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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Raghav ji.

Just a little bit of revision before proceeding:

For any kArya, nine sAdhAraNa-kAraNa are accepted namely Ishwara,
Ishwara-jnAna, Ishwara-ichchhA, Ishwara-prayatna, prAk-abhAva,
pratibandhaka-abhAva, adrishTa, desha and kAla. These are
sarva-kArya-kArANa. These are required for all kArya and they are common.

However, asAdhAraNa-kAraNa are different for different kArya. So, for e.g.
kulAla, mrittikA, danDa etc are asAdhAraNa-kAraNa for ghaTa.
asAdhAraNa-kAraNa are specific to specific-kArya whereas sAdhAraNa-kAraNa
are general to all kAryAs.

Please note that a kArya has nine sAdhAraNa-kAraNa and several
asAdhAraNa-kAraNa.

When we say pushkala-kAraNa in पुष्कलकारणे हि सति, we mean that all kAraNa
are present.

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."
>

Perfect.

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.
>

Fine.


> 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.)
>

I think the refutation is by demonstrating that there exists no situation
where pushkala-kAraNa-of-adhyAsa and swarUpa-jnAna co-appear. This is
required if the opponent seeks to establish swarUpa-jnAna as pratibandhaka
of adhyAsa. Wind and pushkala-kAraNa-of-lamp-light need to be present
together to claim that wind is pratibandhaka of lamp-light. No such
situation can be demonstrated by anyone when pushkala-kAraNa-of-adhyAsa and
swarUpa-jnAna are co-present. That is why swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva cannot be
stated as pratibandhaka-abhAva.


> 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 sAdhAraNa kAraNa alone is sufficient for a kArya to come into being
> with a puShkala kAraNa, then even a tiger can manifest in the given
> space/context instead of cobwebs.  The kArya-kAraNa niyati is itself
> destroyed.
>

They will need to explain it. I don't know how!!


> P.S. You signed off as Sudhanshu Shekhar.3+ which is interesting, as in
> triguNAntIta?
>

Pata nahi kaise type ho gaya. 😀

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.