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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,
The position that Sri SSS adopts is essentially the position of the mAdhva
/ naiyyAyika.

Firstly the naiyyAyika.
Sri SSS also seems to be arguing like a naiyyAyika - he says न हि ज्ञानं
प्रमाणगम्यम् , येन तदभावोऽपि प्रमाणगम्यः स्यादिति शङ्क्येत | येनैव
त्वनुभवेन गम्यते ज्ञानं, तेनैव ज्ञानाभावस्याप्यनुभवान्न कस्यापि
कुचोद्यस्यात्र संभवोऽस्ति |

It is the naiyyAyika who holds that as a rule, the pramANa which is the
means for the knowledge of the pratiyogi, must also be the pramANa for the
knowledge of its abhAva too. There is no reason therefore, to hold that if
jnAna is sAkshi-vedya, its abhAva also must be sAkshi-vedya only.

For the naiyyAyika, there is no separate pramANa called anupalabdhi itself,
whereas for us, abhAva is only known through anupalabdhi. If one took Sri
SSS' postulate to its logical conclusion, all instances of abhAva can
similarly be cognised through the pramANa that is necessary to cognise the
pratiyogi.

For example, consider the anumAna -  प्रतियोग्यभावः  न अनुपलधिगम्यः,
अभावत्वात्, ज्ञानाभाववत् . If jnAna abhAva was sAkshi vedya, then it is not
anupalabdhi-gamyah (not known via anupalabdhi), and hence every abhAva can
be known by some other pramANa itself, leaving no scope for anupalabdhi
pramANa's application.

Therefore, Sri SSS' position essentially is a rejection of anupalabdhi
pramANa in toto.

Next, here is how Sri SSS argues like a mAdhva. In the advaita siddhi
chapter on ajnAna being the object of perception, the nyAyAmRtakAra, a
mAdhva, argues the very same thing - that jnAna abhAva can be known by the
sAkshi itself - which the siddhikAra completely refutes.

ननु- तदा ज्ञानाभावोऽपि स्वरूपेणैव भासताम्। सप्रतियोगिकत्वेनाभावज्ञान एव
प्रतियोगिज्ञानस्य हेतुत्वाद्। अन्यथा `प्रमेयम्' इति ज्ञानेऽप्यभावो न
भासेतेतिचेन्न।
The nyAyAmRtakAra asks - Let the svarUpa of the absence of cognition also
be known by the sAkshi itself. The requirement that the cognition of
absence needs the cognition of its counterpositive, only applies where the
cognition of absence is revealed *as* the cognition of the absence having a
particular X as a counterpositive. If this is not admitted, the cognition
"everything is knowable" would not reveal absence.

To explain. prameyatva (knowability) is said to be kevalAnvayi (universally
true) by the naiyyAyika. That is - everything is knowable. For this to be
universally true, abhAva also has to be knowable. However, if it is argued
that every instance of abhAva jnAna requires pratiyogi jnAna, then absence
would not be part of the "everything" in the cognition "everything is
knowable", ie abhAva would not have prameyatva, if some relaxation of the
"abhAva jnAna requiring pratiyogi jnAna" rule is not admitted.

The siddhikAra rejects this. He says.

साक्षिणा तावन्न स्वरूपेणाभावावगाहनम्, तस्य साक्षात्साक्ष्यवेद्यत्वात्।
The sAkshi cannot reveal the svarUpa of absence like that, because that
(absence) is not capable of being directly revealed by the sAkshi.

What he is saying is that the sAkshi can only reveal that to which it has a
connection (svasambaddham prakAshayati). That sambandha needs a yogyatA -
the object should be capable of reflecting the sAkshi in it. The mind,
thoughts etc, being sattva-guNa pradhAna, are able to reflect the sAkshi
(they become sAkshi abhivyanjaka). The abhivyakti of sAkshi by absence is
not possible. Absence can be cognisable by the sAkshi only if a vritti
objectifying absence appears in front of it, because it is only the abhAva
jnAna vritti that is capable of reflecting the sAkshi. Without a vritti,
abhAva cannot be directly perceived by sAkshi.

