्ना भवितुं युक्ता ॥

//The liberated do not travel to any other place/loka, for any such travel will imply that the jiva is still in samsara.  Since Brahman is infinite, the jnani who has realized his identity with Brahman, also being the Infinite Brahman alone, does not go anywhere upon death.  For, Brahman is not a finite place to be reached/attained.  If Brahman were located in a place then Brahman, being no different from any formed object, will have to have a beginning and end, and be dependent on something else, be made of parts, and ephemeral, and a produced one.  Brahman can never be of this nature.  Thus, the ‘attainment’ of Brahman cannot be involving any locating in some other place.//

In the above commentary Shankara clearly says the Brahman that is ‘attained’ by the Advaitic realization is not finite in space, deśaparicchinnam. This only means that Brahman is ‘all-pervading’, sarva-vyāpakam. Again, in the Kaṭhopaniṣat, where the mantra itself says Brahman is vyāpakam, Shankara says:

 

काठकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । द्वितीयोऽध्यायः । षष्ठी वल्ली । मन्त्रः ८ – भाष्यम्

अव्यक्तात्तु परः पुरुषः व्यापकः, व्यापकस्याप्याकाशादेः सर्वस्य कारणत्वात् । अलिङ्गः लिङ्ग्यते गम्यते येन तल्लिङ्गं बुद्ध्यादि, तदविद्यमानं यस्य सोऽयमलिङ्गः एव च ; सर्वसंसारधर्मवर्जित इत्येतत् । यं ज्ञात्वा आचार्यतः शास्त्रतश्च मुच्यते जन्तुः अविद्यादिहृदयग्रन्थिभिर्जीवन्नेव; पतितेऽपि शरीरे अमृतत्वं च गच्छति । सोऽलिङ्गः परोऽव्यक्तात्पुरुष इति पूर्वेणैव सम्बन्धः ॥

In the above bhāṣya, Shankara says that Brahman, that is realized as oneself for liberation, is both ‘vyāpaka’ (all-pervading) and kāraṇam of everything. In advaita the kāraṇatva of Brahman is admitted also as vivartopādāna kāraṇam where the entire world, the effect, is an appearance of Brahman, the cause just as a rope appears, owing to ignorance, as a snake. So also in the Mundaka bhashyam 1.1.6: सर्वगतं व्यापकमाकाशवत्सुसूक्ष्मम् । [all-pervading…subtle].  Again in the Taittiriya bhāṣyam 2.6.1 Shankara says अमूर्तत्वात्, आकाशादिकारणस्य आत्मनः व्यापकत्वात् । [Atman is formless, the cause of ether, etc. and is pervading].

There are more such instances where the Nirguṇa Brahman is stated to be ‘vyāpakam’ and ‘kāraṇam’. Also, the above instances are not of the saguṇa brahman.  It is only those who have had a long exposure to the Advaita Bhāṣya-s expounded by a qualified Āchārya can discern the instances in the bhāṣya as whether they are saguṇa or nirguṇa describing ones.

So, the blogger’s thinking that these epithets do not apply to Nirguna Brahman (and apply only to saguna Brahman which he erroneously considers to be ‘Viṣṇu’) are not based on the Advaita bhashyam.

Says the blogger: {My responses are in between [… ] } That which is outside the […] are the words of the blog in this section.

// Jnanottama’s commentary continues further thus:

 

yāmevaṃvidhāṃ vidyāṃ gaṅgāṃ ca bhagavatpādācāryaḥ parameśvaraśca yogasāmarthyādavāpa tamācāryaṃ sarvajñaṃ brahmasaṃsthaṃ munigaṇaiḥ sahitaṃ bhaktyā samyagabhyarcya tasmātpravaraguṇanidher ācāryāt tāṃ vedāntadīptāṃ parameśvaraṃ samabhyarcya tasmādbhagīratho vedāntadīptāṃ sitāsite “imaṃ me gaṅge” ityādi vedāntapratipādyāṃ gaṅgāmiva sākalyena ahaṃ prāpya ārthibhyaḥ sakāraṇasaṃsāra nivṛttaye avocam ityarthaḥ

(Jnanottama’s Candrika)

 

Here, a few things are to be noted:

 

  • By comparing Shiva and Adi Shankara and saying both are subordinate to Vishnu, jnAnottama establishes that Shiva is only a realised guru according to advaita tradition.

 

[Nowhere Jnanottama says that ‘Shiva and Adi Shankara are subordinate to Vishnu’ and nor does he establish that ‘Shiva is only a realized guru according to Advaita tradition.’ Such ideas have no basis in Advaita.]

 

It is of no use to say that a realised guru is equal to Brahman, because even according to advaita tradition, these gurus – Shiva and Adi Shankara – are realised because they are saguNopAsaka-s and meditate on Vishnu. Just because they understand thenirguNa tattva does not mean they become saguNa brahman or that their bodies are worthy of meditation in the same manner as saguNa brahman.

 

[There is a mantra (3.2.1) in the Mundakopanishat that the Jnani is to be worshiped by a mumukshu and the fruit of such worship is liberating knowledge/liberation. Shankara has not brought in the ideas of any saguna Brahman there nor has he made any reference to the worship of any ‘antaryāmi’ of the Jnani there. In fact Shankara says, ‘’whoever worships such a Jñānī ‘as one would the Supreme Deva’ ….’’]

 

  • Note that jnAnottama uses “bhagavadpAda”and “parameshvara” as comparable names of Adi Shankara and Shiva. Here, “bhagavadpAda”denotes the jnAna (by the definition of “bhagavAn” in Vishnu Purana) and viShNu-bhakti of Adi Shankara by which he became famously known.

 

[There is no proof for this statement that ‘Shankara became famously known because of Vishnu bhakti’.  In fact Shankara is famously known only as a Hari-Hara abheda and sarva-devatā paratva vādin.  For that matter, one can say that even Sri Vācaspati Misra, the famed author of the Bhāmati, is famously known because of his Shiva-bhakti.]

 

So, a comparison only implies that the name “parameshvara” for Shiva also has the same meaning, ie, Shiva is called “parameshvara” because he has the parama-aishvaryam of jnAna and viShNu-bhakti. Therefore, this “Ishvaratvam” of Shiva is NOT saguNa-Ishvaratva of viShNu, but only in terms of jnAna.

 

[Such ideas may exist in bigoted schools but not in Advaita. Shankara does not make a distinction between ‘parameśwara’ and the jīva:  प्रतिषिध्यत एव तु परमार्थतः सर्वज्ञात्परमेश्वरादन्यो द्रष्टा श्रोता वा ‘नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा’ (बृ. उ. ३-७-२३) इत्यादिना । BSB 1.1.17 (‘The śruti denies the existence of anyone distinct from the Omniscient Parameśvara that is a seer, hearer, thinker, etc.’ That means, for Shankara, the jīva that is appearing to see, hear, think, etc. is verily Parameśvara. एवं मिथ्याज्ञानकृत एव जीवपरमेश्वरयोर्भेदः, न वस्तुकृतः ; व्योमवदसङ्गत्वाविशेषात् । BSB 1.3.19.  जन्ममरणप्रतिषेधेन प्रतिपाद्यमानं शारीरपरमेश्वरयोरभेदं दर्शयति ; BSB 1.4.6.  एवं प्राप्ते, ब्रूमः — आत्मेत्येव परमेश्वरः प्रतिपत्तव्यः । तथा हि परमेश्वरप्रक्रियायां जाबाला आत्मत्वेनैव एतमुपगच्छन्ति — ‘त्वं वा अहमस्मि भगवो देवतेऽहं वै त्वमसि भगवो देवते’ इति ; तथा अन्येऽपि ‘अहं ब्रह्मास्मि’ इत्येवमादय आत्मत्वोपगमा द्रष्टव्याः ।BSB 4.1.3 ‘One should realize the Parameśvara as oneseḷf, the ātman. Thus in the context of the parameśvara the Jābāla upaniṣad says: ‘you indeed am I, O, Devatā, I am indeed you.’ Other teachings such as ‘aham brahma asmi’ are to be thus understood in this light.’ So, for Shankara, such instances where the Advaitic realization is had, the term Parameśvara means the nirguna chaitanyam, non-different from the true nature of the jīva.]

 

Therefore, when Shankara uses the term “sarvaj~na Ishvara” in the kenopaniShad for Shiva, he implies that Shiva is a realised guru due to hisjnAna and not that he is saguNa Ishvara.//

 

[In fact, in the BG 15th ch. end there is the word ‘sarvavit’ which is an epithet for the Jnani.

यो मामेवमसंमूढो जानाति पुरुषोत्तमम् ।
स सर्वविद्भजति मां सर्वभावेन भारत ॥ १९ ॥

भाष्यम्

यः माम् ईश्वरं यथोक्तविशेषणम् एवं यथोक्तेन प्रकारेण असंमूढः संमोहवर्जितः सन् जानाति ‘अयम् अहम् अस्मि’ इति पुरुषोत्तमं सः सर्ववित् सर्वात्मना सर्वं वेत्तीति सर्वज्ञः सर्वभूतस्थं भजति मां सर्वभावेन सर्वात्मतया हे भारत ॥ [Here Shankara holds the jnāni to be sarvajna, on the words of the Lord.]

 

In Mandukya kārika 4.89 for the word ‘sarvajna’ Shankara has commented that ‘the Jnani, verily Jñānam,  is ‘all’ and verily ‘jña’, pure consciousness: स्वयमेव आत्मस्वरूपमेव सर्वज्ञता सर्वश्चासौ ज्ञश्च सर्वज्ञः, तद्भावः सर्वज्ञता]

 

The terms ‘Īśvara, parameśvara, sarvajña, etc.’ are tricky ones in Advaita.  Only with long practice and keen attentiveness one discerns the exact sense in which these are used in the particular instances in the bhāṣya-s. The above two particular instances are proof of the fact that the word ‘sarvajña’ need not mean the omniscient saguṇa Brahman. And there is no reason to disbelieve that Shankara is indeed referring to Shiva (Īśvara) as ‘sarvajña’ to mean the Lord of the universe as he has specified Umā, the brahmavidyā svarūpiṇi, as the one who is ever present with her spouse.

Om Tat Sat

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by: adbhutam | March 2, 2016

SHANKARA’S CONCEPTION OF A ‘VAIṢṆAVA’

Shankara’s conception of a ‘vaiṣṇava’

An article on the above topic is available here for download:

Posted by: adbhutam | February 29, 2016

WORD CANNOT ILLUMINE BRAHMAN

The Kenopanishat 1.5 and the Bhashyam make it clear that ‘word’, ‘vāk’ cannot illumine Brahman:
Kenopanishat 1.5
यद्वाचानभ्युदितं येन वागभ्युद्यते ।
तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते ॥ ५ ॥
5     That which cannot be expressed by speech, but by which speech is expressed—That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here worship.
The bhashya too makes it clear that ‘vāk’, word, which is itself illumined by Brahman, that is, the expressing of the word is possible by the power, light, that is Brahman, is unable to illumine Brahman . 
The Vedic word is also no different from any other word, since the vedic word is also a group of letters.  The uttering of the vedic word is also on the same mechanism as the worldly word. The mimamsa dictum: य एव लौकिकाः शब्दाः त एव वैदिकाः [‘Those that are the worldly words, they alone are the vedic words’] is accepted by the Vedantins too. 
The above declaration of the Kenopanishat, apart from the other passage ‘ ‘न तत्र वाग्गच्छति..’ [’words do not contact/reach Brahman’] of this very upanishat, and the Taittiriya upanishat ‘यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह’ [‘from whence (Brahman) words, along with the mind, recede’], however does not preclude the Vedic words from teaching about Brahman. Shankaracharya has shown that the upanishads succeed in bringing about the knowledge of Brahman in the intellect of the aspirant by the method of adhyāropa and apavada. Since words, according to vyakarana, can be only of the ones that indicate action, attribute, species (and sambandha), the vedic words of this nature show Brahman with attributes. However, the Veda itself uses the method of neti neti to negate all these attributes, kriya, sambandha in Brahman. Thus, by this method the Veda teaches Brahman. 
The essential logic involved here is: All that is illumined by Brahman, is anātmā.  The word is also anātmā. Anātmā, which has to depend on the illumination, sattā-sphūrti, of Brahman, do not have the power to illumine Brahman. Also, Brahman, being sva prakāśa, does not require the word to illumine it. Words only help in removing the āvaraṇa, enveloping, that prevents us from realizing Brahman. That is done on the method of adhyāropa-apavāda by the Veda.     
One can consult a standard translation to understand the purport of Shankaracharya’s bhashya on the above mantra of the Kenopanishat.
regards
subrahmanian.v
      

