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

[Venkatraghavan S]

First sentence should say "it only applies to mithyArUpa abhAva". No need
to limit it to vyAvahArika only.

On Thu, 30 Dec 2021, 07:39 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>