Sudhanshu Shekhar sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com
Tue Dec 28 12:47:22 EST 2021

```Venkataraghavan ji,

//kAraNatva abhAva need not be mithyA. shuddha brahma has kAraNatva abhAva,
but it is sat, not mithyA.//

If we see BU 1.2.1 and analyze AcharyA's logic, it goes as follows-
चतुर्विधानामभावानाम् , घटस्येतरेतराभावो घटादन्यो ष्टः — यथा घटाभावः
पटादिरेव, न घटस्वरूपमेव । न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ?
भावरूप एव । एवं घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात् ,
घटेन व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम्

Basically, the abhAva needs to be bhAvarUpa. After you pointed out, I feel
it can be mithyA or sat. But cannot be asat or tuchcha, as per the logic
given. My argument may be suitably modified as under - //So their abhAva,
akAraNatva and akshaNikatva will be non-tuchcha only//

//tucCha also has kAraNatva abhAva, but it is asat, not mithyA.//

This is not yet proved. This was my argument that neither akAraNatva (hetu)
nor akshaNikatva (sAdhya) can belong to tuchcha. My point is - kAraNatva is
bhAvarUpa, so as per BU 1.2.1 logic, kAraNatva-abhAva has to be bhAvarUpa
(non-tuchcha). And it cannot belong to tuchcha (because bhAvarUpa cannot
belong to tuchcha).

//Similarly akshaNikatva. shuddha brahma has akshaNikatva, but it is not
mithyA. Similarly tucCha - it is akshaNikam, but asat, not mithyA.//

Same logic as in case of akAraNatva. Since kshaNikatva is bhAvarUpa,
akshaNikatva shall be bhAvarUpa (including bhAva). Moreover, // Similarly
tucCha - it is akshaNikam, but asat, not mithyA// - can we make this
statement just like that - the opponent is using anumAna to prove this -
can we apply our gut feeling for this statement. I don't think so.

//To this, if it is said that in the cases presented, the substance is of a
higher order of reality and the attribute is of a lower order of reality
whereas in our prakaraNa, we are discussing asat (substance) can have or
cannot have akAraNatva (attribute), which for the sake of argument, let us
assume is mithyA (let us also assume that mithyA is notionally higher than

reality? The substance (Devadatta) is incorrect (mithyA), but the attribute
(daNDa) is correct (satya).

So, even if akAraNatva was mithyA why cannot it be said to be present in
tucCha?//

In the case of bhrama, can we argue like this - Devadatta is being
perceived out of ajnAna of Yajnadatta-avachchinna-chaitanya. So what is
being perceived as Devadatta is a product of avastha-ajnAna. danDa is a
product of mUla-ajnAna. Both danDa and Devadatta are products of ajnAna
only. Only that their avachchinna Chaitanya are different. So, as such,
does danDa have higher level of reality than Devadatta if we categorise the
reality as sat, mithyA and tuchcha? I don't think so. Both danDa and

Also the vyAkhyA itself explains this - शुद्धस्य ब्रह्मणो निर्धर्मकत्वेन
हेतु-साध्य-सम्बन्ध-असंभवात्, *तुच्छस्य अपि असतः सद्भिः हेतु-आदिभिः
सम्बन्ध-असम्भवात् इति भावः*। I have tried to base the entire argument on
this premise. Basically, between two bhAva-vastu, there can be sambandha.
So, sambandha between sat and mithyA can be possible, but sat/mithyA and
asat, that sambandha is impossible.

Please correct me if I am making some mistake anywhere.

Regards.
```