[Advaita-l] [advaitin] A smart inference by Shankara

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Respected Michael ji.
PranAms.

//You have indicated elsewhere that it is bhavarupa avidya that accounts
for DSV, that is, avidya precedes DSV.//

Both DSV and SDV accept srishTi. This srishTi is impossible without avidyA.
So, both DSV and SDV have to admit avidyA. This avidyA is bhAvarUpa i.e.
bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNA for both DSV and SDV. It is not a question of
avidyA "preceding" DSV. SrishTi is contingent on avidyA, be it SDV or DSV.
So, DSV requires avidyA, that much is the claim. There is no "preceding" or
"succeeding" here.

//I don't see how knowledge that is contingent on a drastr's buddhi can
dispel its own causal ignorance.//

In DSV, buddhi, mind, body, world etc are not distinct stuff. The knowledge
which removes avidyA, is Chaitanya, which is reflected in
akhanDAkArA-vritti i.e. AtmAkArA-vritti, i.e. a vritti which does not have
non-Chaitanya as its object. For e.g. sun is an illuminator of grass. But
when it is refracted through a lens, it burns the same grass. Similarly,
Chaitanya is illuminator of avidyA. But when it reflects in
AtmAkArA-vritti, it burns avidyA. There is nothing incongruent in this.

//Effect can't eliminate cause - pot's demise is irrelevant to clay - clay
is unchanged.//

It is not the effect that is eliminating the cause. It is the Chaitanya
reflected in effect which is eliminating the cause. So, the remover is not
the effect but Chaitanya. So, there is no incongruence.

//First, there is scant evidence from either the Upanisads or Bhasya
outlying DS as a vada or prakriya.//

Wherever bhAshya or Upanishad equate waking and dream, it is the DSV which
is being talked about. It is this simple. Waking different from dream, it
is SDV. Waking identical to dream, it is DSV. I am sure you can find
hundreds of places where dream and waking are equated in bhAshya. They are
all DSV. The simplest is AItareya -- trayah swapnAh.

//Then in the second selection, Madhusudana defines drsti as 'consciousness
conditioned by ignorance'. Can you provide Bhasya with this kind of
interpretation?//

Conditioning here means reflection. That there is reflection of Chaitanya
is admitted in bhAshya. चैतन्यप्रतिबिम्बरूपेण जीवेन (ChhAndogya BhAshya).

Please note that avidyA is accepted from the frame of reference of avidyA.
>From the frame of reference of Brahman, there is no avidyA. VArtikakAra
says - अविद्यास्तीत्यविद्यायामेवासित्वा प्रकल्प्यते । ब्रह्मदृष्ट्या
त्वविद्येयं न कथञ्चन युज्यते इति ॥

So, reflection is admitted from the frame of reference of avidyA. From the
frame of reference of Chaitanya, there is no avidyA and hence, no
reflection.

This avidyA is never without the reflection of avidyA. It is always
illuminated by the reflection of Chaitanya. VArtikakAra says -
आत्माज्ञानमतः प्रत्यक्चैतन्याभासवत्सदा। आत्मनः कारणत्वादेः
प्रयोजकमिहेष्यते।। (BBV 4.3.355 )

//How to explain asparsa, asanga Atma conditioned by anything? Adhyasa is
simply a mixing up.//

Now, this reflection/conditioning is only from the frame of reference of
avidyA whence Chaitanya appears as though conditioned. From the frame of
reference of Chaitanya, there is no avidyA. Hence, asparsha, asanga AtmA is
valid.

Further, even from the frame of reference of avidyA, avidyA is mithyA.That
also implies asparsha, asanga AtmA. Mirage-water does not wet the desert.
Does it?

adhyAsa is mixing up. Certainly. So?

Regards.