[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: A discussion on sAkshi-bhAsyatva of ajnAna and ajnAna-vyAvartaka-vishaya

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

That ajnAna is bhAvarUpa i.e. bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa is proved otherwise.
That is not the subject matter of this post.

This post is a part of larger write-up which shows that the anubhava in the
form of "अहमज्ञ:" is an example of sAkshi-pratyaksha of bhAvarUpa-ajnAna.

Here, generally the opponent argued about this anubhava having jnAna-abhAva
as the vishaya, which is rejected in detail. Also, the impossibility of
pratyaksha of bhAvarUpa ajnAna is raised by the opponent. That also is
rejected through arguments.

This post is one such part wherein the opponent is postulating the
impossibility of pratyaksha of bhAvarUpa ajnAna. That only-ajnAna is never
illumined by SAkshI, nor only the vishaya of ajnAna can be illumined by
sAkshI. This brings forth the important concept of jnAtatayA and ajnAtatayA
sAkshi-vedyatva.

I confess I have not gone through the posts in any depth. However on a
> first reading, prima facie it appeared to me that while different
> anubhavas are explained based on the admittance of ajnAna as a bhAvarUpa
> entity, they do not  cover the question as to why ajnAna should be admitted
> as such, a bhAvarUpa entity, in the first place. Here I would like to point
> out that many of these questions have been raised and answered by
> postulating  that, for anAdi entities, ajnatatva (leading to ignorance) can
> also be anAdi and it is not necessary to postulate a cause  for
> such ignorance (ajnAtatva).
>

Hope, I clarified.

I also want to clarify that I am not in a position to enter into a debate
> by providing supporting evidence to justify the alternate position. But I
> wanted to know if I have missedout  in the posts the part which justifies
> the admittance of such a bhAvarUpa ajnAna.
>

Hope this is also addressed.

In short, ajnAna is stated as bhAvarUpa i.e. bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa
because there is bAdhaka-sattva for ajnAna being either bhAva or abhAva.

A little elaboration:

Objection: BhAva and abhAva are mutually contradictory. They have
mutual-virodha. Therefore, it is not possible that avidyA which is
abhAva-vilakshaNa has also bhAva-vilakshaNatA.

Answer: No. There is presence of bAdhaka in case avidyA is accepted as
having either bhAvatva or abhAvatva.

bAdhaka for bhAvatva: avidyA is stated by Shruti to be jnAna-nivartya and
vinAshI. If it were to be bhAva, then anything which is bhAva and vinAshI
has to have sAditva.[विनाशि भावः सादि:, घटवत्]. However, Shruti says avidyA
to be anAdi. Hence, the rule- that vinAshI bhAva is with beginning is the
bAdhaka for bhAvatva of avidyA.

bAdhaka for abhAvatva of avidyA: avidyA is the upAdAna of the world. abhAva
can never be upAdAna of anything. Hence, upAdAnatva is the bAdhaka for
abhAvatva of avidyA.

Therefore, avidyA is accepted to be bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNA.

Further, bhAvatva and abhAvatva are not paraspara-viraha-rUpa nor
paraspara-viraha-vyApaka-rUpa. Rather, they are
paraspara-viraha-vyApya-rUpa.

Let us say, there are A and B:

Paraspara-viraha-rUpa:

A =B -abhAva; B=A-abhAva.

Paraspara-viraha-vyApaka-rUpa:

A-abhAva (vyApya) => B(vyApaka);

B-abhAva (vyApya) => A(vyApaka)

Paraspara-viraha-vyApya-rUpa:

A(vyApya) =B-abhAva(vyApaka);

B(vyApya) =>A-abhAva(vyApaka)

Since bhAvatva and abhAvatva are like cow-hood and horse-hood, and are
paraspara-viraha-vyApya-rUpa, there is no impossibility of co-appearance of
bhAva-vilakshaNatA and abhAva-vilakshaNatA just like cow-hood-abhAva and
horse-hood-abhAva coexist in a camel.

Here, we should appreciate that bhAva includes both AtmA and avidyA-kArya
whereas abhAva includes both asat and the four abhAva namely prAk-abhAva,
pradhvansa-abhAva, anyonya-abhAva andatyanta-abhAva.

avidyA is different from all of these.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.

>