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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

*Namaste Venkatraghavan ji.*

Thank you very much for your inputs. I made a study of relevant portions of
Advaita Siddhi and applied mind on the issue.

I will just summarize the discussion so far. Kindly let me know if you
disagree with any of it.

(a)    X-abhAva-jnAna requires x-jnAna. That is to say, without x-jnAna,
one cannot have x-abhAva-jnAna. However, it is subject to exception. One
exception is -where x itself is a vishesha-abhAva such as pot-abhAva. In
such cases, since x is pot-abhAva, x-abhAva will be pot
(pot-abhAva-abhAva). So, saying x-abhAva-jnAna requires x-jnAna would imply
---- pot-jnAna (pot-abhAva-abhAva-jnAna) requires pot-abhAva-jnAna, which
is contradicted by anubhava. Hence, the rule would not apply if x is
vishesha-abhAva.

So, it can be safely said that the rule – x-abhAva-jnAna requires x-jnAna
is valid in only those cases wherein x is not vishesha-abhAva. This is
basically the point made by Anant Chaitanya ji.

(b)    Now comes your point, wherein you basically stated that an exception
to the impugned rule is possible even when x is nirvishesha-abhAva such as
a shashashringa. That is to say, the knowledge of an abhAva, where
shashashringa itself is the pratiyogI, does not require
shashashringa-jnAna. That is to say, shashashringa-abhAva-jnAna does not
require shashashringa-jnAna. Here, you hold that shashashringa-abhAva has
shashashringa as pratiyogI and shashashringa-tva as
pratiyogitA-avachchhedaka.

Further, you hold that shashashringa (C) is a vastu independent of shasha
(A) and shringa (B). It is an akhanDa asat vastu in its own right. So, even
if shashashringa-abhAva-jnAna required shasha-jnAna and shringa-jnAna, i.e.
even if C-abhAva-jnAna required A-jnAna and B-jnAna, it still does not
prove that C-abhAva-jnAna requires C-jnAna. So, the exception is valid.

Further, you hold that shashashringa-jnAna is not through jnAnAkAra-vritti
but through vikalpa-vritti. So, even if shashashringa-abhAva-jnAna requires
shashashringa-jnAna, it still does not require a jnAnAkAra-vritti, hence
requirement of pratiyogI-jnAna is not met.

Kindly let me know whether I have summarised your views correctly.

In this connection, let me put my views:-

1.       Shashashringa means a vastu which has shringa-tva and
shashIya-tva. Such a vastu is not sattvena-pratIti-yogya. And hence, it is
called asat or tuchchha. Certainly such a vastu is neither shasha nor
shringa nor an intersection of these two. It is an independent construct
which is not sattven-pratIti-yogya i.e. it is nihswarUpa (असत्त्वं
तावन्निःस्वरूपत्वम्). So, even if shashashringa-abhAva-jnAna requires
shasha-jnAna or shringa-jnAna, it does not result in requirement of
shashashringa-jnAna. It is a valid point.

2.        When shashashringa is nihswarUpa i.e. sattvena-pratIti-ayogya,
can there be a shashashringa-abhAva-jnAna at all? If yes, then how do we
know this shashashringa-abhAva? Being an abhAva, it can only be known
through anupalabdhi-pramA. However, there is no yogyA-anupalabdhi in the
case of shashashringa-abhAva. “If shashashringa were there, it would have
been perceived” – is not possible in case of shashashringa because such
anupalabdhi is not pratiyogI-sattva-virodhinI [even if shashashringa were
there, it would not have been perceived]. That is why advaita-siddhi holds
in Nishedhapratiyogitva-anyathA-anupapattitva-vichArah that
tuchha-pratiyogika-abhAva is not accepted in siddhAnta.

This being the position, what happens to the jnAna “shashashringam nAsti”?
Does it not signify an abhAva which has shashashringa as pratiyogI. This is
what your proposition is.

The text answers that even in such case – the cognition states the absence
of shringa in shasha (that is to say, shasha is anuyogI and shringa is
pratiyogI) and it does not have shashashringa as pratiyogI. एवं च शशशृङ्गं
नास्तीत्युल्लिखन्त्या अपि बुद्धेः शशे शृङ्गाभाव एव विषयः ।

In the cognition – “gavi shashashringam nAsti” – the anuyogI is a
shringa-of-cow and pratiyogI is shashIyatva.  एवं च शशशृङ्गं
नास्तीत्युल्लिखन्त्या अपि बुद्धेः शशे शृङ्गाभाव एव विषयः । गवि शशशृङ्गं
नास्तीत्यस्या अपि गवाधिकरणकशृङ्गे शशीयत्वाभावो विषयः, अनन्यगतिकत्वात् ।

In a nut-shell, it is held in siddhAnta that tuchha/asat does not have
abhAva-pratiyogitA.

3.       This being the position of siddhAnta, wherein asat is not accepted
as pratiyogI of an abhAva, i.e. asat-pratiyogika-abhAva is not accepted,
our discussion becomes non-starter. That is to say, when
asat-ptatiyogika-abhAva itself is not accepted, to say that
asat-pratiyogika-abhAva-jnAna does not require asat-jnAna, is not possible.

4.       Now, this is a phenomenal point – that asat does not have
nishedha-pratiyogitA. But, in second mithyAtva-vichArah, it is
categorically stated that asat and mithyA both have
traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitA. How to explain that? I would request your
views here.

My understanding is – asat does not have any connection with kAla. And
hence, it is stated to have traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitA.

The basis of my saying is – mithyA is accepted to have a sattva during
pratibhAsa-kAla which is non-contradictory to its
traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitA. This sattva of mithyA vastu is defined as
yat-knichit-kAla-abAdhyatva. This sattva is not present in asat, not
because it has abAdhyatva, but because it has no connection with kAla.;
किंचित्कालाबाध्यत्वरूपं किंचित्कालावच्छिन्नं बाधाविषयत्वमित्यर्थः ।
ब्रह्मतुच्छयोर्व्यावृत्तये अवच्छिन्नान्तम् । ब्रह्मणि बाधाविषयत्वं न
कालावच्छिन्नम् ; सार्वत्रिकत्वात्,* तुच्छे तु कालस्यासंबन्धादपि न
तदवच्छिन्नं तदिति भावः *। (LaghuchandrikA -page 639 Old edition – Nirnaya
Sagar press).

Extending the same logic, it can be said that asat has
traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitA, not on account of asat having
nishedha-pratiyogitA, but on account of absence of sambandha with kAla.

5.       So, my view is – since asat-pratiyogika-abhAva is not accepted in
siddhAnta, "asat-pratiyogika-abhAva-jnAna does not require
asat-pratiyogI-jnAna", cannot be said. And hence, shashashringa cannot be
placed as x in our original premise – x-abhAva-jnAna requires x-jnAna. And
hence, nirvishesha-abhAva cannot be an exception to our original rule.
Vishesha-abhAva can, however, be a valid exception. But not anything else.

Kindly share your views.






On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 6:36 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Namaste Ananta Chaitanya ji
>>
>>
>> I'm afraid, here too, the prior knowledge of hare without horns, and
horns without hare is needed.
>
> Yes indeed. But I am not referring to the horn of a hare, I am referring
to an akhaNDa asat vastu - the hare's horn. To know that such a hare's horn
does not exist, merely knowing a hare and a horn is not sufficient.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>>
>>
>> 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] */
>>
>>>
>> --
>> 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+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CACT7j-F7XY%3DRk3GiUWTOU%2BGb4ZwrmJdv5uFH-5%3DxR4uDB6uDvA%40mail.gmail.com
.



--
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com