[Advaita-l] Advaita Siddhi series 014 - dvitIya mithyAtva vichAra: (part 6)

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Ravi Kiran ji,

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> Until now, we have been translation upAdhi as locus, but its
>> interpretation
>> goes beyond just that. upAdhi = upa (samIpe) + AdhIyate svadharma: yena.
>> That which causes the attributes that belong to itself to be perceived as
>> belonging to a proximate object is upAdhi.
>>
>> Brahman is the upAdhi with respect to the world,
>
>
> How to understand this ?  ( normally upAdhi referred as, avidyA (jIva) or
> mAya (Ishvara) )
>
>
upAdhi has many different interpretations, this is one which is relevant to
us here. In the second definition of mithyAtva, brahman is the upAdhi for
the jagat. How? By lending existence to the world, it is essentially
transferring its nature to the world. upa samIpe AdhIyate svadharma: yena.



> because the sat that is
>> brahman appears as the sattA of the world.
>
>
> Is it meant that sat - as attribute that belong to itself (svadharma) -
> Brahman ?
>
> which implies - sat being considered as attribute of  (attributeless)
> Brahman, while sat is Brahman Itself ?
>

It is to avoid this that I said that sat appears as jagat sattA. I did not
want people to say Brahman's dharma is sat which is transferred to the
world, which would make Brahman saguNam. Brahman's svarUpa is lent to the
world.


> It is the word upAdhi, which indicates a real substratum. We hold
>> that illusion requires a real substratum,
>
>
> upAdhi as real substratum (Brahman)?
>

Yes, the sat adhikaraNa appears as an attribute of the Aropita vastu.



> whereas the shUnyavAdin does not
>> require a real substratum for an illusion.
>>
>> शून्यवादिभि: सदधिष्ठानभ्रमानङ्गीकारेण the shUnyavAdins do not acknowledge
>> that an illusion must have a real substratum
>>
>> कवचिदप्युपाधौ सत्त्वेन प्रतीत्यनर्हत्वरूपासद्वैलक्षणस्य (क्वचिदप्युपाधौ
>> सत्त्वेन प्रतीत्यर्हत्वरूपस्य) शुक्तिरूप्ये प्रपञ्चे चानङ्गीकारात्  |
>> therefore
>> they do not acknowledge a difference between asat, which is incapable of
>> appearing as existing in any upAdhi,
>
>
> Should we take the meaning of upAdhi as locus of appearance?
>
> Then, by the earlier definition of upAdhi - samIpe AdhIyate svadharma:
> yena , how to do samanvaya ?
>
> You can take upAdhi as locus of appearance also. The samanvaya would be
that by "locus of appearance" what is meant is that the locus, the
adhikaraNa, lends existence to the object, allowing the object to appear as
existing.

Regards
Venkatraghavan