[Advaita-l] Fwd: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Vakyartha vichara - 6.8.2017 Bengaluru

[Venkatraghavan S]

Dear Subbuji,

I believe you are referring to the drishyatva hetu upapattih chapter of the
advaita siddhi, where the siddhikAra quotes the bhAmatikAra who says that
the vritti upahita brahman is mithyA. A previous post on the topic covers
this aspect:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2017-April/045021.html

Although the article does not cover the akhaNDAkAravritti's ability for
avidyAnivritti, the chapter in advaita siddhi goes on to address this point.

The post above also deals with the topic of shuddham's svaprakAshatvam not
implying its mithyAtvam. As a consequence, shAstra's atattvAvedakatvam is
also refuted.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 1:37 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Venkat ji,
>
> Many thanks for the fine summary of the discussion. I remember hearing
> from the Siddhi talks that Bhāmatīkāra accepts the vākyajanya jñānam to be
> of the 'upahita brahman' (and not shuddha brahman) and that that is
> sufficient for avidyānivṛtti. Siddhikāra cites this.   I have not located
> so far the Bhāmatī or Siddhi portion where this occurs. In any case, does
> this have any bearing on the Advaitin's reply to the question on hand?
>
> regards
> subbu
>
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste,
>> Following Subbuji's request to me, please find below a summary of the
>> vAkyArtha sadas.
>>
>> *The topic*
>> aham pratyaye shuddho na bhAti.
>>
>> The topic of discussion at the vidvat sadas was vyAsa rAja tIrtha's
>> objections in the tAtparya chandrikA to vAcaspati miSra's statement in the
>> bhAmati "aham pratyaye shuddho na bhAti" - shuddha Brahman is not known by
>> the I thought.
>>
>> The chandrikAchArya asks: What does the bhAmatikAra's statement "shuddha
>> brahman is *not known* in the I thought" mean?
>>
>> He suggests a few possibilities :
>> 1) There is some aspect of Atma svarUpa that is known, and something else
>> that is not known?
>> 2) Atma svarUpa itself is not known.
>> 3) Atma svarUpa is known and so is anAtma. Thus shuddha brahman is not
>> known?
>>
>>
>>