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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Pranam Sudhanshu ji et. al.,

Here are two replies to your last posting by Prasanth Netiji:

The word "appearance" in the context of world as used in bhashya is only a
call to understand it as “not existent". That much only is the intent. And
there is no intention to vouch for appearnce per se as a positive
phenomenon - the appearance side of that non-existence is of least
importance!
How can we say so?
If there is such intention behind the word 'appearance' (i.e. to vouch for
its positive nature just as how Sudhanshu ji is vouching for in his reply),
there would have been "mulavidya" as a word defined and used in bhashya.
But there is no such word! Therefore, one must cull their own intention to
'talk about' or 'find place' to that which is an 'appearance' - because it
is 'an appearnce in ignorance' inasmuch as the appearance itself being
nature of error is nothing but ignorance!
Marking it as ignorance and applying sruti pramana that atman which alone
exists as one without a second is ever free from ignorance is all that is
necessary and it is all that can be done with Sruti as pramana (for
removing misconception). Anyother usage of Sruti will simply make Sruti
become a pramana for showing 'some sort of existence' to something other
than Brahman/Atman and it is misuse and abuse of Sruti.
That which do no exist in the beginning and do not exist at the end, also
will not exist in between. This is siddhanta.
And what do not exist, is not subject matter of Vedanta, let alone
discussing its apparent nature with a theory.
Everyone must keep this in mind in proposing even ‘some sort of’ existence
to ignorance (i.e. even bhAvar”rUpa”tva is misuse and abuse of Sruti).
To summarise, if Śruti is pramana for removal of misconception then when
Śruti teaches world as appearance, it is pramana in culling the
misconception that world is existent. Thats all. To that extent alone the
pramanatvam applies. If some vyakhyanakara stretches that appearance and
asks the seeker to look up on it as that which is after all having some
sort of existence then they are misleading the seeker by asking the seeker
to strengthen their misconception instead of asking to give up that
misconception. Therefore bhAvarUpa Avidyā is Śruti being put to misuse and
abuse.
If some teacher when expounding Vedānta, keeps on saying:
“Isnt it appearing?”
“It is appearing, isn’t it?”
“After all it appears!”
“There you go it appears!”
Again and again in 100 different ways, that appearance will end up being
“some sort of existence” because the seeker forever remains in the idea
that “after all it appears”. That is what happens with mūlāvidyā based
Vedānta teaching.
Instead if it is taught as appearance and then we move on to teach
Brahman’s sole existence where there is no iota of ignorance whatsoever let
alone as an appearance, it helps seeker to imediately intuit the Self in
its true nature.



