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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

If the views of Sri SSS were to be understood as his unique version of eka
sattA vAda, will the arguments take a different form ?. Will there be more
acceptance of his stand?.

I am not claiming that Sri SSS himself says so. I am just thinking out loud
possibilities.

Regards

On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 4:31 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
> Sure, I can understand Hindi. Please share the Swamiji's commentary.
>
> My pramANa for the view that jnAna abhAva is anupalabdhi gamya is the
> TIkAkAra's words - अग्रहणस्य च ग्रहणप्रागभावस्य
> नापरोक्षत्वमिन्द्रियसन्निकर्षाभावात् *अनुपलब्धिगम्यत्वाच्च*.
>
> In all cases, the anupalabdhi can be phrased as a vyApti. The Vedanta
> Paribhasha defines the yogyatva of anupalabdhi as follows.
>
> अनुपलब्धेर्योग्यता च तर्कित-प्रतियोगिसत्त्वप्रसञ्जित-प्रतियोगिकत्वम् ।
> The yogyatA of anupalabdhi is having as its counterpositive an upalabdhi
> which is implied by the existence of the object.
>
> That is, it can be formulated in the form. if X exists, it will be seen.
> If it is not seen, it does not exist. That is true for each of the
> following.
>
> 1) If jnAna is present, the sAkshi would know it. The sAkshi does not know
> it, therefore, jnAna is absent.
>
> 2) If Devadatta is home, he will be seen. He is not seen, therefore, he is
> not at home.
>
> You are saying 1 is anumAna, but presumably willing to say that 2 is
> anupalabdhi. I don't understand the need to differentiate the two. Happy to
> be corrected of course.
>
> Kind regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On Sun, 15 Sept 2024, 18:03 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Venkat ji.
>>
>> When you say ajnAna implies jnAna abhAva, what kind of jnAna is this
>>> vyApti? Isn't this vyApti itself anupalabdhi - Because it is jnAna karaNa
>>> ajanya?
>>>
>>
>> I don't feel that this vyApti itself is anupalabdhi. We are employing a
>> specific anumAna. And presenting a vyatirekI drishTAnta therefor. We have
>> evidences for that from pratyaksha. It is like any other vyApti.
>>
>> I mean ajnAna => jnAna-abhAva is not that obvious. (P =>Q)
>>
>> So, we look for (~Q => ~P). There is evidence for that. Whenever there is
>> abhAva of jnAna-abhAva, there is absence of ajnAna. So, utilising that, we
>> present ajnAna => jnAna-abhAva.
>>
>> I mean to convey -- if this anumAna were not employed, we may not have
>> the knowledge of jnAna-abhAva even if we knew ajnAna through sAkshI.
>>
>> That is why SiddhikAra says -- since ajnAna is vyApya of jnAna-abhAva, we
>> get to know jnAna-abhAva through the linga of ajnAna.
>>
>> The anubhava of jnAna-abhAva is born by applying this vyApti with
>> drishTanta. Hence, it seems to me that jnAna-abhAva-anubhav is
>> jnAna-karaNa-janya.
>>
>> Do you follow Hindi Venkat ji. I may share some excerpt from Hindi
>> commentary by Swami Vishuddhananda Giri Ji of Dakshinamurthy Math. This
>> concept is crucial and I thank you for continued involvement in discussion.
>>
>> 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/CAL34aEnM2OtEYH7opFDne%2B%2Be0LDiHX%2BA27KqUHzxR4pkih4CcA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEnM2OtEYH7opFDne%2B%2Be0LDiHX%2BA27KqUHzxR4pkih4CcA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>