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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

//my understanding of an ‘appearance’ in Shankaras Advaita is: That which
appears to exist, but in truth never existed in the past, present or
future.//

What else have I said? Same thing. It appears to exist while it never
exists.

//It is not some strange thing, unknown in any other Philosophical system,
called ‘abhava-vilakshanata’???//

It is indeed anirvachanIya. It is bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa as demonstrated
earlier.

//An appearance is definitely NOT ‘Bhava’ in any sense . Any thing imagined
by ignorance, Avidya Karya, is NON EXISTENT, and not a Bhava.//

Not correct. An appearance can be bhAva as well as abhAva. Pot is an
appearance, it is bhAva. Pot-abhAva is an appearance. It is abhAva.

Existence is not a requirement for bhAva as it is defined traditionally.
Also, avidyA-kArya can be both bhAva and abhAva. So, pot is bhAva while
pot-abhAva is abhAva as per the definition of bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa.

When one discusses something, it is essential to define keywords.
Otherwise, the discussion is meaningless. The words "bhAva" and "abhAva"
used in bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa have specific defined connotation. You
cannot coin your own definition and claim infirmity.

//And to place Avidya in a category that is different from both Bhava and
abhava, is to come up with something not known or verifiable in anyone’s
experience.//

This is not correct.

1. avidyA cannot be abhAva as it is the upAdAna-kAraNa of the world as
stated by VArtikakAra.
     अस्य द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य यदुपादानकारणम्। अज्ञानं तदुपाश्रित्य
ब्रह्मकारणमुच्यते।।


2. It cannot be abhAva because it is stated to cover Brahman. An abhAva
cannot cover anything.
    अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं.


3. It cannot be abhAva because of the following two anumAna:


a. विवादगोचरापन्नं प्रमाणज्ञानं,
स्वप्रागभावव्यतिरिक्त-स्वविषयावरण-स्वनिवर्त्य-स्वदेशगत-वस्त्वन्तरपूर्वकम्,
अप्रकाशितार्थप्रकाशकत्वात्, अन्धकारे प्रथमोत्पन्नप्रदीपप्रभावत्।


b. चैत्रप्रमा, चैत्रगतप्रमाप्रागभावातिरिक्तानादिनिवर्तिका,
प्रमात्वान्मैत्रप्रमावत् ;


4. Everyone knows that he is ignorant. This knowledge of ignorance is
impossible with avidyA as abhAva, because knowledge of abhAva requires the
knowledge of pratiyogI and this would result into impossibility of
knowledge of avidyA as the pratiyogI would already be known.


There are hundred reasons as to why avidyA cannot be abhAva. Those who
claim that avidyA is abhAva should answer these well-documented reasons
after studying them.

Please appreciate that mere holding that avidyA is not bhAva does not imply
that avidyA is abhAva. This simple fact should be understood. There are
bAdhaka-sattva for both bhAvatva and abhAvatva of avidyA.

//Sat asat vilakshana Avidya is not only a logical impossibility, if there
were such a category, KNOWLEDGE COULD NOT REMOVE IT!//

There would have been a logical contradiction if bhAva and abhAva were
paraspara-viraha-rUpa or paraspara-viraha-vyApaka-rUpa. However, bhAva and
abhAva are parapara-viraha-vyApya-rUpa and hence there is no logical
contradiction.

Take for example, cowness and horseness. While they cannot appear together,
their absences can pretty well co-appear, say in an elephant. Similarly,
co-appearance of bhAva and abhAva is a logical contradiction, the
co-appearance of bhAva-vilakahaNata and abhAva-vilakashaNatA is not a
logical contradiction, like co-appearance of cowness-vilakshaNatA and
horseness-vilakshaNatA in an elephant.

To appreciate the above statement, one needs to understand the meaning of
abhAva and bhAva.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.