[Advaita-l] Samvadi Brama

[Aditya Kumar]

 Although aparokshAnubhuti is not yet attained, the requirement to achieve that is jnana nishta which means a strong conviction. A strong conviction must arise only after one is absolutely certain. So even before the attainment of Brahman, the sAdhaka is not deluded unlike in the illustration. 
I want to concede that I made a mistake earlier because rajju sarpa example is not applicable for samvadi brama because in rajju sarpa, the perception is faulty/against the true form of the rope. But in panchadashi example, the person sees the light -as it is-. This is not a brama since there is no fault in the perception of light itself. Even when the person sees the source, the perception of light is not modified because there was never a false perception or brama in the first place. This is an example of a simplistic speculation in the person's mind. 
So Raghavji, my question is, even before we establish the Upanishads as a brama, I am wondering if samvadi brama and the illustration given makes any sense at all. 
    On Wednesday, 22 August, 2018, 8:21:19 AM IST, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:  
 
 On Mon 20 Aug, 2018, 10:48 PM Aditya Kumar via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste,
> Sometimes we may confuse a rope for a snake but sometimes we may encounter
> an actual snake. Prior to both the outcomes, the person who is seeing the
> snake is in a state of uncertainty. Regardless of the both the outcomes,
> the person clearly sees either the rope or the snake. So the true svarupa
> of an object is necessary for an outcome. So once the person sees the
> actual lamp or jewel or rope or snake, it is not a brama anymore even in
> the illustration.

You raised a good question.
You seem to have also given the answer? You wrote-

Brama is applicable only as long as the person is not certain.


That person is not yet "certain" about the knowledge of Brahman. It's just
a belief for him. His "uncertain" knowledge is of the form "The
Guru/scriptures declare that I am Brahman which is nirguNam" or "I am
supposed to be Brahman".  :)

Such an *advaitic "belief* is being termed samvAdi bhrama. The bhrama part
has more to do with the "belief" part of it rather than the "advaitic" part
of it.

Also, Vidyaranya himself clarifies that there is nothing *wrong* even in
merely believing in Shruti sentences without enquiry and consequent
understanding . But there is surely a definite difference between the two
kinds of knowledge viz.,

"I am supposed to be Brahman"/"The scriptures say that I am Brahman and I
*believe* them"
(Using this Shraddha based "knowledge", a person can meditate even on
nirguNam Brahma, is what panchadashIkAra is saying )

And

"I am Brahman"
(This is vastutantra GYAnam. Born of pramANa vyApAra)

The former shradda-based "knowledge" is still sublatable/vulnerable if
challenged let's say by some charismatic dvaitins . ( For example there are
example of "advaitins" who converted to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's type of
Vaishnavism like Prakashananda Saraswati of Varanasi and even
Yadavaprakasha the former advaitic Guru and later follower of Ramanuja.
Even if these incidents are genuine, they don't mean that Advaita knowledge
is sublatable but Advaita belief surely is. )

 The latter conviction "I am brahman"  born of the antyam pramANam can
never be sublated or face such "conversions".

Om



> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org