[Advaita-l] Definition of Anubhava

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Praveen Ji,

Reg  <<  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 >>,

upAdhis  do  exist indeed,  at tarka level (vyAvahArika sattA ).

Reg  << At the level of tarka, my understanding is still that we agree with
jnAna (different from smRti) as anubhava >>,

Undoubtedly. This is not refuted. The VPS definition itself confirms this.
What is indeed refuted is the nyAya view that jnAna/anubhava are attributes
of the Self. As per Sidhanta, they are Self itself, with or without upAdhis
as the case may be.
Regards

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 7:42 PM Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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] */
>