[Advaita-l] Defintion of anubhava

[V Subrahmanian]

Something in jest:

अनुभवः किंलक्षणः इत्येतदनुभवैकवेद्यः इति भाति ।

अनुभवः स्वानुभवैकगोचरः, अनुभवत्वात्, ब्रह्माद्यनुभववत् । यथा
इक्षुक्षीरगुडादीनां माधुर्यभेदो न केनापि निर्वक्तुं शक्यते परन्तु
तदनुभवभेदेनैव तद्वत् ।

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> ​Namaste Venkatraghavanji,
>
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > yatArtha jnAna corresponds to pramANa vritti, ayatArtha jnAna to
> viparyaya
> > vritti, vikalpa is different from these two - asat vastu are the
> "objects"
> > of vikalpa vritti - which is neither correct nor incorrect knowledge.
> nidrA
> > and smriti are well known.
> >
> ​vikalpa being viruddha or viparita kalpa vRtti may be said to include
> abhAva in Vedanta, but I'm not sure if its exactly the same in Sankhya.
>
>
> > Therefore, he does not need to recognise a category of vritti like
> vikalpa
> > that refers to an asat vastu.
> >
> Thats true, but as I remember, Bhashyakara uses this and refutes
> Vainashika-paksha in Chandogya ​Upanishad (Ch. Up.) 6th chapter on the
> mantra असदेवेदम् अग्र आसीत्। Ch. Up. bhashya's way is mentioned towards the
> end of this mail.
>
> Coming to our context, one cannot have anubhava of asat vastu.
> >
> True, but this is same as saying one cannot have अपरोक्षज्ञान of
> अत्यन्तासत्/ अत्यान्ताभाव। So the connotation of the word ज्ञान vs अनुभव
> doesn't change, although I do see that you are saying that it is a ज्ञान
> which is different from ​स्मृति। However, I am afraid, this leads to a
> similar आरोप of dualists as we saw in the thread following Vadiraja's work.
>
> Because the naiyyAyika by definition says asat cannot be the object of even
> > a nAsti shabda prayoga, he can get away with defining anubhava as smriti
> > bhinnam (i.e. it is yatArtha jnAna, ayatArtha jnAna, sushupti jnAna),
> >
> ​Although we do not agree with Naiyayikas​ types of
> प्रागुत्पत्त्याद्वयभावs, we also deny that अत्यान्तासत् can cause any शाब्द
> and वाक्यबोध on its own merits. Bhashyakara says in Ch. Up. 6th chapter
> that although there is no शाब्दबोध directly in a statement dealing with
> अत्यान्तासत्/ अभाव, the way वाक्यबोध happens though is that the नञ्
> (negation) of the भाव applies not to the word but to the entire sentence.
> That is, the बोध happens first with the भाव वस्तु and the नञ् says that it
> is the अभाव of that बोध। This is an awesome way that Bhashyakara deals with
> statements such as असत्/ अभावः अस्ति or I would say even नास्ति|
>
> I think we will have to define anubhava as smriti-vikalpayorbhinnam.
> >
> So barring
> अत्यन्तासत्/
> अत्यन्ताभाव we would be agreeing with Nyaya definition.
> Fair enough
> ​, I don't see any harm, and no definite effect in what matters for
> Vedantins.​
> ​​
> Thanks for your participation.
>
> ​gurupAdukAbhyAm
> ,
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
> ​
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>