Mithya

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

In the interests of simplicity, I've abstracted shortcut terms from our conversations and will try to simplify the distinction in our understanding. Following HH SSSS, I'll maintain the underlying theme as the bhavarupa/abhavarupa avidya along with their presumptions, implications and ramifications. This should be as much a test of my understanding of Mulavidya vada as anything else. I'm sure you will correct misstatements

You say, snake as jnAna-adhyAsa that can be sublated by knowledge but not artha-adhyAsa, like the difference between silver/shell and two moons. This is maintained by distinguishing two shaktis - avarana and vikshepa. Vikshepa shakti remains despite Self-Knowledge which dispels avarana shakti alone. So saying this, a distinction is required between kArya-adhyAsa and Kāraṇa-adhyāsa followed by sAkshi to maintain the sOpAdhika bhAvarupa adhyAsa or jnana-adhyAsa. This results in the continuation of the prarAbdha karma for the jivanmukta until the body falls, thus videha mukta. All this rests on a bhAvarupa adhyAsa which is somehow different from mithya, defined as "if x appears in y and yet x is ever non-existent in y, then x is stated to be mithyA" followed by Citsukhi's 4 even more succinct definitions of that which is non-existent.

All this is to justify Padmapada's mithya: "[" Mithyajnana nimitta iti

" —that which is mithya (erroneous) and at the same time, ajnana (nescience) is mithyajnana.]
The word ' mithya ' means * inexpressible ' (anirvacanlya), and by the word * ajnana ' is meant the potency of avidya which is of the nature of insentience and is the negation of jnana. And ' tannimitta ' means * having that (viz., mithyajnana) as the material cause.'

HH SSSS maintains that this formula continued after Padmapada in order to defend against Ramanuja's sapta anupapatti-s and provide a rationale for the apparent creation of dualism. It was thus necessary to posit mAyA as the illusory creative bhavarupa force rather than avidya which is simply the timeless and naturally erroneous superimposition of the illusion of mAyA. Avidya understood as adhyAsa dispels the necessity for distinguishing artha/jnAna, AvaraNa/vikshepa, sAkshi/substratum, sOpAdhika/nirupAdhPika, & jIvanmukta/videhamukta (I believe that covers the key terms in your previous responses)

Now, we can take each term and dissect them, such as bhasya on the 2 moons error indicating absence of erroneous vision, "when the very knowership is wiped off and the very procedure of pramana and prameya is sublated by the Vedanta-text..." or BSbh1.1.4, on videha mukti, "That jñāni has a body is only from vyavahāra driṣti. From a jñāni’s driṣti, he has no body; for, that there is a body is mithya abhimāna only," but I ask you, for what purpose? Does this aid our manana or fling us down a rabbit-hole of logical nuance such as Citsukhi's 4 definitions of mithya? If it helps to keep our minds rooted in the subject matter, great, that goes to jnana-abhyasa but beyond a point does it help purge us of wrong notions or just create additional ones. Are these two 'schools' of the same PTB as Paramarthanandaji and Mani Dravid Sastri maintain or, is one correct, one incorrect? I'll leave it there. 🙏🙏🙏

Abstract notes from prior conversations: 

---artha-adhyAsa (snake) is a straightforward illusion. JnAna-adhyAsa (snake-jnAna) //

---silver-shell and two moons. ... While the former is removed by knowledge, the latter is not removed by knowledge.

--AvaraNa-shakti /. vikshepa-shakti.

---Kārya-adhyāsa - Kāraṇa-adhyāsa (Superimposition at the level of causes) 

---Prior and after the dispelling the avidyA-adhyAsa, the redness-of-crystal is known by sAkshI. ---There is no loss of non-duality as avidyA is accepted as illusory in siddhAnta and hence it is ever non-existence in the substratum of its appearance, i.e. Self. So, non-duality is not compromised. 

   //...sOpAdhika - nirupAdhPika adhyAsa

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji,

I appreciate your inclination and interest in the matter. However, the note by you at several places differs from what I said. I will give a detailed response later. First, I want you to answer some basic questions:

1. Is there a difference between silver-shell adhyAsa and two-moon adhyAsa?

2. If yes, then what is the difference?

3. If there is a difference, then what is the reason for the difference?

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Yes, surely we can understand the difference, illusion that appears with a form and illusion that appears without a corresponding form. There needn't be a presumption that the vision of two moons remains once the illusion is recognized. That is not the point of the illustration. The point is whether the form appeared or not, it is only the one moon which is right in front and is an object and that forms the substrate of the two moons just as the silver does for the non-form appearance of silver.  

Consider please, "It is only when something remains, that the desire to know it can possibly arise. But there is nothing else which remains to be known over and above the unity of the Atman. [Su.Bha 2-1-14] )" (with help from SSSS, Sugama)

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Yes, surely we can understand the difference, illusion that appears with a form and illusion that appears without a corresponding form.

What do you mean? Just as two-moons illusion has form, similarly silver-shell has a form. There is a form of extra moon, just as there is form of silver. 

There needn't be a presumption that the vision of two moons remains once the illusion is recognized.

This is not a presumption. This is a fact. Even when you tell the child that there is only one moon, he still sees two moons as long as the finger is present before the eyes. Clearly, despite cessation of ignorance, illusory form of second moon sustains.

