[Advaita-l] Definition of Anubhava

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Chandramouliji,

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 7:21 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Praveen Ji,
>
> I am referring back to an earlier thread couple of years back wherein you
> had raised some questions on  अनुभव  ( anubhava ).
>
> << I couldn't find the definition of अनुभव in that thread. The
> interpretation,however, looks same as what I said in my first post
> अपरोक्षज्ञानम्। This is
>
> not at all at dispute. To clarify, I wish to know:
>
> 1) Whether we agree with the Nyaya definition स्मृतिभिन्नज्ञानम् अनुभवः।
> If
>
> not,
>
> 2) What is our definition of अनुभव?
>
> Please note that this definition should not and need not be limited
>
> to ब्रह्मज्ञान, as it is applied everywhere >>.
>
> Link to the thread is
>
> <<
> https://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2017-July/045786.html .
>
> I am not sure if you could get a satisfactory answer  to your questions
> either in that thread or since then. During  my search through  Vivarana
> Prameya Samgraha  recently in some other context, I came across the
> following conclusion  concerning  अनुभव  ( anubhava ).
>
> <<  तथा  चात्म्यैव बिषयोपाधिको ऽनुभव इति व्यपदिश्यते
> अविवक्षितोपाधिश्चात्मेति । >>
>
> << tathA  chAtmyaiva biShayopAdhiko .anubhava iti vyapadishyate
> avivakShitopAdhishchAtmeti | >>
>
> << And thus the Self itself as conditioned by objects is spoken of as
> experience ; and when the adjuncts are not intended, ( it is called ) the
> Self >>  ( Translation by Prof Suryanarayana Shastri ).
>
> Note this definition is not limited to ब्रह्मज्ञान ( BrahmajnAna ). There
> is an exhaustive discussion as well wherein the other views, including that
> of Nyaya is rejected.
>
> If you are still interested in the topic, you may like to lookup the text
> itself for further details. Also of course Panchapadika Vivarana itself.
>

Thanks for referring back and responding to this old query of mine. This is
definitely useful and I shall further look up your pointers to try and
understand the refutation of Nyaya. However, this is like the
Vedantaparibhasha (VP) definition of jnAna as chaitanya in siddhAnta and
everything else with the upAdhi to chaitanya, other than which nothing
exists. At the level of tarka, my understanding is still that we agree with
jnAna (different from smRti) as anubhava. Even VP gives out a similar
sense. On a related note, samAdhi is explained as brahma-rUpa-samAdhi, but
we also agree with yoga definition as chitta-vRtti-nirodha.

Kind rgds,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */