[Advaita-l] [advaitin] How jnAnAbhAva can cause adhyAsa !!??

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

The two alternatives given in VivaraNa, can they not be understood as
> corresponding to the two ways in which the observed shukti-rajata is
> presented after bAdha. Namely as  नेदंरजतम्(nedaMrajatam) (First
> alternative you have interpreted as ESV) and   नात्र रजतम्(nAtra rajatam)
> (Second alternative you have interpreted as STV)
>

I don't think so sir. Because, the opponent has raised an objection. The
siddhAntI is answering that. Both the answers must be intended to respond
to same objection, referring to same pratIti.

Objection is -- you hold that silver is mithyA. But there is clear
experience - silver is. So, this experience of isness-of-silver is
contradictory to mithyAtva-of-silver because as per you, there is
traikAlika-atyanta-abhAva of silver. So, how can there be experience -
silver is.

Answer - there would be contradiction if is-ness belonged to silver. But
is-ness is of shuktikA. Not of silver. Hence, there is no contradiction.
There is no is-ness of silver. (ESV)

Or else, even if is-ness is accepted of silver, still there is no
contradiction with its mithyAtva. Because, I will modify the definition of
mithyAtva. The pratiyogitA-avachchhedaka of atyanta-abhAva will not be
rajata-tva (as in ESV) but will be pAramArthikatva. So, even though rajata
has prAtibhAsika-sattA, there is no pAramArthikatva in it. Hence,
mithyaatva is not contradicted. (STV)

VedAnta ParibhAshA in the end portion of anumAna pramANa is explaining this
very section . And it beautifully writes - अस्मिन् पक्षे
(sattA-traividhya-vAda-pakshe) घटादेर्ब्रह्मणि निषेधो न स्वरूपेण, किन्तु
पारमार्थिकत्वेनैवेति न विरोध:

Both the answers must be referring to same pratIti.

Further, ‘this is not silver’ indicates anyonya-abhAva of
prAtibhAsika-rajata vis-à-vis vyAvahArika-rajata and conveys mithyAtva of
prAtibhAsika-rajata by *arthApatti*. ‘There is no silver here’ conveys
mithyAtva of prAtibhAsika-rajata *directly by definition* as it objectifies
the atyanta-abhAva of prAtibhAsika-rajata in shell. I don't think that is
the context here. Here, the response is to the pratIti "mithyA vastu asti"
like "silver is" or "pot is".

Hope I could communicate clearly.

Regards
Sudhanshu Shekhar.

>