[Advaita-l] DSV in the advaitasiddhi: sArUpya, adhikasattAkajnAna is not necessary for bAdha

[Anand Hudli]

Correction: >One should (erroneously) claim that the world is being
established as
> vyAvahArika in DSV.

should be

One should *not* (erroneously) claim that the world is being established as
vyAvahArika in DSV.

Anand

On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Anand Hudli <anandhudli at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> na ca- idaM rUpyaM nedaM rUpyamiti jnAnayorbhinnaviShayatvena
> bAdhyabAdhaka-bhAva-anupapattiriti- vAcyam|
>
> The pUrvapakShin should not object: the two cognitions, "this is silver"
> and "this is not silver", have different contents (refer to different
> objects) and hence there is no bAdhya-bAdhaka-bhAva (sublated-sublater
> relation) between them.
>
> dRShTi-sRShTi-pakShe jnanabhedena viShayabhedAt- In DSV, two cognitions
> must refer to two different objects. Why? Since sRShTi happens with dRShTi
> or is the same as dRShTi and there is no pre-existing object before dRShTi,
> two different cognitions will refer to different objects. If this is the
> case, the illusory knowledge "this is silver" and the sublating knowledge,
> "this is not silver" will not refer to the same silver. The sublating
> knowledge, "this is not silver", negates not the silver seen earlier, but
> another instance of silver. Thus, there cannot be any sublation of the
> illusion, "this is silver", says the pUrvapakShin.
>
> Madhusudana: bhinnaviShayatve api viShayayoH sArUpyAt
> svapnabAdhyabAdhakayoriva bAdhyabAdhakabhAvopapatteH| Although the contents
> of the sublated and sublater are different, due to the similarity between
> the two, the sublater-sublater relation can be established, as (between)
> the sublated-sublater cognitions in a dream. The first cognition is of the
> form "this is silver" and the second cognition is of the form of an absence
> (abhAva), "this is not silver, where the pratiyogi (counter-correlate) of
> the abhAva is silver. While the silver that is the object of the first
> cognition is not the same as the silver that is the abhAvapratiyogi in the
> second cognition "this is not silver", due to similarity between the two,
> the second cognition becomes the bAdhaka of the first, as it happens in a
> dream.
>
> na ca- rUpyAdibAdhasyApi dRShTi-sRShTitve tena
> rUpyAdermithyAtva-asiddhiriti- vAcyam| The pUrvapakShin should not object:
> Since the bhrama and bAdha both belong to dRShTi-sRShTi category (and hence
> both are prAtibhAsika), you cannot establish the illusoriness of the silver
> seen in the bhrama. The pUrvapakShin here erroneously thinks:
> "bAdhyApekShayA adhikasattAkajnAnasya eva bAdhakatvAt prakRte
> bAdhya-bAdhakayos-tulyasattAkatvAt", the sublater should belong to a
> higher order of reality than the sublated for it to become a sublater, but
> in the present case, both the sublated and sublater belong to the same
> order of reality.
>
> Madhusudana: bAdhya-anyUnasattAkatvameva bAdhakatve prayojakam, na tu
> adhikasattakatvamiti asyopapAdidatvena vyAvahArikeNa vyAvahArikabAdhavat
> prAtibhAsikena prAtibhAsikabAdha-avirodhAt| (The sublater's) not belonging
> to a lower order of reality is necessary for sublation, not belonging to a
> higher order of reality. A vyAvahArika sublater can sublate a vyAvahArika
> (object) and a prAtibhAsika sublater can sublate a prAtibhAsika (object).
> This has already been established (in the discussion on the second
> definition of mithyAtva). While discussing the second definition of
> mithyAtva, Madhusudana established that the negation of the world can be
> vyAvahArika too, i.e. of the same order of reality as the world. The
> sublater does not have to be of a higher order of reality than the
> sublated, but it should not be of a lower order of reality. This is the
> principle. For more details, see   http://www.advaitasiddhi.org/  Part
> 14.  One should (erroneously) claim that the world is being established as
> vyAvahArika in DSV. The reference to the second definition of mithyAtva is
> only to make the point that the sublater can be of the same order of
> reality as the sublated. In fact, Madhusudana makes a reference to a dream
> object being sublated in the dream itself, where the sublater is also
> prAtibhAsika like the dream object.
>
> Anand
>
>
>
>