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

[Ravi Kiran]

Namaste  Sri Venkatraghavan Ji

One clarification below:

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Thank you for the lovely explanation, Anand ji.
>
> If we accept shukti ajnAna as the kAraNa for rajata, what is the kAraNa for
> shukti?


> Is it shukti ajnAna or brahma ajnAna?
>

shukti ajnAna (and rajata jnAna) is kAraNa for rajata, but how is, shukti
ajnAna be kAraNa for shukti perception/experience, or to consider, shukti
ajnAna as one of the options above ? (in general, ajnAna of a thing be the
cause for that thing? )

Isn't it shukti jnAna kAraNa for shukti ? (though,  brahma ajnAna is the
kAraNa for *all* that is seen in DSV)

Thanks



> a) *If it is shukti ajnAna*, then there are three things we must consider
> 1) as the same ajnAna can lead to either result, what leads to shukti in
> one instance and rajata in another?
> 2) How does the nedam rajatam bAdha happen, because both the shukti and
> rajatam have the same kAraNa, shukti ajnAna? To explain, I am seeing a
> bhrama rajatam now due to shukti ajnAna. Normally, as long as the kAraNa
> exists, the kArya must exist too. So as long as shukti ajnAna exists,
> shukti rajatam must exist too. As shukti ajnAna is kAraNa for shukti too,
> then how does the same cause destroy one effect and create the other?
> 3) if shukti ajnAna leads to shukti, and that shukti leads to shukti jnAna,
> then as shukti jnAna and shukti ajnAna are virodhi, it is like saying the
> cause creates an effect that destroys itself. Is such a thing possible, is
> it not a upajIvya virodham?
>
> b) *If it is brahma ajnAna*, then as shukti is born out of brahma ajnAna
> and shukti rajata is born out shukti ajnAna, then it does differentiate
> between the bhrama and bAdhaka jnAna pair, and the shukti rajata and shukti
> pair. The first element of each pair is prAtibhAsika, the second element
> vyAvahArika.
>
> Some things to consider.
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On 20 Aug 2017 4:45 a.m., "Anand Hudli via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>