Bhamati vs. Vivarana - 2

[Guest guest]

Hari Om ~

First of all the rudimentary difference Vacaspati draws here is that

he acceps Mind as a sense organ which Vivarana vadins do not

endorse. Bhamati schools asserts the fact that the knowledge of

happiness pain pleasure joy and other empirical anubavas are all

valid since they are generated by mind aided by the vrtti. In

general Vacaspati declares that all sense generated knowledge to be

valid cognitions, since they are the Prama karanam. In this stream

Vacaspati proceeds to argue that antara anubhUti too that is

experienced only by manas receives logical validity if and only if

its karana for the akhandAkAra vrtti merges with the transcendental

reality. Vacaspati rejecting the Vivaranas claim that Upanishadic

texts can produce intuitive insight, he emphasizes the fact that the

realization is made possible only by contemplation wherein Mind

(avidya kAryam) dissolves resolving metemphysic existence. `Yat yat

kAryam – tat tat anityam' is the arbitrary rule, as we all know.

Avidya dvamsa = jnAna prAgabAva dvamsa = Jnana utpatti. Here Manas

being Avidya kArya acts as the catalyst sum Karana for jnana utpatti

that results in the realization of Brahman. It is vital that we mote

a pivotal point here. Brahma jnana should then not be taken as the

mental cognition as we are reminded by Sruti that warns `yato vAco

nivartante aprApya manasa saH'. Brahman according to Vacaspati is

not the content of Mind which is Avidya kArya. Brahman on the other

hand is the content of Vrtti aspect alone that obscures the

nescience ultimately. `ManasaivAnu drastavyaH' iti Sruti BalAt,

Vacaspati reiterates that it can only be the sole aid to accomplish

Brahman realization through Brahman knowledge. This view is

supported strongly by Bagavad Pada himself who in his Gita Bashya

states `Sastra acharya upadesena sama damAdhi samskrtam manaH eva

karanam' – anyat abhiprAyaH `sAhasamAtram' iti Bagavad pAdAcAryaiH

vadati atra.

 

Further Vacaspati ridicules Vivarana vadins 'Sabda aparoksa vada'

and says Sabda can produce mere mediate 'paroksa jnana' and never

aparoksa jnana. For Aparoksa jnana constant practice 'abhyAsena' of

rationalizing mind by contemplation - Nidhidhyasana becomes

mandatory. This view is technically termed as 'prasamkhyAna' which

is fully endorsed by Acharya Mandana and many places by Bagavad pada

himself. Upanishadic dictums like 'tattvamasi' gives mediate

knowledge according to Bhamati. The principle organum that vacaspati

prescribes for accomplishing Brahman knowledge is the abhyasa

interms of Sravana for paroksa subsequently manana and nidhidhyasana

for Aparoksa anubhuti. Amalananda in Kalpataru parimala confirms

this to say 'the final intuition cannot be effective in destroying

which is immediate unless it is itself immediate, that the immediacy

can come only from the functioning of a sense organ and that this

sense organ is the mind'

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

--- antharyami_in <sathvatha wrote:

 

 

> First of all the rudimentary difference Vacaspati draws here is that

> he acceps Mind as a sense organ which Vivarana vadins do not

> endorse. Bhamati schools asserts the fact that the knowledge of

> happiness pain pleasure joy and other empirical anubavas are all

> valid since they are generated by mind aided by the vrtti. In

> general Vacaspati declares that all sense generated knowledge to be

> valid cognitions, since they are the Prama karanam.

 

Devanathanji - PraNAms

 

>In this stream

> Vacaspati proceeds to argue that antara anubhUti too that is

> experienced only by manas receives logical validity if and only if

> its karana for the akhandAkAra vrtti merges with the transcendental

> reality.

 

I read the above sentence few times -still could not make out what it means.

Perhaps few clarifications. I am not sure what logical validity means in the

context of

perceptions which are direct and immediate.

 

And the next line also I could not understand - How does akhandaakaara VRitti

manifests

in the mind - The term is used often for realization - akhandam means unbroken

and

aakaara implies some kind of form - vRitti is some kind of perturbation in the

mind -

each term appears to be in conflict with each other. Now VRitti and mind do they

are

kaarya karana sambandha? Are these are terms used due to failure of language -

if so is

there a point in applying some logic to it to make some sense ?

