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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Jaishankar ji,

Re:
आविर्भावतिरोभावैर्धर्मिण्यां मृदि सर्वदा ।
धर्मा घटादयः सर्वे वर्तन्ते न त्वभावगाः ॥

This vArttika reminds me of these statements from the ghaTa bhAShya BUB
1.2.1.

अपि च, चतुर्विधानामभावानाम् , घटस्येतरेतराभावो घटादन्यो दृष्टः — यथा
घटाभावः पटादिरेव, न घटस्वरूपमेव । न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि
? भावरूप एव । एवं घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात्
, घटेन व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम् ।

abhAva itself is bhAvarupA says the bhAshyakAra!

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024, 17:48 Jaishankar Narayanan, <jai1971 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Venkatraghavan ji,
>
> I think by saying तत:  सत्  अञात:  भवेत्   -   Therefore, it is Brahman
> as sat which is unknown - he has clearly said there is no jnAna abhAva as
> brahman as  jnAnam is there but it is not known which means it is Avrtam -
> covered and the cover is there which is kAranam for bheda. Already he has
> introduced avidya in the first chapter
>
> ऐकात्म्याप्रतिपत्तिर्या  स्वात्मानुभवसंश्रया ।
> साऽविध्या  संसृतेर्बीजं  तन्नाशो  मुक्तिरात्मन: ॥७ ॥
> That avidyA which is of the nature of not knowing the oneness of Atma and
> which is located and experienced by one self (Sakshi chaitanya), is the
> seed for the samsara  and its destruction is one's freedom.
>
> Also jnAna-abhAva means it is really jnAna-prAg-abhAva but he does not
> accept any abhAva at all. For example these TUBhV verses from the 1st
> Chapter are very clear
>
> प्रध्वंसाच्छकलादि स्यात्तच्चानित्यं  घटादिवत् ।
> कल्पनामात्रतोऽभावो नैवारभ्यः स कर्मभिः ॥ २९ ॥
>
> By the act of destruction, the effect in the form of potsherds is
> produced. Like pt etc., it is transient. abhAva which is only an
> imagination is not produced by action.
>
> आविर्भावतिरोभावैर्धर्मिण्यां मृदि सर्वदा ।
> धर्मा घटादयः सर्वे वर्तन्ते न त्वभावगाः ॥ ३० ॥
>
> All objects / qualities such as the pot always inhere in their cause,
> which is clay whether manifest or unmanifest. They are never non-existent.
>
> नास्त्यभावस्य सम्बन्धः क्रियया वा गुणेन वा ।
> निरात्मकत्वान्नैवालं सम्बद्धुं केनचित् क्वचित् ॥ ३१ ॥
>
> abhAva / absence has no relation with action or quality. Since it has no
> existence it cannot be related to anything anywhere.
>
> तस्मात्स्यात्कल्पनामात्रो व्यवहारप्रसिद्धये ।
> प्रध्वंसादिरभावोऽयं शिलापुत्रादिवन्मृषा ॥ ३२ ॥
>
> Therefore abhAva like pradhvamsa etc. (prior, posterior, mutual and
> absolute nonexistence) are only imaginations for the sake of transactions .
> It is unreal / illusory like a stone-son.
>
> with love and prayers,
> Jaishankar
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 9:12 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Jaishankar ji
>> Thank you very much for the lucid explanation. There is a clear
>> connection between the previous section and the current section in your
>> interpretation.
>>
>> However, a question lingers. The pUrvapakshI had said "अज्ञानं हि नाम
>> ज्ञानाभावः, तस्य चावस्तुस्वाभाव्यात् कुतः संसारकारणत्वं?" - However, the
>> siddhAntin in this verse does not say "no, ajnAna is not jnAnAbhAva" nor
>> does he directly refute this in the proximate section. Why is that?
>>
>> If we examine the entire third chapter of the NaiShkarmya Siddhi, I think
>> an answer to that question can be found.
>>
>> In 3.28, Sureshvaracharya says - "प्रत्यगात्मानवबोधस्यानात्मस्वाभाव्यात्
