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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

On Mon, 5 Aug, 2024, 6:24 pm Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>