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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Reg  //  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? //,

My understanding is different. Such a statement is not made by AS in second
mithyAtva-vichArah. Response of AS is to the objection raised by NM
proposing such a declaration. NM states that there is no other option, in
connection with which it presents several possibilities and discounts all
of them. Response of AS is that even if such
traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitA were to be accepted *provisionally*, still
there is scope for distinguishing between asat and mithyA by pointing out
the unique distinguishing feature ** तथापि क्वचिदप्युपाधौ सत्त्वेन
प्रतीत्यनर्हत्वम् अत्यन्तासत्त्वम् , शूक्तिरूप्ये प्रपञ्चे च बाधात् पूर्वं
नास्त्येवेति न तुच्छत्वापत्तिः । **.
Regards

On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 6:46 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> *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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>