[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-)

[Kartik Vashishta]

Hari OM!

I find it odd that an "unreal" snake can cause a "real"
jump/aggravation/fear/jolt

On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 9:20 AM H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaskaram Vikram Ji,
>
> Reg  //  Ontologically, asat is that which is never experienced as
> existing.
> Hare’s horn is asat //,
>
> In my understanding, the words ** in any locus ** needs to be added at the
> end of ** as existing **. This is to avoid any mixup with all *imagined **
> entities being understood as asat. For example, a snake just ** imagined**
> (not as ** it is a snake**) is also nonexistent. Because just the word **
> snake ** being imagined implies absence of any locus. But snake itself
> cannot be called asat.
>
> Incidentally this was why I had suggested earlier that the word
> **imagined** with reference to rope-snake as inappropriate, because the
> experience there is **It is a snake**, implying a locus which is
> experienced through a pramANa.
>
> You may like to consider
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 6:44 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Namaskaram Vikram Ji,
> >
> > Reg  //  These qualities are the attributes (viseshana) of Brahman and
> are
> > distinct manifestations //,
> >
> > This seems to contradict point 4 unless you distinguish between Brahman
> > and nirvisesha Brahman of point 5. But that does not appear to be the
> > case as the word Brahman appears to be used in other places in the post
> > without clearly mentioning any qualifications. Perhaps it would be better
> > to use the word Chaitanya for nirvisesha Brahman and correct the post
> > accordingly at other places where Chaitanya is intended.
> >
> > Just a suggestion. I thought it would make it easier to comprehend your
> > intention unambiguously. All the more so because the word Brahman is used
> > in the Bhashya in three different contexts, namely nirvisesha Brahman,
> > mAyA vishishta nirvisesha Brahman, and mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman.
> > Even in respect of mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman, in my understanding,
> > only AvaraNa sahita  nirvisesha Brahman is intended and not AvaraNa
> > rahita  nirvisesha Brahman where ever reference is made to mAyA upahita
> nirvisesha
> > Brahman in the Bhashya. For example in respect of sAkshi, antaryAmi etc.
> >
> > You may like to consider
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 8:05 AM Vikram Jagannathan via Advaita-l <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Namaskaram Shri Bhaskar ji,
> >>
> >> Before we continue on the main thread, I would like to understand the
> >> extent we are aligned on the fundamentals of Advaita. Below, I have
> >> mentioned my current understanding in a sequential order. Please let me
> >> know if you agree with these points or not. If you disagree with any
> >> point,
> >> please stop there and do not proceed until we discuss that particular
> >> point
> >> and come to an agreement.
> >>
> >> I would like to open this discussion to the entire group and request
> >> others
> >> to share & contribute their agreements / disagreements. I have
> >> deliberately kept the explanations for these statements to a minimum. If
> >> we
> >> agree to the statement, but have different explanations / reasons for
> >> arriving at that, that's fine; we will get an opportunity to clarify as
> we
> >> go deeper.
> >>
> >> With the right spirit and intention, we will have subsequent posts where
> >> we
> >> continue to add more points.
> >>
> >> 1. The svarupa lakshana of Brahman is: existence (sat), real (satya),
> >> consciousness (chit), knowledge (jnana), bliss (ananda), eternal
> (nitya),
> >> infinite (anadi & ananta), full (purna), partless (avyaya), homogeneous
> >> (eka rasa), immutable (kutastha), unchanging (avikara), pure (suddha),
> >> devoid of any differentiation whatsoever (sajatiya, vijatiya, svagata
> >> abheda)
> >> 2. Per ekam-eva-advitiyam, there is no sajatiya or vijatiya or svagata
> >> bheda, whatsoever, in Brahman
> >> 3. Per neha-nanasti-kinchana, there is no plurality or ‘other’ or
> >> something
> >> ‘else’ whatsoever in Brahman
> >> 4. An infinite homogeneous partless immutable entity cannot have any
> >> attributes (viseshana), since an attribute is defined as a quality that
> is
> >> inseparable but distinct from the substance, and there cannot be any
> >> distinction in a completely abheda homogenous entity
> >> 5. This Brahman is designated as nirvisesha Brahman for the sake of
> >> convenience
> >> 6. Any quality associated with Brahman, that has in context or in
> relation
> >> something ‘else’, is only a tatastha lakshana of Brahman. This includes
> >> qualities such as sarvajna, sarvasakthi, sarveshvara,
> >> creator-sustainer-destroyer of the universe, antaryami, witness, being
> the
> >> locus for something else, etc.
