[Advaita-l] [advaitin] SSSS on the controversy between mulav7idya and abhavarupa - directly and simply explained as per SSSS

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkat ji.

//That is true in the example of someone standing in front of you. But
here, this is not a case of someone standing in front of you - whether
avidyA is jnAna abhAva or abhAva vilakshaNa is not a matter of anyone's
experience.//

It is such an important issue to understand.

While avidyA, per se, is sAkshI-bhAsya and hence undisputedly agreed upon
by everyone, its visheshaNAs are not sAkshi-bhAsya. Rather, they are
pramANa-gamya.

I mean - no one disagrees with the experience - I am ignorant. Everyone
agrees about being ignorant. That ignorance is the object of perception is
also admitted by bhAshyakAra- * यदि पुनः अविद्या #ज्ञेया*, अन्यद्वा ज्ञेयं
ज्ञेयमेव । तथा ज्ञातापि ज्ञातैव, न ज्ञेयं भवति । यदा च एवम् ,
अविद्यादुःखित्वाद्यैः न ज्ञातुः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य किञ्चित् दुष्यति ॥

Now, avidyA cannot be pramANa-gamya because pramANa is a remover of avidyA.
anupalabdhi is also a pramANa. If avidyA were to be jnAna-abhAva, then it
would be anupalabdhi-pramANa-gamya. But then, pramANa being a remover of
avidyA, cannot really make avidyA known.

So, avidyA has to be sAkshi-bhAsya. It is prior to pramANa-vyApAra.

And yet, its attributes such as anAditva, bhAvarUptva etc are not
sAkshi-bhAsya. Rather they are pramANa-gamya. And that is why, there is so
much of discussion about them as to whether avidyA is bhAvarUpa or not etc.

So, pramANa is a must to prove to bhAvarUpatva of avidyA. Its usage cannot
be pooh-poohed in the guise of "shushka tarka".

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.