Like mirage water. Even when you know that there is no water, the illusory form of water continues.

That is not the point of the illustration. The point is whether the form appeared or not, it is only the one moon which is right in front and is an object and that forms the substrate of the two moons just as the silver does for the non-form appearance of silver.  

What is this non-form appearance of silver and form appearance of moon? Sorry. This does not make any sense.

Consider please, "It is only when something remains, that the desire to know it can possibly arise. But there is nothing else which remains to be known over and above the unity of the Atman. [Su.Bha 2-1-14] )" (with help from SSSS, Sugama)

I don't understand its relevance to the distinction between the silver-shell adhyAsa and two-moons adhyAsa. 

Let us not digress and first appreciate the distinction between these two adhyAsa.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

The two examples are not distinguished by the characteristics of form, my mistake. But, it is also wrong to conclude the example is used in Adhyasa Bhasya to indicate the continuation of the wrong perception of two moons though it does serve that purpose elsewhere - sutra bhasya. It is unwarranted to use the example to point to Sankara's acceptance of some reality-grade bhavarupa avidya.

The two might also be distinguished as, silver/shell is smrti-rupa while two moons are without prior experience or silver/shell is the appearance one thing upon another; two moons is the appearance of duality upon non-dual. Bhasya mentions 3 alternative definitions of adhyasa. "The first view is that superimposition consists in imputing the characteristics of something to something else (Silver/Shell). The second view is that it is a delusion due to non-discrimination of the nature of two distinct things (again S/S). The third view is that it is merely imputing the opposite nature to a thing (one moon/two moons). Sankara says there is the view common to all these views that one thing appears to be of the nature of something else."

So, the vision but two moons continuing is not the necessary understanding of its distinction from Silver/shell. 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

The two examples are not distinguished by the characteristics of form, my mistake.

Fine. 

But, it is also wrong to conclude the example is used in Adhyasa Bhasya to indicate the continuation of the wrong perception of two moons though it does serve that purpose elsewhere - sutra bhasya. It is unwarranted to use the example to point to Sankara's acceptance of some reality-grade bhavarupa avidya.

Let us go very slow. Just appreciate the point I am trying to make. In case of silver-shell or snake-rope, the moment you know that it is a rope or shell, immediately the perception of snake or silver ceases.

However, in case of mirage-water or two moons, you are initially ignorant. When you come to know that it is not water but mirage, still the illusory water continues to be perceived. You don't run after it to quench thirst because your ignorance is removed, but the illusory water or two moons continue to remain seen. Isn't it? Am I talking something very strange? No. It is everyone's anubhava. Some errors are such that their perception ceases the moment ignorance goes while some errors are such that their perception continues despite cessation of ignorance. Isn't it?

The two might also be distinguished as, silver/shell is smrti-rupa while two moons are without prior experience or silver/shell is the appearance one thing upon another; two moons is the appearance of duality upon non-dual.

SSSS ji tries to in vain argue like this in SugamA leaving aside everyone's experience and of course the traditional teaching. He says the following:

He says that one can have a misunderstanding from shell-silver adhyAsa that wherever there is erroneous perception, it is necessary that erroneously perceived object actually exists somewhere else (like silver) and has been perceived before. He argues that second moon has nowhere been seen earlier. However, it still appears as if seen earlier. Thus, he distinguishes the two examples.

Tell me this Michael ji, how can SSSS ji say that the second moon is not smriti-rUpa. Moon has been experienced before, and that second moon, which is smriti-rUpa, is being seen in the single moon where the second-moon is not.

So, the claim of SSSS ji that the two examples are distinguished on the basis that in two-moon adhyAsa, there is no prior experience is downright erroneous.

The only way in which these two are distinguished is presence of upAdhi. As long as there is finger or timira-dOsha in the eye, irrespective of the fact of presence of absence of ignorance, you will have erroneous perception.

There is no upAdhi in silver-shell. There is upAdhi in two moons, mirage-water.

So, the vision but two moons continuing is not the necessary understanding of its distinction from Silver/shell. 

The evidence is before you. The issue is better appreciated in case of mirage-water. AchArya explains in Gita 2.16 also. Even when one does not have ignorance, illusory perception may continue. That is the bottom line.

I would request you to apply mind on this fundamental concept. We can come back after some time. 

This concept is the bedrock of correct understanding in SDV. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,
// However, in case of mirage-water or two moons, you are initially ignorant. When you come to know that it is not water but mirage, still the illusory water continues to be perceived. You don't run after it to quench thirst because your ignorance is removed, but the illusory water or two moons continue to remain seen.  //

Drstanta-s don't prove a point, they are merely supportive, teaching tools. It is arbitrary to conclude perceptions remain when truth is known by virtue of your examples alone.  The vision of two moons caused by cataract or drunkenness, is removed when the cause is corrected. SImilarly, there are mirages that remain and others that disappear when truth is known. Relying on two moons to prove illusory perception has a reality-status is a weak argument, imho

// There is no upAdhi in silver-shell. There is upAdhi in two moons, mirage-water. //
 So sorry, I don't follow. Prior experience of silver and glistening in the sun is the upadhi, no? And how does the existence of an upadhi prove independence from avidya? Is not the upAdhi, mithya as well? 

