[Advaita-l] [advaitin] 'The Jiva is Mithya' - an article in English

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

If your vichara draws you to infinite regress, that is a good thing. It
confirms that avidya itself is sastrika adhyaropa and your reasoning has
led you to the apavada of avidya/adhyasa. If however, it is only reasoning
that leads you to infinite regress, then the anaditva of adhyasa should
resolve your doubt. Anaditva indicates that adhyasa is present by common
experience rather than by mere belief hence infinite regression does not
apply.

Your many arguments are logical constructions to prove distinction in
non-existence and relativity in the Absolute. Not the message i derive from
reading Bhasya, ji.

Regards, Michael

On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 4:42 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Michael ji.
>
> Bhava vilakshana h Please convey exactly what may be distinct from
>>> Bhavatvam Brahman? Rather, it is an assumption of logic.
>>
>>
> abhAva is bhAva-vilakshaNa. vishesha-abhAva such as pot-abhAva, and
> nirvishesha-abhAva such as horns of hare are both distinct from
> bhAvAtmaka-Brahman.
>
> Further, avidyA, which is bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa is distinct from
> Brahman. Also, avidyA-kArya such as pot, cloth are distinct from Brahman.
>
> Their non-distinction from Brahman is stated in the sense of
> non-distinction of the illusory snake from rope.
>
>
>
>> abhAva contains within its ambit nirvishesha-abhAva and
>>> abhAvAtmaka-avidyA-kArya as if to claim abhAva is an ontological entity
>>> that is able to account for creation?
>>>
>>
> Creation can be neither of Brahman, nor of nirvishesha-abhAva such as
> horns of hare. It can only be due to avidyA i.e. avidyA-kArya. So, there is
> nothing wrong in distinguishing abhAva between nirvishesha-abhAva and
> abhAvAtmaka-avidyA-kArya. BhAshya also distinguishes them.
>
> When snake is born, tAdAtmya-with-existence is also born. Born? Snake is a
>>> notion not a birth. It is not even a notion created in time. There is no
>>> snake.
>>
>>
> In srishTi-drishTi-vAda, where pratikarma-vyavasthA is admitted, there is
> no option but to admit the creation of an illusory snake at the time of
> perception thereof.
>
> In DSV, one can do away with this requirement. However, in that case, we
> admit momentary appearance of entire universe and pratyabhijnA is denied.
>
>
>> आरोप्योत्पत्ति कालोत्पन्नतादात्म्यापन्नं सत्सन्घट इति प्रत्यये अपरोक्षतया
>>> भाति .
>>>
>>> "The arising of superimposition (āropya-utpatti) is experienced directly
>>> (aparokṣatayā) in the cognition 'a pot exists' (sat-san-ghaṭa iti
>>> pratyaye), where the pot (ghaṭa), produced in time (kāla-utpanna), is
>>> assumed to have identity (tādātmya) with existence (sat)."
>>>
>>> Not Sankara, I'd bet, more likely, Vedanta Paribhasa? If you assume
>>> time, you already assume superimposition.
>>
>>
> It is by GauDa BrahmAnanda Saraswati Swamiji. It is in accordance with
> BhAshya which admits identity of waking, dream and deep sleep (त्रयः
> स्वप्ना जाग्रत्स्वप्नसुषुप्त्याख्याः).
>
>
>
>> avasthA-ajnAna-kArya-avachchhinna-chaitanya.
>>>
>>> Chaitanya limited?
>>
>>
> Yes. On account of avidyA. Just as we transact pot-space, similarly
> avachchhinna-chaitanya.
>
>
>> A wrong notion does not affect the Self - no need to delimit the Self.
>>> AvasthA itself is a waking notion. Does Chaitanya experience different
>>> states really? The notion of avastha appears only to one that assumes
>>> waking to be the reality of all the states.
>>
>>
> The delimitation of chaitanya is not from the frame of reference of
> chaitanya. But from the frame of reference of avidyA. avasthA-traya is
> spoken from the frame of reference of avidyA. From the frame of reference,
> there are no avasthA, just as from the frame of reference of rope, there is
> no snake.
>
>
>> You cannot get away by using false notion. I will hold you there. Is
>>> false notion also an appearance like snake? Or is false notion-1 also a
>>> false notion-2? And then.... infinite regress.
>>>
>>> Correct though handled by Bhasyakara & Sureswara in several places and
>>> no less incomprehensible than the finite Vedas teaching the Absolute.
>>>
>>
> Please explain in your own words as to how the infinite regress is
> resolved.
>
>
>
>> an addendum regarding false notion as infinite regress. A better answer
>>> is that superimposition along with the idea of infinite regress, time,
>>> causation and all the rest of this phenomenal appearance is anadi.
>>> Appearance is not in time but in Consciousness.
>>
>>
> Are you satisfied with this answer? The world is an appearance, you say.
> Fine. Let us say, appearance-1. Now, is this appearance an appearance?
>
> If not, it becomes Brahman, on account of being non-appearance.
>
> If yes, then appearance-1 would require appearance-2. And it will go on.
> There is no point of bringing in anAdi-tva here. It is anavasthA-dosha.
>
> Further, what is appearance?
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>