How jnAnAbhAva can cause adhyAsa !!??

Bhaskar YR

unread,

Sep 10, 2024, 1:08:12 AM9/10/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, Advaita-L

praNAms

Hare Krishna

Problem with the subject query is : we have preconceived notion that adhyAsa is an effect, it has a beginning started at some point of time and there must be a cause for it. But Sri SSS says when kArya-kAraNa itself is within the purview of adhyAsa how can the question about cause for adhyAsa be entertained !!?? adhyAsa is not kriya which can find its starting time. It is there as beginningless (anAdi) no need for finding the cause for it. Yes AtmAnAtma adhyAsa is not logically possible as both have mutually very contradictory in nature. That is reason even bhAshyakAra in adhyAsa bhAshya admits : adhyAsO mithyA iti bhavitum yuktaM. But as a matter of fact the adhyAsa is there and experienced in our day to day transaction so it cannot be argued that it is not there.

Now the question : what is the cause for this adhyAsa?? If I am right nowhere bhAshyakAra raised this question and answered it. For the queries like: why do the common man commits or entertain adhyAsa?? Why does he / she wrongly reckon Atman and anatman each for the other?? he categorically answers adhyAsa is quite natural in workaday transactions (satyAnrutena mithuneekrutya ahamidaM mamedamiti ‘naisaigikOyaM lOkavyavahAraH). What we can conclude from this is that the inability to distinguish between Atman and anatman is itself the cause for adhyAsa. Due to this reason that this inability to distinguish and discern is verily avidyA of the nature of agrahaNa (non-comprehension / jnAnAbhAva), it can be further amounts to saying that the avidyA of the nature of jnAnAbhAva is responsible for wrong knowledge (adhyAsa). In the geeta bhAshya when discussing the kshetra-kshetrajna vichAra bhAshyakAra clarifies this beyond any doubt : kshetra (anatman) and kshetrajna (Atman) although both theses are of entirely having different nature having misconceived (vipareeta grahaNa / adhyAsa) each for the other (saMyOga). For this saMyOga the ABSENCE OR LACK OF NOT DISTINGUISHING between kshetra svarUpa and kshetrajnasvarUpa IS ITSELF THE CAUSE. So it is quite evident that as per bhAshyAkAra for the adhyAsa, agrahaNa is the cause and here agrahaNa is absence or lack of knowledge. And this agrahaNa itself called as ‘nimitta, hetu, kAraNa, beeja for the adhyAsa. And it has been admitted and explained here agrahaNa being the cause for adhyAsa but not in the sense of kAraNa-kArya process to argue that there was kAraNa at one point of time and it produced the kArya at another point of time. And in the bhAshya avidyA of the nature of jnAnAbhAva is also called ajnAna, apratibOdha, anishchaya, anavagama, anavabOdha, tamas etc. Sri SSS clarifies that : because of the reason that agrahaNa and anyathAgrahaNa both have been called as avidyA alone in bhAshya, if there is this word ‘avidyA’ used in a particular place, then we will have to discern as to what exactly is its meaning according to the context and circumstances.

Now, again, the query about : how this abhAva can cause adhyAsa?? As said above abhAva is not the cause in the sense it is material cause for adhyAsa like clay for the pot. I think I have explained this in one of my previous mails : am empty vessel can give room for anything / everything in its available space, it does not mean emptiness of the vessel is the direct material cause for the things in the vessel. If I am not there at home, my kids would involve in all types of mischievous activities but when I come back home they sit quite. Here my absence at home cannot be the material cause it is just nimitta (nepa mAtra says Sri SSS in Kannada). Likewise when I do not have the knowledge that I am brahman (abhAva), all types of sundry thoughts occupy my mind (adhyAsa) and causing me to suffer from rAga and dvesha. But when I realized my sva-svarUpa automatically these misconceptions go away. This explanation is quite in line with our lOkAnubhava and no need for any dry logical explanations to prove or refute abhAva cannot be the cause for adhyAsa. In short kAraNAvidyA is nothing but non-perception (agrahaNa) and kAryAvidyA is anyathAgrahaNa and saMshaya. Hence the agrahaNa (jnAnAbhAva) regarding the real nature of the self is the causal ignorance and mithyAjnAna / adhyAsa and saMshaya are effective ignorance. There is no place for fourth type of avidyA in this scheme of explanation.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 10, 2024, 2:03:16 AM9/10/24

to Advaitin

Hari Om BhAskar prabhu ji,

What kind of abhAva is this jnAna-abhAva? prAk-abhAva, pradhvamsa-abhAva, anyonya-abhAva or atynta-abhAva? Or some fifth type?

Please clarify.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625719823D747B3C17C0772849A2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

Bhaskar YR

unread,

Sep 10, 2024, 2:38:28 AM9/10/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

What kind of abhAva is this jnAna-abhAva? prAk-abhAva, pradhvamsa-abhAva, anyonya-abhAva or atynta-abhAva? Or some fifth type?

Ø Perhaps overdose of logic and over influence of vyAkhyAna prompting you to ask these questions. In our books avidyA as jnAnAbhAva is ekarUpa. This is what bhAshyakAra also says. We don’t try to find various types of abhava and cause for it and complicate the issues!! (perhaps you may have the explanation for the various types of abhAva and cause for it also) it would be hardly a matter of interest for those who just go by their lOkAnubhava. For example : If I say 2x2=8 in place of 2x2=4 it is quite obvious that my ignorance of the right answer ( multiplication) has given room for the wrong answer. In this sense my ignorance (jnAnabhAva) is the reason for my wrong answer ( misconception/adhyAsa). Here in this scenario you are not supposed to ask the logical questions like what type of abhAva it is ?? and what is the cause for it?? This query itself is a wrong question. Therefore you are not supposed to ask wrong or irrelevant questions like this by keeping some dry logical solutions in mind. This anubhava sammata jnAnAbhAva and resultant adhyAsa should be accepted and you have to put effort to get rid of it. This is called anubhava sammata shankara vedAnta by Sri SSS.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 10, 2024, 3:27:03 AM9/10/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com

Namaste Bhaskar ji.

//This anubhava sammata jnAnAbhAva//

All we have is an anubhava. We are trying to understand as to whether the anubhava is of abhAva or of bhAvarUpa. You think that anubhava is of jnAna-abhAva whereas I feel it is of bhAvarUpa-ajnAna. So, it is not admitted by both parties that jnAna-abhAva is anubhava-sammata. You will have to support you claim by explaining what you mean by jnAna-abhAva.

//Therefore you are not supposed to ask wrong or irrelevant questions//

The question is not wrong. You are using the word abhAva. So, your opponent is justified in asking what kind of abhAva it is. And you are obliged to answer. If you don't answer clearly, your claim is not sustainable.

// In our books avidyA as jnAnAbhAva is ekarUpa.//

Ok. But which of the four types? 🙂 Or is this ekarUpa-abhAva is some fifth type? Your 2*2=8 shows which type of ekarUpa-abhAva: you are required to answer. Because its abhAva-tva is being challenged.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625849E36AB0A9ADB41683C849A2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

--

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com

Bhaskar YR

unread,

Sep 10, 2024, 6:30:26 AM9/10/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

You will have to support you claim by explaining what you mean by jnAna-abhAva.

Ø I have already explained it with both loukika and vaidika example. If you don’t understand what type of jnAnAbhAva it is I don’t know how can I clarify it further. Again, the jnAnAbhAva what I am talking is all about : the ignorance of the jeeva about himself or his svarUpa ( i.e. he is lacking the knowledge that he is indeed brahman in his svarUpa). It is called as avidyA / ajnAna / agrahaNa etc. When avidyA / ajnAna used in this sense it is ONLY this nothing more or nothing less than this 😊

//Therefore you are not supposed to ask wrong or irrelevant questions//

The question is not wrong. You are using the word abhAva. So, your opponent is justified in asking what kind of abhAva it is.

Your insistence about classification abhAva reminds me the arguments like (ofcourse driven with dry logic) a barren woman has two kids, elder one is idiot and younger one is intelligent. If anyone counters how come there is elder and younger?? For that if you answer one must be elder and one must be younger only. What is there in it?? This is how you are logically asking questions about abhAva 😊 you are trying to fabricate the dry logic to something which is not in our anubhava.

And you are obliged to answer. If you don't answer clearly, your claim is not sustainable.

Ø The clear answer is abhAva of jnAna of something which you donot know or which you are lacking. Loukika example lack of maths resultant wrong answer, vaidika example lack of svarUpa jnAna result is considering yourself as kartru bhOktru. Any rocket science involved in this!!?? I, myself, a dull wit, can understand this why don’t you prabhuji??

