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

[Venkatraghavan S]

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.


> 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.

>
> 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.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan