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

[Venkatraghavan S]

There was a typographical error in my email, apologies.

Please read this sentence:

"However, in my view, this "ceasing to exist" does not think it meets the
criteria for jnAna."

as

"However, in my view, this "ceasing to exist" does not meet the criteria
for bAdha."

Namaste Sri Anand ji,
I think our emails crossed each other. I will read your email and respond.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan


On 22 Aug 2017 6:33 a.m., "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Praveen ji, Anand ji,

I went back to the third mithyAtvam chapter of the advaita siddhi. There,
the siddhikAra quotes vivaraNAchArya and vArtikAchArya in substantiating
his definition of bAdha. He says:
अतेवोक्तं विवरणाचार्यै: - "अज्ञानस्य स्वकार्येण प्रविलीनेन वर्तमानेन वा सह
ज्ञानेन निवृत्तिर्बाध " इति |
The nivritti of ajnAna and its products in its sthUla rUpa (vartamAna) or
sUkshma rUpa / kAraNa rUpa (pravilIna) is bAdha, says the vivaraNakAra.

वार्तिककृद्भिश्चोक्तं - "तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्योत्थसम्बन्धधीजन्ममात्रत: |
अविद्या सह कार्येण नासीदस्ति भविष्यति ||" इति |  that is, by the birth only
(janma mAtra) of the samyak jnAna (sAkshAtkAra) that is born out of
tattvamasi mahAvAkya, avidyA and its products are not there in any three
periods of time.

He also goes on to provide an instance of a jnAna nivritti which is not
bAdha:
उत्तरज्ञाने लीनस्य पूर्वज्ञानस्य
स्वकारणात्मनावस्थानादवस्थितिसामान्यविरहानुपपत्ते:
| the pUrvapakshi had argued that when someone has two successive thoughts,
as it is not possible to have thoughts simultaneously, the second thought
will necessarily have to destroy the first thought as it rises, so  this
also is an instance of jnAna nivritti. This also is bAdha. The siddhikAra
refutes this and says no. In the case of uttarajnAna, it will destroy only
the svarUpa of pUrvajnAna, not its kAraNa avasthA (samskAra), so this is
not bAdha, only an instance of nivritti.

He also clarifies what is the nature of the jnAna that does the
nivritti. वस्तुतस्तु, साक्षात्कारत्वेन ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वम् विवक्षितम् ;
Actually what I really want to say is that it is sAkshAtkAra jnAna that
leads to nivritti.

Coming to the case of drishta srishti. In the case of objects like shukti
rUpya, adhiShThAna sAkshAtkAra meets the criteria laid down for bAdha, viz.
:
1) it is due to adhiShThAna sAkshAtkAra jnAna of the shukti
2) it leads to nivritti of shukti ajnAna and its products, shuktirUpya
3) the nature of the nivritti is complete - there is a direct realisation
that there never was, is or will be a shuktirUpya in what is the shukti
This meets all the criteria for bAdha.

However in the case of where I first have jnAna of shukti, and then I
don't. In driShti sriShTi, when I don't have jnAna of shukti, it ceases to
exist. However, in my view, this "ceasing to exist" does not think it meets
the criteria for jnAna.
1) Such a nivritti is not due to adhiShThAna sAkshAtkAra jnAna. It is
similar to the pUrva jnAna nivritti due to uttara jnAna, which the
siddhikAra himself said wasn't bAdha.
2) Even if one says ajnAna kArya nivritti has happened here, ie shukti is
no longer in existence, the ajnAna that caused its appearance, brahma
ajnAna is not destroyed. It is not ajnAna sva kAryeNa saha.
3) There is no kAraNa rUpa nivritti, the samskAra of the shukti continues
to exist until brahma jnAna. It is not apparent to me that the realisation
of the draShTA is shukti nAsti asti bhaviShyati.

Anyway, I don't want to belabour the point too much. This is not done with
an intention of trying to faults with drishti srishti vAda, so please don't
mistake me. This is just for vichAra.

Thank you.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan


On 21 Aug 2017 5:29 p.m., "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Coming to the topic of DSV and the two sattAs, it is obvious that
> shuktirUpya bAdha is prAtibhAsika because its svarUpa + kAraNa nivritti
> happens with shukti jnAna.  However, does shukti's svarUpa + kAraNa
> nivritti happen with anything other brahma pramA? Is the !E in !K->!E,
> bAdha?
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
>