[Advaita-l] [advaitin] RE: pratiyogI-jnAna being mandatory for abhAva-jnAna

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Let us come back to the original problem. I don't think any digression is
required presently.

Is x-abhAva-jnAna possible without x-jnAna?

Regards.

On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, 22:13 Michael Chandra Cohen, <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> AUM SUdhanshuji, Thank you for your response. I fear you continue to
> interpret some kind of positive factor abhava ignorance rather a lack of
> knowledge hence our disagreement.
>
> -SSSS: "The illusory manifestation is totally non-existent in any form or
> at any time apart from the place, time and form in which it was perceived
> -SS response: It is non-existent even at the place, time and form of its
> manifestation and not only at "apart from". SSSS ji should have mentioned
> this. I don't know why he skipped that.
> -*mcc: Yes, 'apart from' skipped or not makes no difference and only
> confirms SSSS's position. *
>
> SS: "At the time of negation, one understands the traikAlika-abhAva. At
> the time of error, one does not understand the traikAlika-abhAva. That is
> the difference."
> -*mcc: I don't follow. Whether understanding or not,  there is no snake
> and never was a snake. The mere perception of a thing doesn't account for
> its existence. And please don't let the hare's horn resurface intending to
> create a distinction in non-existence. Whether a perception does not exist
> or a non-appearing conception does not exist, makes no difference to
> non-existence. *
>
> SS: "Mere rope cannot be confused for snake. It is rope+ajnAna that is
> confused for snake. Rope alone is never confused."
> *mcc: Agreed but here is where you insist on '+ajnAna' as a positive
> ignorance in addition to rope. Error of the fact of rope is sufficient,
> there is no need to add anything positive to the error. Consider the
> ignorance concerning the perception of a flat earth or two moons - error of
> the fact is sufficient  *
>
> SS: can x-abhAva-jnAna occur without x-jnAna.
> *mcc: I believe, answered just above.*
>
> SS: "Knowledge does not happen without an object of knowledge."
> *mcc: agreed. Mirage requires sand as snake requires existing rope -
> remove mirage and sand is as it ever was, so too, with snake and rope. *
> ,
> SS: "Singular inactive Brahman cannot give rise to even a mistake. So, a
> non-existent apparent avidyA needs to be accepted, from its own frame of
> reference, to explain appearance."
> *mcc: Again agreed but the devil is in the details and the term,
> 'apparent,' means something fundamentally different to vyakhana karas and
> Sankara Bhasya such that the former are accused of misinterpreting Bhasya,
> Advaita hani and nirmoksa vada by positing the continued appearance of form
> despite the falsification of adhyasa. *
>
> *are we making any headway or just rehashing our entrenched views? If you
> understand my thinking and believe I understand your thinking, what are to
> gain? *
> *with respect and regards, mcc*
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 5:14 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <
> sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Michael ji.
>>
>> //"The illusory manifestation is totally non-existent in any form or at
>> any time apart from the place, time and form in which it was perceived.//
>>
>> It is non-existent even at the place, time and form of its manifestation
>> and not only at "apart from". SSSS ji should have mentioned this. I don't
>> know why he skipped that.
>>
>> //And at the time of cancellation its whole being is seen to have been
>> exhausted in its manifestation in that way at that place."//
>>
>> At the time of negation, one understands the traikAlika-abhAva. At the
>> time of error, one does not understand the traikAlika-abhAva. That is the
>> difference.
>>
>> //This is explained by Bhasyakara as the correction of an apparent
>> conjunction between snake and rope by the negation of the apparency upon
>> the only ever existing rope without the possibility of any kind of positive
>> ignorance being assumed//
>>
>> Mere rope cannot be confused for snake. It is rope+ajnAna that is
>> confused for snake. Rope alone is never confused.
>>
>> //I have simplified but hope it will not be taken as a substitute for
>> SSSSji's clarification. Here are links to the exact pages for more
>> clarification and depth regarding this issue. Kindly consider//
>>
>> I saw it. Merely quoting BhAshyakAra does not help. One has to answer the
>> questions. And one such basic question is this -- can x-abhAva-jnAna occur
>> without x-jnAna.
>>
>> //Are you ignoring SSSS's refutation?//
>>
>> What is his refutation here?
>>
>> //There is no proper appearance in time or space to require a previous
>> positive pratiyogin.//
>>
>> What is "proper appearance"? There is appearance of snake. Who can deny
>> it? All VivaraNa is saying is that there is a snake-abhava there. VivaraNa
>> says that there is traikAlika-snake-abhAva in rope. The place where snake
>> appeared, at that very place, there is traikAlika-abhAva of snake. That is
>> what is mithyAtva of snake. What is wrong in it?
>>
>>
>> //There is simply right knowledge dismissing wrong knowledge//
>>
>> Knowledge does not happen without an object of knowledge. You dispute
>> this and I will ask you to define knowledge and mechanism of arising of
>> knowledge. Please note that the discussion is being held in SDV.
>>
>>
>> //and that "At the time of the cancelling cognition, the question of
>> whether the world does or’ does not exist in the Absolute becomes totally
>> irrelevant."//
>>
>> World does not exist in Brahman. There is traikAlika-abhAva of world in
>> Brahman. World exists nowhere. It has no existence.
>>
>> There is merely sat-tAdAtmya because of which one says - world is. This
>> sat-tAdAtmya is equally mithyA and merely appears while it is non-existent.
>>
>> The question is relevant when world appears and appears to exist. Enquiry
>> shows that - world is like snake, it merely appears while it is not.
>>
>> Singular inactive Brahman cannot give rise to even a mistake. So, a
>> non-existent apparent avidyA needs to be accepted, from its own frame of
>> reference, to explain appearance.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, 15:24 Michael Chandra Cohen, <
>> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sudhanshu Shekharji, pranam.
>>>
>>> Often you have raised this pratiyogin objection against an abhavarupa
>>> avidya however it is based on some kind of existential positive abhava
>>> entity as opposed to a mere absence of knowledge. That seems to be an
>>> original argument made in the Ishta Siddhi and apparently repeated in the
>>> Vivarana but is addressed by SSSS in chapter 12 of his Vedanta Prakriya
>>> Pratyabinna/The Method of the Vedanta. SSSSji first cites the original
>>> objection and then offers the correct view with support from Sankara in
>>> Gita 13.26.
>>>
>>> "The illusory manifestation is totally non-existent in any form or at
>>> any time apart from the place, time and form in which it was perceived. And
>>> at the time of cancellation its whole being is seen to have been exhausted
>>> in its manifestation in that way at that place."
>>>
>>> This is explained by Bhasyakara as the correction of an apparent
>>> conjunction between snake and rope by the negation of the apparency upon
>>> the only ever existing rope without the possibility of any kind of positive
>>> ignorance being assumed
>>>
>>> I have simplified but hope it will not be taken as a substitute for
>>> SSSSji's clarification. Here are links to the exact pages for more
>>> clarification and depth regarding this issue. Kindly consider
>>>
>>> Regards, MCC
>>>
>>>
>>> https://archive.org/details/the-method-of-the-vedanta-a-critical-account-of-the-advaita-tradition-swami-satchidanandendra/page/n845/mode/2up
>>>
>>> https://archive.org/details/the-method-of-the-vedanta-a-critical-account-of-the-advaita-tradition-swami-satchidanandendra/page/n791/mode/2up?view=theater
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 6:49 AM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <
>>> advaitin at googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji
>>>>
>>>> Hare Krishna
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would like to know this from avidyA-vidyA perspective.  Hence I asked
>>>> that doubt.  To talk anything about Atma jnAna we should have had knowledge
>>>> about it  ‘then’ and feeling the absence of the same ‘now’.  If this query
>>>> not related /applicable to this then I have least interest in knowing
>>>> anything further.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>>>>
>>>> bhaskar
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The question is very simple BhAskar ji. In order to know whether there
>>>> is abhAva of ushkalanta in the room, one has to first know what is
>>>> ushkalanta.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, x-abhAva-jnAna in the room requires x-jnAna.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is what advaita teachings holds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was interested to know if any other Indian Philosophy branch holds
>>>> contrary view.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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/VI1PR06MB66387D933A920A9F02AF652084B72%40VI1PR06MB6638.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB66387D933A920A9F02AF652084B72%40VI1PR06MB6638.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>