[Advaita-l] Advaita Siddhi series 016 - dvitIya mithyAtva vichAra: (part 8)

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Thu Nov 9 05:05:19 EST 2017

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Ravi Kiran via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > They are prAtibhAsika in my view.
> >
> > If we define prAtibhAsika as brahma pramA atirikta bAdhyam (that which is
> > sublatable by something other than brahma pramA), then it is applicable
> to
> > them both. Even if we define prAtibhAsika as pratIti mAtra sattvam
> > (existence at the time of appearance or existence as appearance), it is
> > applicable to both.
> >
> The thought (considering as vyavahArika) was how to explain the continuance
> of prateethi, even after ajnAna was destroyed ..
> Noted your reasoning, but not sure, if similar explanations is offered in
> the standard advaitic texts, where such examples are quoted ..
> Hence, was looking for, if there is another way to explain this continuance
> of effect ( prateethi )..after ajnAna nAsha ?
> >> despite one knowing the true nature of the substratum (ie there being no
> ignorance of its nature)
> Suppose if it is said,
> the cause for the appearance of the prAtibhAsika red-crystal is the
> ignorance
> of the true nature of the object in front (colorless-crystal). The seer did
> not know that the
> object in the front was a colorless-crystal, which led him to believe that
> it was
> red-crystal. Thus the cause (or one of the cause?) of the appearance of the
> red-crystal, is colorless-crystal-ignorance.
> When the object is later known as the colorless-crystal,  its ignorance is
> removed. When the cause is
> destroyed, its effects should be destroyed also. However, in this case, the
> red-crystal appearance continues.
> The reason being the other contributory causes, which you supplied in your
> earlier response, are not destroyed/removed.
> I suppose, this would be the optimal explanation, as far this example is
> considered.

Quite an interesting discussion. I think the differentiating factor is
whether the bhrama is sopādhika or nirupādhika. I was listening to the
Adhyāsa bhāṣya exposition in Sanskrit by Vidwan Ganesha Ishwara Bhatta.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-sMzll5GmA   (in the portion towards the
end)  He said: the idea of I with the ego, ahankara, is nirupadhika bhrama,
like the taking the rope to be a snake. However, the considering the mind,
body as I is sopadhika bhrama, like the crystal-red case.

Applying that exposition to the present case, when right knowledge of the
self has arisen, the identification with the ego ceases but the body-mind,
and the world perceived, all continue to be perceived. Unless and until
the red flower is removed from the proximity of the crystal, despite the
knowledge of the colorlessness of the crystal, the perception of the
red-crystal continues. Similarly until the body-mind falls off, upon
physical death, the body-mind and the world continue to be perceived,
despite the knowledge of their unreality.

Maybe someone can put the above in better words.


> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list