// In our books avidyA as jnAnAbhAva is ekarUpa.//

Ok. But which of the four types? 🙂

Four types of abhAva is your (or vyAkhyAna) inventions, I have explained what I meant by jnAnAbhAva. You can put this explanation in whatever box you want. As I said it is hardly a matter of concern to me 😊

Or is this ekarUpa-abhAva is some fifth type?

Think over it again, if you want to introduce one more avidyA type, apart from mUlAvidyA (which is already occupied the fourth spot) just to appease your logical instincts, you are welcome to do so 😊

Your 2*2=8 shows which type of ekarUpa-abhAva: you are required to answer.

It is ekarUpa jnAnAbhAva i.e. I don’t know or not knowing or lack of knowledge is ekarUpa. Na cha avidyA kevala vaishamyasya kAraNaM because it is ekarUpatvAt clarifies bhAshyakAra. So burden is on your shoulder to put it this abhAva jnAna in any one of the compartments invented by you.

Because its abhAva-tva is being challenged.

Ø Your challenge is like above, how barren woman’s one kid is elder another is younger?? is not matching with our anubhava or not anubhava sammata, so no need to answer this as this is anubhava viruddha shushka tarka.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 10, 2024, 7:05:18 AM9/10/24

to Advaitin

Ok Bhaskar prabhu ji.

Chaliye theek hai.

Let me ask something else. Just to know in a clearer fashion as to what you have in mind.

You hold avidyA is jnAna-abhAva. Right?

1. Is adhyAsa jnAna-abhAva?

2. Is jnAna-abhAva triguNatmaka?

3. Is adhyAsa triguNAtmaka?

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Bhaskar YR

unread,

Sep 10, 2024, 7:46:42 AM9/10/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Ok Bhaskar prabhu ji.

Chaliye theek hai.

Ø I am not so good at Hindi, thOda thOda aathaahe, itnaa acchi taraf se na hi AtAhe (have I said it correctly??) 😊 but always see Hindi movies with English subtitles 😊 …kinchit bhAva and kinchit abhAva jnAna about Hindi 😊

Let me ask something else. Just to know in a clearer fashion as to what you have in mind.

You hold avidyA is jnAna-abhAva. Right?

Ø Yes, avidyA is primarily means jnAnAbhAva only but avidyA sometimes used in bhAshya in the context of adhyAsa as well…so the interpretation of avidyA as jnAnAbhAva depends on the context. So avidyA / ajnAna might be jnAnAbhAva, vipareeta grahaNa or saMshaya which can be eradicated by jnAna…but anyway sorry to disappoint you that it is definitely not mUlAvidyA type of avidyA at any context.

Is adhyAsa jnAna-abhAva?

Have you not read my previous email with regard to this!!?? jnAna abhAva is nepa mAtra cause for adhyAsa it is not in the sence that this jnAnAbhAva is upAdAna or nimitta. It only gives room for adhyAsa like empty vessel giving room to anything and everything.

Is jnAna-abhAva triguNatmaka?

Let me explain this with one more example, if a person does not have the knowledge about his svarUpa, his intellect lacks this knowledge, the absence of this knowledge is what is called jnAna abhAva, (an emptiness in the intellect), this absence of knowledge would give room to that person to think that I am foolish, lethargy (tamasic guNa), I am great logician, I am great scholar I can defeat anyone in debates, no one can match my intellect etc. (rAjasic guNa), likewise if he is saMskAravanta, he would also entertain sAtvik thoughts like I am bhakta, I am dAsAnudAsa to my upAsya devata etc. These existent thoughts in the absence of knowledge are born out of triguNAtmika mAya as per individual jeeva’s vidyA karma and pUrvaprajna. But when ‘king knowledge’ enters his mind all these wrong perceptions about himself would vanish. BTW triguNAtmika mAya is not avidyA as per the dictionary of Advaita vedAnta / siddhAnta😊

Is adhyAsa triguNAtmaka?

See above, mAyA kArya is the stage for adhyAsa. IOW, in the transactional world where jeeva seeing and identifying himself as an individual, the basis for this adhyAsa resulting from jnAnAbhAva is the Jagat which is an effect of mAyA. In fact, this basis the vyAkruta jagat with nAma rUpa serves not only the purpose of mundane life and its suffering and enjoyment but also mOksha of jeeva. jeeva is gripped by adhyAsa and hence unable to differentiate himself from the world. And after the jnAna dawns he would see / realize the indifference. i.e. Atmaikatva or sarvAtma bhAva or Samyak drushti. This triguNActmika, parApard prakruti / mAya is not different from Ishwara in srushti prakriya and Ishwara’s prakruti always exists and adhyAsa is not like that it is jnAna virOdhi when jnAna dawns no place for avidyA/ajnAna.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar

Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]

unread,

Sep 10, 2024, 8:27:25 AM9/10/24

to Advaitin

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024, 4:35 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Chaliye theek hai.

Kaise thik hai, Bhagavan?! The tArkika dvaitins would shatter this misnomer of a shuddha shA~Nkara prakriyA (SSP) to pieces with very less effort. (Thank God for the vyAkhyAnakAra and especially, Bhagavan siddhikAra. 🙏🏽) I suspect it has not been done because no one takes it seriously and all darshanas take only orthodoxy as the valid representation of the darshana and lineage. Further, no definition and proof for this avidyA of SSS's SSP makes it same as rabbits horns, because lakShaNapramANAbhyAM vastusiddhiH, is acceptable even to shUnyavAdins!

Moreover, calling every question asked and unanswerable to the point, as shuSka tarka, is an easy get away. Why? Because even Bhagavan bhAshyakAra wouldn't do it. Tarka darshana precedes Him and if he chooses to debate with others, tarka is agreeable to him to as a universally accepted golden standard in debates. (They got their language perfect in navya nyaya). If he uses their language of abhAva classification to refute Bauddhas, he cannot refuse to use the same when opponents attack siddhAnta with tarka language. And he never did. He had time and again used vyapti hidden in hetau panchamI, had been verbose in abhAva types, and even told the bauddhAs that asatkAryavAdI Tarkika's abhAva is better than your shUnya, etc.

Finally, if this ridiculous shuShka tarka Aropa applies to you or vyAkhyAnas, it would apply to Bhagavan Bhashyakara also! Better still would be dry logic than illogical reasoning. And be it unknowingly, in his pushing away vyAkhyAnas, SSS has ended up pushing away the bhAShya also and become an abhAvakAraNavAdI, worse than tArkikas, culminating into shUnyavAda!!

May I suggest that you mention your take on the type of abhAva of SSS' avidyA. I've already stated my understanding from the thread as shUnya, worse than tArkika's types! Unless someone else comes up with a better categorisation or answers to your pin-pointed Qs, l shall hold this.

Once again, your patience is very sAdhu.

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] */

Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]

unread,

Sep 10, 2024, 8:58:45 AM9/10/24

to Advaitin, Advaita-l

Namaste.

Looks like the 2nd list got dropped off somewhere in this thread, so resending adding it back, with another note from the bhAShya showing avidyA as bhAvarUpa with such an example in the 13th chapter of Gita:

अत्र आह — सा अविद्या कस्य इति । यस्य दृश्यते तस्य एव । कस्य दृश्यते इति । अत्र उच्यते — ‘अविद्या कस्य दृश्यते ? ’ इति प्रश्नः निरर्थकः । कथम् ? दृश्यते चेत् अविद्या, तद्वन्तमपि पश्यसि । न च तद्वति उपलभ्यमाने ‘सा कस्य ? ’ इति प्रश्नो युक्तः । न हि गोमति उपलभ्यमाने ‘गावः कस्य ? ’ इति प्रश्नः अर्थवान् भवति ।

Pls note that the example of the cows and cowherd, one who has cows, is a bhAvarUpa example.

ननु विषमो दृष्टान्तः । गवां तद्वतश्च प्रत्यक्षत्वात् तत्सम्बन्धोऽपि प्रत्यक्ष इति प्रश्नो निरर्थकः

The opponent is saying that the example is not inline with the exemplified because cows and the cowherd are pratyakSha and therefore the relation between them is pratyakSha as well.

Now, if abhAvarUpa avidyA is being discussed here, how would it be pratyakSha and what kind of relation would abhAva have? These are all valid Qs, not shuShka tarka. More follows...

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 10, 2024, 9:55:08 AM9/10/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com

Namaste Ananta Chaitanya ji.

That is why I asked the question specifically, the answers of which were not provided, as expected.

I asked where avidyA as well as adhyAsa are triguNAtmaka. No clear answer was provided and there all sorts of irrelevant statements.

I asked -

is jnAna-abhAva triguNAtmaka
is adhyAsa triguNAtmaka
is adhyAsa jnAna-abhAva

Instead of answering yes/no, all sorts of statements are made without pin-pointed answers.

