[Advaita-l] Vikalpa, Savikalpa, and Nirvikalpa

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:44 AM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
lalitaalaalitah at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I am aware of the difference between  करणम् and कारणम्.   I did not also
> mistake your word 'karanam'.
> >
>
> A person saying mahAvAkyam and antaHkaraNam, both karaNam of brahma-GYAna
> confuses all.



> vyApAravadasAdhAraNaM kAraNm or sAdhakatamaM is karaNAm. And I don't think
> that more than one cause can be sAdhakatamaM for a kArya. So, vAchaspati
> and others who say that different things are karaNa of brahma-GYAna are
> opposed to each other.
>

In the Vedanta paribhAShA scheme of pramAtR-pramANa-prameya (chaitanyam)
the 'pramANam' is the karaNam.  That shows that the antaHkaraNa vRtti alone
is called pramANam (pramAkaraNam).  Also the VivekachUDaAaNi verse says:

स्वस्याविद्या-बन्ध-सम्बन्धमोक्षात्
सत्यज्ञानानन्दरूपात्मलब्धौ ।*शास्त्रं युक्तिर्देशिकोक्तिः
प्रमाणंचानतःसिद्धा स्वानुभूतिः प्रमाणम् *॥ 475

//In the realisation of the Atman, the Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute,
through the breaking of one’s connection with the bondage of Avidya or
ignorance, the Scriptures, reasoning and the words of the Guru are the
proofs, while one’s own experience earned by concentrating the mind is
another proof.//

The Jivanmukta Acharya HH Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati SwaminaH comments:

अन्तः सिद्धा शास्त्रयुक्तिगुरूक्त्यनुरूपा स्वानुभूतिश्च प्रमाणम् ।  [The
experience that has arisen in accordance with the scripture, logic and the
teaching of the Guru (all other pramANams) is also pramANam.]

This anubhava cannot be of any form other than a vrtti.

The Acharya introduces the next set of a few verses with the words:

उक्तार्थे दृष्टान्तार्थं अनुभवप्रमाणकानन्यानप्याह् [ In testimony of the
above some more 'proofs' that are non-different from anubhava pramANa are
being stated]


> > I am stating the two views in Vedanta and how they are not really
> contradicting each other.
> >
>
> See above. They are in contradiction. maNi was only showing you kAraNatvam
> of one and karaNatvam of other in each case and not karaNatvam of each.
>
> In short, I meant that vAchaspati-s view is ekadesha and wrong one.
>

Vachaspati Mishra's view is no different from the Upanishad's/sutrakaara's
and bhashyakara's view. If that is ekadesha we have to conclude that the
Upanishad/sutra and bhashyakara are ekadeshins.

The Panchadashi verses you quoted does not say anything different from what
Vachaspati Mishra has said:

*ताभ्यां निर्विचिकित्सेऽर्थे चेतसःस्थापितस्य यत् |
एकतानत्वमेतद्धि निदिध्यासनमुच्यते ||५४||
*तत्र *प्रत्ययैकतानता *ध्यानम् (यो.सू.३.२) which the Bhamati says is
'निदिध्यासनम्’ of the Upanishad.

//पुनः पुनर्वासितेऽस्मिन्वाक्याज्जायेत तत्त्वधीः //

This जनिः of the तत्त्वधीः is what is termed as 'darshanam' in the Br.Up.
(आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः) which the Bhamati calls samAdhi. And the
तत्त्वधीः is essentially a vRttiH.

sAxAt-sAdhanam is another name of karaNam. So, see again your sentence. You
> are again using words without knowing meaning.
>

As such a 'karaNam' alone the vRtti is spoken of in the Vedanta paribhASha
as pramANam (pramAkaraNam).  Even though the pramAtR and prameyam are
essential as causative of pramitiH/pramA, the pramANam (vRtti) is what is
the pramAkaraNam.  On this basis the BhAmati is said to hold that this
(akhanDAkAra)vRtti is the pramANam (causative of the (liberating) knowledge
of Brahman/destroying avidyA.

>>As you are a serious reader of bhAShya, I'll like to direct you to
br^ihadAraNyaka-bhAShyam-s and it's vArttika to gain clarity.

The Br.Up. bhashya for this term 'nididhyAsanam' says: 'nishcayena
dhyAtavyaH.' And as to what this dhyAnam is Shankara has said in the
Bh.Gita bhashya 13.24:

//-- ध्यानेन, ध्यानं नाम शब्दादिभ्यो विषयेभ्यः श्रोत्रादीनि करणानि मनसि
उपसंहृत्य, मनश्च प्रत्यक्चेतयितरि, एकाग्रतया यत् चिन्तनं तत् ध्यानम्; तथा,
ध्यायतीव बकः, ध्यायतीव पृथिवी, ध्यायन्तीव पर्वताः (छा0 उ0 7।6।1) इति
उपमोपादानात्। *तैलधारावत् संततः अविच्छिन्नप्रत्ययो ध्यानम्; *तेन ध्यानेन
आत्मनि बुद्धौ पश्यन्ति आत्मानं प्रत्यक्चेतनम् आत्मना स्वेनैव प्रत्यक्चेतनेन
ध्यानसंस्कृतेन अन्तःकरणेन केचित् योगिनः। //
The Bh.Gita verse itself uses the term 'dhyAnena' in the karaNavibhakti,
tRtIyA.  This is the vRtti that brings about the sAkShAtkAra.


> Anyway, the direct answer is :
> vidhIyate just says that they are needed. That is justified in our case too
> as we accept them for specific purpose, i.e. to remove viparIta-bhAvanA.
> So, there is no need to imagine a new karaNa for brahma-GYAnam.
> If you insist to accept antaH-karaNam as karaNam of brahma-GYAnam, then
> from today count the number of pramANa-s seven instead of six.
>

The Vedanta paribhASha that counts six pramANams is not contradicting
itself by also saying the 'pramANam' (antaHkaraNavRttiH) is pramAkaraNam.
Since each of the six pramANams will become pramANam only through this
vRtti, what Shankara says and the Bhamati says are not contradictory to the
overall Advaitic position of the six pramANams. In fact when it is said
'mahAvAkyam' is the pramANam, even there it is the shabda/Agama that is
meant which will work only thru a vRtti.  That is what Dr.Mani SastriNaH
was pointing out.  Both the views will operate witha a गुण-प्रधानभावः where
one will be subsidiary and the other will be main. The Agama will be the
pradhAna while the vRtti will be the subsidiary in one view and the vRtti
will be the pradhAna and the Agama will be in the background.  In both
cases the vRtti is the one which dispels avidyA.  This scheme is
non-contradictory to the Vedanta paribhasha method.

In fact it is improper to bring in the Vedanta Paribhasha's six-fold
pramANa scheme here.  That scheme is only about their overall working in
the sphere of Vedanta.  What is being discussed here is about the
particular context of the genesis of AtmajnAnam.

regards
subrahmanian.v