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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

I hope this does not sound like the famous story of a person who after
listening to Ramayana the whole night, asked in the morning what is the
relation between Rama and Sita.

Does any of this apply to anAdi jnAnAbhAva?.  JnAnAbhAva understood as
*absence of knowledge*. Even just a yes or no answer would suffice for me.
I wont indulge in a debate.

Regards.

On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 2:02 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hari Om,
>
> I would like to thank Venkatraghavan ji for the off-Gmail discussion in
> this context. I present here my considered conclusion:
>
> In waking, the jnAna-abhAva, *present in sushupti*, is known through
> arthApatti which is essentially vyatirekI-anumAna. This jnAna-abhAva is
> jnAna-mAtra-abhAva (because antah-karaNa is merged).
>
> In waking, the jnAna-abhAva, *present in waking*, is known through
> arthApatti/vyatirekI-anumAna/anupalabdhi. This jnAna-abhAva is not
> jnAna-mAtra-abhAva (because antah-karaNa is present).
>
> The word "jnAna" in jnAna-abhAva refers to antah-karaNa-vritti and not
> avidyA-vritti. jnAna refers to that which is virodhI of ajnAna.
> avidyA-vritti not being virodhI of ajnAna is not included in jnAna-abhAva.
>
> It is incorrect to hold that *present jnAna-abhAva* is known in waking
> only through anupalabdhi. jnAna-abhAva or for that matter any abhAva is not
> exclusively known through anupalabdhi pramANa. They can be known by anumAna
> and arthApatti as well. But since abhAva-jnAna arising from
> anumAna/arthApatti is jnAna-karaNa-janya, they are different from
> anupalabdhi-pramA which is jnAna-karaNa-ajanya.
>
> This is evident from the following reasoning:
>
> Any abhAva-pramA arising through anupalabdhi-pramANa necessarily uses a
> vyApti wherein ajnAna is vyApya and jnAna-abhAva is vyApaka. Otherwise,
> there would be anavasthA dosha in anupalabdhi. Still, since the vyApti is
> used in pre-penultimate stage and not penultmate stage, it remains
> jnAna-karaNa-ajanya.
>
> How?
>
> Everyone agrees on - If x were present, there would be x-upalabdhi.
>
> *The proponent of anupalabdhi says:*
>
> Since there is x-upalabdhi-abhAva, there is x-abhAva.
>
> *The opponent says:*
>
> Just as x-abhAva cannot be known by pratyaksha, x-upalabdhi-abhAva cannot
> be known by pratyaksha either.
>
> So, just as you needed x-upalabdhi-abhAva to know x-abhAva, you need
> x-upalabdhi-upalabdhi-abhAva to know x-upalabdhi-abhAva.
>
>
>
> *So, there is anavasthA.The siddhAntI replies*: not so.
> X-upalabdhi-abhAva is not required to be known by another anupalabdhi.
> However, instead, it is known by anumAna.
>
> I know x-upalabdhi-abhAva through x-ajnAna by employing the following
> anumAna:
>
> यत्र यत्र अज्ञानम्, तत्र तत्र उपलब्ध्यभावः, यन्नैवं तन्नैवम्, यथा
> घटोपलब्धिवति मयि घटाज्ञानं नास्ति।
>
> So, by this vyatirekI anumAna, which is essentially arthApatti, I infer
> x-upalabdhi-abhAva (vyApaka) from x-ajnAna (vyApya).
>
> So, I go and look for Devadatta in his home. He is nowhere to be seen.
> From this, I don't conclude Devadatta-upalabdhi-abhAva. When Devadatta is
> not seen by me in his home, I get a sAkshi-bhAsya Devadatta-ajnAna. This
> Devadatta-ajnAna becomes the vyApya in vyatirekI anumAna. And I infer
> Devadatta-upalabdhi-abhAva.
>
> Thereafter, I can pretty well employ anupalabdhi-pramANa to conclude
> Devadatta-abhAva.
>
> *The crux is this*: x-perception-abhAva is inferred by using
> vyatirekI-anumAna wherein sAkshi-bhAsya x-ajnAna is vyApya and
> x-upalabdhi-abhAva is vyApaka.
>
> BAlabodhinI says: उपलब्धेर्विषयविषयकं भावमूतम्‌ अज्ञानं साक्षिसिद्धम्‌ ;
> साक्षिसिद्धेन अज्ञानेन उपरब्धेरभावोऽनुमीयते इति न अनवस्थागन्धोऽपि ।
> साक्षिसिद्धेन भावमूताज्ञानेन अनुमित उपलब्ध्यभाव: उपलभ्याभावः बोधयति । स च
> बोधः परोक्षरूप एव।
>
>
> https://archive.org/details/xlhS_advaita-siddhi-sanskrit-with-commentary-bala-bodhini-by-yogendra-natha-sharma-ed/page/n561/mode/2up
>
> Now, this clearly proves that upalabdhi-abhAva is a known from
> anumAna-pramANa whereas upalabhya-abhAva is known from anupalabdhi-pramANa.
>
> Thus, no rule can be made that present-abhAva is known only from
> anupalabdhi-pramANa. While upalabdhi-abhAva is jnAna-karaNa-janya,
> upalabhya-abhAva is jnAna-karaNa-ajanya. That is the distinction.
>
> Having said that, jnAna-abhAva can also be known from anupalabdhi. There
> is no incorrectness in that:
>
> If jnAna were there, there would be jnAna-upalabdhi.
> Since there is jnAna-upalabdhi-abhAva, there is jnAna-abhAva.
>
> There is nothing wrong in this anuaplabdhi-pramANa. But this is not the
> exclusive pramANa.
>
>
> 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%2BBAA-ieamJD5HHM18o4E2tSZbqvFqxwYw47Yn9zh8ACJnQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAA-ieamJD5HHM18o4E2tSZbqvFqxwYw47Yn9zh8ACJnQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>