[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] Re: pratiyogI-jnAna being mandatory for abhAva-jnAna

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Ananta Chaitanya ji,

On Thu, 1 Aug 2024, 09:50 Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati], <
bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Venkat ji,
>
>>
>> I don't think that is the case - the pratiyogi of the absence of hare's
>> horn is neither the hare nor the horn.
>>
>
> Surely the pratiyogi C is different from A and B, but it is not without
> the individual knowledge units of A and B.
>
Yes. However does absence of C require prior knowledge of C? If so, what
kind of knowledge of C is required?
For us asat vastu is known through a vikalpa vRtti - but is that
vikalpavRtti jnAnAkAra or otherwise?

If it is jnAnAkArA, then we should have the experience of the type "I know
shashashRNga", but we don't have that experience. So vikalpa must be some
other type other than jnAna, hence in the classification scheme of
yogashAstra, it is treated as a vRtti type different to pramANa and
viparyaya.

So, vikalpa is not a jnAnAkArA vRtti. If that is the case, there is an
exception to the rule that abhAva jnAna requires pratiyogi jnAna.


>
>>
>> If A stands for hare and B stands for the horn, the hare's horn is
>> not A∩B, but an independent entity C, so ~C (the absence of C) is not
>> dependent on the knowledge of A and B.
>>
>
>
> For C to be a valid word construct, A and B have to be valid word
> constructs. Else one can claim that hare's horn does exist because it is
> completely different from any combinations of meanings of hare and horn!
> Ergo, I surmise that the two unknown padArthas cannot give rise to their
> sambandha when the respective padas come together in a sentence samasta or
> as vyasta. The impossibility of such sambandha is also known, not without
> the knowledge of these individual units. If that is not the case, how would
> you see the vigrahavAkya of शशशृङ्ग?
>

Yes, I agree the two pada-s have pada-padArtha sambandha, the two pada-s
also have samsarga between each other, but the vAkya has no object
corresponding to it, that is, there is no sambandha between the vAkya and
vAkyArtha - hence शब्दज्ञानानुपाती वस्तुशून्यो विकल्पः.

>
> Further, in शशशृङ्ग, what do you consider the avacchedaka for shRnga as?
> shasha, shashashRngatva or something else? (Just trying to apply the
> ongoing study of dinakarI here :) )
>
The pratiyogitAvacChedaka dharma is shashashRNgatva in my view.



> Kind rgds,
> --Ananta Chaitanya
> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>
>>