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

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Anand Hudli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:



> Further clarification is required. Person P1 mistakes the light from room A
> to be the gem itself. In other words, he superimposes the gem on the light
> emitted by the gem. This is quite possible if the gem is at a distance and
> location of the gem is not easily grasped. So here the bhrama is the
> superimposition of the gem on its light. yathA maNiprabhAM dRShTvA
> maNibhrameNa pravRtto jano maNiM labhate eva, ato maNiprabhAyAM
> maNibuddhirUpo bhramaH saMvAdI bhavati. The bhrama viShaya is the gem and
> it is not sublated after the bhrama ends.
>

If you now say light itself is confused for gem itself, then upon closer
inspection & realization he finds that it is light of the gem not the gem
itself. So the adhisTAna for this brahmA is light not the gem. The real gem
happens to be there by chance. This goes back to my original contention
that gem happens to be at that dESha-kAla, and definitely not the
adhishTAna for the brahmA.



>
> If this is still hard to understand, the PanchadashI, chapter 9 provides
> plenty of examples of saMvAdi-bhrama. Also, Shri Yogendranath Bagchi in his
> bAlabodhinI Sanskrit commentary on the advaitasiddhi provides a good
> example. dhUlipaTale dhUmabhramAt daivagatyA vahnimati
> jAyamAna-vahni-anumitau vyabhicArAt yaj-jnAnaM bhramajanyaM
> tadbAdhitArthakamiti vyApteratraiva vyabhicArAditi bhAvaH|
> Upon seeing a film of dust, one may mistakenly think it is smoke and infer
> the presence of fire


Here too, what exactly is seen is dust and what is concluded is smoke.
Adhistana is dust and adhisTa is smoke. Inference prakriya based on such
false smoke (hEtu) is besides the point and does not belong to this bhramA.




> (by the inference rule "where there is smoke there is
> fire" or the vyApti relation between fire and smoke). However, due to luck,
> there may actually be fire in the place where it is expected. This is an
> exception to the (proposed) rule that an object of illusion is sublated.
> Hence, there is no rule that the object of illusion is sublated (ie. there
> is no rule that there is viShaya-bAdha due to bhramajanyatva). Note here
> that the (saMvAdi) bhrama consists of superimposing smoke on dust *and*
> inferring fire due to the presence of smoke. The bhrama viShaya is fire and
> it is not sublated even after the bhrama ends.
>

Fire is not viShya of the brahmA  at all. But it is sAdya of anumAna based
on bhamAtmaka hEtu. I argue fire has nothing to do with this brahmA at all.

/sv