Venkatraghavan S agnimile at gmail.com
Mon Aug 21 04:58:20 EDT 2017

```Namaste Anand ji
I realised the flaw in my logic. If knowledge implied existence, then even
smriti jnAna would imply current existence, which is simply not true. Thus
E->K, but not K->E.

Further, even if mUlAjnAna has upAdAna kAraNatva for shukti, and tUlAjnAna
has upAdAna kAraNava for shuktirUpya, there is no need to presuppose a
difference of sattA with shuktirUpya. If they are existent, both are seen.
But there is no need to differentiate their existence, because the
existence and sight of both are from the point of view of a bhrAnta -
ajnAna is common to both, why worry about mUla /tUla?

Re my question yesterday of bAdha vyavastha, even a bhrama can be a bAdhaka
jnAna for another bhrama (e.g rope-stick bhrama can do a bAdha of
rope-snake bhrama), thus shukti jnAna can lead to shuktirUpya bAdha. As you
said, just because there is bAdhya bAdhaka bhAva, there is no need to
postulate a difference of sattA.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On 21 Aug 2017 7:13 a.m., "Anand Hudli via Advaita-l" <

Steps 3 and 4 above are to be corrected as per DSV. It is not the case that
jnAna of an object implies its existence, rather it is the other way round.
If something exists (E), it must necessarily be known(K) (E->K).

Agree with the E->K vyApti. Thanks for the clarification.

But in drShTirevasrShTi, as driShTi = srShTi, knowledge is the existence of
the thing. Therefore where there is knowledge, there is the (existence of
the) object. Can there be a situation where there is K, but no E? Doesn't
knowledge also imply existence here (K->E)?

kAraNam, therefore jnAna is the kAraNa for sattA.

This was my thinking, but perhaps I was mistaken.

There is absolutely no scope for vyAvahArika sattA in DSV, since existence
implies its dRShTi. There cannot be objective reality. Even the bhAmati
school which advocates DSV NJV, realizes this and admits a "kind" of
vyavhArika sattA based on sAdRshya of the worlds created by jIvas. If you
see a pot and I see the "same" pot, the same-ness is due to the
*similarity* of the world created by you and the world created by me. The
two pots are effectively different. This is a kind of pseudo-vyavAhArika
sattA. Of course, in the DSV EJV, there is no other jIva and any objective
reality is ruled out.

Regarding shuktyavacchinna avidyA, or a tUlAvidyA corresponding to the
shukti, being the upAdAnakAraNa of the rajatabhrama, that should work even
in DSV. However, I have a feeling PrakAshAnanda's DSV would have a problem
with it, because it seems (according to what I have understood) he does not
allow any parts or division within avidyA, holding it to be One.

Anand

Interesting perspective on bhAmati. Re prakAshAnanda and tUlAvidyA, I agree
with your feeling. I think he would not admit to distinctions in avidyA. He
quotes the ajAmekAm shruti in discussing about it.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan
```