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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Here is the link Sri Subbu was referring to below:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2010-April/024366.html
On 22 Apr 2016 9:36 a.m., "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>