[Advaita-l] Shabda-ajanya-vritti-vishayatva of tuchch

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste

That is accepted by Advaita Siddhi also. It accepts tuchcha to have
shabda-janya-vritti-vishayatva.

Confusion is how can it be anumAna-janya-vritti-vishaya when it has been
held as NOT shabda-ajanya-vritti-vishaya.

Regards.


On Sun, 26 Dec 2021, 21:54 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,
>
> I am not sure if the following addresses the question you have raised. All
> the same I am just presenting a possibility.
>
> In his commentary on Sidhanta Bindu, Sri Abhyankara points out that
> according to Bauddha (बौद्ध) view, substances are of four sorts, namely
> pAramArthika,vyAvahArika, prAtibhAsika (imaginary with a substratum) and
> Bauddha (बौद्ध) (imaginary without a substratum). The fourth category is
> made up of purely fantastic substances such as the horn of a hare which is
> a total impossibility  and is not a product of anything but is merely a
> fantasy. He further says that it is stated in
> लघुशब्देन्दुशेखर-अर्थवत्सूत्र (laghushabdendushekhara-arthavatsUtra)
> that according to बौद्धदर्शन (bauddhadarshana)  the words शशशृङ्ग
> (shashashRRi~Nga) खपुष्प (khapuShpa) and others of that class have an
> inherent power to give rise to ideas of the horn of a hare, sky-flower etc
> and that in view of the experiences of dreams it is necessary to assume
> such a fourth category of substances.
>
> (The above is taken from the commentary on Sidhanta Bindu by Sri P C
> Divanji)
>
> Perhaps the tIka is responding to such a proposition.
> Regards
>
> On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 12:19 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Hari Om,
>>
>> वस्तुतस्तु – शब्दाजन्यवृत्तिविषयत्वमेव दृश्यत्वम् ; अन्यथा शशविषाणं
>> तुच्छमित्यादिशब्दजन्यवृतिर्विषये तुच्छे व्यभिचारस्य दुरुद्धरत्वात् । एवं च
>> सति शुद्धस्य वेदान्तजन्यवृत्तिविषयत्वेऽपि न तत्र व्यभिचारः; तुच्छशुद्धयोः
>> शब्दाजन्यवृत्तिविषयत्वानभ्युपगमात् ।
>>
>> In drishyatva-hetu-vichaar of Advaita Siddhi, it is said that both Brahman
>> and tuchchha are shabda-janya-vritti-vishaya. And accordingly, drishyatva
>> was defined as shabda-ajanya-vritti-vishayatva.
>>
>> This is quite logical also - as tIkA thereupon explains - that tuchchha
>> and
>> Brahman cannot be vishaya of a vritti generated by means other than
>> shabda.
>> Brahman, because it is nirdharmaka and hence cannot have sambandha with
>> dharma like hetu and sAdhya. Tuchchha, because being asat - it cannot have
>> sambandha with hetu and sAdhya.
>>
>> Having said this - when the discussion starts subsequently with यद्वा --
>> the tIkA presents couple of anumAna to show that tuchchha is vishaya of
>> anumAna-janya-vritti also and is not merely the vishaya of
>> shabda-janya-vritti. And then goes on to refine the definition of
>> drishyatva. The anunAna are -
>>
>> तुच्छं वृत्तिविषयः, व्यवह्रियमाणत्वात्, घटादिवत्।
>> तुच्छं न क्षणिकम्, अकारणत्वात्, ब्रह्मवत्।
>>
>> My question is -- how is anunAna admissible when it is held that asat
>> vastu
>> cannot have sambandha with hetu/sAdhya rendering anunAna inapplicable for
>> tuchchha. And hence why is the need for refining the definition of
>> drishyatva when it is quite fitting to keep it at -
>> shabda-ajanya-vritti-vishayatvam.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sudhanshu.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>