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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

Reg // And teaching ajnAta-sat as kAraNa is by accepting the dharma-adhyAsa
> of ajnAna, whose dharma is kAraNatva //,
>
> If ajnAna is understood as absence of knowledge, are you suggesting that
> its dharma is kAraNatva ?
>

Whether ajnAna is treated as bhAvarUpa or abhAvarUpa, the fact remains that
ajnAna has been explicitly stated to be kAraNa at a number of places. So,
both of them, who hold ajnAna as bhAvarUpa and those who hold it to be
abhAvarUpa, have to answer as to how ajnAna is stated as kAraNa. While
those who hold ajnAna to be bhAvarUpa, hold kAraNatva to be a
mithyA-bhAva-dharma inherent in ajnAna; those who hold ajnAna to be
abhAvarUpa will have to somehow explain as to how ajnAna is stated to have
kAraNatva.

They cannot say (as they said in NS 3.7) that it is the ajnAta-sat which is
stated to have kAraNa and not ajnAna as such. They need to explain
kAraNatva of ajnAna because the kAraNatva of ajnAta-sat is not intrinsic
but AdhyAsika or aupAdhika. SSS' reply that -- since ajnAta-sat has
kAraNatva (and not ajnAna), the objection against kAraNatva of
abhAva-rUpa-ajnAna stands answered - is incorrect; because the kAraNatva of
ajnAta-sat is only on account of kAraNatva of ajnAna.

So, SSS remains duty bound to answer as to how can abhAva-rUpa-ajnAna have
kAraNatva. Especially when bhAshya clearly says - नाप्यभावः
कस्यचिदुत्पत्तिहेतुः स्यात् , अभावत्वादेव, शशविषाणादिवत् ।

He answers it elsewhere, not in NS 3.7. In NS 3.7, he is abject in
resolution as demonstrated. Elsewhere he says - *AdhyAsa, of course,
presupposes ignorance or want of true knowledge. But this is a logical
presupposition, a necessary implication of thought. No positive entity like
the unfortunate MUlAvidyA can claim precedence in time over adhyAsa; for,
as already said, time itself is its product. Vedanta which predicates the
unity of Brahman will be shattered to pieces, if a second entity not
subjected to or originating from adhyAsa be for a moment conceded to exist.
The reality of the not-self (anAtman) follows necessarily from its not
being adhyAsa, superimposed. I submit this vital aspect of the system to
the learned Professor for his deep consideration.*

He seeks to dismiss the kAraNatva of avidyA, so duly established in bhAshya
and vArtika, as a logical presupposition and an implication of thought.
This is his own imaginary idea, not to be found in bhAshya and vArtika, and
hence as per his own logic, liable to be rejected,
bhAshya-akshara-bahir-bhAvAt. Otherwise, I would ask - what is this
"logical presupposition"? Is it Brahman or is it horns of hare? If it is
neither, then you are welcome to accept that kAraNatva is a
bhAva-mithyA-dharma. Now answer as to how abhAvarUpa-ajnAna has
bhAva-mithyA-dharma of kAraNatva.

//*Vedanta which predicates the unity of Brahman will be shattered to
pieces, if a second entity not subjected to or originating from adhyAsa be
for a moment conceded to exist.//*

Such statements by SSS ji which he submits for "deep contemplation" shows
his ignorance of siddhAnta. He thinks that avidyA is not subject to or
originating from adhyAsa. This is not true. In siddhAnta, avidyA is itself
adhyasta. It is not an entity which is not subject to adhyAsa. avidyA
itself is mithyA and is hence non-existent in that very substratum where it
appears i.e. Brahman. Thus, it is not that only avidyA-kArya that are
subject to adhyAsa. Even avidyA itself is subject to adhyAsa. So, VedAnta
is not "shattered to pieces".

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.