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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Raghav,

////because the avidyA w r t that viShaya has been
removed by the vRtti.
I don't follow, why is there an avidya that precedes knowledge of viShaya?
Isn't that an assumption based on bhavarupa avidya? And what follows from
that is a body of logic intended to defend the existence of such an idea.
That is the reason mulavidya is said to be based on logic.

//And sAxI *directly intuits* the jnAnam without involving
the mind at all.//
Here there is a basic misunderstanding of SSSSji and I believe, the
ultimate crux of the matter for the adhicari. What is this sakshi? How can
it intuit? The very idea of sakshi is dualistic - saskshi requires a
sakshya. Rather, what is taught is adhyaropa/apavada - sakshi is a sastrika
superimposition intended to invalidate individual knowership but not to be
reified - sakshi is nirvishesa svarupa only ... just like deep sleep. Ample
references on request.

// Such direct "intuition" of reality by sAxI without involvement of the
mind
is not tenable.  //
What is mind? Is it some  kind of chaitanya and upadhi or reflection, etc.?
How can chaitanya get associated with anything? You are making it a
bhavarupa avidya mind whereas mind is adhyasa only - there is no mind
except for Brahman. What a difference! Simple and presently available with
this explanation supported by bhasya and sruti.

I am stopping here. I believe enough has been said to cast doubt on your
knowledge of exactly what SSSSji is correcting. If you read Sanskrit, I
think Sugama might be most interesting.

pranam, michael .





On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 11:56 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Raghav ji,
>
>
> > To confirm - the contradiction is the following
> > येनैव त्वनुभवेन गम्यते ज्ञानम्, तेनैव ज्ञानाभावस्याप्यवगमान्न कस्यापि
> > कुचोद्यस्यात्र संभवोऽस्ति |
> > (That anubhava ("intuition" by sAxI) by which jnAnam arises, by that same
> > anubhava (sAxi's vedya), jnAna-abhAva is known.
> >
>
> When there is jnAna of jnAna-abhAva by sAkshI as claimed by SSS ji, how can
> there be jnAna-abhAva? This is the contradiction. To aver jnAna-abhAva when
> jnAna (of jnAna-abhAva by sAkshI) is present -- is contradictory.
>
>
> > but any sAxi-vedya viShaya is not abhAva.
> > So we can say
> > साक्षिवेद्यत्वात् अभावविलक्षणत्वम् ?
> >
>
> Yes. The jnAna of abhAva is always paroksha-jnAna, whereas sAkshI-jnAna is
> always aparoksha-jnAna. So, if x is sAkshi-vedya, x is not an abhAva.
>
> Here, let us note the following:
>
> *How to determine if x is sAkshi-vedya?*
>
> If x is not a vishaya of any pramANa and yet x is shining in an aparoksha
> manner i.e. we are having aparoksha-jnAna of x, then x is sAkshi-vedya.
> BAla BodhinI clarifies "यः प्रमाणान्तराविषयोऽपि साक्षात्स्फुरति, तस्यैव
> अनात्मवस्तुनः साक्षिवेद्यत्वमङ्गीक्रियते" [Pl check
>
> https://archive.org/details/xlhS_advaita-siddhi-sanskrit-with-commentary-bala-bodhini-by-yogendra-natha-sharma-ed/page/n489/mode/2up?view=theater
> ]
>
> Now, abhAva is not aparoksha. It is always a vishaya of paroksha-jnAna.
> Hence, abhAva can never be sAkshi-vedya.
>
> "abhAva-jnAna" is sAkshi-vedya because paroksha-jnAna also shines in an
> aparoksha manner [abhAva-jnAna-jnAna is an aparoksha-jnAna]. But abhAva is
> not sakshi-vedya.
>
>
> > Why is SSS ji constrained to say jnAna-abhAva is not
> > anupalabdhi-pramANa-gamya? Because that requires pratIyogI jnAnam?
> >
>
> That is one reason. And another reason - they hold jnAna-abhAva as ajnAna.
> And it is stated by BhAshyakAra that pramANa-vyApAra is subsequent to
> avidyA and avidyA is not pramANa-gamya. So they cannot accept that
> jnAna-abhAva is pramANa-gamya.
>
> But he forgets that abhAva is not a vishaya of aparoksha-jnAna. If he holds
> that jnAna-abhAva is ajnAna, then he cannot explain the
> aparoksha-perception of ajnAna.
>
> The contradiction of prior jnAna of pratiyogI, as stated earlier, remains.
>
> prAk-abhAva has been rejected in great detail in such a fashion that no one
> can object to it.
>
> In this background, to hold ajnAna as jnAna-prAk-abhAva by SSS ji is
> untenable.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>