>> तदभिनिर्वृत्तश्चायम् (अहं instead of अयं seems to be another reading)
>> बुद्ध्यादिदेहान्तस्तस्मिन्नात्मत्वमविद्याकृतमेवाऽऽत्मत्वमिवाऽनात्मत्वमपि
>> साऽविद्यस्यैव".
>>
>> The phrase प्रत्यगात्मानवबोधस्यानात्मस्वाभाव्यात् is indicative of
>> ignorance being of the nature of the non-self.
>>
>> Later in 3.58 there is the direct reference to the presence of ajnAna in
>> deep sleep. "यदि हि सुषुप्तेऽज्ञानं नाभविष्यदन्तरेणापि
>> वेदान्तवाक्यश्रवणमनननिदिध्यासनान्यहं
>> ब्रह्मास्मीत्यध्यवसायात्सर्वप्राणभृतामपि स्वरसत एव सुषुप्तप्रतिपत्तेः
>> सकलसंसारोच्छित्तिप्रसङ्गो न कैवल्यात्पुनरुत्थानं न्याय्यम्
>> अनिर्मोक्षप्रसङ्गात् |"
>>
>> Further in 3.59 he describes the antah-karaNa as the product of ignorance
>> - "एवं तावदविद्योत्थस्यान्तःकरणस्य बाह्यविषयनिमित्तरूपावच्छेदा या अहं
>> वृत्तिर्व्याप्रियते तयाऽवच्छिन्नं
>> सत्कूटस्थप्रत्यगात्मोपादनावबोधरूपस्याव्यवधानतया विषयभावम् प्रतिपद्यत इति"
>>
>> In 3.66 he describes the nature of avidyA
>> सेयं भ्रान्तिर्निरालम्बा सर्वन्यायविरोधिनी |
>>
>> सहते न विचारम् सा तमो यद्वद्दिवाकरम् ||
>> तस्याः खल्वस्याविद्याया भ्रान्तेः सम्यग्ज्ञानोत्पत्तिद्वारेण निवृत्तिः
>>
>> In 3.77 he says that the ego is also a product of avidyA - अतो
>> अहमर्थोऽनर्थोपसृष्टत्वादज्ञानोत्थितत्वाच्च हेयेति प्रत्यक्षतोऽवशिष्यते and
>> in 3.78 - त्वमर्थे प्रत्यगात्मनि प्रागनवबुद्धाद्वितीयता सानेनावबोध्यते |
>> अतोऽनवबोधनिरासेन तदुत्थस्य सद्वितीयत्वस्य त्वमर्थस्य परोक्षत्वस्य च
>> तदर्थस्य निरसनात् न वैयधिकरण्यादिचोद्यस्यावसरोऽस्तीति - The word "you" (in
>> the mahAvAkya You are That) causes the knowledge of the non-duality of the
>> inner self, previously where there was ignorance in regard to it. It is
>> through the destruction of this ignorance that the duality associated with
>> the "you" and the remoteness associated with the "that", which are (both)
>> born from that (ignorance) are destroyed, and therefore there is no room
>> for the charge that the words "you" and "that" cannot be put in apposition.
>>
>> It was shown that words can only apply to things that have guNa, kriyA,
>> jAti, rUDhi etc, and the Atma cannot have any such associations. If the
>> words cannot directly refer to the self, how can the sentence "I am
>> Brahman" produce right knowledge? To this, in 3.105 he says - कथं
>> पुनरभिधानं अभिदेयेनानभिसम्बद्धम् सदनभिधेयेऽर्थे प्रमां जनयतीति | शृणु -
>> यथानभिसम्बद्धमपि अनभिधेयेऽर्थेऽविद्यानिराकरणमुखेन बोधयतीत्याह - Listen, a
>> word that is not connected to the meaning intended to be conveyed by it,
>> can convey that mean through the removal of ignorance associated with the
>> meaning.
>>
>> The implication of this statement is that ignorance necessarily cannot be
>> of the nature of absence. If the word "Brahman" can only convey produce the
>> knowledge of Brahman by removing the ignorance of Brahman, ignorance cannot
>> be of the nature of the absence of knowledge of Brahman - because that
>> would lead to the problem of anyonyAshraya. To know Brahman, one needs
>> ignorance (absence of knowledge of Brahman) to be removed. To remove
>> ignorance (the absence of knowledge of Brahman), one needs the knowledge of
>> Brahman.
>>
>> He gives the example of a sleeping man in the sloka in 3.105 and says
>> there is really no connection between the name and the sleeper, but still,
>> he wakes up (because calling his name disturbs his sleep). Similar is the
>> case here (it is through the removal of ignorance, which does not have an
>> explicable relationship with the self, but still its removal is the only
