[Advaita-l] Can a mithyA-vastu produce an effect? असत्यवस्तुनः अर्थक्रियाकारित्वम्
vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Fri May 20 05:02:10 CDT 2011
2011/5/19 Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com>:
>> The Badhaka Jnana will be negating the object Jnana Vishaya but not
>> Jnana. The silver is false but nobody can say I did not have
>> experience of seeing silver. Nobody can say I did not have experience
> How so? You see a piece of shiny shell, think it is silver and get a jnAna of
> the form "this is silver". You pick up the object, realize it is only shell and
> get a second jnAna of the form, "this is not silver."
> Is it your contention that both the first jnAna, "this is silver", and the second
> jnAna, "this is not silver", are real? They cannot both be true of the same
> thing and the same person at the same time. So, what is your definition of
> "real" then?
But they both are not happening at the same time. First Jnana this is
silver happens before and second Jnana this is not silver happens at
later time. The first Jnana is not false because there was experience
of silver at earlier time. Nobody can say there was no experience
earlier. The second Jnana will say this is not silver but it cannot
negate the first experience. It is like this. A man may enjoy a woman
in dream and has a climax. A boy may see a tiger in a dream and wet
his bed. When he wakes up can he say I know the woman was unreal.
Nothing happened to me? The woman was unreal and there was no real
experience? How can he say nothing happened to him and to his body?
How can the boy say I saw unreal tiger and nothing happened to me
because I know the tiger is unreal. The silver is unreal but both
Jnanas this is silver and this is not silver are real but not at the
same time. There is no confusion.
This whole discussion has a purpose of making only real vastu cause
real effect but unreal vastu cannot cause real effect.
> As per advaita, the bAdhita jnAna and the bAdhaka jnAna cannot be at the
> same level of reality, merely because they are both called jnAna. That is why
> in advaita, care is taken to talk about vRtti-jnAna and pramA-jnAna. The
> bAdhita jnAna is merely a mano-vRtti, which appears to be real to you, only
> so long as there is no bAdha occuring as a result of pramANa janita jnAna.
But you cannot call any Jnana as unreal because it has a real
experience with it.
> The operation of bAdha makes it clear to you, "even when I thought it was
> silver, it was not silver." Your jnAna, "this is silver" was erroneous even when
> you thought it was true. You realize that you were the one who was attributing
> the quality of silver-ness to a shell. The silver-ness was not true when you
> attributed it, is not true now, when you realize it is only shell and will never be
> true in the future. That is what is bAdha.
Here the Sribhashya Page 120 has arguments for actually silver-ness in
a shell. In Purva Mimamsa they say when Soma plant is not available
Putika sprouts can be used Somaabhave Putikagrahanam Sruticoditam
because in Putika there are parts of Soma plant in Putika
Somavayayavasadbhavaditi Nyayavido Viduhu. Like this there is silver
in shell. This is known from Sruti only. Suktadau Rajatadesca Bhavaha
Srutyaiva Bodhitaha. There is actual silver in shell. But it is small
part. There is large part Bhuyastva of shell. Because of defect in
eye and so on sometimes we see only silver part in shell and not see
shell part. But the Jnana of silver in shell is true - Page 120.
> Let me grant your contention that the bAdhita jnAna is nevertheless real. Was
> the jnAna "this is silver" a result of the object you saw, or caused by your own
> error? If it was caused by the object and you agree to the mithyAtva of the
> vishaya, then you are agreeing that a mithyA-silver can cause a real jnAna of
> the form "this is silver". If it was caused by your error, then you have to take a
> stance on the satyatva or mithyAtva of your error. If your error is satya, then
> you are saying that both truth and error can be satya, which is nonsensical. If
> your error is mithyA, then you are again agreeing that a mithyA error can cause
> a real jnAna.
> So, even what you present as an objection ends up agreeing with the idea that
> a mithyA vastu can lead to a satya effect!
All this objection is answered like in Page 120. The silver is really
there. Not seeing small part of silver and seeing large part of shell
but large part of silver only. This happened. When you see shell in
bright light large part of shell is saying it is shell. The Advaiti
calls silver Mithya but the Visishtadvaiti says it is not Mithya at
By now you see the big objective of the author of Sribhashya. He is
proving if Sastra can reveal real Brahman it cannot be unreal. No
Mithya Vastu can reveal a Satya Vastu. Sastra is real. Brahman is
real. But Advaiti is saying Sastra is unreal and still it reveals
Brahman. This is the mistake according to the Sribhashya.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list