[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Request for Review: 21 Foundational Axioms of Advaita Siddhānta

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Vikram prabhu ji.

A very well-formulated presentation. I enjoyed reading it. Such efforts are
very welcome and bring a new enthusiasm in the reader. Keep it up!

I will share my views on each of the assertions.

L1-1
> ॐइत्येतत्प्रत्यगात्मा ब्रह्म; अभेदः।
>

Fine.

L1-2
> अनाद्यध्यासोऽविद्यैव; अधिष्ठानज्ञानेन बाध्या।
>

adhyAsa is effect while avidyA is cause. So, when we say adhyAsa is
avidyA-eva, we should keep in mind that they are not synonyms. Rather,
being effect, it can be indicated by name of cause. For e.g. a jeweller in
his stock register refers all gold-ornaments as gold, all silver-ornaments
as silver and mentions their cost in one go. Being effect of gold, there is
no prejudice caused by referring the ornaments as gold. Similarly, being a
product of avidyA, the adhyAsa is referred by the word "avidyA". I am sure
by the word एव in avidyaa-eva, you mean the same. If not, then please
clarify.

L1-3
> त्रिपुटीप्रत्ययात्मकव्यवहारो मिथ्या; बाध्यत्वात्।
>

Fine. Here question arises as to how do we know that this tripuTi-vyavhAra
is bAdhya. Being hetu, it's presence in paksha should not be something
which can be disputed. Hence, we can explain, for better conception, that
this bAdhyatva is seen by one and all in deep-sleep. Hence, no one should
question the bAdhyatva of paksha.

L2-1
> परमार्थोऽभेदब्रह्म; व्यवहारस्त्रिपुटीप्रसिद्धः; तेन विरोधपरिहारः।
>

Fine.

>
L2-2
> अभेदवस्तु निर्विकारम्।
>

Fine.

>
L2-3
> ब्रह्म स्वतःसिद्धं स्वयम्प्रकाशम्।
>

I feel this is not a derivation. This should also be kept in axiom
category. Because, if swayam-siddha, swayam-prakAsha is kept in derived
category, then it is against the assertion itself.

L2-4
> कार्यं कारणादनन्यत्; नामरूपमात्रत्वात्।
>

Not very convincing. What is the vyApti -- यत्र यत्र नामरूपमात्रत्वम्, तत्र
तत्र कारणात्-अनन्यत्वम्? Isn't it? What is the drishTAnta? In the
drishTAnta, how are we proving kAraNaAt-ananyatvam? Through
nAma-rUpa-mAtratvam?

The kAraNaAt-ananyatvam comes about from the very definition of kArya.

So, I would rather say it like this --

कार्यं कारणात् न भिन्नम्; कार्यत्वात्, घटवत्।

L2-5
> व्यवहारे ब्रह्म विवर्तकारणम्; माया परिणामिनी।
>

Fine.

L2-6
> जीवजगदीश्वरसत्ता ब्रह्माश्रया परतन्त्रा।
>

Fine.

>
L2-7
> अविद्या भावरूपाप्यनिर्वचनीया; न द्रव्यम्; आश्रयवादो व्यवहारमात्रः।
>

Fine.

>
L2-8
> ज्ञातृकर्तृभोक्तृभावादिभेदप्रतीतिः सर्वाविद्याकृता।
>

Fine.

L2-9
> अविद्यावरणविक्षेपशक्तिद्वयात्मिका; सुषुप्तावावरणप्राधान्यं,
> जाग्रत्स्वप्नयोर्विक्षेपात्मकोऽध्यासः।
>

In jAgrat and swapna also, there is AvaraNa. May be a "च" or "अपि" can be
added for clarification.

>
L2-10
> जीवोऽविद्योपाधिविशिष्टब्रह्म; ईश्वरो मायोपाधिविशिष्टब्रह्म;
> साक्षिचैतन्यमेकं सर्वत्र।
>

Fine.

>
L2-11
> मोक्षो बाधमात्रः; नोत्पत्तिः।
>

Fine.

L2-12
> कर्मोपासनेऽन्तःकरणशुद्ध्यर्थम्; ज्ञानमेव बाधहेतुः।
>

Fine.

>
L2-13
> जीवन्मुक्तेः प्रारब्धप्रतीतिस्तिष्ठति; व्यवहारसत्यताबुद्धिर्न तिष्ठति।
>

Fine in SDV. Inadmissible in DSV.

L2-14
> अनिर्वचनीयत्वं न च त्रिकालाबाधितत्वं न च त्रिकालाभावत्वम्।
>

This is not correct as per my understanding. TrikAla-abhAva is common to
tuchchha and anirvachanIya. So, to say अनिर्वचनीयत्वं न त्रिकालाभावत्वम् -
is not correct.

Correct formulation would be -- अनिर्वचनीयत्वं न त्रिकालाबाधितत्वं न च
क्वचिदपि उपाधौ सत्त्वेन प्रतीत्यनर्हत्वम्।

>
L2-15
> त्रिपुटीप्रमाणानि व्यवहारे प्रमाणानि; ब्रह्माप्रमेयम्।
>

Fine.

L2-16
> उपदेशक्रमे आरोपः; सिद्धान्तेऽपवादः।
>

Fine.

>
L2-17
> श्रुतिवाक्यमभेदज्ञानजनकं त्रिपुटीबाधे पर्यवस्यति।
>

Fine.

>
L2-18
> महावाक्येषूपाधित्यागेनैक्यबोधः।
>

This is fine in mukhya-sAmAnAdhikaraNya. In bAdha-sAmAnAdhikaraNya, there
is swarUpa-negation and not merely upAdhi-negation.

So, take for e.g. Tat tvam asi. In mukhya-sAmAnAdhikaraNya, as you said,
the aikya is arrived at by rejecting the upAdhi from tat and tvam. But in
bAdha-sAmAnAdhikaraNya, tvam is negated in its totality and not merely
upAdhi.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.

>