If this is not admitted (ie that the sAkshi can only see the vRtti, it can
see abhAva itself), then the entirety of pratikarma-vyavasthA can be set
aside. How can one explain that the sAkshi that is "here", can view an
object out there, without the vRtti bringing the object into contact with
the sAkshi?

It also leads to sarvajnatva Apatti. That is, if abhAva can be viewed by
the sAkshi, then what is to stop every object in the entire universe being
viewed by the sAkshi without the intervention of a vRtti.

Thus this argument of Sri SSS that the sAkshi itself can see abhAva leads
to several flaws, namely: 1) the rejection of anupalabdhi pramANa in its
entirety 2) pratikarma-vyavasthA being totally dismantled 3) and the
ridiculousness of sarvajnatva for all!

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Thu, 12 Sept 2024, 19:30 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste,
>
> I rechecked SugamA and my memory served me right. It is indeed stated
> there by SSS ji that jnAna-abhAva, termed by him as ajnAna, is prAk-abhAva.
>
> *तर्हि कतमोऽयं ज्ञानाभाव इति चेत् । प्रागभाव एवास्तु । *
>
> The web-link is
> https://adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/bookreader/templates/book.php?type=sanskrit&book_id=008&pagenum=0001#page/45/mode/1up
>
> Now, it is submitted that the concept of prAk-abhAva has been shredded to
> pieces in advaita sampradAya. Details can be seen in
> pratyaksha-pramANa-vichAra-in-ajnAna. Those who hold jnAna-abhAva as
> jnAna-prAk-abhAva should answer these challenges or else accept that there
> is nothing like prAk-abhAva.
>
> None of these well-settled principles, whereby prAk-abhAva has been
> rejected, have been mentioned by SSS ji in his SugamA.
>
> Further, he postulates jnAna of this jnAna-prAk-abhAva through anubhava
> (sAkshI). He accepts that anupalabdhi cannot work here.  ननु नायं
> ज्ञानाभावः, अभावप्रमाणेनानवगमादित्युक्तम् । *सत्यमुक्तम्, दुरुक्तं तु तत्*
> । *न हि ज्ञानं प्रमाणगम्यम् । येन तदभावोऽपि प्रमाणगम्यः स्यादिति* शङ्कयेत
> । *येनैव त्वनुभवेन गम्यते ज्ञानम्, तेनैव ज्ञानाभावस्याप्यवगमान्न कस्यापि
> कुचोद्यस्यात्र संभवोऽस्ति । *
>
> So, his logic is - only if x is known by pramANa, x-abhAva is required to
> be known by pramANa. Since jnAna is not known by pramANa, but by anubhava
> (sAkshI), jnAna-abhAva is not known by pramANa either. It is known by same
> anubhava (sAkshI) by which jnAna is known.
>
> Now!! jnAna is known by sAkshI. jnAna-abhAva is being known by sAkshI as
> per SSS ji. So, there is jnAna-abhAva-jnAna present as per SSS ji. And yet,
> there is jnAna-abhAva as per him!! Self-contradiction!! 😀
>
> Further, Swamiji did not realize that by making jnAna-abhAva a
> sAksi-vedya-vastu, he is positing its bhAvatva. Those who hold jnAna-abhAva
> as abhAva can never accept its upalabdhi. It has to be anupalabdha.
>
> यद्यपि ज्ञानं साक्षिवेद्यम्, तद्द्वारा तदवच्छेदको विषयश्च साक्षिवेद्यः; *तथापि
> ज्ञानाभावो न साक्षिवेद्यः, तस्यानुपलब्धत्वात्* ।
>
> If some discussion follows wherein someone seeks to argue as to how
> jnAna-abhAva is prAk-abhAva and is sAkshi-vedya, I will delve into it
> further. As of now, it is enough to demonstrate that SSS ji's idea of
> jnAna-abhAva as prAk-abhAva and anubhava-vedya is illogical and
> self-contradictory.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
> --
> 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/CAH9%3D%2BBCc_b1ZorDfbO73YmjRBqUmOx0BdzXrcECbovAxR1w9rA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCc_b1ZorDfbO73YmjRBqUmOx0BdzXrcECbovAxR1w9rA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>