[Advaita-l] Mithya

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,
In the interests of simplicity, I've abstracted shortcut terms from our
conversations and will try to simplify the distinction in our
understanding. Following HH SSSS, I'll maintain the underlying theme as the
bhavarupa/abhavarupa avidya along with their presumptions, implications and
ramifications. This should be as much a test of my understanding of
Mulavidya vada as anything else. I'm sure you will correct misstatements

You say, snake as jnAna-adhyAsa that can be sublated by knowledge but not
artha-adhyAsa, like the difference between silver/shell and two moons. This
is maintained by distinguishing two shaktis - avarana and vikshepa.
Vikshepa shakti remains despite Self-Knowledge which dispels avarana shakti
alone. So saying this, a distinction is required between kArya-adhyAsa and
*Kāraṇa-adhyāsa* followed by sAkshi to maintain the sOpAdhika bhAvarupa adhyAsa
or jnana-adhyAsa. This results in the continuation of the prarAbdha karma
for the jivanmukta until the body falls, thus videha mukta. All this rests
on a bhAvarupa adhyAsa which is somehow different from mithya, defined as "if
x appears in y and yet x is ever non-existent in y, then x is stated to be
mithyA" followed by Citsukhi's 4 even more succinct definitions of that
which is non-existent.

All this is to justify Padmapada's mithya: "[" Mithyajnana nimitta iti
" —that which is mithya (erroneous) and at the same time, ajnana
(nescience) is mithyajnana.]
The word ' mithya ' means * inexpressible ' (anirvacanlya), and by the word
* ajnana ' is meant the potency of avidya which is of the nature of
insentience and is the negation of jnana. And ' tannimitta ' means * having
that (viz., mithyajnana) as the material cause.'

HH SSSS maintains that this formula continued after Padmapada in order to
defend against Ramanuja's sapta anupapatti-s and provide a rationale for
the apparent creation of dualism. It was thus necessary to posit mAyA as
the illusory creative bhavarupa force rather than avidya which is simply
the timeless and naturally erroneous superimposition of the illusion of
mAyA. Avidya understood as adhyAsa dispels the necessity for distinguishing
artha/jnAna, AvaraNa/vikshepa, sAkshi/substratum, sOpAdhika/nirupAdhPika, &
jIvanmukta/videhamukta (I believe that covers the key terms in your
previous responses)

Now, we can take each term and dissect them, such as bhasya on the 2 moons
error indicating absence of erroneous vision, "when the very knowership is
wiped off and the very procedure of pramana and prameya is sublated by the
Vedanta-text..." or BSbh1.1.4, on videha mukti, "That jñāni has a body is
only from vyavahāra driṣti. From a jñāni’s driṣti, he has no body; for,
that there is a body is mithya abhimāna only," but I ask you, for what
purpose? Does this aid our manana or fling us down a rabbit-hole of logical
nuance such as Citsukhi's 4 definitions of mithya? If it helps to keep our
minds rooted in the subject matter, great, that goes to jnana-abhyasa but
beyond a point does it help purge us of wrong notions or just create
additional ones. Are these two 'schools' of the same PTB as
Paramarthanandaji and Mani Dravid Sastri maintain or, is one correct, one
incorrect? I'll leave it there. 🙏🙏🙏

Abstract notes from prior conversations:
---artha-adhyAsa (snake) is a straightforward illusion. JnAna-adhyAsa
(snake-jnAna) //
---silver-shell and two moons. ... While the former is removed by
knowledge, the latter is not removed by knowledge.
--AvaraNa-shakti /. vikshepa-shakti.
*---Kārya-adhyāsa* - *Kāraṇa-adhyāsa* (Superimposition at the level of
causes)
---Prior and after the dispelling the avidyA-adhyAsa, the
redness-of-crystal is known by sAkshI. ---There is no loss of non-duality
as avidyA is accepted as illusory in siddhAnta and hence it is ever
non-existence in the substratum of its appearance, i.e. Self. So,
non-duality is not compromised.
   //...sOpAdhika - nirupAdhPika adhyAsa