Advaita Siddhi Sara Sangrah by Madhusudana Saraswati [Sanskrit English]
![download Advaita Siddhi Sara Sangrah by Madhusudana Saraswati [Sanskrit English]](https://fdocuments.in/public/t1/desktop/images/details/download-thumbnail.png)
of 84
Transcript of Advaita Siddhi Sara Sangrah by Madhusudana Saraswati [Sanskrit English]
.
X1AAR 5 60 >6 _ 16 H> ;A;>' R 5 60: Q :
.................................................................................................... 15
1. Proof for discussion the sentence with diversity of opinions. ........................................ 15 6D 1 R>' ( W3">' R'( ">'
......................................................................................................................... 15\
2. Discussion of the delimiting adjunct of subject. ............................................................. 156 _6b :2; R1 > 56 0: Q 6_ 6_ 6b :2; R1> 560 6 _2: 2:\
.............................................................................................................. 16
3. Proof Of Non-Reality Of World...................................................................................... 16 (Non-Reality Is Different From Being And Unbeing).......................................................... 16 1 T; :2; R1 >=D 0: Q 1 T; :2; R1> =D0
...................................................................................................................... 16
4. Second Definition of Non-reality....................................................................................... 17 1Y 1 T; : 2; R1>= D0 :Q 1 T; 2;R 1>=D 0
......................................................................................................................... 17
5. Third Definition Of Non-Reality....................................................................................... 17' 1U 2 ] :2; R1>= D0 : Q '1 2] : 2;R 1>=D 0
.......................................................................................................................... 17
6. Fourth Definition Of Non-Reality................................................................................... 176 +': :2; R1 >=D 0: Q 6 +': :2; R1> =D0
........................................................................................................................ 18
7. Fifth Definition Of Non-Reality ...................................................................................... 18 : 2; R1 > :2; R1 >: Q : 2; R1> :2; R1>
............................................................................................................................. 18
8. Non-Reality Of The Non-Reality ...................................................................................... 18?; 1> B W1 V66H ?; 1> BW 1V 66H
.............................................................................................................................. 18
9.Compatibility of Cognisability as cause .............................................................................. 19 ). 1> B W1 V66H ) 1> BW 1V 66H
............................................................................................................................ 19
10.Compatibility of Insentience as cause............................................................................... 196 S< t'( 1>B W1V 66H 6 1>BW 66H
....................................................................................................................... 19
11.Compatibility of Limitedness as cause ............................................................................ 19 \?1 >B W1 V66H \ ?1> BW 1V 66H
............................................................................................................................ 20
12. Compatibility Of Being An Effect as cause.................................................................. 20A RW 6 R4"1 > 5 < RA A 6R 4"1>
........................................................................................................................ 20
13. Refutation Of Adventious Condition............................................................................. 20R9 RAA R:; 9m R9 RAAR :; 9m
........................................................................................................................... 21
14. Refutation Of Similarity With Pseudo Inferences..................................................... 21
3
6_ 1;D 8 R4 RW R Q
................................................................................................................ 23
17. Sublatability Of Perception By Inference .................................................................... 23 6_ 1;DA; R$ : 8 R4> 1> : Q 6 1;DA; R$ 8 R4> 1> :Q
.................................................................................................................. 23
18. Sublatability Of Perception By Sruti............................................................................ 236'( W 35; R; > X @:; 9m 35; R; @:; 9
.............................................................................................................. 24
19. Disproof Of The Inequality Of Apaccheda Nyaya .................................................... 24 >S 5B? X1; 5U : 1 A R:; > 5B?X 1; : 1 A R:; 9m 9
........................................................................................................... 24
20. Refutation Of The Equality Of The Inference "Fire Is Cold".................................... 24 6_ 1;DA; =mR }8 R4;1 >W8 R4": Q 6 1;DA; =mR} 8R 4;1> 8R 4":
........................................................................................................... 25
21. Refutation Of " Perception Cannot Be Sublated By Inference" ................................ 25 9 R> 8R 4R W66 H 9 R>8 R4 RW 66
.......................................................................................................................... 25
22. Compatibility Of Future Sublation .............................................................................. 25 A 1;1 > 5 U:R 59m A 1;1> 5U R59m
...................................................................................................................... 25
23. Refutation Of Inference Of Absolute Reality Of The Empirical World ...................... 26 :2; R1> W ?WW@ 5U : R5 :Q : 2;R 1>W ? @ :R
................................................................................................................... 26
24. Special Syllogisms On Non-Reality................................................................................ 27 2 R $ : 8R 4 R
............................................................................................................................ 28
26. Non-Real is Capable of Proof........................................................................................... 29A 1 AR 4"1> 9 R> W8 R4" :Q A 1 AR4 "1> 9 R>W 8 R4":
............................................................................................................ 29
27. Sublation of "Non-real cannot prove" ........................................................................... 29 $?; A \8 54 9m $? ; A\ 54 9
.......................................................................................................................... 30
28. Refutation Of The Cogniser-Cognised Relation.............................................................. 30 5 U "V=1" ] 56 0: Q 5 "V =1"] 560
..................................................................................................................... 30
29. Proof Of Favourable Logic............................................................................................... 30 6__1 ": ]>;>A 2R 6 ":] >;>A2
........................................................................................................................... 30
30. Pratikarma-vyavastha ....................................................................................................... 316 _1 " V=1" ] 5 1;U 66H
......................................................................................................................... 32
32. Compatibility Of The "Non-Reality" Srutis.................................................................... 32 X1 FU1 W8 R] 4R WRW 1;R 3F 1;2] >'R
............................................................................................................... 33
34. Discussion Of The Meaning Of The Sruti " One And Only Non-Dual" Etc ............. 34 E R5 5> 1; ]1> 5;2 R E 5> 1;] 1> 5;2 R5 U 66H 5 66H
.......................................................................................................... 34
35. Incompatibility Of An Alternative To Knowledge For Sublatability............................ 35 A Y 6 6H AY 6
............................................................................................................................ 35
36 Compatibility Of "Sight-Creation".................................................................................. 35" )T > > R3 " )T> >
........................................................................................................................... 36
37.Discussion on One Individual Self ................................................................................... 36 E R5 > R3 WE R5 =D 0 E > R3W E =D0 5 5 t H t
........................................................................................................ 36
38.Discussion on Ignorance - Definition Of Ignorance ........................................................ 36 E R5 > R3 W1G 6_ 1;D6 _:R 0RW E > R3W 1G 6 1;D6_ :R0 66H 66H
.......................................................................................................... 37
39.Compatibility of Perception As Evidence Of Ignorance................................................. 37 E R5 > R3 W5 U : R5 6 E > R3W 66 H 6
................................................................................................................ 37
40.Compatibility of Inference On Ignorance........................................................................ 38E R5 > R3 WFU 1; U66H E > R3W 1;U 66H
....................................................................................................................... 38
41.Compatibility of Srutis On Ignorance.............................................................................. 38 ER 5 >R 3W 2 R] 6H; U66H E 5> R3W 2 6H;U 66H
................................................................................................................... 39
42.Compatibility of Presumption On Ignorance .................................................................. 39E R5 > R3 W1 16_ 1 T1; U66H E > R3W 116 _ 1T 1;U 66H
.................................................................................................................... 39
43.Compatibilty of Knowledge Of Ignorance ...................................................................... 39 ER 5 >R 3W > }R; R' 5:R GRF; 1> E 5> R3W > }R; R'5 :RG RF; 1> 66 H 66
............................................................................................. 39
44.Compatibility - Consciousness Is The Locus Of nescience ............................................ 40 ER 5 >R 3W>}R ;R A> ]ER F1> 66H E 5> R3W >}R; RA >] ERF 1>6
.................................................................................................... 40
45.Compatibility- Omniscient Brahman Is The Locus Of nescience.................................. 40 ER 5> R3W>}R; R >R'A6 1 A \: E 5> >}R; R> R'A6 A\ 1)T >RF ;1> 6 1)T> RF; 1> 66 H 6
................................................................................... 40
46.Compatibility of Jiva As Locus Of nescience according to Vachaspati ........................ 40 ER 5 >R 3WE R5 > @; 560 E 5> R3W ER > @; 5 60 :Q
......................................................................................................... 41
47.Proof of Object Of Ignorance........................................................................................... 41 B: 2 ] 5 R1 : 1> 66 H B : 2] 1> 66
