[Advaita-l] Does Brahman's svaprakAshatvam make it mithyA?

Bhaskar YR bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Thu Apr 20 06:20:21 EDT 2017

praNAms Sri Anand prabhuji
Hare Krishna

>  I am really afraid, quite conspicuously something which is very important in understanding the similarity between mithyA and anirvachaneeya is missing here from my side.  Kindly allow me to share my thoughts.  

MithyA and anirvachanIya mean the same thing, sadasadvilakShaNa. 

>  can we categorically conclude that which is already determined as 'mithyA' will be anirvachaneeya as well ??  As per my understanding 'mithyA' is kevala buddhi parikalpita (adhyAsa) due to the absence of jnana.  It is the lack of rajju jnana I see mithyA vastu i.e. sarpa in place of rajju.  And at the time of congnition of sarpa (pre jnana period) I definitely would not have the saMshaya whether it is rajju or sarpa and in the sphere of that ajnAna I readily take the rajju as sarpa only without any doubt and act accordingly.  And after the dawn of correct knowledge of rajju (post jnana period) I again, definitely would not have the saMshaya whether it is rajju or sarpa and in that state I have the yathArtha jnana of rajju without any trace of mithyAjnAna i.e. sarpa.  Yes ofcourse, as you have observed in the post jnana period,  I realize that in place of 'rajju' I was (wrongly) seeing sarpa and sarpa was not there.  In this scenario, at any point of time do I say there was some anirvachaneeya sarpa in place of rajju or do I attribute anywhere sad-asad vilakshaNatva to the rajju or sarpa  especially when I realized that the sarpa which I was cognizing was 'kevala kalpita jneya vastu' due to absence of correct knowledge of 'rajju'??  

>  Further anirvachaneeyatvaM can be attributed to any vastu which is simultaneously perceived either by direct perception or through the shAstra (or vichAra jnana) When we perceive the foam  it cannot be defined to be identical with water or quite distinct from water.  Likewise, when we perceive pot (kArya) it cannot be defined to be identical with clay or quite distinct from clay.  Because in mrut sAmAnya there is no vyavahAra that pot can do i.e. holding water etc.  But again at the same time this pot is NOT quite distinct from clay either because without clay there is no existence of pot.  So, IMHO, tatvAnyatvAbhyAmanirvachaneeya more suited to mrudghata rather than rajju-sarpa.  Because illusory sarpa from the beginning till one gets the right knowledge is only a mental illusion of the ajnAni who lacks the correct knowledge of rajju.  So an illusory effect (sarpa) that appears on the rope, the cause is really non-existent and there is no room at all for sad-asad vilakshaNam in this.  Whereas in the examples of mrud-ghata or water-foam due to vyabhichArtvaM (changing nature) we cannot categorically conclude whether it Is mrud or ghata, water or foam.  

Although the traikAlika-niShedha holds for both the mithyA and asad vastu, the crucial difference is that a mithyA vastu is perceived as existing (sattvena pratIyamAna) in some substratum (adhiShThAna). 

>  I am still struggling to understand / reconcile the meaning of  the term asatyaM /anrutaM in line with shankara bhAshya yadrUpeNa nishchitaM yat tadrUpaM vyabhicharat anrutaM.  How can this definition be understood with regard to atyanta abhAva vastu like vandhyAputra or shashavichANa.  OTOH, this bhAshya vAkyArtha can easily be understood if this asatyatvaM is attributed to prakruti which is avyakta prior to srushti and after pralaya and vyakta in sthiti kAla.  A ring can get back to its substance gold  and from this substance gold  we can still get bangle or necklace or bracelet whatever we want.  Hence changing nature (vyabhichAratvaM) of bangle, ring, bracelet is frequent there is no nishchita rUpa for all these nAma rUpa hence asatyaM  but it is not illusory / mithyA  like sarpa on the rajju because wherever there is rajju jnana (yathArtha jnana)  there is absolutely no existence for mithyA jnana (ayathArthajnAna).  And this asatya effect would not deviate from its substance cause in all the three periods of time.  Hence shankara clarifies in sUtra bhAshya : Just as brahman the cause never deviates from existence in all the three periods of time, so also the effect the world never deviates from existence in all the three periods (srushti, sthiti and laya).  And existence again is ONLY one.  So for this reason also 'THE EFFECT IS NONE OTHER THAN THE CAUSE'.  (caps my preference).      

In simple terms, a rajju-sarpa, despite the realization that it never existed at any time, we do admit it was perceived for some time in the rajju. This does not happen for an asad vastu. We can never say that we saw the hare's horn somewhere for some time and then realized it never exists. Or, in even simpler terms, we have to admit a mithyA vastu to *appear* as real for some time in some place, but an asad vastu will never appear as real at any place or during any time period.

>  Kindly see above prabhuji.  And as you know what shankara says about asadvA idamagra Asit tatO vai sadajAyata..If we conclude that this asat is absolute not existent like shahavishANa then we are talking about something coming out of 'nothing'.  Hope that would not be the case here.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list