भाष्यम्

‘अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि’ (के. उ. १-४) इत्यनेन वाक्येन आत्मा ब्रह्मेति प्रतिपादिते श्रोतुराशङ्का जाता — कथं न्वात्मा ब्रह्म । आत्मा हि नामाधिकृतः कर्मण्युपासने च संसारी कर्मोपासनं वा साधनमनुष्ठाय ब्रह्मादिदेवान्स्वर्गं वा प्राप्तुमिच्छति । तत्तस्मादन्य उपास्यो विष्णुरीश्वर इन्द्रः प्राणो वा ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति, न त्वात्मा ; लोकप्रत्ययविरोधात् । यथान्ये तार्किका ईश्वरादन्य आत्मेत्याचक्षते, तथा कर्मिणोऽमुं यजामुं यजेत्यन्या एव देवता उपासते । तस्माद्युक्तं यद्विदितमुपास्यं तद्ब्रह्म भवेत्, ततोऽन्य उपासक इति । तामेतामाशङ्कां शिष्यलिङ्गेनोपलक्ष्य तद्वाक्याद्वा आह — मैवं शङ्किष्ठाः । यत् चैतन्यमात्रसत्ताकम्, वाचा — वागिति जिह्वामूलादिष्वष्टसु स्थानेषु विषक्तमाग्नेयं वर्णानामभिव्यञ्जकं करणम्, वर्णाश्चार्थसंकेतपरिच्छिन्ना एतावन्त एवंक्रमप्रयुक्ता इति ; एवं तदभिव्यङ्ग्यः शब्दः पदं वागित्युच्यते ; ‘अकारो वै सर्वा वाक्सैषास्य स्पर्शान्तःस्थोष्मभिर्व्यज्यमाना बह्वी नानारूपा भवति’ (ऐ. आ. २-३-६) इति श्रुतेः । मितममितं स्वरः सत्यानृते एष विकारो यस्याः तया वाचा पदत्वेन परिच्छिन्नया करणगुणवत्या — अनभ्युदितम् अप्रकाशितमनभ्युक्तम् । येन ब्रह्मणा विवक्षितेऽर्थे सकरणा वाक् अभ्युद्यते चैतन्यज्योतिषा प्रकाश्यते प्रयुज्यत इत्येतत् । यत् ‘वाचो ह वाक्’ (के. उ. १-२)इत्युक्तम्, ‘वदन्वाक्’ (बृ. उ. १-४-७) ‘यो वाचमन्तरो यमयति’ (बृ. उ. ३-७-१०) इत्यादि च वाजसनेयके । ‘या वाक् पुरुषेषु सा घोषेषु प्रतिष्ठिता कश्चित्तां वेद ब्राह्मणः’ इति प्रश्नमुत्पाद्य प्रतिवचनमुक्तम् ‘सा वाग्यया स्वप्ने भाषते’ (?) इति । सा हि वक्तुर्वक्तिर्नित्या वाक् चैतन्यज्योतिःस्वरूपा, ‘न हि वक्तुर्वक्तेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यते’ (बृ. उ. ४-३-२६) इति श्रुतेः । तदेव आत्मस्वरूपं ब्रह्म निरतिशयं भूमाख्यं बृहत्त्वाद्ब्रह्मेति विद्धि विजानीहि त्वम् । यैर्वागाद्युपाधिभिः ‘वाचो ह वाक्’ ‘चक्षुषश्चक्षुः’‘श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रं मनसो मनः’ (के. उ. १-२) ‘कर्ता भोक्ता विज्ञाता नियन्ता प्रशासिता’ ‘विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म’ (बृ. उ. ३-९-७)इत्येवमादयः संव्यवहारा असंव्यवहार्ये निर्विशेषे परे साम्ये ब्रह्मणि प्रवर्तन्ते, तान्व्युदस्य आत्मानमेव निर्विशेषं ब्रह्म विद्धीति एवशब्दार्थः । नेदं ब्रह्म यदिदम् इत्युपाधिभेदविशिष्टमनात्मेश्वरादि उपासते ध्यायन्ति । तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि इत्युक्तेऽपि नेदं ब्रह्म इत्यनात्मनोऽब्रह्मत्वं पुनरुच्यते नियमार्थम् अन्यब्रह्मबुद्धिपरिसंख्यानार्थं वा ॥
Posted by: adbhutam | February 25, 2016

UPANISHADS DENY ANY ABSOLUTE FORM FOR BRAHMAN

Upanishads deny any absolute form for Brahman

 

In the Kathopanishad we have this mantra:

