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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

What I meant is that the direct experience of the abhAva (with the caveat I
later make about it not being pratyaksha) can only be through anupalabdhi.

If I go to my friend's house and his wife tells me he is not at home, I get
a knowledge of my friend's absence in his home. That is shAbda jnAna of my
friend's abhAva. However this is an indirect knowledge, I haven't seen that
he is absent, I have been told so, and because I trust my friend's wife to
be truthful, know that he is absent.

However, that experience is very different from my going to his house,
checking all the rooms and concluding that he is not at home. The absence
of my friend at his home that I gain there is through anupalabdhi pramANa.

So I am not saying that abhAva cannot be the object of vRtti-s arising by
other means, rather, the point is that the direct experience of the abhAva
is only through anupalabdhi pramANa.

But that in itself doesn't make anupalabdhi a pratyaksha, because the
asAdhAraNa kAraNa for the rise of such an abhAva jnAna is the anupalabdhi
of the pratiyogi, not the sannikarSha with the pratiyogi that is needed for
pratyaksha.

As Anandagiri AchArya says in the TIkA to mANDUkya kArikA bhAShya 1.2,
which I had shared 2-3 weeks ago - अग्रहणस्य च ग्रहणप्रागभावस्य
नापरोक्षत्वमिन्द्रियसन्निकर्षाभावादनुपलब्धिगम्यत्वाच्च ।
The AchArya makes both the points - agrahaNa (jnAna abhAva here) cannot
have aparokshatvam because of sannikarSha abhAva, it is also known through
anupalabdhi.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Sun, 15 Sept 2024, 10:12 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Venkat ji.
>
> I meant the asAdhAraNa kAraNa is anupalabdhi pramANa. In my view, the
>> cognition of present abhAva has to be by anupalabdhi only.
>>
>
> How do I know that I have Russian-language-jnAna-abhAva, which is a *present
> abhAva*?
>
> If we say that Russian-language-jnAna-abhAva, which is present, is known
> through anupalabdhi, then it would require prior knowledge of pratiyogI.
> That means we need to have Russian-language-jnAna-jnAna which implies
> Russian-language-jnAna (as an adjective) which would render the
> impossibility of Russian-jnAna-abhAva. [This is what we present as an
> objection to the opponent. If we accept present jnAna-abhAva to be known
> through anupalabdhi, then this objection will apply against us also.]
>
> Instead, let us see the following:
>
> I know that I have Russian-language-ajnAna. Because ajnAna is
> sAkshi-bhAsya and Russian-language acts as an avachchhedaka. So,
> Russian-language-ajnAna is sAkshi-bhAsya.
>
> Now, I have a vyApti-jnAna, wherein ajnAna is hetu and jnAna-abhAva is
> sAdhya:
>
> यत्र यत्र अज्ञानम्, तत्र तत्र ज्ञानाभाव:, यन्नैवं तन्नैवं, यथा ज्ञानवति
> (ज्ञानाभाव-अभाव-वति) मयि अज्ञानं नास्ति. [sAdhya-abhAva implying
> hetu-abhAva is present in drishTAnta]
>
> So, by applying this vyApti, I do an anumAna - I have Russian-ajnAna
> (hetu), therefore, I have Russian-jnAna-abhAva (sAdhya).
>
> So, Russian-jnAna-abhAva, *which is a present-abhAva and not a
> past-abhAva*, is known by me through anumAna. And not through anupalabdhi.
>
> What is the error in this understanding?
>
>
> I agree with you on the vritti-thing. However, some eka-deshI who accepts
> bhAvarUpa-avidyA, not SSSSji, can argue - let there be an
> abhAva-AkArA-avidyA-vritti. What is the problem? Then there can be
> perception of abhAva of by sAkshI.
>
> So, we need to respond to that -- this kalpanA of
> abhAva-AkArA-avidyA-vritti is not possible. Because, this would imply that
> abhAva is shining in an aparoksha-manner being sAkshi-vedya. Whereas abhAva
> is necessarily paroksha.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>