[Advaita-l] Avachheda Vaada

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,

Thought it may be useful to dig a little deeper into the bhAmati sentence
by looking at the kalpataru. This is a particularly tricky section so
please take this as me only presenting my understanding. If there are any
errors / differences in translation / interpretation, please let me know.

The topic under discussion is whether the akhaNDAkAra vRtti objectifies
nirguNa Brahman or sopAdhika Brahman. To this the bhAmatikAra says as the
akhaNDAkAra vRtti itself is an upAdhi, it is not the nirupAdhika shuddha
brahma that is the object of akhaNDAkAra vRtti. However this vRtti's nature
is such that it removes all upAdhi-s, including itself.

न चान्तःकरणवृत्तावप्यस्य साक्षात्कारे सर्वोपाधिविनिर्मोकः, तस्यैव
तदुपाधेर्विनश्यदवस्थस्य स्वपररूपोपाधिविरोधिनो विद्यमानत्वात् । अन्यथा
चैतन्यच्छायापत्तिं विनान्तःकरणवृत्तेः स्वयमचेतनायाः स्वप्रकाशत्वानुपपत्तौ
साक्षात्कारत्वायोगात् ।
In Its (Brahman's) sAkshAtkAra by the mental vRtti, it cannot be said that
Brahman is free from all upAdhi-s, for that (vRtti) itself being an upAdhi
that is on the cusp of its own destruction, for it is that which is
inimical to both itself and other upAdhi-s. Otherwise (if it is not
accepted that the akhaNDAkAra vRtti itself is an *upAdhi* in the
sAkshAtkAra of Brahman - ie it delimits its object without being part of
it, ie कार्यानन्यत्वे सति विद्यमानत्वे सति व्यावर्तकत्वं) then without
recourse to consciousness being reflected in the vRtti, the vRtti being
inert, would not be self luminous and therefore couldn't reveal Brahman.

The kalpatarukAra clarifies the intent of the bhAmatikAra saying:
ननु निरुपाधिब्रह्मसाक्षात्कारगोचरः कथमुपहिततेति तत्राह - *नचान्तःकरणेति*
It must be nirupAdhika Brahman that is revealed in the sAkshAtkAra, how can
it be upahita Brahman. To clarify this, the bhAmatikAra writes -
*नचान्तःकरणेति*
निरुपाधि ब्रह्मेति विषयीकुर्वाणा वृत्ति: स्वस्वेतरोपाधिनिवृत्तिहेतुरुदयते;
स्वस्या अप्युपाधित्वाविशेषात् | The cognition that objectifies the
nirupAdhika Brahman rises while being the cause for the sublation of all
upAdhi-s including itself, for it too is an upAdhi. ततः स्वसत्तायां
विनाश्हेतुसान्निध्याद्विनश्यदवस्थ्यत्वम्  - as it is the cause for the the
cessation of its own existence, is termed as *विनश्यदवस्थ्यम्* (in the
bhAmati).
एवं च नानुपहितस्य विषयता, न चोपाधेर्निवर्तकान्तरापेक्षेति भावः | By this,
the meaning is that it is not the anupahita Brahman that is objectified,
nor is there another sublating cognition required to remove the upAdhi
(itself).
ननु - वृत्तिविशिष्टस्य शबलतया न तत्त्वसाक्षात्कारगोचरता ;
वृत्त्यवच्छिन्नात्मविषयत्वे च वृत्ते: स्वविषयत्वापातः, विशेषणाग्रहे
विशिष्टाग्रहात्, उपलक्षितस्य तु न वृत्त्युपाधिकता - इति Now if it is
objected saying thus - 1) the vRttivishiShTa Brahman being afflicted (by
vRtti, a product of ignorance), cannot be the object of the valid cognition
(that leads to moskha) 2) If the vRtti objectifies the vRtti-avacChinna
Atma, then the vRtti ends up objectifying itself (leading to kartR-karma
virodha), 3) if as a visheShaNa, it is not objectified (ie the vRtti doesnt
objectify itself to avoid the previous charge), then the vishiShTa is not
objectified either 4) if instead if it objectifies upalakshita Brahman, the
vRtti cannot be an upAdhi.
उच्यते - वृत्त्युपरागोऽत्र सत्तयोपयुज्यते न प्रतिभास्यतयाऽतो वृत्तिसंसर्गे
सत्यात्मा विषयो भवति न तु स्वत इति न दोषः | To this, it is said - Brahman's
association with the vRtti is achieved merely by the vRtti's presence, not
because the vRtti illuminates Brahman. Therefore when the relationship with
vRtti is present, the Atma is objectified, and not (when the Atma is) on
its own. Thus there is no defect.
ननूपाधिसंबन्धाद्विषयत्वं, विषयत्वे चोपाधिसंबन्धो विषयविषयित्वलक्षण
इतीतरेतराश्रयमत आह - *अन्यथेति*
In response to the objection that if Brahman becomes the object because of
the association with the upAdhi, and in order for it to be associated with
the upAdhi, it must be the viShaya of the upAdhi, the definitions of what
constitutes the subject and object end up being mutually dependent, the
bhAmatikAra writes the sentence beginning with *अन्यथा.*
न ब्रह्मसाक्षात्कारस्य ब्रह्मविषयप्रयुक्तं चैतन्यप्रतिबिम्बितत्वं, किं तु
स्वतः, घटादिवृत्तिष्वपि साम्यात् - The reflection of consciousness (in the
vRtti) during brahma sAkshAtkAra is not a result of Brahman being the
object of the vRtti, rather it is natural, like in the case of the vRtti-s
of pots etc too.
चैतन्यं च ब्रह्मेति स्वाभाविको वृत्तेस्तत्सम्बन्ध इत्यर्थः
The intended meaning is that consciousness, being Brahman, the association
of it with vRtti-s is intrinsic / natural.

The fact of the usage by the bhAmatikAra of chaitanyaChAyA and of the
kalpatarukAra of ghaTAdivRttiShvapi sAmyAt for chaitanyapratibimbitatvam
seems to indicate that while not part of avacCheda vAda, chaitanya
pratibimbam in the vRtti is not an unacceptable position for the two
AchAryas. Sounds like they accept that the vRtti is capable of reflecting
consciousness, but do not accord that reflection a central role in the
cognitive process.

Wonder whether the siddAntalesha sangraha makes any reference to the
acceptance of chaitanya pratibimba within avacCheda vAda.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan



On Mon, 6 Sep 2021, 13:51 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The quote cited by Venkat Ji is the last sentence in the passage cited in
> my post.
>
> Regards
>