Eka-sattA-vAda vis-a-vis sattA-traividhya-vAda

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

What are the main points of distinction between Eka-sattA-vAda and sattA-traividhya-vAda? 

Also, kindly suggest some reading material on this issue. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

Regarding the three types of SattA (existence) the most authentic material is the Taittiriyopanishad passage 'satyam cha anRtam cha satyam abhavat' and Shankara's extremely elaborate bhashya and Sureshwara's vartika on it.  A study of the same is available here:

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/paramarthika-vyavaharika-satyam/

Another key source for this is the Bhashya on the Bh.Gita 2.16.  The verse itself is on the topic of Existence.  Shankara expatiates on this and presents two/three types of existences, with analogies.  

The SandhyAdhikaraNa bhashya too has material to read on this topic.  At the end Shankara says:  The dream world is sublated upon waking. But the waking world of space, etc. is also sublated upon the True awakening: the Vedantic realization.  Thus, Shankara accepts a seeming reality to the waking world.  This is what is known as sad-asad-vilakshana also known as anirvachaniya.  The problem with anirvachaniya, bhAva rUpa, arises when one mistakes the 'bhAva rUpa' as the same as Existence of Brahman.  This fundamental mistake alone is at the base of objection to bhAva rUpa (ajnAna). 

warm regards

subbu 

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBA8bw%2BuJ_BnEYrEqe8YtS4QyhPSEJf0DXrBYYjZoxejKw%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

An article on 'BhAva rUpa ajnana' is available here:

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/bhaavaroopa-ajnanaavidya/

regards

subbu

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji.

Thanks for your response.

The satta-traividya-vAda is perfectly understood. 

What are the points of distinction between sattA-traividhya-vAda and eka-sattA-vAda.

Regards.

On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 9:39 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3cWKedNid7mS6VeVedp9r%2BYwwZJMVxj0Z%3DR%3DXgMmq79A%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji, Venkatraghavan ji, Chandramouli ji, Raghav ji and other learned members of the group.

It is critical to understand the different models in which the statements in VedAnta are made. One such distinction in models is that of eka-sattA-vAda and sattA-traividhya-vAda. I have made a study in this regard and have written it in systematic format. I would request you to kindly go through the article and share your views about the same. The article can be accessed from 

https://sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/eka-satta-vada-vis-a-vis-satta-traividhya-vada.pdf

I would request your kind indulgence in this regard as it will help me improve my understanding of advaita.

A snapshot of differences between eka-sattA-vAda and sattA-traividhya-vAda, taken from the article, is pasted here for ready reference. The required references from Advaita SIddhi, LaghuchandrikA, VedAnta ParibhAshA, Advaita Parishuddhi, Shat BhUshanI are mentioned in the PDF which I am not reproducing here.

Head	Eka-satta-vAda	SattA-traividhya-vAda
1	There is sattA of only one entity namely Brahman. Superimposed entities have no sattA.	There is sattA of Brahman, vyAvahArika vastu and prAtibhAsika vastu. Despite being superimposed entities, they have sattA, although they are progressively lower.
2	In the pratyaksha “ghaTah san”, there is perception of existence belonging to Aropya-tAdAtmya-Apanna-sat.	In the pratyaksha “ghaTah san”, there is perception of vyAvahArika-sattva belonging to pot.
3	The nishedha of mithyA vastu is by swarUpa.	The nishedha of mithyA vastu is by vyadhikaraNa-dharma, pAramArthikatva.
4	san-mAtra-grAhI-pratyaksha is accepted. adhishThAna-jnAna is pramA, vikalpa-jnAna (pot-jnAna) is bhrama.	san-mAtra-grAhI-pratyaksha is not admitted. vikalpa-jnAna (pot-jnAna) is accepted as pramA.
5	Though there is vyapadesha of pratibhAsikatva and vyAvahArikatva, no vyAvahArika or prAtibhAsika sattA is admitted.	VyAvahArika and PrAtibhAsika sattA are admitted.
6	It is the preferred model.	It is by tushyatu-durjana-nyAya.
7	It is for uttama-adhikArI. (Sanskrit VichAra SAgara, page 150: दृष्टिदृष्टिवादैकसत्तावादैकजीववादेषु दृढतरसंस्कारवानुत्तमाधिकारी)	It is for manda-adhikArI.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

On a cursory glance at the article, I did not see any reference to whether eka-sattA-vAda is consistent with Bhashya while there is at least one reference to the same in respect of sattA-traividhya-vAda.

