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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Can you please give reference to following quoted by you

// *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 //.*

*Regards*

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 12:44 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> --
> 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%2BBCxaym9H0G8Gn-85a0grvg9OeBfYOK5GXmZJbUy2V%3DfGw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCxaym9H0G8Gn-85a0grvg9OeBfYOK5GXmZJbUy2V%3DfGw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>