[Advaita-l] Fwd: Why only jagat is mithya and jeeva is brahman !!??

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Sri Srinath,
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Previously perceived adhyastha may not be real, but the very knowledge
>> gained from such perception is quite real. This knowledge, while it is
>> ayathArtha-jnAna (invalid/false knowledge), quite real nevertheless. Seeing
>> ghost image in the movie is indeed real (the spend millions of rupees real
>> money in making such movies). What is ayathArtha in this is believing such
>> real image represents real vastu out there. Based on such ayathArtha jnAna
>> one super-imposes "ghost" on the shadow.
>>
>> In this case, you cannot get away with necessity of real image on the
>> screen as a prerequisite for such adhyAsa.
>>
>
> The contention of Advaita is that it is samskAra that is the prerequisite
> for adhyAsa. The ontological status of the vastu or of the knowledge of
> such vastu, can vary in different instances of adhyAsa and is not the
> "cause" of adhyAsa - as long as samskAra is generated, that samskAra is
> necessary for future AdhyAsa of that vastu.
>

samskAra cannot generate unless you have real cause to begin with.

If you say samskAra is anAdi and never originated, then it is equivalent in
saying such samskAra is self-same nature of the jIva, and hence never get
rid of it, and hence never is Brahman to begin with.




>
>
>> I can agree with you this aythArtha jnAna generates the saMskAra for
>> future adhyAsa, but you cannot get away with denying real vastu to start
>> with.
>>
>> Side question -- when it is said dvaita/duality (as genre) itself is
>> mithya due to adhyAsa, your position (along with other member who said
>> adhyAsa in prior janma-s will render adhyAsa in future janma-s) suffers
>> from anyOnAShraya falacy, for there is no duality of "futute" or "past"
>> unless there exist adhyAsa, and adhyAsa cannot exist unless you have
>> "prior" knowledge of adhyastha vastu.
>>
>
> The problem of anyonya Ashraya is only valid if you believe that creation
> has a finite beginning - however, in advaita, srishTi is anAdi, so your
> rule that samskAra requires a "real vastu to start with" is not true as
> there is no "start" of creation.
>

Do not forget ajAti vAda. There is no srishTi at all, period. Given this
fact, you cannot invoke many janma argument to support samskAra.



>
>> 2) Secondly, there is no absolute rule that similarity between adhyastha
>>> vastu and adhishThAna vastu be there for all adhyAsa to happen. Children
>>> and ignorant people look at the sky and say the sky is blue. Blueness is
>>> not an attribute of the sky, nor is there any similarity between blueness
>>> and sky. What is the similarity between mirage water and sand?
>>> This rule for similarity is just arbitrary and not "sine qua non".
>>>
>>>
>> Above argument is based on the assumption that "blue" and "water" one
>> perceives is a adhyAsa similar to "snake" and "silver".  There is no
>> invalidity element in your perception of blueness and waterness itself. If
>> you were to take the photograph, the jaDa camera also sees the same thing.
>> Invalidity lies only in your knowledge when you think such blue/water
>> really exist there on their own rights. Hence, in Dvaita system there is no
>> such thing as "mithya" as a ontological category as such. Only two
>> categories of sat and asat. On the knowledge side, they do have
>> epistemological categories of yathArtha and ayathArtha (valid/invalid
>> knowledge). What you call adhyAsa is a simple case of brAnti, which is
>> another prabhEda of ayathArtha jnAna (among other are viparIta jnAna,
>> saMShaya etc).
>>
>> So, your above refutation based on sky and mirage example is not valid
>> for the objection.
>>
>> /sv
>>
>
> The argument that was being made earlier was to deny the requirement for
> similarity as a precondition for adhyAsa. Your point is well made that the
> perception of blueness in the sky is not an adhyAsa itself - there is a
> scientific principle to explain it (scattering effect). This makes the
> blueness appear on a photo taken by a jaDa camera too. What is adhyAsa in
> the example is the superimposition of a blueness attribute on the sky, made
> by ignorant people, based on the perception of blueness in the sky.  The
> point that was being made was that there was no similarity between blueness
> and the sky for that adhyAsa to occur. So, similarity as a pre-condition to
> adhyAsa was being refuted.
>
>
Well, one could argue -- there indeed is a similarity between blueness and
sky. Both are seen to exist in the same spatial extent, you do not see one
is under or over coverage on the other. Both are seen as co-located. Both
are beyond one's reach, etc.

/sv