You can see the irony of it here. Bhashya is relegated to acceptance under tushyatu-durjana-nyAya while eka-sattA-vAda is under the ** preferred model** category. Whichever text might have made such a statement. Does it deserve any comment?

Reg // It is for uttama-adhikArI.(Sanskrit VichAra SAgara, page 150: दृष्टिदृष्टिवादैकसत्तावादैकजीववादेषु दृढतरसंस्कारवानुत्तमाधिकारी) //,

Vichara SAgara, page 220, last foot note states ** अयमेव सर्वोत्तमः पक्षो दुर्लभाधरिकारिकः **. There are hardly any suitable adhikArIs for the best prakriyA !! What is the use ??

There is emphasis only on establishing mithyAtva. But that is not the final aim of Advaita SiddhAnta which is jIva-Brahma Ekatva. Establishing mithyAtva is only part of the  sAdhana for Realization.

Normally any statement attributed to Advaita SiddhAnta is, by default, understood here in these Forums as in consonance with the Bhashya. If there is any deviation from this, it would be appropriate to mention that the view presented is in accordance with some other prakriyA. Unfortunately in my understanding in many of the recent posts the views presented are certainly not in accordance with the Bhashya. But no reference is made to the same. It could lead to avoidable confusion with many of the readers.

Regards

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCUFW3Q%3Dox5VkLjfktoU%3D_dW1B-_rB0ZjvsCYczcypWYA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

Whether it is bhAshya, or texts by later AchAryAs or PurANAs or any other VedAntic text, we will have statements which are valid only in specific models such as SDV, DSV, Eka-sattA-vAda, sattA-traividhya-vAda, ajAtivAda etc. 

BhAshya statements are not in a singular model. 

Take for example:

1. वैधर्म्याच्च न स्वप्नादिवत् ॥ २९ ॥   अत्रोच्यते — न स्वप्नादिप्रत्ययवज्जाग्रत्प्रत्यया भवितुमर्हन्ति । कस्मात् ? वैधर्म्यात् — वैधर्म्यं हि भवति स्वप्नजागरितयोः ।
2. त्रयः स्वप्ना जाग्रत्स्वप्नसुषुप्त्याख्याः । ननु जागरितं प्रबोधरूपत्वान्न स्वप्नः । नैवम् ; स्वप्न एव ।

Now, BhAshyakAra will not explicitly say that the former statement is valid in SDV while the latter in DSV. We are required to understand that these statements are valid in different model. Each model relevant for different adhikArI.

As BhAshyakAra Himself clarifies -यापि बुद्धैः अद्वैतवादिभिः जातिः देशिता उपदिष्टा, उपलम्भनमुपलम्भः, तस्मात् उपलब्धेरित्यर्थः । समाचारात् वर्णाश्रमादिधर्मसमाचरणाच्च ताभ्यां हेतुभ्याम् अस्तिवस्तुत्ववादिनाम् अस्ति वस्तुभाव इत्येवंवदनशीलानां दृढाग्रहवतां श्रद्दधानां मन्दविवेकिनामर्थोपायत्वेन सा देशिता जातिः तां गृह्णन्तु तावत् । वेदान्ताभ्यासिनां तु स्वयमेव अजाद्वयात्मविषयो विवेको भविष्यतीति ; न तु परमार्थबुद्ध्या ।

So, you will find that MANDUkya Upanishad will hardly talk about SDV. Rather it will focus on DSV and ajAtivAda. 

Similarly, you will find BhAshyakAra somewhere stressing upon the absolute need of the fixed order in the sequence of creation (first space, then air, then fire etc.) and accordingly reconciling different Upanishads, and elsewhere throwing this entire argument out of window by equating them to an arthavAda or story - अस्तु तर्हि सर्वमेवेदमनुपपन्नम् । न, अत्रात्माववोधमात्रस्य विवक्षितत्वात्सर्वोऽयमर्थवाद इत्यदोषः । मायाविवद्वा ; महामायावी देवः सर्वज्ञः सर्वशक्तिः सर्वमेतच्चकार सुखावबोधप्रतिपत्त्यर्थं लोकवदाख्यायिकादिप्रपञ्च इति युक्ततरः पक्षः ।

In fact, the truth is ajAtivAda. Even this vivarta-vAda, which encompasses DSV, SDV, eka-sattA-vAda, sattA-traividhya-vAda, is meant for children. The truth is ajAti and not viavrta. The Yoga-vAsisTha says, as is quoted by VedAnta SiddhAnta MuktAvalI - बालान् प्रति विवर्तो ऽयं ब्रह्मणः सकलं जगत्।

So, bhAshya itself segregates its teachings by stating some of them to be story/arthavAda/intended for manda-adhikArI etc. 

