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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,
This is not my conclusion - I was only paraphrasing the bhAmati.

ननु सन्तु नाम परीक्षकाणां विप्रतिपत्तयः, प्रकृते तु किमायातमित्यत आह -
*सर्वथापि
त्वन्यस्यान्यधर्मकल्पनां न व्यभिचरति* ।अन्यस्यान्यधर्मकल्पनानृतता, सा
चानिर्वचनीयतेत्यधस्तादुपपादितम् । तेन सर्वेषामेव परीक्षकाणां
मतेऽन्यस्यान्यधर्मकल्पनानिर्वचनीयतावश्यम्भाविनीत्यनिर्वचनीयता
सर्वतन्त्रसिद्धान्त इत्यर्थः ।

If you think that your view is different to the commentator's
interpretation, that is fine.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan


On Thu, 22 Feb 2024, 12:33 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin, <
advaitin at googlegroups.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB658125092143D0CF39D165FF84562%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB658125092143D0CF39D165FF84562%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>