[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-)

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Raghav Ji,

Reg  // How do we distinguish sAxI pratyaxa entities like "algebra",
"democracy"
etc which I understand are sat,  from asat like hare's horns which can also
be conceptualized by the mind? //,

In my understanding, terms like "algebra", "democracy" etc are mental
concepts, not "objects". They cannot be classified as "sat" (existent).

Regards




On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 2:52 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouli ji
>
>
>
> On Sun, 24 Dec, 2023, 8:55 pm H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Namaskaram Vikram Ji,
> >
> > Reg  //  Ontologically, asat is that which is never experienced as
> > existing.
> > Hare’s horn is asat //,
> >
> > In my understanding, the words ** in any locus ** needs to be added at
> the
> > end of ** as existing **. This is to avoid any mixup with all *imagined
> **
> > entities being understood as asat. For example, a snake just **
> imagined**
> > (not as ** it is a snake**) is also nonexistent. Because just the word **
> > snake ** being imagined implies absence of any locus. But snake itself
> > cannot be called asat.
> >
> > Incidentally this was why I had suggested earlier that the word
> > **imagined** with reference to rope-snake as inappropriate, because the
> > experience there is **It is a snake**, implying a locus which is
> > experienced through a pramANa.
> >
>
> Thank you for this clarification.
> One additional factor to consider -
>  Under the assumption that the word 'objects' refers not only to physical
> objects but also to existent entities like
> "democracy",
> "algebra"
> "poem"
> "Prime numbers" etc., since they exist and are experienced but not as
> objects of the five senses, we categorize these as objects cognized
> directly by the mind, "sAxI pratyaxa". Yet they are not asat. The locus of
> these objects would be the antaH karaNam or in some cases the locus would
> possibly be specific class objects like the collection of people who are
> citizens.
>
> How do we distinguish sAxI pratyaxa entities like "algebra", "democracy"
> etc which I understand are sat,  from asat like hare's horns which can also
> be conceptualized by the mind?
>
> Om
> Raghav
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > You may like to consider
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 6:44 PM H S Chandramouli <
> hschandramouli at gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Namaskaram Vikram Ji,
> > >
> > > Reg  //  These qualities are the attributes (viseshana) of Brahman and
> > are
> > > distinct manifestations //,
> > >
> > > This seems to contradict point 4 unless you distinguish between Brahman
> > > and nirvisesha Brahman of point 5. But that does not appear to be the
> > > case as the word Brahman appears to be used in other places in the post
> > > without clearly mentioning any qualifications. Perhaps it would be
> better
> > > to use the word Chaitanya for nirvisesha Brahman and correct the post
> > > accordingly at other places where Chaitanya is intended.
> > >
> > > Just a suggestion. I thought it would make it easier to comprehend your
> > > intention unambiguously. All the more so because the word Brahman is
> used
> > > in the Bhashya in three different contexts, namely nirvisesha Brahman,
> > > mAyA vishishta nirvisesha Brahman, and mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman.
> > > Even in respect of mAyA upahita nirvisesha Brahman, in my
> understanding,
> > > only AvaraNa sahita  nirvisesha Brahman is intended and not AvaraNa
> > > rahita  nirvisesha Brahman where ever reference is made to mAyA upahita
> > nirvisesha
> > > Brahman in the Bhashya. For example in respect of sAkshi, antaryAmi
> etc.
> > >
> > > You may like to consider
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 8:05 AM Vikram Jagannathan via Advaita-l <
> > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Namaskaram Shri Bhaskar ji,
> > >>
> > >> Before we continue on the main thread, I would like to understand the
> > >> extent we are aligned on the fundamentals of Advaita. Below, I have
> > >> mentioned my current understanding in a sequential order. Please let
> me
> > >> know if you agree with these points or not. If you disagree with any
> > >> point,
> > >> please stop there and do not proceed until we discuss that particular
> > >> point
> > >> and come to an agreement.
> > >>
> > >> I would like to open this discussion to the entire group and request
> > >> others
> > >> to share & contribute their agreements / disagreements. I have
> > >> deliberately kept the explanations for these statements to a minimum.
> If
> > >> we
> > >> agree to the statement, but have different explanations / reasons for
> > >> arriving at that, that's fine; we will get an opportunity to clarify
> as
> > we
> > >> go deeper.
> > >>