May I suggest that you mention your take on the type of abhAva of SSS' avidyA.

They hold avidyA as some kind of void in intellect - "(an emptiness in the intellect),". Now, this "emptiness in the intellect" is not Brahman. They further have not said in clear terms as to whether it is triguNAtmikA or not. But since they hold it to be non-MAyA, they should admit that it is not triguNAtmikA. I just wanted to hear this from them. But, it did not come, as expected.

Now, if something is neither Brahman, nor triguNAtmaka, there is only one option left. It has to be asat, aleeka, nihswarUpa, vastu-shUnya, horns of hare.

// I've already stated my understanding from the thread as shUnya, worse than tArkika's types! //

I perfectly agree with your assessment of SSSS ji's avidyA. It has to be horns of hare for them. Because it is neither Brahman nor triguNAtmikA.

I had posted the following questions as a separate thread to SSSS ji's followers. No response came to these simple pin-pointed questions. It only shows their lack of clarity on their own concepts:

Is avidyA triguNAtmikA i.e. composed of three guNAs namely sattva, rajas and tamas? [yes/no]
Is adhyAsa triguNAtmaka? [yes/no]
Is the thought "I am body" triguNAtmaka? [yes/no]
Is pot-abhAva triguNAtmaka? [yes/no]
Is the remover of avidyA, Brahma-vidyA, triguNAtmikA? [yes/no]
Is mAyA triguNAtmikA? [yes/no]
Is avidyA adhyasta? [yes/no]
Is mAyA adhyasta? [yes/no]
Is avidyA nirvishesha-abhAva like horns of hare OR is avidyA savishesha-abhAva like pot-abhAva? [nirvishesha-abhAva/savishesha-abhAva]
Are avidyA and ajnAna identical? [yes/no]
Is shuddha Brahman the locus (Ashraya) of avidyA? [yes/no]
Is shuddha Brahman the vishaya of avidyA? [yes/no]
As per SSS ji's understanding of mUlAvidyA, whether mUlAvidyA is adhyasta? [yes/no]

I am waiting for the answers from them. I wonder what stops them from answering these questions. These are fundamental issues.

//Once again, your patience is very sAdhu.//

It helps in one's own clarity also.

Regarding //Now, if abhAvarUpa avidyA is being discussed here, how would it be pratyakSha and what kind of relation would abhAva have? These are all valid Qs, not shuShka tarka. More follows..//

Yes. This last section of 13.2 clearly establishes that avidyA is seen and that it is as pratyaksha as the cow. The sAkshi-pratyaksha-tva of ajnAna is clearly held by BhAshykAra. In fact, AchArya disproves that it can be known through anumAna etc.

This sAkshi-pratyaksha is distinct from pramAtri-pratyaksha because pramAtr-vyApAra is subsequent to avidyA whereas sAkshi-anubhava is nitya. avidyA is known not by pramAtA but by sAkshI.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]

unread,

Sep 10, 2024, 11:08:37 AM9/10/24

to Advaitin, Advaita-l

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024, 7:25 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

They hold avidyA as some kind of void in intellect - "(an emptiness in the intellect),". Now, this "emptiness in the intellect" is not Brahman. They further have not said in clear terms as to whether it is triguNAtmikA or not. But since they hold it to be non-MAyA, they should admit that it is not triguNAtmikA.

But wait, there is more messy complexity there than it seems! Why so? Be it unintentionally, but they have ended up inventing a new type of kAraNa now, because this avidyA provides space for mAya to work the magic of adhyAsa on jIva's karma, etc, and it is not nimitta kAraNa also! Using shuShka tarka (pun intended), not only would this be considered a nimitta kAraNa for adhyAsa, but also for Maya!!

I just wanted to hear this from them. But, it did not come, as expected.

Yes, i got that when i saw both your list of questions on the thread across the days. I don't think they see the upcoming flaw you're waiting to point out, but they likely see the Qs they have posed on bhAvarUpAvidyA might become applicable to their position also, of they answer. They forget though that being answerless would also make them applicable, and would accrue more nigrahasthAna. That is where Venkatji seems to have closed the discussion.

Yes. This last section of 13.2 clearly establishes that avidyA is seen and that it is as pratyaksha as the cow. ...In fact, AchArya disproves that it can be known through anumAna etc.

... avidyA is known not by pramAtA but by sAkshI.

Undoubtedly so. I recalled this thread while trying to point 13.2 to someone who is questioning being able to land on nirupAdhika sAkShI without shAstra. Bhagavan bhAshyakAra is absolutely clear here that avidyA upAdhi/kAraNa sharIra is pratyakSha. He uses pure tarka to show anavasthA doSha and then closes the argument with a clincher so: यदि पुनः *अविद्या ज्ञेया*, अन्यद्वा ज्ञेयं ज्ञेयमेव। तथा ज्ञातापि ज्ञातैव, न ज्ञेयं भवति।

gurupAdukAbhyAm,

Ananta Chaitanya

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 10, 2024, 12:09:39 PM9/10/24

to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Hare Krishna Bhaskar Prabhu ji

Is adhyAsa jnAna-abhAva?

Have you not read my previous email with regard to this!!?? jnAna abhAva is nepa mAtra cause for adhyAsa it is not in the sence that this jnAnAbhAva is upAdAna or nimitta. It only gives room for adhyAsa like empty vessel giving room to anything and everything.

I am asking a simple question. Is adhyAsa identical to jnAna-abhAva? Yes or no?

Is jnAna-abhAva triguNatmaka?

Let me explain this with one more example, if a person does not have the knowledge about his svarUpa, his intellect lacks this knowledge, the absence of this knowledge is what is called jnAna abhAva, (an emptiness in the intellect), this absence of knowledge would give room to that person to think that I am foolish, lethargy (tamasic guNa), I am great logician, I am great scholar I can defeat anyone in debates, no one can match my intellect etc. (rAjasic guNa), likewise if he is saMskAravanta, he would also entertain sAtvik thoughts like I am bhakta, I am dAsAnudAsa to my upAsya devata etc. These existent thoughts in the absence of knowledge are born out of triguNAtmika mAya as per individual jeeva’s vidyA karma and pUrvaprajna. But when ‘king knowledge’ enters his mind all these wrong perceptions about himself would vanish. BTW triguNAtmika mAya is not avidyA as per the dictionary of Advaita vedAnta / siddhAnta😊

OK. So the pinpointed question is - is this jnAna-abhAva (whatever that may be, emptiness/absence/whatever) triguNAtmaka? Answer in yes/no please.

Is adhyAsa triguNAtmaka?

See above, mAyA kArya is the stage for adhyAsa. IOW, in the transactional world where jeeva seeing and identifying himself as an individual, the basis for this adhyAsa resulting from jnAnAbhAva is the Jagat which is an effect of mAyA. In fact, this basis the vyAkruta jagat with nAma rUpa serves not only the purpose of mundane life and its suffering and enjoyment but also mOksha of jeeva. jeeva is gripped by adhyAsa and hence unable to differentiate himself from the world. And after the jnAna dawns he would see / realize the indifference. i.e. Atmaikatva or sarvAtma bhAva or Samyak drushti. This triguNActmika, parApard prakruti / mAya is not different from Ishwara in srushti prakriya and Ishwara’s prakruti always exists and adhyAsa is not like that it is jnAna virOdhi when jnAna dawns no place for avidyA/ajnAna.

I am asking about mango and you are answering about tamarind. I am asking - is adhyAsa triguNAtmaka? Answer in yes/no please.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

Bhaskar YR

unread,

Sep 11, 2024, 12:33:52 AM9/11/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Is adhyAsa jnAna-abhAva?

Have you not read my previous email with regard to this!!?? jnAna abhAva is nepa mAtra cause for adhyAsa it is not in the sence that this jnAnAbhAva is upAdAna or nimitta. It only gives room for adhyAsa like empty vessel giving room to anything and everything.

I am asking a simple question. Is adhyAsa identical to jnAna-abhAva? Yes or no?

Ø It is really very strange that you are asking the question and want the answer also as per your expectations. Do you really think these type of arbitrary style of discussion really work when both parties saying entirely two different things !!?? As said earlier, without bit of explanation these queries cannot be answered blindly yes or no…Despite clarifying innumerable times the difference between jnAnAbhAva and vipareeta grahaNa if you are still asking this question means you are still enjoying this question without want of any answers / explanations.

Is jnAna-abhAva triguNatmaka?

