[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: avidyA is adhyasta (superimposed) in AtmA

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Another point Sudhanshu ji is Bhaskar Ji's contention that
" I *directly experience* (ie it is anubhava-sammata) that my
russian-knowledge-abhAva cause me to misunderstand Russian when it is
spoken". Or "rope-knowledge-abhAva causes snake-knowledge".


I understand him to be saying that, at least for him, it's a matter of
(sAxI-)pratyaxa that jnAnAbhAva leads to viparIta-jnAna." So any logic you
put forward will be not accepted.

My take is that as per siddhAnta- the anubhava-sammata fact is that "I
directly experience avidyA and infer/presume jnAnAbhAva".

The crux is that the SSS and Bhaskarji contention is actually *not*
anubhava-sammata. They are innocently claiming that it's "anubhava-sammata"
without understanding what's going on in the appreciation of that
"rope-jnAna-abhAva".

I hope Bhaskar ji notes that for Siddhanta,
"rope-ajnAna" is anubhava-sammata (sAxi-pratyaxa) and rope-jnAna-abhAva is
inferred/presumed.

rope-jnAna-abhAva is *not* anubhava-sammata, it is paroxa jnAnam

rope-ajnAna is indeed anubhava-sammata and aparoxa.

I wonder what Bhaskar ji and SSS would say, if someone asserts the
following
"For me, rope-ajnAnam is anubhava-sammata. In other words I directly
experience rope-ajnAnam. Whereas I only infer/presume rope-jnAna-abhAva".

There are two diametrically opposite anubhava-sammata statements viz.,
siddhAnta and SSS.

The abhAva-vAda paxa wants to go for a "popular referendum" to assert their
version of "anubhava-sammata".

No doubt, people at large don't see the difference in vyavahAra between the
two words  sAxi-pratyaxa ajnAnam and jnAna-abhAva.

