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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkat ji.

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

As long as avidyA is adhyasta i.e. mithyA, there is no harm to advaita.
Whether it is bhAvarUpa or abhAvarUpa, if it is adhyasta i.e. if it is
mithyA, advaita is unharmed.

If SSS ji says that avidyA is anadhyasta-abhAva, then he self-contradicts
in NS 3.7, wherein he has accepted avidyA to be the cause of adhyAsa. This
is so because anadhyasta-abhAva, like horns of hare, cannot cause adhyAsa.

abhAva can be either adhyasta (pot-abhAva) or anadhyasta (horns of hare).
The very fact that SSS ji admits ajnAna as jnAna-abhAva i.e. describable in
terms of pratiyogI, means it is adhyasta-abhAva and hence triguNAtmaka as
per logic adduced by BhAshyakAra in ghaTa-bhAshya. So, he cannot hold
ajnAna as anadhyasta-abhAva.

Thus, even though he has not admitted explicitly, his jnAna-abhAva is
adhyasta-abhAva, which is triguNAtmaka and is hence bhAva only.


> 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.
>

He cannot explicitly accept ajnAna as adhyasta either. Because the moment
he does so, adhyasta vastu being mithyA will be triguNAtmaka. And all his
arguments against mUlAvidyA will apply to himself as well.

Actually, the problem with SSS ji is that he would use terms but not
clearly define it as to what it means. He would not even define what he
means by abhAva. How can one discuss without definitions? But then it gives
enough room to confuse oneself as well as others by vague discussions.


> 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.
>

😀 It is for his followers to answer!!

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.