That is where later AchAryAs help us to understand what fits where. They would clearly say - look, this is valid in SDV, this in DSV, this in Eka-sattA-vAda, this in sattA-traividhya-vAda etc.

That there is eka-sattA is the heart and soul of advaita vedAnta. We need not search for it anywhere in bhAshya. It is the very meaning of advaita vedAnta. For sattA-traividhya, we nee to look. Not for eka-sattA.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdOKCEPKJ6%2BGmmLKzmaB2wTpq%2BLT36gWWxwukosPcW3a1w%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Reg  // Whether it is bhAshya, or texts by later AchAryAs or PurANAs or any other VedAntic text, we will have statements which are valid only in specific models such as SDV, DSV, Eka-sattA-vAda, sattA-traividhya-vAda, ajAtivAda etc //,

Not in my understanding. Entire Bhashya can be and has been explained by several AchAryAs solely in terms of SDV. Others however, presenting alternative prakriyAs, cite specific portions of Bhashya as also capable of being understood as supportive of their prakriyAs .

I responded with my views since you specifically asked for it. It is upto you to consider the same as you deem fit. With this I stop.

Regards

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBB9p8RrnLYVK%2BM0%3DW6FYY_SOotfMivtS-OD9LMgmxjKSA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024, 4:20 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Whether it is bhAshya, or texts by later AchAryAs or PurANAs or any other VedAntic text, we will have statements which are valid only in specific models such as SDV, DSV, Eka-sattA-vAda, sattA-traividhya-vAda, ajAtivAda etc. 

BhAshya statements are not in a singular model. 

Take for example:

1. वैधर्म्याच्च न स्वप्नादिवत् ॥ २९ ॥   अत्रोच्यते — न स्वप्नादिप्रत्ययवज्जाग्रत्प्रत्यया भवितुमर्हन्ति । कस्मात् ? वैधर्म्यात् — वैधर्म्यं हि भवति स्वप्नजागरितयोः ।
2. त्रयः स्वप्ना जाग्रत्स्वप्नसुषुप्त्याख्याः । ननु जागरितं प्रबोधरूपत्वान्न स्वप्नः । नैवम् ; स्वप्न एव ।

Now, BhAshyakAra will not explicitly say that the former statement is valid in SDV while the latter in DSV. We are required to understand that these statements are valid in different model. Each model relevant for different adhikArI.

Undoubtedly so. In fact, some of the bhAShya statements work as SDV as well as DSV. My current Acharya Swamiji talks of DSV even in Brihad where Hiranyagarabha is mentioned as the first Jiva and the following upasAnas talk of ahaMgraha. Your analysis here has been very pleasing to read.

As BhAshyakAra Himself clarifies -यापि बुद्धैः अद्वैतवादिभिः जातिः देशिता उपदिष्टा, उपलम्भनमुपलम्भः, तस्मात् उपलब्धेरित्यर्थः । समाचारात् वर्णाश्रमादिधर्मसमाचरणाच्च ताभ्यां हेतुभ्याम् अस्तिवस्तुत्ववादिनाम् अस्ति वस्तुभाव इत्येवंवदनशीलानां दृढाग्रहवतां श्रद्दधानां मन्दविवेकिनामर्थोपायत्वेन सा देशिता जातिः तां गृह्णन्तु तावत् । वेदान्ताभ्यासिनां तु स्वयमेव अजाद्वयात्मविषयो विवेको भविष्यतीति ; न तु परमार्थबुद्ध्या ।

So, you will find that MANDUkya Upanishad will hardly talk about SDV. Rather it will focus on DSV and ajAtivAda. 

The only part where i see a difference is that ajAtivAda doesn't really contrast with DSV and SDV vAdas but with satkAryavAda (SKV), asatkAryavAda (AKV), etc. Mandukya's prakriyA is DSV only, which refutes SKV and AKV. I'm also convinced that using SDV, landing on brahmAtmaikya becomes very difficult and the best of teachers have struggled to explain it, even using kAryakAraNAnanyatva. The last step for them is only the svapna example whereby SDV ends up as DSV! That is why some say that DSV is the view of the jnanI, leading to saMsAramithyAtva. However, i differ that DSV is a sAdhana and the view of the jnanI is saMsAratuchChatva.

