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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

*Continuing to cut/paste....*
*Two replies from Sudhanshuji's previous comments on this thread. *
*First, Sri Kumarji, our Admin, replying to Atma Chaitanya/Musta Ramji and
then *Nemanja Stefanovic
<https://www.facebook.com/groups/162360101096963/user/100001526684423/?__cft__[0]=AZXgBVh0kkshCslkmF2otHS32qONNnu44gRJlo3EvKdOybdEx13aJC-Mn3yi61Pw-DFQ_f8tlfxAWCxwNYWsU2WGWFaEQFWXoTUss3namnSrhZ6yva3u59Q5Jn6yLTGIMJdl9Y9IBtTiX_x8EXwmEnkTg2C-fGpNMwkkFbOC2x4U5P0MFwIxNhrPHGjYEuQk5iitPGD2d-RPBO5y81IQO5iT&__tn__=R]-R>



Musta Ram
<https://www.facebook.com/groups/162360101096963/user/100050899632819/?__cft__[0]=AZXgBVh0kkshCslkmF2otHS32qONNnu44gRJlo3EvKdOybdEx13aJC-Mn3yi61Pw-DFQ_f8tlfxAWCxwNYWsU2WGWFaEQFWXoTUss3namnSrhZ6yva3u59Q5Jn6yLTGIMJdl9Y9IBtTiX_x8EXwmEnkTg2C-fGpNMwkkFbOC2x4U5P0MFwIxNhrPHGjYEuQk5iitPGD2d-RPBO5y81IQO5iT&__tn__=R]-R>
 ji [image: 🙏]. You are absolutely right! No, bhāșya does not have that
interpretation of bhāva-abhāva-vilakșaņa in TaiU or for that matter
anywhere else, to the best of my knowledge. It is also not the seed, or
avyakta, in that TaiU context. One commentary on TaiU by Sri. Anandajñāna
(mistaken for Anandagiri) has that interpretation.
Below, I am copying my comments on Sr Bhaskar ji’s pos. t:
Start of my comments:
The mūlāvidyā is brought in here as anirvacanīya (indescribable) sort of
arbitrarily even though there is no need for it and though bhāșya is clear
by itself.
I am drawing from pages 9 and 10 of SSSS ji’s preface to TaiU.
It appears that commentary/vyakhyāna on TaiUBh has been written by Sri
Anandajñāna (who has been mistaken later for Anandagiri). In this
commentary, the above bhāșya vākya is interpreted as:
“The ‘indescribable’ and beginningless ignorance, which is of nature
consciousness (cinmātra tantra), transforms into the antahkaraņa. The
reflected consciousness within it mistakenly assumes the attributes of its
adjuncts, resulting in delusion, and is thus engaged in activities.
Therefore, truly, neither knowledge nor ignorance exists within it."
Everything is good, except the word ‘indescbable’ suddenly pops up. From
where? From interpretation of another section of bhāșya (bhāga 216, pp
260), where deep sleep is discussed and the vyākhyana goes
“ajñāna/ignorance present in deep sleep cannot be considered separate from
the Self.” Hence the indescribability!
When one reads the bhāșya, it is clear that there is no pratyaya (right or
wrong, jñāna or ajñāna) in deep sleep.
Bhasya IAST:
suṣupte'grahaṇamanyāsaktavaditi cet, na ; sarvāgrahaṇāt
Bhasya English
(The opponent): Non-perception (of duality) in suṣupti is like the
non-perception of a thing by one who is quite preoccupied with another
thing [1].
(Answer): No; for there is then (in suṣupti) no perception of anything at
all [2].
——
SSSS footnotes:
[1] Just like an archer taking aim does not see anything else except his
target. BSBh 3.2.10.
[2] Self only, another does not appear. Ekatva is the reason. BrBh 4.3.11;
ChBh 6.8.1; BSBh 3.2.7. Here the later commentators’ views are not
supported by Bhāsya. See introduction to this book


