[Advaita-l] [advaitin] 'BhAva' cannot be a product of 'abhAva' - Shankara

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Michael Ji,

Venkat Ji observed

//  However, if ignorance were jnAna abhAva, postulate 2 is invalidated.
There is no way to explain why the svaprakAsha Brahman is not immediately
and directly known by all //,

This is another very important difference between the two schools. So far
mainly the vikshepa aspect has been discussed repeatedly. However this
AvaraNa aspect has somehow not been addressed in its important implication.
It would be in order if this aspect is covered in some detail in your
responses from the scholars of Sri SSS school.

Regards

On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 6:34 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste all, Here is another response citing Sureswara on creation of
> adhyasa
>
> Some more relevant points. This comment and the next are courtesy: André
> Marques
> <https://www.facebook.com/groups/162360101096963/user/100091547178939/?__cft__[0]=AZUeYXEKONdSIsPs7UdPbByssYfzxaiMH8ZMVgdgyDi19bW_JkEovp5LmhMOzp2CtJRMxGpd5FFsp8W-6P74r2yzP2RwjIMF0zbhz08MLF83ozeqa-8Uv5uj_agrr7J9dI6H-RJ1enRQ8pBT2VIYMyflojAP84B8gKMbcPvqA0NfKLoZThYSMXiGHRT5iqeC8k8qRoSmriMEzENxsDceNaaP&__tn__=R]-R> ji
> who has led the draft translation of “Critique of Mūlāvidyā Vimarśe” by Sw.
> Jñānanandendra Saraswati (disciple of SSSS ji; name pūrvāśrama Vițțhal
> Śāstry). Question is posed by Pūrvapakși identified as Reviewer. Answer
> by Vițțhal Śāstry.
> —-
> [Reviewer]- Aren't the words "nimitta" (instrumental or efficient cause)
> and "kāraṇa" (cause in general) synonymous? If so, it is contradictory to
> say that the instrumental cause is not the cause. Both instrumental
> causality (nimitta-kāraṇatva) and material causality (upādāna-kāraṇatva)
> are being intended here. In the superimposition that is of the form of
> effect, false knowledge (mithyā-jñāna), in the form of a defect, acts as
> the instrumental cause. Since the effect inherits its nature from the
> cause, false knowledge also acts as the material cause. The trace (inert)
> characteristics (jāḍya-dharma) present in the cause are seen manifested in
> the effect.
> [Viṭṭhalaśāstrī] - It has already (earlier in article) been shown that
> false knowledge in the form of the mutual superimposition of Ātmā and
> anātmā is not an effect. Are not superimposition (adhyāsa) and false
> knowledge (mithyā-jñāna) one and the same? That being the case, what is the
> meaning of saying false knowledge is the cause — in the form of a defect —
> of an effect-superimposition?
> Since mūlāvidyā itself is untenable, what is the meaning of saying it is
> inert (jaḍa)? As it has been established that the inert substance
> (jaḍa-dravya) is merely a name and not a real entity (vastu), in what can
> mūlāvidyā be reflected? These are mere assumptions (kalpanā) and not
> factual. By saying "mithyā-jñāna-nimitta," I have accepted that the
> instrumental cause (nimitta) is the cause, implying that transactions arise
> from the superimposition called false knowledge. The word "nimitta" does
> not signify material causality.
>
>    - 1h
>    about an hour ago
>
>    <https://www.facebook.com/groups/Sankaraadvaita/posts/1422879681711659/?comment_id=1423259135007047&__cft__[0]=AZUeYXEKONdSIsPs7UdPbByssYfzxaiMH8ZMVgdgyDi19bW_JkEovp5LmhMOzp2CtJRMxGpd5FFsp8W-6P74r2yzP2RwjIMF0zbhz08MLF83ozeqa-8Uv5uj_agrr7J9dI6H-RJ1enRQ8pBT2VIYMyflojAP84B8gKMbcPvqA0NfKLoZThYSMXiGHRT5iqeC8k8qRoSmriMEzENxsDceNaaP&__tn__=R]-R>
>    - Like
>    - Reply
>    - Edited
>
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/groups/162360101096963/user/1432423115/?__cft__[0]=AZUeYXEKONdSIsPs7UdPbByssYfzxaiMH8ZMVgdgyDi19bW_JkEovp5LmhMOzp2CtJRMxGpd5FFsp8W-6P74r2yzP2RwjIMF0zbhz08MLF83ozeqa-8Uv5uj_agrr7J9dI6H-RJ1enRQ8pBT2VIYMyflojAP84B8gKMbcPvqA0NfKLoZThYSMXiGHRT5iqeC8k8qRoSmriMEzENxsDceNaaP&__tn__=R]-R>
> Sri Kumar
> <https://www.facebook.com/groups/162360101096963/user/1432423115/?__cft__[0]=AZUeYXEKONdSIsPs7UdPbByssYfzxaiMH8ZMVgdgyDi19bW_JkEovp5LmhMOzp2CtJRMxGpd5FFsp8W-6P74r2yzP2RwjIMF0zbhz08MLF83ozeqa-8Uv5uj_agrr7J9dI6H-RJ1enRQ8pBT2VIYMyflojAP84B8gKMbcPvqA0NfKLoZThYSMXiGHRT5iqeC8k8qRoSmriMEzENxsDceNaaP&__tn__=R]-R>
> Admin
> Top contributor
> Continued from previous comment:
> [Reviewer] - In Śrī Sureśvara's Vārttika, it is stated, "adhyāsaś ca vinā
> hētuṁ na loka upapadyatē," meaning that superimposition requires a cause.
> Additionally, the Vārttika explicitly states that ignorance is the material
> cause for the illusion of duality: “asya dvaitēndra jālasya yad upādāna
> kāraṇam | ajñānaṁ tad upāśritya brahma kāraṇam ucyatē” (Ignorance is the
> material cause of this magical illusion of duality; from the perspective of
> ignorance, Brahman is said to be the cause). If we interpret ignorance here
> as absence of knowledge (jñānābhāva) or non-apprehension (agrahaṇa), both
> being forms of absence (abhāva), how can it be justified as the material
> cause? Is not the material cause that which is intimately connected with
> the effect (anvaya-kāraṇa)? Is absence (abhāva) some kind of thing that can
