[Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Grandeur of the Atman transcending time

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Dennis ji.

//I’m bound to point out that what you are saying is an attempt to say how
things are from a pAramArthika perspective and, strictly speaking, it is
not actually possible to do that.//

I would differ here. My statements are from the frame of reference of
avidyA only and not from the frame of reference of shuddha chaitanya. From
the pAramArthika perspective, that is, from the frame of reference of
Brahman, there is *neither any existence of seen* *nor is there any
perception of seen*. The way I had put up, *there is perception of seen*
but *no existence of seen*. My statements are basically in
drishTi-srishTi-vAda framework, which is not a pAramArthika-viewpoint. The
pAramArthika-viewpoint is ajAti-vAda.

//Gaudapada and Śaṅkara effectively state in kArikA 2.4 that the waking
world is not real because it is perceived. But the ‘not real’ does not mean
‘illusory’, it means mithyA – name and form of Brahman (or vaitathya, as
they call it in the kArikA-s).//

You mean mithyA does not mean illusory? MithyA, vaitathya, asatya, unreal,
illusory.. these are one and the same. They appear to exist while the do
not exist. As BhAshyakAra says -- क्षेत्रं च
मायानिर्मितहस्तिस्वप्नदृष्टवस्तुगन्धर्वनगरादिवत् *‘असदेव सदिव अवभासते’*. It
is non-existent, just that it appears as existent. This is what is mithyA,
vitatha, illusion, unreal, asatya etc.

//We – the body-minds – are also part of this. And we continue to live out
our lives until, as j~nAnI-s, we use up our prArabdha karma. These
empirical lives are not illusory! As far as we, as aj~nAnI-s, are
concerned, it is all very much real.//

It certainly appears to be real. But it is not, as is proved by the logic
adduced in MANDUkya 2.4. It is seen, and is hence illusory. Whatever is
seen, is illusory, on account of being seen, like a dream, like the
illusory silver.

//And the world functions according to the laws of Ishvara.//

Certainly it appears to be so.

//Yes, from the pAramArthika perspective, there is no causation. Since
there are not two things, that idea makes no sense at that level. But, at
the vyAvahArika level, when you make these sort of statements, it causes me
to make this sort of response!//

>From the pAramArthika perspective, there is *neither a second thing*, *nor
is there a perception of second thing*. My statements were not from
pAramArthika perspective. They were from vyAvahArika/prAtibhAsika
perspective only i.e. from the frame of reference of avidyA only wherein
causation is seen.

"Seen is illusory" is not from the pAramArthika perspective. It is from the
frame of reference of seen.

"Seen is illusory" implies traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitvam on account of
defintion of illusion. This nishedha-pratiyogitA can be
pAramArthikatva-avachchhinna or swarUpa-avachchhinna. While the former is
valid is satt-traividhya-vAda, the latter is valid in eka-sattA-vAda.

My statements were made in eka-sattA-vAda wherein the nishedha is by
swarUpa. Causation is negated by its very swarUpa within the frame of
reference wherein it is seen.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.