Fwd: Mulavidya related discussion during 1930 in Vedanta Kesari

[V Subrahmanian]

Here are seven files (articles) related to Moolaavidya topic published in the Journal Vedanta Kesari in the 1930.  

warm regards

subbu

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji.

I think the central point where SSSS ji falters massively is his Eskimo example. It shakes the very foundations of his understanding and the entire structure he tried to build falls like a pack of cards.

abhAva cannot be known without the prior knowledge of pratiyOgI. This is the golden rule. And that is why avidyA cannot be jnAna-abhAva.

To circumvent this problem, he postulated that pratiyOgI-jnAna is not required for abhAva-jnAna. And he wrote the example of Eskimo which I reproduce below. As we have discussed earlier, this example is wrong and thus it leaves SSSS ji's theory baseless.

The population of avidyA as jnAna-abhAva is the standard argument of dvaita vedAntI and is refuted in detail in all texts of Advaita.

SSSS ji followed dvaita vedanta argument of avidyA as jnAna-abhAva. And to respond to the prior pratiyOgI-jnAna requirement, he came up with Eskimo example, which is patently wrong as prior pratiyOgI-jnAna is present in his example.

A rebuttal to his Eskimo example hits at the root of his entire structure.

The Eskimo example reference:

Section 28 - The heart of Shri Shankara (mUlAvidyAnirAsah)

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

I think the central point where SSSS ji falters massively is his Eskimo example.

 

• OTOH by giving this example Sri SSS proved that there is possibility of jnAna abhAva of something and it is not a rule that one should have prior knowledge of it before saying / concluding anything  which is not known. 

 

It shakes the very foundations of his understanding and the entire structure he tried to build falls like a pack of cards.

 

Ø     Your grand imagination.  It is said from the lokAnubhava drushti and it is not said to satisfy tArkika-s but to help the vedAnta jignAsu-s. 

 

abhAva cannot be known without the prior knowledge of pratiyOgI. This is the golden rule. And that is why avidyA cannot be jnAna-abhAva.

 

Ø     This statement is what he has taken in his second paragraph and refuted in 3^rd paragraph.  So don’t think that he has not answered your so called logical question 😊 The absence of the jnAna that I am brahman in the intellect can be termed as avidyA (jnAnAbhAva).  The thought or vidyA or realization that I am brahman in the intellect is the pratiyOgi of that avidyA or jnAnAbhAva.  Earlier due to this jnAnAbhAva (agrahaNa) only he was under the misconception that he is something else other than what he actually is.  When he was under the sphere of adhyAsa (wrong knowledge) in the mind he has a form of different object from that of what actually exists. ( sarpa in place of rajju) and after the right knowledge he has the right knowledge in accordance with the object (he has the knowledge of rajju as rajju i.e. yathArtha jnAna) but when one say something about on which he does not have any jnAna (pot jnAna abhAva) there is no jnAna of any kind (neither misconception nor right cognition) in his mind, hence it is called jnAna abhAva.  Sri SSS is very much justified in his explanation and refutation of your stand here. 

 

To circumvent this problem, he postulated that pratiyOgI-jnAna is not required for abhAva-jnAna. And he wrote the example of Eskimo which I reproduce below. As we have discussed earlier, this example is wrong and thus it leaves SSSS ji's theory baseless.

 

Ø     Again it is only your biased argument.  Here avidyA abhAva is talked in terms of pot jnAna abhAva and not pot abhAva.  I think I shared my understanding about it by taking the example of Sri Sadaji’s Eskimo like thing : ‘gAgAbubu’ in one of my previous mails. 

 

The population of avidyA as jnAna-abhAva is the standard argument of dvaita vedAntI and is refuted in detail in all texts of Advaita.

 

Ø     By advocating parallel reality to brahman, by postulating the shakti to it, by granting the objectivity to it, declaring that it has the potency to conceal the Shuddha Chaitanya, as well as projecting outside objects also in a different way and also granting  it’s undisturbed existence in all avasthA-s, the mUlAvidyAvAdins allowed the trespassing of dvaita vAda in shankara’s paramAdvaita vedAnta.  And shankara’s shuddhAdvaita become the thoughtless literature in front of dvaita and vishishtAdvaita schools of thought.    

