[Advaita-l] Why brahma jnAna is capable of sarva nivritti

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

A small typo is regretted;

Please read para;

"This is samvAdi-bhrama, for the vishaya of bhrama i.e gem, is not the
adhisTAna of bhrama, but the lamp is. Although gem do exist in the room
nevertheless it is not the adhistAna of the bhramA. Presense of gem is just
kaakatALia."

as

This is **not** samvAdi-bhrama, for the vishaya of bhrama i.e gem, is not
the adhisTAna of bhrama, but the lamp is. Although gem do exist in the room
nevertheless it is not the adhistAna of the bhramA. Presense of gem is just
kaakatALia.





On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste,
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>>  Here, Madhusudana only implicitly refers to what is called
>> samvAdi-bhrama, for example in the PanchadashI 9.1 and 9.2. A person
>> perceiving the light emanating from a room containing a gem, think it is
>> the gem itself and runs after it and does, in fact, find the gem.
>
>
> This is samvAdi-bhrama, for the vishaya of bhrama i.e gem, is not the
> adhisTAna of bhrama, but the lamp is. Although gem do exist in the room
> nevertheless it is not the adhistAna of the bhramA. Presense of gem is just
> kaakatALia.
>
>
>
>
>> Another
>> person perceiving light emanating from another room containing a lamp also
>> thinks it is a gem and runs after it, only to discover there is no gem.
>> The
>> first is a case of samvAdi-bhrama, whereas the second is a case of
>> visaMvAdi-bhrama.
>
>
>
>> In the first case, there is doSha-janyatva, arising from
>> a defect, but there is no viShaya-bAdha, negation of the object (gem).
>>
>
> As said above, the viShaya-bhAda of the bhramA do exist as he realizes the
> light is not from the gem but from the lamp.
>
>
>
>> Hence, it is not correct to say that doSha-janyatva or
>> bhrama-janyatva determines viShaya-bAdha. bhrama-janyatvasya
>> viShayabAdha-aprayojakatvAcca, says Madhusudana.
>>
>>
> In saying so it is a leap of logic by jumping from bhrAma-viShaya to
> annya-viShaya (in same dESha or kAla of the bhamA).
>
> So also in case bhramAtmaka shruti's viShaya (Brhamn being adhisTAna of
> this jagat bhrama) will also get bhAda once one is realized. Presence of
> Brhama ttava, which is totally different from viShaya of this jagat bhramA,
> may be there or may not be there, there is no guarantee. One cannot
> affirmatively say it will be there by  simply alluding to shruti's prAmANya.
>
> /sv
>
>
>