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

[V Subrahmanian]

Thanks for the clarification.

regards
subbu

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>