[Advaita-l] Avachheda Vaada

[smallpress]

 Thank you for all the responses to my humble request. There is much to read and understand in these discussions, I am truly grateful.If I may point to the verse 14 in the Drik Drishya Viveka work :Srishthi nama brhmarupe satchidanandavastuniAbdow phenadivat sarvanamaroopa prasarana
Does this indicate the avachheda vada argument for the brhman and jagat relationship.Thank you for your patience.Soma

    On Wednesday, September 8, 2021, 10:31:44 AM EDT, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:  
 
 Namaste,

Thanks for providing your understanding. It is interesting that in your
view, vRtti upahita chaitanya is being treated as the same vRtti
pratibimbita chaitanya. I think my read of the texts is slightly different,
as mentioned in the other emails.


Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 1:09 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste.
>
> Reg  << Even then, how was it implied in the quote provided in your email
> that the reflection of consciousness in the vRtti is the object of the
> vRtti - I ask, because the bhAmati says that the upahita chaitanya (not
> pratibimbita chaitanya) is the akhaNDAkAravRtti's object, as noted in the
> introduction to the shatabhUShaNi posted by you earlier >>,
>
> By *reflection of consciousness* in above I meant *Upahita Chaitanya*
>  only and not Pure Consciouness. The *Upahita Chaitanya* when reflected as
> pratibimba chaitanya becomes the  akhaNDAkAravRtti's object.
>
> I may also add here that when I wrote ** not as the Subject of cognition
> ** in my earlier post, what I meant was ** not as the Subject of cognition
> as in the Vivarana school **.
>
> Reg  << I had posted a quote from the kalpataru, a commentary of the
> bhAmati, न ब्रह्मसाक्षात्कारस्य ब्रह्मविषयप्रयुक्तं चैतन्यप्रतिबिम्बितत्वं,
> किं तु स्वतः, घटादिवृत्तिष्वपि साम्यात् - where it is said that the
> reflection of consciousness is admitted in the cognition of pots too. Is
> your view that the kalpatarukAra's position is different to the bhAmati in
> this regard? >>,
>
> I concede my knowledge of Sanskrit is nothing to write home about. I could
> very well be wrong in my understanding. Even so I understood the above
> commentary to mean that  just as with cognition of a pot happens naturally
> due to the proximity of Chaitanya with the vritti  which assumes the form
> of the pot (किं तु स्वतः  kiM tu svataH), Brahma sAkshAtkAra also takes
> place naturally (किं तु स्वतः kiM tu svataH) due to the proximity of
> Chaitanya  with the akhandakaravritti which has assumed the form of
> pratibimba chaitanya, and not due to the pratibimba chaitanya present in
> the vritti itself. That is the साम्य (sAmya ) referred to. In this regard
> I am tempted to understand the situation in the Bhamati concept of
> perception as akin to that obtaining between Sakshi and antahkarana in the
> Vedanta Paribhasha model.
>
> Regards
> Chandramouli
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:14 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry regarding the first point below - for some reason, I had misread
>> your email to think that you were saying reflected consciousness is the
>> subject of the akhaNDAkAra vRtti.
>>
>> Now I see what you mean - you are saying that the reflected consciousness
>> is the *object* of the vRtti, *not the subject*.
>>
>> Even then, how was it implied in the quote provided in your email that
>> the reflection of consciousness in the vRtti is the object of the vRtti - I
>> ask, because the bhAmati says that the upahita chaitanya (not pratibimbita
>> chaitanya) is the akhaNDAkAravRtti's object, as noted in the introduction
>> to the shatabhUShaNi posted by you earlier.
>>
>> Would be interested in hearing your thoughts on both this and the second
>> point in the earlier email.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021, 11:34 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste,
>>>
>>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021, 10:04 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The reflection is indeed accorded a central role. But as an object of
>>>> cognition, not as the Subject of cognition. << अपि तु अन्तःकरणस्यैव
>>>> वृत्तिभेदो ब्रह्मविषयः । >>  << api tu antaHkaraNasyaiva vRRittibhedo
>>>> brahmaviShayaH | >>  << it is a particular psychosis (vritti) of the
>>>> internal organ itself, having Brahman for its content >>.
>>>>
>>> How is the proposition - that the reflection of consciousness in the
>>> vRtti is the subject of the cognition - derived from the above quotation ?
