[Advaita-l] Gaudapada and Shankara hold the waking objects to be mithya

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
I don't think we can make a general rule like that with any such bAdhaka
jnAna - for pratIti can continue even after bAdha in certain cases, like
sopAdhika bhrama.

However from a pAramArthika standpoint, we can perhaps say that. I think
the reason is that there is no vyavahAra or pratibhAsa at all (न‌ निरोधो न
चोत्पत्तिः, केन कं पश्येत् etc). Therefore, there is no need for there to
be the idea of mithyAtva also.

Like in dRShTi sRShTi vAda, we say there is no vyAvahArika prapancha, in
paramArtha we can say there is no vyAvhArika and prAtibhAsika satya.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Fri, 28 Jul 2023, 09:05 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Venkatraghavan ji.
>
> Yes. It is clear.
>
> Post bAdha, can we term mithyA entities as tuchcha?
>
> For e.g. I confuse shell for silver. The silver seen there is prAtibhAsika
> silver. Post understanding, I know there was no rajata there and the
> pratiyogitA-avachchedaka of this abhAva is rajata-tva and not
> laukika-pAramAthikatva(as held by VedAnta ParibhAshA).
>
> So, while I confused shell for silver, it was prAtibhAsika silver and when
> I understood it to be shell, there has never been any silver there, not
> even prAtibhAsika silver. So, the prAtibhAsika silver, a mithyA entity
> prior to bAdha, is tuchcha post bAdha.
>
> Can a general rule, therefore, be made: mithyA entity, post bAdha, is
> understood as tuchcha.
>
> Regards.
>
> On Thu, 27 Jul, 2023, 10:18 pm Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Sudhanshuji,
>>
>> From the standpoint of the Shruti, when it is speaking of the paramArtha
>> sthiti, there is no pratIti of mAyA or mAyAkArya and thus it is said to be
>> tucCha. When the bAdha happens, it sublates the pratIti arhatva dharma also
>> in all three periods of time.
>>
>> Re - "If mithyAtva of avidyA does not violate advaita,
>> then what is the need to posit its tuchchatva?"
>>
>> To point out the paramArtha satya -  the utter insignificance / non
>> existence of anything other than the Atma, in the vein of na nirodho,
>> notpattih etc.
>>
>> And if anyone says this is Buddhism...naitad buddhena bhAShitam.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2023, 14:06 Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l, <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste V Subramanian ji.
>>>
>>> How do you explain this shloka:
>>>
>>> तुच्छानिर्वचनीया च वास्तवी चेत्यसौ त्रिधा।
>>> ज्ञेया माया त्रिभिर्बोधैः श्रौतयौक्तिकलौकिकैः॥
>>>
>>> It says that as per Shruti, MAyA is tuchchA i.e. क्वचिदप्युपाधौ सत्त्वेन
>>> प्रतीयमानत्वानधिकरणत्वम्. It is only as per logic that MAyA is stated to
>>> be
>>> anirvachanIya i.e. mithyA i.e. something different from asat and sat i.e.
>>> non-existent in all three period of time in the locus where it appears to
>>> exist.
>>>
>>> As per Shruti, MAyA is tuchchA i.e. ineligible to even appear as existing
>>> in any locus.
>>>
>>> I think if Brahman is the sole reality, there is no option but to hold
>>> MAyA/avidyA as tuchchA. If mithyAtva of avidyA does not violate advaita,
>>> then what is the need to posit its tuchchatva?
>>>
>>> Or should we say: tuchchatva of avidyA is from the frame of reference of
>>> Brahman AND mithyAtva of avidyA is from the frame of reference of avidyA.
>>> And mithyAtva of avidyA is not contradictory to advaita as tuchchatva and
>>> mithyAtva have non-existence in common?
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 9:46 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 7:47 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
>>> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Namaste.
>>> >>
>>> >> The problem is - how can a completely non-existent thing appear to
>>> exist
>>> >> even in the middle.
>>> >>
>>> >> Tuchchha and mithyA are both non-existent. While the former does not
>>> even
>>> >> appear to exist, the latter appears to exist.
>>> >>
>>> >> But how can something which is non-existent in past, present and
>>> future
>>> >> can
>>> >> even appear to exist?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Namaste
>>> >
>>> > न हि दृष्टे अनुपपन्नं नाम |  When something is so glaringly
>>> experienced,
>>> > there is nothing unreasonable about it.
>>> >
>>> > The stock example is: the experiencing of the unreal snake during a
>>> > bhrama.  The snake there is not in that locus rope during all three
>>> periods
>>> > of time.  Yet it is experienced by the one who is under the
>>> > spell/delusion.  Shankara says in the opening lines of the
>>> Sridakshinamurti
>>> > stotram:  पश्यन्नात्मनि मायया बहिरिवोद्भूतं यथा निद्रया:  a person
>>> > perceives/experiences the world within him just like one would
>>> experience a
>>> > dream. In a dream one experiences all as though it is 'outside' him,
>>> the
>>> > waking. Yet upon waking one would realize that they were never
>>> 'outside',
>>> > were inside alone but gave the feeling of outside.   The dream
>>> > objects/events are not there, they did no happen at all, during all
>>> three
>>> > periods of time. Yet one experiences them.  However, upon questioning,
>>> he
>>> > realizes their non-existence during all periods of time.  This is the
>>> > vaibhava of maya/avidya: Shankara said: अघटितघटनापटीयसी माया Maya is
>>> that
>>> > inscrutable power that is an expert in displaying something that is
>>> > impossible.
>>> >
>>> > regards
>>> > subbu
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
>>> Pune
>>>
>>> sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>>
>>> For assistance, contact:
>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>>
>>>