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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Vemkataraghavan ji.

Quite clear.

Can the rule, however, be made in case of nirupAdhika bhrama, like illusory
snake/silver? It cannot be made in case of say mirage water because despite
knowledge of substratum, the perception continues and hence we are forced
to accept prAtibhAsika water. So, even post-bAdha, the pratIti-arhatva
continues.

Also, what is the position in drishTi-srishTi-vAda? Do they accept
continued perception of world post-jnAna? I think not. That is why
avidyA-lesha etc which is admitted in SDV is denied in DSV.

On Fri, 28 Jul 2023, 07:02 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>>
>>>>