 

SSSS ji followed dvaita vedanta argument of avidyA as jnAna-abhAva. And to respond to the prior pratiyOgI-jnAna requirement, he came up with Eskimo example, which is patently wrong as prior pratiyOgI-jnAna is present in his example.

 

Ø     It is only in your understanding.  Eskimo example given just to prove that there is no unconditional rule to say prior jnAna of jnAna abhAva is required to talk anything about jnAna abhAva.  If you are not able to understand this simple intention of Sri SSS then it is your problem. 

 

• Just a curious question to you, you are the one who is floating the erroneous theory of existence of positive ignorance in sushupti also (though there are plenty of bhAshya to prove you are utterly wrong).  In sushupti as we have the shruti statements that everything merges in brahman to establish the ‘oneness’ in that state.  The indriya, manas all objects of the world are merged in brahman says shAstra.  Since you are giving the objective status to avidyA also, you have to accept that to get that oneness this avidyA also should be merged in brahman alongwith all other upAdhi-s/jagat.  The Indriyas the Manas and the external world whether in

their vyAkruta or avyAkruta from are only kArya of Brahman and it is not ‘viruddha’ to it.  Therefore, the merger of effect in their cause brahman is very much possible and justifiable. But if the objectively existent avidyA or avidyA shakti should also merge in brahman and in that state this avidyA shakti which has the exclusive Ashraya in brahman itself, it would in other words imply that it is not opposed to the svarUpaM of brahman. What on earth can we going to gain from that brahman which is not opposed to avidyA, which is not able to control avidyA??  Which allows avidyA to cover itself ? brahman is useless in your theory of mUlAvidyAvAda and brahman is not capable to protect himself from the onslaughts of this avidyA shakti.  What you are going to realize by doing the jignAnasa of this type of impotent brahman??  Absolutely nothing, is it not ?? 😊

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

"abhAva cannot be known without the prior knowledge of pratiyOgI. This is the golden rule. And that is why avidyA cannot be jnAna-abhAva."

The notion of absence as also the notion of presence are themselves superimpositions of Conscious Awareness which Itself is wholly free of presence and/or absence. So how does pratiyogi even apply?  Sruti and Bhasyakara's  teaching is that Deep Sleep is not merely the absence of manifestation but the unalloyed Presence of Self.  It is absence of objects from the waking state perspective  only but in truth, from its own perspective, there is only nondual Self. Eskimo is an example only and not to be logically wrangled into existing secretly somewhere Karnataka :)

Regards, Michael

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAdy1E0pLUxhEYnKMyM%3DFMykZPVWaupZrP7aPV6fsXOCg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Let us concentrate on Eskimo example. If we understand and appreciate the error in the example, subsequent things will become clear. 

Let us first understand and appreciate that abhAva-jnAna is impossible without pratiyOgI-jnAna.

The notion of absence as also the notion of presence are themselves superimpositions of Conscious Awareness which Itself is wholly free of presence and/or absence. So how does pratiyogi even apply? 

If SSSS ji holds avidyA to be jnAna-prAk-abhAva, then concept of pratiyOgI will apply. 

Advaita does not hold ajnAna to be abhAva. And hence, this pratiyOgI-rule does not apply. 

But since you, and MAdhva dualists, hold ajnAna to be abhAva, you are duty bound to answer the objection which requires prior pratiyOgI-jnAna.

Sruti and Bhasyakara's  teaching is that Deep Sleep is not merely the absence of manifestation but the unalloyed Presence of Self. 

Self is always unalloyed presence from its own drishTi. From avidyA-drishTi, in deep sleep, it is coupled with avidyA, and in other states, it is coupled with both avidyA as well as avidyA-kArya. That is the advaita siddhAnta.

It is absence of objects from the waking state perspective  only but in truth, from its own perspective, there is only nondual Self.

There is no perspective of deep sleep. There is either Brahma-drishTi or avidyA-drishTi. There is no sushupti-drishTi.

From avidyA-drishTi, sushupti has kAraNa-ajnAna. From Brahma-drishTi, neither waking, not dream nor deep sleep have any tinge of avidyA. What more, there is no waking, dream, deep sleep from Brahma-drishTi.

And from ajnAna-drishTi, sushupti is another name of ajnAna. BhAshyakAra says in US - सुषुप्ति-आख्यं तमो अज्ञानम्.

