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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,
The laghuchandirkAkAra is explaining the reason behind why the siddhikAra
after explaining दृश्यत्वम् as शब्दाजन्यवृत्तिविषयत्वम्, starts another
vikalpa for explaining दृश्यत्वम् using the words यद्वा
सप्रकारवृत्तिविषयत्वमेव दृश्यत्वम्.

शब्दज्ञानानुपाती वस्तुशून्यो विकल्पः is a yoga position that is accepted in
advaita. However not all schools subscribe to this. There are other schools
(including dvaitavAda) from whom even the shuktirajata is asat/tucCha. The
siddhikAra bringing up an alternative definition is to address those that
argue that tucCha is not शब्दजन्यवृत्तिमात्रविषयः. Such schools will argue
that just like tucCha is shabda-janya-vRtti-viShaya, it can also be
anumiti-viShaya (on the lines of the anumAna provided). So, according to
such schools, tucCha ends up as shabda-ajanya-vRtti-viShaya, and hence
there is vyabhichAra in tucCha with such a definition of drShyatva.

Taking that as an abhyupetya vAda, the siddhikAra explains another
definition of drShyatva using यद्वा. The laghuchandrikA-kAra is showing the
the reason why an alternative definition may be needed.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan


On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 11:09 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>