[Advaita-l] [advaitin] How jnAnAbhAva can cause adhyAsa !!??

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Reg  // the opponent has raised an objection. The siddhAntI is answering
that. Both the answers must be intended to respond to same objection,
referring to same pratIti //,

The discussion is centred around mithyAtvam. There is no reference to ESV
vis a vis STV. Why should the answer then be related to ESV?.

Reg // Objection is -- you hold that silver is mithyA. But there is clear
experience - silver is. So, this experience of isness-of-silver is
contradictory to mithyAtva-of-silver because as per you, there is
traikAlika-atyanta-abhAva of silver. So, how can there be experience -
silver is //,

The objection is ** you hold that silver is mithyA because of
traikAlika-atyanta-abhAva of silver. But the response **this is not
silver** does not lead to that conclusion. Hence the definition is wrong
**. There is no reason to bring in the idea of ESV at all. The discussion
is as per STV thus far.

Reg // Because, I will modify the definition of mithyAtva //,

There is no need for that. You have yourself stated ** Further, ‘this is
not silver’ indicates anyonya-abhAva of prAtibhAsika-rajata vis-à-vis
vyAvahArika-rajata and conveys mithyAtva of prAtibhAsika-rajata
by arthApatti**. You should have added at the end **leading to the same
definition as already declared**.

This is specifically brought out in AS dvitIya mithyAtvam while harmonizing
the apparently contradictory stands of VivaraNa and Sri ChitsukhAchArya.
You may like to refer AS page 123 onwards as well as the commentary
thereon, SatyAnandaprabhOdhikA of Swami VishuddhAnandagiri Vol 1 page 36.
This is a text strongly recommended by you only as a *must read*. If anyone
is particularly interested, I can copy paste the relevant portion.

I am now quite convinced that my understanding is correct.

Possibly the discussion is moving away from the main topic of the thread.

Regards

On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 7:38 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouli ji.
>
> The two alternatives given in VivaraNa, can they not be understood as
>> corresponding to the two ways in which the observed shukti-rajata is
>> presented after bAdha. Namely as  नेदंरजतम्(nedaMrajatam) (First
>> alternative you have interpreted as ESV) and   नात्र रजतम्(nAtra
>> rajatam) (Second alternative you have interpreted as STV)
>>
>
> I don't think so sir. Because, the opponent has raised an objection. The
> siddhAntI is answering that. Both the answers must be intended to respond
> to same objection, referring to same pratIti.
>
> Objection is -- you hold that silver is mithyA. But there is clear
> experience - silver is. So, this experience of isness-of-silver is
> contradictory to mithyAtva-of-silver because as per you, there is
> traikAlika-atyanta-abhAva of silver. So, how can there be experience -
> silver is.
>
> Answer - there would be contradiction if is-ness belonged to silver. But
> is-ness is of shuktikA. Not of silver. Hence, there is no contradiction.
> There is no is-ness of silver. (ESV)
>
> Or else, even if is-ness is accepted of silver, still there is no
> contradiction with its mithyAtva. Because, I will modify the definition of
> mithyAtva. The pratiyogitA-avachchhedaka of atyanta-abhAva will not be
> rajata-tva (as in ESV) but will be pAramArthikatva. So, even though rajata
> has prAtibhAsika-sattA, there is no pAramArthikatva in it. Hence,
> mithyaatva is not contradicted. (STV)
>
> VedAnta ParibhAshA in the end portion of anumAna pramANa is explaining
> this very section . And it beautifully writes - अस्मिन् पक्षे
> (sattA-traividhya-vAda-pakshe) घटादेर्ब्रह्मणि निषेधो न स्वरूपेण, किन्तु
> पारमार्थिकत्वेनैवेति न विरोध:
>
> Both the answers must be referring to same pratIti.
>
> Further, ‘this is not silver’ indicates anyonya-abhAva of
> prAtibhAsika-rajata vis-à-vis vyAvahArika-rajata and conveys mithyAtva of
> prAtibhAsika-rajata by *arthApatti*. ‘There is no silver here’ conveys
> mithyAtva of prAtibhAsika-rajata *directly by definition* as it
> objectifies the atyanta-abhAva of prAtibhAsika-rajata in shell. I don't
> think that is the context here. Here, the response is to the pratIti
> "mithyA vastu asti" like "silver is" or "pot is".
>
> Hope I could communicate clearly.
>
> Regards
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
>> --
> 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/CAH9%3D%2BBCAB72mNDOUrn7_PKNor23Tw3YSem7d%2B1netcR23f%2B2Rg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCAB72mNDOUrn7_PKNor23Tw3YSem7d%2B1netcR23f%2B2Rg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>