Let me explain this with one more example, if a person does not have the knowledge about his svarUpa, his intellect lacks this knowledge, the absence of this knowledge is what is called jnAna abhAva, (an emptiness in the intellect), this absence of knowledge would give room to that person to think that I am foolish, lethargy (tamasic guNa), I am great logician, I am great scholar I can defeat anyone in debates, no one can match my intellect etc. (rAjasic guNa), likewise if he is saMskAravanta, he would also entertain sAtvik thoughts like I am bhakta, I am dAsAnudAsa to my upAsya devata etc. These existent thoughts in the absence of knowledge are born out of triguNAtmika mAya as per individual jeeva’s vidyA karma and pUrvaprajna. But when ‘king knowledge’ enters his mind all these wrong perceptions about himself would vanish. BTW triguNAtmika mAya is not avidyA as per the dictionary of Advaita vedAnta / siddhAnta😊

OK. So the pinpointed question is - is this jnAna-abhAva (whatever that may be, emptiness/absence/whatever) triguNAtmaka? Answer in yes/no please.

Ø You do not know that there exists rope and seeing snake instead, your not knowing the rope ( or lack of rope knowledge) is triguNAtmika??

and adhyAsa is not like that it is jnAna virOdhi when jnAna dawns no place for avidyA/ajnAna.

I am asking about mango and you are answering about tamarind. I am asking - is adhyAsa triguNAtmaka? Answer in yes/no please.

Ø Again same queries from dictator 😊 I don’t think I have to cater your demands here. I have already explained how an idle mind is a devil’s workshopor an empty vessel can accommodate anything or everything. Whether to decide this devil’s workshop is triguNAtmika or not the choice is left to you. Seeing the snake in place of rope is adhyAsa ( a misconstruction in mind. Atasmin tadbuddhiH) you decide whether seeing the snake in place of rope is triguNAtmika or something else.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 11, 2024, 1:54:25 AM9/11/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.

1. //Despite clarifying innumerable times the difference between jnAnAbhAva and vipareeta grahaNa if you are still asking this question means you are still enjoying this question without want of any answers / explanations.//

So, I take from this statement and also innumerable earlier statements that -- adhayAsa is not jnAna-abhAva.

2. //You do not know that there exists rope and seeing snake instead, your not knowing the rope ( or lack of rope knowledge) is triguNAtmika??//

My question was //is jnAna-abhAva triguNAtmaka//. Instead of answering it, you have posed a counter-question. I will not shy away from answering because the question is quite simple. The answer is - yes. Not knowing rope is trigunAtmaka. I can prove it but i don't think you would be interested.

The way you posed the counter-question, it seems that you hold that jnAna-abhAva is not triguNAtmaka. I just wanted a clear answer. It is not a difficult question. It is not a confusing question either. It is not an invalid question. It is a very very simple and genuine question which anybody will ask you.

3. I asked //is adhyAsa triguNAtmaka//. You have left it to me to decide as to whether devil's workshop is triguNAtmaka or not. Or whether a misconstruction in mind is triguNAtmaka or not. Ok. I hold it to be triguNAtmaka. Again, no point in explaining how.

The way you have responded, it seems that you do not hold adhyAsa to be triguNAtmaka.

So, I will just explain my understanding of your position. You can say as to whether you agree with it or not (I think I am justified in asking that much without being attributed dictatorship):

(a) Is adhyAsa jnAna-abhAva?

No. adhyAsa is not jnAna-abhAva.

This is because adhyAsa stands for mithyA-jnAna which is either viparIta-jnAna or samshaya-jnAna. jnAna-abhAva is an enabler for adhyAsa to manifest. The very usage whereby BhAshyakAra distinguished jnAna-abhAva and adhyAsa makes it clear that adhyAsa and jnAna-abhAva are distinct. While avidyA can be used as a term applying to both jnAna-abhAva and adhyAsa, the term jnAna-abhAva cannot be applied for adhyAsa.

(b) Is jnAna-abhAva triguNatmaka?

No. jnAna-abhAva is not trigunAtmaka. It is just an absence.

(c) Is adhyAsa triguNAtmaka?

No. adhyAsa is not triguNAtmaka either.

adhyAsa is just a construction in mind. It is a mental modification in the form of thought but it is not triguNAtmaka. SSSS ji has also clearly said that adhyAsa is not a vastu and hence it does not require a material cause. So, adhyAsa is not a vastu and is hence not triguNAtmaka.

Please let me know if I have presented your view correctly and clearly Bhaskar ji. If possible, comment on whether adhyAsa is a thought!! And if it is a thought, then how it is not triguNAtmaka.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Bhaskar YR

unread,

Sep 11, 2024, 2:28:21 AM9/11/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

praNAms Sri SudhAnshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

BTW, what is the definition of the term ‘triguNAtmika’ ?? would you mind explain it in simple terms prabhuji. So that I can understand.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

BHASKAR YR

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Sudhanshu Shekhar
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 11:24 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] How jnAnAbhAva can cause adhyAsa !!??

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments.
If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook.
See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDwQ5DFWSuBJ0QSD-fOQLQ-hu1fJ3detnihd40oPSmpSA%40mail.gmail.com.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 11, 2024, 4:57:24 AM9/11/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji.

// Please let me know if I have presented your view correctly and clearly Bhaskar ji. If possible, comment on whether adhyAsa is a thought!! And if it is a thought, then how it is not triguNAtmaka.//

Please offer your comments.

//what is the definition of the term ‘triguNAtmika’//

Anything made of three guNAs. For e.g. table, pot etc.

//when both mAya or tuccha are atyanta abhAva how tuccha is not atyanta bhAva again you said both mAya and tuccha have non-existence and again you said both are not identical, //

I never said tuchchha is not atyanta abhAva.

I said that atyanta-abhAva-tva is common to mAyA and tuchchha. However, while mAyA has sattvena-pratIti-arhatvam in pratipanna-upAdhi, tuchchha does not have such arhatva. Hence, though mAyA and tuchchha have atyanta-abhAva in common, they are not identical on account of sattvena-pratIti-arhatvam.

//How can an atyanta abhAva vastu can still appear in upAdhi??//

Why? What is the problem that you see? Please specify. See, this doubt means you have some idea about atyanta-abhAva. Isn't it? That should be discussed.

//How at first place do you now there are two types of atyanta abhAva vastu-s and both are at the same time identical and different??//

Are you under the impression that two atyanta-abhAva cannot be distinct?

//What is the extra definition you have to define mAya and tuccha apart from its common status i.e. atyanta abhAva??//

kvachidapi-upAdhau-sattvena-pratIti-anarhatvam is the definition for tuchchha. atyanta-abhAva-tva is not the definition for tuchchha.

//Which are all the parameters that you are using one atyanta abhAva – mAya has capacity to appear and another atyanta-abhAva entity tuccha does not??//

As I said, tuchccha is defined as -- क्वचिदप्युपाधौ सत्त्वेन प्रतीयमानत्वानधिकरणत्वम् । And mAyA is neither sat nor tuchchha.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Bhaskar YR

unread,

Sep 11, 2024, 6:22:47 AM9/11/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

1. //Despite clarifying innumerable times the difference between jnAnAbhAva and vipareeta grahaNa if you are still asking this question means you are still enjoying this question without want of any answers / explanations.//

So, I take from this statement and also innumerable earlier statements that -- adhayAsa is not jnAna-abhAva.

Ø All the three jnAnAbhAva, mithyAjnAna and saMshaya is avidyA only if adhyAsa and jnAnAbhAva both are one and the same only (identical) then why bhAshyakAra mentioned it separately?? And I also explained agrahanAtmaka karaNAvidyA is giving room to kArya i.e. adhyAsa. Moreover adhyAsa is atasmintadbuddhiH whereas jnAnAbhAva is simply a lack of knowledge. Ofcourse this has been said and explained by bhAshyakAra as per lOkAnubhava and not dissecting and dismantling it in the lab of dry logic 😊

2. //You do not know that there exists rope and seeing snake instead, your not knowing the rope ( or lack of rope knowledge) is triguNAtmika??//

My question was //is jnAna-abhAva triguNAtmaka//. Instead of answering it, you have posed a counter-question. I will not shy away from answering because the question is quite simple. The answer is - yes. Not knowing rope is trigunAtmaka. I can prove it but i don't think you would be interested.

Ø Just to appease my academic interest you can educate me about that which is abhAva at the same time triguNAtmika as well 😊

The way you posed the counter-question, it seems that you hold that jnAna-abhAva is not triguNAtmaka. I just wanted a clear answer. It is not a difficult question. It is not a confusing question either. It is not an invalid question. It is a very very simple and genuine question which anybody will ask you.

Ø Can I have the definition of jnAnAbhAva which you entertain in your books?? I hope I have already explained my definition of jnAnAbhAva.

3. I asked //is adhyAsa triguNAtmaka//. You have left it to me to decide as to whether devil's workshop is triguNAtmaka or not. Or whether a misconstruction in mind is triguNAtmaka or not. Ok. I hold it to be triguNAtmaka. Again, no point in explaining how.

