[Advaita-l] The Bauddha's purva paksha

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste,

I received the following write-up (in slashed lines) as a pUrva-paksha. My
response is as under:

//Advaita believes that Brahman is the sole reality,  i.e only Brahman
exists, nothing exist except Brahman; these "Jiva (individual), Jagat
(world), īśvara (God) & Māyā (which conceals & projects)" are Mithyā
(illusion/misconception) i.e they just seems to be existing but in reality
or from absolute standpoint they are utterly non existent.//

The terms used such as "utterly non-existent" are misleading. Further, the
mithyAtva of jIva is not accepted in pratibimba-vAda. The correct assertion
is as under:

"Advaita believes that Brahman is the sole reality,  i.e only Brahman
exists, nothing exists except Brahman.  In some models, "Jiva (individual),
Jagat (world), & Māyā (which conceals & projects)" are Mithyā
(illusion/misconception). It means that they appear to exist in Brahman,
but they don't exist in Brahman. This is from the frame of reference of
avidyA. From the absolute frame of reference, avidyA is tuchchha. In some
other models such as pratibimba-vAda, jIva is satya. However, in all
models, jagay, mAyA i.e. avidyA are illusory. Ishwara per se is non-mithyA.
However, Ishwara-tva is mithyA."

The non-existence of avidyA is from the frame of reference of avidyA as
well as from pAramArthika frame of reference. Non-existence is a common
feature.

The appearance of avidyA is a non-common feature. From the frame of
reference of avidyA, the appearance thereof is accepted. From the frame of
reference of paramArtha, appearance thereof is not accepted.

//(Here I also want to say very clearly that I am talking about from
absolute or genuinely real standpoint, not from empirical standpoint.)//

Non-existence of mithyA is admitted even from mithyA frame of reference.

//From empirical standpoint "Mithyā" is said to be "Sad-asad vilakşana" i.e
it is not utterly non-existing due to its mere appearance & also not really
existing like Brahman, in fact empirical standpoint itself is Mithyā too,
but in reality or through absolute standpoint there is no appearance at all
i.e Mithyā is utterly absent.)//

>From an empirical standpoint also, mithyA is accepted to be non-existent.
Non-existence is common to asat and mithyA. Appearance is non-common.

So, the statement of pUrvapaksha is wrong. He is confusing non-existence
and appearance.


//Now the biggest question arises that if "Individual, world, God & Māyā"
is Mithyā (illusion/misconception), then who's conceiving this Mithyā or in
other words who's in delusion?//

In drishTi-srishTi-vAda, jIva i.e. avidyA-pratibimbita-chaitanya is under
delusion. SAkshI i.e. God i.e. avidyA-upahita-chaitanya witnesses mithyA
entities.

SAkshi-tva/Ishwara-tva of sAkshI/Ishwara is mithyA. SAkshI/Ishwara per se
is not mithyA.

//because Mithyā is relational, without deluded there can't be any
delusion.//

True.

//Now Brhaman couldn't be in delusion, then who//

JIva i.e. avidyA-pratibimbita-chaitanya is under delusion.

//If Advaitin says Sākşin (witness/observer) is in delusion (because
majority of Advaitins like Sureśvara, Sarvajñātına, Citsukha, Appaya
Dikşita, Rāmādvaya etc believes that Sākşin is not Brahman from absolute
standpoint i.e it's also Mithyā) then it won't make sense because Sākşin
remains untouched by delusion & moreover the problems for Advaitins will
increase because then the question will that if Sākşin is also Mithya then
who has this misconception of all of these - "Individual, world, God, Māyā
& Sākşin"?//

SAkshI is not mithyA. SAkshi-tva is mithyA. Opponent has not understood the
teaching of Advaita masters and has erroneously understood that sAkshI is
mithyA.

//and if you say that Sākşin is not Mithyā (because minority of Advaitins
like Padmapāda & Vācaspati Miśra believes it's Brahman) then it also won't
make sense that Sākşin is in delusion.//

SAkshI is stated as sAkshI from the frame of reference of avidyA. From the
frame of reference of non-avidyA, sAkshI is Brahman.

//Therefore it's clear that there's no one except Brahman who could be in
delusion & acc. to Advaita Brahman couldn't be in delusion & now if
Advaitin says that it's Mithyā itself which is in delusion or in other
words "misconception is having misconception of misconception" or it's
"delusion who's having delusion of delusion" then it's utterly illogical
argument; Moreover Śankara himself had said that//

Brahman is not and cannot be under delusion. JIva which is
avidyA-pratibimbita-chaitanya is also satya in pratibimba-vAda. However,
since upAdhi is pratibimba-paksha-pAtI, there is no error in posting jIva
to be under delusion.

JIva and avidyA co-appear. Like the dream and dream-I. The dream-I is
deluded and it is co-terminus with dream. Similarly, avidyA and
avidyA-pratibimbita-chaitanya are co-terminus. There is no anavasthA. And
there is drishTAnta of dream.

//like fire can't burn itself, in same way Brahman can't know itself//

Brahman is swa-prakAsha and does not need anything else for its
illumination. There is no question of Brahman knowing itself like Ram
knowing a table.

//Shankaracharya Commentary on Bṛhadāranyaka Upaniṣad -if fire can't burn
itself then how could "delusion could have delusion of delusion"?//

Deluded and delusion can co-appear. There is drishTAnta of that in dream.

//If Advaitin says there's no one who's deluded by "Mithyā because Mithyā
is also Mithya" then it implies that Mithyā is Satya (real) i.e it's not
Mithyā it's reality.//

We hold that jIva is deluded.

//In this way this whole doctrine of Mithya of Advaita Vedānta is untenable
& if this doctrine is untenable then their non duality is also untenable.//

The objections reveal shallow understanding of Advaita. As detailed above,
Advaita is faultless.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.