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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

>
> Namaste Chandramouli ji. Jaishankar ji. Venkat ji.

//  तत्राह 'सन्नज्ञातो भवेत्ततः' इति । अज्ञातत्वं सत्सामानाधिकरण्यम्
> अविमुञ्चत् सत एव धर्मो न तु घटादीनां मिथ्याज्ञातानामित्यवगम्यते इत्यर्थः ।
> एवं च अज्ञानस्याभावात्मकस्य कथं कारणत्वम् ? इत्याक्षेपः परिहृतो भवति ।
> अज्ञातसत एव कारणत्वाभ्युपगमात् ।
>

SSS ji is stating that ajnAtatva has sat as its adhikaraNa and hence
ajnAtatva is the dharma of sat. Further, he says that ajnAtatva is not the
dharma of ghaTa etc.

SSS ji further says - since kAraNatva belongs to ajnAta-sat (and not to
ajnAna) and such ajnAta-sat is not abhAva, hence "how can there be
kAraNatva of abhAvAtmaka ajnAna" stands answered.

SSS ji has missed a point here!

ajnAtatva (and also jnAtatva) are dharma of ghaTa-avachchhinna-chaitnya
(which is stated as sat by VArtikakAra). This is true. Since ghaTa is
superimposed in ghaTa-avachchhinna-chaitnya, the jnAtatva and ajnAtatva
appear as dharma of ghaTa, resulting into cognition (ghaTa is known, ghaTa
is unknown). This is also true.

However, this ajnAtatva is not an intrinsic dharma of
ghaTa-avachchhinna-chaitnya. Rather, it appears as a dharma of
ghaTa-avachchhinna-chaitnya on account of adhyAsa of both ajnAna and ghaTa
in chaitanya.

With adhyAsa of ajnAna in sat, the dharma of ajnAna namely kAraNatva, also
stands superimposed in sat. And hence, Shruti says ajnAta-sat i.e.
ajnAna-adhyAsa-vishishTa-sat has kAraNatva. This is what BUBV 1.4.371
states in unambiguous manner.

Thus, ajnAtatva of sat does not prohibit the claim of kAraNatva as an
intrinsic feature of ajnAna. Had kAraNatvam been an intrinsic feature of
sat, the claim by SSS would have made sense. However, the very ajnAtatva of
sat is AdhyAsika. And teaching ajnAta-sat as kAraNa is by accepting the
dharma-adhyAsa of ajnAna, whose dharma is kAraNatva.

Thus, the AdhyAsika-kAraNatva of ajnAta-sat does not answer a valid
objection by siddhAntI as to how can kAraNatva inhere as an intrinsic
feature of abhAvAtmaka ajnAna.

Thus, the objection remains - how can ajnAna, which SSS ji holds as abhAva,
be a kAraNa!!

In simple words -- vArtika says -- ajnAna is kAraNa, this ajnAna is
adhyasta in Brahman, hence Brahman is kAraNa. And SSS ji comes along and
says -- see, ajnAta-Brahman is kAraNa, ajnAna is not kAraNa, and hence the
Akshepa is parihrita as to how can abhAvAtmaka-ajnAna be kAraNa. This is
really silly. Twisting words straight on face.

यदेव नित्यमज्ञानं मिथ्याज्ञानं तदेव तु ।।
>> कारणेतररूपेण तयोरव्यभिचारतः ।। ३८६ ।।
>>
>
This shloka states that mithyAjnAna (mithyA+jnAna) is the kArya and nitya
ajnAna is the kAraNa. Further, there is absence of difference between these
two on account of being upAdAna-upAdeya which stands proved by
anvaya-vyatireka. (अज्ञाने सति एव मिथ्याज्ञानस्य भावः, अज्ञानस्याभावे
मिथ्याज्ञानस्याभाव एव).

Imho, the reference of NS 3.7 does not apply here to BBV 1.4.386. Further,
the explanation by SSS ji in NS 3.7 is incorrect.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.

>