[Advaita-l] Defintion of anubhava

[V Subrahmanian]

2017-07-05 12:01 GMT+05:30 Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>:

> Namaste Subbuji,
>
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:47 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Something in jest:
>>
>> अनुभवः किंलक्षणः इत्येतदनुभवैकवेद्यः इति भाति ।
>>
>> अनुभवः स्वानुभवैकगोचरः, अनुभवत्वात्, ब्रह्माद्यनुभववत् । यथा
>> इक्षुक्षीरगुडादीनां माधुर्यभेदो न केनापि निर्वक्तुं शक्यते परन्तु
>> तदनुभवभेदेनैव तद्वत् ।
>>
>
> Thanks. :)
>
> ​Although this is used by both पक्षs to either accept or refute अनुभव,
> there is some truth to both sides. Those  who refute it do so saying that
> ब्रह्म is not an object of experience, but Bhashyakara has said that ब्रह्म
> is not an object of knowledge either, in Kena under प्रतिबोधविधितं मतम् and
> Taittiriya in ज्ञानलक्षण under सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म। Advaitins who
> accept so do not take​ ब्रह्म as an object but ब्रह्मज्ञान = ब्रह्मानुभव as
> an आनन्दवृत्ति। The आनन्द is प्रतिबिम्बित but due to विषयरहितस्वरूप।
>

Very true.  Just see this sentence of the Br.up. bhashya:

तस्मात् आत्मा वै अरे द्रष्टव्यः दर्शनार्हः, दर्शनविषयमापादयितव्यः ;

So, Atman has to be made a vishaya! Certainly this does not contradict the
Advaitic position that Atman is aprameya or avishaya, etc. What is intended
here is that it has to be a vishaya for the vritti. मनसिवेदमाप्तव्यम्. न
तत्र वाग्गच्छति,नो मनो ...

Bhamati holds that it is the  upahita brahman that is vishaya for the
vritti. Madhusudana has taken this in the Advaita siddhi in reply to the
opponent.

regards
subbu


>
> There is certainly an impossibility of accurate expression w.r.t.
> something that has no other which is equally true with the word ज्ञान as it
> is with the word अनुभव। My intention is only to show that the sword cuts
> both ways. :)
>
> ​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] */​
>