[Advaita-l] Gaudapada and Shankara hold the waking objects to be mithya

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji.

Yes. It is clear.

Post bAdha, can we term mithyA entities as tuchcha?

For e.g. I confuse shell for silver. The silver seen there is prAtibhAsika
silver. Post understanding, I know there was no rajata there and the
pratiyogitA-avachchedaka of this abhAva is rajata-tva and not
laukika-pAramAthikatva(as held by VedAnta ParibhAshA).

So, while I confused shell for silver, it was prAtibhAsika silver and when
I understood it to be shell, there has never been any silver there, not
even prAtibhAsika silver. So, the prAtibhAsika silver, a mithyA entity
prior to bAdha, is tuchcha post bAdha.

Can a general rule, therefore, be made: mithyA entity, post bAdha, is
understood as tuchcha.

Regards.

On Thu, 27 Jul, 2023, 10:18 pm Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshuji,
>
> From the standpoint of the Shruti, when it is speaking of the paramArtha
> sthiti, there is no pratIti of mAyA or mAyAkArya and thus it is said to be
> tucCha. When the bAdha happens, it sublates the pratIti arhatva dharma also
> in all three periods of time.
>
> Re - "If mithyAtva of avidyA does not violate advaita,
> then what is the need to posit its tuchchatva?"
>
> To point out the paramArtha satya -  the utter insignificance / non
> existence of anything other than the Atma, in the vein of na nirodho,
> notpattih etc.
>
> And if anyone says this is Buddhism...naitad buddhena bhAShitam.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2023, 14:06 Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Namaste V Subramanian ji.
>>
>> How do you explain this shloka:
>>
>> तुच्छानिर्वचनीया च वास्तवी चेत्यसौ त्रिधा।
>> ज्ञेया माया त्रिभिर्बोधैः श्रौतयौक्तिकलौकिकैः॥
>>
>> It says that as per Shruti, MAyA is tuchchA i.e. क्वचिदप्युपाधौ सत्त्वेन
>> प्रतीयमानत्वानधिकरणत्वम्. It is only as per logic that MAyA is stated to
>> be
>> anirvachanIya i.e. mithyA i.e. something different from asat and sat i.e.
>> non-existent in all three period of time in the locus where it appears to
>> exist.
>>
>> As per Shruti, MAyA is tuchchA i.e. ineligible to even appear as existing
>> in any locus.
>>
>> I think if Brahman is the sole reality, there is no option but to hold
>> MAyA/avidyA as tuchchA. If mithyAtva of avidyA does not violate advaita,
>> then what is the need to posit its tuchchatva?
>>
>> Or should we say: tuchchatva of avidyA is from the frame of reference of
>> Brahman AND mithyAtva of avidyA is from the frame of reference of avidyA.
>> And mithyAtva of avidyA is not contradictory to advaita as tuchchatva and
>> mithyAtva have non-existence in common?
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 9:46 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 7:47 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
>> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Namaste.
>> >>
>> >> The problem is - how can a completely non-existent thing appear to
>> exist
>> >> even in the middle.
>> >>
>> >> Tuchchha and mithyA are both non-existent. While the former does not
>> even
>> >> appear to exist, the latter appears to exist.
>> >>
>> >> But how can something which is non-existent in past, present and future
>> >> can
>> >> even appear to exist?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Namaste
>> >
>> > न हि दृष्टे अनुपपन्नं नाम |  When something is so glaringly experienced,
>> > there is nothing unreasonable about it.
>> >
>> > The stock example is: the experiencing of the unreal snake during a
>> > bhrama.  The snake there is not in that locus rope during all three
>> periods
>> > of time.  Yet it is experienced by the one who is under the
>> > spell/delusion.  Shankara says in the opening lines of the
>> Sridakshinamurti
>> > stotram:  पश्यन्नात्मनि मायया बहिरिवोद्भूतं यथा निद्रया:  a person
>> > perceives/experiences the world within him just like one would
>> experience a
>> > dream. In a dream one experiences all as though it is 'outside' him, the
>> > waking. Yet upon waking one would realize that they were never
>> 'outside',
>> > were inside alone but gave the feeling of outside.   The dream
>> > objects/events are not there, they did no happen at all, during all
>> three
>> > periods of time. Yet one experiences them.  However, upon questioning,
>> he
>> > realizes their non-existence during all periods of time.  This is the
>> > vaibhava of maya/avidya: Shankara said: अघटितघटनापटीयसी माया Maya is
>> that
>> > inscrutable power that is an expert in displaying something that is
>> > impossible.
>> >
>> > regards
>> > subbu
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> --
>> Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
>> Pune
>>
>> sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>>