Venkatraghavan S agnimile at gmail.com
Wed Aug 23 06:34:18 EDT 2017

```Namaste Sri Anand ji,
I have asked Mani Dravid Sastrigal this question. He said he would come
back to me today with his answer. Will post his response to the group.

Notwithstanding vivaraNAchArya's definition of bAdha as ajnAnsya svakAryeNa
saha nivritti: bAdha:, I think the solution is to say that ajnAna nivritti
is not a requirement for bAdha, provided avidyA kArya nivritti (vartamAnena
pravilInena vA) happens. Why?

Because it is accepted that one bhrama can do bAdha of another bhrama.
However, bhrama cannot do avidyA nivritti. For example, it is said that a
stick bhrama on rope is able to do a bAdha of snake bhrama on rope, but the
stick bhrama does not remove rope ajnAna. Therefore, the conclusion must be
that avidyA nivritti is not a requirement for bAdha.

If that is accepted, in DSV, even objects like ghaTa or shukti will have
svarUpa and kAraNa avasthA nivritti when there is ghaTa jnAna abhAva and
shukti jnAna abhAva respectively, and that is sufficient for it to be
called bAdha, without requiring mUlAvidyA nivritti. Such objects being
therefore brahma pramA atirikta bAdhyam, they would be prAtibhAsika too.

Lets' see what Sri Sastrigal says.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <

> Shri Venkatraghavanji,
>
> >>
> Ok, fair enough. I think we can say there is nivritti of dream by waking
> and waking by dream. That equivalence is acceptable. In both cases, kArya
> nivritti happens, but kAraNa nivritti does not. In the case of shukti
> rajata, both kArya and kAraNa nivritti happen. Perhaps the solution is to
> simply say that kAraNa nivritti is not a requirement for bAdha in driShTi
> sriShTi.
> >>
>
> The example of pot being struck  by a hammer and leaving behind the clay
> (kAraNa) and saying the clay will be destroyed only with brahmajnAna, is a
> vyAvahArika example. If you recall, this is the definition of vyavahArika
> sattA- brahma-pramA-atirikta-abadhyatve sati sattvena pratItyarhaM
> cidbhinnam. Now, what happens in DSV (where dream and waking objects are
> prAtibhAsika) is that the pot seen in a dream (or waking) gets destroyed
> upon termination of the dream (or going to sleep). And there is no kAraNa
> (the clay) being left behind either, after completion of the dream (or
> going to sleep). So this is bAdha. If so, how do we justify
> jnAna-nivartyatva? The jnAna here, in my opinion, is the general awareness
> of being in the waking state (or dream). It is because of the awareness of
> being awake that the dream objects are false. So the waking state awareness
> negates dream objects and vice-versa. There is thus jnAna-nivartyatva of
> both types of objects. This is how I see the jnAna-nivartyatva definition
> of mithyAtva being applied to DSV.
>
> Anand
>
>
>
> >
> _______________________________________________