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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkat ji.

There is explicit mention and argument by VArtikakAra in Naishakarmya
Siddhi 3.58 where he proves that sushupti has ajnAna.

सर्वानर्थबीजस्यात्मानवबोधस्य सुषुप्ते संभवात् । यदि हि सुषुप्तेऽज्ञानं
नाभविष्यदन्तरेणापि वेदान्तवाक्यश्रवणमनन
निदिध्यासनान्यहब्रह्मास्मीत्यध्यवसायात्सर्वप्राण भूतामपि स्वरसत एव
सुषुप्तप्रतिपत्तेः सकलसंसारो च्च्हित्तिप्रसङ्गः । न च कैवल्यात्पुनरुत्थानं
न्याय्यमनिर्मोक्षप्रसङ्गात् । न चान्य एव सुषुप्तोऽन्य एवोत्थित इति शक्यं
वक्तुं नाद्राक्षमहं सुषुप्तेऽन्यत्किं चिदपीत्युत्तितस्य
प्रत्यभिज्ञादर्शनात् ।

#तस्मादवश्यं #सुषुप्तेऽज्ञानमभ्युपगन्तव्यम् ।

ननु यदि तत्राज्ञानमभविष्यद्रागद्वेषघटाज्ञानादिवत्प्रत्यक्षमभविष्यद्यथेह
लोके घटं न जानामीत्यज्ञानमव्यवहितं प्रत्यक्षम् । अत्रोच्यते । न ।
अभिव्यञ्जकाभावात् । कथमभिव्यञ्जकाभाव इति चेच्च्हृणु ।

बाह्यां वृत्तिमनुत्पाद्य व्यक्तिः स्यान्नाहमो यथा ।
नर्तेऽन्तःकरणं तद्वद्ध्वान्तस्य व्यक्तिराञ्जसी ॥ ५८॥

SSS' hold that sushupti has no ajnAna.

When faced with direct statement by VArtikakAra in NS 3.58 that ajnAna in
sushupti must be accepted and also MANDUkya 1.2 and 1.11 - they say that
ajnAna in deep sleep is accepted from the point of view of waker. But from
sushupti's own point of view, the ajnAna is not admitted (whatever that may
mean!).

Again they would say that this bIja is jnAna-abhAva and its burning etc is
metaphorical. The bondage of prAjna by tattva-agrahaNa is stated to be from
the point of view of waker and from prAjna's own standpoint (again,
whatever that may mean!), there is no bondage.

They say that in sushupti, there is no ajnAna, and they would quote
BrihadAraNyaka 4.3.23 (which refers to absence of vyaktA-avidyA in sushupti
and not avidyA per se) for this purpose. The objection and rebuttal by
BhAshyakAra in MK 1.2 and 1.11 would be somehow explained away by them as
being discussed from the point of view of waker.

Regards.

>