Ø Please explain triguNAtmika adhyAsa with some simple rope-snake analogy, so that layman like me (who is not logician) can understand triguNAtmika adhyAsa involved in seeing the sarpa in place of rajju.

The way you have responded, it seems that you do not hold adhyAsa to be triguNAtmaka.

I don’t think bhAshyakAra explained anywhere taking one thing for another is triguNAtmika OTOH he just said atasmin tadbuddhiH and the Lord in geeta explained triguNAtmika is his aparA prakruti. Something related to mAya and not related to avidyA/adhyAsa.

So, I will just explain my understanding of your position. You can say as to whether you agree with it or not (I think I am justified in asking that much without being attributed dictatorship):

(a) Is adhyAsa jnAna-abhAva?

No. adhyAsa is not jnAna-abhAva.

This is because adhyAsa stands for mithyA-jnAna which is either viparIta-jnAna or samshaya-jnAna. jnAna-abhAva is an enabler for adhyAsa to manifest. The very usage whereby BhAshyakAra distinguished jnAna-abhAva and adhyAsa makes it clear that adhyAsa and jnAna-abhAva are distinct. While avidyA can be used as a term applying to both jnAna-abhAva and adhyAsa, the term jnAna-abhAva cannot be applied for adhyAsa.

Last statement bit tricky ( I don’t know what is your intention here 😊 we have to be very careful with logicians 😊 though jnAna abhAva is not adhyAsa, adhyAsa is due to jnAnAbhAva. jnAnAbhAva is ekarUpa and adhyAsa is depends on saMskAra bala : one can cognize mentally either sarpa, garland, mUtra dhAre in place of existing rajju.

(b) Is jnAna-abhAva triguNatmaka?

No. jnAna-abhAva is not trigunAtmaka. It is just an absence.

I don’t see triguNa in an abhAva, with the appropriate substantiation you can prove jnAna abhAva is triguNatmika, definitely I will give it a thought and ascertain whether it would align with my simple lOkAnubhava.

(c) Is adhyAsa triguNAtmaka?

No. adhyAsa is not triguNAtmaka either.

adhyAsa is just a construction in mind. It is a mental modification in the form of thought but it is not triguNAtmaka. SSSS ji has also clearly said that adhyAsa is not a vastu and hence it does not require a material cause. So, adhyAsa is not a vastu and is hence not triguNAtmaka.

Sri SSS says it is only jnAnAdhyAsa and no place for arthAdhyAsa to bring in the anirvachaneeya khyAtivAda. His explanation is very simple, when we are seeing snake (bhrAnti kAla), after getting the right knowledge of rope (bhrAnti nirasana kAla), before even approaching towards rope (vastu sthiti), the rope was / is / will always be rope only there is not even an iota of change in it. Sarpa is keval Shabda and not vastu sthiti.

Please let me know if I have presented your view correctly and clearly Bhaskar ji. If possible, comment on whether adhyAsa is a thought!! And if it is a thought, then how it is not triguNAtmaka.

Prabhuji I am really not able to understand what you are going to prove by accepting adhyAsa trigunAtmika or otherwise. The adhyAsa is just a fact of common experience with pre-accepted pramAtrutva (that itself is the basic adhyAsa), bhAshyakAra clarifies although this adhyAsa is not justifiable by reason / logic it is there in our common experience so have to accept it. It is accepted as sAmAnya lakshaNa explained as appearance (avabhAsa) whether it is triguNAtmika or otherwise fact remains that it is just a problem to be eradicated, that is it.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 11, 2024, 9:44:11 AM9/11/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji,

Ø Just to appease my academic interest you can educate me about that which is abhAva at the same time triguNAtmika as well 😊

This is what BhAshyakAra BhagvAn proved in ghaTa-bhAshya. Did he not? He proved that ghaTa-abhAva is bhAvarUpa like a cloth. यथा घटाभावः पटादिरेव, न घटस्वरूपमेव । न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? भावरूप एव । एवं घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात् , घटेन व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम् ।

So, any vishesha-abhAva like pot-abhAva, cloth-abhAva is proved by AchArya to be bhAvarUpa.

Ø Can I have the definition of jnAnAbhAva which you entertain in your books?? I hope I have already explained my definition of jnAnAbhAva.

In my books jnAna-abhAva refers to absence of mano-vritti in which the reflected chaitanya is elgible to be called jnAna. There can be no jnAna-abhAva in primary sense of the word "jnAna" because of inherent contradiction. So, the absence of mano-vritti which is the avachchhedaka of jnAna is referred as jnAna-abhAva.

I don’t think bhAshyakAra explained anywhere taking one thing for another is triguNAtmika OTOH he just said atasmin tadbuddhiH and the Lord in geeta explained triguNAtmika is his aparA prakruti. Something related to mAya and not related to avidyA/adhyAsa.

Bhaskar prabhu. Buddhi is trigunAtmikA right? So, atasmin tadbuddhi shall have to be triguNAtmikA. Isn't it? What is adhyAsa? A particular thought -- I am this, this is mine -- this is a thought. A particular modification of buddhi. So, it should be triguNAtmikA. What is your view here?

Last statement bit tricky ( I don’t know what is your intention here we have to be very careful with logicians though jnAna abhAva is not adhyAsa, adhyAsa is due to jnAnAbhAva. jnAnAbhAva is ekarUpa and adhyAsa is depends on saMskAra bala : one can cognize mentally either sarpa, garland, mUtra dhAre in place of existing rajju.

Itna mat sochiye. Just go with the flow. Yes, as per you, adhyAsa is not identical with jnAna-abhAva. Rather, adhyAsa is on account of presence of jnAna-abhAva. Unless the room is empty, dirt cannot come in. So, jnAna-abhAva enables adhyAsa to manifest. So, under no circumstance, adhyAsa can be termed as jnAna-abhAva. Also, it is clear that adhyAsa is not some kind of abhAva. But as SSSS ji says, it is not some vastu either. So, we are trying to ascertain what it is.

//I don’t see triguNa in an abhAva, with the appropriate substantiation you can prove jnAna abhAva is triguNatmika, definitely I will give it a thought and ascertain whether it would align with my simple lOkAnubhava.//

Our simple loka-anubhava says that pot-abhAva is some void, some absence. Not made of something. But BhAshyakAra proves in ghaTa-bhAshya as demonstrated above that ghaTa-abhAva is as tangible and as real as a cloth. It is bhAvarUpa. So, on the same lines jnAna-abhAva should be triguNAtmaka. Or leave jnAna-abhAva for the time being. Let us come on same page with respect to triguNAtmaka-tva of ghaTa-abhAva.

Sri SSS says it is only jnAnAdhyAsa and no place for arthAdhyAsa to bring in the anirvachaneeya khyAtivAda. His explanation is very simple, when we are seeing snake (bhrAnti kAla), after getting the right knowledge of rope (bhrAnti nirasana kAla), before even approaching towards rope (vastu sthiti), the rope was / is / will always be rope only there is not even an iota of change in it. Sarpa is keval Shabda and not vastu sthiti.

Yes. I understand that SSSS ji accepts only jnAna-adhyAsa to be adhyAsa and disregards artha-adhyAsa. So, I am restricting myself to jnAna-adhyAsa only. This jnAna-adhyAsa is a thought. Isn't it? "This is a snake" is the adhyAsa. "I am body" is the adhyAsa. It is a thought. Isn't it?

Prabhuji I am really not able to understand what you are going to prove by accepting adhyAsa trigunAtmika or otherwise.

Let us not worry about that. Just analyse your concepts and state whether it is triguNAtmaka or not.

The adhyAsa is just a fact of common experience with pre-accepted pramAtrutva (that itself is the basic adhyAsa), bhAshyakAra clarifies although this adhyAsa is not justifiable by reason / logic it is there in our common experience so have to accept it. It is accepted as sAmAnya lakshaNa explained as appearance (avabhAsa) whether it is triguNAtmika or otherwise fact remains that it is just a problem to be eradicated, that is it.

Certainly. And facts of common experience cannot be horns of hare. Can they be? Let us see whether this fact of common experience is triguNAtmaka or not!!

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Raghav Kumar

unread,

Sep 11, 2024, 11:34:39 AM9/11/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Wed, 11 Sept 2024 at 7:14 pm, Sudhanshu Shekhar
<sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji,

Ø Just to appease my academic interest you can educate me about that which is abhAva at the same time triguNAtmika as well 😊

This is what BhAshyakAra BhagvAn proved in ghaTa-bhAshya. Did he not? He proved that ghaTa-abhAva is bhAvarUpa like a cloth. यथा घटाभावः पटादिरेव, न घटस्वरूपमेव । न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? भावरूप एव । एवं घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात् , घटेन व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम् ।

So, any vishesha-abhAva like pot-abhAva, cloth-abhAva is proved by AchArya to be bhAvarUpa.