>>> That sentence says that Brahman is an object of the vRtti. What is the
>>> basis there to conclude that the reflection of consciousness in the vRtti
>>> is the subject?
>>>
>>> That appears to me to be a fundamental difference between the Bhamati
>>>> and Vivarana Schools.
>>>>
>>>> Also it appears to me that such reflection of Brahman in vritti is
>>>> admitted in Bhamati only  in respect of the akhandakara vritti. And not in
>>>> any other vrittis.
>>>>
>>> I had posted a quote from the kalpataru, a commentary of the bhAmati, न
>>> ब्रह्मसाक्षात्कारस्य ब्रह्मविषयप्रयुक्तं चैतन्यप्रतिबिम्बितत्वं, किं तु
>>> स्वतः, घटादिवृत्तिष्वपि साम्यात् - where it is said that the reflection of
>>> consciousness is admitted in the cognition of pots too. Is your view that
>>> the kalpatarukAra's position is different to the bhAmati in this regard?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Venkatraghavan
>>>
>>>
>>> This also is a major difference between the two Schools and could be
>>>> considered as Bhamati School’s refutation of a main feature  of  Pratibimba
>>>> vAda.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Chandramouli
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 2:04 PM H S Chandramouli <
>>>> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Namaste.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following may be of interest in the current context. It is an
>>>>> extract from the Introduction portion penned by Sri Anantakrishna Shastri
>>>>> Ji to his text Shatabhushani.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quote << The Bhamati, on the other hand, holds that Brahman
>>>>> associated with Avidya (ie., Upahita Brahman) is the primary import of the
>>>>> expression “Brahman”. The unassociated pure Absolute ( Suddha Brahman ) –
>>>>> according to Vachaspati, is not the object of Vedantic enquiry (Jignasya)
>>>>> (Vide, jadatvanirukti section of the Advaita Siddhi).
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, a very interesting question is raised by Vedanta Desika in this
>>>>> connection, to which the attention of all serious students of Indian
>>>>> Philosophy is earnestly solicited.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the object of Vedantic enquiry is the Upahita Brahman, then it may
>>>>> very reasonably be asked – how can knowledge of this Upahita Brahman (which
>>>>> in its own nature is false) lead a person to final emancipation (Moksha) ?
>>>>>
>>>>> In solving this puzzle, Vachaspati’s position has got to be very
>>>>> carefully analyzed first. Brahman, when associated with Avidya, becomes the
>>>>> Universal Cause. Again, when the same Brahman is associated with Vidya or
>>>>> Vritti (This term is elaborated in Note below), it becomes the object of
>>>>> Vedantic enquiry. Now, when Vedantic knowledge removes the Avidya together
>>>>> with the products of Avidya (prapancha), the Universal Cause melts away.
>>>>> Thereafter, there remains only for an instant, the Absolute associatd with
>>>>> Vidya. But this Vidya, too, having its root in Avidya, cannot continue
>>>>> after its root is once cut off. So, after the destruction of Avidya, Vidya
>>>>> also automatically ceases to exist, like fire becoming extinct on the
>>>>> complete consumption of the fuel. So, after the self-destruction of Vidya,
>>>>> self-luminous Pure Brahman alone exists. Thus the knowledge of the Upahita
>>>>> Brahman even brings in emancipation indirectly through the destruction of
>>>>> Avidya. In conclusion, it may be pointed out that in the opinion of
>>>>> Vachaspati Tattvajnana is the knowledge which removes the veil of
>>>>> ignorance, or, in other words, it is the knowledge of the object which is
>>>>> covered up by ignorance. It is absolutely immaterial whether that object is
>>>>> true or false. >> Unquote
>>>>>
>>>>> Note :: Vritti is mind-modification. The internal organ (antahkarana),
>>>>> shooting out through the door-like sense-organs (Jnanendriyas, eg eye)
>>>>> assumes the shape of external object (eg jar) and the object is perceived.
>>>>> The modification of the mind into the form of the external object is
>>>>> technically called Vritti. When the mind assumes the form of Brahman, the
>>>>> Vritti, formed thereby, is technically known as Brahmakara Vritti or
>>>>> Akhandakara Vritti. This is also called Vidya, Brahmavidya or Brahma Jnana).
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:15 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://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