*second addition*

To add to my above comment, there is only one “thing” according to
scripture which can be ultimately put into category of ‘neither existent
nor non-existent’ and it is Brahman alone. Period.
Gītā 13.12:
ज्ञेयं यत्तत्प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वाऽमृतमश्नुते।
अनादिमत्परंबह्म न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते॥
12. I shall (now) set forth the knowable by grasping which one attains
immortality — the supreme Brahman without a beginning. It is said to be
neither existent nor non-existent.
By putting Avidyā as also that which is ‘neither existent nor non-existent’
(sad-asad-vilakShaNa), are we not saying mūlāvidyā = Brahman? (such
mūlāvidyā theory by its definition somehow implies such equation thought
they may disagree)
And then by proceeding to say that mūlāvidyā is sublated by knowledge
(which again honestly I do not know how), are we not saying mulavidya
(which is equal to Brahman) is sublated by knowledge?
On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 8:44 AM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> aum Sudhanshuji, lovely response -- let me post on Facebook and see what
> comes of it. 🙏
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 4:21 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Michael ji.
>>
>> //thank you for your patience and continued engagement.//
>>
>> It is a matter of joy to discuss these issues with sincere sAdhakAs like
>> yourself and others in this group.
>>
>> //who is this person who is guilty of mistake? Aren't you putting the
>> cart before the horse? Asmat confused with yusmad includes pramatr. Such
>> being the case bAdha of any empirical superimposition does not apply hence
>> no pratiyogin.//
>>
>> When you confused rope for a snake - you had a knowledge - "there is a
>> dangerous snake there". The object of your knowledge - the content of your
>> knowledge - was not rope. The object of your knowledge was snake.
>>
>> Now this snake was not a real snake made with biological parts. Was it?
>> Obviously not. It was an illusory snake. [This illusory snake had a
>> snake-hood which was basically vyAvahArika-snakehood-tAdAtmya.]
>>
>> Further, this illusory snake, which is the object of your knowledge, did
>> not exist. Nonetheless, it appeared to exist. It appeared to exist and was
>> about to bite you, so you ran.
>>
>> And then you realised - it is not a snake, it is a rope. So, the object
>> of your knowledge changed from a snake to a rope. And you say -- there has
>> never been a snake here. There was just an appearance of snake. The snake
>> -- which was the object of my knowledge -- was non-existent and yet, it
>> appeared. All that was there, was a rope.
>>
>> This is all which I am saying. There was an appearance of a non-existent
>> snake. This is what is called a prAtibhAsika-snake. A non-existent
>> appearance. This "appearance" is also called sattvena-prateeti or
>> sat-tAdAtmya. It appears to exist.
>>
>> Where is putting the cart before the horse? I am merely explaining our
>> experience.
>>
>> //Asmat confused with yusmad includes pramatr. Such being the case bAdha
>> of any empirical superimposition does not apply hence no pratiyogin.//
>>
>> Please explain what exactly you wish to convey here.
>>
>> //we need to recognize that both non-existents are only thought concepts
>> AND there are no distinctions within non-existence. Please, we have
>> scrubbed this issue threadbare several times. Without a new fiber of
>> argument, best to let it dissolve methinks.//
>>
>> This is the view of MAdhvAs, the dualists, that there are no distinctions
>> between non-appearing non-existent (tuchchha) and appearing non-existent
>> (mithyA). They consider both as asat. This is contradicted by anubhava and
>> also by reason. BhAshya also equates world with illusory snake, magically
>> created elephant, dream-objects. However, BhAshya never equates world with
>> horns of hare. BhAshya itself distinguishes illusory objects from horns of
>> hare.
>>
>> Entire world is mithyA. It is non-existent. Otherwise, there would be a
>> charge of duality. And yet, it appears. That is the magic. That is mAyA.
>> Appearing while it is not. And on the basis of this appearance, this is
>> differentiated from horns of hare.
>>
>> //"Advaita says"? Not Sankara bhasya, if I am not mistaken.//
>>
>>
>> Of course you are mistaken.🙂  It is the crystalised view of Shankara.
>>
>> //How might there exist avachchhinna or modificiation in Chaitanya?//
>>
>> Avachchhinna does not mean modification in chaitanya. Take for example a
>> pot. It gives rise to the usage "pot-space". This pot-space does not lead
>> to modifciation in space, but ghaTa-avachchhinna-AkAsha becomes available
>> for transaction. Similarly, for chaitanya.
>>
>>  //Are you referring to Ghata Bhasya in Brh. Up. ?//
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> //Please spell out more specifically with examples of what you mean by
>> bhava-abhava vilakshana.//
>>
>> The term used for avidyA is bhAvarUpa. It is explained that bhAvarUpa
>> word is used to signify its abhAva-vilakshaNatA. One should not infer that
>> bhAvarUpa means bhAva. So, all those who translate bhAvarUpa as "positive"
>> are not correct. Please note.
>>
>> bhAvarUpa means bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa.
>>
>> Now, what are the items within the ambit of abhAva --- asat, prAk-abhAva,
>> pradhvamsa-abhAva, anyonya-abhAva and atyanta-abhAva
>>
>> What are the items within the ambit of bhAva -- Brahman, all avidyA-kArya
>> (such as pot, cloth, this world, illusory snake etc. Both prAtibhAsika and
>> vyavahArika avidyA-kArya).
>>
>> avidyA is different from both.
>>
>> Regards.
>> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>>
>>
>>