 

About anubhavas-

 

All experiences are by manas only, right? In VP, as Michael and I discussed,

perception

via the five senses as external perception and the emotions of happiness, anger

and other

mental moods as internal perceptions. VRitti has contents in both external and

internal,

and the illumination and reflection in the presence of sAkshI occurs - which we

call

knowledge.

 

I am not sure what is logical validity for the manas anubhava in order for the

justification for the mind to be considered as organ.

 

Is it just the terminology for the classification or are there any repurcations

by

considering as a separate organ.

 

Normally the five senses their fields of applications are mutually exclusive -

that is

eyes can only see colors and forms, ears the sounds etc.

But mind may have exclusivity for the internal perceptible moods but also

inclusivity of

other sense input in forming vRitti.

 

 

>Vacaspati rejecting the Vivaranas claim that Upanishadic

> texts can produce intuitive insight, he emphasizes the fact that the

> realization is made possible only by contemplation wherein Mind

> (avidya kAryam) dissolves resolving metemphysic existence.

 

Does that not undermine Vedanta as pramANa -- pramaakaraNam - if knowledge has

to happen

by meditation, then we are giving importance to meditation as pramANam than

Vedic

teaching - Is it not. Is it not the criticism of the Bhamati School that the

shravanam

does not give knowledge and one has to meditate? One has to meditate if

four-fold

qualifications are not there. That does not mean the meditation is necessary

after

shravanam. Students in Kena, Katha and swetaketu gained knowledge after

shravanam and

mananam. Just thoughts to contemplate without taking Bhamati school position

right or

wrong.

 

`Yat yat

> kAryam – tat tat anityam' is the arbitrary rule, as we all know.

> Avidya dvamsa = jnAna prAgabAva dvamsa = Jnana utpatti. Here Manas

> being Avidya kArya acts as the catalyst sum Karana for jnana utpatti

> that results in the realization of Brahman. It is vital that we mote

> a pivotal point here. Brahma jnana should then not be taken as the

> mental cognition as we are reminded by Sruti that warns `yato vAco

> nivartante aprApya manasa saH'. Brahman according to Vacaspati is

> not the content of Mind which is Avidya kArya. Brahman on the other

> hand is the content of Vrtti aspect alone that obscures the

> nescience ultimately. `ManasaivAnu drastavyaH' iti Sruti BalAt,

> Vacaspati reiterates that it can only be the sole aid to accomplish

> Brahman realization through Brahman knowledge.

 

I get the feeling that Brahman knowledge is some king of knowledge that mind has

to get.

 

Is it not that I am is the Brahman the knowledge that Shankara talks about in

adhyaasa

bhaashya - aham jiivosmi to aham brahmaasmi - Is it not something to see which

is

self-evident and self-revealing fact. I cannot gain some Brahman knowledge - I

have to

realize that I am that pure consciousness-existence without a second. Is it not

the

Brahman knowledge since Brahman is consciousness-existence one without a second?

 

Raised some questions to think than accept at face value.

 

I agree that mind is required for inquiry and in the mind alone knowledge takes

place - I

do not think vivarana school will conflict with that.

 

What is in conflict is that shravana is not sufficient for anybody across the

board. I am

not sure that is correct - since the fact is all pervading self-evident or

self-revealing

truth.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Hari Om ~

Shri Sadananda ji,

 

Thanks for your close observation and comments. Questions you have

raised are pivotal and needs to be argued at length. Anyways I give

here the crux of all that is needed.

 

Validity is taken to be two fold. One the logical (instruments of)

validity – objective or the verifiability and the second is the

intrinsic validity that is subjective. Former holds good with all

events and activities which implies empirical transactions that are

veridical and non veridical. Both of them are dependent on the

sense `datum' or the Akara whether immanent or physical. The

consciousness that is sustained in both aspects of perception (in

case 1) is reflective by nature and that its magnitude is recorded

as the `sense impressions' in the intellect subsequently. More these

instruments that gain us the logical validity allows us to make

qualitative distinctions for we say perception is immediate and

direct that inference and so on. These distinctions are determined

on the objective condition of veridical or non-veridical

transactions. Mind is that which has two aspects according to

Advaita. 1) Dravya amsa 2) the vrtti amsa. Dravya amsa is antara and

vrtti is bahya. In normal empirical transactions the vrtti amsa

determines the state of dravya amsa which inturn determines the

state of mind on whole. This also fixes the character of `mental

state' – DarmAdarma shradhAshraddha hrIr Dir bhIr etc.