> > >> With the right spirit and intention, we will have subsequent posts
> where
> > >> we
> > >> continue to add more points.
> > >>
> > >> 1. The svarupa lakshana of Brahman is: existence (sat), real (satya),
> > >> consciousness (chit), knowledge (jnana), bliss (ananda), eternal
> > (nitya),
> > >> infinite (anadi & ananta), full (purna), partless (avyaya),
> homogeneous
> > >> (eka rasa), immutable (kutastha), unchanging (avikara), pure (suddha),
> > >> devoid of any differentiation whatsoever (sajatiya, vijatiya, svagata
> > >> abheda)
> > >> 2. Per ekam-eva-advitiyam, there is no sajatiya or vijatiya or svagata
> > >> bheda, whatsoever, in Brahman
> > >> 3. Per neha-nanasti-kinchana, there is no plurality or ‘other’ or
> > >> something
> > >> ‘else’ whatsoever in Brahman
> > >> 4. An infinite homogeneous partless immutable entity cannot have any
> > >> attributes (viseshana), since an attribute is defined as a quality
> that
> > is
> > >> inseparable but distinct from the substance, and there cannot be any
> > >> distinction in a completely abheda homogenous entity
> > >> 5. This Brahman is designated as nirvisesha Brahman for the sake of
> > >> convenience
> > >> 6. Any quality associated with Brahman, that has in context or in
> > relation
> > >> something ‘else’, is only a tatastha lakshana of Brahman. This
> includes
> > >> qualities such as sarvajna, sarvasakthi, sarveshvara,
> > >> creator-sustainer-destroyer of the universe, antaryami, witness, being
> > the
> > >> locus for something else, etc.
> > >> 7. These qualities are the attributes (viseshana) of Brahman and are
> > >> distinct manifestations
> > >> 8. Their relationship with Brahman is that of attribute-substance or
> > >> shakti-shaktivan or possessed-possessor. In all these cases, they are
> > >> inseparable but distinct from Brahman.
> > >> 9. Brahman described as possessing these qualities is designated as
> > >> savisesha Brahman for the sake of convenience
> > >> 10. Ontologically, sat is that which once ascertained as existing
> always
> > >> remains unchanged across all time. Nirvisesha Brahman is sat.
> > >> 11. Ontologically, asat is that which is never experienced as
> existing.
> > >> Hare’s horn is asat.
> > >> 12. Ontologically, mithya is that which is neither sat nor asat nor
> both
> > >> (sadasat-vilakshana) - it appears to exist but later sublated. The
> > >> universe
> > >> of plurality, the viseshanas & sakthis of savisesha Brahman, snake on
> a
> > >> rope, rope itself, mirage, double-moon are all examples of this mithya
> > >> category. If you do not agree with this definition, please clarify
> what
> > is
> > >> the ontological status of a mithya entity.
> > >> 13. Anirvachaniya explicitly means the entity cannot be specifically
> > >> described as sat or as asat or as both simultaneously - the reason why
> > an
> > >> object may appear to exist but later sublated. There may be other
> > >> definitions, but if you do not agree with this definition, please
> > clarify
> > >> what is the right definition of anirvachaniya and if anirvachaniya is
> > sat
> > >> or asat or both or something else?
> > >> 14. If the above two points are in agreement, then the ontological
> > status
> > >> of anirvachaniya is mithya
> > >> 15. In our current ignorance we believe the entire perceived universe
> of
> > >> plurality and change has an independent existence. What is the actual
> > >> ontological status of the universe and what is the ontological status
> of
> > >> the universe as we believe it to be in our ignorance? Both mithya?
> > >> 16. But let’s say that through shastra and sadhana, we gain the
> > knowledge
> > >> that this universe is only a nama-rupa change of Brahman and is
> > completely
> > >> dependent on Brahman. What now becomes the actual ontological status
> of
> > >> the
> > >> universe and the ontological status of our perception of the universe?
> > >> Still both mithya?
> > >> 17. Does the nitya-suddha-buddha-mukta-svarupa nirvisesha Brahman
> > perceive
> > >> or cognize the universe? Answer is no?
> > >> 18. Is there the perception of this universe for the savisesha
> Brahman?
> > >> Answer is yes?
> > >> 19. Do you believe that, per “brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati”, a knower
> of
> > >> Brahman (jnani) verily becomes (is) Brahman? Is this savisesha Brahman
> > or
> > >> nirvisesha Brahman? Answer is nirvisesha Brahman?
> > >> 20. Does this knower of Brahman perceive or cognize the universe?
> Answer
> > >> is
> > >> no?
> > >> 21. In Adhyasa Bhashya, right after stating the first definition of
> > >> adhyasa
> > >> as “smriti rupa …”, Bhagavan bhashyakara explains various theories of
> > how
> > >> adhyasa could occur. After the last theory, bhagavatpada states in the
> > >> sentence “sarvathapi tu…” that the one common mechanism in adhyasa is
> > >> “cognition of one thing having the qualities of another”.
> > >> 22. Various later acharyas have called this particular section of the
