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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 9:16 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>

Yes, the famous Taittiriya Upanishad mantra:  satyam cha anRtam cha satyam
abhavat - has been commented upon by Shankara as depicting three  levels or
reality.  Two detailed articles on this is:

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/paramarthika-vyavaharika-satyam/

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2019/06/05/three-types-of-existence-in-vedanta/


Also, in the Gita Bhashya 2.16 Shankara says:  What does not really exist,
appears to exist.

warm regards
subbu

> 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>
>> .
>>
> --
> 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/CAEs%2B%2BdO0uH%3DZ7zeCkA5FECGanbOzqHNJ%3DscppAVtB0AnZ9oCKg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdO0uH%3DZ7zeCkA5FECGanbOzqHNJ%3DscppAVtB0AnZ9oCKg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>