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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

On Mon, 5 Aug, 2024, 7:07 pm Raghav Kumar Dwivedula, <
raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>> >
>> >
>>
>
namaste Sudhanshu Ji
avidyA is bhAvarUpa while avidyAkArya and Brahman are bhAva ?

Kindly clarify since the kArya is being clubbed with Brahman while kAraNa
is sadasadvilaxaNa?

> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>