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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Correct, the pratiyogitAvacChedaka of the abhAva jnAna there is
videshiyatvam, not eskimotvam, where videshiyatA is kArNATakIyatva abhAva.

1) So one can very well possess videshIyatva abhAva jnAna because he has
knowledge of the pratiyogi, videshiyatA.

2) And one has knowledge of videshiyatA because he has knowledge of *its*
pratiyogi, kArNATakIyatva.

If the pratiyogitAvacChedaka  of the abhAva jnAna had been eskimotvam, then
one can argue that one can argue that it is possible for one to have ekimo
abhAva jnAna without eskimo jnAna.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Tue, 20 Aug 2024, 18:09 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hari Om,
>
> In this context, it is submitted that we have seen that pratiyogI-jnAna is
> a mandatory requirement for abhAva-jnAna, except where the vastu itself is
> vishesha-abhAva. Thus,  x-abhAva-jnAna mandatorily requires x-jnAna except
> only those cases wherein x is vishesha-abhAva such as pot-abhAva.
>
> In this context, it is noted that this basic rule - which is the
> cornerstone of NyAya and VedAnta - is disputed by SSS ji as follows in his
> work - "Heart of Shri Shankara".
>
> *२८. प्रतियोगिज्ञानं नापेक्षितमभावज्ञाने सर्वत्र*
>
> यत्तूच्यते प्रतियोगिज्ञानमन्तरा न शक्योऽभावानुभव इति । तदसत्
> दृष्टान्तभावाद्विपक्षेऽपि । यथा - इह समाजे नास्ति कश्चिदेस्किमो नामा
> विदेशीयो जन इति केनाप्युक्ते सत्याजन्मनोऽप्यदृष्टचरतादृशजनोऽपि
> व्युत्पित्सुर्यदि जानीते सभ्यास्सर्वे कार्णाटिका इति निस्संशयम्, तदा
> स्यादेवास्यापि पुरुषस्यानाकलितप्रतियोगिनोऽपि तादृशविलक्षणजनाभावज्ञानम् |
> तस्मान्नेदं तन्त्रं यत् प्रतियोगिज्ञानमवश्यमेवापेक्ष्यतेऽभावज्ञान इति ।
>
>
> *28. Knowledge of something as existent is not invariably required to
> recognize its non-existence *
>
> The opponent is wrong to maintain that there cannot be experience of the
> non-existence of anything without knowledge of that thing (so that there
> could not be absence of knowledge in dreamless sleep:' in dreamless sleep
> one must have knowledge of positive Ignorance, cp. Viv. p. 74, quoted M.V.
> p.756). For there are examples showing that it can. Supposing it was said,
> `These is no Eskimo in our society', then that would be understood by
> somebody who had never seen an Eskimo in his life, provided that he was
> sure that all citizens of this province were Karnatics. He would then be
> sure of the absence of people of different races (such as Eskimos), even
> though he might never have seen one. So there is no universal rule that for
> knowledge of the nun-existence of anything there must always be knowledge
> of that thing.
>
> *My views*
>
> This is the argument provided by SSS ji to reject the cornerstone of NyAya
> and VedAnta regarding mandatory pratiyogI-jnAna for abhAva-jnAna.
>
>
> He says that if Mr A
>
> a. has never seen an Eskimo in his life. AND
>
> b. knows for sure that all persons in his society are kArNAtika.
>
>
> then
>
>
> he can have the EskImo-nAmA-videshIya-jana-abhAva-jnAna.
>
>
> And, this, as per him, proves that pratiyogI-jnAna is not required for
> abhAva-jnAna.
>
>
> This argument of his is incorrect. How?
>
>
> In  EskImo-nAmA-videshIya-jana-abhAva-jnAna, the pratiyogI is
> EskImo-nAmA-videshIya-jana. The person living in a housing society, where
> there are all KArNAtiks, has never seen an Eskimo in his life. However, it
> cannot be said that he does not possess EskImo-nAmA-videshIya-jana-jnAna.
>
>
> This is so because he knows that such an EskImo-nAmA-videshIya-jana is a
> foreigner. And since all persons in the society are kArnAtiks, which are
> non-foreigners, he can pretty well say that there is
> EskImo-nAmA-videshIya-jana-abhAva in the society.
>
>
> Thus, the case mentioned by SSS ji is an example of --
> *एस्कीमो-नामा-विदेशीय-जन-निष्ठ-विदेशीयता-अवच्छिन्न-प्रतियोगिता-निरूपित-अभाव*.
> Thus, the person does possess एस्कीमो-नामा-विदेशीय-जन-jnAna with the
> pratiyogitA delimited by videshIyatA. Hence, the statement by SSS ji that -
> there is no pratiyogI-jnAna and yet there is presence of abhAva-jnAna - is
> completely wrong.
>
>
> Such statement could be made by SSS ji because he did not appreciate the
> concept of pratiyogitA-avachchhedaka. And thus, not paying attention to
> this basic concept, his entire theory went astray.
>
>
> Regards.
>
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/CAH9%3D%2BBDhOdOQEtfHUVPJjmrH%3D8FeF8ZNZSpPn_Yhau09bsV1NA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDhOdOQEtfHUVPJjmrH%3D8FeF8ZNZSpPn_Yhau09bsV1NA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>