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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Ravi Kiran ji,

On 22 Dec 2017 17:35, "Ravi Kiran" <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com> wrote:


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 ? )


In this case, avidyA can be taken as both agrahaNam and anyathA grahaNam,
ie as bhrama upAdAna kAraNam.


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


> 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 vritti is based on bhAmati prakriya ?


Actually my sentence was worded poorly. aikya jnAna generated by mahAvAkya
*is* the akhaNDAkAra vritti. Therefore the sentence should have read -
mahAvAkya shabda generates the akhaNDAkAra vritti. The object of the vritti
is upahita Brahman, not shuddha brahman. After the vritti does its job, all
that remains is shuddha Brahman.


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 ?)


As far as I understand, the idea of jivanmukti exists within bhAmati
prakriyA also. Thus the akhaNDAkAra vritti leads not to the destruction of
the body, but to its bAdha, ie the certainty that it does not exist in any
period of time. As the bhAmati kAra observes, न खल्वयं सर्वथा
मनुष्याभिमानरहित:, किन्तु अविद्यासंस्कारानुवृत्त्या अस्य मात्रया
तदभिमानोऽनुवर्तते -  this one (jIvanmukta) is not wholly lacking the notion
that he is human, rather that notion continues in slight traces through the
continuance of the impressions of avidyA.


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?

To be honest, I have not studied the bhAmati in detail, so I am unable to
answer. Hopefully the opportunity to study the bhAmati presents itself at
some point.
Perhaps you can read the english translation of Bhamati chatussutri by
Suryanarayana Sastri, or alternatively, siddhAnta lesha sangraha of appayya
dIkshitar, for a survey of different views on jivanmukti.



> 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 ..?

Yes, that is a typo, thanks for picking it up, will change it in the
website.


> 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 ?


"This definition" refers to the fifth mithyAtva definition considered in
this chapter, sadviviktatvam.



> 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 :)


It was in this post itself. sat, as far as this definition of mithyAtva is
concerned, is pramANa siddham, and pramANa is doSha asahakrita jnAna
karaNatvam. That is, sat is that which is established by a means of
knowledge that is unaccompanied / unafflicted by a defect.

Coming to what sat means withing advaita - later in the siddhi itself,
there is a chapter titled "pratyaksha bAdhoddhAre sattva nirvachanam",
which explores the meaning of sat in the context of whether the world's
mithyAtva is contradicted by the satyatva known through pratyaksha (the
answer: it is not). In describing pAramArthika sat, the siddhikAra says at
one point -  तथाहि - स्वप्रकाशाद्वितीयचैतन्यरूपत्वमेव ब्रह्मण:
सत्त्वम्. Therefore,
Brahman's sat is the self-revealing, non-dual consciousness. That is, sat =
chit.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan