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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
In the case of sopAdhika bhrama, avidyA is destroyed, but the upAdhi
persists and until then, the appearance of the superimposed persists.

So, the perception of the superimposed is not because of some remnant of
avidyA remaining post sublation, but because of the presence of an
externality, an upAdhi, which is the cause for the continue perception of
the superimposed - even when ignorance has been sublated.

In the case of the red crystal, the illusion persists so long as the red
flower is nearby, even when the ignorance of the transparency of crystal
has been sublated. In the case of jIvanmukti, the appearance of the world
continues so long as prArabdha (upAdhi) persists.

The jnAni continues to perceive the world as a result - so the tucChatva
cannot be from his standpoint also.

One can take tucchatva in the verse to be from the standpoint of
paramArtha  where even such a pratIti does not occur - ie from the
standpoint of Brahman or post videhakaivalya.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Fri, 28 Jul 2023, 10:56 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Vemkataraghavan ji.
>
> //There has to be some anupapatti to be resolved for any rule to be
> postulated. What is the need to postulate such a thing? It cannot just be
> so that we can explain our pUrvAchArya's statement.//
>
> If ajnAna is removed completely by jnAna, there cannot remain any form of
> ajnAna or its kArya. In case of mirage water etc, the mUla-ajnAna is not
> destroyed and hence there can be some mechanism whereby the sustenance of
> perception can be explained. But in case of destruction of ajnAna by
> Brahma-jnAna, there cannot remain perception. Hence, the tuchchhatva of
> ajnAna is a logical necessity also.
>
> In case of nirupAdhika bhrama, like in rajju sarpa, mithyA is indeed
> tuchcha post-jnAna. avidyA-adhyAsa on Brahman is also nirupAdhika. Hence my
> query.
>
> I think it is only to explain the continued perception of world
> post-jnAna, that ajnAna is termed as anirvachanIya. To explain jIvanmukti,
> prArabdha etc, we need continued perception of world which requires
> anirvachanIya ajnAna. This is valid in SDV. But not in DSV.
>
> //I don't recall exactly, but I think jIvanmukti is accepted in DSV - the
> six anAdi entities are outside the scope of dRShTi sRShTi, so avidyAlesha
> also has to be technically outside its scope.//
>
> Yes. That is how Advaita Siddhi explains it. But if we see VedAnta
> SiddhAnta MuktAvali, there is negation of jIvanmukti. All references
> thereto are termed as arthavAda. post-jnAna, perception of world cannot
> continue in DSV as per my understanding as avidyA-lesha, prArabdha etc are
> not admitted.
>
>
>
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2023, 07:59 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Sudhanshu ji
>> There has to be some anupapatti to be resolved for any rule to be
>> postulated. What is the need to postulate such a thing? It cannot just be
>> so that we can explain our pUrvAchArya's statement.
>>
>> I don't recall exactly, but I think jIvanmukti is accepted in DSV - the
>> six anAdi entities are outside the scope of dRShTi sRShTi, so avidyAlesha
>> also has to be technically outside its scope.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2023, 10:06 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>