Ravi Kiran ravikiranm108 at gmail.com
Mon Aug 21 02:49:25 EDT 2017

```Thanks for the deliberation, Sri Venkatraghavanji

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Sri Ravi Kiran ji,
>
> The typical prakriya involved in the perception of a bhrama is that the
> ajnAna located in the consciousness delimited by the object is the upAdAna
> kAraNa for the bhrama.
>
> Here the siddhikAra wants to establish that adhyAsa can be substantiated
> in DSV too. So he proved that shukti ajnAna is the upAdAna kAraNa for
> shukti rajata bhrama in DSV.
> Now,
> 1) The drishti srishti prakriyA does not differentiate between vyAvahArika
> and prAtibhAsika satya.
> 2) Thus shukti also must have some ajnAna as its upAdAna kAraNa.
>

I got stuck in point 2 above, as in case of bhrama (shukti rajata), it can
be told - shukti ajnAna is kAraNa for rajata bhrama

In case of shukti perception ( prAtibhAsika satya and not a bhrama), shukti
jnAna alone could be its upAdAna kAraNa

> 3) Because of jnAtaikasatta in DSV, the jnAna of a vastu also implies its
> existence.
> 4) Thus shukti jnAna also can be said to be the upAdAna kAraNa of shukti.
> 5) Therefore ajnAna (from 2) = jnAna (from 4).
> 6) Because it would be absurd to say shukti ajnAna = shukti jnAna, or some
> unrelated object's ajnAna, say, ghaTa ajnAna = shukti jnAna, we have to
> admit the ajnAna from 2 is brahma ajnAna.
>

This above point 6, clarified my doubt.. agree with the rest of your line
of thought.

> 7) If we do that, we do differentiate between vyAvahArika vastu which has
> brahma ajnAna as its upAdAna kAraNa and prAtibhAsika which has
> brahmAtirikta ajnAna as its upAdAna kAraNa. This is contrary to 1.
>
> Not only that, as the upAdAna kAraNa is different, the bAdhaka jnAna for
> vyAvahArika (brahma jnAna) is also different from the bAdhaka jnAna for
> prAtibhAsika (shukti jnAna).
>
> How is this any different from SDV, which uses the same reasons to justify
> sattA traividhyam?
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On 21 Aug 2017 3:37 a.m., "Ravi Kiran" <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste  Sri Venkatraghavan Ji
>>
>> One clarification below:
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
>>
>>> Thank you for the lovely explanation, Anand ji.
>>>
>>> If we accept shukti ajnAna as the kAraNa for rajata, what is the kAraNa
>>> for
>>> shukti?
>>
>>
>>> Is it shukti ajnAna or brahma ajnAna?
>>>
>>
>> shukti ajnAna (and rajata jnAna) is kAraNa for rajata, but how is, shukti
>> ajnAna be kAraNa for shukti perception/experience, or to consider, shukti
>> ajnAna as one of the options above ? (in general, ajnAna of a thing be the
>> cause for that thing? )
>>
>> Isn't it shukti jnAna kAraNa for shukti ? (though,  brahma ajnAna is the
>> kAraNa for *all* that is seen in DSV)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>>> a) *If it is shukti ajnAna*, then there are three things we must consider
>>> 1) as the same ajnAna can lead to either result, what leads to shukti in
>>> one instance and rajata in another?
>>> 2) How does the nedam rajatam bAdha happen, because both the shukti and
>>> rajatam have the same kAraNa, shukti ajnAna? To explain, I am seeing a
>>> bhrama rajatam now due to shukti ajnAna. Normally, as long as the kAraNa
>>> exists, the kArya must exist too. So as long as shukti ajnAna exists,
>>> shukti rajatam must exist too. As shukti ajnAna is kAraNa for shukti too,
>>> then how does the same cause destroy one effect and create the other?
>>> 3) if shukti ajnAna leads to shukti, and that shukti leads to shukti
>>> jnAna,
>>> then as shukti jnAna and shukti ajnAna are virodhi, it is like saying the
>>> cause creates an effect that destroys itself. Is such a thing possible,
>>> is
>>> it not a upajIvya virodham?
>>>
>>> b) *If it is brahma ajnAna*, then as shukti is born out of brahma ajnAna
>>> and shukti rajata is born out shukti ajnAna, then it does differentiate
>>> between the bhrama and bAdhaka jnAna pair, and the shukti rajata and
>>> shukti
>>> pair. The first element of each pair is prAtibhAsika, the second element
>>> vyAvahArika.
>>>
>>> Some things to consider.
>>> Regards,
>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>
>>> On 20 Aug 2017 4:45 a.m., "Anand Hudli via Advaita-l" <
>>>
>>> Shri Venkatraghavanji,
>>>
>>> >>
>>> Excellent post. If the shukti was not existing when the rajatam was seen,
>>> then is it shukti ajnAna that leads to rajata bhrama? Or is it brahma
>>> ajnAna?
>>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> shukti-ajnAna does lead to the bhrama of rajata, although both rajata and
>>> the bAdhakajnAna "nedaM rajatam" are prAtibhAsika. In fact, the
>>> pUrvapakShin raises another objection based on this, to which the answer
>>> given is that the bAdhakajnAna does not have to be of a higher order of
>>> reality to cancel the bAdhya.
>>>
>>> >>
>>> Alternatively, given we are in  drishTi sriShTi prakriyA, is it drishTi
>>> that
>>> leads to shukti rajata sriShTi, and not shukti ajnAna? Thus as far as
>>> this
>>> prakriyA is concerned, there is no difference between shukti rajatam and
>>> rajatam.
>>> >>
>>> It seems to me that due to the prAtibhAsika nature of everything (save
>>> Brahman), the "sting" is taken out of adhyAsa. It is almost like bhrama
>>> jnAna just being replaced by the bAdhaka jnAna, having no "Aha!" moment
>>> of
>>> realization. This is perhaps explained by the fact that a DSV follower is
>>> person, negating a mundane illusion such as silver-nacre does not hold
>>> much
>>> value. The nacre is not any more real than the illusory silver.
>>> PrakAshAnanda has a different explanation on page 170 of the English
>>> translation. According to him, the person in question never sees the
>>> illusory object, example snake in place of a rope. He sees the rope but
>>> due
>>> to being "bhrAnta", he thinks it is a snake. To the question, "Did he
>>> never
>>> see a snake at all?" (tatkiM sarpaH na pratipanna eva?), he answers,
>>> "Undoubtedly!" But this against experience, since one feels he/she saw a
>>> snake where in fact, there was a rope. To this, PrakAshAnanda says "this
>>> is
>>> against experience alright but experience of a deluded person." So there
>>> is
>>> no harm done. It is only when something is against experience of an
>>> "abhrAnta" person, it is a problem.
>>>
>>> Anand
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>>
>>> For assistance, contact:
>>> _______________________________________________