Please provide the citation you refer to from GIta 2.16

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Drstanta-s don't prove a point, they are merely supportive, teaching tools. It is arbitrary to conclude perceptions remain when truth is known by virtue of your examples alone. 

The perception of mirage-water continues despite knowing it to be a mirage. So, cessation of ignorance ipso facto does not imply cessation of perception. There is a contrary illustration of mirage-water. So, he who claims that cessation of ignorance implies cessation of perception is contradicted by mirage-water illustration.

This is the bedrock of srishTi-drishTi-vAda. 

The vision of two moons caused by cataract or drunkenness, is removed when the cause is corrected. SImilarly, there are mirages that remain and others that disappear when truth is known. Relying on two moons to prove illusory perception has a reality-status is a weak argument, imho.

I am not saying that illusory perception has reality-status. I have already said that there is non-existence of perceived object. Point is only this - despite ignorance having ceased, perception may continue in case the illusion is with upAdhi.

So sorry, I don't follow. Prior experience of silver and glistening in the sun is the upadhi, no?

Please peruse the concept of upAdhi. In summary, upAdhi is that hetu of adhyAsa which is bheda-hetu i.e. cause of difference. 

Take for e.g. ahamkAra-AtmA-aikya-adhyAsa. avidyA is the hetu here, but not bheda-hetu. So, avidyA is not upAdhi. And hence the adhyAsa is nirupAdhika. So, with avidyA removed, the ahamakAra-AtmA-aikya-adhyAsa ceases.

In case of jIva-Brahma-bheda-adhyAsa, avidyA is upAdhi. 

Please apply mind on the concept of upAdhi.

And how does the existence of an upadhi prove independence from avidya? Is not the upAdhi, mithya as well? 

It is. That is why vikshepa and AvaraNa are distinguished. 

Please provide the citation you refer to from GIta 2.16.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

namaste Sudhanshuji,
//The perception of mirage-water continues despite knowing it to be a mirage.//
--This is not always the case. There are mirages that do not continue as cited by Gaudapada and Sankara - Karika 2.6:
यत् आदौ अन्ते च नास्ति वस्तु मृगतृष्णिकादि तत् मध्येऽपि नास्ति इति निश्चितं लोके।
Yat ādau ante ca nāsti vastu mṛga-tṛṣṇikādi tat madhye ’pi nāsti iti niścitaṁ loke.
It is well-known in the world that what does not exist in the beginning and end, such as a mirage, also does not exist in the middle.

//So, he who claims that cessation of ignorance implies cessation of perception is contradicted by mirage-water illustration....
This is the bedrock of srishTi-drishTi-vAda.//
--Again, a drstanta does prove an axiom. The example can go either way as Karika 2.6 shows.
Why bring in SDV? DSV makes the same claim, no? Yet, Bhagavadpada Sankara teaches in several places that pramata, pramana, prameya depends on avidya. So how is perception to continue without avidya? Please answer this. I am assuming you do not require me to post vakyas say PPP depends on avidya.

//I am not saying that illusory perception has reality-status. I have already said that there is non-existence of perceived object//
-- You certainly do give perception reality-status by saying it continues. If ignorance is gone, there is non-duality alone. You give perception reality status as vyavahara satta and pratibhasa satta. Even in DSV, if mind is gone, how is perception to remain?

//In summary, upAdhi is that hetu of adhyAsa which is bheda-hetu //
--please, where is it said upAdhi is hetu of adhyAsa?
Instead, I read, "This mutual superimposition of the non-Self and the Self (atmānatmanor itaretara adhyāsaṁ) that is called avidya (avidya akhyam) is the basis (puraskṛtya) on which rest all the practical distinctions between means of knowledge and objects of knowledge (sarve pramāṇa prameya)," No mention here of an interceding entity between avidya and superimposition. The hetu of superimposition is not some imagined bhavarupa positive upAdhi but aviveka only. "on account of the superimposition upon each of the inherent nature (anyonyasmin anyonya ātmakatām) and attributes of the other (anyonyadharmāṁ), owing to the indiscrimination (avivekena) "

// So, with avidyA removed, the ahamakAra-AtmA-aikya-adhyAsa ceases.
In case of jIva-Brahma-bheda-adhyAsa, avidyA is upAdhi.//
--Lastly, I asked Chatgpt to discuss this statement. Initially, Chat said, "In jīva-Brahma bheda-adhyāsa, there is an error of differentiation (taking oneself to be different from Brahman), and avidyā functions as an upādhi, sustaining the illusion of duality.
The latter error requires not just the removal of ignorance but also the negation of the limiting adjuncts (upādhis) that ignorance imposes."

Then, I asked Chat to provide PTB citation where it is said that adhyasa cessation is necessary in addition to avidya cessation. Chat's response abbreviate: 

"Śaṅkara never states that avidyā-nivṛtti alone is insufficient or that upādhi needs separate removal. Instead, he clearly maintains that once ignorance is removed, all limiting adjuncts (upādhis) automatically lose their validity, as they were superimposed by ignorance alone."
-Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad Bhāṣya (BU 1.4.10)

• "tatra asya pūrvam ajñānam eva kāraṇam, na tu kāryaṁ vināśyaṁ kāraṇasya avināśāt"
• “Here, ignorance (ajñāna) alone is the cause; the effect (upādhi) does not have to be destroyed separately, because when the cause is removed, the effect does not remain.”

Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya (BSB 2.3.50)

• "avidyākṛtā hi ete bhāva-vikārāḥ pratyagātmani adhyasyante"
• “These modifications of existence (such as individuality) are superimposed upon the inner Self due to ignorance.”

Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya (BSB 4.1.3)

• "nāvidyā-nivṛttiḥ kiñcit kāryaṁ śeṣayati"
• “The removal of ignorance does not leave behind any further task to be done.”

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

This is not always the case. There are mirages that do not continue as cited by Gaudapada and Sankara - Karika 2.6:
यत् आदौ अन्ते च नास्ति वस्तु मृगतृष्णिकादि तत् मध्येऽपि नास्ति इति निश्चितं लोके।
Yat ādau ante ca nāsti vastu mṛga-tṛṣṇikādi tat madhye ’pi nāsti iti niścitaṁ loke.
It is well-known in the world that what does not exist in the beginning and end, such as a mirage, also does not exist in the middle.

Again, a drstanta does prove an axiom. The example can go either way as Karika 2.6 shows.

See, I am not using drishTAnta to prove any axiom. I am using drishTAnta to disprove your claim that "illusory perception must cease with cessation of ignorance". If someone makes a proposition, then even one instance violating the proposition is enough to reject the claim. I agree with you that an axiom cannot be proved by drishTAnta. But even a single contrary drishTAnta is enough to reject a proposition. This is what I highlighted.

Why bring in SDV? DSV makes the same claim, no?

No. In the case of DSV, the concept of jIvanmukti itself is treated as arthavAda. Since only one jIva is admitted, the world-Brahman adhyAsa is accepted as nirupAdhika only. 

Yet, Bhagavadpada Sankara teaches in several places that pramata, pramana, prameya depends on avidya. So how is perception to continue without avidya? Please answer this. I am assuming you do not require me to post vakyas say PPP depends on avidya.

That is why AchArya says that even if pramAtA-pramANa-prameya are sublated (bAdhita), still like two-moons they continue for some time as long as prArabdha continues. That is the standard answer in SDV. In BSB 4.1.15, AchArya says - बाधितमपि तु मिथ्याज्ञानं द्विचन्द्रज्ञानवत्संस्कारवशात्कंचित्कालमनुवर्तत एव । - Translation - even though mithyAjnAna is sublated, still owing to samskAra, like two-moons, the mithyA-jnAna continues for some time.

What do you reckon here - what is it that AchArya says to continue like second-moon? And please note, AchArya uses two-moon example. In GItA 2.16, He uses mirage-water example. These examples show that He has sOpAdhika-adhyAsa in mind.

You certainly do give perception reality-status by saying it continues. If ignorance is gone, there is non-duality alone. You give perception reality status as vyavahara satta and pratibhasa satta. Even in DSV, if mind is gone, how is perception to remain?

vyAvahArika-"sattA"/prAtibhAsika-"sattA" does not mean that one gives reality to the perception. You need to get the definitions of these terms correctly. 

Please understand - the reality/existence is only pAramArthika. And that is chaitanya. What is referred as vyAvahArika-sattA is defined as mUlAvidyA-kArya-avachchhinna-chaitanya. PrAtibhAsika-sattA is defined as pallava-avidyA-kArya-avachchhinna-chaitanya. BhagvAn LaghuchandrikAkAra says in page 402 - त्रिविधसत्त्वानां लक्षणानि तूक्तानि । पल्लवाविद्याकार्यगतं चैतन्यं प्रातीतिकं सत्त्वम् । मूलाविद्याकार्यगतं व्यावहारिकम् । शुद्धचिदूपं पारमार्थिकमित्यादि तत्वदीपनाद्युक्तम् । So, let us not misunderstand the siddhAnta that reality is being granted by using terms such as vyAvahArika-sattA and prAtibhAsika-sattA. It is only the shuddha chaitanya which has reality. And like delimited AkAsha in pot and jar, the delimited chaitanya is called vyAvahArika and prAtibhAsika sattA when the delimiting agents are mUlAvidyA-kArya and pallava-avidyA-kArya respectively.

//In summary, upAdhi is that hetu of adhyAsa which is bheda-hetu //

please, where is it said upAdhi is hetu of adhyAsa?

