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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Michael Ji,

This has a bearing on the treatment of Sushupti in the two schools of
thought.

Regards

On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 1:15 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>