Ø Can I have the definition of jnAnAbhAva which you entertain in your books?? I hope I have already explained my definition of jnAnAbhAva.

In my books jnAna-abhAva refers to absence of mano-vritti in which the reflected chaitanya is elgible to be called jnAna. There can be no jnAna-abhAva in primary sense of the word "jnAna" because of inherent contradiction. So, the absence of mano-vritti which is the avachchhedaka of jnAna is referred as jnAna-abhAva.

Namaste ji
When we see absence of pot on the ground, no pot-vRtti arises is., the avacchinna-chaitanyAm during that time is not eligible to be called pot.

Same for jnAna-abhAva.

But what is - "There can be no jnAna-abhAva in primary sense of the word "jnAna" because of inherent contradiction" kindly elaborate.

Do you mean - jnAna of some thing or another is always occurring, since AtmA is alupta-dRk, so we take jnAna-abhAva not in the primary sense but as brahma-jnAna-abhAva?

Om
Raghav

I don’t think bhAshyakAra explained anywhere taking one thing for another is triguNAtmika OTOH he just said atasmin tadbuddhiH and the Lord in geeta explained triguNAtmika is his aparA prakruti. Something related to mAya and not related to avidyA/adhyAsa.

Bhaskar prabhu. Buddhi is trigunAtmikA right? So, atasmin tadbuddhi shall have to be triguNAtmikA. Isn't it? What is adhyAsa? A particular thought -- I am this, this is mine -- this is a thought. A particular modification of buddhi. So, it should be triguNAtmikA. What is your view here?

Last statement bit tricky ( I don’t know what is your intention here we have to be very careful with logicians though jnAna abhAva is not adhyAsa, adhyAsa is due to jnAnAbhAva. jnAnAbhAva is ekarUpa and adhyAsa is depends on saMskAra bala : one can cognize mentally either sarpa, garland, mUtra dhAre in place of existing rajju.

Itna mat sochiye. Just go with the flow. Yes, as per you, adhyAsa is not identical with jnAna-abhAva. Rather, adhyAsa is on account of presence of jnAna-abhAva. Unless the room is empty, dirt cannot come in. So, jnAna-abhAva enables adhyAsa to manifest. So, under no circumstance, adhyAsa can be termed as jnAna-abhAva. Also, it is clear that adhyAsa is not some kind of abhAva. But as SSSS ji says, it is not some vastu either. So, we are trying to ascertain what it is.

//I don’t see triguNa in an abhAva, with the appropriate substantiation you can prove jnAna abhAva is triguNatmika, definitely I will give it a thought and ascertain whether it would align with my simple lOkAnubhava.//

Our simple loka-anubhava says that pot-abhAva is some void, some absence. Not made of something. But BhAshyakAra proves in ghaTa-bhAshya as demonstrated above that ghaTa-abhAva is as tangible and as real as a cloth. It is bhAvarUpa. So, on the same lines jnAna-abhAva should be triguNAtmaka. Or leave jnAna-abhAva for the time being. Let us come on same page with respect to triguNAtmaka-tva of ghaTa-abhAva.

Sri SSS says it is only jnAnAdhyAsa and no place for arthAdhyAsa to bring in the anirvachaneeya khyAtivAda. His explanation is very simple, when we are seeing snake (bhrAnti kAla), after getting the right knowledge of rope (bhrAnti nirasana kAla), before even approaching towards rope (vastu sthiti), the rope was / is / will always be rope only there is not even an iota of change in it. Sarpa is keval Shabda and not vastu sthiti.

Yes. I understand that SSSS ji accepts only jnAna-adhyAsa to be adhyAsa and disregards artha-adhyAsa. So, I am restricting myself to jnAna-adhyAsa only. This jnAna-adhyAsa is a thought. Isn't it? "This is a snake" is the adhyAsa. "I am body" is the adhyAsa. It is a thought. Isn't it?

Prabhuji I am really not able to understand what you are going to prove by accepting adhyAsa trigunAtmika or otherwise.

Let us not worry about that. Just analyse your concepts and state whether it is triguNAtmaka or not.

The adhyAsa is just a fact of common experience with pre-accepted pramAtrutva (that itself is the basic adhyAsa), bhAshyakAra clarifies although this adhyAsa is not justifiable by reason / logic it is there in our common experience so have to accept it. It is accepted as sAmAnya lakshaNa explained as appearance (avabhAsa) whether it is triguNAtmika or otherwise fact remains that it is just a problem to be eradicated, that is it.

Certainly. And facts of common experience cannot be horns of hare. Can they be? Let us see whether this fact of common experience is triguNAtmaka or not!!

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBD13zojOyezc5jg-A0C4vNb%3DPR0sZHjgZxgWDQiC30Aag%40mail.gmail.com
.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 11, 2024, 11:55:37 AM9/11/24

to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Raghav ji.

//But what is - "There can be no jnAna-abhAva in primary sense of the word "jnAna" because of inherent contradiction" kindly elaborate.//

jnAna-abhAva can be either jnAna-sAmAnya-abhAva or jnAna-vishesha-abhAva.

In either case, jnAna-abhAva cannot be known because an abhAva cannot be known unless the pratiyogI is known. The pratiyogI is jnAna-tva or vishesha-jnAna-tva respectively.

The fact that jnAna-abhAva is known makes it impossible that jnAna is used in the sense of reflected-chaitanya, because it implies presence of jnAna-jnAna or vishesha-jnAna-jnAna which contradicts jnAna-abhAva and vishesha-jnAna-abhAva respectively.

This problem would not arise if jnAna is understood in the terms of jnAna-avachchhedaka-antah-karaNa-vritti. So, jnAna-abhAva in that case would be jnAna-avachchhedaka-antah-karaNa-vritti, or jnAna-avachchhedaka-avidyA-vritti. Both will be good enough.

Please note that all antahkaraNa-vritti/avidyA-vritti are not jnAna.

Further, please note that like mind/avidyA itself, the absence of jnAna-avachchhedaka mind/avidyA-vritti is sAkshi-bhAsya and not anupalabdhi-pramANa-gamya.

//Do you mean - jnAna of some thing or another is always occurring, since AtmA is alupta-dRk, so we take jnAna-abhAva not in the primary sense but as brahma-jnAna-abhAva?//

No. SwarUpa-jnAna is eternal. There can be no swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva. JnAna-abhAva, which is being talked, has to be temporal.

So, it is necessarily jnAna-avachchhedaka-antah-karaNa-vritti or jnAna-avachchhedaka-avidyA-vriti.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 12, 2024, 7:30:28 AM9/12/24

to A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta, Advaitin, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula

Namaste,

I rechecked SugamA and my memory served me right. It is indeed stated there by SSS ji that jnAna-abhAva, termed by him as ajnAna, is prAk-abhAva.

तर्हि कतमोऽयं ज्ञानाभाव इति चेत् । प्रागभाव एवास्तु ।

The web-link is https://adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/bookreader/templates/book.php?type=sanskrit&book_id=008&pagenum=0001#page/45/mode/1up

Now, it is submitted that the concept of prAk-abhAva has been shredded to pieces in advaita sampradAya. Details can be seen in pratyaksha-pramANa-vichAra-in-ajnAna. Those who hold jnAna-abhAva as jnAna-prAk-abhAva should answer these challenges or else accept that there is nothing like prAk-abhAva.

None of these well-settled principles, whereby prAk-abhAva has been rejected, have been mentioned by SSS ji in his SugamA.

Further, he postulates jnAna of this jnAna-prAk-abhAva through anubhava (sAkshI). He accepts that anupalabdhi cannot work here. ननु नायं ज्ञानाभावः, अभावप्रमाणेनानवगमादित्युक्तम् । सत्यमुक्तम्, दुरुक्तं तु तत् । न हि ज्ञानं प्रमाणगम्यम् । येन तदभावोऽपि प्रमाणगम्यः स्यादिति शङ्कयेत । येनैव त्वनुभवेन गम्यते ज्ञानम्, तेनैव ज्ञानाभावस्याप्यवगमान्न कस्यापि कुचोद्यस्यात्र संभवोऽस्ति ।

So, his logic is - only if x is known by pramANa, x-abhAva is required to be known by pramANa. Since jnAna is not known by pramANa, but by anubhava (sAkshI), jnAna-abhAva is not known by pramANa either. It is known by same anubhava (sAkshI) by which jnAna is known.

Now!! jnAna is known by sAkshI. jnAna-abhAva is being known by sAkshI as per SSS ji. So, there is jnAna-abhAva-jnAna present as per SSS ji. And yet, there is jnAna-abhAva as per him!! Self-contradiction!! 😀

Further, Swamiji did not realize that by making jnAna-abhAva a sAksi-vedya-vastu, he is positing its bhAvatva. Those who hold jnAna-abhAva as abhAva can never accept its upalabdhi. It has to be anupalabdha.

