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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

It is not a question of  translation. It is a question of alternate
viewpoints.

As per my understanding of the Bhashya, relative levels of existence is
recognized and forms a fundamental concept of Advaita Siddhanta as advanced
by Sri Bhagavatpada. Any denial of this is contradictory to the Bhashya.

Regards

On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 8:49 PM putran M <putranm4 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaskaram,
>
>
>>  When there is traikAlika-nishedha of ignorance, where is the question of
>> giving “some sort of existence” to ignorance. BhAvarUpa-tva does not mean
>> that one gives some sort of existence. Such notions have come up on account
>> of being unfamiliar with the siddhAnta. BhAvarUpatva means
>> bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNatA. It has nothing to do with presumption of
>> existence. The "some sort of existence" which you are talking about is not
>> sattva, but sat-tAdAtmya which is also non-existent appearance.
>>
>
> Again, (like with "positive"), the objection to "*some sort of *existence"
> is not entirely clear to me as being a direct consequence of definition and
> not of interpretation of translation. We are using English terms to
> correspond with meaning implied in Sanskrit words, and that will leave some
> room for variation (which can result in confusion when people understand
> differently). But this may not be resolved necessarily by insisting on the
> only possible definition for the English word. I have seen sat translated
> as (absolute) existence and mithya as relative (or at least, *apparent*)
> existence and asat as non-existence.
>
> Others may give their opinions on this, if possible.
>
> thollmelukaalkizhu
>
>>
>>
>> *SiddhAntI’s position*
>>
>> When we say sat-asat-vilakshaNa, it is not “neither existent, nor
>> non-existent”. That is why I keep on requesting to understand the terms as
>> siddhAnta holds it. This is the least expectation in a civilized debate.
>>
>> The word existence for sat is fine. But it is likely to confuse. Hence,
>> we define it as “traikAlika-bhAdhyatva-abhAva”. In fact, it still is
>> refined as
>> " traikAlika-bAdhyatva-abhAva-vishishTa-tAdAtmya-upalakshita-swarUpa".
>>
>> The word non-existence for asat is not fine. Asattva is defined as
>> क्वचिदप्युपाधौ सत्त्वेन प्रतीत्यनर्हत्वम् (the absence of eligibility of
>> appearance as being identified with existence in any locus). Non-existence
>> is not how we define it.
>>
>> Non-existence is common to anirvachanIya as well as asat. Hope I made
>> myself clear.
>>
>> Neither asat can be removed by knowledge nor can sat be removed by
>> knowledge. I mean, you cannot remove Brahman by knowledge. You certainly
>> cannot remove horns of hare by your knowledge. Even a class five student
>> can tell you that what knowledge removes, must be something different from
>> Brahman (sat) and horns of hare (asat). What great logic is needed here?
>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-pJLsA8Qsdokq6-wGRZiHwoNp7%2BFm5B72JiDA%2BA4ZRo4w%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-pJLsA8Qsdokq6-wGRZiHwoNp7%2BFm5B72JiDA%2BA4ZRo4w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>