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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

*Namaste Ananata Chaitanya ji,*

//I'll find ease in ignoring these posts henceforth, else it is hurtful to
read such disrespect to sampradAya.//

>From my own experience, I can share that it is only intellectual lethargy
and non-application of mind coupled with lack of study which can give rise
to non-acceptance and consequent disrespect to teachings of sampradAya.
Better to ignore such statements except in cases of some serious aspirants.

//Not that it is your focus, but you may already be aware but i think
Tarkikas themselves accept an exception to this when the pratiyogi is
abhAvarUpa or when it is anullikhita prakAraka jnAna. I recall coming
across it in some part of dinakarI or rAmarudrI... I found the page, it is
attached herewith for quick reference.//

I am unable to understand the logic adduced in the given page. Let us
examine it:

//Tarkikas themselves accept an exception to this when the pratiyogi is
abhAvarUpa//

if the pratiyogI itself is abhAva i.e. we are talking about examples such
as pot-abhAva-abhAva. Here, pratiyogI is pot-abhAva. In such cases, in
order to have pot-abhAva-abhAva-jnAna, presumably, the tArkika says that we
need not have pot-abhAva-jnAna. That basically means, in order to have
pot-jnAna (pot-abhAva-abhAva-jnAna), we need not have pot-abhAva-jnAna.

That is a fair point I guess. As our premise is -- for x-abhAva-jnAna, we
need to have prior x-jnAna and not the other way round. So, I don't think
that the tArkika view is anyway damaging here because it supports our
original premise.

//or when it is anullikhita prakAraka jnAna//

Can you suggest some basic material upon this. I will study.

*Namaste Chandramouli ji.*

//In my understanding, in Advaita Siddhanta, prior pratiyogI-jnAna in full
is not essential for its abhAva-jnAna.//

So, when we have partial knowledge of pratiyogI, we say that we have
knowledge of pratiyogI whose pratiyogitA is delimited by that dharma (which
is known to us).

//It is sufficient to have  some features of the pratiyogI-jnAna. Partial
pratiyogI-jnAna. For example in a place where there are no round bodied
objects, there can be abhAva-jnAna of a pot if it is understood to have a
round shape. There need not be jnAna of what a pot exactly is.//

Yes. So, here we have
ghaTa-nishTha-vartula-AkAratva-avachchhinna-pratiyogitA-nirUpita-abhAva.
So, here we know pot to be an object with property round-ness. So, the
condition of prior pratiyogI-jnAna is not violated.

*Namaste Michael Ji,*

I am not responding to the points not relevant to the discussion. Kindly
initiate a separate thread, if needed.

//what is this x-jnana? Why assume such a proposition?//

x can be anything. A pot, a cot, some ushkalanta, some tuoli. Anything.
Certainly non-abhAva. That goes without saying.

//If we must assume, we can as well assume the teaching of Vedanta and
Bhasyakara of an x-abhava jnana with creating some additional illogical
necessity for some positive Intermediary, i.e., indeterminable  bhavarupa
avidya.//

Let us understand the concepts from the basic. Then only we will be able to
understand what bhAshya is saying. As for bhAshya and AchArya, even abhAva
is bhAvarUpa, please note.

[न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? भावरूप एव । एवं घटस्य
प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात् , घटेन
व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम् ।]

//How will you then prove such an indeterminable mithya no less than its
ultimate falsification? Proof must rely on universal experience and not
merely apta testimony. It must be shown that jagat and its creation can be
transcended thus negated.//

That is easily deduced from our experience and logic. No Shruti is needed
for that. drishyatva, parichchhinnatva, anshitva, jaDatva.. there are so
many hetus available.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.