यद्यपि ज्ञानं साक्षिवेद्यम्, तद्द्वारा तदवच्छेदको विषयश्च साक्षिवेद्यः; तथापि ज्ञानाभावो न साक्षिवेद्यः, तस्यानुपलब्धत्वात् ।

If some discussion follows wherein someone seeks to argue as to how jnAna-abhAva is prAk-abhAva and is sAkshi-vedya, I will delve into it further. As of now, it is enough to demonstrate that SSS ji's idea of jnAna-abhAva as prAk-abhAva and anubhava-vedya is illogical and self-contradictory.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]

unread,

Sep 12, 2024, 8:21:21 AM9/12/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 5:00 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste,

I rechecked SugamA and my memory served me right. It is indeed stated there by SSS ji that jnAna-abhAva, termed by him as ajnAna, is prAk-abhAva.

तर्हि कतमोऽयं ज्ञानाभाव इति चेत् । प्रागभाव एवास्तु ।

...

Further, Swamiji did not realize that by making jnAna-abhAva a sAksi-vedya-vastu, he is positing its bhAvatva. Those who hold jnAna-abhAva as abhAva can never accept its upalabdhi. It has to be anupalabdha.

यद्यपि ज्ञानं साक्षिवेद्यम्, तद्द्वारा तदवच्छेदको विषयश्च साक्षिवेद्यः; तथापि ज्ञानाभावो न साक्षिवेद्यः, तस्यानुपलब्धत्वात् ।

SSSji has landed himself into a nice little Catch22 situation. If his jnAnAbhAva is shUnya like putrAbhAva of a vandhyA, the putratulyajnAna can never be born, leading to anirmokShaprasanga; OTOH, if it is prAgabhAva, there is bhAShyavirodha of his misnamed SSP, and his entire refutation of bhAvarUpatva of ajnAna falls like a castle of cards!

Kind rgds,

Michael Chandra Cohen

unread,

Sep 12, 2024, 9:54:55 AM9/12/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

Might it be possible to discuss with translation? I am sure there are ready responses to the logical conundrums you pose against SSSSji. If I'm not able, perhaps I can seek assistance elsewhere. It's frustrating to see misinterpretations that go unanswered because of language.

You have not responded to Prasanth Netiji's last contribution nor to Prof. Keralapura's old posting.

Pranam, 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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CACT7j-GvV12UW7MJ_96663GvyGgto2-OK6057b1DvB3ezm_p3A%40mail.gmail.com.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 12, 2024, 10:35:03 AM9/12/24

to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Michael ji.

I have given exact location of the citation in SugamA. You would have its translation.

First, you should get it verified that:

1. SSS ji holds jnAna-abhAva to be prAk-abhAva.

2. Such jnAna-prAk-abhAva is sAkshi-vedya i.e. anubhava-gamya in his language.

Whatever quote I have given, I have translated that.

It's frustrating to see misinterpretations that go unanswered because of language.

On the contrary, it is challenging for me to get the answers of even straightforward questions.

I have to dig it out from some obscure nondescript location in SugamA that jnAna-abhAva is prAk-abhAva and anubhav-gamya.

You have not responded to Prasanth Netiji's last contribution nor to Prof. Keralapura's old posting.

Prasanth ji has clearly stated his unwillingness for further discussion. Further, he has already accepted that ajnAna is material cause, a position contrary to SSS ji. So, what is there is to respond?

Regarding Keralpura Ji's comment, it is devoid of merit. I will respond whenever there is sufficient motivation.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 12, 2024, 10:41:15 AM9/12/24

to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Ananta Chaitanya ji.

//यद्यपि ज्ञानं साक्षिवेद्यम्, तद्द्वारा तदवच्छेदको विषयश्च साक्षिवेद्यः; तथापि ज्ञानाभावो न साक्षिवेद्यः, तस्यानुपलब्धत्वात् ।//

This is from Advaita Siddhi, ajnAna-vAde-pratyaksha-pramANa-vichArah. It remained to be mentioned in the last post by me.

SSSji has landed himself into a nice little Catch22 situation. If his jnAnAbhAva is shUnya like putrAbhAva of a vandhyA, the putratulyajnAna can never be born, leading to anirmokShaprasanga; OTOH, if it is prAgabhAva, there is bhAShyavirodha of his misnamed SSP, and his entire refutation of bhAvarUpatva of ajnAna falls like a castle of cards!

True. The siddhAnta is such that even if one piece is proved to be wrong, the entire thing falls apart.

What is surprising is that despite taking his stand as that of prAk-abhAva, he has not gone on to address the arguments already made in Advaita texts by Nrisimhashrama Swami and Madhusudan Saraswati Swamiji. The arguments comprehensively dismiss any idea of prAk-abhAva.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Michael Chandra Cohen

unread,

Sep 12, 2024, 11:23:32 AM9/12/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com

Namaste SUdhanshuji,

Sugama is not publically available in English but there are hundreds of talks of Prakashanandendraji (who has translated but not published) that I might be able to access if you give me the terms in Adhyasa Bhasya being discussed. Otherwise, I can't determine the context of your issue.

Absence of knowledge is prior absence of knowledge and that is known by sakshi?? What has prior absence to do with not knowing the self which is itself presumed by anubhava of naisargika adhyasa? If there is 'prior' time itself is adhyasa only where there is sakshi that must be understood as sastrika adhyaropa only. I'm shooting in the dark, so to speak, without context.

Responding to Prasanthji et. al. is not only for him but for those of us who believe that what he and the professorji say makes more sense than what you argue/

pranam, 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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBzMC6k1e%3D5vu1vHQKAuy1dxCk5Ae%3DeL-k1FeBpcVMDww%40mail.gmail.com.

Michael Chandra Cohen

unread,

Sep 12, 2024, 2:21:44 PM9/12/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste again, Sudhansuji,

FYI: Prasanth Neti ji wrote an addendum to the pdf post you last saw that clarifies some confusion in his pdf.

Prasanth Neti

replied to Musta Ram's comment: "Musta Ram ji Praṇām As you know, for a mulavidyavadin, Avidyā is cause (kAraNa) and adhyAsa is its effect (kArya). They maintain strict causality between Avidyā and adhyAsa. In adhyAsa bhāshya, bhashyakara first uses the phrase mithya-jñāna-nimitta which according to them means “false ignorance as its cause” (because they break mithyajñāna as mithya-ajñāna). Here they say, word nimitta can very well mean material cause because elsewhere in prasthānatraya bhāshya the word nimittah has been used by bhashyakara in sense of upAdAna. Later on, bhashyakara says “tametamevam lakShaNamadhyAsaM paNDitA avidyEti manyante”. Here it simply means “the adhyasa of this nature alone is what wise call as avidyā”. Here, to this statement the mulavidyavadins say that when bhashyakara says adhyasa is Avidyā we must understand it in the same way as “this pot is clay”. That means they say, just like how the wise people look up on pot (the effect / kArya) to be nothing but clay (the cause / kAraNa) similarly here too adhyasa (the effect) will be nothing but Avidyā (the cause). Thus, though the straight meaning of statement where it says adhyAsa is Avidyā is simple and unambiguous, they still hold to cause-effect relationship in this statement between Avidyā and adhyasa by invoking satkAryavada - they ask to assimilate this statement in lines of satkAryavada. Now here comes another problem. Once satkAryavAda based way of saying pot (effect) is nothing but clay (cause) is brought in, then they proceed to say that, for pot to be nothing but clay, it is so only through material causality (and not through efficient causality). Because, it is well known that efficient cause for a pot is not clay but potter. Do you see how they narrowed down what is a simple straight forward statement that adhyasa alone is avidya into a statement supporting adhyasa is effect of Avidyā and also that Avidyā is material cause to adhyasa? To add support to this way of interpretation, they say that elsewhere in prasthānatraya bhāshya, the phrases such as Avidyā-karya etc which literally means “product / effect of Avidyā” are available. Thus they claim that for both adhyasa bhashya’s “tametamevem……” and also usage of Avidyā-kArya at other places to be simultaneously true, the implied causation between Avidyā and adhyasa must be material causation alone. Finally in this way across both places i.e. mithya-jñāna-nimittah and tametam…. they fit material causality status to Avidyā and using that they say Hacker’s analysis outcome where Hacker’ concludes that Avidyā is not material cause as per Sankara is not correct! That is the context. In that context, it appeared to me that by reasoning out in a simple way saying “cause to adhyasa is not legitimate enquiry because all causality is within adhyasa” is not enough. First that strict material causality that they read between avidya and adhyasa across two places in adhyasa bhāshya i.e. across mithya-jñāna-nimittah and tametamevam…. has to be shown wrong in a way that there is no strict / exclusive material causality in these two places even when we read tametam…. in the lines of satkAryavAda. That was what the context was and my reasoning where rather than me agreeing that avidya is both material and efficient cause, I had to remind them that Avidyā is both material and efficient cause according to them even when satkAryavAda is invoked to understand tametamevam…. sentence in bhashya. I did this by pointing to nuance in satkAryavAda which bhashyakara uses elsewhere in Brahmasutra. That is the “story” at the back of this. Exchanges across two online groups (this group and another google group called advaitin) has to be read together in its entirety to grasp how the discussion went about."

