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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,
Indeed, abhAva is also adhyasta only. This is similar to the argument that
I made.

What is the harm if avidyA is kincidbhAvarUpa which is adhyasta or jnAna
abhAva which is adhyasta?

I suppose he would fall back to the logical presupposition charge - he
would not agree that avidya can logically presuppose  adhyAsa. But even
here, he has pretty much admitted in the kleshApahAriNi that an abhAvarUpa
ajnAna can logically presuppose adhyAsa -  न च अज्ञानं विना मिथ्याज्ञानं
संशयज्ञानं वा समुपजायते. That is, according to him, an (adhyasta?)
abhAvarUpa ajnAna can logically presuppose mithyAjnAna, i.e. adhyAsa.

So either he must argue that abhAvarUpa ajnAna is not adhyasta, OR not have
a problem with adhyasta kincid bhAvarupa ajnAna , just like he has no
problem with an adhyasta abhAvarUpa ajnAna.

In the former, he falls into the bhAvAdvaita camp of maNDana miSra (which
he wouldn't tolerate), and in the latter, his whole problem with kincid
bhAvarupa ajnAna is nothing but a storm in a teacup.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan






On Tue, 27 Aug 2024, 20:59 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Venkat ji.
>
> abhAva itself is bhAvarupA says the bhAshyakAra!
>>
>
> It is such an important concept to understand.
>
> As we know ghaTa-abhAva is anupalabdhi-pramANa-vedya.
>
> An objection arises: as per siddhAnta, abhAva is not different from
> adhikaraNa. So, pot-abhAva has to be adhikaraNa-swarUpa. That means,
> pot-abhAva is identical to the ground. Now, ground is pratyaksha-vedya. So,
> where is the requirement of anupalabdhi-pramANa?
>
> Ground is pratyaksha. Pot-abhAva is identical to ground. So, pot-abhAva
> i.e. ground is pratyaksha. anupalabdhi-pramANa is useless.
>
> Here, it is answered. vyAvhArika-vishesha-abhAva is not identical to
> adhikaraNa. It is a different mithyA vastu (other than ground) and is hence
> anirvachanIya and triguNAtmaka. And it hence requires a separate pramANa
> named anupalabdhi as pratyaksha cannot grasp it. (And also pratyaksha is
> utilised in pratyaksha of ground).
>
> Only pAramArthika-abhAva is accepted in siddhAnta as adhikaraNa Brahman
> swarUpa.
>
> Further, those siddhAntI who admit all abhAva as adhikaraNa swarUpa, don't
> admit anupalabdhi at all. However, even in their case, abhAva being
> identical to locus is bhAvarUpa.
>
> So, vishesha-abhAva is always accepted as triguNAtmak, anirvachanIya and
> mithyA.
>
> That is why I always wonder, even if SSS ji holds avidyA to be
> jnAna-abhAva, how does it matter? It still remains mithyA, triguNAtmaka,
> anirvachanIya.
>
> I have raised this query several times in their group citing the ghaTa
> bhAshya anumAna of BhAshyakAra, but no sustainable answer came up.
>
> 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%2BBDhRBk21ssSFBakbsQZm0sPk1nPgEW8th0QPG8RYkUGdw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDhRBk21ssSFBakbsQZm0sPk1nPgEW8th0QPG8RYkUGdw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>