................................................................................................................ 41
48. Compatibility of "I" is non-self. ....................................................................................... 41
5
"1]]Y 1> 4; RA R66 H "1 1>4; RAR 66
.................................................................................................................. 42
49. Compatibility of Supeimposition ofAgency ..................................................................... 42 3WBR1 :X ;R4; RA 66 H 3W BR1: ;R4; RA66
.................................................................................................................... 42
50. Compatibility of Superimposition Of identity between Body and Self ....................... 42 5 >R] ';1>= D0 66 H 5> ';1>=D 0 66
................................................................................................................ 43
51.Compatibility of the Definition Of indeterminability .................................................... 43 5 > R] ';1> W6 _1; D 5 U: > ';1>W 6_ 1;D 5U R5 6 _: R0 5 60 :Q 6_ R0 60
............................................................................................... 43
52.Proof of Indeterminability by Perception And Inference.............................................. 43 5 > R] ';1> W2 R] 6H6 _: R0 > ';1>W 2 6H6_ R0 56 0: Q 560
.................................................................................................... 44
53. Proof of Indeterminability by Presumption.................................................................... 44 5 @W 46 _1 ; RW$1 >R 5 U66H; 5@ 46_ ;RW $1> 5U 66H;R R5 > ]'5T; 1> A: 2 ]5: Q >] '5T; 1>A 2] 5:
......................................................................................... 44
54.Justification of indeterminability by the Incompatibility Of Counter-Positive Of Negation .................................................................................................................................... 44 FUU1;2 R] 6H66 H F 1;2 6H66
........................................................................................................................ 44
55. Compatibility of Presumption of Srutis .......................................................................... 45A 1#; R 1 9m A 1#; 19
.............................................................................................................................. 45
56. Refutaton Of Asatkhyati.................................................................................................... 45 5;2 R# ;R 1 9m 5;2 R#; 19
............................................................................................................................ 46
57 Refutation Of Anyatha-khyati .......................................................................................... 46 R >}" }" Y1; 66H 9_ :A;>Y 1;6
....................................................................................................................... 47
59. Compatibility Of Two Mental States(vrittis) In Illusory Knowledge............................ 47AH RG X>4; 66 H AH RGX >4; 66
......................................................................................................................... 47
60. Compatibility Of Three Existences (Being) ..................................................................... 47
1T;6S R366 H 8 0RW E 1>R 366
.................................................................................................................... 53
7.Compatibility of Knowledge Etc Of Brahman .................................................................. 54 8_ 0 RW9 5 :H RW 6R 3R 8 0RW 9 :H 6R3 5 1> W66H 1>W 66H
......................................................................................................... 54
8.Compatibility of Brahman as Both Material And Efficient Cause................................... 54 8_ 0 RW>?>" 1 Y] 1>66 H 8 0RW >?>" 1Y 1>66
.................................................................................................................... 55
9.Compatibility of Braman As World Creator..................................................................... 55 8_ 0R W 9 5 :H RW 6R 8 0RW 9 :H 6R3 R5 1> W6 _:R 066 H 3 R5 1>W 6_ :R0 66
................................................................................................. 55
10.Compatibility of the proof of Brahman as Both Efficient And Material Cause............ 568 _0A6 _"R?1 >= D06 6H 8_ 0A6_ "R?1> =D 066
........................................................................................................... 56
11.Compatibility of the definition that Brahman Is Self Luminous .................................... 57A6 _"R? 1>6 6H A6_ "R? 1>66
.......................................................................................................................... 57
12.Compatibility of the Self Luminosity Of Brahman......................................................... 57? 83 > R'; 1> 66 H ? 83 > R'; 1> 66
................................................................................................................... 57
13.Compatibility that Brahman Is Not Describable By Words directly. .......................... 57A R: R5 ;1 RW9W 3#0. 5 : Q AR R5; 1 3#0.
........................................................................................................................ 58
14. Refutation Of Difference In General................................................................................ 58 >? W @1 RW9W 3#0 . 5: Q > ? @1 3#0. 5:
......................................................................................................................... 58
15. Refutation Of Difference In Particular ............................................................................ 58 >? W@ #0 . 5 :Q > ?W @ #0. 5:
............................................................................................................................... 58
16. Refutation Of The Particularity ....................................................................................... 589 W36 b" W6 _1;D 9m 9W 36b "W 6_ 1;D9
.......................................................................................................................... 59
17. Refutation Of Perception In Five Differences ............................................................... 59) T> 8_ 9 W3R 5U : R5 9m ) T>8 9W 3R5 :R 59
........................................................................................................................ 59
18. Refutation Of Difference Between Jiva And Brahman ................................................. 60) T>6 ;R] BRS ? 83 66 > R'A61;U HA>R4;; > 4 >' }R > 1] " 560
..................................................................................................................... 76
2.Proof of Eradicator Of nescience....................................................................................... 76 :U H W W5 6U @R 2 : HW W 56 @R2 ] 5 60 :Q 60
............................................................................................................ 76
3.Proof - Moksha Is Bliss And Man's Goal....................................................................... 76' 5:R GA;: RWD9 R $1 >66H W '5 :RG A;:RW D9 R$ 1> 66HW
................................................................................................................ 77
4.Compatibility - Consciousness Alone gets the release........................................................ 77) T> 5: U tH6 6H ) T> tH66
........................................................................................................................... 77
5. Compatibility Of Jivanmukthi............................................................................................ 77 :U H RX1 R;\>);1W>@0U>]"6RWt)*1
1. Vishnu, who is the substratum for the illusory world of duality such as the character of cogniser, who is Truth, Consciousness and Bliss, who is to be realised by the impartite knowledge derived from the Mahavakyas, excels on his own, as if having attained sole supreme blissful emancipation as a result of severing the non-real bondage and its ramifications.
>\?TS>9V@1"5TR1QX1:2;R1>:W>6_2::Q66R35T;:Q XBeginning of Grantha First, the non-reality of duality has to be proved., as the accomplishment of non-duality is preceded by the accomplishment of the non-reality of duality.
14
>6_16H>R;A;>'R560:Q >
1G:2;R1>W>6_16H8_6_:R1SWA1A1>W56_1T1;B\:Q':Q6_16RW6R4RXGX"R=" ] 5@W46_1;RW$5>R6R'(W3">'R:1:Q:2;R"?;1>R1Q#).1>R1Q$6S'516b6R3"R>'5R1QA3A354"6:Q5>R]';1>:Q
A1>1;519R>A1>1;519R>64:];>>DR;R\3RW@9R>R1Q
3. Proof Of Non-Reality Of World (Non-Reality Is Different From Being And Unbeing) 1. The word non-reality means "indeterminability" according to the author of Panchapadika .What is not the locus of being and unbeing (opposite of being) is indeterminable. 2. The character of absolute absence of being as well as the character of absolute absence of unbeing is non-reality. There is no defect in the definition with these two characteristics as intended.Notes: 1. The above definition
also indicates that non-reality is not the combination of both Sat and Sat. 2. Padmapada, the author of Panchapadika, was a student of Sankara. 3. Sat = absolute reality Asat = absolute un-reality (opposite of reality) 4 . Definition of Non-reality Author work First Padmapada Second & Third Prakasatman Fourth Chitsukha Fifth Anandabhoda 5. Being/reality is further classified as follows:
Panchapadika Vivarana Tatvapradipika Nyayadipavali
a)6R:Q
16
4. Second Definition of Non-reality 1. Non-realty is the character of the counter-positive of the negation for all three times (past, present and future) in an object where it appears. 2. In the present case, the negation of the world (counter-positive) is equally negated, with the negation of the negation, the world does not become real.Notes: Pratiyogi = Pot is the Pratiyogi of the absence of Pot.
1Y1T;:2;R1>=D0:Q 1
ER55>1;]1>:Q>R:2;R1>:Q
>R1]""Y'x:Q 11>:A;R3>R;RW12A:;$4T)5::RG1>}RAB"R;W05RAT3tA19>@;1 ]
5. Third Definition Of Non-Reality1. Non-reality
means the character of being sublated by knowledge. 2. It has been said by the Vartikakara: . As soon as the valid cognition is generated by the statement, "That thou art", nescience with its effects becomes non-existent in the past , does not exist at present and will not exist in the future.
'12]:2;R1>=D0:Q ' U
A>RF;51;519R>6_1;RW$1>:Q>R:2;R1>:Q
1cA>R1;51R9R>R4"6_1T;:R51>:Q
6. Fourth Definition Of Non-Reality1, The non-reality of a thing is its character of being the counter-positive of the absolute negation residing in its own locus. 2, That it appears where it does not exist.
17
Notes" In the second definition, the negation is in the locus where it appears. In the fourth definition , it appears where the negation is.
6+'::2;R1>=D0:Q 6
A>x1>:Q>R:2;R1>:Q
GR6A154]:]"W8__0'1>;R>RW56_1T;:R51>\>?W@0\3W;:Q
7. Fifth Definition Of Non-Reality1. Non-reality is being different from the real. 2. Here also, an adjective has to be added - "it has to appear as existent" in order to avoid the defect of extension of definition to absolutely real and absolutely unreal.
:2;R1>:2;R1>:Q 55Ux:2;R1>A;:2;R1>W6_6+Q'A;A1;1>R6R1:2;R1>A1;1>W'13W>6_6b A1;1>R6HW9;2R6X1>;R%R11'W1Q
51A:AHR"1>R1Q:2;R1>8R4"W56_6bA;R68R4R1Q5X1D1
8. Non-Reality Of The Non-Reality1. Objection: When the said non-reality itself is non-real, then the world may become real.--------when the non-reality is real, then also, the world can be real; in both cases, the non-dualism will get affected.. 2. Reply: No; They have the same grade of being (existence) and hence along with the sublation of the non-reality , the world also is sublated; so non-dualism does not get affected.
Notes: the logic for the negation of the world and the non-reality is one and the same ie, different from Brahman.
?;1>BW1V66H
18
:2;R1>WAR4;WBW1V"Y1\;Y?;1>\136;U66R35T;:Q ?U\ B8_5?;:Q >A1U1A1U?83)5;>YH>@;1>:W>?;1>:Q ;RA6_"R:Q>R).1>:Q
10.Compatibility of Insentience as cause1.
