[Advaita-l] Advaita Siddhi series 014 - dvitIya mithyAtva vichAra: (part 6)
ravikiranm108 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 25 23:21:36 EDT 2017
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) -
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
> 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 |
> 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.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list