[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Sanskrit talk on Avidya - Exactly the ongoing discussions in our forums

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 8:28 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> One important thing which should be kept in mind is that अहमज्ञः or मयि
> ज्ञानं नास्ति, despite having bhAvarUpa-ajnAna as the vishaya, do not
> negate the presence of jnAna-abhAva.
>

>
So, ajnAna and jnAna-abhAva are present together.
>
> Further, presence-of-bhAvarUpa-ajnAna implies anupalabdhi-of-jnAna through
> vyatirekI-anumAna/arthApatti. And anupalabdhi-of-jnAna gives rise to pramA
> of jnAna-abhAva through anupalabdhi-pramANa (just as ghaTa-anupalabdhi
> gives rise to pramA of ghaTa-abhAva).
>
> Thus, while ajnAna is sAkshi-bhAsya, jnAna-abhAva is pramANa-gamya.
>
> This is the beautiful subtle distinction explained in Advaita Siddhi and
> also in Advaita Deepika by NrisimhAshrama Swamiji.
>
> न च तर्हि प्रातरनुभूतचत्वरे गजज्ञानाभावज्ञानं कथमिति वाच्यम् ;
> *ज्ञानानुपलब्ध्यैवेत्यवेहि* ।
>
> *अनुपलब्धिज्ञानं च भावरूपाज्ञानेन लिङ्गेन ।*
>
> तथा हि-पूर्वकालेऽहं, गजज्ञानाभाववान्, गजाज्ञानवत्त्वात् , यन्नैवं तन्नैवम्
> , यथा गजज्ञानवानहमिति, एवं *सर्वत्राज्ञानस्य ज्ञानाभावव्याप्यत्वेन
> तदनुमापकत्वम्* ।
>
> Yes, you had mentioned it earlier in one of the threads. Most of the time,
I don't get the opportunity to read a mail at a time. I end up
"binge"-reading a thread at a time after it is pending for a while. It is a
wonderful distinction and I am really thankful that you share from your
wide study with references.

Now, I have a Q, for some closure or flow of the thorough ongoing
discussion at least from your side:
1) what kind of abhAva is this pramANagamya jnAnAbhAva?
2) Is the doSha that we point out to SSS calling jnAnAbhAva prAgabhAva
applicable here too on expected pratiyogijnAna? If not, why not?
3) If yes, how would we resolve it?

I am more interested in this discussion than the SSS side answering them. I
don't expect you to get a thorough investigation that you have been trying
to get at from the ongoing discussion, a kind of a jalpa, if not saMvAda.
Maybe you will have better luck than many in years on both the lists, but I
don't think so.

I suggest you take the pUrvapakSha yourself and continue as above, so that
silent interested readers know that you have your heart in the right place
in this inquiry and discussion. I am sure that many like me are immensely
impressed by the patience and maturity that you and Raghavji have
shown, setting
aside snide remarks.

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--Ananta Chaitanya
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */