[Advaita-l] Body is the disease

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Tue Jan 28 00:41:51 CST 2014

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Srinath Vedagarbha
<svedagarbha at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com
> >wrote:
> Secondly, sweating/trebling etc, are not due to illusory tiger/snake
> themselves per se. They are due to your jnyAna about them. Although this
> jnyAna is a brAnti (ayathArtha jnyAna), nevertheless it is a real one (ok,
> as real as you, to be specific). So, it is not correct to say mithya vastu
> has sAdakatvaM for pramEya/tatva siddhi.

Although every reaction happens only due to a jnAna, what is contained in
that jnAna is the differentiating factor.  Thus, jnAnatvena sAmAnyatve api,
jnAnaviShayatvena asAdhAraNatvam is what is to be noted here.  A
satya-ghaTajnAna will trigger a certain reaction and a mithyAsarpajnAna
will also trigger a certain reaction.  The content of the first jnana is
satyavastu and the content of the second jnAna is a mithyAvastu.  So,
mithyAvastuviShayaka jnAna is called mithyjnAnam.  The snakejnAnam is
mithyAjnAnam.  It causes trembling, etc. That is what is intended by the
expression: 'the mithyA-snake caused the trembling, etc.' In fact Advaitins
do not accept a 'vastutvam' ('thingness') to the mithyAvastu, a
superimposed snake, in this example.  So, it would be unreasonable to
allege that Advaitins advocate 'mithyAvastu's kAryasAdhakatva'.  In fact we
have this very unambiguous statement from Shankara:

// अतश्चेदं शास्त्रीयं ब्रह्मात्मत्वमवगम्यमानं स्वाभाविकस्य शारीरात्मत्वस्य
बाधकं संपद्यते, *रज्ज्वादिबुद्धय इव सर्पादिबुद्धीनाम्*  । बाधिते च
शारीरात्मत्वस्य तदाश्रयः समस्तः स्वाभाविको व्यवहारो बाधितो भवति
यत्प्रसिद्धये नानात्वांशोऽपरो ब्रह्मणः कल्प्येत   । दर्शयति च ’यत्र त्वस्य
सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्ऽ (बृ. ४.५.१५)’ इत्यादिना
ब्रह्मात्मत्वदर्शिनं प्रति समस्तस्य क्रियाकारकफललक्षणस्य व्यवहारस्याभावम्  ।
// BSB 2.1.14

In another bhashya, BSB 4.1.15 is the famous expression: bAdhitamapi tu
mithyAjnAnam...where the bAdhA is clearly stated of the jnAnam.

 अत्र वाक्ये उभयत्र बुद्धिशब्दप्रयोगः द्रष्टव्यः । पश्चाद्भाविनी
रज्जुबुद्धिः पूर्वजनितसर्पबुद्धिं निवर्तते ।

In the above cited bhashya Shankara clearly says: it is the sarpa-buddhi
that is negated/sublated by the rajju-buddhi.  And what is
negated/sublated, bAdhA-fied, is what is meant by the term 'mithyA'.  This
buddhi, though 'real' since it arose, is replaced/annulled by the
correcting buddhi, which also arises.  Yet, by virtue of its being
subjected to annulment/bAdhA, the former buddhi is termed mithyA.  And this
mithyAbuddhi alone has the kAryasAdhakatvam.  None can succeed in objecting
to this stand of Advaitins, for Advaitins are not suggesting anything
unreasonable, unacceptable, to the opponent since the opponent and the
siddhAntin both agree that it is a 'buddhi' that generates a reaction.

[I had cited the above in a discussion with a Dvaita scholar-monk in this
very context]

That is what is intended by the dream-tiger example too.  The mahAvAkya,
the dream-tiger, generates a jnAnam of the mahAvAkya.  This
mahAvAkya-viShayaka jnAnam generates tattvabodha.  Since the mahAvAkya is
shruti,  and since the shruti too belongs to the vyAvahArika plane, it is
said that a jnAnam generated by such a pramANa is of that state.  Just as
the awakening caused by the dream-tiger-jnAnam does not belong to the dream
state, this  mahAvAkya-viShayaka jnAnam is the pramANa that awakens the
person to his true state and such an awakened state does not belong to the
vyAvahArika plane since it does not get annulled by any other pramANa.


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list