[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Re: Gaudapada and Shankara hold the waking objects to be mithya

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,

On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 4:20 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> It is true that MAyA is kArya-anumeya. However, MAyA is also
> sAkshi-bhAsya. There is pratyaksha of ajnAna. So, to say that ajnAna is
> tuchcha while it is pretty much manifest as sAkshi-bhAsya will be
> contradictory. Isn't it?
>
As long as mAyA is there in ajnAnAvasthA, mAyA is sAkShya and so AtmA is
sAkShI. In jnAnaniShThAvasthA, mAyA isn't sAkShya at all, so AtmA just is,
who cannot be called as a sAkShI at all. However, you seem to be insisting
that tuccha is something that shouldn't appear at all, but it doesn't in
ajnAnAvasthA. I think you are missing that all definitions are from a
perspective. The definition of tuccha is not there from ajnAnAvasthA at
all. Then, how tucchA mAyA appears cannot be asked at all, since all the
while asking that question, it is from ajnAnAvasthA. Even if jnAnI raises
that question, it is accounting the vyAvahArikasattA where he raises this
Q, so it is from ajnAnAvasthA only where mAyA is mithyA, not tucchA. You
seem to be unnecessarily insisting the application of the definition from
pAramArthika to apply in vyavahArika. This is no different to someone
insisting the shrauta brahma cannot be one with saMsArI jIva in vyavahAra,
that too ekamevAdvitIya becoming nAnA!

//shrautabodhena tucChA, kAlatraye api asatI says Ramakrishnatika under
> this paraphrased in Panchadashi verse 6.130. That means after the
> tAtparyabodha of the Shruti, clearly pAramArthika perspective.//
>
> Even mithyA is non-existent in all three periods of time. That is common
> to tuchchha and mithyA. So, non-existence is admissible in mithyA also.
>
Not true. asat chet na bAdhyeta.


> //Everything other than brahma is tucCha is shrauta perspective.//
>
> Yes. But then how to account for the appearance of ajnAna.
>
Many have tried to account for it in vain, it seems to be by
anyathAnupapatti, it is anirvachanIya. We can't do without it, it has to be
acccepted. It cannot be sat or asat, therefore, anirvachanIya. Again, from
vyavahAra. From paramArtha, it is tucCha/asat. And to further add more
questions, it is sat for a shuddha laukika, non-sAdhaka. The kAraNa being
mindboggling is clear in its kArya. The rajjusarpa is not rajjusarpa but
sarpa in the perspective of the one seeing it. It becomes rajjusarpa during
inquiry. It is rajju, with sarpa never being there after conclusion. How
did that asat sarpa which was never there appear to be sat while being seen
to the same person who inquires it to be mithyA and concludes it as asat?
Due to his own ajnAna. That ajnAna which has been countered by jnAna, due
to its very characteristic that vichAraM na sahate, is no longer there. The
example can't do more justice than this, because one can ask as to he
thinks that he had ajnAna when he saw sarpa. In the exemplified though, the
ajnAna was regarding oneself. So, we have to see if from the perspective of
the rajju, was there ever ajnAna leading to sarpa? Since rajju cannot
answer that we have to imagine a clear no! In other words, going back to
mAyA being kAryAnumeya, anumeyatvaM kim? kalpitatvam iti eva vaktavyam.

//If we just take one step back into 6.129, the verse itself says
> vidyAdRShTyA shrutaM tucChaM. Modakatika quotes Bhagavan Vartikakara's
> words there as: brahmadRShTyA tu avidyA iyaM na kathanchana yujyate.//
>
> Yes. So, it appears to be an issue of frame of reference. When we explain
> creation from the point of view of creation, or accepting that there is
> creation-- then the answer is -- due to mithyA avidyA.
>
> And when the creation is sought to be explained from the point of view of
> Brahman -- then it is due to tuchchhA avidyA. Now, how can tuchchA avidyA
> leads to creation. Like the story of princes of Yoga VAsisTha.
>
tucChA avidyA cannot lead to saMsAra and it doesn't, because in paramArtha,
there is no saMsAra possible, no need for its kAraNa avidyA/ mAyA.

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */