[Advaita-l] SAmAnya in world-Brahman adhyAsa

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar ji.

//if there is no common factor in Shuddha Chaitanya there is no room to
talk about sAmAnya in Shuddha Chaitanya, world-brahman adhyAsa,
vishaya-avachchhinna-chaitanya  etc.  Since you asked about sAmAnya I said
it is is-ness that is sAmAnya between brahman and the world.//

I will wait for others to answer as you are using vague words like is-ness
without explaining what it is.

//After the dawn of rope knowledge the common experience of knower is he
realizes that there was /  is / never will be snake in the rope it is all
about my misconception about rope and due to lack of rope knowledge I had
the vipareeta pratyaya about rope and mithyA pratyaya like snake arised in
my mind.//

Rope is never an object of ignorance. That is the first mistake.
Because rope itself is a product of ignorance, it cannot be object of
ignorance. Please note that vishayatva means Avritatvam. And Sureshwara and
all AchAryAs have held that darkness does not cover darkness. It is the
shuddha chaitanya which is the object of ignorance wherein the
ajnAna-vishayatA is delimited by rope. It is due to adhyAsa of rope and
ignorance in shuddha chaitanya that one thinks of rope as unknown.

Your snake-knowledge is not possible without a mithyA-snake. This is the
very basis of VedAnta in srishTi-drishTi-vAda. You dispute this and I will
ask you to define knowledge.

 //(atasmin tad ‘buddhiH’) A sane person after realization never ever say
there was an anirvachaneeya snake existing in the rope apart from my
misconception about the rope//

Same sane person averred snake-is and ran away with a lot of trepidation.
Who fears a rope sir? Certainly not a sane person. So, you will have to
accept, to honour his sanity, that he did not see mere rope. He saw
rope+ajnAna. And this ajnAna did not "exist". It appeared.

None says that anirvachaneeya snake existed. At least not in
eka-sattA-vAda. By tushyatu-durjana-nyAya, in sattA-traividhya-vAda, one
can accept a prAtibhAsika-sattA which does not expect its undeniability.
However, in eka-sattA-vAda, the apparent snake had mere sat-tAdAtmya and
not sattva. That there was a sat-tAdAtmya cannot be denied because the sane
person said - snake is. So, please note that no existence is averred for
anirvachanIya snake.

//So your example here snake can have both traikAlika nishedha as well as
sat tAdAtmya not apt.//

Snake-is ===== shows ===== there was sat-tAdAtmya. Sat-tAdAtmyatva means
sattvena-prateeti-arhatva. Who can deny that?
Snake never has been here in rope ==== shows ==== there is
traikAlika-nishedha of snake.

So, the example is quite apt.

//Your acceptance of traikAlika nishedha itself is enough to give no room
to assert sat tAdAtmya of snake that too when you are in the influence of
mithyA darshana (bhrama kAla).//

traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitA is contrary to sattva and not sat-tAdAtmya,
please note. So, your assertion is incorrect.

Regards.