That sushupti is stated at some places to be devoid of ajnAna is only on account of absence of vyakta-ajnAna. Since the manifestor antah-karaNa is merged, there is no expression of ajnAna in sushupti. And hence, there is no kArya-adhyAsa in sushupti. And hence, sushupti becomes a drishTAnta for mOksha.

ajnAna-vishishTa-chaitanya is present in sushupti with which jIva is one and hence there is no perception of duality. There is advitIya kAraNa-Brahma in sushupti, which ipso facto implies presence of avidyA. This is from avidyA-drishTi.

From Brahma-drishTi, of course, there has never been any avidyA.

Eskimo is an example only and not to be logically wrangled into existing secretly somewhere Karnataka :)

The example is wrong because prior pratiyOgI-jnAna of Eskimo being a foreigner human being is present.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

We are not approaching these discussions properly. The issues need to be stated clearly in a systematic wholistic fashion, such as Mulavidya Nirasa, otherwise ideas are repeated, ignored,  obscured etc. and the dialog goes on endlessly. It is for this reason, together with lacking either time or heart, that I beg to excuse myself if I am tardy or non-responsive. 🙏🙏🙏

//If SSSS ji holds avidyA to be jnAna-prAk-abhAva, then concept of pratiyOgI will apply. //

The Self is mistaken for what it is not and only then can you have jnana-prak-abhava. Time and origin are products of adhyasa

//There is no perspective of deep sleep. There is either Brahma-drishTi or avidyA-drishTi. There is no sushupti-drishTi.//

See MaU 5 & 6 - of course there is sushupti drsti. And waking and dream drshti as well - I'm sure you've noticed

//But since you, and MAdhva dualists, hold ajnAna to be abhAva//

Please share the reasoning enabling you to so pervert? 

//From avidyA-drishTi, sushupti has kAraNa-ajnAna.//

from an unpublished translation of SSSS, Mandukhya Rahasya, below.

Praajna is the cause for sustenance and dissolution of the world: (Page 54 of 2011 Edition):

 

    As his (Praajna’s) nature is pure consciousness and he is omniscient and omnipotent he is spoken of as the efficient cause for this universe. Praajna himself appears as the universe, and in this sense he is spoken of as the material cause for this universe. For ex: The clay itself appears as a pot, so also Praajna appears as a universe. Except this Praajna there is no other efficient or material cause for this universe.

// सुषुप्ति-आख्यं तमो अज्ञानम्.//

Please, a phrase out of context. Call it what you like but, consult sruti for what it truly is. 

//sushupti becomes a drishTAnta for mOksha.//

Are all these merely drishtanta? 

• “With a view to show that it is in dreamless sleep alone that we find the Self in its form as a deity, liberated from its condition as an individual soul, the argument proceeds further” (ChU Bh. 6.8.1)
• “that form of the Self which is directly perceived in dreamless sleep, and which is devoid of Ignorance, desire, merit and demerit, is the subject of the discourse here' (Brhad. Bh. 4.3.22)
• Therefore, in suṣupti, jīva joins its own svarūpa - say the Brahmajñānis. ChUbh6.8.1
• “At that time (i.e. in dreamless sleep) cause and effect resulting from Ignorance desire, merit and demerit cease” PrUbh4.6.
• But as there is the absence of both the mind and its functions in deep sleep, I am Pure Consciousness, all pervading and changeless. US11.3
• ‘Now it is a settled conclusion of the Upanisads that the individual soul becomes unified with the supreme Self in sleep, and that the universe, inclusive of the organs etc., issues from the supreme Self. So it is to be understood that the entity in which this individual being has an absence of particularized knowledge, in which it has its deep sleep, consisting in the absence of the defect of perturbation, in which it has its real nature of freedom from particularized knowledge caused by limiting adjuncts, from which occurs its emergence, consisting in a break in that state-that entity is the supreme Self, taught here as the thing to be known.”BSbh1.4.18

