[Advaita-l] DSV of Sri Madhusudana Saraswati

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Chandramouliji - PraNAms
This may be related but back to the basics, which I know you may not agree with.

What I perceive is only the reflected dominant attributes as in the case of silveriness in the shell or partial attributes in the rope/snake case such as five feet long, coiled condition, lying on the alley, softness when stepped on, etc. 
Hence the partial cognition involves - there is (an object) and the object with the above perceived attributes - Since the cognized attributes are not clear to distinguish between a rope and a snake - the cognition to recognition involves an error due to saadrusyam or similarities. 
In the case of silveryness, the attribute of silver shining is dominant and since one has a value for silver, he makes an effort to pick it up. When he cognizes other attributes that indicate it is not silver but shell-silver his true perception is complete along with the negation of the real silver aspect. 
All that glitters are not gold is a proverb due to the same reason. The famous Eureka story is another example. 
Anyway, the point in the previous posts is abhaadhitatvam is essential to differentiate pramaa vs brahmaa.
Hari Om!
Sadananda
 

    On Sunday, April 26, 2020, 08:54:30 PM GMT+5:30, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 Pranams Sri Sadananda Ji,
Reg  << If perception continues even after knowing it is an error then the perceiver also should think that it is not a pramaa but brahmaa.
Even in the shell/shell silver case, the silveriness can still be seen but it is understood that it is brahmaa than pramaa >>,
I agree. Reason being the bAdhita of error. Hence abAdhitatvaM is not superflous. It is essential.Regards
On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 8:01 PM Kuntimaddi Sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

Chandramouliji 
If perception continues even after knowing it is an error then the perceiver also should think that it is not a pramaa but brahmaa.
Even in the shell/shell silver case, the silveriness can still be seen but it is understood that it is brahmaa than pramaa. 
Hari Om!Sadananda

 

    On Sunday, April 26, 2020, 04:22:08 PM GMT+5:30, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 Pranams Sri Sadananda Ji,
But it is an experience that many a time even in prAtibhAsika errors,wrong perception continues even after it is known to be an error.
Regards
On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 4:17 PM Kuntimaddi Sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

Chandramouliji - PraNAms
For praatibhasika errors when one knows the truth by using the better pramaana then the error in the perception is removed. In the case of vyaavahaarika errors (Iswara srushti) such as mirage waters, sunrise, and sunset, the appearance will continue 

 

    On Sunday, April 26, 2020, 03:12:03 PM GMT+5:30, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:  
 
 Pranams Sri Sadananda Ji,

Reg  << When when I see  a snake where the rope is, at that time, it is
anadigatam from the point of the snake that I am seeing where the rope is.
I am seeing it for the first time >>,

What is the position when the snake continues to be seen, as happens
sometimes, even after it is known to be a rope. Then it is not valid
knowledge because it is already बाधित(bAdhita).
Regards

