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

[Ravi Kiran]

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.
>

Ok

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
bhAmati,
where the upAdhi is functional based on samskAra ?)

Understand this is a deviation from the main topic. Shall search the
archives.
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.
>

noted



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,
coming
in the future posts? can you share a peek view :)


> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> Thanks