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

Venkatraghavan S agnimile at gmail.com
Tue Dec 28 23:50:29 EST 2021

shrI Sudhanshu ji,

On Tue, 28 Dec 2021, 23:17 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>

> //tucCha also has kAraNatva abhAva, but it is asat, not mithyA.//
> This is not yet proved.
This is the argument that the opponent makes against us - we accept that
tucCha is asat. So he will say - you advaitins agree that tucCha is asat
and also agree that it has kAraNatva abhAva. So such an anumAna can be
directed against the advaitin.

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).

The abhAva being bhAvAtmaka is acceptable to us, but not the opponent. So
Shankaracharya's bhAShya cannot be invoked as support for it when directing
the argument against such an opponent.

> //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.
> 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
> Devadatta will be mithyA only.

Yes both are mithyA, but daNDa is vyAvahArika, Devadatta is prAtibhAsika.
So on that basis, the former is certainly of a higher order than the
latter. This approach has been taken in the dvitIyamithyAtva chapter.



More information about the Advaita-l mailing list