Om
Raghav





On Thu, 30 Jan, 2025, 4:49 pm Raghav Kumar Dwivedula, <
raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshu ji
>
> Thank you for your lucid post dusting away the intellectual cobwebs of
> vague thinking and outlining the the nature of asAdhAraNa kAraNa-s etc and
> how a pratibandhaka is defined.
>
>
> In the example of space providing a context for cobwebs to arise, I note
> the following
>
> stuff-abhAva (a.k.a. space) = sAdhAraNa kAraNa
> stuff-bhAva = pratibandhaka
> spider = asAdhAraNa kAraNa (a.k.a puShkala kAraNa?)
> Cobwebs = kArya
>
> stuff-abhAva causes cobwebs
>
> "stuff" satisfies the pratibandhaka definition viz.,
>
>  "even with the asAdhAraNa kAraNa (puShkala) of spider being present, the
> kArya or effect called cobwebs are still not produced because the
> pratibandhaka called stuff is (fully) present leaving no space in the
> room."
>
> If the above is correct, then I observe that there is  the dissimilarity
> in the case of adhyAsa (kArya)
>
> svarUpa-jnAna-abhAva = sAdhAraNa kAraNa
> svarUpa-jnAnam = pratibandhaka
> adhyAsa = kArya
>
> 'svarUpa-jnAna-abhAva "causes" adhyAsa' is the claim.
>
> But puShkala kAraNa = ??? (Not available)
> (svarUpa-jnAna-abhAva has already been allotted the sAdhAraNa kAraNa slot,
> so it cannot be both sAdhAraNa and asAdhAraNa kAraNa. If it is indeed
> occupying both slots,  we just call it asAdhAraNa kAraNa, which would
> contradict the basic SSS position that it's not nimitta or upAdAna.)
>
> Long and short of it is that - to say that something is causing ie., by
> merely providing a context or pretext (aka sAdhAraNa kAraNam) for a given
> kArya, there has to necessarily be some other puShkala kAraNa. Otherwise,
> the idea of a pratibandhaka whose abhAva is asAdhAraNa kAraNa for a kArya
> to occur, is meaningless. I understand the SSS position is that the
> asAdhAraNa kAraNa of svarUpa-jnAna-abhAva is being claimed to be both
> necessary but also *sufficient* to cause adhyAsa.
>
> If asAdhAraNa kAraNa alone is sufficient for a kArya to come into being
> even without a puShkala kAraNa, then even a tiger can manifest in the given
> space/context instead of cobwebs.  The kArya-kAraNa niyati is itself
> destroyed.
>
> Om
> Raghav
>
>
>
> On Thu, 30 Jan, 2025, 1:43 pm Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji,
>>
>>  First one is said to emphasize the stand of bhAshyakAra, second one is to
>> > appease the thirst of the people who want to see everything in the
>> prism of
>> > kArya-kAraNa vAda 😊
>> >
>>
>> So, do you hold that bhAshya presents avidyA as cause of adhyAsa for those
>> who want to see in the prism of kArya-kAraNa-vAda?
>>
>> What is your position?
>>
>> (i) avidyA is identical to adhyAsa
>> (ii) avidyA is cause of adhyAsa.
>> (iii) In paramArtha (i), but in vyavAhara (ii)?
>>
>> Please clarify your position.
>>
>> Ø     Look at your experience before playing anything with bhAshya :  what
>> > would be the reason behind seeing the snake instead of rope??  Is it not
>> > lack of knowledge of an existing thing and seeing one thing for
>> another??
>> >
>>
>> I will come to my explanation a little later. Let us first examine your
>> claim of abhAva as a cause of adhyAsa.
>>
>> Perhaps you might be sitting in your personal library and picking the
>> > totally irrelevant quotes like this to prove your theory.  Anyway let me
>> > check this adhikaraNa purport and come back to you.
>> >
>>
>> Please check the adhikaraNa and get back. Because BhAshya clearly negates
>> any possibility of abhAva being stated as a cause of anything.
>>
>> I reckon like ghata bhAshya which you have quoted to prove even abhAva is
>> > also bhAva completely out of context, this one too in all probability of
>> > the same order.
>> >
>>
>> Make a study and come back. I have merely reproduced bhAshya which
>> presents
>> anumAna - both in BSB 2.2.26 and also in ghatA-bhAshya. You know that
>> anumAna is a pramANa. You need to repudiate it if you want to hold a
