[Advaita-l] Shabda-ajanya-vritti-vishayatva of tuchch

H S Chandramouli hschandramouli at gmail.com
Sun Dec 26 11:23:50 EST 2021

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

I am not sure if the following addresses the question you have raised. All
the same I am just presenting a possibility.

In his commentary on Sidhanta Bindu, Sri Abhyankara points out that
according to Bauddha (बौद्ध) view, substances are of four sorts, namely
pAramArthika,vyAvahArika, prAtibhAsika (imaginary with a substratum) and
Bauddha (बौद्ध) (imaginary without a substratum). The fourth category is
made up of purely fantastic substances such as the horn of a hare which is
a total impossibility  and is not a product of anything but is merely a
fantasy. He further says that it is stated in लघुशब्देन्दुशेखर-अर्थवत्सूत्र
(laghushabdendushekhara-arthavatsUtra)  that according to बौद्धदर्शन
(bauddhadarshana)  the words शशशृङ्ग (shashashRRi~Nga) खपुष्प (khapuShpa)
and others of that class have an inherent power to give rise to ideas of
the horn of a hare, sky-flower etc and that in view of the experiences of
dreams it is necessary to assume such a fourth category of substances.

(The above is taken from the commentary on Sidhanta Bindu by Sri P C

Perhaps the tIka is responding to such a proposition.

On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 12:19 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Hari Om,
> वस्तुतस्तु – शब्दाजन्यवृत्तिविषयत्वमेव दृश्यत्वम् ; अन्यथा शशविषाणं
> तुच्छमित्यादिशब्दजन्यवृतिर्विषये तुच्छे व्यभिचारस्य दुरुद्धरत्वात् । एवं च
> सति शुद्धस्य वेदान्तजन्यवृत्तिविषयत्वेऽपि न तत्र व्यभिचारः; तुच्छशुद्धयोः
> शब्दाजन्यवृत्तिविषयत्वानभ्युपगमात् ।
> In drishyatva-hetu-vichaar of Advaita Siddhi, it is said that both Brahman
> and tuchchha are shabda-janya-vritti-vishaya. And accordingly, drishyatva
> was defined as shabda-ajanya-vritti-vishayatva.
> This is quite logical also - as tIkA thereupon explains - that tuchchha and
> Brahman cannot be vishaya of a vritti generated by means other than shabda.
> Brahman, because it is nirdharmaka and hence cannot have sambandha with
> dharma like hetu and sAdhya. Tuchchha, because being asat - it cannot have
> sambandha with hetu and sAdhya.
> Having said this - when the discussion starts subsequently with यद्वा --
> the tIkA presents couple of anumAna to show that tuchchha is vishaya of
> anumAna-janya-vritti also and is not merely the vishaya of
> shabda-janya-vritti. And then goes on to refine the definition of
> drishyatva. The anunAna are -
> तुच्छं वृत्तिविषयः, व्यवह्रियमाणत्वात्, घटादिवत्।
> तुच्छं न क्षणिकम्, अकारणत्वात्, ब्रह्मवत्।
> My question is -- how is anunAna admissible when it is held that asat vastu
> cannot have sambandha with hetu/sAdhya rendering anunAna inapplicable for
> tuchchha. And hence why is the need for refining the definition of
> drishyatva when it is quite fitting to keep it at -
> shabda-ajanya-vritti-vishayatvam.
> Regards,
> Sudhanshu.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list