[Advaita-l] pratiyogI-jnAna being mandatory for abhAva-jnAna

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji

One very important point which came up is that the much-maligned "later
vyAkhyAnakAras" like Sri MS, before writing their works,  have not made any
extra assumptions and arbitrary postulates or new beliefs, other than what
Sri Shankara himself has made in his bhAShyas (such as veda prAmANyam, use
of logic and reason which is shrutimatastarka etc). And it's a no-brainer
that if both Sri MS and the large volumes written by Sri SSS ji follow the
same set of axioms and postulates as bhAShyakAra followed, then both the
books written by Sri MS (Advaita Siddhi) and books by Sri SSS (shuddha
shAnkara prakriya bhAskara etc) are equally the works of *later
vyAkhyAnakAras*.



 Prabhupada's "Bhagavad Gita as it is" of ISKCON claims to teach the Gita
"as it is" but ends up being a prolix exposition of dvaita philosophy far
from any "Gita as it is". Swami Dayananda Saraswati ji used to say that
Prabhupada should have just printed the 700 shlokas of Gita, nothing more.
Only then he can claim it is Bhagavad Gita as it is.

Similarly, one of the later vyAkhyAnakAras (viz., Sri SSS and their
followers), protest too much that they are presenting  "Shankara BhAShya as
it is" (inspite of doing much creative writing and employing wrong logic
etc),  in contrast to other "later vyAkhyAnakAras" like Sri MS. This is
just like the Prabhupada claim.

Thank you again for making several helpful points, some of which I am
listing below.

1. Logical fallacy of declaring Sri MS as invalid on account of his works
being afflicted with bhAShyAxara bahirbhAva - this ipso facto negates
everything Sri SSS wrote as well.

2. Logical fallacy of asserting abhAva jnAna without pre-existing pratiyogI
jnAna due to the mistake of ignoring pratiyogitA-avacchedaka.

3. Logical validity of the twin logic of vivaraNa for abhAva-vilaxaNatva of
avidyA through pradIpa-prabhA-prathama-kirana nyAya and caitra-pramA nyAya.

4. Logical validity of bhAva vilaxaNatva of avidyA on account of bAdhAka
sattva being present for asserting bhAvatva of avidyA (which is accepted by
all as being vinAshI due to being jnAna-nivartya) through the nyAya,
vinAshI bhAvah, sAdiH, ghaTavat, while avidyA is anAdi.

5. Showing the difference between sadasadvilaxaNa (for jagat) and
bhAva-abhAva-vilaxaNa (for avidyA) and that sat/asat pair are not synonyms
of the bhAva/abhAva pair.

Not to speak of the numerous helpful quotations and references from
vArtika, purANa etc.

When the force of logic goes against one's conclusions, one should have the
intellectual honesty to pivot to the other viewpoint. There is no shame in
this when there is mumuxutvaM and jiGYaSA. As Ananta Chaitanya ji said,
that requires Anugraha.


Om
Raghav


On Mon, 29 Jul, 2024, 5:14 am Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Hari Om,
>
> It is accepted in advaita-vedAnta that prior pratiyogI-jnAna is a
> prerequisite for abhAva-jnAna. Unless and until one has x-jnAna, one cannot
> have x-abhAva-jnAna.
>
> My question is -- is there any branch of Indian Philosophy, dvaita,
> vishishTAdvaita, nyAya etc who dispute this premise and hold that one can
> have abhAva-jnAna without pratiyogI-jnAna.
>
> Learned members may please guide.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>