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

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 4:32 AM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> ​Nicely replied.
> Thanks, Venkataraghavan S.​
>
> You can change the rule 1's wording as:
> there must be saMskAra of adhyasyamAna(the thing being superimposed), not
> even GYAna. Why? because, it's anythAsiddha(just present with actual cause
> of illusion). And, because there is no rule that every GYAna generates
> saMskAra, as in case of knowledge of grass or dirt when we walk on road.
> Add to this, that this GYAna which is itself not a cause of illusion, is of
> two types: pramA and bhrama. There is no cause to believe that this
> knowledge(generator of saMskAra which is cause of illusion) must be pramA.
> So, their is no need to accept real world for illusion of world. [This is
> what you said, although you skipped the quality of division and went to
> it's subject. That's OK.]
>

While I agree that jnyAna which is the cause of saMskAra (for the
illusions) must not necessarily a pramA. However, the very cause which
generates such bhramA must necessarily be real.  The image of the ghost on
the cinema screen is quite real even if the vastu it suppose to represent
is asat. So also in cases of silver as adhyasyamAna, the "image" one sees
in silver-shop behind glass case is real as well. The only difference is
that while the image in the shop correctly represent the real vasthu (no
subsequent bhAdaka and coupled with vEdAntin's doctrine of pramANya
svatatsva), the image in cinema hall does not.


> This madhva boy doesn't understand that in their philosophy the
> superimposed is alIka, but even then it is accepted to be perceptible. I
> don't know why this bias towards superimposed and why they don't accept
> same with hare's horn?
>

This is because, superimposed vastu is alIka as far its astva/abhAva is
limited to the given specific Eka dESha-kAla. It is real in other
dESha-kAla. Hare's horn is atyanta-asat, where laxaNa of "atyanta" stands
for serva dESha-kAla. Both are not the same.

Side question -- if you deny perceptability/knowability (pratIti) to asat
padArtha, then one wonder how mAyavAdins conceive asat-vilaxaNatvaM when
they define mithya as asat-lilaxaNa along with sad-vilaxaNa. Unless you
know what is asat, then only you can say given thing is "other than" asat.
But itself is used as hEtu in the anumAna 'asat chEt na pratiyatE'.



>
> BTW, I was/am a part of madhva groups. I never put my opinion there in the
> way this person is putting here, for saving mental peace. I hope that any
> person who joins here is trying to learn advaitin's point of view. There is
> no one forcing you to accept. So, just watch us and take important points
> from here to enrich your understanding. Refutation(or making fun without
> understanding?) can be done on some other platform or by writing a book. We
> will welcome that. But, please don't spread your mental-disturbance here.
> Most members are trying to learn from each other.
>
> I echo with above sentiments. One should not indulge in argument, but
should involve in discussion. While former is about who is right, the later
is about what is right.

Regards,
sv