This concept is explained in detail in PUrNAnandIyA - यो भेदहेतुः स उपाधिरिति नियमो ह्यनुभवसिद्धः यथा चन्द्रे ह्यनेकचन्द्रत्वे अङ्गुल्यादिस्तथा चाहङ्कारात्मनोरैक्याध्यासे अविद्यादेः भेदकत्वाभावान्नपाधित्वं किन्तु हेतुत्वमात्रं तस्यैवाविद्यादेः ब्रह्मजीवान्तरभेदकत्वात्तदध्यासे तूपाधित्वं तस्मान्निरुपाधिकः सोपाधिकश्चेति द्विविधोऽध्यास इत्यभिप्रेत्यावतारयति – आत्मनीति ।

 

Instead, I read, "This mutual superimposition of the non-Self and the Self (atmānatmanor itaretara adhyāsaṁ) that is called avidya (avidya akhyam) is the basis (puraskṛtya) on which rest all the practical distinctions between means of knowledge and objects of knowledge (sarve pramāṇa prameya)," No mention here of an interceding entity between avidya and superimposition. The hetu of superimposition is not some imagined bhavarupa positive upAdhi but aviveka only. "on account of the superimposition upon each of the inherent nature (anyonyasmin anyonya ātmakatām) and attributes of the other (anyonyadharmāṁ), owing to the indiscrimination (avivekena) "

One of the kArya of avidyA namely prArabdha can act as upAdhi. Since by jnAna, only AvaraNa is removed and not vikshepa, the prArabdha can continue.

Regarding ChatGPT responses, I appreciate your sincerity but I am sorry that I won't be replying to them unless you present it in your own words. It is a reasonable ask, I suppose.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,

I haven't been following the discussion, so maybe I am missing something, but this exchange caught my eye:

On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 8:35 AM Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

//The perception of mirage-water continues despite knowing it to be a mirage.//

 

--This is not always the case. There are mirages that do not continue as cited by Gaudapada and Sankara - Karika 2.6:
यत् आदौ अन्ते च नास्ति वस्तु मृगतृष्णिकादि तत् मध्येऽपि नास्ति इति निश्चितं लोके।

The gauDapAdakArikA mentioned here is not talking about the perception of the object, it is talking about the existence of the object. I thought the original comment ("The perception of mirage-water continues despite knowing it to be a mirage") was about the perception of the mirage continuing, not about its existence. 

 

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkat ji.

The gauDapAdakArikA mentioned here is not talking about the perception of the object, it is talking about the existence of the object. I thought the original comment ("The perception of mirage-water continues despite knowing it to be a mirage") was about the perception of the mirage continuing, not about its existence. 

Absolutely.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

[Bhaskar YR]

 

--This is not always the case. There are mirages that do not continue as cited by Gaudapada and Sankara - Karika 2.6:
यत् आदौ अन्ते च नास्ति वस्तु मृगतृष्णिकादि तत् मध्येऽपि नास्ति इति निश्चितं लोके।

The gauDapAdakArikA mentioned here is not talking about the perception of the object, it is talking about the existence of the object. I thought the original comment ("The perception of mirage-water continues despite knowing it to be a mirage") was about the perception of the mirage continuing, not about its existence. 

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Me too, not following this discussion closely as it is year end for me at office.  And IMHO, mere perception of the mirage water is not the problem, taking it as real water (satyatva buddhi) and planning our activities accordingly is the problem.  The prAtibhAsika satya the mirage water which is given here as an example is again depends on some substratum.  When the ground or asphalted road is hot,  from certain distance it appears like water, but it is not water though the appearance of water dependent on some Asare i.e. either ground or road . And such appearance observed under special conditions of nature.   The point to be noted here is that the appearance of mirage water formed is only according to the natural laws. (pancha bhUtAtmika).   Therefore, it is not atyanta abhAva / mere illusory, but prAtibhAsika satya, a virtual reality.  So I don’t think mere perception/appearance of mirage water is wrong knowledge it is indeed a correct knowledge of a prAtibhAsika Satya.  Since this appearance of mirage water is same for even those who donot have any eyesight problem.  But when I started acting as if mirage water as real water (existing water or vyAvahArika satya) then it is wrong knowledge since water in this referent is a bhrAnti.  But again, though the water here in this analogy water is non-existent, it has been called as prAtibhAsika satya, the reason for designating the mirage water as prAtibhAsika satya is because the satyasya satya brahman is the basis/adhishtAnam/Asare for the appearance. As said above, this prAtibhAsika satya can be perceptible for anyone who has no fault in their eyesight and the mirage which is formed according to the prAkrutik niyama.  For this appearance of bhrAnti jala, one has to see the hot ground or road only from certain distance and in this way it is only brahman, the substratum that is the base for this appearance also; therefore the mirage is not an illusion; the appearance needs the platform and appearance is not the illusion as it is invariably appearing as water to all.  Because of this uniformity in appearance to everyone it is called the prAtibhAsika satya and not as bhrAnti.  In this way the one parama satya brahman which is the basis for both the vyAvahArika satya and the prAtibhAsika satya. But it is quite obvious that the vyAvahArika satya water is more satya compared to prAtibhAsika satya  since the later satya cannot practically serve the purpose of our vyavahAra.  And the pAramArthika satya is less satya compared to pAramArthika satya and in anyway these two satya-s cannot live on its own without the base of pAramArthika satya.  satyaMchAnrutaMcha satyamabhavat yadidam kiMcha, asserts shruti.  So, therefore, mere perception of duality is not the avidyA taking it as real and thinking of its independent existence is the avidyA.  jnAni-s would see him in each and everything hence prahlaada confidently said to his father nArAyaNa is there in the pillar also 😊 It is that brahman only that pervades vyAvahArika or prAtibhAsika satya-s or everything. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Simha Hnln]

Refer to बाधितानुवृत्ति

The experience of a JNAANI after realisation .... मिथ्यात्वनिश्चयः।

🕉️

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB6638EFC764ED422ECD9E0F4C84D82%40VI1PR06MB6638.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Simha Hnln]