न संदृशे  तिष्ठति रूपमस्य न चक्षुषा पश्यति कश्चनैनम् । हृदा मनीषा मनसाऽभिक्लृप्तो य एतद्विदुरमृतास्ते भवन्ति ॥ 2.3.9 ॥
The bhashyam:  कथं तर्हि तस्य अलिङ्गस्य दर्शनमुपपद्यत इति, उच्यते — न संदृशे संदर्शनविषये न तिष्ठति प्रत्यगात्मनः अस्य रूपम् । अतः न चक्षुषा सर्वेन्द्रियेण, चक्षुर्ग्रहणस्योपलक्षणार्थत्वात्, पश्यति नोपलभते कश्चन कश्चिदपि एनं प्रकृतमात्मानम् । कथं तर्हि तं पश्येदिति, उच्यते — हृदा हृत्स्थया बुद्ध्या, मनीषा मनसः सङ्कल्पादिरूपस्य ईष्टे नियन्तृत्वेनेति मनीट् तया मनीषा विकल्पवर्जितया बुद्ध्या । मनसा मननरूपेण सम्यग्दर्शनेन अभिक्लृप्तः अभिसमर्थितः अभिप्रकाशित इत्येतत् । आत्मा ज्ञातुं शक्य इति वाक्यशेषः । तमात्मानं ब्रह्म एतत् ये विदुः अमृताः ते भवन्ति ॥
The upanishad says that Brahman/Atman is not an object for ocular perception.  It has no form. By extension, it is not an object of any perception, of touch, nose, sound and taste. These are specifically denied by another mantra of the upanishad:
अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययं तथारसं नित्यमगन्धवच्च यत् ।
अनाद्यनन्तं महतः परं ध्रुवं निचाय्य तं मृत्युमुखात्प्रमुच्यते ॥ १५ ॥ 1.3.15
The first cited mantra says,therefore, the way to know, realize, Brahman is only through the prepared mind, a subtle, pointed, intellect.
Shankara reasons that the form, space, sound, etc. are transformations of the elements and thus are not there in Brahman which transcends elements. Anything formed is finite and undergoes transformations and therefore perishable, as it is only owing to be created it can have any form.
It is only because of this, that all hold Brahman to be the object of the pramana called the veda, It being atīndriya. It Brahman had form, etc. then there would be no need for the veda, for it would be within the grasp of the sense organs.
There is a name ‘aprameya’ occurring in the Vishnu sahasra nama: 46. The word means: He who is not an object for any pramana.  Shankaracharya’s commentary:
Inline image 2
There is another name: anirdeśyavapuḥ  117. Shankara says:
Inline image 1
Vishnu cannot be pointed out to anyone (by anyone) as ‘this is that’.
The Shvetashvataropanishat 4.20 too teaches that Brahman has no form, similar to the Kathopanishat seen above:
Inline image 3
Inline image 4
 The Kathopanishat also teaches:
अशरीरं शरीरेषु अनवस्थेषु अवस्थितम्. महान्तं विभुमात्मानं मत्वा धीरो न शोचति ( Kathopanishat 1.2.22)

n the above we find that the Upanishad is categorical about Brahman not having a form.  None can ‘see’ Brahman with the physical eye.  One can however ‘know’ that it is Brahman that appears as the vishvarUpa.  Again, one can know through the disciplined mind that Brahman which is without any form whatsoever.

However, as Shankara says in the BSB, Brahman/Ishwara can and does take on a form, any including the ones spoken of above, to bless/help an aspirant in his sadhana.:

स्यात्परमेश्वरस्यापि इच्छावशात् मायामयं रूपं साधकानुग्रहार्थम् । (1.1.vii.20) (Ishwara, out of compassion, takes on, by His Maya, a form to grace the spiritual aspirant.)

Thus, the true aspirant of Brahma jnana, who is also a true bhakta, as per Shankara, is quite well aware, on the basis of the Upanishads and yukti, that Brahman has no form and, therefore, no name as well.  The primary logic here being that that which is not an object at all, but the very subject, cannot be a indriya grāhya vishaya.  A name is given only to differentiate an object from all other objects. Since Brahman is no object at all, the question of its having an absolute name is also ruled out. This is the understanding of the Vedantic sadhaka.
Om Tat Sat
Posted by: adbhutam | February 23, 2016

THE JABALOPANISHAT IN THE SHĀNKARA BHĀṢYA

The Jābālopaniṣat in the Bhāṣya of Shankaracharya
 An article on the above topic is available here for download:
Posted by: adbhutam | February 15, 2016

UPANISHAT ARTICLE SERIES – FEB 2016

Upanishat Article Series  – Feb. 2016

The links to  the articles are –

Prashonopanishat

http://advaita-academy.org/the-prasnopani%e1%b9%a3at-part-16/

Chandogyopanishat from the Sūtasamhitā:

http://advaita-academy.org/the-sutasamhita-part-9/

Older Posts »

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 76 other followers