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

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji,

Excellent quotes and refutation. I was about to quote BUBhV 1.4.436 - 440
and refute but you have done it very well. All these convoluted
explanations must have been painful to give and leave a certain aruchi on
reading. In fact one reputed pandita once told the N.S commentary of SSS is
not Kleshapahaarini but Kleshakaarini. If one has a hammer everything is
nails for him.

with love and prayers,
Jaishankar

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 6:35 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouli ji,
>
> Thanks again for all these references to Sri SSS' works. I am responding
> to you because you had shared his references, not because I consider you to
> be an SSS follower - your disclaimer in this regard is well noted.
>
> I went back to read your responses to Sri Sudhanshu Ji and Sri Jaishankar
> ji.
>
> Sri SSS has said this in relation to NS 3-7 (which you had kindly shared)
> -
> 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 । यत् पुनरुक्तमज्ञानस्यावस्तुस्वभावत्वम्,
> तन्मिथ्याज्ञानस्यापि समानम् । न हि ज्ञानबाध्यस्य क्वचिदपि वस्तुत्वं संगच्छत
> इति प्रत्युक्तम् ।
>
> With respect to BUBV 1.4.371, Sri SSS has said this (again shared by you)
> "ननु बृहद्वार्तिकेऽपि 'अस्य द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य यदुपादानकारणम् । अज्ञानं
> तदुपाश्रित्य ब्रह्म कारणमुच्यते ।।' (बृ. वा. १-४-३७१ ) इत्यज्ञानस्य
> द्वैतोपादानकारणत्वं स्पष्टमुक्तम् । अतः द्वैतस्योपादानापेक्षस्य अभावेर-
> कारणकत्वमेव ग्रन्थकृदभीष्टमिति प्रतीयते । मैवम्, द्वैतस्य
> इन्द्रजालसदृशत्वोक्त्या मिथ्याध्यासत्वमेवोक्तमिति । अध्यासस्या- वस्तुत्वात्
> उपादानादिकारणापेक्षा नैवास्ति । न च ग्रन्थकृता क्वचिदप्यध्यासोपादानत्वेन
> अज्ञानं समुपन्यस्तम्, प्रत्युताधस्ता- दस्माभिरुपपादितनीत्या
> मिथ्याज्ञानसंशयौ प्रत्यभावरूपाज्ञानस्यैव कारणत्वमत्राप्युक्तमिति गम्यते ।
> तेन च अज्ञानं समुपाश्रित्य ब्रह्मैव कारणम् इति अज्ञातब्रह्मण एव कारणत्वं
> प्रकृत- श्लोकाक्षरानुगुणमेवोच्यते इत्यवधेयम् ।"
>
> In both, there is a common reference to avastu-svabhAvatvam of adhyAsa -
> (1) यत् पुनरुक्तमज्ञानस्यावस्तुस्वभावत्वम्, तन्मिथ्याज्ञानस्यापि समानम् and
> (2) अध्यासस्यावस्तुत्वात् उपादानादिकारणापेक्षा नैवास्ति ।
>
> In Sri SSS' conception, there is no arthAdhyAsa (adhyAsasya avastutvAt),
> there is only jnAnAdhyAsa, and therefore he does not see the need to
> establish an upAdAna kAraNa for adhyAsa.
>
> So when the vArttikakAra says ajnAnam tadupAshritya brahma kAraNamucyate,
> he interprets this to mean ajnAta brahmaNah eva kAraNatvam - causation is
> only for the Brahman that is not known.
>
> The question is from whose perspective is Brahman the cause? According to
> Sri SSS, it has to be the ajnAtA, the non-knower's perspective. So the
> non-knower of Brahman considers Brahman to be the cause, and because of
> this, Brahman is the cause.
>
> However, having dismissed ajnAna as the upAdAna kAraNa on account of the
> dvaita-indrajAla being of the nature of adhyAsa (mithyAjnAna), Sri SSS does
> not have an answer for why the vArttikakAra uses the word "upAdAna" kAraNa.
>
> If adhyAsa is only mithyAjnAna, i.e., a jnAnAdhyAsa alone, what is the
> vArttikakAra's intent in using the word upAdAna kAraNa - is it simply a
> frivolous usage?
>
> Secondly in the commentary to NS 3-7, Sri SSS quotes vArttika-s 1.4.437,
> 1.4.438, 1.4.440 and 1.4.423
> मित्युत्पत्तावनुत्पत्तिर्विरोधाद्बाध्यते यतः |
> तद्बाधे नाप्यपेक्षास्ति मिथ्याधीबाधनं प्रति || BUBV  1.4.437
>
> मिथ्याधियोऽपि बाध्यत्वमज्ञानैकसमन्वयात् |
> मूलध्वस्तौ हतं तच्चेन्मिथ्याधीः किं करोति नः || BUBV 1.4.438
>
> मेयरूपानुरोधित्वं मिथ्यासंशययोर्यदि |
> सम्यग्ज्ञानात्तयोर्भेदो गम्यताम् केन हेतुना || BUBV 1.4.439 (Not quoted by
> Sri SSS here, sharing for completion)
>
> अज्ञानं संशयत्वान्नो मिथ्याज्ञानात्तथैव च |
> तयोस्तत्त्वविवक्षायामज्ञानं तत्त्वमुच्यते || BUBV 1.4.440
>
> Sri SSS quotes these and goes on to say, "तस्मान्मिथ्याज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण
> नाज्ञानं नाम वस्त्वस्ति ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वमिति वचनं साहसमात्रमिति भावः |"
>
> However, it is not clear how he comes to this conclusion about ajnAna from
> these BUBV verses. 1.4.437 says that upon the dawn of knowledge (of the
> self), there is no rise of duality, because the nature of the two
> (knowledge and duality) is in contradiction, and when *that* has been
> sublated, there is nothing else expected for the sublation of adhyAsa.
>
> What is the entity that is referred to as तत् *that*? We look at the
> previous verse, which is not quoted by Sri SSS.
> तस्मादविद्यासम्भूतं नानात्वं प्रत्यगात्मनि |
> ब्रह्मास्मीति तद्ध्वंसान्न क्वचिद्भेदधीर्यतः || BUBV 1.4.436
> Therefore, multiplicity in the inner self is born out of ignorance. When
> that has been destroyed by the knowledge "I am Brahman", there can be no
> cognition of difference on account of it.
>
> The pronoun "tat" in the phrase "तद्बाधे" of BUBV 1.4.437 therefore is
> referring to the ajnAna of BUBV 1.4.436, the previous verse. The purpose of
> 1.4.437 therefore is not to say that there is nothing called ignorance
> other than adhyAsa as Sri SSS concludes, rather, it is to say that adhyAsa
> will not persist when its cause, ignorance has been destroyed.
>
> 1.4.438 says that the sublatability of mithyAdhI (adhyAsa) is on account
> of it having samanvaya with ajnAna, and when the root (ajnAna) is
> destroyed, what can adhyAsa do to us?
>
> 1.4.439 is ignored by Sri SSS because he things it does not have a role to
> play in the discussion. However in this verse, the vArttikakAra is hinting
> at a question - do mithyAjnAna and doubt have ajnAna as its cause or not ?
> This verse takes the first alternative - If they do not have ajnAna as its
> cause, and they arise from the knowledge of the object, then there would be
> no basis to differentiate the two (adhyAasa and valid knowledge).  But this
> would be clearly incorrect, as we would not know what is valid knowledge
> and what is invalid.
>
> 1.4.440 is taking the alternative, if mithyAjnAna and doubt were caused by
> ignorance. Now, with this issue itself (whether mithyAjnAna and doubt were
> caused by ignorance), we had a doubt. Because we had a doubt here (nah
> samshayAt), it follows that ignorance exists (because how would the doubt
> arise otherwise). Similar is the case of mithyAjnAna elsewhere - as
> mithyAjnAna occurs, it too is caused by ignorance and therefore ignorance
> exists (mithyAjnAnAt tathaiva ca). When we examine the nature of those two
> (tayoh tattva-vivakshAyAm) - doubt and mithyAjnAna - we arrive at the
> conclusion that their nature is ignorance (ajnAnam tattvam ucyate).
>
> Therefore when we examine these verses together  - we arrive at the
> opposite conclusion that Sri SSS arrived at. To recall, he had
> said तस्मान्मिथ्याज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण नाज्ञानं नाम वस्त्वस्ति
> ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वमिति वचनं साहसमात्रमिति भावः - but the vArttikakAra says
> the opposite - तयोस्तत्त्वविवक्षायामज्ञानं तत्त्वमुच्यते - in examining
> doubt and adhyAsa, we say that their nature is of ignorance.
>
> Once again, that ajnAna is the material cause of adhyAsa.
>
> Now, Sri SSS had also quoted BUBV 1.4.423 in support of his view. That
> verse says
>
> किं भोः सदपि मानेन वस्तु साक्षान्निरस्यते |
> तस्मिन्निरस्ते किं शेषं यस्मिन् मानस्य मानता || BUBV 1.4.423
> Here the vArttikakAra is asking - if mithyAjnAna were real, would it be
> sublated or not. Is a real object too sublated by valid knowledge? If it
> was so sublated, what would remain (if the real could be sublated, nothing
> at all would remain), that could be the basis for the validity of
> knowledge?
>
> Again - Sri SSS takes this verse and interprets this as the basis to argue
> that तस्मान्मिथ्याज्ञानव्यतिरेकेण नाज्ञानं नाम वस्त्वस्ति
> ज्ञाननिवर्त्यत्वमिति वचनं साहसमात्रमिति भावः - however, the point that the
> vArttikakAra is making here is not whether mithyAjnAna or ajnAna are the
> nature of bhAva or abhAva, rather he is saying that a real entity cannot be
> sublated. We have no problem with that.
>
> However, the crucial point is none of the verses that Sri SSS quotes, lead
> us to the conclusion that there is no entity called ajnAna other than
> mithyAjnAna (adhyAsa), as alleged by Sri SSS.
>
> In fact the opposite is true, by examining the verses BUBV 1.4.436 to BUBV
> 1.4.440, we arrive at the conclusion that the vArttikakAra's view is that
> upAdAna kAraNa of mithyAjnAna is ajnAna.
>
> The direct references for the upAdAna kAraNatva of avidyA below -
> 1) अस्य द्वैतेन्द्रजालस्य यदुपादानकारणम् अज्ञानं BUBV 1.4.371
> 2) मिथ्याधियोऽपि बाध्यत्वमज्ञानैकसमन्वयात् BUBV 1.4.438
> 3) मूलध्वस्तौ हतं तच्चेन्मिथ्याधीः किं करोति नः BUBV 1.4.438
> 4) तयोः तत्त्वविवक्षायाम् अज्ञानं तत्त्वमुच्यते BUBV 1.4.440
>
> This still leaves how NS 3.7 is to be understood, which I can take up
> later (if others want to do it, they are free to of course).
>
> Kind regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> --
> 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/CAL34aEmD05a2U6ZP9SQRs1y9YAJ69fbSm_ydMX1d0JfPFMqhHw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEmD05a2U6ZP9SQRs1y9YAJ69fbSm_ydMX1d0JfPFMqhHw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>