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste 

This is what can be concluded from the method of the Bhashyas:  The final aikya has to happen only through the DSV/Eka jiva vada prakriya, by default.  The repeated svapna analogy in the bhashy is suggestive of this alone. The Eka Chaitanya that one has to identify himself with, is the only adhishthanam for the entire creation.  The Ishavasya expression: 

यस्तु सर्वाणि भूतानि आत्मन्येवानुपश्यति ।

सर्वभूतेषु चात्मानं ततो न विजुगुप्सते ॥ ६ ॥

यस्मिन्सर्वाणि भूतानि आत्मैवाभूद्विजानतः ।

तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः ॥ ७ ॥

can fit only in the DSV.  And the Mundaka mantra / bhashya:

स वेदैतत्परमं ब्रह्म धाम यत्र विश्वं निहितं भाति शुभ्रम् ।

उपासते पुरुषं ये ह्यकामास्ते शुक्रमेतदतिवर्तन्ति धीराः ॥ १ ॥

where the Jnani is stated to be the one who has realized that Truth which is the abode of the entire creation.  If one has to realize thus, the DSV is what is involved here.

regards

subbu  

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CACT7j-GGy%3DdRonET0vK%3DfeyptehV9urGrtTe9hEE_wk-Pbib1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

 

This is what can be concluded from the method of the Bhashyas:  The final aikya has to happen only through the DSV/Eka jiva vada prakriya, by default.  The repeated svapna analogy in the bhashy is suggestive of this alone. The Eka Chaitanya that one has to identify himself with, is the only adhishthanam for the entire creation. 

In the spirit of "alternate viewpoint", I will give an SDV perspective. 

The question to ask is: If we say that the Self imagines the Jiva and Jagat, is this imagination a manifestation ("drishti") of Its intrinsic knowledge ("memory")? If we say yes, then memory here is the eternal unmanifest Srishti that is one with the Self (hence "rooted in Existence") and all individual "drishtis" are of that Srishti.

If we cognize "fire" within a loka of objects, then the namarupa "fire" is already knowledge (Veda) of the Self and drishti has only uncovered that knowledge, in consciousness, through the removal of obstruction (avidya) to the knowledge (corresponding with the pramana that obtains this drishti). 

This is not paramarthika satya of Brahman; this is vyavaharika satya in which duality is already posited and the non-dual Self is projected ("known") within that standpoint (as Eka/unitary Chaitanya, Ishvara, Dreamer, etc.). We can reduce "jiva bhava" to praathibhaasika of Ishvara but Ishvara (Self+Maya, Self+jnana-iccha-kriya-shakti - where jnana=unmanifest srishti=potential drishti) remains the satya of the standpoint. 

I had also discussed this under "Ishvara bhava" in the recent "four bhavas" thread, where I considered "Avidya bhava" as an alternate prakriya.

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

The Ishavasya expression: 

यस्तु सर्वाणि भूतानि आत्मन्येवानुपश्यति ।

सर्वभूतेषु चात्मानं ततो न विजुगुप्सते ॥ ६ ॥

यस्मिन्सर्वाणि भूतानि आत्मैवाभूद्विजानतः ।

तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः ॥ ७ ॥

can fit only in the DSV.  And the Mundaka mantra / bhashya:

स वेदैतत्परमं ब्रह्म धाम यत्र विश्वं निहितं भाति शुभ्रम् ।

उपासते पुरुषं ये ह्यकामास्ते शुक्रमेतदतिवर्तन्ति धीराः ॥ १ ॥

where the Jnani is stated to be the one who has realized that Truth which is the abode of the entire creation.  If one has to realize thus, the DSV is what is involved here.

regards

subbu  

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CACT7j-GGy%3DdRonET0vK%3DfeyptehV9urGrtTe9hEE_wk-Pbib1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3kWLnhwTah3vXsnG5oxtRLFwY4SU0uVyfj5Cf6j9Gj9w%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

 

If we cognize "fire" within a loka of objects, then the namarupa "fire" is already knowledge (Veda) of the Self and drishti has only uncovered that knowledge, in consciousness, through the removal of obstruction (avidya) to the knowledge (corresponding with the pramana that obtains this drishti). 

The part in italics may be confusing due to bringing in the word 'avidya'. I recall some reference in bhashya on how the effect is already in cause, or pot in clay, and it is revealed by removing the obstruction (BUB?).

