[Advaita-l] Avachheda Vaada

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji,
What the kalpatarukAra is saying in that sentence is that in the case of
brahma sAkshAtkAra, the reflection of consciousness in the vRtti is not
because Brahman is the object of the vRtti (ब्रह्मविषयप्रयुक्तं
चैतन्यप्रतिबिम्बितत्वं), for that reflection happens even in the case of
the cognition of pots also (घटादिवृत्तिष्वपि साम्यात्) - where the
reflection of Brahman (consciousness) in the ghaTavRtti is present, even
though Brahman is not the object of the ghaTavRtti, rather the reflection
of consciousness in the thought happens naturally (किं तु स्वतः).

With respect to how the akhaNDAkAra vRtti objectifies Brahman, as the
kalpatarukAra says वृत्त्युपरागोऽत्र सत्तयोपयुज्यते न प्रतिभास्यतया - the
objectification of Brahman by the vRtti is merely by its presence, not by
the vRtti being objectified in the cognition of Brahman.

The siddhikAra discusses this very sentence in the advaita siddhi chapter
on dRshyatvam:

अयमभिप्राय: - यथा अज्ञानोपहितस्य साक्षित्वेऽपि नाज्ञानं साक्षिकोटौ
प्रविशति; जडत्वात्, किन्तु साक्ष्यकोटावेव,
Just like even though the sAkshi is ajnAna upahita, ajnAna does not become
part of the witness (sAkshi), because being inert, it only belongs to the
category of the witnessed (sAkshya).

एवं वृत्त्युपहितस्य विषयत्वेऽपि न वृत्तिर्विषयकोटौ प्रविशति; स्वस्या:
स्वविषयत्वानुपपत्ते:, किन्तु स्वयमविषयोऽपि चैतन्यस्य विषयतां सम्पादयतीति न
काप्यनुपपत्ति: |
Similarly, even though vritti upahita Brahman is objectified by the vritti,
the vritti itself does not become part of the viShaya koTi, that which is
objectified, for if it did, then it would be open to the charge of
objectifying itself. Rather while remaining unobjectified itself, it is
able to objectify consciousness. Hence, there is no untenability.

That is, in the bhAmati / kalpataru paksha, the akhaNDAkAra vRtti's ability
to remove ajnAna is on account of both ajnAna and jnAna having the same
object - namely being उपाध्यविषयकत्वे सत्युपहितविषयकत्वात् - having the
upahita as the object while having no element of the upAdhi as the object.
Because they are samAnaviShayakam, only such a jnAna, and nothing else, is
capable of ajnAna nivRtti.

Regards
Venkatraghavan





On Tue, 7 Sep 2021, 18:48 V Subrahmanian, <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you Venkat ji for such a detailed and painstaking explanation.
>
> It looks like this statement of the Kalpataru //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.//
>
> is a restatement of the Panchadashi concept of Vrttivyapti and
> phalavyapti. While both ghata perception and Brahman perception require the
> chit pratibimbita vritti to reveal the object, the ghata jnanam requires
> phala vyapti too to illuminate the ghata which is not svaprakasha being
> jada, the Brahma sakshatkara does not require the chit illumination
> separately as Brahman is svaprakasha. Hence kevala chit pratibimbita vritti
> is sufficient.
>
> If this understanding is correct, then the Vivarana concept could be seen
> to be admissible to the Bhamati prasthana, being avirodha.
>
> regards
> subbu
>
>
>
>
>