[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Dr. Hegde: Key differences: SSS & PSA -- a fresh voice

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Michael Ji,

Reg // I was to say, suddha brahman is the only ontic and any relationship
is epistemological only, and end it there //,

If the intention is to maintain no ontic other than Brahman, that would be
incorrect even as per above statement. Remember epistemological is mental,
and that needs mind/vrittis etc. All these are ontic only. True they do not
need  ontic objects external to mind. But that does not mean no ontic
entities at all other than Brahman. Mind/vrittis etc demand ontic status.

Reg  //  To ask "what is the ontological status of the relation between
Self and non-Self?" is therefore to take the explanandum (the false
coupling) and demand for it the dignity of a real connection — which is
precisely the demand SSS spends his corpus refusing //,

I had mentioned about this in another post addressed to you recently which
I am copying below for ready reference. You have again mentioned here about
 ** dignity of a real connection ** . You did not respond to my earlier
post copied below

//  Namaste Michael Ji,

*You*

//  *SSS drops smṛtirūpaḥ and pūrvadṛṣṭāvabhāsaḥ from the essential
definition only for the beginningless ātma–anātma adhyāsa, because those
terms fit laukika/sādya adhyāsa such as rope-snake, shell-silver //*

*And*

*//  As per Sugama,  “The two adjectives, such
as smṛtirūpaḥ and pūrvadṛṣṭāvabhāsaḥ are used here… to include the
superimposition of the worldly instances, such as silver upon the
sea-shell…” //,*

*//  As per Sugama,  “‘smṛtirūpaḥ pūrvadṛṣṭāvabhāsaḥ’ is only for
clarifying the definition of adhyāsa having a beginning; it should not be
forgotten that it does not enter into the body of the definition of the
present adhyāsa.” //,*

*Me*

I entirely agree. That is how Sri SSS characterizes  in Sugama. But it is
*his* *declaration*. Where does such a declaration leave Sri Bhagavatpada
who does not make such a distinction *while defining adhyAsa in the context
of his opening statement* . The definition is preceded by ** आह —
कोऽयमध्यासो नामेति । (Aha — ko.ayamadhyAso nAmeti | ) **. What is
*this* adhyAsa?.
Sri SSS shifts the emphasis in this to read as ** What is this *adhyAsa*?
** and considers this as the general definition adhyAsa , and not as
specifically addressing *this* adhyAsa. Sri SSS himself violates what he
himself states above, namely  ** *definition of the present adhyāsa **. * That
not only defeats the intent of the definition, but also leaves Sri
Bhagavatpada open to be shown up as being casual and irresponsible while
defining such important terms. This is quite unacceptable. This is just my
point. Every term used for the definition must be given full weightage
considering the context in which it is defined. Curtailment as done in
sugama is unacceptable.

*You*

//  So there are two different senses of tādātmya:

   1. *Real tādātmya-sambandha* between ātman and anātman — SSS rejects
   this entirely.
   2. *Falsely cognized tādātmya*, as in “I am this body/mind” — SSS makes
   this central

*Me*

Why restrict it to only two. Why not three. Third one being

3.       False (mithyA or AdhyAsika) tAdAtmya sambanda between Atman and
anAtman.

This is exactly my point. I am not suggesting ** real tAdAtmya sambanda **.
AdhyAsika only. The definition of adhyAsa given by Sri Bhagavatpada admits
of such an interpretation. Just to pointout one reference from the bhAshya
for such understanding, BSB 2-2-38 ** ब्रह्मवादिनः कथमिति चेत् , न; तस्य
तादात्म्यलक्षणसम्बन्धोपपत्तेः । ** (brahmavAdinaH kathamiti chet , na;
tasya tAdAtmyalakShaNasambandhopapatteH |).

*You*

//  *satyānṛte mithunīkṛtya*, *anyonyātmatā*, and *anyonya-dharma-adhyāsa*—with
the important proviso that this tādātmya is *false appearance*, not real
relation //.

*Me*

Agreed. That holds good with three alternatives as well. //.

Reg        // There's a sharper point hiding in the word "mutual." At its
root the superimposition is *tādātmya* — false identity ("*aham idam*," I
am this body) — not *saṃsarga*, relation. "Relation" is already the wrong
category for an identity-error: there is no relation between A and A, only
a collapse mistaken for unity.//,

Excuse me for asking. Is this from Claude or your statement? I will respond
subsequently if needed.
Regards


>>>>
>>>>