I had written more with reference to how the shifting in drishti appears in vyavaharika or "jiva bhava". For instance, if drishti shifts from a closed door to a person "behind" the door, then we understand that the door obstructed the vision of the person (amounting to avidya of the person) and by opening the door ("removing the obstruction"), the person is automatically seen. From Ishvara's standpoint, this is His iccha-kriya flow in the manifest illumination of His Jnana; but from the jiva standpoint, the (drishti of) door is itself the limiting adjunct that obstructs the drishti 'behind' the door and opening the door amounts to uncovering knowledge of person behind it.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

 

The part in italics may be confusing due to bringing in the word 'avidya'. I recall some reference in bhashya on how the effect is already in cause, or pot in clay, and it is revealed by removing the obstruction (BUB?).

The discussion happens in Br.U. I.2.1; refer there. 

Shankaracharya does make the case that manifestation need not always be seen as a consequence of removal of obstruction. Initially (BUB pg 19-20 in Swami Madhavananda translation) he seems to say it is consequence but then (pg 21-22) he seems to counter that it is not a "hard and fast rule" that that is the case; (similar argument also at end of Taittiriya Up bh. I.xi.2-4). I have to read and contemplate further to understand if he is expressing different viewpoints from different standpoints. Also, in pg 24-25, there is a discussion on certain "negation of jar" being "positive entities" (which was discussed briefly in the pratiyogi thread) - not clear if the discussion here in BUB applies to 'avidya'. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

 

The discussion happens in Br.U. I.2.1; refer there. 

Shankaracharya does make the case that manifestation need not always be seen as a consequence of removal of obstruction. Initially (BUB pg 19-20 in Swami Madhavananda translation) he seems to say it is consequence but then (pg 21-22) he seems to counter that it is not a "hard and fast rule" that that is the case; (similar argument also at end of Taittiriya Up bh. I.xi.2-4). I have to read and contemplate further to understand if he is expressing different viewpoints from different standpoints. Also, in pg 24-25, there is a discussion on certain "negation of jar" being "positive entities" (which was discussed briefly in the pratiyogi thread) - not clear if the discussion here in BUB applies to 'avidya'. 

I think the acharya (in pg 21-22) is talking about the fact that removing a general obstruction need not result in a specific intended manifestation and therefore the required action may not merely be a matter of removing such obstruction. If we say that the lump or two-halves is obstructing our drishti of the jar, it doesn't mean simply that removing the lump will automatically produce the jar. It could correspond to a chair instead, for the lump is also an obstruction for the chair. So to manifest or obtain drishti of the jar, the clay must be carved in a specific way to bring out the jar shape. We have to understand this latter process as "removing obstruction" that is specific to the jar shape (which imu is how he means in pg 19 bottom with light vs darkness). If instead we simply focus on removing whatever is obstruction, that will not result in the jar necessarily. In the door-person analogy, the door is an obstruction to obtaining drishti of the person right behind it; however the door is also an obstruction to seeing the person in the kitchen, though opening the door will not obtain drishti of that person automatically since this obstruction is not directly corresponding to the negation of vision of that object.

So I don't think there is a contradiction if we understand "removing obstruction" in the specific sense; then the knowledge/drishti that follows may be considered as a direct consequence of removing the obstruction to that knowledge.

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaskaram.

When it is stated that the lump conceals the jar, obstruction (namely the lump) and locus of obstruction (namely the jar)  are in the same location. Like darkness in the house and the house itself. Darkness conceals the house itself. Similarly lump is said to conceal the jar. In door-person analogy, that is not the case.

Brahman is the locus of Brahman-Ignorance, and Brahman alone is concealed by Ignorance.

You may like to refer to Vichara Sagara, Vol 1, English translation by Smt Bhuvaneswari, topic 256, page 402 and near abouts for an interesting discussion on obstruction and locus of obstruction.

Regards

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-o6LbPT074m14a44fkyBMKST5rL5FL3ovzLLsrsaF8%2BCg%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaskaram.

Swami Madhavananda, page 22

// We have already said that an effect which is patent in the cause serves as an obstruction to the manifestation of other effects //.

This is relevant.

Regards

[putran M]

Namaskaram Chandramouli-ji,

When it is stated that the lump conceals the jar, obstruction (namely the lump) and locus of obstruction (namely the jar)  are in the same location. Like darkness in the house and the house itself. Darkness conceals the house itself. Similarly lump is said to conceal the jar. In door-person analogy, that is not the case.

 

Yes, the acharya had made the distinction of this type in page 22. I did not try read into the discussion the topic of what is the "locus" for Ignorance. I was looking at the question he seems to be addressing in two ways: on whether the manifestation of knowledge in consciousness can always be considered as equivalent to (or direct consequence of) the removal of obstruction to that knowledge.

In page 19, he says "manifestation points out its pre-existence. Manifestation means coming within the range of perception. It is a common occurrence that a thing, a jar for instance, which was hidden by darkness or any other thing and comes within the range of perception when the obstruction is removed by the appearance of light or in some other way"

So here, darkness is regarded as an obstruction and the appearance of light serves the primary purpose of removing that obstruction. The knowledge that follows from the light is considered equivalent to the knowledge that follows from removing the darkness. The point is that he is using the example to show that knowledge follows from removal of obstruction to that knowledge. 

Why I see this topic as important? imu knowledge is intrinsic to the Self. This is implicitly the basis for pre-existence of effect before manifestation. The light of the Self merely has to illumine it in manifest consciousness. At the manifest level, this can equivalently be considered as the consequence of removing the obstruction to the knowledge (say, of jar) - provided we understand "obstruction" as the total complement/obverse of jar, as the positive reference to "not-jar". It is not just darkness or just lump shape; it is everything not jar that is removed when we carve out the jar in the presence of light and thus obtain the drishti of "jar". 

Whereas in page 21-22, when the purvapakshin says "removing the darkness, the jar is automatically perceived" and hence the purpose of light is only to destroy darkness, the acharya counters that the purpose of lighting the lamp is to shine light on the jar and we perceive the jar covered with light - it is not simply done in order to remove darkness. 

In this place, the purvapakshin wants to make it out like the obstruction to knowledge can always be precisely identified and targeted for removal, so that the knowledge automatically manifests. Note he starts off saying "the effort should be directed solely to the removal of the obstructions." The acharya dissuades this notion by indicating (through an apparent refutation) that the identification and removal of obstruction is a subtle matter. What constitutes the obstruction "not-jar" may not simply be darkness or lump-shape, or even the door wrt person in kitchen, that we can simply say remove this and that obstruction and jar automatically shines in consciousness. 

So, I feel that this second part is not exactly a negation of the principle that knowledge manifests in consciousness upon the removal of its corresponding obstruction. Rather he is correcting the purvapakshin's simplistic idea on obstruction and its removal.

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

Brahman is the locus of Brahman-Ignorance, and Brahman alone is concealed by Ignorance.

You may like to refer to Vichara Sagara, Vol 1, English translation by Smt Bhuvaneswari, topic 256, page 402 and near abouts for an interesting discussion on obstruction and locus of obstruction.

Regards

I think the acharya (in pg 21-22) is talking about the fact that removing a general obstruction need not result in a specific intended manifestation and therefore the required action may not merely be a matter of removing such obstruction. If we say that the lump or two-halves is obstructing our drishti of the jar, it doesn't mean simply that removing the lump will automatically produce the jar. It could correspond to a chair instead, for the lump is also an obstruction for the chair. So to manifest or obtain drishti of the jar, the clay must be carved in a specific way to bring out the jar shape. We have to understand this latter process as "removing obstruction" that is specific to the jar shape (which imu is how he means in pg 19 bottom with light vs darkness). If instead we simply focus on removing whatever is obstruction, that will not result in the jar necessarily. In the door-person analogy, the door is an obstruction to obtaining drishti of the person right behind it; however the door is also an obstruction to seeing the person in the kitchen, though opening the door will not obtain drishti of that person automatically since this obstruction is not directly corresponding to the negation of vision of that object.

So I don't think there is a contradiction if we understand "removing obstruction" in the specific sense; then the knowledge/drishti that follows may be considered as a direct consequence of removing the obstruction to that knowledge.

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-o6LbPT074m14a44fkyBMKST5rL5FL3ovzLLsrsaF8%2BCg%40mail.gmail.com.

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdOawe%3DfK25ci65OeKFGyaktU6bVMjK8GZVP66p5YfAcLQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

 

In this place, the purvapakshin wants to make it out like the obstruction to knowledge can always be precisely identified and targeted for removal, so that the knowledge automatically manifests. Note he starts off saying "the effort should be directed solely to the removal of the obstructions." The acharya dissuades this notion by indicating (through an apparent refutation) that the identification and removal of obstruction is a subtle matter. What constitutes the obstruction "not-jar" may not simply be darkness or lump-shape, or even the door wrt person in kitchen, that we can simply say remove this and that obstruction and jar automatically shines in consciousness. 