• “Where Ignorance, desire and action are absent … This is the form of the Self where it is beyond fear and danger …For Ignorance, which sets up the idea of otherness, is absent.” (BrUbh 4.3.21)
• Those things that caused the particular visions (of the waking and dream states), namely the mind, the eyes and forms, were all presented by Ignorance as something different from the Self.” (Brhad. Bh. 4.3.23)
• How does such a man attain liberation? This is being stated: He who sees the Self, as in the state of profound sleep, as undifferentiated, one without a second, and as the constant light of Pure Intelligence-only this disinterested man has no work and consequently no cause for transmigration Brbh 4.4.6
• “But when in dreamless sleep that nescience which sets up the appearance of beings other than the Self has ceased, there is no (apparent) entity separated from oneself as another. Then with what could one see, smell or understand what? The One is embraced by one’s own Self as intelligence (prajna), of the nature of self-luminous light. One is then all serene, with one’s desires attained, transparent as water, and all one on account of the absence of any second. For, if a second thing is distinguished, it is distinguished through nescience, and as that has now ceased, what is left is all one.
  //… In the same way, my dear one, because they had no knowledge when they mingled with pure Being, all these creatures likewise, the tiger and so forth, have no knowledge of the fact when they have returned from pure Being. They are not aware, ‘I have returned from pure Being’. Chand. Bh. Vl.ix.l”
• 'Nor can you retort that the apparent nonperception of another in dreamless sleep is due to the mind being engrossed in something different from oneself but changeless, (on the analogy of the arrow-maker so engrossed in the arrow that he is making that he is unaware of anything else). For non-perception in dream is total (in that the sense-organs are withdrawn from the objects of the waking world). Nor can you say that because an ‘other’ is perceived in waking and dream it must be real, for these two states are set up by Ignorance. That "perception-of-another" which characterizes waking and dream is the work of Ignorance~ for it does not occur except in the presence of Ignorance (of the infinitude of the Self). Perhaps you will say that the non-perception characteristic of dreamless sleep is also the work of Ignorance. But this would be wrong as it is the essential nature of the Self” (Taitt.Bh. 2.5.8)
• See also: BrahmaSutra Bhasya BSBh 1.1.9; 1.3.20; 3.2.7; and also BrUBh 2.1.7 (291)

  

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAZ5y%3DV4F_odh-%2Bth3V5HXaZ-TP5hQ1w2i0vXUAc7PM8g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

We are not approaching these discussions properly. The issues need to be stated clearly in a systematic wholistic fashion, such as Mulavidya Nirasa, otherwise ideas are repeated, ignored,  obscured etc. and the dialog goes on endlessly. It is for this reason, together with lacking either time or heart, that I beg to excuse myself if I am tardy or non-responsive. 🙏🙏🙏

Instead of bringing a whole lot of issues, such as ajnAna being jnAna-abhAva, sushupti being identical to self etc, in every post, it would be better to restrict to one single idea, which is at the source of all issues. And discuss that concept thoroughly in an impartial manner. That would be better.

Let us take the present example. Here the issue of discussion is - abhAva cannot be known without knowing the pratiyOgI.

Now, please note, this is a central position of advaita vedAnta through which the dualists' claim, mentioned in texts such as NyAyAmrita, of ajnAna being jnAna-abhAva is refuted. 

That we cannot know abhAva without pratiyOgI-jnAna is clear from our day-to-day experience. When I ask even a six-year old - Is there a tuoli in this room? - He counter-questions: what is a tuoli?

I answer - Tuoli means chair in Finnish language. And then he answers - yes, there is a tuoli in this room OR no, there is no tuoli in this room. 

Without knowing tuoli, he is unable to know tuoli-abhAva in the room.

In this context, please analyse Eskimo example and get back on the correctness of the example. [Section 28 of Heart of Shri Shankara]

Let us forget all other concepts and concentrate on this issue as to whether abhAva-jnAna is possible without pratiyOgI-jnAna? Please apply mind.

//If SSSS ji holds avidyA to be jnAna-prAk-abhAva, then concept of pratiyOgI will apply. //

The Self is mistaken for what it is not and only then can you have jnana-prak-abhava. Time and origin are products of adhyasa

//There is no perspective of deep sleep. There is either Brahma-drishTi or avidyA-drishTi. There is no sushupti-drishTi.//

See MaU 5 & 6 - of course there is sushupti drsti. And waking and dream drshti as well - I'm sure you've noticed

//But since you, and MAdhva dualists, hold ajnAna to be abhAva//

Please share the reasoning enabling you to so pervert? 

//From avidyA-drishTi, sushupti has kAraNa-ajnAna.//

from an unpublished translation of SSSS, Mandukhya Rahasya, below.

