[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: pratiyogI-jnAna being mandatory for abhAva-jnAna

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

aum Sudhanshuji, lovely response -- let me post on Facebook and see what
comes of it. 🙏

On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 4:21 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Michael ji.
>
> //thank you for your patience and continued engagement.//
>
> It is a matter of joy to discuss these issues with sincere sAdhakAs like
> yourself and others in this group.
>
> //who is this person who is guilty of mistake? Aren't you putting the cart
> before the horse? Asmat confused with yusmad includes pramatr. Such being
> the case bAdha of any empirical superimposition does not apply hence no
> pratiyogin.//
>
> When you confused rope for a snake - you had a knowledge - "there is a
> dangerous snake there". The object of your knowledge - the content of your
> knowledge - was not rope. The object of your knowledge was snake.
>
> Now this snake was not a real snake made with biological parts. Was it?
> Obviously not. It was an illusory snake. [This illusory snake had a
> snake-hood which was basically vyAvahArika-snakehood-tAdAtmya.]
>
> Further, this illusory snake, which is the object of your knowledge, did
> not exist. Nonetheless, it appeared to exist. It appeared to exist and was
> about to bite you, so you ran.
>
> And then you realised - it is not a snake, it is a rope. So, the object of
> your knowledge changed from a snake to a rope. And you say -- there has
> never been a snake here. There was just an appearance of snake. The snake
> -- which was the object of my knowledge -- was non-existent and yet, it
> appeared. All that was there, was a rope.
>
> This is all which I am saying. There was an appearance of a non-existent
> snake. This is what is called a prAtibhAsika-snake. A non-existent
> appearance. This "appearance" is also called sattvena-prateeti or
> sat-tAdAtmya. It appears to exist.
>
> Where is putting the cart before the horse? I am merely explaining our
> experience.
>
> //Asmat confused with yusmad includes pramatr. Such being the case bAdha
> of any empirical superimposition does not apply hence no pratiyogin.//
>
> Please explain what exactly you wish to convey here.
>
> //we need to recognize that both non-existents are only thought concepts
> AND there are no distinctions within non-existence. Please, we have
> scrubbed this issue threadbare several times. Without a new fiber of
> argument, best to let it dissolve methinks.//
>
> This is the view of MAdhvAs, the dualists, that there are no distinctions
> between non-appearing non-existent (tuchchha) and appearing non-existent
> (mithyA). They consider both as asat. This is contradicted by anubhava and
> also by reason. BhAshya also equates world with illusory snake, magically
> created elephant, dream-objects. However, BhAshya never equates world with
> horns of hare. BhAshya itself distinguishes illusory objects from horns of
> hare.
>
> Entire world is mithyA. It is non-existent. Otherwise, there would be a
> charge of duality. And yet, it appears. That is the magic. That is mAyA.
> Appearing while it is not. And on the basis of this appearance, this is
> differentiated from horns of hare.
>
> //"Advaita says"? Not Sankara bhasya, if I am not mistaken.//
>
>
> Of course you are mistaken.🙂  It is the crystalised view of Shankara.
>
> //How might there exist avachchhinna or modificiation in Chaitanya?//
>
> Avachchhinna does not mean modification in chaitanya. Take for example a
> pot. It gives rise to the usage "pot-space". This pot-space does not lead
> to modifciation in space, but ghaTa-avachchhinna-AkAsha becomes available
> for transaction. Similarly, for chaitanya.
>
>  //Are you referring to Ghata Bhasya in Brh. Up. ?//
>
> Yes.
>
> //Please spell out more specifically with examples of what you mean by
> bhava-abhava vilakshana.//
>
> The term used for avidyA is bhAvarUpa. It is explained that bhAvarUpa word
> is used to signify its abhAva-vilakshaNatA. One should not infer that
> bhAvarUpa means bhAva. So, all those who translate bhAvarUpa as "positive"
> are not correct. Please note.
>
> bhAvarUpa means bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa.
>
> Now, what are the items within the ambit of abhAva --- asat, prAk-abhAva,
> pradhvamsa-abhAva, anyonya-abhAva and atyanta-abhAva
>
> What are the items within the ambit of bhAva -- Brahman, all avidyA-kArya
> (such as pot, cloth, this world, illusory snake etc. Both prAtibhAsika and
> vyavahArika avidyA-kArya).
>
> avidyA is different from both.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
>
>