On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 1:03 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 8:36 AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> There was an interesting article by Smt. S.Revathy (professor, Madras
>> Sanskrit College) on Vedanta paribhAShA. She says that the very condition
>> of an object being anadhigata is a sufficient criterion for a valid
>> cognition. In other words, the condition of abAdhitatvam as a criterion
>> for
>> valid knowledge is superfluous.
>>
>> Wherever the origination of the object is coeval with perception, it is
>> termed jnAtaikasattAka and that puts all such cognitions such as cognition
>> of shell in silver (here the object is jnAtaikasattAka), such cognitions
>> are not valid knowledge at all, according to VP.
>>
>> She quotes Shri Madhusudana Saraswati from to substantiate this from his
>> work Advaita Ratna rakshaNa.
>>
>> Incidentally the fact that the requirement that the object is to be
>> ajnaatasattaaka (unknown prior to its cognition) - an implicit necessity
>> for the condition of anadhigatatvam (unknown prior to its cognition -
>> implying that the object exists but is unknown) to be satisfied, places
>> the
>> vedAnta paribhAShA epistemology clearly within the ambit of sRShTi dRShTi
>> prakriyas.
>>
>> Om
>>
>> Raghav
>
> Namaste Raghav Ji,
>
> In anticipation of your approval, I have changed the title of the thread
> as above.
>
> Reg  << Incidentally the fact that the requirement that the object is to
> be
> ajnaatasattaaka (unknown prior to its cognition) - an implicit necessity
> for the condition of anadhigatatvam (unknown prior to its cognition -
> implying that the object exists but is unknown) to be satisfied, places the
> vedAnta paribhAShA epistemology clearly within the ambit of sRShTi dRShTi
> prakriyas >>,
>
> The following is from  दृष्टिसृष्टिविचारः – आद्वैतसिद्धिः
> dRRiShTisRRiShTivichAraH – AdvaitasiddhiH
>
> प्रथमः परिच्छेदः  prathamaH parichChedaH.
>
> << न च इदं रूप्यमिति ज्ञानकाले शुक्तित्वादेरभावेनाध्यासस्य
> तदज्ञानकार्यत्वादिप्रक्रियाविरोध इति वाच्यम् । ‘इदं रूप्य'मिति ज्ञानकाले
> शुक्तित्वस्याभावेऽपि तदज्ञानस्थित्यविरोधात् । नहि सत्ताकाल इव
> सत्ताविरहकालेऽपि अज्ञानं विरुध्यते । >>
>
> << na cha idaM rUpyamiti j~nAnakAle shuktitvAderabhAvenAdhyAsasya
> tadaj~nAnakAryatvAdiprakriyAvirodha iti vAchyam | ‘idaM rUpya'miti
> j~nAnakAle shuktitvasyAbhAve.api tadaj~nAnasthityavirodhAt | nahi sattAkAla
> iva sattAvirahakAle.api aj~nAnaM virudhyate |>>
>
> Meaning (not literal translation)
>
> << Objection  ::  At the time of delusion of the nature “This is silver”,
> there is no knowledge of the adhisthana, since in the view of
> dRRiShTisRRiShTi there is nonexistence of object prior to its knowledge;in
> the absence of the object its ignorance also cannot exist; therefore the
> causal effect ascribed to the ignorance of the adhisthana  nacre leading to
> the declared adhyAsa cannot take place; resulting in the illogicity of the
> postulate of ignorance of the adhisthana leading to adhyAsa.
>
> Response  ::  At the time of the delusion “This is silver”, even though
> adhisthana of the nature of nacre is admitted to be nonexistent, it does
> not conflict with the existence of its ignorance (अज्ञान), because in DSV
> both an object (capable of existence) as well as its ignorance (अज्ञान)
> are admitted to be the vishaya (content or subject matter) of its knowledge
> >>.
>
> Reg the observation by Sri Subrahmanian Ji
>
> << All
> knowledge/perception activity is  akin to dream perception  >>,
>
> Rajju sarpa also is within the ambit of DSV as per the following from
> Advaita Siddhi
>
> << शुक्तिरूप्यस्वप्नादिवत् दृष्टिसृष्ट्यन्यथानुपपत्त्यापि जगतो
> मिथ्यात्वसिद्धिः । >>
>
> <<  shuktirUpyasvapnAdivat dRRiShTisRRiShTyanyathAnupapattyApi jagato
> mithyAtvasiddhiH | >>
>
> Meaning  << Even though dRRiShTisRRiShTi  cannot take place except as
> being similar to nacre-silver and dream creation, still jagat mithyatva can
> be established through it >>.
>
> There are any number of statements in this chapter of Advaita Siddhi which
> clearly admit of all the three levels of
> sattA;pAramArthika/vyAvahArika/prAtibhAsika; in this prakriya of DS in
> accordance with the definition adopted by Sri MS for DS.
> Regards
>
_______________________________________________
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