Insentience is different from Consciousness and Self.
2. Or it has not the character of self-luminosity.
6 6S4:Q 1G3W?16S\4>\A6_S1;RW$1>:Q >A1U16SW5AR4;>;RW
13. Refutation Of Adventitious Condition 1. Reasons for non-reality do not have the fallacy of adventitious conditions. 2. In the nonreality of the identification of soul-body which is sublated only by the knowledge of Brahman, the upadhi is not concomitant with the probandum. (sadhya).Notes: Adventious condition (Upadhi) is one of the five fallacies of reason (Hetu Aabhasa) in a syllogism. It means that the Upadhi while concomitant with the Probandum (sadhya) but is not concomitant with the probans (hetu).
20
R9RAAR:;9m 55U>:1\6_R19RA":Q?;1>R1Q?UtH6;>1Q8_:2;R>;>BR@;1>R1Q?UH6;>1Q1 'W1QQ 5?;1>R3T5R\5R9RAAR:;:Q)$1>;R>BRS>6_"R?AH;R)$1A>61RW:2;R1>66HW
15. Refutation Of "Contradiction By Perception" 1. Objection:- Cognisability etc. is the subject of the sublated perception like "the pot is" etc. 2 Reply: No. The existence which is contradictory to non-reality and which is capable of perception by eyes etc, has not been explained.
21
3., The character of existence (being) of Brahman is its self-luminosity, non-duality
and Consciousness. If the same is so of the insentient world, it is compatible that the world is non-real in its form by its self-luminosity which is contradictory to insentience, just like the silver by the exitence of shell which is contradictory to silver.
.
6_1;D6_R8;9m 55UH5;R;X6_1;DA;6)T>;1>W56_R8;:Q1$_B0W1W58R4?'1'W1Q
56)T>;>6\6)T>;1W11Q58R4;1W8R4;1W'1Rt1>"1>R"RA:R53W?"R=T5>@;8R4;1>\ 6_R:R0;A;>;>A2R6;1W4V:W5A>A:R53W?"R=T5>5\BS 12R'>;>BR\3WBR1:X;AR4RtA21:Q1"2:Q1;51 8R4;1>9R>$_RB"R$:5U:R5;RW6_>YH5A;R1Q! 1A:R1Q>?>RA6_:R013R9RA>;>A2R)T>W?9W3R3"\'>;R>BRS\5U:R5:66_1;D8R4":Q
65U:R5R6WD;R
17. Sublatability Of Perception By Inference 1 .Moreover, Inference also sublates cognition when it is supported by the disproval of the counter-example. 2. The cognition that has not been examined is weaker, compared to the examined inference. 3. Just like the cognition, "sky is blue" is weaker, compared to the inference "sky is colourless.
6_1;DA;R$:8R4;1>:Q
"\'6?838R4;:66_1;D:Q 1R16;]>@;T9V1R2]8RW4"1>:QB:U#;R2]1>:Q5?;R2]:RG8RW4"1>:Q5;R2]1R16;]"1>R1Q ':U#;R2]1>:Q5=RD0"1>:RG1>:QQ
18. Sublatability Of Perception By Sruti 1. Moreover, perception is sublatable also by Sruti, which has been validated by examination. 2. Giving the import (Tatparya) is called the primary meaning. and not merely the denotation (Sakyartha - direct meaning ) .Secondary meaning is that which has other import. and not merely the indicative denotation.
23
6'(35;R;>X@:;9m 35 > 9 W
"\'6'(W35;R;W5R6R$:A;6_R8;:Q 1>A$U0A6_6bFU1;RW5$U]05@6_6bFU19;R:Q6'(W35;R;W58R41AU@,UH:Q
13NH:QR5538RW4R'R;X ] 116R1Q6Rc53RW]@1>Rc>X3":Q6V>]A;8R4":Q5R;\A6]1;R3>R;>1Q
19. Disproof Of The Inequality Of Apaccheda Nyaya 1. Moreover, even by the Apaccheda Nyaya, Sruti is stronger. 2. Therefore alone, the Srutis describing Brahman with qualities and with the world are sublated by the Srutis describing Brahman without qualities and without world 3. It is said by Anandacharya. Since it refers to the purport, comes after and Vedic text is free from defect it sublates the former; like the sentence "this is not a snake".Notes: Apaccheda Nyaya of Poorva Mimamsa Sastra means that what follows is more powerful than what went before.
> >t5B?X1;5U:1AR:;9m 9 55U;36_1;D8R41:Q65U:R5\AR4;W1Q13R>t5B5RX@0;:Q6AR4;W1Q :X>\>R2]$_RSB1>W5>?W@R1Q6_1;DA;):R51>RX@0;R3>1Q?83=m$_R;):R51>5RX@0;R}6 >;R>BRS\>;R>BRS>8R45?';R1Q'1;3Nx\ 13666:W> 6_"RRW66HW
25
13W>\5;9'RW >?W@5U:R5:Q AR>:1\:2;RBW8_R5;1>R1Q3Y?UtH6;>1Q >\5;W66_;RW$R;2RW'1\R?>\A1;\K#;c"W1A1;:H:RW%\K $;R2R12;1RW2R]5>;34R'(R?>1T9;]1;R3FU19 %A1;:6_1\ 1W)$3RBN6=84W>X4:;R]''5A>6PR3>1Q8_AV1;R3AVGX?' >?>A;A1;1>6_16R35R1Q1'W1Q 5FU1WA1169R>R1Q">?>\A>^A1RWG\A1;\;2R2]:Q12R'A1U16?>A1;1>W 1R16;]:Q #;c"W1)R5R111QA1;:1QA1;:W>5:RW%\5>;2]:Q $;R2R12;1RW2R]5>;34R1Q1;6>R;\56_6bA1;1>W6_:R0:Q1A;6V>]AY6_"R\ )$1A)]5$1A1;1>\>R %A>H1>>R35RW::)$1AX=D0;mT"R;BR:W> 6=84WER5R1Rc6V>R]5U:R5\ ] 3N:1;2]
27
25. Justification Of Sublation By Srutis
1. Objection: Let there be sublation by Srutis: 1 The universe is real. by the Srutis. - that which is regarded as real is not useless. For eternity, hr created things in reality.
2.. They (ill-guided) declare the world to be un-real, unstable and without God.. 3. The perception of the world cannot be regarded as dream as there is dissimilarity By these the reality of the Universe has been established.1. Reply: The Sruti
has not this import. ....(a)...Viswam = all praise , Satyam = exact ...since it relates to praise, it has no import on the reality of the world. (b). What Indra understands to be done now is real and is not a waste.. (c).The sentence is no evidence of the reality of the world. Its meaning is creation according to previous creation and not in the reality of the world or in its creation. (d). For me who advocates difference from reality and have accepted difference from unreality in the world, there is no contradiction in this Smriti. (e) . Meaning of Sutra. Na Abhavah = "Things (pot etc) have no existence other than knowledge" - This is not valid because in the empirical state, they have their existence for its fruitfulness and action. . Upalabdeh = because they are cognised different from knowledge. The sentence on the difference in nature like dream etc, is to show the adjunct which is sublatable. Therefore the previous logic is defective because of sublatability and also with the adjunct.
A A1AR4"1>:Q 55UAH>AR4"R5R\:2;R1>AR4"5U:R5W9;6_R_8;:Q1'W1Q
28
5:2;R1>AR4"6_1ER}U65T16DR3T5R\:2;R1>8RW45W6>;RB1;9R>R1Q6_1ER19A1W@R\G"R=R8R4;1>6A1> W 6_16R35R1Q >A1U1A1UER1RER1AR4R;R>BRSW15G:Q1c8_ER5W1:W>1c5:2;R1> %,1:Q
26. Non-Real is Capable of Proof 1; Objection: that which prove the reality is stronger than the inferences that prove their non-reality. 2.Reply: No; the subjects for the establishment of the non-reality teach the non-reality; yet there is no contradiction, because they do not relate to the reality which cannot be sublated for all periods of time. 3. In fact, empirical reality , cognised or non-cognised is the criteria for proving. It is not sublatable by any knowledge other than that of Brahman; nor does it necessarily involve non-reality.
A A1AR4"1>9R>W 8R4":Q 6_18:8W8:8AR4"1>\1R>3tA11A;8:8R1:5RA1>W66_18:8R"RR1Q6\5AR4"1>W 6_;RW)":Q>\A>6PR2]A;RA1RW69R>?U9R?U9AV'"1>:Q 5'"2:QA1AdR;W11FU1;R5RA1RW1>R1Q1AVGW0??>@R0R39;A3U16H3?]5R1Q 1;R39R@;W0'>WA\854R5U66HWR4;RA">$?;;RWA\8541
28. Refutation Of The Cogniser-Cognised Relation1.
The relation between the cogniser-cognised (seer and seen) is incompatible.
