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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Yes, it only applies to vyAvahArika abhAva, not tucCha. Shankaracharya is
saying it is adhikaraNAtmakam. But Sudhanshu ji is extending that to say
that kAraNatva abhAva also is bhAvAtmakam only.

If you look at the bhAShya, shankarAchArya uses the
term चतुर्विधानामभावानाम् - asat is not an abhAva that belongs to any of
the four - prAgabhAva, pradhvamsAbhAva, atyantAbhAva or anyonyAbhAva. The
naiyyAyika does not accept that asat falls within atyantAbhAva. He alleges
that asat cannot be the viShaya of the "nAsti" shabda prayoga itself. The
abhAva of asat has neither a pratiyogi nor an anuyogi.

Now kAraNatva of mRt is mithyA, but the kAraNatva of shashashRnga is not
mithyA but asat only. Similarly kAraNatva abhAva of a shashashRnga is asat
only. Why? Because both the pratiyogi (kAraNatva) and anuyogi
(shashashRnga) for such an abhAva are asat.

There is this famous verse:
एष  वन्ध्यासुतो  याति  खपुष्पकृतशेखरः ।
मृगतृष्णाम्भसि  स्नातः  शशशृङ्गधनुर्धरः ॥
This son of a barren woman is arriving, wearing skyflowers in his hair,
having bathed in the waters of the mirage and holding a bow made of a
hare's horn.

Here walking, having flowers in the hair, bathing, and holding a bow are
all vyAvahArika things. However in association with tucCha they are all
asat. Similarly kAraNatva / kAraNatva abhAva can be mithyA, but in
association with asat, they are asat only.

Regards
Venkatraghavan


On Wed, 29 Dec 2021, 13:22 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>