>> contrary view. You cannot wish away fire-smoke-anumAna by citing context.
>> You need to repudiate the anumAna.
>>
>> And that vishesha-abhAva is bhAvarUpa is proven by BhAshyakAra in
>> ghatA-bhAshya through irrefutable anumAna. I don't know how you refuse to
>> accept that even without refuting the anumAna.
>>
>> By the way you advocate the jagat bhrAnti vAda, how do you reconcile your
>> > theory with that of above quote??
>> >
>>
>> Because for me, the cause of bhrAnti (adhyAsa) is abhAva-vilakshaNa
>> ajnAna.
>> So, no contradiction with bhAshya. Simple.
>>
>> By the way, when we say abhAva is the cause it does not mean jnAnAbhAva
>> > giving the birth to adhyAsa and for the adhyAsa, jnAnAbhAva is the
>> > upAdAna.  In short, the ignorance of the jeeva about himself ( the lack
>> of
>> > knowledge about himself) is called avidyA, ajnAna, aviveka etc.  This
>> not
>> > knowing is ekarUpa and no need to cut this abhAva into somany pieces to
>> > query whether it is  prAgabhAva, pradvamsAbhAva, anyonyAbhAva, atyanta
>> > abhAva etc. etc. when it comes to svarUpa ajnAna it is simply ‘not
>> knowing’
>> > without any prefixes and suffixes. In this sense it is ekarUpa ( na cha
>> > avidyA kevala vaishamyasya kAraNam ekarUpatvAt)  Why is it ekarUpa?’
>> > because, it is the absence of the knowledge which cannot be different in
>> > different jeeva-s.  This avidyA makes room for wrong understanding.
>> Lack
>> > of rajju jnAna leads to sarpAvalOkana (lack of svarUpa jnAna leads to
>> > dehAtmabhAva) and this is anartha hetu emphasizes bhAshyakAra.
>> >
>>
>>
>> > And now to your pet question : how logical it is to say from abhAva
>> there
>> > is bhAva?? In other words, if avidyA is non-existent in the form of
>> > jnAnAbhAva, how can it give birth or can be a cause to adhyAsa,  which
>> is
>> > an actually existent and experiencing one ? To answer this I say : we
>> will
>> > have to first understand that when we say jnAnAbhAva type of avidyA is
>> the
>> > cause of adhyAsa, it is not in the sense of upAdAna or nimitta like what
>> > you (mUlAvidyAvAdins) do : it only gives room for adhyAsa, it is just an
>> > excuse, in a pretext.  Like for an example, an empty space covered by
>> > cobwebs.  Here available empty space neither upAdAna nor nimitta for
>> > cobwebs.  Likewise lack of svarUpa jnAna gives room for misconception
>> but
>> > this lack of knowledge neither material nor efficient cause for the
>> > vipareeta pratyaya.  Enough said on this.
>> >
>>
>> Let us revise some basic concepts. For any kArya, there are some
>> asAdhAraNa-kAraNa and several (in fact nine) sAdhAraNa-kAraNa. Space and
>> time are two such sAdhAraNa-kAraNa (except of course in case of space and
>> time themselves). So, in case of cobweb example, space is that
>> sAdhAraNa-kAraNa. As you might agree, space is not abhAva. So, that does
>> not really help.
>>
>> But I understand what you actually have in mind. By space, you basically
>> mean to say that there is absence of pratibandhaka. So, let us understand
>> the concept of pratibandhaka first:
>>
>> It means something which negates the production of effect despite cause
>> being present. So, cause is present and yet effect is not being produced
>> --
>> so, we propound the concept of pratibandhaka. So, lamp is there, oil is
>> there, match-box is there, activity of lighting the lamp is there --- but,
>> wonder of wonders, lamp-light is not there! Why!!! There is a
>> pratibandhaka. There is wind.
>>
>> So, wind-abhAva i.e. pratibandhaka-abhAva becomes a cause for effect. And
>> we do say - since there is no wind, the lamp is lit. And wind-abhAva is
>> neither material nor efficient cause of lamp-light.
>>
>> So, pratibandhaka is defined as पुष्कलकारणे हि सति कार्योत्पादविरोधि
>> प्रतिबन्धकम्।
>>
>> Similarly, spider is there, fully zealous and healthy to produce cobwebs
>> and yet.. there are no cobwebs. Why? Because the room is jam-packed with