2, Therefore, since in the absolute reality relation is incompatible, the character of superimposition is the relation. -
5U"V =1"]560:Q
1Rt1>"A\854A;>;R6"R5U6=84;R8R4R1Q12RB1Rt1>"A\854A;>;R6"RW3W?"R=>6_"@R]9R>A'1T1R3>@;"ER5R3T5R\5RtA1>1"2\1Rt1>"A1W@R\A\854 1A:R1QA1;1>W$?;A\854R5U66H/> X29. Proof Of Favourable Logic 1 There is sublation because of non-cognition of the pervasive reality relation. Hence the pervasiveness of the reality relation is the absence of difference in time and place. That is not present like knowledge etc., which are of the past things; so, how then can they have reality relation. 2... Therefore, if it is absolutely real, the incompatibility of the relation between cogniser and cognised is strong.
6 6_1":]>;>A2R > 12RB51"'X15;\>}RW6R4"\A1QA>]$1\51"W@;6_"R?"\ >@;R4R59V1\ 6_:W;'X15;\51"'('X15;\1U 1A;6_:R1Y W 51"YH>t'('X15;\ 1U 6_:R0\ 12R6;3T;R51"YH;R>@;6;]51\ 'DU A > )R5R1 5RR5;\ 5R5;RW >R 1 > W ">YH;U6R/=D0"=RW=T9R>R6\ 6_:R1Y6_:R06_:W;'X15;\ 9>1 11 13>'(W35 ER55>YH;R 5>YH;R W 9RA:R5\6_:W;'X15;\6\ AR:R5;1RW ER11>W A1 ER1>?W@>1>A; 4R51> 6_;RW)"A;5>]?W@W5AAR:R5;W'8_0A\9>R1Q1'W1Q5 A>6W0ER11>WA1>?W@W0ER11>A;4R51>6_;RW)"1>W5ER1>?W@>1>A;6_;RW)"1>R1Q 54;A11>W16H;R}5U66H54;A1A;R616H;R}?]5W54;A11>A;X>13N66R3"1>R1QA1"R;]>R3 A1"R;]>R35@W4W55>]'5T;"R;]>R3:RGW"R;]"R6;]>AR5R1Q13W>\"Y1A;6_6bA;;W8_0"65R 66HW56_1"V=1"]6F1;66H U U 55UFU1;R6_1;DR3A11AH>RW6)T>5W5'8_W1\1RW6)T>;\;cRW6)T>;\2]"_;RAR:2;]=D0 >;R>BRS1T;:Q1;R3FU1>?>:2;R1>W6_:R0:1A:Q
32. Compatibility Of The "Non-Reality" Srutis 1. Objection: By depending upon the reality of perception, the non-reality of all other than Brahman is not established. 2.Reply : No,......... perception etc. ...therefore, the reality which is sublated is not depended upon. That which is depended upon and which is the validity for empiricality which has the capacity for purposeful action is not sublated. So, what and by which there is connection. (your question is irrelevant) 1. Therefore, the srutis "one only which is non-dual" etc., are valid on the non-reality of the world.
32
X1FU1W8R]4RWR;R>BRS6_;RW)"1>R1Q ;1Q B61>W58=>1Q11Q 8R4":Q;HU A\t53$4 6_:R09R>1>W53N8]=\ 11Q 8R4;:1>;>A2R;R\X1ER5A;3N8]=1>W58R4"1>A;X1ER5A;'8=>1>W58R4"1>A; ?836_1;D8=R8=>'RR1Q
33. Refutation Of Sublation Of The "Non-Dual" Srutis 1. By the invalidity of the empirical dual-world, like the "empirical-6 inches moon, there is no contradiction in the non-dual srutis. We have already discussed how the empiricality is sublated by the srutis. Moreover, empiricality relates to particular object; sruti to all objects. Therefore, where difference is not seen, there itself is room for Srutis, which speak of non-difference. 2. The mere sublation of the empirical difference is not the criteria. That which is strong after examining its validity, that is the cause of sublation. That is sublated, which is weak by the doubtful nature of validation. In this state, the dual knowledge is weak and cannot sublate. Non-dual knowledge is strong and can sublate; in the discussion on the strength and weakness of verbal testimony and empiricality, this has been shown.
":W>W1;R3FU1;2]>'RR;A;'@.Q>41R16;]=m>H;R8=>1>W5R>}"X16_16R3"1>\AYR3>R;R5R\1F>0A>6560W >W3R51"6=1"R;R\9B1:QA:R9
1">ER5W5A>]>ER56_1E;R6"_:R1QW13R1:;\3\A>^11QA1;\AR1:R11>:A16A\BR:BR6_R_" A\9>W66_"Y 1>R;R2]55>;1;R116S>A2W;:Q ] 1RW5>}1W1T;\;GW18BN>_TBR3\A3Q6W8_063G;W09W3G;5@W4R1Q1:2;R1>W6;]>A1\":W>R1T;:Q 1>R;:Q
33
34. Discussion Of The Meaning Of The Sruti " One And Only Non-Dual" Etc 1. By the six rules of import, the sentence on non-dualism is stronger ; the sentences on creation etc have their import on dualism due to nescience, This has been said by us in Kalpalathika. 2.. Here also is laid down by the commentators on the true meaning of six kinds of signals. Therefore, in the beginning , by the promise of all-knowledge by the knowledge of one, in the end, "All this has got That as the Self: That is the truth. That is the Self. Thou art That", Svetaketu. by the overall context, it is of non-duality From the understanding the meaning of the words in that sentence, in accordance with non-duality, - although it is possible to interpret differently the different words - it has to be fitted into the current context and interpreted accordingly leaving out the different meanings. Therefore, "where there is no second" - the Bahuvrihi compound alone - has to be taken.3.
4.. Like this, in the Brahman - the Existence - the three differences are negated by the three words and the sentence "one without second" points to the non-reality which is different from Brahman..Notes: Three words are, Yeka, Yeva, Advithiyam. Three differences are: same kind, different kind and The six rules of import are - beginning, end, repetition, novelty, euology, internal.
compatibility.
ER55>1;]1>5;2R5U66H R
15;2R5U66HW 6_:R0:Q A1;1>W 8_>1Q 5>1;]1>R6HW 12R'x\>R1]""Y 11>:A;R3>R;RW12A:;$4T)5::RG1>}RAB"R;W05RAT1Q tA1 ] 9>@;1 1 6_1;$;R2R1:;4T 6_1;$ER5 BR5"Y1Q AR 'R1:RW16H1RW 5R5;3Q4>R514>A1R>6WD1W 1 ' 1A:R1Q4R5ER51>W5ER55>1;]1>\:2;R1>W6_:R0:1\A:Q
34
35. Sublation by knowledge being otherwise incompatible
1. "He who knows Brahman, he transcends sorrow", "Thus, the wise is liberated from "name and form"", "when that Self which is both high and low is realised , the knot of the heart is untied, all doubts become cleared and one's action dissipated", - By these Srutis and Smritis, the incompatibility of an alternative to knowledge for sublatability is valid for the bondage due to non-reality. If it is absolutely real as Brahman, nonsublatability will result. 2. Thus, it was said by the Vartikakara (Sureswaracharya):
By the emergence of the correct knowledge arisen from sentences like "Thou artThat" etc , the nescience with its effect was not there, is not there, will not be there. The real knowledge of the individual Self alone destroys the individual Self's ignorance.. In addition to its birth in itself, it is not in need of anything else to destroy the ignorance. 3. Therefore, by the knowledge of the substratum, the sublatibility by knowledge is proof of the non-reality,
AY66H 2"W;\AY!1'W1Q53RW@6_;UH1>58545A;ER1X"A1>A;ER1A1>R9R>A;>R>>D11>R1Q AYRX'>:W>RA:R3R1:5A>W] 6_R0RA>W] =RW"RA>W] >W3RA>R]09V1R5A>]1R1:R5RW>;UcR1Q6_R0R3AY6_16R3;51T6_:R0:Q >RA@->R1]"R:Y1R3R>R"}":W>W1 6_R1T1"A1>\\ A>]A;W1A:Q?>\5RER1\A31tA21:Q6_8UAY1>R1QAU@URX'=;FU1W
36 Compatibility Of "Creation by mere sight" 1. What is this sight-creation.........if this is so; No. It is intended that it is existence (due to a defect) which exists only when known or does not exist when not known. 2. The Sruti " from this Atman, all Pranas, all worlds, all Vedas, all elements are born".which maintain the creation of Pranas etc, from the Jiva after waking from sleep are proof.
35
3.. It is said clearly in the "Vasishta Vartika" etc and in Bhashya also : - All these which are from the nescience are like bubbles. After appearing for a second , go away and merge in the ocean of knowledge. Therefore , the entire aggregate of dualities other than the Brahman are cognition-cognised form. The empirical reality is due to nescience. Like the rope-snake, the world is not there when it is not unknown and is empirical because of "sight-creation while awake and in deep sleep, they disappear.
")T>>R3 ) > >}R>?R1Q8_>"\A\A)T>1A;X>6_1?1A:Q
37.Discussion on One Individual Self 1. Due to nescience , Brahman only gets birth and rebirth. He only is the individual self, Of him only. there is the knowledge of "I" etc. 2. Therefore, it is established that individual self is one only with nescience as his adjunct.