Not responding so as to keep the discussion focussed on the single issue of Eskimo.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

namaste Sudhanshuji, 

It seems you are making your stand on pratiyogi perhaps mulavidya vada will fall like a 'house of cards' without it!!

Alston offers two footnotes in SSSS's Heart of Sri Samkara. The first depicts pratiyogin as confined to co-relation of objects but not to knowledge of the Self which stands Unrelated yet Self-Evident, and Always Present, thus known now by everyone but not recognized. Thus, the Self is the pratiyogi for its own 'apparent' absence. Simple.and astutely supported by Hegel's reasoning in the second footnote. 

There is explicit reference here to a 'pratiyogin" or contradictory_ The older Westem
logic distinguished between a pair of contraries (\vhite and black) and a pair or
contradictories (\vhite and not-\vhite). Here,. the existence and non-existence of the thing
make up a pair of contradictories and mutually exclude one another." fn36

The arguments about 'I do not knO\V' here are parallel with a famous clash of vie\vs
found in the history of\vestem philosophy. Kant held that \ve could not knO\V 'things-inthemselves'.
Hegel 'held that Kant's assertion was self-contradictory. One would not
have the right to say that one could not knO\V things-in-themselves unless one already
had some kno\\"ledge of them. In fact one cannot help having some kno\vledge of reality.
It is the philosopher s job to improve that kno\vledge. fn20

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCvx9wevfAef91VaoDsH6Hp%2BjfmXD2Rat5ExmfuYzUgGw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

I will not respond to your response as it is unrelated to the issue at hand.

//Let us forget all other concepts and concentrate on this issue as to whether abhAva-jnAna is possible without pratiyOgI-jnAna? Please apply mind.//

Let us concentrate on the correctness of Eskimo example. 

We will have ample time to discuss ajnAna as jnAna-abhAva. 

First, let us apply mind as to whether pratiyOgI-jnAna is required for abhAva-jnAna or not. And secondly, whether Eskimo-example is correct.

So, I am ignoring all comments which are not concerned with this instant issue.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

I wholly disagree. My previous comment is right on the money! Pratiyogin is a logical concept depicting co-dependence between concepts. That is fine for Buddhism but it does not account for an ever existing Self that can serve as pratiyogin for its own apparent absence. We suffer because we don't know our Self and thus take it to be this logic wielding individuality. In deep sleep, we again appear to arise into waking due to the fact that we do not know the self and thus adhyasa appears. 

I do not wish to discuss Eskimo. Years ago, Prasanth Netiji and you wrestled that discussion into incoherence for me and I do not wish to tax this poor brain again. Eskimo is just an example, not intended to melt in Indian tarka.   

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBdsbqALPQSHeoxZ8cye0FKa36bG5sQTBacX1nkpmyKBg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyan]

Namaste Michael-ji

At the end of the day, the normal darkness that we encounter is just absence of light (photons), whether absolute (no light) or relative (light with very low intensity). This is so firmly established by Physics, that it is pointless trying to challenge this. 

I guess no amount of logic is going to beat experience. 🤷 

Best Regards

[Akilesh Ayyar]

One problem, it seems to me, with the idea of darkness being mere absence of light is that light is also absent in another condition in which darkness cannot be said to be seen: in those cases where the person is blind. Blind people do not experience “darkness.” They experience, per their own words, a lack of visual stimuli, not darkness.

Akilesh Ayyar

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/6eee2c96-79be-47c3-bbea-1c89415ebf1en%40googlegroups.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Kalyan, What about dream? no photons there yet there's visual perception. Is that a positive darkness? Seems an interesting distinction

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAJbmbsGd%3DFu_iyW-AW8-zyvjKc9p-FTg7gLh8n_EaSpjvzaJ1w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyan]

Namaste Michael-ji

Normal waking state - brain's visual cortex is activated by external signals like photons.

Dream state - brain's visual cortex is activated by internal signals. It is not darkness doing this activation. It is the processes in the brain.

Yes, a place that is dark to human eyes can still have other electromagnetic radiation like infrared, ultraviolet, microwave or radio waves. (Or it may not have). This does not imply darkness is something like earth or water. If one uses infrared camera or glasses, a previously dark place can appear to be "not-dark" (if there is IR radiation). This too does not imply in anyway that darkness is a substance like earth or water. 

