[Advaita-l] DSV in the advaitasiddhi: adhyAsa is substantiated

[Anand Hudli]

>PrakAshAnanda has a different explanation on page 170 of the English
translation.

I forgot to mention the source  - vedAntasiddhAntamuktavali

Anand

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Shri Venkatraghavanji,
>
> >>
> Excellent post. If the shukti was not existing when the rajatam was seen,
> then is it shukti ajnAna that leads to rajata bhrama? Or is it brahma
> ajnAna?
>
> >>
>
> shukti-ajnAna does lead to the bhrama of rajata, although both rajata and
> the bAdhakajnAna "nedaM rajatam" are prAtibhAsika. In fact, the
> pUrvapakShin raises another objection based on this, to which the answer
> given is that the bAdhakajnAna does not have to be of a higher order of
> reality to cancel the bAdhya.
>
> >>
> Alternatively, given we are in  drishTi sriShTi prakriyA, is it drishTi
> that
> leads to shukti rajata sriShTi, and not shukti ajnAna? Thus as far as this
> prakriyA is concerned, there is no difference between shukti rajatam and
> rajatam.
> >>
> It seems to me that due to the prAtibhAsika nature of everything (save
> Brahman), the "sting" is taken out of adhyAsa. It is almost like bhrama
> jnAna just being replaced by the bAdhaka jnAna, having no "Aha!" moment of
> realization. This is perhaps explained by the fact that a DSV follower is
> already an advanced sAdhaka, very close to realizing Brahman. For such a
> person, negating a mundane illusion such as silver-nacre does not hold much
> value. The nacre is not any more real than the illusory silver.
> PrakAshAnanda has a different explanation on page 170 of the English
> translation. According to him, the person in question never sees the
> illusory object, example snake in place of a rope. He sees the rope but due
> to being "bhrAnta", he thinks it is a snake. To the question, "Did he never
> see a snake at all?" (tatkiM sarpaH na pratipanna eva?), he answers,
> "Undoubtedly!" But this against experience, since one feels he/she saw a
> snake where in fact, there was a rope. To this, PrakAshAnanda says "this is
> against experience alright but experience of a deluded person." So there is
> no harm done. It is only when something is against experience of an
> "abhrAnta" person, it is a problem.
>
> Anand
>