ER5>R3WER5=D05tH = 2"W;:>}R!51R>35R39R>61>WA1ER55>1;R]AW1G8V:6;RW6R3R5RER5:6 5R3'X15;RF11>R1Q5R}W> ;R9_:RW6R3R51>\ER5=D0:Q ER51>W56W0ARDR)ER55>1;]1>\>R1eD0:1'6_RR$UH:W>
38.Discussion on Ignorance - Definition Of Ignorance 1.Objection: What is this ignorance? It caanot be said that it is sublatable by knowledge as well as beginningless positve..
36
.Reply: We say - , . The ignorance of the material cause of silver is also beginningless because it has its locus in the beginningless Consciousness. 2. Or, ignorance is the material cause of an illusion.. 3. Ignorance is negatable directly by the character of knowledge. This definition has been dealt previouslyNotes: The follwoing six have been accepted to be beginningless: Jiva, Iswara, Pure Consciousness, difference between Jiva a nd Iswara, Avidya and its relation with Consciousness. The discussion on Ignorance continues upto 47th title.
ER5>R3W1G6_1;D6:R0R66H 1 6 _ W 1G'ER5W"B\E:R:Q5;\'5)R5R:16_1;D\#1>3NH:2^5)R5R:1>?W@16_1;D\ $1R>51\"R=\AU#\B:QA>R6A\5"\'1Q>W3@\16Y1;2^>'R1]11A>]5U9>A:Q
39.Compatibility of Perception As Evidence Of Ignorance 1. As regards ignorance, - I am ignorant, I don't know me and anything ", (general perception) and I don't know what you said (particular perception), "So far I had been in deep sleep. I did not know anything (inferential deep sleep perception) - these are evidences. 2. One knowing the ignorance of an object starts discussion to remove it. This is common experience.
ER5>R3W5U:R566H
AR4;\>>R363\6_:R0ER5\A>6_R$9R>>;1S>@;R>5>1;]A>3W?$1>A1>51]":Q BW1U6_"R?1R2]6_"R?"1>R1Q R51\54"R1Q
37
40.Compatibility of Inference On Ignorance
1. (Sadya) - The knowledge defined by mental state under dispute (a) is along with another substance (b) belongs to its own place (c) will be negated by it (d) veils its object and (e) is different from its own antecedent negation. (Hetu) Because it illuminates a meaning hitherto not illuminated. (Drishtantha) - Like the light that appears first amidst darkness.Notes: This anumana is by Vivaranakara.
ER5>R3WFU1;U66H F 1G(R53RW$;W :R4;R;W 1}2R6BW55Y1\ 8_>R0R1R"QQ ER5W6_:R0:Q U 1A:R1Q5Y1W56_1;V/R(R5TBRY1RK>W1:RAT1Q K>W:R;R\1U6_"Y1\>}R1Q?>W)R:W"R\=RWB1?U"Y@0R\?>W >}R;R:Q511]:R5R"9V;?'R51W>?>:R;R5>YH?>W1;R}RFU1;RW >0]1RER5W6_:R0:1tA21:Q
41.Compatibility of Srutis On Ignorance 1. In the Chandyogya Upanishad (8-3-2), it is said - "As persons who are ignorant about treasures do not get it even though walking over it again and again. So also, all these creatures do not realise Brahman although they reach daily (during sleep) this world of Brahman because they are carried away by untruth. 2. In the Chandyogya Upanishad (8-3-2), it is said they are carried by untruth.. 3. They are covered by Nihara (Snow) (Rig.Veda.Adyaya 8-3-17) 4. In the beginning there was darkness. (Rig.Veda Adyaya 8-7-17) 5. Maya is to be understood as Prakriti (Svetssvetara Up, 4-10) 6. There is one unborn being red,white and black (Sve.U.4-5)
38
7. Those who dwell in nescience (Kato Up. 2-5) 8. There is further cessation at the end of the non-reality of the world.(Sve.Up..1-10) These are evidences on ignorance in the Srutis.
ER5>R3W2R]6H;66H U )T>A;5>t'(8_R5536_"R?5;2R5U66H?'1G:R5:Q
42.Compatibility of Presumption On Ignorance 1. The otherwise incompatibility of non-illumination of unsurpassed Brahman bliss of Jiva is also evidence for ignorance.
ER5>R3W1161T1;U66H _ AR'>}RARD>W}R51U?U'16_"R?;RARDT'>}R>YH6_18S:81'X15;:Q 1>';1W1QA>R>Y1'X15;6_"R?;R>}W1 5'X>\"3R'3>}R;R6_1T1;R6HR6HWA:R4RX12R9;U6$:R1Q
43.Compatibilty of Knowledge Of Ignorance 1. That nescience is known through Sakshin and not illuminated by pure Consciousness. Sakshi is Consciousness reflected in nescience. 2. . Therefore it is said that nescience like Rahu is illuminated by the Consciousness which it conceals. 3.By this it should not be said that nescience is not known sometime; this is acceptable, since in concentration, this has been accepted.Notes: The Rahu conceals the sun/moon during an eclipse and it is illiuninated by the sun/moon.
ER5>R3W>}R;R'5:RGRF;1>66H >}R;RRF;A1U?U\8_X>13NH\RF;1>>@;1>9R$5T5>]9R$'1"W>=R6V>]A1:ARWB _ 6t?':RW5RF;RW9>15R6$RW'}R"Y1>'(358_0;W>51;:UH1>A\ARSA>]E1>"\')E1>R3>;>A2RW66H WW
39
44.Compatibility - Consciousness Is The Locus Of nescience
1. Pure
consciousness is the locus of nescience.
2. It has been said (Sarvajnatman) :Pure Consciousness is the locus and object of nescience. All that come into being after nescience can neither be locus nor object of nescience which exists before them. 3. Therefore, because of the distinction due to nescience , only in Consciousness, the state of being liberation and worldliness and omniscience and limited knowledge can be compatible.
ER5>R3W>}R;RA>ERF;1>66H A ] A>]"Q63W5A>W@R\ $9V1\ 'X15;:1;U';1W51U A>]E\ 1U?>AR>]E;:Q 1c>}R\ >5R5 ] A\9>11>}RA
45.Compatibility- Omniscient Brahman Is The Locus Of nescience. 1. What is meant by cogniser of everything is the consciousness that which cognises everything and not the omniscience of the fourth;(Brahman) therefore, the omniscience is in the qualified Consciousness and that is not possible without nescience. .
ER5>R3W>}R;R>R'A61A:1)T>RF;1>66H > \ >R'A61:FXA1U)T>RF1X>>}R5$}1W 13NH\A>W5X>"t61W3W?W>;RW:P;1Q%,R3":Q12R)T>RF;R>}R\:5;51WER5"RW>3R 1A:R1Q)T>RF;1>W63RW@
46.Compatibility of Jiva As Locus Of nescience according to Vachaspati 1. Vachaspatimishra considers nescience as located in Jiva. 2. Learned men think that Jiva is the locus of nescience just as the pot exists in the space limited by itself.
40
3. Therefore there is no harm in jiva being the locus of nescience.
ER5>R3WER5>@;560:Q >}R;R >@;RW6 AU>' 12RB '5:RG:W> >}R>@; 1A;"t611>W55;RW5;RF;RS3 3RW@ 6_AHW A>6_"R?1>W5 6_AH6_"R?W 1tA:5Q R>R1Q 6_AH6_"R?1>W5R>W5AU@URX5U9V;:R5R1QR1:5RWB\"R4;RAR66H B\"R5R Y B\"1R]16_1T1W;RW$W54;RAA;R>?;"1>R1Q 1A:R1QA\:5A"1Y1>\R1:5RW5'3\?W"1Y]1>R3>?51"1Q8_R01>"R01>R3>? 3WBt5;R}X;4;RAW5R1:X;>@;1>A\9>R1Q12R'R1:53WBWt5;R}X;4;RARW;U);1W> W 1A:R1QR9TR';1>W2R]6H6_:R0560:Q
12RB>:1\6;R3A1Q'W1Q58R4;W1A1Q'W1Q56_1T;W18R4;1W6_1T;1W61A:R1QA3A=D01>R1Q5>]'5T;:Q
53. Proof of Indeterminability by Presumption 1. The thing under dispute, shell-silver etc, if it were existence, it would not have been sublated, if it were absolute absence of existence, it would not be cognised. But it is sublated and also is cognised. (by perception) Therefore , it is different from existence and absolute absence of existence and hence it is indeterminable..
5@W461;RW$1>R5U66H;R5>]'5T;1>A:2]5:Q _ R A 1A:R1Q5@W46_1;RW$1>5;2R5U66H;R65>R]';1>A
54.Justification of indeterminability by the Incompatibility Of CounterPositive Of Negation
1, Therefore, the incompatibility of being the counter-correlate of negation also is evidence for the existence of indeterminability
F FU1;2R]6H66H 5RA3RATRWA3RAT1Q K>W:1;R3FU1;65>R]';1>W6_:R0:Q
44
55. Compatibility of Presumption of Srutis 1. The Rigveda Sruti "then there was neither absolute nothing nor existence " etc, are proof of indeterminability.
