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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Praveen ji,


On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>> Venkatraghavanji, ​I am not sure as to what sthUla and ​sUkShma means
> here in terms of shuktikA-rajat example in the context of DSV.
>

What the siddhikAra wants to say is that after jnAna, there is absolutely
no trace left of the object. To explain what is meant by the sUkshma and
sthUla, let us start with the pUrvapakshi's objection. He says:
मुद्गरपातादिनिवर्त्ये
च घटादाव्याप्ति: - this definition of mithyAtva leads to avyApti with
respect to the pot, because we know that a pot is destroyed not by jnAna,
but by a hammer breaking it.
When it is the siddhikAra's turn to respond, he says
ज्ञानप्रयुक्तावस्थितिसामान्यविरहप्रतियोगित्वं हि ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वं |
अवस्थितिश्च
द्वेधा, स्वरूपेण कारणात्मना च; सत्कार्यवादाभ्युपगमात् |  तथाच मुद्गरपातेन
घटस्य स्वरूपेणावस्थितिविरहे अपि कारणात्मनावस्थितिविरहाभावात्
ब्रह्मज्ञानप्रयुक्त
एव स इति नातीतघटादावव्याप्ति:  |

What is meant by jnAna nivartyatvam is the total nivritti of every aspect
of the object. Objects have two different aspects, the object in and as of
itself (svarUpa avasthA), and its causal aspect that inheres in its cause
(kAraNa avasthA). We are followers of satkAryavAda. Therefore we say a pot
exists in its kAraNa avasthA in its cause, clay. Before a pot comes into
being, it exists in kAraNa avasthA in the clay, after it comes into being
it has both kAraNa and svarUpa avasthA, after destruction it goes back to
kAraNa avastha in the pot shards.  Thus, while a hammer may destroy the
svarUpa of a pot, it is unable to destroy its kAraNa avastha. This can
happen only when brahma jnAna arises. Hence no avyApti.

If you don't mind, could you specifically point out in the example which is
> which and therefore the last set of likely impossibilities you point out
> w.r.t. bAdha of ajnAna? To me it appears as शुक्तिकायाः अज्ञानस्य
> स्वकार्येण रजतेन प्रविलीनेन वर्तमानेन वा सह ज्ञानेन निवृत्तिः बाधः।
>

In the case of shukti, the shell (not the shell silver)
a) The svarUpa of the shell is the shell form itself
b) The kArya avasthA of the shell, is whatever is the physical kAraNa for
the shell - the creature whose body part was the shell. -  If you recall
Sri Anand Hudliji's first few posts, he had presented the case for kArya
kAraNa bhAva being possible (like in a dream) in drishTi srishTi vAda too,
thus we can talk of a kAraNa avasthA of the shell.
c) The avidyA that caused the shell - It is mUlAvidyA. (We have to say
there is some avidyA that is the ultimate upAdAna kAraNa of the shell,
otherwise it would be satyam, not mithyA. My earlier email looked at a few
possibilities and landed on mUlAvidyA).

Because there is no ajnAta sattA in DSV, when there is shukti ajnAna, the
shell does not exist. What does this lack of existence mean, and is it
bAdha? We can argue that neither a) nor b) exist when there is shukti
ajnAna. However, mUlAvidyA nivritti does not happen until brahma jnAna
arises. Thus in the definition, अज्ञानस्य स्वकार्येण प्रविलीनेन वर्तमानेन
वा सह ज्ञानेन निवृत्तिर्बाध, while there  is pravilIna + vartamAna
nivritti, it is not ajnAnena saha. (Neither is it jnAnena nivritti, but it
is jnAnAbhAvAt nivritti, but let us ignore that for the sake of brevity).

Your sentence शुक्तिकायाः अज्ञानस्य स्वकार्येण रजतेन प्रविलीनेन वर्तमानेन
वा सह ज्ञानेन निवृत्तिः बाधः is correct - but we are not talking of bAdha
of shukti rajatam due to shukti jnAna, but the nivritti of shukti due to
ajnAta sattA abhAva.

And could you also quote the exact statement of the opponent before MS's
> refutation line given? [Page no. of the PDF will be helpful, since I'd like
> to read around it for my own benefit. Meanwhile, I'll also look around if I
> hit this sentence after sending this mail :)
>
The pUrva pakshi had said: अधिष्ठानसाक्षात्कारत्वेन निवर्त्ये शुक्तिरजतादौ
च ज्ञानत्वेन ज्ञाननिवर्त्यभावात् साध्यविकलता (Page 182 of the pdf of
Anantakrishna shAstrigal's 2nd edition) to which the siddhikAra replies on
page 186, शुक्तिरजतादेश्चापरोक्षप्रतीत्यन्यथानुपपत्त्या प्रतिभासकाले
अवस्थित्यङ्गीकारान्न बाधकज्ञानं विना तद्विरह इति न साध्यविकलता | अतेवोक्तं
विवरणाचार्यै: - "अज्ञानस्य स्वकार्येण प्रविलीनेन वर्तमानेन वा सह ज्ञानेन
निवृत्तिर्बाध " इति |

Regards,
Venkatraghavan