[Advaita-l] Avachheda Vaada

[H S Chandramouli]

In continuation to Part 2 of my earlier post, it may be noted that the
quote cited by Venkat Ji is the last sentence in the passage cited in my
post .

Regards



On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 8:39 AM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Part 2 ( continuation of previous post )
>
> << nanUktaM shrutamayena j~nAnena jIvAtmanaH paramAtmabhAvaM gRRihItvA
> yuktimayena cha vyavasthApyata iti |
> tasmAnnirvichikatsashAbdaj~nAnasantatirUpopAsanA
> karmasahakAriNyavidyAdvayochChedahetuH | na chAsAvanutpAditabrahmAnubhavA
> taduchChedAya paryAptA | sAkShAtkArarUpo hi viparyAsaH sAkShAtkArarUpeNaiva
> tattvaj~nAnenochChidyate, na tu parokShAvabhAsena,
> di~NmohAlAtachakrachaladvRRikShamarumarIchisalilAdivibhrameShvaparokShAvabhAsiShu
> aparokShAvabhAsibhireva digAditattvapratyayairnivRRittidarshanAt | no
> khalvAptavachanali~NgAdinishchitadigAditattvAnAM di~NmohAdayo nivartante |
> tasmAttvampadArthasya tatpadArthatvena sAkShAtkAra eShitavyaH | etAvatA hi
> tvampadArthasya duHkhishokitvAdisAkShAtkAranivRRittiH, nAnyathA | na
> chaiSha sAkShAtkAro mImAMsAsahitasyApi shabdapramANasya phalam , api tu
> pratyakShasya, tasyaiva tatphalatvaniyamAt | anyathA kuTajabIjAdapi
> vaTA~Nkurotpattiprasa~NgAt |
> tasmAnnirvichikitsAvAkyArthabhAvanAparipAkasahitamantaHkaraNaM
> tvampadArthasyAparokShasya tattadupAdhyAkAraniShedhena
> tatpadArthatAmanubhAvayatIti yuktam | na chAyamanubhavo brahmasvabhAvo yena
> na janyeta, api tu antaHkaraNasyaiva vRRittibhedo brahmaviShayaH | na
> chaitAvatA brahmaNo nAparAdhInaprakAshatA | na hi shAbdaj~nAnaprakAshyaM
> brahma svayaM prakAshaM na bhavati | sarvopAdhirahitaM hi svaya~njyotiriti
> gIyate, na tUpahitamapi | yathAha sma bhagavAn bhAShyakAraH -
> “nAyamekAntenAviShayaH” iti | na chAntaHkaraNavRRittAvapyasya sAkShAtkAre
> sarvopAdhivinirmokaH, tasyaiva tadupAdhervinashyadavasthasya
> svapararUpopAdhivirodhino vidyamAnatvAt | anyathA chaitanyachChAyApattiM
> vinAntaHkaraNavRRitteH svayamachetanAyAH svaprakAshatvAnupapattau
> sAkShAtkAratvAyogAt | >>
>
> Translation ( Dr Kunhan Raja and Prof Suryanarayana Shastri )  << Now, it
> has been said that the jiva’s true nature the supreme self having been
> apprehended through  cognition of the nature of hearing, it is confirmed
> (cognition) of the nature of reasoning. Hence, contemplation of the nature
> of a succession of indubitable cognitions based on (valid) verbal testimony
> is, as assisted by ritual, the cause of destruction of the two-fold
> Nescience. Nor can this achieve that destruction without bringing about
> experience of Brahman. Error, which is of the nature of immediate
> experience, can be removed only by true knowledge of the nature of
> immediate experience, not by mediate presentation; for, it is seen that
> immediate presentations like confusion of direction, the circle of fire,
> the moving trees (as seen when one is oneself moving), and the water in the
> mirage are removed only by immediate presentation  in the nature of true
> cognitions of the directions etc. Confusion of directions etc are not,
> verily, removed by the ascertainment of the directions etc obtained through
> verbal testimony, inference etc. Hence, what is to be desired is the
> intuition of the denotation of the “thou” as of the nature of the
> denotation of the “that”. Only thus and not otherwise can there be
> cessation of the intuition of the denotation of the “thou” as subject to
> suffering, grief etc. This intuition does not, verily, result from verbal
> testimony even though accompanied by inquiry, but from perception, that
> (intuition) being the invariable result of that (perception) alone, as
> otherwise it would follow that a banyan shoot could grow even from a kutaja
> seed. Hence, it stands to reason that the internal organ perfected by the
> contemplation of the meaning of sentences of indubitable import, manifests,
> of the immediately experienced denotation of the “thou”, its nature as the
> denotation of “that”, through negating the various conditioned forms of the
> former. Nor is the experience itself of the nature of Brahman, in which
> case could not be generated ; rather, it is a particular psychosis (vritti)
> of the internal organ itself, having Brahman for its content. Nor with this
> does Brahman become other-illumined. Because Brahman is illumined by verbal
> testimony, it does not, verily, become non-self-illumined. Indeed, that
> which is free from all adjuncts is declared to be self-effulgence, not that
> which is conditioned too. As the revered Commentator, verily, says : “ now,
> this is not invariably a non-object”. Nor is  there  freedom from all
> adjuncts in the intuition of Brahman, though a psychosis of the internal
> organ, for, it (the intuition) is known to be an adjunct opposed both to
> itself and to other adjuncts, being itself on the brink of destruction.
> Otherwise (ie if it were not united to intelligence as an adjunct), of the
> psychosis of the internal organ, itself non-intelligent, self-illumination
> would be unintelligible, in the absence of the reflection of intelligence,
> and hence it could not intuite. >>
>
> Regards
>
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>