न अप्रतीतिस्तयोर्बाधः। किन्तु मिथ्यात्वनिश्चयः।👍

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Is the jnAna (paramArtha jnAna) would bring us the sudden death to say our dehOpAdhi, jagat etc. is just avidyAkruta / illusionary after dawn of jnAna everything vanishes like snake on the rope!!??  Nope!!  The Jagat is being seen even by paramArtha jnAni but they have seen it as brahman. That is the reason why it is wrong to say that the jagat in front of us is illusory.  Then what is mithyA or bhrAnti jnAna ??  the jagat is different, the jagat is asarvam, abrahman is the mithyAjnAna and this wrong knowledge is completely absent in paramArtha jnAni.  Though he is seeing pot, pitcher etc. he knows and have the firm / undoubted knowledge (nissamshaya jnAna) that mruttiketyeva satyaM. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

न अप्रतीतिस्तयोर्बाधः। किन्तु मिथ्यात्वनिश्चयः।👍

 

On Thu, Mar 20, 2025, 3:31 PM Simha Hnln <simhahn...@gmail.com> wrote:

Refer to बाधितानुवृत्ति

The experience of a JNAANI after realisation .... मिथ्यात्वनिश्चयः।

🕉️

 

On Thu, Mar 20, 2025, 3:28 PM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

 

--This is not always the case. There are mirages that do not continue as cited by Gaudapada and Sankara - Karika 2.6:
यत् आदौ अन्ते च नास्ति वस्तु मृगतृष्णिकादि तत् मध्येऽपि नास्ति इति निश्चितं लोके।

The gauDapAdakArikA mentioned here is not talking about the perception of the object, it is talking about the existence of the object. I thought the original comment ("The perception of mirage-water continues despite knowing it to be a mirage") was about the perception of the mirage continuing, not about its existence. 

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Me too, not following this discussion closely as it is year end for me at office.  And IMHO, mere perception of the mirage water is not the problem, taking it as real water (satyatva buddhi) and planning our activities accordingly is the problem.  The prAtibhAsika satya the mirage water which is given here as an example is again depends on some substratum.  When the ground or asphalted road is hot,  from certain distance it appears like water, but it is not water though the appearance of water dependent on some Asare i.e. either ground or road . And such appearance observed under special conditions of nature.   The point to be noted here is that the appearance of mirage water formed is only according to the natural laws. (pancha bhUtAtmika).   Therefore, it is not atyanta abhAva / mere illusory, but prAtibhAsika satya, a virtual reality.  So I don’t think mere perception/appearance of mirage water is wrong knowledge it is indeed a correct knowledge of a prAtibhAsika Satya.  Since this appearance of mirage water is same for even those who donot have any eyesight problem.  But when I started acting as if mirage water as real water (existing water or vyAvahArika satya) then it is wrong knowledge since water in this referent is a bhrAnti.  But again, though the water here in this analogy water is non-existent, it has been called as prAtibhAsika satya, the reason for designating the mirage water as prAtibhAsika satya is because the satyasya satya brahman is the basis/adhishtAnam/Asare for the appearance. As said above, this prAtibhAsika satya can be perceptible for anyone who has no fault in their eyesight and the mirage which is formed according to the prAkrutik niyama.  For this appearance of bhrAnti jala, one has to see the hot ground or road only from certain distance and in this way it is only brahman, the substratum that is the base for this appearance also; therefore the mirage is not an illusion; the appearance needs the platform and appearance is not the illusion as it is invariably appearing as water to all.  Because of this uniformity in appearance to everyone it is called the prAtibhAsika satya and not as bhrAnti.  In this way the one parama satya brahman which is the basis for both the vyAvahArika satya and the prAtibhAsika satya. But it is quite obvious that the vyAvahArika satya water is more satya compared to prAtibhAsika satya  since the later satya cannot practically serve the purpose of our vyavahAra.  And the pAramArthika satya is less satya compared to pAramArthika satya and in anyway these two satya-s cannot live on its own without the base of pAramArthika satya.  satyaMchAnrutaMcha satyamabhavat yadidam kiMcha, asserts shruti.  So, therefore, mere perception of duality is not the avidyA taking it as real and thinking of its independent existence is the avidyA.  jnAni-s would see him in each and everything hence prahlaada confidently said to his father nArAyaNa is there in the pillar also 😊 It is that brahman only that pervades vyAvahArika or prAtibhAsika satya-s or everything. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB6638EFC764ED422ECD9E0F4C84D82%40VI1PR06MB6638.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAE46tB%2BjYeDzU2TedkWitJEpr1T%3DXO-TpuQ1CxvFG3ym0eO6Ow%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.

The Jagat is being seen even by paramArtha jnAni but they have seen it as brahman. That is the reason why it is wrong to say that the jagat in front of us is illusory.  Then what is mithyA or bhrAnti jnAna ??  the jagat is different, the jagat is asarvam, abrahman is the mithyAjnAna and this wrong knowledge is completely absent in paramArtha jnAni.  Though he is seeing pot, pitcher etc. he knows and have the firm / undoubted knowledge (nissamshaya jnAna) that mruttiketyeva satyaM. 

