[Advaita-l] Fwd: Advaita Siddhi series 020 - panchama mithyAtva vichAra:

Ravi Kiran ravikiranm108 at gmail.com
Fri Dec 22 07:05:04 EST 2017

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji

Pl see comments inline:

> > Will there be a separate discussion ( later ) on how avidyA is explained
> as
> > per Advaita Siddhi or does the siddhikAra references from earlier
> > advaitic  texts?
> > If so, which ones ? If there is a summary on definition of avidyA as per
> > siddhikAra, posted here, it will help.
> >
> Yes, there is a chapter later in advaita siddhi itself called avidyA
> lakshaNam where multiple definitions of avidyA will be considered for
> analysis.

Thanks. In this post, can we take avidyA to mean as tattva agrahanam, as
mentioned in BUB 1.4.7 ?  (or would you suggest
a more relevant definition in this context ? )

नित्यलब्धस्वरूपत्वेऽपि अविद्यामात्रं व्यवधानम् । यथा गृह्यमाणाया अपि
शुक्तिकाया विपर्ययेण रजताभासाया *अग्रहणं *विपरीतज्ञानव्यवधानमात्रम् , तथा
ग्रहणं ज्ञानमात्रमेव, विपरीतज्ञानव्यवधानापोहार्थत्वाज्ज्ञानस्य ;
एवमिहाप्यात्मनोऽलाभः अविद्यामात्रव्यवधानम् ;

> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Secondly, this definition extends (incorrectly) to the attributeless
> >> Brahman too. According to the BhAmati school, shuddha Brahman cannot be
> >> the
> >> object of any vritti.
> >
> >
> > As per Bhamati, sruti mahAvAkya janya aikya jnAna is not aparoksha jnAna?
> >
> As per the bhAmati, shuddha brahman is not the object of any vritti on the
> basis of shrutis like यत्तदद्रेश्यं etc. It is vritti upahita brahman that
> is the object of mahAvAkya janya aparoksha jnAnam. As upahita brahman is
> vritti vyApyam, it is considered mithyA (drishyatvam = vritti vyApayam in
> this school) according to bhAmati.


The aikya jnAna generates an akhaNDAkAra
> vritti that not only removes avidyA, but avidyA kArya (including the vritti
> itself, which is also an avidyA kArya). What remains after the vritti
> itself is destroyed is the anupahita, shuddha Brahman.

Can we say,

the aikya jnAna referenced above (bhAmati) is maha vAkya janya alone?
But, the generation of akhaNDAkAra vrtti is based on bhAmati prakriya ?

With the rise and destruction of such a vrtti, the dehAdi upAdi falls away,
soon after?
(or such a one is still subjected to prArabda karma fala upabhoga, as per
where the upAdhi is functional based on samskAra ?)

Understand this is a deviation from the main topic. Shall search the
If you have any recommendation or pointers to any refs where this is
dealt in some detail, pl share ?
would be interested in, how the bhAmati school of thought is reconciled
with bhAshya wrt atmAikyatva jnAna and (prArabda) samskAra/avidya lesha?

> On the other hand, vivaraNa holds that shuddha Brahman can be the object of
> mahAvAkya janya aparoksha jnAnam - it is vritti vyApyam, but not phala
> vyApyam. In this school, drishyatvam = shabda ajanya vritti viShayatvam -
> the object of any vritti apart from one that is born out of shabda. Thus,
> despite Brahman being mahAvAkya janya aparoksha vritti viShayam, it is not
> mithyA.


The nyAyAmritakAra had previously said that if sattva meant
> unsublatability, then mithyAtva as difference from sat, would mean
> sublatability. Even if sat is held to be the difference from a thing known
> through a pramANa, it would ultimately imply sublatability.

you meant - Even if mithyAtva (instead of sat) above ..?

+just like in the perception of dream objects, generated due to nidrA doSha,
+perception is not considered as a valid means of knowledge,

(upon waking from dream)

+ (the world) is
+considered mithyA too as it is not revealed by a valid means of knowledge.

(upon jnAna born out of maha vAkyas) ; otherwise it is pratyaksha pramAna
(as you have covered earlier on)

> अत्राप्यसति निर्धर्मके ब्रह्मणि चातिव्याप्तिवारणाय सत्त्वेन प्रतीयमानत्वं
> विशेषणं देयम् ;
> If it is argued that *this definition* extends to asat and attributeless
> Brahman, then the qualifier "that which appears as existing" must be added.

*this definition* - refers to the prev, प्रमाणसिद्धत्वं
चाबाध्यत्वव्याप्यमित्यन्यत् | pramANa siddhatvam is vyApya
for abAdhyatvam ?

अनभ्युगमादेव | Because, none of these three alternatives is the intended
> meaning of sat.

Is there a discussion into the intended meaning of sat, as per siddhikAra,
in the future posts? can you share a peek view :)

> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
> Thanks

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list