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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Vemkataraghavan 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.//

If ajnAna is removed completely by jnAna, there cannot remain any form of
ajnAna or its kArya. In case of mirage water etc, the mUla-ajnAna is not
destroyed and hence there can be some mechanism whereby the sustenance of
perception can be explained. But in case of destruction of ajnAna by
Brahma-jnAna, there cannot remain perception. Hence, the tuchchhatva of
ajnAna is a logical necessity also.

In case of nirupAdhika bhrama, like in rajju sarpa, mithyA is indeed
tuchcha post-jnAna. avidyA-adhyAsa on Brahman is also nirupAdhika. Hence my
query.

I think it is only to explain the continued perception of world post-jnAna,
that ajnAna is termed as anirvachanIya. To explain jIvanmukti, prArabdha
etc, we need continued perception of world which requires anirvachanIya
ajnAna. This is valid in SDV. But not in DSV.

//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.//

Yes. That is how Advaita Siddhi explains it. But if we see VedAnta
SiddhAnta MuktAvali, there is negation of jIvanmukti. All references
thereto are termed as arthavAda. post-jnAna, perception of world cannot
continue in DSV as per my understanding as avidyA-lesha, prArabdha etc are
not admitted.



On Fri, 28 Jul 2023, 07:59 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>