Namaste Venkatraghavan ji.Thank you very much for your inputs. I made a study of relevant portions of Advaita Siddhi and applied mind on the issue.
I will just summarize the discussion so far. Kindly let me know if you disagree with any of it.
(a) X-abhAva-jnAna requires x-jnAna. That is to say, without x-jnAna, one cannot have x-abhAva-jnAna. However, it is subject to exception. One exception is -where x itself is a vishesha-abhAva such as pot-abhAva. In such cases, since x is pot-abhAva, x-abhAva will be pot (pot-abhAva-abhAva). So, saying x-abhAva-jnAna requires x-jnAna would imply ---- pot-jnAna (pot-abhAva-abhAva-jnAna) requires pot-abhAva-jnAna, which is contradicted by anubhava. Hence, the rule would not apply if x is vishesha-abhAva.
So, it can be safely said that the rule – x-abhAva-jnAna requires x-jnAna is valid in only those cases wherein x is not vishesha-abhAva. This is basically the point made by Anant Chaitanya ji.
(b) Now comes your point, wherein you basically stated that an exception to the impugned rule is possible even when x is nirvishesha-abhAva such as a shashashringa. That is to say, the knowledge of an abhAva, where shashashringa itself is the pratiyogI, does not require shashashringa-jnAna. That is to say, shashashringa-abhAva-jnAna does not require shashashringa-jnAna. Here, you hold that shashashringa-abhAva has shashashringa as pratiyogI and shashashringa-tva as pratiyogitA-avachchhedaka.
Further, you hold that shashashringa (C) is a vastu independent of shasha (A) and shringa (B). It is an akhanDa asat vastu in its own right. So, even if shashashringa-abhAva-jnAna required shasha-jnAna and shringa-jnAna, i.e. even if C-abhAva-jnAna required A-jnAna and B-jnAna, it still does not prove that C-abhAva-jnAna requires C-jnAna. So, the exception is valid.
Further, you hold that shashashringa-jnAna is not through jnAnAkAra-vritti but through vikalpa-vritti. So, even if shashashringa-abhAva-jnAna requires shashashringa-jnAna, it still does not require a jnAnAkAra-vritti, hence requirement of pratiyogI-jnAna is not met.
Kindly let me know whether I have summarised your views correctly.
In this connection, let me put my views:-
1. Shashashringa means a vastu which has shringa-tva and shashIya-tva. Such a vastu is not sattvena-pratIti-yogya. And hence, it is called asat or tuchchha. Certainly such a vastu is neither shasha nor shringa nor an intersection of these two. It is an independent construct which is not sattven-pratIti-yogya i.e. it is nihswarUpa (असत्त्वं तावन्निःस्वरूपत्वम्). So, even if shashashringa-abhAva-jnAna requires shasha-jnAna or shringa-jnAna, it does not result in requirement of shashashringa-jnAna. It is a valid point.
2. When shashashringa is nihswarUpa i.e. sattvena-pratIti-ayogya, can there be a shashashringa-abhAva-jnAna at all? If yes, then how do we know this shashashringa-abhAva? Being an abhAva, it can only be known through anupalabdhi-pramA. However, there is no yogyA-anupalabdhi in the case of shashashringa-abhAva. “If shashashringa were there, it would have been perceived” – is not possible in case of shashashringa because such anupalabdhi is not pratiyogI-sattva-virodhinI [even if shashashringa were there, it would not have been perceived]. That is why advaita-siddhi holds in Nishedhapratiyogitva-anyathA-anupapattitva-vichArah that tuchha-pratiyogika-abhAva is not accepted in siddhAnta.
This being the position, what happens to the jnAna “shashashringam nAsti”? Does it not signify an abhAva which has shashashringa as pratiyogI. This is what your proposition is.
The text answers that even in such case – the cognition states the absence of shringa in shasha (that is to say, shasha is anuyogI and shringa is pratiyogI) and it does not have shashashringa as pratiyogI. एवं च शशशृङ्गं नास्तीत्युल्लिखन्त्या अपि बुद्धेः शशे शृङ्गाभाव एव विषयः ।
In the cognition – “gavi shashashringam nAsti” – the anuyogI is a shringa-of-cow and pratiyogI is shashIyatva. एवं च शशशृङ्गं नास्तीत्युल्लिखन्त्या अपि बुद्धेः शशे शृङ्गाभाव एव विषयः । गवि शशशृङ्गं नास्तीत्यस्या अपि गवाधिकरणकशृङ्गे शशीयत्वाभावो विषयः, अनन्यगतिकत्वात् ।
In a nut-shell, it is held in siddhAnta that tuchha/asat does not have abhAva-pratiyogitA.
3. This being the position of siddhAnta, wherein asat is not accepted as pratiyogI of an abhAva, i.e. asat-pratiyogika-abhAva is not accepted, our discussion becomes non-starter. That is to say, when asat-ptatiyogika-abhAva itself is not accepted, to say that asat-pratiyogika-abhAva-jnAna does not require asat-jnAna, is not possible.
4. Now, this is a phenomenal point – that asat does not have nishedha-pratiyogitA. But, in second mithyAtva-vichArah, it is categorically stated that asat and mithyA both have traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitA. How to explain that? I would request your views here.
My understanding is – asat does not have any connection with kAla. And hence, it is stated to have traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitA.
The basis of my saying is – mithyA is accepted to have a sattva during pratibhAsa-kAla which is non-contradictory to its traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitA. This sattva of mithyA vastu is defined as yat-knichit-kAla-abAdhyatva. This sattva is not present in asat, not because it has abAdhyatva, but because it has no connection with kAla.; किंचित्कालाबाध्यत्वरूपं किंचित्कालावच्छिन्नं बाधाविषयत्वमित्यर्थः । ब्रह्मतुच्छयोर्व्यावृत्तये अवच्छिन्नान्तम् । ब्रह्मणि बाधाविषयत्वं न कालावच्छिन्नम् ; सार्वत्रिकत्वात्, तुच्छे तु कालस्यासंबन्धादपि न तदवच्छिन्नं तदिति भावः । (LaghuchandrikA -page 639 Old edition – Nirnaya Sagar press).
Extending the same logic, it can be said that asat has traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitA, not on account of asat having nishedha-pratiyogitA, but on account of absence of sambandha with kAla.
5. So, my view is – since asat-pratiyogika-abhAva is not accepted in siddhAnta, "asat-pratiyogika-abhAva-jnAna does not require asat-pratiyogI-jnAna", cannot be said. And hence, shashashringa cannot be placed as x in our original premise – x-abhAva-jnAna requires x-jnAna. And hence, nirvishesha-abhAva cannot be an exception to our original rule. Vishesha-abhAva can, however, be a valid exception. But not anything else.
Kindly share your views.