So, the paramArtha-jnAnI does not see the world as mithyA is what your claim is. Let us see what BhAshyakAra says - त्वमपि तत्त्वदर्शिनां दृष्टिमाश्रित्य शोकं मोहं च हित्वा शीतोष्णादीनि नियतानियतरूपाणि द्वन्द्वानि ‘विकारोऽयमसन्नेव मरीचिजलवन्मिथ्यावभासते’ इति मनसि निश्चित्य तितिक्षस्व इत्यभिप्रायः ॥ १६ ॥

BhAshyakAra is narrating the experience of tattva-darshI - which is - this vikAra is non-existent (asat) and like mirage-water, it is appearing as an illusion.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Bhaskar Prabhu ji,

So, the paramArtha-jnAnI does not see the world as mithyA is what your claim is. Let us see what BhAshyakAra says - त्वमपि तत्त्वदर्शिनां दृष्टिमाश्रित्य शोकं मोहं च हित्वा शीतोष्णादीनि नियतानियतरूपाणि द्वन्द्वानि ‘विकारोऽयमसन्नेव मरीचिजलवन्मिथ्यावभासते’ इति मनसि निश्चित्य तितिक्षस्व इत्यभिप्रायः ॥ १६ ॥

BhAshyakAra is narrating the experience of tattva-darshI - which is - this vikAra is non-existent (asat) and like mirage-water, it is appearing as an illusion.

Saying that "world before me is Brahman" is identical to saying "world before me is non-existent illusory appearance". This is because the statement "world before me is Brahman" is explained as bAdhAyAma-sAmAnAdhikaraNya.

This is so beautifully explained in Ribhu GItA 21.39. Please check

सर्वं मिथ्या न सन्देहः सर्वं चिन्मात्रमेव हि ।
अस्ति चेत्कारणं सत्यं कार्यं चैव भविष्यति ॥   

The illusoriness of world and Brahman-hood of the world are identical statements.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

So, the paramArtha-jnAnI does not see the world as mithyA is what your claim is. Let us see what BhAshyakAra says - त्वमपि तत्त्वदर्शिनां दृष्टिमाश्रित्य शोकं मोहं च हित्वा शीतोष्णादीनि नियतानियतरूपाणि द्वन्द्वानि ‘विकारोऽयमसन्नेव मरीचिजलवन्मिथ्यावभासते’ इति मनसि निश्चित्य तितिक्षस्व इत्यभिप्रायः ॥ १६ ॥

BhAshyakAra is narrating the experience of tattva-darshI - which is - this vikAra is non-existent (asat) and like mirage-water, it is appearing as an illusion.

 

Ø     I have clarified what is mithyA in jnAni drushti, his is sarvAtmabhAva / samyakdrushti anything even an iota of deviation from that bhUma drushti is avidyA / mithyA drushti.  Eha brahmaNi nAnA nAsti kimchana aNumAtramapi,  what is avidyA timira drushti??  Eha brahmaNi nAnena pashyati and what is the result mrutyOrmrutyum gacchati.  So what would be the realization of paramArtha jnAni??  brahmaivedaM amrutaM purastAt\, brahma pashchAt, brahma dakshiNataH uttareNa, top, bottom, …..brahmaivedaM vishvamidaM varishTaM…There is no dviteeya Chandra, dviteeya chandra darshana mithyA darshana is only for the ajnAni-s…bhAshyakAra has said even for the jnAni-s also it may continue that does not mean to prove he is having mithyA jnAna in mUlAvidyA form…

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.

 Ø     I have clarified what is mithyA in jnAni drushti, his is sarvAtmabhAva / samyakdrushti anything even an iota of deviation from that bhUma drushti is avidyA / mithyA drushti.  Eha brahmaNi nAnA nAsti kimchana aNumAtramapi,  what is avidyA timira drushti??  Eha brahmaNi nAnena pashyati and what is the result mrutyOrmrutyum gacchati.  So what would be the realization of paramArtha jnAni??  brahmaivedaM amrutaM purastAt\, brahma pashchAt, brahma dakshiNataH uttareNa, top, bottom, …..brahmaivedaM vishvamidaM varishTaM…

Yes. And that Brahman-hood of stuff before, behind, left and right is IDENTICAL to illusoriness of stuff - that is what bAdhAyAm sAmAnAdhikaraNya means. BhAshyakAra explains -  ‘सर्वं ब्रह्म’ इति तु सामानाधिकरण्यं प्रपञ्चप्रविलापनार्थम्.

There is no dviteeya Chandra, dviteeya chandra darshana mithyA darshana is only for the ajnAni-s…bhAshyakAra has said even for the jnAni-s also it may continue that does not mean to prove he is having mithyA jnAna in mUlAvidyA form… 

Yes. So, for jnAnI also, like dvitIya chandra perception, world-perception continues. Like non-existent illusory dvitIya-chandra, owing to prArabdha, the non-existent illusory world is perceived even by jnAnI. However, the tattva-darshI knows it to be illusory, whereas the jnAnI regards it as real. That is the difference. So, the tattva-darshI is not deluded and does not regard the world as real whereas ajnAnI is deluded and considers world as real. That is the difference.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.  

