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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

Reg  << The abhAva being bhAvAtmaka is acceptable to us, but not the
opponent. So
Shankaracharya's bhAShya cannot be invoked as support for it when directing
the argument against such an opponent  >>,

Is this BhAshya portion BSB 1-2-1  applicable in respect of tuchcha which
is devoid of any substratum ?. My understanding is that abhAva is relevant
in accordance with this ONLY in respect of objects having a substratum.

regards



On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 10:34 AM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> shrI Sudhanshu ji,
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2021, 23:17 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > //tucCha also has kAraNatva abhAva, but it is asat, not mithyA.//
> >
> > This is not yet proved.
> >
> This is the argument that the opponent makes against us - we accept that
> tucCha is asat. So he will say - you advaitins agree that tucCha is asat
> and also agree that it has kAraNatva abhAva. So such an anumAna can be
> directed against the advaitin.
>
>
> This was my argument that neither akAraNatva (hetu) nor akshaNikatva
> > (sAdhya) can belong to tuchcha. My point is - kAraNatva is bhAvarUpa, so
> as
> > per BU 1.2.1 logic, kAraNatva-abhAva has to be bhAvarUpa (non-tuchcha).
> And
> > it cannot belong to tuchcha (because bhAvarUpa cannot belong to tuchcha).
> >
>
> The abhAva being bhAvAtmaka is acceptable to us, but not the opponent. So
> Shankaracharya's bhAShya cannot be invoked as support for it when directing
> the argument against such an opponent.
>
>
> > //Similarly akshaNikatva. shuddha brahma has akshaNikatva, but it is not
> > mithyA. Similarly tucCha - it is akshaNikam, but asat, not mithyA.//
> >
> > Same logic as in case of akAraNatva. Since kshaNikatva is bhAvarUpa,
> > akshaNikatva shall be bhAvarUpa (including bhAva). Moreover, // Similarly
> > tucCha - it is akshaNikam, but asat, not mithyA// - can we make this
> > statement just like that - the opponent is using anumAna to prove this -
> > can we apply our gut feeling for this statement. I don't think so.
> >
> >
> >
> > In the case of bhrama, can we argue like this - Devadatta is being
> > perceived out of ajnAna of Yajnadatta-avachchinna-chaitanya. So what is
> > being perceived as Devadatta is a product of avastha-ajnAna. danDa is a
> > product of mUla-ajnAna. Both danDa and Devadatta are products of ajnAna
> > only. Only that their avachchinna Chaitanya are different. So, as such,
> > does danDa have higher level of reality than Devadatta if we categorise
> the
> > reality as sat, mithyA and tuchcha? I don't think so. Both danDa and
> > Devadatta will be mithyA only.
> >
>
> Yes both are mithyA, but daNDa is vyAvahArika, Devadatta is prAtibhAsika.
> So on that basis, the former is certainly of a higher order than the
> latter. This approach has been taken in the dvitIyamithyAtva chapter.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>