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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Read the sentence as "There are other schools (including dvaitavAda) *for*
whom even the shuktirajata is asat/tucCha."

On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 11:20 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>