[Advaita-l] Defintion of anubhava

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Subbuji,
​
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 4:33 PM, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> The traditional Acharyas accept a vritti called 'akhandAkAra vrtti' that is
> of three moments' duration: it arises, destroys avidya and dies. It is this
> vritti that is called anubhava. Once that anubhava arises, there is nothing
> more to be done as sadhana. I have found this passage as coming close to
> this:
>
> The Acharya's Bhashyam to the Mandukya Upanishad  7th mantra
> नान्तःप्रज्ञम्.. :
>
> //  *प्रतिषेधविज्ञानप्रमाणस्य..*.ज्ञानस्य द्वैतनिवृत्ति-क्षण-व्यतिरेकेण
> *क्षणान्तर-अनवस्थानात्* । अवस्थाने च अनवस्थाप्रसङ्गाद् द्वैतानिवृत्तिः । //
>
> [The instrument of knowledge (which is what is known as ''akhanDAkAra
> vritti') ...has no other action on Turiya, apart from eliminating the
> unwanted attributes like .......for knowledge (as a mental state, vRtti),
> *does
> not continue for a second moment following that of the cessation of
> duality.]*


​True, this is one of the best ​places of Bhashya where the vRtti is said
to be like a छिदिक्रिया which removes the false notion after which the
self-evident आत्मा shines on its own merits, which is how we say that there
is no फलव्याप्ति needed for ब्रह्मज्ञान। Yet, my question is about the
definition of अनुभव। I haven't come across a definition of the word अनुभव
in AV works I have studied and if that is true, my assumption is that we
agree with शब्दकोश which uses Nyaya definition of अनुभव। Else we would
define it.


> This is true. However, a distinction is made between paroksha and aparoksha
> jnanam. Paroksha is also jnanam, engendered by anumana, as in parvato
> vahnimaan. Here it is different from smriti and yet there is no aparoksha
> 'anubhava' of the vahni there. Unless he sees it is not aproksha. Similarly
> with regard to Brahman. Aparoksha anubhava is had through the vritti. The
> Bhamati in r/o the sutra 'lingAcca' 4.1.22 gives a clear distinction.
> Shankara also uses the term 'pratyaya' in the bhashya. In that sutra
> bhashya Shankara distinguishes between the need for Avrtti of pratyaya and
> a spontaneous arising of the anubhava. More information can be found in the
> traditional commentaries, other works of say, Chitsukha, etc.
>

​Undoubtedly, all अनुभव will include all ज्ञान, barring स्मृति, then, but I
am not worried of अतिव्याप्ति since ज्ञान itself has that, including
स्मृति. We differentiate them contextually as व्यावहारिक, etc. My goal is
only to show that अनुभव need not be seen as a wrong word, as I can equally
prove ज्ञान as a wrong word too, since it is wider than अनुभव।

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--praveen



​​