[Advaita-l] DSV in the advaitasiddhi: adhyAsa is substantiated

Venkatraghavan S agnimile at gmail.com
Thu Aug 24 06:32:22 EDT 2017

Namaste Praveen ji,
No worries. Hope you feel better.

I spoke with Sri Mani Dravid Sastrigal yesterday - it was quite subtle, so
it did take some time for me to understand the import of what he was

I will cover his response here, and if you still feel there are outstanding
points you'd like to discuss from your previous email, I'd be glad to to do

The question posted to him was: because of the way the terms vyAvahArika
sattA and bAdha were defined in advaita, is there not a risk that DSV ends
up having sattA traividhyam? Reasons outlined in various emails in this

His response:
>From a definitional point of view what you say is correct. However, we must
consider the following:
1) The definition of pratibhAsika sattA in DSV is not from the point of
what causes an object's bAdha (brahma prama atirikta bAdhyatvam), but
simply pratibhAsakAlamAtra sattAkatvam - that which exists only when it is
seen. This definition is applicable to all objects within the DSV universe
(except the six anAdi vastus), including objects such as pot, shell, etc.
2) Within the definition of prAtibhAsikatvam in DSV itself, there is scope
for a prAtibhAsikatva and vyAvahArikatva. Meaning, that while all objects
are prAtibhAsikatva, people may not know that and still think that there is
a vyAvahArikatva and prAtibhAsikatva. Thus, DSV is not saying that objects
appear as being prAtibhAsikam, they simply are.
3) The implication is that DSV is not being said from the point of view of
a draShTA, but is taught to a student for vichAra. To explain, DSV does not
require that the draShTA knows that the objects are prAtibhAsika, it only
teaches that they *are prAtibhAsika* . Now, the seer who is not aware of
this, or not willing to accept this, may still conclude that some objects
are vyAvahArika, and some objects are prAtibhAsika.
4) For example, let us consider a seer who is currently seeing shell silver
instead of shell. That person, may very well know that it is possible to
mistake shell-silver for shell and that such objects are prAtibhAsika. But
in this particular instance, he genuinely believes that what he is seeing
now is silver, not shell silver. So he treats this as vyAvahArika and the
latter as prAtibhAsika. However, in reality both are prAtibhAsikam.
5) Therefore our original question - isn't there a category called
vyAvahArikatvam that is based on brahma pramA atirikta abAdhyatvam, and
such an abAdhyatvam is present in DSV because ajnAna nivritti is absent, is
similar to the person in 4 - he knows there is a prAtibhAsikam, but he
believes that what he is seeing is vyAvahArikam. In reality, such a
vyAvahArikatvam does not exist in DSV, but vyAvahArika vyavahAra can.
6) Sri SAstrigal went on to explain where he got the idea to answer the
question in this manner, and the reason why he had asked me to call him the
next day. Apparently he wanted to refer to Sri Gauda BrahmAnanda's
commentary to the SiddhAnta Bindu by MadhusUdana Sarasvati where a similar
idea is explored. In that work, Sri BrahmAnanda says - according to
shUnyavAda everything is shUnyam, but the implication of this is not that
everything *appears as shUnyam*. A pot still appears as a pot, the
intention is to say that its reality is shUnyam. Sastrigal used the same
rationale to answer this question.

I'm not sure if others will like this answer, but I must say that it is a
very satisfying explanation, even if it takes a bit of effort (at least for
me it did) to understand both the question and the answer.


On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>

> Namaste Venkatraghavanji,
> (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>
> wrote:
>>>> 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 too.
> 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
>> ajnAna.
> 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
> DSV?
>> 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.
> gurupAdukAbhyAm,
> --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