[Advaita-l] DSV in the advaitasiddhi: adhyAsa is substantiated
Praveen R. Bhat
bhatpraveen at gmail.com
Thu Aug 24 02:00:50 EDT 2017
(Apologies for the delay; some health issues are taking time away. :)
Although my chain of thoughts was incomplete on this issue, I'm sending it
since I typed most of it the same day, before Anandji and you replied. Now,
I don't have much to add/ ask. Kindly ignore it if the content seems
incomplete or out of place. I'll also await your mail about clarification
from Mani Dravid Shastriji. Thanks).
Thanks for your detailed response. I think there was some communication gap
and I was/ am confused. :) Still, I shall try to be brief.
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
>>> Venkatraghavanji, I am not sure as to what sthUla and sUkShma means
>> here in terms of shuktikA-rajat example in the context of DSV.
> In the case of shukti, the shell (not the shell silver)
> a) The svarUpa of the shell is the shell form itself
> b) The kArya avasthA of the shell, is whatever is the physical kAraNa for
> the shell - the creature whose body part was the shell. - If you recall
> Sri Anand Hudliji's first few posts, he had presented the case for kArya
> kAraNa bhAva being possible (like in a dream) in drishTi srishTi vAda too,
> thus we can talk of a kAraNa avasthA of the shell.
> c) The avidyA that caused the shell - It is mUlAvidyA. (We have to say
> there is some avidyA that is the ultimate upAdAna kAraNa of the shell,
> otherwise it would be satyam, not mithyA. My earlier email looked at a few
> possibilities and landed on mUlAvidyA).
I think I am lost on this analysis since I don't know of (b) in the example
being discussed about even in SDV. And even if it is, my thinking is that
it doesn't quite belong in DSV, where there is no difference between
shuktikA and rajata both in their being prAtibhAsika. I thought your
statement earlier so: "even a bhrama can be a bAdhaka jnAna for another
bhrama (e.g rope-stick bhrama can do a bAdha of rope-snake bhrama)" should
apply in all cases of DSV. What works for rajata should work for shuktikA
Because there is no ajnAta sattA in DSV, when there is shukti ajnAna, the
> shell does not exist. What does this lack of existence mean, and is it
> bAdha? We can argue that neither a) nor b) exist when there is shukti
Somehow I seem to have missed that the discussion landed on this analysis!
Does Siddhikara analyse this lack of existence at all in the context of
> However, mUlAvidyA nivritti does not happen until brahma jnAna arises.
> Thus in the definition, अज्ञानस्य स्वकार्येण प्रविलीनेन वर्तमानेन वा सह
> ज्ञानेन निवृत्तिर्बाध, while there is pravilIna + vartamAna nivritti, it
> is not ajnAnena saha. (Neither is it jnAnena nivritti, but it is
> jnAnAbhAvAt nivritti, but let us ignore that for the sake of brevity).
How would you explain the dream world negated by the waking world and
viceversa. I recall you said waking has bAdha/nivRtti by dream but not so
the other way around. I don't see why, since there seems to be vaiShamya in
comparing dream world with waking world kAlatraya, but not the waking world
with dream world kAlatraya! In any case, technically also, would it really
be a flaw in DSV if its not bAdha/ nivRtti? Is it like saying its more of
laya, then "nAsha"?
> Your sentence शुक्तिकायाः अज्ञानस्य स्वकार्येण रजतेन प्रविलीनेन वर्तमानेन
> वा सह ज्ञानेन निवृत्तिः बाधः is correct - but we are not talking of bAdha
> of shukti rajatam due to shukti jnAna, but the nivritti of shukti due to
> ajnAta sattA abhAva.
> And could you also quote the exact statement of the opponent before MS's
>> refutation line given? [Page no. of the PDF will be helpful, since I'd like
>> to read around it for my own benefit. Meanwhile, I'll also look around if I
>> hit this sentence after sending this mail :)
> The pUrva pakshi had said: अधिष्ठानसाक्षात्कारत्वेन निवर्त्ये
> शुक्तिरजतादौ च ज्ञानत्वेन ज्ञाननिवर्त्यभावात् साध्यविकलता (Page 182 of
> the pdf of Anantakrishna shAstrigal's 2nd edition) to which the siddhikAra
> replies on page 186, शुक्तिरजतादेश्चापरोक्षप्रतीत्यन्यथानुपपत्त्या
> प्रतिभासकाले अवस्थित्यङ्गीकारान्न बाधकज्ञानं विना तद्विरह इति न साध्यविकलता
> | अतेवोक्तं विवरणाचार्यै: - "अज्ञानस्य स्वकार्येण प्रविलीनेन वर्तमानेन वा
> सह ज्ञानेन निवृत्तिर्बाध " इति |
> Thanks for the reference. I'll look up and see if I can make out its
necessity of application in DSV.
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list