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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Sri Srinath,

I am typing out Sri Subbu-ji's answer to your question below as he cannot
do so at this present time (his answer was relayed to me in a voice
message). Any errors below are due to my lack of understanding/error in
paraphrasing, not due to Subbu ji.

<Start of Subbu ji's reply>

"You said:
<if you deny perceptability/knowability (pratIti) to sat 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" sat. But itself is used as
hEtu in the anumAna 'asat chEt na pratiyatE'.>

The question of asad vilakshaNatva that you have raised is applicable to
dvaita also.

All vAdins accept vandhyA putrah, hare's horn, kUrma rOma etc as atyanta
asat. You have defined these as sarva dEsha kAla asat and distinguished
them from eka dEsha kAla asat of sarpa in rajju.

Can you say that sarva dEsha kAla alIkatva of a hare's horn has to be vEdya
for it to be called asat? You cannot.

To accept that hare's horn is asat, there is no requirement that it has to
be vEdya. Therefore it is possible to conceive of certain things as asat,
without requiring their vedyatvam.  Once that is accepted, advaitins can
say mithyA is vilakshaNa from such an asat.

If dvaitins say that vedyatvam is a precondition for asat, either 1) they
must accept the perceptibility of hare's horn or 2) accept that hare's horn
is not asat - both outcomes are untenable and contradict the dvaitin
position".

<End of Subbu-ji's message>

In addition, he suggests that we refer this link which contains a very nice
explanation of the difference in the definition of sattA between dvaita and
advaita, and consequently, the definitions of asat and mithyA in advaita
and adhyastha and alIka in dvaita.

Just to add another note. This is my addition -  not directly related, but
it does speak about vedyatvam (epistemology) in the context of satta
(ontology). In advaita, the perceptibility of something is not a
precondition of its sattA. In fact, I would say that its very
perceptibility rules out it as being sat or asat.

Only brahman is sat in advaita, we cannot rely on pramANas to perceive it
as an object - it is "known" only via shruti. By knowable, we say that sat
is not "knowable" in the popular sense of objectifying it. Secondly, asat
is also not perceivable / knowable, as it doesn't exist in any period of
time and is a purely fictitious entity for perception to occur.

Therefore from the above, neither sat nor asat is vEdya according to
Advaita. Only mithyA, which is sadasad vilakshaNa, is vedya - drishyatvam
is a lakshaNA of mithyA in advaita.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan



On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:31 AM, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> 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
>