[Advaita-l] [advaitin] How jnAnAbhAva can cause adhyAsa !!??

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste.

Looks like the 2nd list got dropped off somewhere in this thread, so
resending adding it back, with another note from the bhAShya showing avidyA
as bhAvarUpa with such an example in the 13th chapter of Gita:

अत्र आह — सा अविद्या कस्य इति । यस्य दृश्यते तस्य एव । कस्य दृश्यते इति ।
अत्र उच्यते — ‘अविद्या कस्य दृश्यते ? ’ इति प्रश्नः निरर्थकः । कथम् ?
दृश्यते चेत् अविद्या, तद्वन्तमपि पश्यसि । न च तद्वति उपलभ्यमाने ‘सा कस्य ?
’ इति प्रश्नो युक्तः । न हि गोमति उपलभ्यमाने ‘गावः कस्य ? ’ इति प्रश्नः
अर्थवान् भवति ।

Pls note that the example of the cows and cowherd, one who has cows, is a
bhAvarUpa example.

ननु विषमो दृष्टान्तः । गवां तद्वतश्च प्रत्यक्षत्वात् तत्सम्बन्धोऽपि
प्रत्यक्ष इति प्रश्नो निरर्थकः

The opponent is saying that the example is not inline with the exemplified
because cows and the cowherd are pratyakSha and therefore the relation
between them is pratyakSha as well.

Now, if abhAvarUpa avidyA is being discussed here, how would it be
pratyakSha and what kind of relation would abhAva have? These are all valid
Qs, not shuShka tarka. More follows...


>
> Namaste Sudhanshuji,
>
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2024, 4:35 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Chaliye theek hai.
>>
>> Kaise thik hai, Bhagavan?! The tArkika dvaitins would shatter this
> misnomer of a shuddha shA~Nkara prakriyA (SSP) to pieces with very less
> effort. (Thank God for the vyAkhyAnakAra and especially, Bhagavan
> siddhikAra. 🙏🏽) I suspect it has not been done because no one takes it
> seriously and all darshanas take only orthodoxy as the valid representation
> of the darshana and lineage. Further, no definition and proof for this
> avidyA of SSS's SSP makes it same as rabbits horns, because
> lakShaNapramANAbhyAM vastusiddhiH, is acceptable even to shUnyavAdins!
>
> Moreover, calling every question asked and unanswerable to the point, as
> shuSka tarka, is an easy get away. Why? Because even Bhagavan bhAshyakAra
> wouldn't do it. Tarka darshana precedes Him and if he chooses to debate
> with others, tarka is agreeable to him to as a universally accepted golden
> standard in debates. (They got their language perfect in navya nyaya). If
> he uses their language of abhAva classification to refute Bauddhas, he
> cannot refuse to use the same when opponents attack siddhAnta with tarka
> language. And he never did. He had time and again used vyapti hidden in
> hetau panchamI, had been verbose in abhAva types, and even told the
> bauddhAs that asatkAryavAdI Tarkika's abhAva is better than your shUnya,
> etc.
>
> Finally, if this ridiculous shuShka tarka Aropa applies to you or
> vyAkhyAnas, it would apply to Bhagavan Bhashyakara also! Better still would
> be dry logic than illogical reasoning. And be it unknowingly, in his
> pushing away vyAkhyAnas, SSS has ended up pushing away the bhAShya also and
> become an abhAvakAraNavAdI, worse than tArkikas, culminating into
> shUnyavAda!!
>
> May I suggest that you mention your take on the type of abhAva of SSS'
> avidyA. I've already stated my understanding from the thread as shUnya,
> worse than tArkika's types! Unless someone else comes up with a better
> categorisation or answers to your pin-pointed Qs, l shall hold this.
>
> Once again, your patience is very sAdhu.
>
> gurupAdukAbhyAm,
> --Ananta Chaitanya
> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>