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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji,

 Ø     Just to appease my academic interest you can educate me about that
> which is abhAva at the same time triguNAtmika as well 😊
>

This is what BhAshyakAra BhagvAn proved in ghaTa-bhAshya. Did he not? He
proved that ghaTa-abhAva is bhAvarUpa like a cloth. यथा घटाभावः पटादिरेव, न
घटस्वरूपमेव । *न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? भावरूप एव ।* एवं
घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात् , घटेन
व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; *तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम्* ।

So, any vishesha-abhAva like pot-abhAva, cloth-abhAva is proved by AchArya
to be bhAvarUpa.


>  Ø     Can I have the definition of jnAnAbhAva which you entertain in
> your books??  I hope I have already explained my definition of jnAnAbhAva.
>

In my books jnAna-abhAva refers to absence of mano-vritti in which the
reflected chaitanya is elgible to be called jnAna. There can be no
jnAna-abhAva in primary sense of the word "jnAna" because of inherent
contradiction. So, the absence of mano-vritti which is the avachchhedaka of
jnAna is referred as jnAna-abhAva.

I don’t think bhAshyakAra explained anywhere taking one thing for another
> is triguNAtmika OTOH he just said atasmin tadbuddhiH and the Lord in geeta
>  explained triguNAtmika is his aparA prakruti.  Something related to mAya
> and not related to avidyA/adhyAsa.
>

Bhaskar prabhu. Buddhi is trigunAtmikA right? So, atasmin tadbuddhi shall
have to be triguNAtmikA. Isn't it? What is adhyAsa? A particular thought --
I am this, this is mine -- this is a thought. A particular modification of
buddhi. So, it should be triguNAtmikA. What is your view here?

Last statement bit tricky ( I don’t know what is your intention here we
> have to be very careful with logicians though jnAna abhAva is not adhyAsa,
>  adhyAsa is due to jnAnAbhAva.  jnAnAbhAva is ekarUpa and adhyAsa is
> depends on saMskAra bala :  one can cognize mentally either sarpa, garland,
> mUtra dhAre in place of existing rajju.
>

Itna mat sochiye. Just go with the flow. Yes, as per you, adhyAsa is not
identical with jnAna-abhAva. Rather, adhyAsa is on account of presence of
jnAna-abhAva. Unless the room is empty, dirt cannot come in. So,
jnAna-abhAva enables adhyAsa to manifest. So, under no circumstance,
adhyAsa can be termed as jnAna-abhAva. Also, it is clear that adhyAsa is
not some kind of abhAva. But as SSSS ji says, it is not some vastu either.
So, we are trying to ascertain what it is.

//I don’t see triguNa in an abhAva, with the appropriate substantiation you
can prove jnAna abhAva is triguNatmika, definitely I will give it a thought
and ascertain whether it would align with my simple lOkAnubhava.//

Our simple loka-anubhava says that pot-abhAva is some void, some absence.
Not made of something. But BhAshyakAra proves in ghaTa-bhAshya as
demonstrated above that ghaTa-abhAva is as tangible and as real as a cloth.
It is bhAvarUpa. So, on the same lines jnAna-abhAva should be triguNAtmaka.
Or leave jnAna-abhAva for the time being. Let us come on same page with
respect to triguNAtmaka-tva of ghaTa-abhAva.

 Sri SSS says it is only jnAnAdhyAsa and no place for arthAdhyAsa to bring
> in the anirvachaneeya khyAtivAda.  His explanation is very simple, when we
> are seeing snake (bhrAnti kAla), after getting the right knowledge of rope
> (bhrAnti nirasana kAla), before even approaching towards rope (vastu
> sthiti), the rope was / is / will always be rope only there is not even an
> iota of change in it.  Sarpa is keval Shabda and not vastu sthiti.
>

Yes. I understand that SSSS ji accepts only jnAna-adhyAsa to be adhyAsa and
disregards artha-adhyAsa. So, I am restricting myself to jnAna-adhyAsa
only. This jnAna-adhyAsa is a thought. Isn't it? "This is a snake" is the
adhyAsa. "I am body" is the adhyAsa. It is a thought. Isn't it?

 Prabhuji I am really not able to understand what you are going to prove by
> accepting adhyAsa trigunAtmika or otherwise.
>

Let us not worry about that. Just analyse your concepts and state whether
it is triguNAtmaka or not.


> The adhyAsa is just a fact of common experience with pre-accepted
> pramAtrutva (that itself is the basic adhyAsa), bhAshyakAra clarifies
> although this adhyAsa is not justifiable by reason / logic it is there in
> our common experience so have to accept it.  It is accepted as sAmAnya
> lakshaNa explained as appearance (avabhAsa) whether it is triguNAtmika or
> otherwise fact remains that it is just a problem to be eradicated,  that is
> it.
>

Certainly. And facts of common experience cannot be horns of hare. Can they
be? Let us see whether this fact of common experience is triguNAtmaka or
not!!

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.