> > >> Bhashya as explanation of “khyati-vada (theory of error)”. Bhagavan
> > >> bhashyakara calls this error (khyati) itself as adhyasa.
> > >> 23. “Khyati”, as related to an incorrect cognition, is a term used in
> > >> pre-Sankara period itself, such as PatajaliYogaSutra-2.5.
> > >> 24. Various later acharyas, in their sub-commentaries, have explained
> > that
> > >> the common mechanism (sarvathapi tu ...) stated in the bhashya is the
> > >> universal concept of “anirvachaniya khyati”.
> > >> 25. Anirvachaniya, also because the various khyati vada can be broadly
> > >> categorized as sat-khyati, asat-khyati or sat-asat-khyati.
> > Bhagavatpada’s
> > >> common explanation is an underlying thread amongst all these khyati
> > vada.
> > >> Hence it transcends being exclusively described as sat or asat or
> > >> sat-asat.
> > >> 26. In answering the question on how there can be a superimposition
> > >> between
> > >> light & dark or ‘I’ and ‘thou’, bhashyakara says that nevertheless
> > >> (tathapi) this is a natural worldly experience of coupling the real &
> > >> unreal
> > >> 27. Though of mutually conflicting attributes and a logical
> > impossibility,
> > >> bhashyakara still says that adhyasa is still a common observation in
> the
> > >> world and only explains it as a 'natural' (naisargikah) phenomenon.
> > >> Implying that this phenomenon cannot be exactly described or is thus
> > >> anirvachaniya.
> > >> 28. This natural phenomenon is adhyasa
> > >> 29. This adhyasa is also later termed as avidya
> > >> 30. The entire gamut of loka vyavahara (secular and religious) depends
> > on
> > >> this adhyasa or is the effect of this adhyasa
> > >> 31. Since adhyasa is also avidya, the entire gamut depends on and is
> the
> > >> effect of this avidya
> > >> 32. Since this natural phenomenon is anirvachaniya, the exact
> > explanation
> > >> for adhyasa or avidya is anirvachaniya
> > >> 33. In other words, Adhyasa as a term is described as “atasmin tad
> > >> buddhi”.
> > >> But, how or why adhyasa take place in a certain way cannot be exactly
> > >> described.
> > >> 34. Examples of this anirvachaniya adhyasa are shell silver, double
> > moon,
> > >> rope snake, mirage, colored crystal, red hot iron ball, ‘I’-ness and
> > >> ‘mine’-ness with BMI and objects
> > >> 35. In all these examples, the resulting entity, the result of
> adhyasa,
> > is
> > >> distinct from the true object; and the true object doesn’t actually
> > >> contain
> > >> all the perceived qualities of the resulting entity
> > >> 36. For example, when a rope is perceived as a snake, there is
> actually
> > no
> > >> snake whatsoever in the rope. The qualities of the snake are
> > superimposed
> > >> on the rope and the rope appears as the snake.
> > >> 37. Prior to the perception of the rope as the snake, while the rope
> is
> > >> perceived as the snake, after the true cognition of the rope as a
> rope,
> > >> across all these periods, there is never actually a snake in the rope
> > >> 38. The superimposed qualities, which actually are not present in the
> > >> actual object, only appears to be present in the object during adhyasa
> > >> 39. As long as the resulting adhyasa entity is perceived to be so, the
> > >> entity is considered as real and existing
> > >> 40. But on the dawn of true discriminative knowledge, the true nature
> > and
> > >> qualities of the actual object is perceived as-is
> > >> 41. At this point the earlier cognition of the adhyasa entity is
> > >> understood
> > >> to be false and not actually present in the actual object
> > >> 42. Because the adhyasa entity is actually not present in the actual
> > >> object, the adhyasa entity cannot be called as sat
> > >> 43. At the same time, because the adhyasa entity was experienced as
> > >> existing prior to dawn of true knowledge, the adhyasa entity cannot be
> > >> called as asat
> > >> 44. Obviously the adhyasa entity cannot be both sat and asat
> > >> simultaneously
> > >> due to mutual contradiction
> > >> 45. Thus the ontological status of the adhyasa entity is neither sat
> nor
> > >> asat nor both (sadasat-vilakshana). The adhyasa entity is mithya
> > >> 46. Since adhyasa is also called avidya, avidya too is only mithya
> > >> 47. Since adhyasa or avidya is anirvachaniya, mithya too is
> > anirvachaniya
> > >> 48. Anirvachaniya is sadasat-vilakshana
> > >> 49. Nirvisesha Brahman is perceived as savisesha Brahman due to
> adhyasa.
> > >> In
> > >> other words, the viseshanas are superimposed on Brahman
> > >> 50. When adhyasa is overcome, the nirvisesha Brahman is realized as-is
> > >>
> > >> with humble prostrations,
> > >> Vikram
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > >>
> > >> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > >> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > >>
> > >> For assistance, contact:
> > >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> > >>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>