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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,
Excellent points. I was reading a comment by Anandagiri AchArya to the
mANDUkya kArikA bhAShya now which says this too.

In commenting on kArika 1.2, Shankaracharya says - निर्बीजतयैव चेत् , सति
प्रलीनानां सम्पन्नानां सुषुप्तिप्रलययोः पुनरुत्थानानुपपत्तिः स्यात् ;
मुक्तानां च पुनरुत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गः, बीजाभावाविशेषात् , ज्ञानदाह्यबीजाभावे च
ज्ञानानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गः ; तस्मात्सबीजत्वाभ्युपगमेनैव सतः प्राणत्वव्यपदेशः,
सर्वश्रुतिषु च कारणत्वव्यपदेशः ।

This bhAShya itself is a pramANa for avidyA being abhAva vilakshaNA, but
Anandagiri's TIkA makes many of the points that you have raised below.

To this, Anandagiri AchArya says - अज्ञोऽहमित्यज्ञानमपरोक्षम् । अग्रहणस्य च
ग्रहणप्रागभावस्य नापरोक्षत्वमिन्द्रियसन्निकर्षाभावादनुपलब्धिगम्यत्वाच्च ।
भ्रान्तितत्संस्कारयोश्चाभावेतरकार्यत्वादुपादानापेक्षणादात्मनश्च
केवलस्यातद्धेतुत्वात्तदुपादानत्वेनानाद्यज्ञानसिद्धिः । किं च देवदत्तप्रमा
तन्निष्ठप्रमाप्रागभावातिरिक्ता‍नादिप्रध्वंसिनी प्रमात्वाद् यज्ञदत्तप्रमावत्
। न च तदभावे सम्यग्ज्ञानार्थवत्त्वम् । क्षणिकत्वेन
भ्रान्तेस्तदनिवर्त्यत्वात् संस्कारस्य च सत्यपि सम्यग्ज्ञाने
क्वचिदनुवृत्तिदर्शनात् । न चाग्रहणस्य तन्निवर्त्यत्वम् । ज्ञानस्य
तन्निवृत्तित्वात् । अतो ज्ञानदाह्यं संसारबीजभूतमनाद्यनिर्वाच्यमज्ञानं
ज्ञानस्यार्थवत्त्वायाऽऽस्थेयम् । अन्यथा तदानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गादित्यर्थः ।
Ignorance is directly known in the notion "I am ignorant", whereas the
absence of knowledge or the prior absence of knowledge, cannot be directly
perceived, because of the impossibility of contact with the senses (with
absence), and because absence can only be known by anupalabdhi (1). As both
illusion and its latent impressions can only be the product of a non-absent
thing, there is the requirement of some material cause for them, and pure
self cannot be that cause, *a beginningless ignorance as that material
cause stands proven*. Further, the anumAna "Devadatta's valid knowledge is
the destroyer of a beginningless entity which is different to the prior
absence of valid knowledge, because it is valid knowledge, like
Yajnadatta's valid knowledge", also proves the existence of such an
ignorance. In the absence of such an ignorance, samyag-jnAna, right
knowledge, can have no utility. As illusions are momentary, one cannot say
that the utility of knowledge lies in the removal of illusions (they can
lapse even without the rise of right knowledge), and with respect to latent
impressions, they can persist even when right knowledge is present. The
absence of knowledge is not a thing to be removed by knowledge - whereas
knowledge can remove that (a beginningless ignorance). Therefore, a
beginningless, anirvAcya ignorance, which is the causal seed of samsAra,
capable of being burnt by knowledge, must be accepted for knowledge to have
purpose. Otherwise, knowledge will be meaningless - this is the intended
meaning of the bhAShya.

(1) anupalabdhi cannot function in deep sleep, the mind being absent, so
how can there be pramANa vyApAra then for the revelation of the absence of
knowledge?

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024, 14:15 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> --
> 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%2BBDTJ7C2Jh%2Bnr8yuy5N9OGySiec5BuVyCKFLvMBw%3DZwy1w%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDTJ7C2Jh%2Bnr8yuy5N9OGySiec5BuVyCKFLvMBw%3DZwy1w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>