[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** RE: [advaitin] Re: Interesting comment by Udayanacharya

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna

स्मृतिरूपः परत्र पूर्वदृष्टावभासः ।
(Referring to anirvachanIya khyAti)

तं केचित् अन्यत्रान्यधर्माध्यास इति वदन्ति । (Referring to AtmakhyAti / anyathAkhyAti)

केचित्तु यत्र यदध्यासः तद्विवेकाग्रहनिबन्धनो भ्रम इति । (Referring to akhyAti)

अन्ये तु यत्र यदध्यासः तस्यैव विपरीतधर्मत्वकल्पनामाचक्षते । (Referring to asatkhyAti)

सर्वथापि त्वन्यस्यान्यधर्मकल्पनां न व्यभिचरति । (Conclusion that anirvachanIyatA must be accepted by all).


Ø     Just wondering where in the last sentence ‘anirvachanIyatA’ entered!!??  My plain reading could not able to find this word.  It is just saying that an object appears as possessed of an attribute it does not really have and which belongs to another object.  If I am right bhAshyakAra does not identify these (above 3) views and as a matter of fact nowhere (anywhere in PTB if I am right) he discussed the khyAti vAda in general and paNcha khyAti or anirvachaneeya khyAti in particular.  At the best we can infer that these three variants on reality transfer were prevalent during the formation of adhyAsa bhAshya ( and it is also not clear whether bhAshyakAra keeping other khyAti related works written by some others in mind or guessing the possibilities of these variants on his own) .  He does not analyzed these theories in details nor declared any judgements on them nor it seems he intended to advocate his own theory on any of the khyAti vAda.  The anivachanIya khyAti vAda which you are reading in the above sentence is quite conspicuous by its absence I reckon atleast in this particular context.  Sorry I am just sharing my observation after seeing your observation and ‘conclusion’.


Ø     And further bhAshyakAra quite often reiterate that this socalled reality transfer is common experience and not merely a assumption.  In this adhyAsa bhAshya bhAshyakAra does not give any pramANa vAkya to prove adhyAsa he strongly holds here the common experience of everyone which cannot be disputed and this is also consistent with his observation naisargikOyaM lOka vyavahArAH.  In the shukti rajata example also it is very clear that the rajata although not present in the shukti at that time, is a real thing, existing elsewhere.  It is the memory of that silver (existing elsewhere) in the person that is responsible for the cognition of silver in shukti.  This is common experience of jnAnAdhyAsa.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar