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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Reg  // What is the basis for the above statement (need for both artha and
jnAna adhyAsa) ? The pratipannopAdhau traikAlika niShedha pratiyogitvam
definition appears to apply to this instance. Would be interested in
knowing if this being mithyA is denied in any work of advaita //,

You have answered it yourself in just the previous sentence. If there is no
arthAdhyAsa, there is no need for  anirvachanIya khyati. AnyathAkhyAti
itself is sufficient,  and is accepted by Advaita SidhAnta also in relevant
cases. I think all instances of sOpAdhika bhrama come under that category.

Actually my question itself unfortunately was perhaps wrongly framed.
Entire Creation being mithya, there was no need to raise such a query.  I
should  have  asked instead

//  Can  the redness in the crystal considered to be तुच्छ  (tuchCha)?  //.

Infact  this doubt arose while considering the statement by Sudhanshu Ji
copied below and your  response to it

//  Can a general rule, therefore, be made: mithyA entity, post bAdha, is
understood as tuchcha? //.

//  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  //.

I think Sudhanshu Ji  was correct. Such a usage is seen, apart from the
DashashlOki and Panchadashi  quotes cited earlier in this thread, even in
Vedanta Paribhasha. Reference can be made to Chapter 8-- **Vishaya**
wherein  the following appears.

// ….. " नेति नेति"(बृ.उ. २.३.६.) इत्यादिना ब्रह्मण्यपि तस्यासत्त्वोपपादनेन
प्रपञ्चस्य तुच्छत्वावगमे,……  //

//………" neti neti"(BU  2.3.6.) ityAdinA brahmaNyapi tasyAsattvopapAdanena
prapa~nchasya tuchChatvAvagame……..//

Translation by Prof Suryanarayana Shastri  //  ….when by texts like  ** Not
this, not this (BU 2-3-6) **  its non-reality even in Brahman is declared ,
the unreality of the world is known…..//.

But I think one difference must be noted  here. The word  तुच्छ  (tuchCha)
is also used with reference to अत्यन्तासत् (atyantAsat )  objects like a
Hare’s Horn. But in those cases of  अत्यन्तासत् (atyantAsat )  objects,
they have no adhishthAna  whereas  in the present case under deliberation
namely  ** mithyA entity, post bAdha,  understood as तुच्छ  (tuchCha) ** ,
the entity has an adhisthAna. All quotes cited earlier from DashashlOki,
Panchadashi, Vedanta Paribhasha  need to understood from that perspective.
With that proviso, the statement by Sudhanshu Ji appears to be already  in
vogue.

Regards


>
>
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>