Correction: The PP actually says ~ "If the siddhantin's views are correct, then the effort ... obstructions. ... But nobody does so. Therefore your statement is wrong." In response, the acharya goes along with his idea of obstruction and its removal and points out its limitations etc. That's my analysis at least.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

In page 19, he says "manifestation points out its pre-existence. Manifestation means coming within the range of perception. It is a common occurrence that a thing, a jar for instance, which was hidden by darkness or any other thing and comes within the range of perception when the obstruction is removed by the appearance of light or in some other way"

On re-reading, the first part above is only saying that light brings the object into the range of perception by removing darkness; it is not saying that the perception of jar happens necessarily when darkness is removed. So, this is not inconsistent with the second part. At best, the darkness is directly the obstruction of the jar's coming within the range of perception and light removes that obstruction.

In the second part (pg 21-22), it is the PP who suggests that the removing of darkness automatically causes the perception of jar. Acharya says no and ~ that removal of darkness is not the direct or only cause of cognition of jar. The process leading to knowledge can be more involved than simply identifying and removing an obvious general obstruction. From what I read in pg 22, there is an iccha-kriya dimension to bringing/illuminating the intrinsic knowledge of jar into outer memory, manifestation and cognition. 

The BUB here does not explicitly make the case that this process can also be deemed equivalent to the "removal of total-obstruction to that knowledge"; for now I have to consider that as a logical extension (to be verified).

thollmelukaalkizhu

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Putran Ji,

Reg  // The point is that he is using the example to show that knowledge follows from removal of obstruction to that knowledge //,

The context of the discussion, as presented in the Bhashya, appears on pages 16 to 18 of translation by Swami Madhavananda, copied below for ready reference.

// Question: Was it altogether void?

Nihilistic view: It must be so, for the Śruti says, 'There was nothing whatsoever here.' There was neither cause nor effect. Another reason for this conclusion is the fact of origin. A jar, for instance, is produced. Hence before its origin it must have been non-existent.

The logician objects: But the cause cannot be non-existent, for we see the lump of clay, for instance (before the jar is produced). What is not perceived may well be non-existent, as is the case with the effect here. But not so with regard to the cause, for it is perceived.

The nihilist: No, for before the origin nothing is perceived. If the non-perception of a thing be the ground of its non-existence, before the origin of the whole universe neither cause nor effect is perceived. Hence everything must have been non-existent.

Vedantin's reply: Not so, for the Śruti says, 'It was covered only by Death.' Had there been absolutely nothing either to cover or to be covered, the Śruti would not have said, 'It was covered by Death." For it never happens that a barren woman's son is covered with flowers springing from the sky. Yet the Śruti says, 'It was covered only by Death.' Therefore on the authority of the Sruti we conclude that the cause which covered, and the effect which was covered, were both existent before the origin of the universe. Inference also points to this conclusion. We can infer the existence of the cause and effect (Foot Note 1)  before creation. We observe that a positive effect which is produced takes place only when there is a cause and does not take place when there is no cause. From this we infer that the cause of the universe too must have existed before creation, as is the case with the cause of a jar, for instance.

Objection: The cause of a jar also does not preexist, for the jar is not produced without destroying the lump of clay. And so with other things.

Reply: Not so, for the clay (or other material) is the cause. The clay is the cause of the jar, and the gold of the necklace, and not the particular lump-like form of the material, for they exist without it. We see that effects such as the jar and the necklace are produced simply when their materials, clay and gold, are present, although the lump-like form may be absent. Therefore this particular form is not the cause of the jar and the necklace. But when the clay and the gold are absent, the jar and the necklace are not produced, which shows that these materials, clay and gold, are the cause, and not the roundish form. Whenever a cause produces an effect, it does so by destroying another effect it produced just before, for the same cause cannot produce more than one effect at a time. But the cause, by destroying the previous effect, does not destroy itself.

Foot Note 1 ;; These will be taken up one by one //.

This Bhashya forms the basis for the satkArya vAda admitted in the SiddhAnta advanced by Sri Bhagavatpada.

This is for your consideration.

I stop with this.