 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Just now Sri Subbu prabhuji shared something in other thread.  Yet to go through the same.  But subject is quite interesting…see if you have anything to share about this article.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

BHASKAR YR

 

From: Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 4:55 PM
To: Bhaskar YR <bhask...@hitachienergy.com>
Cc: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: Mithya

 

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

We are going too far afield for me - I am again overwhelmed so I will respond to only bits and pieces. Furthermore,

//Regarding ChatGPT responses, I appreciate your sincerity but I am sorry that I won't be replying to them unless you present it in your own words. It is a reasonable ask, I suppose.//

--Without Chat, I am often lost to grok your technical phrases and concepts out of their original context. With deference to your request, I abbreviated the last Chat quote but Chat has to be a factor in our dialogue. Please allow some flexibility. 

//  If someone makes a proposition, then even one instance violating the proposition is enough to reject the claim.  .//
Categorical empirical/scientific propositions may be negated by one adverse example but Vedanta is independent from empirical evidence. Thus, a chunk of clay transformed into a pot cannot disprove Brahman's lack of change despite its appearance to the contrary  Drstanta-s are for teaching and inferring logical possibility but I don't believe they are ever utilized as proof of concept in Vedanta. 

//mUlAvidyA-kArya-avachchhinna-chaitanya.//

This apparent delimitation is caused by a positive shakti resulting in chaitanya along with the effect of shakti - superimposition. I believe that is a proper understanding of your phrase according to mulavidya vada.  

What is this chaitanya 'AND' shakti's effect? It is called pratibhasa and vyavahara satta-s which are described as "less (or more) real," "lending or borrowing existence," "numerically identical," “hierarchy of dependency” etc. by a contemporary scholar disciple of Swami Dayanandaji in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (heading: Sankara).  Thus, a 'reality-status" for perception! Of course, this can't be allowed thus this shakti potency will be defined as "THAT WHICH IS indeterminable as existing or not existing" - still a 'that' and thus what I mean as reality-status  though 'borrowed-reality' will do as well

//One of the kArya of avidyA namely prArabdha can act as upAdhi. Since by jnAna, only AvaraNa is removed and not vikshepa, the prArabdha can continue.//

--AvaraNa/vikshepa distinction is post-Sankara without which karana-kArya, prArabdha, upAdhi and even avidyA are all simply kalpita. Why complicate? Is it to explain vyavahara in causal terms?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBN5fhVCg6xX1LL93suBivPvAxV0PKDSg1d4TbVFBRGrw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Let us consider stopping here for the time being. We can continue after some time.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Michaelji,

In the Bhagavatam Lord Krishna summarizes 'Mithya'  as follows: "What did not exist before and waht will not exist in future, will not exist in the period in-between too, except the depiction. Whatever is created and revealed by something, is actually only that other thing".

Any comment?

All the best,

Sunil KB

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvFAprL7tSEiLG9vS3XMjmPqFiLLDC2viZyJHXaGcbmNTw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sunil, 

//In the Bhagavatam Lord Krishna summarizes 'Mithya'  as follows: "What did not exist before and waht will not exist in future, will not exist in the period in-between too, except the depiction. Whatever is created and revealed by something, is actually only that other thing".//

If something is created, how does it also not exist in any period of time? The same for "except the depiction" - if 'it' doesn't exist, what is intended to be the depiction that doesn't exist? 

Here are a few showing the absence of snake perception when rope is known

"For from the very revelation of

the nature of the rope, mistaken as a snake, follows the knowledge
of its real nature, as also the removal of the manifestation
of snake etc. on it brought about by superimposition through

ignorance." BSbh 3.2.21

"That ignorance is not the natural characteristic
of the self, since it automatically decreases as
knowledge increases, and when the latter is at its
highest, with the result that the self realises its identity
w1th all, ignorance vanishes altogether, like the
n6tion of a snake in a rope when the tnith about it
is known. This has been stated in the passage, 'But
when to the knower of Brahman everything has
he¢ome the self, then what should one see and through
~hat?' etc. (Ibid.)." Brbh 4.3.20

Therefore, as we have also said, the
cessation of ignorance2 alone is commonly called liberation,
like the disappearance of the snake, for instance,
from the rope when the erroneous notion about its
existence has been dispelled.Brbh 4.4.6

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB98oab7Mmkati4%2BquB2NCh8z-56XUVN_X67Sgm5TiVmcdg%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Michaelji,

Permit me to elaborate what Lord Krishna said. Some great event took place, say one century ago and that particular event with the particular spectators / audience, under particular situation, would not be repeated today. Take another case of an event taking place today with great audiences in a particular environment and that event would not exactly be repeated one century later in future. Things and events come and go, and they are lost for ever, and they will not exactly occur again. That way every occurrence, whatever it is,  is impermanent and mithya,  it will never be repeated exactly.  Brahman alone is the creator and the knower of everything, and is real. To us, everything else is 'Mithya'  or as good as non-existent.

Hope you will agree.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvEeOAbtHJ4Ghd%3Dim0w88tjRGNdGHmBt8ji-sMJqh%3D8Emg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Sunilji, lovely!

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB9_j15B0iQpiKVS_8U2vnCyEB-wrovwYOCEfbT1veB3bpg%40mail.gmail.com.