[Advaita-l] Some questions on 'khyAti vAda-s' - Theories of/on Error

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Fri Apr 16 06:07:29 CDT 2010


A new file has been uploaded to the Files section:


The article is by Shri S.N.Sastri ('Sastri-ji').

I would be glad to have replies to the questions I have posed in my original
post on the subject.

Om Tat Sat.

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:31 AM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com>wrote:
> Sir
>   We know of the shaD-darSanas but only see Vedantis around. What happened
> to the followers of sA~Nkhya, yoga, nyAya, vaiSeshika and pUrvamImAmSA? Or,
> the other different 'mata's as expounded in the 20+ bhAshyams to the
> BrahmasUtras?
> Namaste Senani ji,
> The above excerpt from your post (on a different thread) interests me.  For
> long, I have been having some questions :
> We have popularly five khyAti vAda-s: Theories of error.
> AtmakhyAti - YogAchAra Bauddha (VijnAnavaada)
> asatkhyAti - MAdhyamika Bauddha (shUnyavAda)
> akhyAti - PrAbhAkara mImAmsA
> anyathAkhyAti - NyAya, Vaisheshika and BhATTa mImAmsA
> and anirvachaneeya khyAti - Vedantins (Advaita)
> to describe the phenomenon of error, adhyAsa.  The adhyAsa bhAshya contains
> a reference to some or all of these vAda-s.
> Now, what is the background behind this development of the khyAti vAda-s?
> Why and when and by whom was the need felt for coming out with a definition
> of the phenomenon of error?  Was it prompted by Vedantins, Advaitins?  For,
> the importance of adhyAsa is fundamental in this school.  And, was the
> entire set of these definitions laid down by the Vedantins?  How did a
> 'consensus' come about between the various schools to come together and work
> out a distinct definition of error by/for each of these schools?  Were there
> really the schools of nyAya, mImAmsA and sAnkhya not just as an intellectual
> group of scholars proficient in these shAstra-s but 'practioners' as well
> just as we see advaitins, dvaitins, etc. today?
> Will you and other members present some information on these questions and
> more that could be there? Although I have nothing of relevance to
> contribute, these questions interest me very much.
> Recently I saw in the internet about 'abhinava-anyathA khyAti' worked out
> by the Dvaita school :
> The Dictionary of World Philosophy of A. Pablo Lannone says:
> *http://tiny.cc/u8RHG* <http://tiny.cc/u8RHG>
> Abhinava-anyathaa-khyati of Dvaita Vedanta holds that the object of
> erroneous belief is unreal but its substratum is real.  For example, the
> belief that a stick seen in a glass of water as bent has an unreal object, a
> bent stick.
> With warm regards,
> subrahmanian.v

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list