<https://www.facebook.com/groups/162360101096963/user/100001526684423/?__cft__[0]=AZXgBVh0kkshCslkmF2otHS32qONNnu44gRJlo3EvKdOybdEx13aJC-Mn3yi61Pw-DFQ_f8tlfxAWCxwNYWsU2WGWFaEQFWXoTUss3namnSrhZ6yva3u59Q5Jn6yLTGIMJdl9Y9IBtTiX_x8EXwmEnkTg2C-fGpNMwkkFbOC2x4U5P0MFwIxNhrPHGjYEuQk5iitPGD2d-RPBO5y81IQO5iT&__tn__=R]-R>
Nemanja Stefanovic
<https://www.facebook.com/groups/162360101096963/user/100001526684423/?__cft__[0]=AZXgBVh0kkshCslkmF2otHS32qONNnu44gRJlo3EvKdOybdEx13aJC-Mn3yi61Pw-DFQ_f8tlfxAWCxwNYWsU2WGWFaEQFWXoTUss3namnSrhZ6yva3u59Q5Jn6yLTGIMJdl9Y9IBtTiX_x8EXwmEnkTg2C-fGpNMwkkFbOC2x4U5P0MFwIxNhrPHGjYEuQk5iitPGD2d-RPBO5y81IQO5iT&__tn__=R]-R>
Moderator
1,895 points
His (Sudhanshu ji's) problem is that he wants to put Self Knowledge into
the frame of mind, as if it were really an issue of knowledge vs ignorance.
So he insists on difference between something that appears and something
that can never appear (snake-rope vs square-circle/hare's horns).
He doesn't understand the method of A&A, that it is a tool of the teaching,
in the culmination of which nothing appeared to anyone, there is no and
never was a knower-known distinction (in the presupposition of which one
may speak of the difference between appearance and something that can never
appear, but such differentiation cannot stand when the knower itself is
falsified).
The insistence of defining metaphysical ignorance to the sphere of its
'effects' is only going to put it into problem of there really being an
event in which some error occured, as if there there were some transaction.
Here we see the insistence on logicality/possibility of error, BECAUSE ONE
WANTS TO PUT THE SELF KNOWLEDGE INTO THE FRAME OF MIND/KNOWER.
One doesn't see knowerhood/duality as an error, when it is seen as an
error, it doesn't exist. All that teaching does is showing that it is an
error/illusion/non-existent and non-existence of duality is shown in
non-dual Vastu.
And again, he is reifying absence of something as if it itself were
something. He is ignoring that illusoriness/non-existence/unreality of
something is proven in what that something actually is.
I'm baffled with the example he provides with pot. Absence of pot is proven
in the fact of clay. Absence of pot is clay. Pot is an appearance (it
illusory/unreal/non-existent) because it is clay alone. He cannot point to
'absence-of-pot', he can only point to clay.

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 12:54 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 9:16 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste.
>>
>> It is not a question of  translation. It is a question of alternate
>> viewpoints.
>>
>> As per my understanding of the Bhashya, relative levels of existence is
>> recognized and forms a fundamental concept of Advaita Siddhanta as advanced
>> by Sri Bhagavatpada. Any denial of this is contradictory to the Bhashya.
>>
>
> Yes, the famous Taittiriya Upanishad mantra:  satyam cha anRtam cha satyam
> abhavat - has been commented upon by Shankara as depicting three  levels or
> reality.  Two detailed articles on this is:
>
> https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/paramarthika-vyavaharika-satyam/
>
>
> https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2019/06/05/three-types-of-existence-in-vedanta/
>
>
> Also, in the Gita Bhashya 2.16 Shankara says:  What does not really exist,
> appears to exist.
>
> warm regards
> subbu
>
>> Regards
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 8:49 PM putran M <putranm4 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaskaram,
>>>
>>>
>>>>  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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again, (like with "positive"), the objection to "*some sort of *existence"
>>> is not entirely clear to me as being a direct consequence of definition and
>>> not of interpretation of translation. We are using English terms to
>>> correspond with meaning implied in Sanskrit words, and that will leave some
>>> room for variation (which can result in confusion when people understand
>>> differently). But this may not be resolved necessarily by insisting on the
>>> only possible definition for the English word. I have seen sat translated
>>> as (absolute) existence and mithya as relative (or at least, *apparent*)
>>> existence and asat as non-existence.
>>>
>>> Others may give their opinions on this, if possible.
>>>
>>> thollmelukaalkizhu
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *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?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> 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/CAKqm3-pJLsA8Qsdokq6-wGRZiHwoNp7%2BFm5B72JiDA%2BA4ZRo4w%40mail.gmail.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-pJLsA8Qsdokq6-wGRZiHwoNp7%2BFm5B72JiDA%2BA4ZRo4w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>>
>> --
>> 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/CAEs%2B%2BdO0uH%3DZ7zeCkA5FECGanbOzqHNJ%3DscppAVtB0AnZ9oCKg%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdO0uH%3DZ7zeCkA5FECGanbOzqHNJ%3DscppAVtB0AnZ9oCKg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> 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/CAKk0Te0udbMoSxXo_z-CF2wN%3D8j%2Bm42un881dGpSyRGu5RBtNA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0udbMoSxXo_z-CF2wN%3D8j%2Bm42un881dGpSyRGu5RBtNA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>