[Advaita-l] Advaita Siddhi series 014 - dvitIya mithyAtva vichAra: (part 6)

[Ravi Kiran]

Namaste Sri Venkatraghavanji

Pl see clarification inline:

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
>
> Until now, we have been translation upAdhi as locus, but its interpretation
> goes beyond just that. upAdhi = upa (samIpe) + AdhIyate svadharma: yena.
> That which causes the attributes that belong to itself to be perceived as
> belonging to a proximate object is upAdhi.
>
> Brahman is the upAdhi with respect to the world,


How to understand this ?  ( normally upAdhi referred as, avidyA (jIva) or
mAya (Ishvara) )

because the sat that is
> brahman appears as the sattA of the world.


Is it meant that sat - as attribute that belong to itself (svadharma) -
Brahman ?

which implies - sat being considered as attribute of  (attributeless)
Brahman, while sat is Brahman Itself ?


Therefore by the usage of upAdhi
> in the mithyAtva definition, vivaraNAchArya has indicated that asat cannot
> have sat pratIti.
>
> एतदेव सदर्थकेनोपाधिपदेन सूचितम् | This has been indicated by the word
> upAdhi. The argument that this definition of asat is only the siddhikAra's
> and the faults pointed lie in pUrvAchArya's definition is refuted.
>
> Though the world is asat, it happens to be the object of bhrama, wrong
> cognition - this is the shUnyavAdin's position. He does not recognise that
> asat vastu cannot be perceived, and therefore says that which is asat is
> also mithyA. What is the difference between the shUnyavAdin and the
> advaitin?



> It is the word upAdhi, which indicates a real substratum. We hold
> that illusion requires a real substratum,


upAdhi as real substratum (Brahman)?

whereas the shUnyavAdin does not
> require a real substratum for an illusion.
>
> शून्यवादिभि: सदधिष्ठानभ्रमानङ्गीकारेण the shUnyavAdins do not acknowledge
> that an illusion must have a real substratum
>
> कवचिदप्युपाधौ सत्त्वेन प्रतीत्यनर्हत्वरूपासद्वैलक्षणस्य (क्वचिदप्युपाधौ
> सत्त्वेन प्रतीत्यर्हत्वरूपस्य) शुक्तिरूप्ये प्रपञ्चे चानङ्गीकारात्  |
> therefore
> they do not acknowledge a difference between asat, which is incapable of
> appearing as existing in any upAdhi,


Should we take the meaning of upAdhi as locus of appearance?

Then, by the earlier definition of upAdhi - samIpe AdhIyate svadharma: yena
, how to do samanvaya ?

and the shell-silver / the world,
> which are capable of appearing as existing in some upAdhi.
>
> Thanks