> >> 7. These qualities are the attributes (viseshana) of Brahman and are
> >> distinct manifestations
> >> 8. Their relationship with Brahman is that of attribute-substance or
> >> shakti-shaktivan or possessed-possessor. In all these cases, they are
> >> inseparable but distinct from Brahman.
> >> 9. Brahman described as possessing these qualities is designated as
> >> savisesha Brahman for the sake of convenience
> >> 10. Ontologically, sat is that which once ascertained as existing always
> >> remains unchanged across all time. Nirvisesha Brahman is sat.
> >> 11. Ontologically, asat is that which is never experienced as existing.
> >> Hare’s horn is asat.
> >> 12. Ontologically, mithya is that which is neither sat nor asat nor both
> >> (sadasat-vilakshana) - it appears to exist but later sublated. The
> >> universe
> >> of plurality, the viseshanas & sakthis of savisesha Brahman, snake on a
> >> rope, rope itself, mirage, double-moon are all examples of this mithya
> >> category. If you do not agree with this definition, please clarify what
> is
> >> the ontological status of a mithya entity.
> >> 13. Anirvachaniya explicitly means the entity cannot be specifically
> >> described as sat or as asat or as both simultaneously - the reason why
> an
> >> object may appear to exist but later sublated. There may be other
> >> definitions, but if you do not agree with this definition, please
> clarify
> >> what is the right definition of anirvachaniya and if anirvachaniya is
> sat
> >> or asat or both or something else?
> >> 14. If the above two points are in agreement, then the ontological
> status
> >> of anirvachaniya is mithya
> >> 15. In our current ignorance we believe the entire perceived universe of
> >> plurality and change has an independent existence. What is the actual
> >> ontological status of the universe and what is the ontological status of
> >> the universe as we believe it to be in our ignorance? Both mithya?
> >> 16. But let’s say that through shastra and sadhana, we gain the
> knowledge
> >> that this universe is only a nama-rupa change of Brahman and is
> completely
> >> dependent on Brahman. What now becomes the actual ontological status of
> >> the
> >> universe and the ontological status of our perception of the universe?
> >> Still both mithya?
> >> 17. Does the nitya-suddha-buddha-mukta-svarupa nirvisesha Brahman
> perceive
> >> or cognize the universe? Answer is no?
> >> 18. Is there the perception of this universe for the savisesha Brahman?
> >> Answer is yes?
> >> 19. Do you believe that, per “brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati”, a knower of
> >> Brahman (jnani) verily becomes (is) Brahman? Is this savisesha Brahman
> or
> >> nirvisesha Brahman? Answer is nirvisesha Brahman?
> >> 20. Does this knower of Brahman perceive or cognize the universe? Answer
> >> is
> >> no?
> >> 21. In Adhyasa Bhashya, right after stating the first definition of
> >> adhyasa
> >> as “smriti rupa …”, Bhagavan bhashyakara explains various theories of
> how
> >> adhyasa could occur. After the last theory, bhagavatpada states in the
> >> sentence “sarvathapi tu…” that the one common mechanism in adhyasa is
> >> “cognition of one thing having the qualities of another”.
> >> 22. Various later acharyas have called this particular section of the
> >> Bhashya as explanation of “khyati-vada (theory of error)”. Bhagavan
> >> bhashyakara calls this error (khyati) itself as adhyasa.
> >> 23. “Khyati”, as related to an incorrect cognition, is a term used in
> >> pre-Sankara period itself, such as PatajaliYogaSutra-2.5.
> >> 24. Various later acharyas, in their sub-commentaries, have explained
> that
> >> the common mechanism (sarvathapi tu ...) stated in the bhashya is the
> >> universal concept of “anirvachaniya khyati”.
