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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji
There has to be some anupapatti to be resolved for any rule to be
postulated. What is the need to postulate such a thing? It cannot just be
so that we can explain our pUrvAchArya's statement.

I don't recall exactly, but I think jIvanmukti is accepted in DSV - the six
anAdi entities are outside the scope of dRShTi sRShTi, so avidyAlesha also
has to be technically outside its scope.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Fri, 28 Jul 2023, 10:06 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Vemkataraghavan ji.
>
> Quite clear.
>
> Can the rule, however, be made in case of nirupAdhika bhrama, like
> illusory snake/silver? It cannot be made in case of say mirage water
> because despite knowledge of substratum, the perception continues and hence
> we are forced to accept prAtibhAsika water. So, even post-bAdha, the
> pratIti-arhatva continues.
>
> Also, what is the position in drishTi-srishTi-vAda? Do they accept
> continued perception of world post-jnAna? I think not. That is why
> avidyA-lesha etc which is admitted in SDV is denied in DSV.
>
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2023, 07:02 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
>> I don't think we can make a general rule like that with any such bAdhaka
>> jnAna - for pratIti can continue even after bAdha in certain cases, like
>> sopAdhika bhrama.
>>
>> However from a pAramArthika standpoint, we can perhaps say that. I think
>> the reason is that there is no vyavahAra or pratibhAsa at all (न‌ निरोधो न
>> चोत्पत्तिः, केन कं पश्येत् etc). Therefore, there is no need for there to
>> be the idea of mithyAtva also.
>>
>> Like in dRShTi sRShTi vAda, we say there is no vyAvahArika prapancha, in
>> paramArtha we can say there is no vyAvhArika and prAtibhAsika satya.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2023, 09:05 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>