[Advaita-l] [advaitin] 'The Jiva is Mithya' - an article in English

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

Bhava vilakshana - Please convey exactly what may be distinct from
Bhavatvam Brahman? Rather, it is an assumption of logic.

abhAva contains within its ambit nirvishesha-abhAva and
abhAvAtmaka-avidyA-kArya
as if to claim abhAva is an ontological entity that is able to account for
creation?

When snake is born, tAdAtmya-with-existence is also born.
Born? Snake is a notion not a birth. It is not even a notion created in
time. There is no snake.

आरोप्योत्पत्ति
कालोत्पन्नतादात्म्यापन्नं सत्सन्घट इति प्रत्यये अपरोक्षतया भाति .

"The arising of superimposition (*āropya-utpatti*)
is experienced directly (*aparokṣatayā*) in the cognition 'a pot
exists' (*sat-san-ghaṭa
iti pratyaye*),
where the pot (ghaṭa), produced in time (*kāla-utpanna*),
is assumed to have identity (*tādātmya*) with existence (*sat*)."

Not Sankara, I'd bet, more likely, Vedanta Paribhasa? If you assume time,
you already assume superimposition.

avasthA-ajnAna-kArya-avachchhinna-chaitanya.

Chaitanya limited? A wrong notion does not affect the Self - no need to
delimit the Self. AvasthA itself is a waking notion. Does Chaitanya
experience different states really? The notion of avastha appears only to
one that assumes waking to be the reality of all the states.


You cannot get away by using false notion. I will hold you there. Is false
notion also an appearance like snake? Or is false notion-1 also a false
notion-2? And then.... infinite regress.

Correct though handled by Bhasyakara & Sureswara in several places and no
less incomprehensible than the finite Vedas teaching the Absolute

*BSbh4.1.3*"If the opponent were to say—“Who in that case, is the one, that
is in ignorance i.e. in need of such realization ?”, we reply—It is you
yourself, who are asking this question."US 18.44-6

*US 18.44-6*

44. (Objection): Who is the experiencer of transmigratory existence as it
cannot belong to the Self which is changeless, neither to the reflection,
which is not real nor to the ego which is not a conscious entity?

45. (Reply) Let the transmigratory condition then is only a delusion due to
the indiscrimination (between the Self and the non-Self). It always has an
(apparent) existence due to the real existence of the changeless Self and,
therefore, appears to be pertaining to it.

46. Just as a rope-snake (a rope mistaken for a snake), though unreal, has
an existence due to that of the rope before the discrimination between the
rope and the snake takes place; so, the transmigratory condition, though
unreal, is possessed of an existence due to that of the changeless Self.

*Sures. Tait Vart2.8*

AvidyA which appears to be well-established in our experience is not really
established by any pramAna. Thought is prasiddha, it is not pramAna
prasiddha (Balasub. Comm)
Suresvara NS 3.66

seyam bhAntir nirAlambA sarva-nyAya-virodhInI
shate na vicAram sA tamo ya-vad divAkaram

This ignorance is without a cause and violates all rules and reasons. It no
more brooks investigation than darkness brooks the light of the sun.


*Also see: US prose 2; B.Gita13.2*

"The Shastra. which comes into operation before (*prāk*) the realization of
such nature of the Self (*tathābhūtātma vijñānāt*) does not exceed its
jurisdiction of being concerned only with that which (*viṣayatvaṁ na
ativartate*) is affected by Nescience (*avidyāvad*). For the scriptural
passages such as ‘A Brahmana should sacrifice’ (*“brāhmaṇo yajeta”*) are
operative on th notion that on the Self are superimposed (*viśeṣa adhyāsam
āśritya pravartante*)"



On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 7:17 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Michael ji.
>
> Thank you for your continued challenges.
> >
>
> I am just sharing my considered understanding.
>
>
> > This passage explores the distinction between *Abhāsa* (appearance) and
> > *Pratibimba* (reflection) in philosophical terms, focusing on their
> > nature and origins:
> >
> >    1.
> >
> >    *Pratibimba (Reflection)*:
> >    - A *pratibimba* (reflection) shares the *same ontological status* as
> >       the *bimba* (original object). In simple terms, the reflection and
> >       the original are intimately connected in their nature and source.
> >       - The idea of *बिम्बाजनकाजन्यत्व* means that a reflection
> >       (pratibimba) is produced only by something capable of producing the
> >       original object (bimba). For example:
> >          - If a clay pot is the original object (*bimba*), the reflection
> >          of the pot (*pratibimba*) cannot originate from something
> >          entirely different, like water. Both the original and the
> reflection are
> >          tied to the same material source—in this case, clay.
> >       2.
> >
> >    *Key Distinction with Abhāsa (Appearance)*:
> >    - Unlike pratibimba, *abhāsa* refers to an *appearance* or a mere
> >       *semblance*, which does not necessarily share the same ontological
> >       reality or material origin as the original object. It is more like
> an
> >       illusion or an impression rather than a true reflection.
> >
> > Satisfactory work by your partner Chatgpt.
>
> > MCC comment: Somehow hidden in all your positions is a bhavarupa avidya.
> >
> Of course. That is the basic premise of VedAnta. However, please note that
> bhAvarUpA avidyA is both bhAva-vilakshaNa and abhAva-vilakshaNa. The word
> bhAva contains within its ambit Brahman and non-abhAva avidyA-kArya. The
> word abhAva contains within its ambit nirvishesha-abhAva and
> abhAvAtmaka-avidyA-kArya.
>
> > Chat revealed it in determining "pratibimva is real" as opposed to a mere
> > 'semblance' or appearance.
> >
> The only reality of rope/snake is rope. Snake has no existence - it is
> > neither a borrowed, temporary, nor reflected reality.
> >
> True. There is a tAdAtmya-with-existence which is born along with snake.
> When snake is born, tAdAtmya-with-existence is also born. आरोप्योत्पत्ति
> कालोत्पन्नतादात्म्यापन्नं सत्सन्घट इति प्रत्यये अपरोक्षतया भाति .
>
> > By confirming an existence to what appears, something must occur that
> > destroys appearance to enable nonduality.
> >
> Not necessarily. If the existence stated to belong to appearance is the
> existence of the reality. So, even if "prAtibhAsika sattA" is stated to
> belong to snake, it is not contradictory to advaita because
> prAtibhAsika-sattA is defined as
> avasthA-ajnAna-kArya-avachchhinna-chaitanya.
>
> > Rather, appearance is a false notion of what is ever existing.
> >
> Does false notion exist? Or it does not exist?
>
> You cannot get away by using false notion. I will hold you there. Is false
> notion also an appearance like snake? Or is false notion-1 also a false
> notion-2? And then.... infinite regress.
>
> > There never was a snake, just a wrong notion about the rope. Sudoku
> solved!
> >
> You have only arrived at an infinite regress.
>
> Nothing to state with respect to the verses you shared. They are all good.
> Should be understood in accordance with sampradAya.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>