> >> 25. Anirvachaniya, also because the various khyati vada can be broadly
> >> categorized as sat-khyati, asat-khyati or sat-asat-khyati.
> Bhagavatpada’s
> >> common explanation is an underlying thread amongst all these khyati
> vada.
> >> Hence it transcends being exclusively described as sat or asat or
> >> sat-asat.
> >> 26. In answering the question on how there can be a superimposition
> >> between
> >> light & dark or ‘I’ and ‘thou’, bhashyakara says that nevertheless
> >> (tathapi) this is a natural worldly experience of coupling the real &
> >> unreal
> >> 27. Though of mutually conflicting attributes and a logical
> impossibility,
> >> bhashyakara still says that adhyasa is still a common observation in the
> >> world and only explains it as a 'natural' (naisargikah) phenomenon.
> >> Implying that this phenomenon cannot be exactly described or is thus
> >> anirvachaniya.
> >> 28. This natural phenomenon is adhyasa
> >> 29. This adhyasa is also later termed as avidya
> >> 30. The entire gamut of loka vyavahara (secular and religious) depends
> on
> >> this adhyasa or is the effect of this adhyasa
> >> 31. Since adhyasa is also avidya, the entire gamut depends on and is the
> >> effect of this avidya
> >> 32. Since this natural phenomenon is anirvachaniya, the exact
> explanation
> >> for adhyasa or avidya is anirvachaniya
> >> 33. In other words, Adhyasa as a term is described as “atasmin tad
> >> buddhi”.
> >> But, how or why adhyasa take place in a certain way cannot be exactly
> >> described.
> >> 34. Examples of this anirvachaniya adhyasa are shell silver, double
> moon,
> >> rope snake, mirage, colored crystal, red hot iron ball, ‘I’-ness and
> >> ‘mine’-ness with BMI and objects
> >> 35. In all these examples, the resulting entity, the result of adhyasa,
> is
> >> distinct from the true object; and the true object doesn’t actually
> >> contain
> >> all the perceived qualities of the resulting entity
> >> 36. For example, when a rope is perceived as a snake, there is actually
> no
> >> snake whatsoever in the rope. The qualities of the snake are
> superimposed
> >> on the rope and the rope appears as the snake.
> >> 37. Prior to the perception of the rope as the snake, while the rope is
> >> perceived as the snake, after the true cognition of the rope as a rope,
> >> across all these periods, there is never actually a snake in the rope
> >> 38. The superimposed qualities, which actually are not present in the
> >> actual object, only appears to be present in the object during adhyasa
> >> 39. As long as the resulting adhyasa entity is perceived to be so, the
> >> entity is considered as real and existing
> >> 40. But on the dawn of true discriminative knowledge, the true nature
> and
> >> qualities of the actual object is perceived as-is
> >> 41. At this point the earlier cognition of the adhyasa entity is
> >> understood
> >> to be false and not actually present in the actual object
> >> 42. Because the adhyasa entity is actually not present in the actual
> >> object, the adhyasa entity cannot be called as sat
> >> 43. At the same time, because the adhyasa entity was experienced as
> >> existing prior to dawn of true knowledge, the adhyasa entity cannot be
> >> called as asat
> >> 44. Obviously the adhyasa entity cannot be both sat and asat
> >> simultaneously
> >> due to mutual contradiction
> >> 45. Thus the ontological status of the adhyasa entity is neither sat nor
> >> asat nor both (sadasat-vilakshana). The adhyasa entity is mithya
> >> 46. Since adhyasa is also called avidya, avidya too is only mithya
> >> 47. Since adhyasa or avidya is anirvachaniya, mithya too is
> anirvachaniya
> >> 48. Anirvachaniya is sadasat-vilakshana
> >> 49. Nirvisesha Brahman is perceived as savisesha Brahman due to adhyasa.
> >> In
> >> other words, the viseshanas are superimposed on Brahman
> >> 50. When adhyasa is overcome, the nirvisesha Brahman is realized as-is
> >>
> >> with humble prostrations,
> >> Vikram
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> >> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >>
> >> For assistance, contact:
> >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>