I feel that during metaphysical discussions, taking into account the progresses or facts of science can be beneficial.

Best Regards

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Kalyan ji.

1. Are waking and dream identical or are they different?

2. Is dream-darkness absence-of-dream-photons?

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Kalyan]

Namaste Sudhanshu-ji

1. Waking and dream state are identical in some ways and different in other ways. But I have no problem with DSV applying dream analogy to waking state. 

2. I have no idea what dream photons means. If you simply mean dream light, then all the content of dreams is due to internal activation of brain signals. 

Best Regards

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji

Indeed dream darkness and dream light are both bhAvarUpa alone. Same goes for waking experience of them both.

Also, the much used word sArvatrika-lokAnubhava which is claimed to blandly assert that "everyone knows darkness is just absence of light" is incorrectly applied to brush aside what we all experience. 

It's certainly not my experience that when I experience the color green, I automatically think "there is absence of red color". Experience of a color like green is pratyaxa. But there is a subtie but definitely intellection (pramANa vyApAra) involved in asserting "there is no red here" by anupalabdhi.

Similarly i experience darkness directly without having to bring in any vRtti like "this is absence of light". Such a vRtti of "absence of light" may well take place optionally and immediately subsequent to the experience of darkness. But that vRtti is not to be conflated with the pratyaxa experience of darkness.

Om

Raghav

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDqPMn%3DtBDogSf5%3DKN%3DGdERDqB9xogrUxu3tyEaCg5cSQ%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Raghav ji.

Indeed dream darkness and dream light are both bhAvarUpa alone. Same goes for waking experience of them both.

When BhAshyakAra has clearly proved in ghaTa-bhAshya that vishesha-abhAva is bhAvarUpa, I really don't understand what the opponents, who follow BhAshyakAra, will achieve by holding darkness to be prakAsha-abhAva or ajnAna to be jnAna-abhAva. By the logic adduced by BhAshyakAra, it would remain bhAvarUpa. 

 

Also, the much used word sArvatrika-lokAnubhava which is claimed to blandly assert that "everyone knows darkness is just absence of light" is incorrectly applied to brush aside what we all experience. 

True.  

 

It's certainly not my experience that when I experience the color green, I automatically think "there is absence of red color". Experience of a color like green is pratyaxa. But there is a subtie but definitely intellection (pramANa vyApAra) involved in asserting "there is no red here" by anupalabdhi.

Yes. abhAva is never pratyaksha, whereas darkness is pratyaksha.

 

Similarly i experience darkness directly without having to bring in any vRtti like "this is absence of light". Such a vRtti of "absence of light" may well take place optionally and immediately subsequent to the experience of darkness. But that vRtti is not to be conflated with the pratyaxa experience of darkness.

True.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

 

I wholly disagree. My previous comment is right on the money! Pratiyogin is a logical concept depicting co-dependence between concepts. That is fine for Buddhism but it does not account for an ever existing Self that can serve as pratiyogin for its own apparent absence. We suffer because we don't know our Self and thus take it to be this logic wielding individuality. In deep sleep, we again appear to arise into waking due to the fact that we do not know the self and thus adhyasa appears. 

We will come to it. Let us first discuss the simple things. Can you know Eskimo-abhAva in your society if you don't know what is Eskimo?

 

I do not wish to discuss Eskimo. Years ago, Prasanth Netiji and you wrestled that discussion into incoherence for me and I do not wish to tax this poor brain again. Eskimo is just an example, not intended to melt in Indian tarka.   

Let what has passed, pass. Let us discuss it again. It is a vital concept. And very common in our day-to-day life. Try it!! Ask someone - Is there a tuoli in your room!! Let us analyze it. It will have interesting conclusions which are pivotal in VedAnta.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Raghavji,

On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 12:26 PM 'Raghav Kumar' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Namaste Sudhanshu ji

Indeed dream darkness and dream light are both bhAvarUpa alone. Same goes for waking experience of them both.

Also, the much used word sArvatrika-lokAnubhava which is claimed to blandly assert that "everyone knows darkness is just absence of light" is incorrectly applied to brush aside what we all experience. 

True. If tamas is abhAva of prakAsha then prakAsha would be pratiyogI of tamas; that would mean that to know tamas, one has to know prakAsha. Would a blind person who has never seen prakAsha know darkness then?! 

 

Kind rgds,

--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] */