Regards

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-pD_uzXHnkA_Ykb8C0mNLYQanQNw4sYoPwXa%3DZs40LAQw%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Chandramouli-ji,

In my last mail, I had corrected my initial assessment of the pg 19 quote. It is anyway a matter of how he uses the example and develops the argument regarding obstruction there.

With regard to the context of BUB, when I said "knowledge is intrinsic to the Self. This is implicitly the basis for pre-existence of effect before manifestation.", imo, I am aligned with this BUB bhashya. Likewise with "If we cognize "fire" within a loka of objects, then the namarupa "fire" is already knowledge (Veda) of the Self and drishti has only uncovered that knowledge, in consciousness.."

I consider this intrinsic Knowledge of the Self to be unmanifest-srishti (=potential-drishti), and its manifestation (creation) is a specific directed illumination (drishti) of this Knowledge by the Light of the Self.

The question then is how do we explain the fact that even though all Knowledge is eternal and intrinsic to the Self, the illumination (drishti=manifest srishti) happens selectively and sequentially. 

Is this a case 

a) of the Self at every instance directing Its awareness (Light) to a specific 'page of knowledge' within?

or,

b) of (the Self) modifying the locus of knowledge (Mind or Maya) so that the old obstruction is removed and a newly unhidden knowledge becomes illumined? As said in bhashya, the obstruction can be the previous effect/knowledge. (indicated this when I wrote: "the (drishti of) door is itself the limiting adjunct that obstructs the drishti 'behind' the door and opening the door amounts to uncovering knowledge of person behind it.")

Here is an analogy. Think of Ishvara's "Mind" as the Book of all Knowledge. The Light of His Consciousness shines on some Page in the Book and creation is the manifestation/cognition/awareness of the knowledge in this Page. However, this Page on which the Light presently shines is the Obstruction to the Light shining on any other Page, and in order for another Page to manifest, the present Page must be turned and the new one brought in front of the Light. 

The acharya in pg 22 imu says ~ that it is not just a matter of turning the present Page (removing the obstruction) since the Light could then fall on any other Page. There is an iccha-kriya dimension to the process of turning this Page, choosing another and bringing it fully into Light.

Now, we can say 

1. that the Self through its iccha-kriya shakti directs the Light of Consciousness from Page 1 to Page 2. Here, the knowledge of ALL is unchanging and fixed in Self and the Self determines where next to shine its Light of Awareness and illumine. 

2. Or we can hold the Light that is Self to be ever-shining and unchanging in any way whatsoever, and the iccha-kriya is with regard to modifying the positioning of the Book of Knowledge, thus turning Page 1 while also determining and bringing Page 2 to the forefront.

They are both models or complementary perspectives, pertaining to "Ishvara bhava".

My question was: Can we consider the entire process that shifted the illumination, from Page 1 to Page 2, as simply a consequence of "Removing the obstructions to Page 2" - so that in the end, Page 2 gets illumined by the constant Light? However, I am now thinking this is redundant and not really different from position 2 above. If we can actively remove Page 1, we may as well allow for actively bringing up Page 2 as well.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Just to note, the book-analogy gives a discrete representation of the continuous flow of knowledge-awareness or creation, since we are talking of shifting between two 'pages of Knowledge'. It should be possible to modify this to a "more realistic" continuous version (following Calculus principles) if desired, but the essential points I think are expressed well enough in the discrete version itself.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

it is submitted that eka-sattA-vAda and sattA-traividhya-vAda are rooted in specific sentences of VivaraNa, which are reproduced as under:

Objection: ननु तवापि "अस्ति" इति प्रतिपन्नस्यानिर्वचनीयत्वे अनुभवविरोधः समानः, 

तन्न-

SiddhAntI: इदन्तासंसर्गवत् रजतस्य शुक्तिकासत्तासंसर्गोऽयमवभासते, न रजतस्यापरसत्त्वम्।। (Eka-sattA-vAda)

अथवा--

त्रिविधं सत्त्वं-परमार्थसत्त्वं ब्रह्मणः, अर्थक्रियासामर्थ्यसत्त्वं मायोपाधिकमाकाशादेः, अविद्योपाधिकसत्त्वं रजतादेः सति परमार्थसत्त्‌वापेक्षया अनिर्वचनीयमिति, नानुभवविरोधः यथानुभवमर्थसत्त्‌वाभ्युपगमात्।। (SattA-traividhya-vAda)

https://archive.org/details/DQJe_panchapadika-of-sri-padmapadacarya-with-the-commentaries-of-vivarana-tattvadipan/page/n168/mode/1up

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.