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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji.

Many thanks for the insightful post. Thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

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.
>

Yes, indeed. SSSS ji does not accept anupalabdhi pramANa. And without any
good reason therefor.

Pot is known through pratyaksha. But pot-abhAva cannot be known through
pratyaksha, on account of absence of indriya-sannikarsha and on account of
absence of tAdAtmya between anAvrita-jIva-chaitanya and
anAvrita-vishaya-chaitanya through a vritti.

//whereas for us, abhAva is only known through anupalabdhi//

We can have abhAva-jnAna through anumAna, arthApatti as well. Isn't that so?

For example, in advaita siddhAnta, jnAna-abhAva is known through either
anumAna pramANa or arthApatti pramANa. Neither pratyaksha nor anupalabdhi
no sAkshi-vedyatA can work here. Please share your views.

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?
>

Many thanks for sharing this wonderful section from Advaita Siddhi. Indeed
saddening to see the view of MAdhvAs being presented as advaita siddhAnta
by SSSS ji.

There is one more thing.

SAkshI-jnAna is always an aparoksha-jnAna. Meaning thereby, sAkshI-jnAna
must have aparoksha-vishaya. BAla-bodhinI so beautifully presents it - यः
प्रमाणान्तराविषयोऽपि *साक्षात्स्फुरति*, तस्यैव अनात्मवस्तुनः
साक्षिवेद्यत्वमङ्गीक्रियते.

Now, abhAva is paroksha-vishaya. BAla-bodhinI says - *अभावस्तु न
साक्षात्फुरति*, परोक्षज्ञानमात्रवेद्यत्वात्‌ ।
अनुपलब्धिप्रमाणगम्यत्वाच्च । *अतोऽभावः
परोक्ष एव*।

Hence, sAkshI-jnAna can never have abhAva as vishaya. [SAkshI-jnAna has to
have aparoksha-vishaya AND abhAva is a paroksha-vishaya].

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.
>

True. But then he could very well say that indeed, everything is known by
SAkshI, [by following VivaraNa - sarvam vastu jnAtatayA ajnAtatayA..]. One
more ingredient in the hotchpotch!!


> 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!
>

Very well summarized!!

Just one thing I wish to add - for the sake of completion and for the sake
of those who wish to know as to how in advaita siddhAnta then jnAna-abhAva,
present in sushupti, is known.

jnAna-abhAva cannot mean swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva because swarUpa-jnAna is
eternal. It has to be pramANa-jnAna-abhAva i.e. absence of
antah-karaNa-vritti-janya-jnAna.

Now,

   - JnAna-abhAva cannot be known by sAkshI [for the reasons explained
   above].
   - jnAna-abhAva cannot be known by pratyaksha. (Because there cannot be
   indriya-sannikarsha with abhAva and also because pratyaksha is a pramANa
   and it would require antah-karaNa-vritti, which would imply presence of
   jnAna (and thus jnAna-abhAva would not be present)
   - jnAna-abhAva cannot be known by anupalabadhi, because anupalabdhi is a
   pramANa and it would require antah-karaNa-vritti, which would imply
   presence of jnAna (and thus jnAna-abhAva would not be present)

Further, as explained, knowing jnAna-abhAva implies pratiyogI-jnAna i.e.
jnAna-jnAna which would render jnAna-abhAva impossible.

So, jnAna-abhAva in advaita siddhAnta is explained to be known by
arthApatti. VivaraNa - the zenith of human thought - puts the
siddhAnta-rahasya succinctly and nonchalantly as under:

एवमुत्थितस्य ज्ञानाभावपरामर्शोऽपि ज्ञानविरोधिनोऽज्ञानस्यानुभूततया
स्मर्यमाणस्यानुपपपत्त्यैव प्रमीयते, नानुस्मर्यते.

Thus, jnAna-abhAva is not recollected. It is not a smriti. It is a pramA.
Not by anupalabdhi, not by pratyaksha, not by sAkshI, but by arthApatti.

Many thanks to Shri Rahul ji for pointing this section in VivaraNa Prameya
Sangrah to consolidate my understanding of this topic. I was sure that it
has to be arthApatti because there is no other possibility. He helped me
locate the exact section.
https://archive.org/details/Vivarana.Prameya.Sangrah.by.Vidyaranya.Swami/page/n231/mode/2up

Advaita Siddhi holds an additional way. ajnAna is vyApya and jnAna-abhAva
is vyApaka. If I have pot-ajnAna, then it is always associated with the
fact that I do not have pot-jnAna. So, ajnAna is vyApya whereas
jnAna-abhAva is vyApaka. And thus recollected bhAvarUpa-ajnAna in sushupti
is inferred through anumAna to be co-present with jnAna-abhAva.

So, in waking, there is smriti of sAkshi-bhAsya ajnAna in sushupti, but
there is pramA of jnAna-abhAva through either anumAna or arthApatti.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.