> be pervasively present in the dualistic world? Moreover, the commentary
> itself states, "abhāvād vā utpattir iti sarvapramāṇa vyākōpaḥ," meaning
> that creation from absence would contradict all proof, does it not?
> [Viṭṭhalaśāstrī] - The author of the Vārttika, having stated that
> superimposition requires a cause ("adhyāsaś ca vinā hētuṁ na loka
> upapadyatē"), proclaims, "ajñāta ātmā jagataḥ kāraṇam" (the unknown Self is
> the cause of the world). He also uses the term "upādāna-kāraṇa" (material
> cause), stating, “asya dvaitēndra jālasya yad upādāna kāraṇam | ajñānaṁ tad
> upāśritya brahma kāraṇam ucyatē." Since the duality that is the effect is
> described as an illusion (indra-jāla), the world which is an effect
> (kārya), must be imagined (kalpita) in Brahman through superimposition
> (adhyāsa), making Brahman both the material and instrumental cause. That is
> why the author of the Vārttika says the unknown Self (ajñāta-ātmā) is the
> cause. He uses the terms "ajñāta ātmā," "ātmāvidyā," and "ātma-agrahaṇa"
> interchangeably.
> Therefore, superimposition is illusory knowledge (bhranti-jñāna), and its
> cause is the lack of knowledge of Truth (tattva-jñāna). The lack of
> knowledge of Truth does not mean absence (abhāva) [of something] but rather
> forms of the unknown Self (ajñāta-ātmā rūpa), as stated by the author of
> the Vārttika himself. This eliminates the objection of how creation can
> arise from absence. The reviewer, in the sixth question, has stated that
> the absence of knowledge of Truth is a positive entity (bhāvarūpa-vṛtti).
> Remember, here we are discussing mistaken understanding, not the creation
> of an object. It is a universally experienced fact that the cause for
> mistaken understanding is the absence of correct understanding. Therefore,
> the cause for superimposition is the lack of knowledge of Truth, not
> mūlāvidyā.
> The Commentator (Śaṅkara) states, "itare'tarāvivekēna adhyasya," meaning
> that mistaken understanding arises from the lack of discrimination between
> the Self and non-Self. In Māṇḍūkya Kārikā, Vaitathya Prakaraṇa (2.13):
> "aniścitā yathā rajjuḥ andhakāre vikalpitā | sarpa dhārādibhir bhēdais
> tadvad ātmā vikalpitaḥ" (Just as a rope is mistaken for a snake in the
> darkness, similarly the Self is imagined in various ways due to lack of
> certainty).
> The commentary explains that since the true nature of the Self, which is
> pure consciousness and non-dual, is not ascertained, the Self is imagined
> with distinctions like the individual-self (jīva), vital breath (prāṇa),
> etc. This is the essence of all the Upaniṣads. Mistaken understanding
> arises only in the absence of correct knowledge. This is a universally
> experienced truth. The world is a projection (kalpita) of this mistaken
> understanding and not a real entity. That is why it is said to be dispelled
> by knowledge. The inert (jaḍa) [mūlāvidyā-bīja] cannot be the material
> cause for this. The unknown Self (ajñāta-ātmā) is the cause in every sense
> [instrumental and material]. The author of the Vārttika himself states that
> the absence of knowledge of Truth (tattva-jñāna-abhāva) and the unknown
> Self (ajñāta-ātmā) are one and the same.
> The unknown Self pervades the entire world, whereas mūlāvidyā does not. It
> has already been established that the world is not a materially inert
> entity (jada vastu) but a projection (kalpita) of superimposition. If we
> say that mūlāvidyā is the root cause from which superimposition and the
> world arise then it implies the ultimate reality of cause and effect,
> resulting in dualism. This cannot be refuted by knowledge. Such a concept
> of Advaita Vedānta would be a mere fantasy. If we consider the author of
> the Vārttika’s own words that duality is an illusion (indra-jāla), it
> becomes clear that an illusion cannot have a material cause.
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 8:26 AM Michael Chandra Cohen <
> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Sudhanshuji et. al.,  Please see the response below of Prof.
>> Keralapuraji and a new thread from Prasanth Neti rebutting Venkata
>> Radhavaji's earlier reply to my original post on Paul Hacker
>>
>> Namaste Subbhuji and Venkara Raghavanji,,  Both of  you are
>> concerned that nothing comes from nothing and thus abhavarupa avidya is
>> invalid, Such that VRji said, //That being the case, such a non-existent
>> entity cannot give rise to an "existent" effect, such as adhyAsa. If Sri
>> SSS alleges otherwise, he would contradict experience and the explicit
>> words of the bhAShya that Sri Subbu and others have pointed out//
>>
>> However the only ontic reality is Brahman. Lack of knowledge is not a
>> thing. Darkness is not a thing, it is just absence of light. Yet,
>> co-terminus with that epistemological absence is this appearance of
>> adhyasa. You must find a different line of argument than bhavarupa
>> absence to refute SSSS and Bhasya.
>>
>> Though I vowed no proxy argument, there appeared yesterday two astute
>> responses to my earlier post in the SAV FB group that I believe are worth
>> sharing.
>>
>>
>>