>> stuff. There is pratibandhaka.
>>
>> Thus, what you really meant by postulating space as the cause of cobwebs
>> is
>> actually pratibandhaka-abhAva.
>>
>> You are postulating ajnAna as jnAna-abhAva to be the cause of adhyAsa in
>> the sense of pratibandhaka-abhAva by relying on the analogy of cobwebs.
>> Since there is swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva i.e. since there is
>> pratibandhaka-abhAva, there is adhyAsa in the form of viparIta-pratyaya
>> which is "actually existent and experiencing one".
>>
>> Let us see how tenable it is to extend the concept of pratibandhaka to
>> ajnAna.
>>
>> Your claim basically is; swarUpa-jnAna is pratibandhaka for adhyAsa. Since
>> there is pratibandhaka-abhAva when there is swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva, adhyAsa
>> manifests. And hence, as in case of cobwebs, we can say -
>> swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva leads to adhyAsa.
>>
>> *This argument is incorrect on account of non-satisfaction of definition
>> of
>> pratibandhaka*.
>>
>> As we saw, pratibandhaka is defined as पुष्कलकारणे हि सति
>> कार्योत्पादविरोधि
>> प्रतिबन्धकम्। *Now there is no situation wherein pushkala-kAraNa of
>> adhyAsa
>> is present alongwith swarUpa-jnAna being present leading to non-production
>> of adhyAsa. Therefore, swarUpa-jnAna cannot be postulated as
>> pratibandhaka.*
>>
>> And therefore, it cannot be stated that ajnAna, in the sense of
>> swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva, is the cause of adhyAsa just as space (stuff-abhAva)
>> is stated to be the cause of cobweb. Basically, just as stuff is
>> pratibandhaka of cobweb, similarly swarUpa-jnAna cannot be said to be the
>> pratibandhaka of adhyAsa.
>>
>> I would like to add that pratibandhaka-abhAva is also a sAdhAraNa-kAraNa
>> accepted for all effects. However, being vishesha-abhAva, it is accepted
>> as
>> bhAvarUpa in siddhAnta.
>>
>> The above discussion is explained succinctly in VivaraNa as under:
>>
>> ननु कथं मिथ्याज्ञानं अध्यासस्य उपादानम् तस्मिन् सति अध्यासस्य उदयात् असति
>> च
>> अनुदयात् इति ब्रूमः।। *ननु अध्यासस्य प्रतिबन्धकं तत्त्वज्ञानं तदभावश्च
>> अज्ञानं इति प्रतिबन्धकाभावविषयतया अज्ञानस्य अध्यासेन अन्वयव्यतिरेकौ
>> अन्यथासिद्धौ*,* नैतत् सारम्;पुष्कलकारणे हि सति कार्योत्पादविरोधि
>> प्रतिबन्धकम्। न च अध्यासपुष्कलकारणे सति तत्त्वज्ञानोदयः।
>> तस्मान्नाज्ञानादय-व्यतिरेकौ  प्रतिबन्धकाभावविषयौ। *तथापि विरोधिसंसर्गाभाव
>> इति चेत्, न;कार्यस्य कारणापेक्षा हि प्रथममुत्पद्यते, न
>> विरोधिसंसर्गाभावापेक्षा। तस्मात् प्रथमापेक्षितकारणक्लृत्पिमेव
>> अन्वयव्यतिरेकौ न्यायसहितौ कुर्वाते।
>>
>> The sum and substance of the above-discussion is as under:
>>
>> 1. abhAva cannot be a cause of any effect as proved by BhAshyakAra in BSB
>> 2.2.26 - निर्विशेषस्य त्वभावस्य कारणत्वाभ्युपगमे
>> शशविषाणादिभ्योऽप्यङ्कुरादयो जायेरन्; न चैवं दृश्यते। नाप्यभावः
>> कस्यचिदुत्पत्तिहेतुः स्यात् , अभावत्वादेव, शशविषाणादिवत् ।
>>
>> 2. pratibandhaka-abhAva, accepted as a sAdhAraNa-kAraNa in NyAya for all
>> effects, is bhAvarUpa as per anumAna of ghaTa-bhAshya - एवं घटस्य
>> प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात् , घटेन
>> व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम् ।
>>
>> 3. An anumAna cannot be wished away by hiding behind context. It is like
>> smoke-fire anumAna. It works everywhere.
>>
>> 4. pratibandhaka-abhAva works in case of spider-cobweb but does not work
>> in
>> case of swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva because the definition of pratibandhaka is
>> not
>> satisfied. There is no situation wherein swarUpa-jnAna is present along
>> with cause-of-adhyAsa. So, swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva cannot be stated as
>> pratibandhaka-abhAva.
>>
>> Thus, it is clear that ajnAna cannot be held as abhAva in accordance with
>> bhAshya and logic.
>>
>> Regards.
>> Sudhanshu Shekhar.3+
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>