A1#;R19m R1
1A:R1Q5>R]';#;R16_:R0A\9>R1Q51UA35;2R#;R16_:R0>R;XA1;66;RmT"RR6;A1#;R1;R6H1GB56_1T1 "\1U>"6:RG\1;UH1>R1Q1A:R1Q5A1#;R1
56. Refutaton Of Asatkhyati 1. Therefore, indeterminable erroneous perception is only correct., as there is proof.. The absolute absence of existence or the difference from existence are not correct as there is no proof. 2. It cannot be proof of perception "that silver shone was absolute absence of existence; because of the later sublation; the perception indicates only the difference from existence in the silver. 3. There is no cognition of non-existence through sentences like "rabbit horn - absolute absence of existence." But it is vikalpa..(imagination/fancy) Therefore, there is no asatkhyati.Notes: 1. Atmakhyati - Superimposition of the attribute of silver in the mind on the external shell. Advocated by Yogachara Buddhists (Kshanikavijnam) 2, Asatkhyati - Absolute absence like hare's horn. Advocated by Madyamika Buddhists, 3. Akyati - absence of illusion. Advocated by Prabhakara Mimamsakas. 4. Anyathakyati - Superimposition of the attributes of silver in shop in shell etc. Advocated by Logicians. 5. Anirvachaniyakhyati - Indeterminability - Advocated by Advaitists.
45
5;2R#;R19m R1 5R65;GtA21A;6;A;9R5R1Q5;2#;R11;51A1>5;GA166R1Q
57 Refutation Of Anyatha-khyati 1."What is in another place shines here" - this explanation of Anyathakhyati is not proper. Like the absolute absence of existence, it is incompatible for a thing which exists in another place, as conjunction which is essential for immediate perception is not possible.
R> R>}"]'5T;:QER5RW6R35":Q1H>ER5W55R?;:Q' 55U>\6;\16\5\ '14T6_AmGX"R="5@W46_1T1?'5A;R1Q1'W1Q 5;2R6W? 12R'64:Q"\63R2]5:Q6R;R2]5:Q"X"\'6U5>X3"=RX""9W3W5>4:Q 63R2]5@- \ >X3":6 >4:Q 1163R2]5\ 1>\63R2]5\ ' 1G ' A1;\ ER5:Q 551:Q 1;R3 1163R2]5:Q;RW;\>ER5:;6_R0W@U}51);RW]16U@1;R31>\63R2]5:Q6_"Y 6_"R?1;R31U =RX""\63R2]5:Q>R;R2]5:6>X3"\11>:A;R3>R;\ARW;\3W>3H11U=RX"":Q ":Q#0.R2]1>:Q6;R];?83R5R\63>YHA:RSR;>1Q163R2]>@;#0.R2]1>5U:R5:Q
2.Compatibility of Impartite Knowledge Of Sentence of Satya Etc 1.. (Sadhya) The sentence " Satya" etc is of impartite sense, or the sense only in the stem "Brahman". - (Hetu) Because it is a sentence of definition, or it is an answer to a question on the meaning of the stem, Brahman - (Example) Like the sentence "Moon has profound light." This is the syllogism for impartite knowledge of a word.
50
11>:A;R3>R;R2]66H 1 R3> >\1H>:A;R3:BR>R;6D"5U:R5:653RW@:Q ] AR 11>:A;R3 >R;:Q #0.R2]5:Q R1:A>6:RG5\ >R BW "R;]"R;:RG51>W A1 A:R5R4"R1Q15:RG6_?5RWHR1Q >RARRW;\ 1;R3>R;>1Q 1>R;R2]>@;#0.R2]1>5U:R5:Q
3.Compatibility of the Meaning Of sentence "Thou Art That" etc. 1. Similarly, the syllogism having the subject on "Thou art that" is also without defect. 1.(Sadya)- The sentence "Thou art That" is of impartite sense or is the essential nature alone of Brahman. (Hetu) - Because it is co-existent when it is in a substance which is not of cause-effect, or it is only an answer to a question. (Example) Like "This is that Devadatta". This is the syllogism for sentence - impartite sense.
8_0RW 5$]01>66H 8 U
"X>;FU1;R1R>1QR1:R5$]0 U ]?>RA:A1";R0$U01;G"R=\>;R6;R$U01>A;A:R96mT"RR>9]>W1QARDR1Q6W1RW6R4"65:Q "\'A$U0>R;R5R\RX6R4"$U0>@;1>W5A>R9R>"54]:]"1>FU1W5>]@;1>\?R>]15GW>;R"R6RD"6_R:R0;\ RF1:QB1U"1W6=D0R;RA\9>R1Q
5. Proof Of Attributelessness
1. In the first ( for the purpose of revealing itself) , as it is self luminous, there is no necessity for proof.52
2. In the second (for the purpose of removing ignorance), Srutis themselves are proof. The question therefore does not arise when the proof is perception and inference. 3. Objection. Since there is no word-meaning connection in the form of class, attribute and action, the Upanishad is not valid in attributelessness:.. 4.Reply. No. Though there is no possibility of primary/secondary implication, indication is possible.
8_0RW 5?>1?'DUAB?T@R]1;R3 \ FU19>$_BAS?>1?'DUSR]1:"1;RA>R]51;R]:1;R'5;:;)T>?R366H 8 R3 55U5>]?W@\'W1Q8_1B]8_X>X"\ ER5R1:":QR553R1:":Q1T;\51;\ARSD'W15RW66}1W1 'W1Q5 2]6_"R?1>:W>ER51>:QR5531>A;56R4"W1>61>R1Q 6_R9R"W61W5A1T;1>9R>R1Q1T;1>\
53
'1U2]6DA;9;R>4R1Q51;1>\ ?U8_R1SW5116DH3RW@9R>R1Q12R'>}R>YH 6_17=1\'X15;\ARSD 1A:R1QER5R553X"6\1T;\51;\ARDT'8_W1A:Q
7.Compatibility of Knowledge Etc Of Brahman 1. Objection: If Brahman is formless, then the statements "Brahman is one, knowledge, Bliss, non-dual, eternal, Sakshi " will not be compatible. . 2.Reply: No. Consciousness is the character of illuminating objects. 3.. Blissfulness is without any adjunct. 4. According to Prabhakaras, the absence of a second has no different locus. Still there is absence of a second . .. 5. The fourth (pre and post negations) is acceptable (for eternality) 6. Sakshi is different from Pure Brahman and Jiva having intellect as its adjunct. This has been accepted a nd there is no defect. Sakshi is Consciousness reflected in the vrittis of nescience. 6.Therefore,it is established that Brahman is Knowledge, Bliss, non-dual, eternal and Sakshin.
8_0R95:HRW6R3R51>66H 8 W 55U5>]?W@\'W1Q8_"2\13W>5:H:U6R3R5:195:HRW6R3R5"1>\)$1!>"R1"R 6R3R51>R1Q1'W1Q5 6S9R>W6>>1R]4R51;R6R3R51>A\9>R1Q>>1R]4R51>\'>>1]"R@;1>:W> "A;X>>}R6B11>W56R3R51>A;>}R6S?>"1]Y1>66H 8 55U>\"U=R=R3>3N6R3R5$RW'\"1Y]1>:Ux\A;R1Q1c"R;]A;"t611>W5%,1W1'W1Q5 "U=R="R;]%,R3R>6;"t611>A;A:6_16HW6;R3WRAW?'1GR6ARD0>"1Y1>R1Q5B ] ] 3?]5:RGW0"G]6=R61>5:1W6A>]E"1]A4}R6HW U9.Compatibility of Braman As World Creator 1. Objection: Thus, the creatorship is deemed to have been said like the potter with the effort through the materiality. That is not possible with the effect being imposed. . 2.Reply: No. In the potter's effect of the pot, there is no proof of absence of imposition . Absence of creatorship of shell-silver etc is not established; there also Sakshi is the creator. We cannot do away with creatorship on the simple ground that the same is not seen. In that case, in your view also, the omniscient will lose his creatorship.
8_0R95:HRW6R3R51>W6_:R066H 8 W
;1RW>R:R59V1R5)R;51W 11X)5"1U6_"Y 116RAVAVGW6_"Y1;12]>B16b:T ] FU1;R;1Q6_;51;9A\>?t511X1tA21=;R4R=mRc6R3R51>A 13XD1(R>;R"R01]D0R3R4R66_"Y 16b:T >:W>13XD18BNA;RR\ 1;R}G:R5\8RW4;:Q AR3:$_RAT1Q11RW>XA3)R;113R1:R5\A>;:"U11X1;R36HR2W]6_:R0:Q
55
1O1;RW5:Q1;RW5FU1;R'6R3R51>:Q ">ER5W5A>]>ER5FU1W:R5:Q AR>\')$1Q95:HRW6R3R5":QBW6_DR6V>]")51"R;]1>R1QAU#3N#R3>1Q W 195:HRW6R3R5\8_A4;1 A>]"R;]5:H"R=%,A\;RW$A;9;>R3A\6_16A;R51A;=R9Rc
10.Compatibility of the proof of Brahman as Both Efficient And Material Cause 1. "From which these elements are born" By the fifth case ending (the prime cause of the agent of the verb jan meaning to be born is called apadana (ablative/fifth case). "To which they return " - by indicating that it is the support for existence and end - by these the material causality is established. 2." It saw ", "Let me spread" - Brahman is the support of "seeing" etc. By this the efficient causality is established. 3. From Atman, Akasa was born etc. In these also there is the fifth case of materiality. 4. Similarly, "It thought, let me become many" - should be understood as evidence for this.. 5. There was nothing before. From it, Sat was born, It created itself. This also is evidence for the said meaning. 6. "It is the birth place of elements. This indicates material causality.. 7. When one is known, all are known - this is also evidence for material cause. 8. (Sadhya) World is of a cause which is both material and efficient - (Hetu) Because it is the effect born preceded by thinking . (Exam) Like pleasure and pain. 9. Moreover, there is the advantage of the example which is acceptable to both parties of the conjuntion of time and pot which is the cause for all effects. Thus it is stablished that Brahman is both (undifferentiated) efficient and material cause.
8 A 8_0A>6_"R?1>=D066H >W}1>WA16;>BRR1;51R9R>R54":Q
56
11.Compatibility of the definition that Brahman Is Self Luminous 1. When it does not have the character of cognisability, it has the character of the capacity for immediate emphirical use. It must not be the locus of the absolute negation .
A A>6_"R?1>66H ARR1:RA>6_"R?BW1UA>AHR;R\6_"R?>;1W}1;R'R553R363=D;:Q5>R';:Q6_>YH5:H9R>R1Q1 13NH:Q@,R$U0"_;R)R1A\854R?83BW1>5R1:5;1:RWW@R\1W5R1:R5R94T;1W
13.Compatibility that Brahman Is Not Describable By Words directly. 1. Since Brahman has no attributes and is not cognisable, it is only implied (Lakshyam) by words like Anand etc and cannot be expressed directly, since there is absence of connection between word and meaning as cause for action. 2. It is said: "It is seen that words are correlated to quality, action, kind and relation. These are not in Brahman and therefore, Brahman cannot be expressed with a sense. "
57
AR:R5;1RW93#0.5:Q A W
5B>;\9W36_1T1WA>6\"RR6=6R:"\1U8R41>@;1>\8_: V
14. Refutation Of Difference In General
1. We do not deny the case or the nature of perception of difference; but we say that it is the object of sublation.
>?@1RW93#0.5:Q W W
"\'9W3W A>W1x>;1;RA>>YH>A2R>R"\'9W3W 9W31>:U6R46\)R16\>R>R';\1G6U59]3RW>R';12R'5;RW5;>YH;RA>>YH;R6HW W15. Refutation Of Difference In Particular 1. In difference, the difference from other than its own has to be stated; this will result in the contradiction of its own location. or there will be an infinite regress. In difference, the character of difference, the character of an adjunct or the character of class have to be stated. There again, difference has to be stated......................then, beause of mutual dependence , its own location will result..
>?W@#0.5:Q
A>6R1S?W@A;RmT"R9W31>W59W3A;4:]9W3RW;;RW$R1Q
16. Refutation Of The Particularity
1, If the particularity is accepted as separate from its own nature, it itself is the character of difference. Then it is not possible for the difference to have the attributes of difference.
58
9W36b"6_1;D9m 9 W 6
HR5U9>A;51"t'('X15;A;135>'('X15;6_1;RW$"9W3R>$RB1;R?U'X15;4:]"53]N#R3 6_1;RW$"9W35>$RB1>R1Q FU1t'(9W3R5U>R35T 1A:R1Q9W36b"W56_1;D\6_:R0:Q
17. Refutation Of Perception In Five Differences
1. The said experiences are of only Consciousness limited bythe mind. They therefore govern difference having the consciousness not qualified by the mind as its countercorrelate and not difference having pure consciousness as the qualified and painlessness etc as the counter-positive. 2. Srutis also restate difference qualified by the consciousness of mind. 3, Therefore, perception is not valid in the five differences.Notes: The five differences are: 1) between Jiva and Iswara 2) between Insentient and Iswara 3) between Jiva a nd Insentient 4) between Jivas and 5) between insentients.
)T>8_93R5:R59m ) W U AR)T>W?>4:R]4"R1Q3B51UB5>1Q1;G3N#R3WX";R1Q "t61AR>]E;AR>]E;R3>;>A2R;R>0W] A>3T%]1>R3>;>A2R>1Q"t619W35X>66H;RA>R9R>"9W3\ 6_1 W 6_;RW)"1>R1Q'
59
18. Refutation Of Difference Between Jiva And Brahman1. Objection: (Sadhya) Jiva and Iswara are different (Hetu) because they have the locus which has contrary nature (Example) Like the fire and Snow. 2. Reply: Here, pain etc is of the nature of mind(not related to Self) and therefore, the hetu is not established......If it is mere difference, it is the establishment of what is already established;(acceptable to advaitins) if it is real difference, there is negation of probandum.
2. The omniscient and non-omniscient states are imposed like the shortness and length on a letter, It is compatible only by the imposition and it is of no criteria for natural difference.
)T>6]3#R}5UA54R5\A;R1Q1'W1Q5RX6R4"9W3555UA54R566HW N W A>]>"6RAB1>W5:2;R9V1A;X>6R4W:2;R9W36_;RW)"1>A;6_R$W>66R35R1Q
20 Refutation Of Logic On Difference Between Jivas
1.Objection. If there is unity of atman, Chitra will remember pain of every one. Reply: No; because of the difference in adjunct., it is compatible that he will not.60
2. Since the adjunct is non-real, the criteria for non-real difference has already been explained.
9W36+'"5U:R59m 9
AR4;\8_)T>RW>R5R1:6_1;RW$"4:]ER5R8R4;9W3>R5QBW1U63R2]1>R1Q%,>1Q1;R3@U 6V>RW13RW@R51>YHW6SR1Q ] AR4;\8_9W3BT5\5R>1@-1WBW1U63R2]1>R1Q%,>1Q1:U1;AB>YH1>A;).1>A;'6R41>R1Q 1A:R1Q9W36b"\55U:R5>@;
21. Refutation Of Five Differences (Logical) 1. Objection: Brahman or Jiva has difference which is not subject to sublation by knowledge of the one having the nature of anatman as its counter-positive (Hetu) because it is a substance (Example) like the jar. Reply: Because it has the fallacy of an adjunct of insentience, limitedness and being born. 2. Objection: (Sadya) Brahman is not with out difference (Hetu) because it is a substance (Example) Like the pot. Reply: Insentience is the fallacy of adjunct. 3.. Therefore, the five differences are not the object of inference.
9 U W 9W3F1R31>66H 55U9W31RtH>"1>W]RAU60R];R1:515Q]1FU1;RW:R5:1'W1Q5 9W3>;63W?A;"R65"9W3:R3R;666HW9W31RtH>"1>6;]>AR;1>R1QFU1;51W6"t619W36"R9W3R>R1Q
62
25. Refutation Of The Import of Six Principles In Srutis On Difference
1, In the first chapter of Mundaka (of Atharva veda), it begins only with the nondifference, 2) In the second , in the middle , non-difference is analysed 3) In the third, it ends with the result of non-difference. The three chapters of Mundaka are of identity. There'"Not eating etc" are compatible only with imposed difference, as absolute difference is not compatible.2. Although the charcteristics given by you favour the purport of difference , there is no contradiction taking into account the purport of imposed difference.
W;A>666H 13>YH4:R]5R4R6=D1A>6A;9W31>R1Q 5'>:9W3A;R8R41R1:A>66;]>ARR5W1A;'R1:A>6A;6'(RR>@;1>:1>R';:Q26. Essential Nature Of Unity
1, Unity is the essential nature indicated by not being the locus of properties which do not exist in Atman. 2. It should not be said - This is not the subject of your Sastra, as it is agreed by others on the nature of Atman which is not sublated and non-dual.
) _ W )T>8R93W6_:R0:Q
55UAR>]E;RAR>]E;R3>S?;RW;\18R4;1W;R4;1W 1RW6)T>;:Q1;2R"2\'1Q6WDR:RGW06)T>;1>W5W3\ :R'=D1;RW63R2];RWW;8RW4A;6_R"Q6_36R311>R1Q
28. Non-Contradiction Of The Evidence Which Is Depended Upon With The Srutis On Unity 1, Although they depend on perception for significative potency, still they (the Unity Srutis) do not depend on perception for the object signified. 2. It is said by Vachaspati: - "That which is depended on is not subject to sublation., and that which is sublated is not depended on. If it is said that the state of depended upon is to be accepted, then in the knowledge "this is not silver", the knowledge "this is silver" will have to be accepted as that which is depended on." 3. By the words of "it and Thou", only the indicated meaning of the two words is unity. This has been explained before.
1 11>:A>R;R2]560:Q
9W3W 1R16;W]>4Y1W 1>R]B=D0R8RBN;A; 3RW@1>R1Q 5 B =D0X;R5UX116W38_X>9>11136>R;\9W36 8_X>A5Q8_R6;W18Y1FU11Q
31. Inference On Non-Difference Between Jiva And Brahman 1. (Sadhya). Jivas are not in reality different from Brahman (Hetu) because they are Atman (Example) Like Paramatman.
