[Advaita-l] Acollection of articles on Advaita - 'Voice of Shankara'.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Raghavji,

On Mon 27 Apr, 2020, 6:10 AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> >
> > IMO, quoting Bhagavan
>
> Madhusudhana Saraswati may not be right unless the
> >
> :) I know name-dropping is not wise. The text name is alone given as
> Advaita Ratna raxaNa.
>

I'm happy to see such juggernaut names, so please do drop names, but my
question was the context. And the entire work is most likely not the
context. :-)


>
> exact context is known. To that effect, I plead ignorance; could you point
> > me to the source I could look up to understand better? OTOH, I could say
> > that each object is coeval with the perception and that would exclude
> each
> > object-cognition from pramA. We wouldn't need this business of pramA at
> all
> > then! :-)
> >
> You mean dRShTireva sRShtih or the other viz., yat dRShTam tat sRShtaM (I
> may not be using the exact words)?

I also meant whatever the author meant by coeval :-)

As far as I am able to make out, VP
> would imply that dRShTireva sRShTiH to be inapplicable for pramA and VP
> would include the idea of "an object originates even as it is perceived" to
> be not fit to be termed pramA. VP would include it under either bhrama (if
> unsublated)

or bAdhita anuvRtti (if sublated).
>

I think VP wouldn't consider it pramA but it surely falls under anadhigata.
And without abAdhitattva, it just won't work in that way.


> I too was struck by the dismissal of abAdhtatvam as a necessary prayojakam
> for a pramA, in the article of the author. That is why I highlighted the
> point.
>
> I am attaching the relevant pages in jpg format in a separate mail.
>

Thanks, but I read the entire article before my earlier response requesting
exact Advaitaratnarakshana statement in context.


> The word aGYAtasattAka and jnAtaikasattAka used by the author are evidently
> from the standard model of AvaraNa nivRtti. I do not know the source. I can
> only request other members to help.
>

That is where I fault the author for faulting VP! You can't have a standard
model before VP analysis and further dismissal, as that VP *is* the
standard model. Why would one try to understand the definition of pramA
from VP while taking ajnAtasattAka definition from elsewhere and not used
in VP before! (Thinking ahead, there would be an issue with anupalabdhi too
w.r.t. ajnAtasattAka).

Each basic work starts defining technical words and cannot assume such
undefined words. With that perspective, I would expect the anadhigatatva
definition to include it if it's author meant so. Else one can use DSV, as
said earlier and dismiss entire SDV too!