>> way for one to wake up to the true nature of the self).
>>
>> In 3.109 -
>> इत्येवं चोदयेद्योऽपि जोषयेत्तम् घटादिना |
>> सदसद्भ्याम् विभक्तोऽसौ पर्यायश्च न चानयोः ||
>> If someone asks thus (how can the right answer be arrived at using the
>> false means - ie how can the removal of ignorance produce the knowledge of
>> the self?), one should direct them to consider pots etc. All of those
>> things are neither sat nor asat, nor sat and asat, in sequence. (Despite
>> being mithyA, they have utility within their own domain. Similarly a mithyA
>> vRtti-jnAna produced by shruti mahAvAkya has utility - it facilitates in
>> the revelation of the self by removing ignorance).
>>
>> So on what basis do we admit an avidyA? In Sureshvara's words in 3.110 -
>> अविद्याप्रसिद्ध्यैव तद्सद्भावसिद्धेरुलूकनिशावदित्यत इदमुच्यते - The
>> existence of ignorance is only proved by our familiarity with it (no
>> pramANa can prove it, for the pramANa removes that ignorance) - it is like
>> the case of the owl finding darkness in the daylight.
>>
>> In 3.116 he says -
>> कुतोऽविद्यॆति चोद्यं स्यान्नैव प्राघेत्वसम्भवात् |
>> कालत्रापरिच्छित्तेर्न न चोर्ध्वं चोद्यसंभवः ||
>> The question how can ignorance exist is illegitimate both before and
>> after knowledge. Before knowledge, its presence cannot be contested, and
>> after knowleddge it stands destroyed in all three periods of time.
>>
>> Thus, the topic of this chapter is the tattvamasi sentence, and how it
>> produces the knowledge necessary for liberation. In discussing this, the
>> opponent had raised the challenge -
>> (1) there is no ignorance of the Self other than false knowledge, what is
>> it that is destroyed by the mahAvAkya?
>> (2) ignorance is nothing but the absence of knowledge, and as ignorance
>> is a non-entity it cannot be the cause of samsAra
>>
>> In answer, Sureshvaracharya first goes on to establish that ultimately it
>> is the self that conveys existence to everything (including samsAra) but it
>> is the unknown self that is the cause of samsAra. He later goes on to say
>> that ignorance is of the nature of the non-self (anAtma svabhAvya), that
>> there exists ignorance in deep sleep, it is the cause of the mind and the
>> ego. There is no pramANa that reveals ignorance, because the nature of
>> pramANa-s is antithetical to ignorance, but ignorance itself is well known,
>> and its existence can only be explained on account of this prasiddhi. The
>> duality of the inner self, and the remoteness of the paramAtma that are
>> born from that ignorance are removed through the mahAvAkya shruti. The only
>> way the mahAvAkya shruti can give rise to the knowledge of the self is
>> through the denial of this inexplicable ignorance, because words cannot
>> directly refer to the self, they can only remove the ignorance that
>> obscures it.
>>
>> A large portion of the above chain of logic does not work if ignorance of
>> the self was simply the absence of knowledge.
>>
>> 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/CAL34aEnHK6e5b%2B65JbtfF%2BdzYWgdPNQwV8oYDiTAd6EY%3Di0xxA%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEnHK6e5b%2B65JbtfF%2BdzYWgdPNQwV8oYDiTAd6EY%3Di0xxA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> 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/CAOkLS-FkYta2yywFfxZXA1rZHnktrxQJfAsnckhzDi_cooa%2BZg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAOkLS-FkYta2yywFfxZXA1rZHnktrxQJfAsnckhzDi_cooa%2BZg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>