66
2. (Sadhya) Atma is not many as it is a class which is less pervasive than the character of Dravya (Hetu) because it is present everywhere (Dris) like Akasa. 3. (Sadhya) The difference in perception of the subject is non-real, (Hetu) Because of difference in perception (Drish) Like the difference in perception of the moon
\?1>W5W;R66H W 6R3R_A;>?>R9V1R51FU1RX::X>R\?RW)T>=RW"W )T>9V1A5R151A:Y1RX'\?1>>;63W?R1Q6 W_ )T>8_9W3A 1A:R1Q 1>\TA>R]06R01;R3FU1;R)T>8_9W3W 6_:1W6:51Y:51>;1>R3 9W3>;3W?5>R]BR2^"R65"R\?1>A;FU1A:Y1>;R11>W51=R369W3RW>$:;1W1A:Q
32.Compatibility of Non-Difference as Composite 1. In the Sruti "His feet are all beings in the world", in the Smruti "Jiva is part of me in the world" - In these , Jiva is mentioned as part of Brahman. By these also,nondifference results. 2. By the Srutis, although non-difference between Jiva and Brahman is meant, still for explaining the difference between the meditator and who is meditated upon, difference is assumed as a part, From this also , non-difference is the result.
_ 8:8618:85;R;W5W;A 12R)T>8_0RW:U#6_1:U#>1Q8:86_18:861>R1Q69W3RW>$51>; 13W>\6_18:8A;8:8W5X;W>;>tA21W8_X;\)T>)R1A;A\116_18:85R1Q
33. By Logic Of Original And Reflection Non-Difference is proved.
1. Non-difference is to be understood as in the case of an original and reflection , as Brahman is the original and Jiva its reflection. 2.When the reflection is non-different from the original, Jiva by its reflection of Brahman is non-different from it.67
)T>R0U1>#0.5:Q # 55U0U1>RdT>A;"2\>;R6"R3T?>1Q1;R35U:R5X?')T>50U1>AW >6DW'3WB>;R6AU#ER5R35U6=:9R6H8R4"R AR)T>0UBWER5RA:>R;"RR1Q:5RW>1Q1;G).1>A;RW6R41>Rc
34.Refutation that Jiva Is Atomic (Minute)
1. Objection: How can Jiva which is atomic be non-different from Iswara who is omnipresent. 2. Reply:. By the Srutis, "Eternal all pervading", "He is that great unborn Atma" and by the inferences, (Sadya) Jiva is not atomic, (Hetu) because he is the locus of perceptible properties (Example) like a jar, (2nd Hetu) because he is Atman, he is not matter (2nd Example) like Iswara, Jiva is not atomic. If Jiva were atomic, it will not be possible for him to feel pain or pleasure pervading the whole body. 3. (Sadhya) Jiva is atomic (Hetu) Because it has the characteristic of being the locus of conjunction which is the nonconcomitant cause of knowledge. {Drish) Like the mind. Here insentience is an adjunct.
Notes; In Laghu Chandrika ( by Brahmananda Saraswati) which is a rejoinder to Tarangani (By Ramathirta of Madwa school ) which is a rejoinder to Advaitasiddi, the following sloka is quoted at the end of second Parichheda in support of Jiva-Brahma non-duality: RX63T?R"R:RA>R} G=RW"u ;W5 16]1R 1dT >8_0RW5RWBS0A\A"R>0R3"\>@;R>$:\6_15>;>;141>:W>
2. Ordained Injunction Of Vivarana 1. Hearing etc are the means for realisation of Brahman by positive and negative reasonings. The injuntion is not "Apurva" but of ordained injunction only.Notes:Vidhis are of three kinds. a) Apurva vidhi = not known for all times by any way. Example: Vrihin prokashati = Sprinkles the grains. (b) Niyama vidhi = Partly known to be done and partly not known to bedone.. Example: Vrihin avahanti = strikes grains. (c) Parisankya vidhi = when an effect can result in more than one way, ordaining of one. Example. Pancha Pancha naka Bhakshyah. Only five fingered five animals should be eaten..
70
F>0R3W>]4W;1>66H F R}6DA;X>DRW3D:1>R1Q?x1R16;R]>4RR5'1G?83?tHA\9>RW3RW@?UW ?tHA\9>W6 >??HW1RW4RW6;RW$5;R>4RR1Q1R16;R]A;R6A\?;4:]0RW5t?'11>W51GA\9>W6 A\?;"RW6=SD1W5>]?W@WA\9>W5>'RX;2;R]1Q U 1A:R1QF>0R3W4T61;R:5RW>;R6W5>4W;1>66H
3.Compatibility of Hearing Etc As An Injunction 1. The first can be accepted (understanding the purport of the potency.) There is no harm that the potency of the words is not possible. Although this is not possible in pure Brahman, the qualified potency 's usefulness in understnding is posssible. Although the doubtful aspects have been decided and it is not possible there, still it is possible in the pure Brahman by the indication of the doubtful aspects. - thus discussion is not unnecessary. 2. Therefore, injunction of hearing etc. are compatible as they are of mental state and different from knowledge.
>'R0>4:V=1>66H F >\>'R4R;"F>0>4W)ERARAVG:V=:Q W ;RA:5>;R4;R;RWH1R16;]5?'R;"6"_:R3;UtH5UA54R5\F>0\1T;R4;R;RWH2]AH> ?kR5>1]";UtH5UA54R5\:55:Q 1A:R1QF>0>4:V=\ >'R4R;"S)ERARAVGA;51U:55>4SR'A61;UHA>R4;;>4>'R'RR1Q>}R5>YH;R1:":RWDAR458_ARDR1"R}R5>H560:Q Y 5>YHW56=D16=D05R?W6A;R5:UtH6R'R"R3>1Q W 6_R6_R61;R7=A;R5536_"R?A;A>61RWAR4;1>W61HYHWAR4;1>:RGW0 AR4;1>66HW"0-$1'R:T"6\13R"RYH>R1A:Q
1. Proof Of Eradication Of nescience 1.The Atman who is indicated as knowledge is eradication of ignorance. Even though the indicator is destroyed, release will be there like the cook etc. (even when the action of cooking ceases, the cook remains,)
Release is in the nature of what one gets that which he already has. In its nature ofBliss, although it is not possible to be a Sadhya, still it can be established by the mental75
state of ignorance which veils Bliss. It is similar to one getting the necklace which he already has. Therefore, eradication of ignorance is the essential nature of Atman or of a mental state in that form.
>}R5>1]"560:Q R5 >}R5>1]"\ ';}65A>6_"R?8_6ER5:RG:Q1A;11AR4"1>R1Q12R6F>0R3AR4;6YHA:R/\ 13W> 13UH\1Y0R3W9R]A"R6;W@RAV;]3TA1Y0\3BW1QAV;]"R51:U6R1;R;\>5;RW);W1Q
2.Proof of Eradicator Of nescience 1. The realisation of the self luminous Brahman cannot be the eradicator of ignorance because it is by realisation that ignorance comes to be known to be . However, Brahman reflected in the the perceptual mental state attained by hearing etc. cannot but be the eradicator of ignorance. 2.It is said: Sunlight, by itself illumines grass etc: the same will burn grass. through a lense. That logic should be applicable here.
:UH56U@R2]560:Q : W W 6 55U1>5:1W:UHRX1G5AU#R1:1R1R>16U@R2]AU#TA;R:1>1QAU#\A;R:1'(R;R 3?]5R1Q1'W1Q5AU#R3RWXB6U:2]1R5R66_;UHR$RXR1Q"\1U ARDRt1"_;:R01>R1Q
3.Proof - Moksha Is Bliss And Man's Goal 1. Objection: In your opinion,,,,,,,,,,man's goal is not the nature of happiness; Because no wish is seen that "let me be happiness" like the one "Let me be happy". Reply: In happiness etc the goal is desired neither because it is not related to others nor is it because it is related to one's own self. as it is round about. But it is to be experienced without a veil..
76
'5:RGA;:RWD9R$1>66H : R$ W 55U"A;R;\:RWD6U:2]!":B:2]A;RBRWtA>1Q'5:RGA;!1'W1Q5B:2]$1\'3\?\ :UtH"R=R5>;5\6_16U:2]A;:RWDWA\9>1;UH6_RR;1>R1Q 1A:R1QA>6_"R?'39\AU#\6U:2]
4.Compatibility - Consciousness Alone gets the release1. Objection:
Whose is this man's goal of liberation? Is it of the "I" or "Consciousness alone" Reply: Man's goal of liberation is possible as Consciousness which continues in its state of liberation is a part of "I". 2. Therefore, bliss which is non-different from self-illuminous Consciousness is the goal of man.
)T>5:tH66H ) U 1c)T>5:UHR5R\A>R5U9>A:Q5'11>ER5R3>}R5R?WA}?YH>1Q30.A\;RW$5R?W6'"_9_:0>cA\A"RYHW>}R5>YHR>611"R;R]5U>YHA\9>R1Q
5. Compatibility Of Jivanmukthi 1.Thar Bliss is experienced by a Jivanmukta. There is no question of the fall of the body immediately real knowledge is realised. Because of the continuance of residue, although relieved of illusion, the resultant body is possible to be continued, like the continuance of fear and shaking after an illusion of a serpent and also like the circling of the potter's wheel even after taking away the stick
:UHRX1RW :UHWA>$R]3>1Q51;1>\A;R1Q AR45RWH:1>W5AR4;RWH:A;6@;1>R1Q 1A:R1QA>6R553A;A>6_"R?R1:606_R:UtH5]1GRtA11RQ"6;Q?@A
