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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

//That which does not exist in the beginning and does not exist at the end,
also will not exist in between. This is siddhanta.//

True.

//And what does not exist, is not subject matter of Vedanta, let alone
discussing its apparent nature with a theory.//

There is no theory here. People who hold that ignorance is bhAva or
ignorance is abhAva – they are both negated. Advaita is not established
through a theory. It is a self-shining truth. All theories are rejected. To
say that avidyA is bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa is not propounding a theory. It
is negating all attempts of theorizing avidyA.

It is what is obvious from Shruti, logic and our own experience.

Instead, it is those who vehemently claim that avidyA is abhAva – they are
liable for theorizing that which is non-existent. SiddhAnta just simply
does not bother with theorizing. But yes, out of great karuNA, it shreds to
pieces the arguments of those who try to theorize the non-existent avidyA
as either abhAva or bhAva.

//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).//

I am afraid it amounts to putting words in mouth. When there is
traikAlika-nishedha of ignorance, where is the question of giving “some
sort of existence” to ignorance. BhAvarUpa-tva does not mean that one gives
some sort of existence. Such notions have come up on account of being
unfamiliar with the siddhAnta. BhAvarUpatva means
bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNatA. It has nothing to do with presumption of
existence. The "some sort of existence" which you are talking about is not
sattva, but sat-tAdAtmya which is also non-existent appearance.

 //If some vyakhyanakara stretches that appearance and asks the seeker to
look upon 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.//

Such statements coming from a sincere sAdhaka like Prasanth Neti ji are
really unfortunate. These statements show his gross unfamiliarity with
siddhAnta. He should first understand the siddhAnta before arguing against
it. He should understand that “traikAlika-nishedha by swarUpa” does not
accommodate “some sort of existence”.

 //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.

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?//

This is really funny. I mean this is really not done. But for my respect,
love and good wishes to Prasanth ji, I would not have answered it.

*SiddhAntI’s position*

When we say sat-asat-vilakshaNa, it is not “neither existent, nor
non-existent”. That is why I keep on requesting to understand the terms as
siddhAnta holds it. This is the least expectation in a civilized debate.

The word existence for sat is fine. But it is likely to confuse. Hence, we
define it as “traikAlika-bhAdhyatva-abhAva”. In fact, it still is refined
as " traikAlika-bAdhyatva-abhAva-vishishTa-tAdAtmya-upalakshita-swarUpa".

The word non-existence for asat is not fine. Asattva is defined as
क्वचिदप्युपाधौ सत्त्वेन प्रतीत्यनर्हत्वम् (the absence of eligibility of
appearance as being identified with existence in any locus). Non-existence
is not how we define it.

Non-existence is common to anirvachanIya as well as asat. Hope I made
myself clear.

Neither asat can be removed by knowledge nor can sat be removed by
knowledge. I mean, you cannot remove Brahman by knowledge. You certainly
cannot remove horns of hare by your knowledge. Even a class five student
can tell you that what knowledge removes, must be something different from
Brahman (sat) and horns of hare (asat). What great logic is needed here?

*GitA 13.12*

Equating mUlAvidyA to Brahman by Prasanth ji is on account of incorrect
understanding of the words sat and asat as mentioned in GItA. When Brahman
is said to be different from sat and asat in GItA, these words have
different connotation. There, sat refers to
asti-buddhi-anugata-pratyaya-vishaya and asat refers to
nAsti-buddhi-anugata-pratyaya-vishaya. Thus, sat refers to pot and asat
refers to pot-abhAva in GItA 13.12. Both are avidyA-kArya. Thus, in Gita
13.12, sat and asat are used to signify indriya-gamya-vastu like pot and
the abhAva thereof like pot-abhAva. And Brahman being beyond senses, is
neither sat nor asat. One has to be really adventurous to use this
connotation in sat-asat-vilakshaNa. 😀

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.