 

But in the proximate stand with that of the transcendence the

operative part of the mental state differs in a subtle manner. Here

the mind is presupposed to be `tranquil' wherein the mind acquires a

special state of existence without immanent condition of its own.

Simply saying mind is equiposed with respect to its

content `triguna'; for it is shaped in such a `form' by the process

called Sravana that gives the `knower' the paroksa jnana. In such a

state the aspirant attempts to further scrutize the acquires

mediate knowledge that the `sabda' has given and he refines it in a

more deeper sense. The `sense' data `sabda bodha' becomes more

refined and intense that the dictum at the juncture of contemplation

gives a `special' vrtti known as the `AkhandAkAra vrtti' or the

aparoksa jnana resulting in the ultimate Brahman realization. The

state is special that it produces a vrtti and simultaneously

dissolves the `dravya' aspect of manas. Such is a state where there

is no anubava but for anubhUti alone for the Jivatva dissolves in

the Brahman as such. The is `akandAkAra vrtti' issues no back-up

here for it has no dravya amsa to register it. This vrtti is

otherwise known as the darsana vrtti in Advaita Vedanta. Bhamati may

claim the above thesis from Sureswaracarya's `sabda-acintya-sakti

vada' in his Vartika.

 

All the above arguments are made with the assertion that mind is

a `sense organ' which Vivarana opposes. Mind according to Vivarana

is not a sense organ and that it has a separate ontological

character for its own. Bhamati disregards such a view for it quotes

Smrti which says `indriyAnir manascAsmi'. In the AvirodAdhyaya of

Brahma Sutra – Bagavat pAda clearly attests the fact that Mind as a

sense organ where he clearly distinguishes Mukhya prana with Manas

which is one amond the sense organs like srotrendriya etc. `Smrtau

tvekAdasentriyamiti manaH api indriyatvena srotrAdivat samgrhyate'.

Mundaka (2.1.3) declares `manaH sarvendriyAni ca'. Manas in this

sense has no karya karana sambandah for it only sanctions the artha

kriya kAritva (vrtti rupa dvAra) even in accounting for Brahman

realization where the objective content is none other than Brahman

alone.

 

All anubavas irrespective of the sources are antara according to

Advaita Vedanta. We say `VisayAnusanga janitha antahkarana vrtti

tAratamya krta Ananda lesa AvirbAvah'. Every iota of ananda even by

visaya-anusanga along with its gradations is vrtti rupa only that

which is transformed to antara anubava in terms of condition of

mental state. Immanent experiences like suka dukkha are essentially

inherent in manas as its dharma and that visaya anusanga alone is

missing in this case. Im afraid about the conclusions you have

derived in association with Michael ji in this regard.

 

The objection you have raised w.r.t Bhamati's position on

Nidhiyasana as it may check the strength of Shravana and the need

for sadana catustaya' is very genuine. Let me post back a question

against Vivarana's stand point on this issue answering which you

will justisfy the Bhamati's stand here. Vivarana vadins formulates

three stage process to arrive at the paroksa jnana `sabda bodha'

even after the great dictum `tattvamasi' is uttered. They are 1)

pramana asambAvana 2) prameya asmbavana 3) viparita bhavana. All

sabda (even the utterence of tattvamasi) must be refined by these

three stages. For in the first stage the pramAna niscaya is sought

without doubts (as Brahman knowledge is the abAdita pramAna).

Secondly stage seeks niscaya regarding the content of that pramana

(Brahman as the content) bereft of any doubts and lastly the wrong

notions about the prayojana (yat avagatam sat sva vrtti taya Isyate

tat prayojanam) devoid of any doubts. Only after passing these three

stages any sabda including Mahavakyarta jnana gives Brahman

realization. Vivarana vadins hereby make an adamant argument

unecessarily drawing a parallel to `manana nidhidyAsana' theory of

Vacaspati. More by doing this they do not give scope to Manana and

nidhidyasana at all in the first place. So all you objections

towards Bhamati actually ridicules your own Vivarana view; `tvam

chora ityukta tvamapi chorah' iti nyAyena.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J