Prasanth Neti

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDZB19JGn%3DqcVfaKDek6SsAXH7tTs8JNrzeBjGa1L9zJw%40mail.gmail.com.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 12, 2024, 6:55:35 PM9/12/24

to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

EDIT: To make it clear, I do not admit that Ignorance is either an efficient or the material cause of the world, because it has no real existence at all. But it looks like, this way of cutting it at the root seems to be not settling the record (both in online discussions and offline discussions). Therefore, I thought that there is a need to discuss this in a slightly different way by first turning the argument away from material causality to efficient causality and then refute the entire causality argumentation (just as how it is dismissed in मूलाविद्यानिरासः Sanskrit topic number 134 or English translation topic number 131.)

Namaste Michael ji.

The arguments were presented and Prasanth ji responded thereto by stating that avidyA is not only the material cause but also the efficient cause.

If he wants to go against this conclusion of his own, he will have to rewrite his own response. Otherwise no sense can be drawn out of his posts.

If you think there is something important he is saying - you can summarise that. I will comment.

As such both the first reply and the subsequent reply by Prasanth ji hold avidyA to be material cause. And he quotes bhAshya etc. You can yourself decide what he is saying.

//EDIT: To make it clear, I do not admit that Ignorance is either an efficient or the material cause of the world, because it has no real existence at all//

What a misunderstanding!! For cause-effect relationship, is there a need of "real existence"? Where does bhAshya or logic or anubhava say this? In dream, there appears a cause-effect relationship which is itself illusory along with both illusory cause and illusory effect. Same between avidyA and adhyAsa.

//Therefore, I thought that there is a need to discuss this in a slightly different way by first turning the argument away from material causality to efficient causality and then refute the entire causality argumentation (just as how it is dismissed in मूलाविद्यानिरासः//

He has not contradicted material causality. Efficient causality too is agreed upon. Causality is also negated subsequently. So, what is the difference?

One needs to be precise. Answer pin-pointedly. If you write one lakh words in response - where is the precision?

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Michael Chandra Cohen

unread,

Sep 12, 2024, 8:44:28 PM9/12/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

What is the difficulty? PNji first wrote the following to Venkatraghava and repeated in the response above. It clearly states the position.

***** In one way though I am inclined to say that it is meaningless to unnecessarily differentiate between material causalhood Vs efficient causalhood to adhyasa because entire causality is within adhyasa, and I personally like that kind of transcendence in the argument/enquiry, I am not taking that route here because I feel a bit more needs to be said about the objections above. *****

//What a misunderstanding!! For cause-effect relationship, is there a need of "real existence"? Where does bhAshya or logic or anubhava say this? In dream, there appears a cause-effect relationship which is itself illusory along with both illusory cause and illusory effect. Same between avidyA and adhyAsa.//

I believe you are missing the point. To the dreamer, dream cause and effect are as real as to the waker. Ultimately, dream and waking together with their respective causes and effects are all illusory,. What is the "real existence' PN refers to? By embracing the notion of a pratibhasika satta different from a vyavaharika satta, you give the latter a comparative reality calling it relative reality or dependent reality or temporary reality when it is only an erroneous illusory understanding, distinct but not different from dream. There is no bhavarupa of appearance.

//One needs to be precise. Answer pin-pointedly. //

PNji made a subtle but valid technical point, it seems to me. All these years, you have put up with my lack and often imprecise language with generosity which enabled some otherwise good conversations and analysis. Surely PNji is worth a bit of the same.

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBmC7cNwx1pATo%3Dg4nPQSLBqE3rkHk%3DG-fJjfpwUAzTzQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 12, 2024, 11:56:33 PM9/12/24

to Raghav Kumar Dwivedula, Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Raghav ji,

To confirm - the contradiction is the following

येनैव त्वनुभवेन गम्यते ज्ञानम्, तेनैव ज्ञानाभावस्याप्यवगमान्न कस्यापि कुचोद्यस्यात्र संभवोऽस्ति |

(That anubhava ("intuition" by sAxI) by which jnAnam arises, by that same anubhava (sAxi's vedya), jnAna-abhAva is known.

When there is jnAna of jnAna-abhAva by sAkshI as claimed by SSS ji, how can there be jnAna-abhAva? This is the contradiction. To aver jnAna-abhAva when jnAna (of jnAna-abhAva by sAkshI) is present -- is contradictory.

but any sAxi-vedya viShaya is not abhAva.
So we can say
साक्षिवेद्यत्वात् अभावविलक्षणत्वम् ?

Yes. The jnAna of abhAva is always paroksha-jnAna, whereas sAkshI-jnAna is always aparoksha-jnAna. So, if x is sAkshi-vedya, x is not an abhAva.

Here, let us note the following:

How to determine if x is sAkshi-vedya?

If x is not a vishaya of any pramANa and yet x is shining in an aparoksha manner i.e. we are having aparoksha-jnAna of x, then x is sAkshi-vedya. BAla BodhinI clarifies "यः प्रमाणान्तराविषयोऽपि साक्षात्स्फुरति, तस्यैव अनात्मवस्तुनः साक्षिवेद्यत्वमङ्गीक्रियते" [Pl check https://archive.org/details/xlhS_advaita-siddhi-sanskrit-with-commentary-bala-bodhini-by-yogendra-natha-sharma-ed/page/n489/mode/2up?view=theater]

Now, abhAva is not aparoksha. It is always a vishaya of paroksha-jnAna. Hence, abhAva can never be sAkshi-vedya.

"abhAva-jnAna" is sAkshi-vedya because paroksha-jnAna also shines in an aparoksha manner [abhAva-jnAna-jnAna is an aparoksha-jnAna]. But abhAva is not sakshi-vedya.

Why is SSS ji constrained to say jnAna-abhAva is not anupalabdhi-pramANa-gamya? Because that requires pratIyogI jnAnam?

That is one reason. And another reason - they hold jnAna-abhAva as ajnAna. And it is stated by BhAshyakAra that pramANa-vyApAra is subsequent to avidyA and avidyA is not pramANa-gamya. So they cannot accept that jnAna-abhAva is pramANa-gamya.

But he forgets that abhAva is not a vishaya of aparoksha-jnAna. If he holds that jnAna-abhAva is ajnAna, then he cannot explain the aparoksha-perception of ajnAna.

The contradiction of prior jnAna of pratiyogI, as stated earlier, remains.

prAk-abhAva has been rejected in great detail in such a fashion that no one can object to it.

In this background, to hold ajnAna as jnAna-prAk-abhAva by SSS ji is untenable.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 13, 2024, 12:38:16 AM9/13/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Michael ji.

What is the difficulty?

Well, he accepted the material causality of ajnAna in an unambiguous manner. He wrote the following as conclusion:

Therefore the conclusions which makes sense are:

1) avidya is not only the efficient cause but also material cause. It is incorrect to hold that avidyA is material cause alone.

2) The real wisdom lies in rescinding entire causality. Finally, Brahman alone bereft of any causalhood whatsoever must remain as none other than Atman. That Thou Art! – the correct message of Vedanta which can be established in no other way than through understanding meaning of upanishad vakyas in adhyaropa-apavada framework.

If you are ok with these conclusions and these "make sense" to you, then you should not have any problem with what I say. Because I say the same thing. If you are not ok with these conclusions, then you can yourself appreciate the "difficulty".

I believe you are missing the point. To the dreamer, dream cause and effect are as real as to the waker. Ultimately, dream and waking together with their respective causes and effects are all illusory,.

So, illusory causal avidyA and illusory effect thereof along with illusory causality are permissible. There is no requirement of "real existence" of x in order to be a cause of y.

What is the "real existence' PN refers to? By embracing the notion of a pratibhasika satta different from a vyavaharika satta, you give the latter a comparative reality calling it relative reality or dependent reality or temporary reality when it is only an erroneous illusory understanding, distinct but not different from dream. There is no bhavarupa of appearance.

If you get the definitions correct, you will not have such problems. Is pot-space different from room-space? They appear different but they are not. Similarly, mUla-ajnAna-avachchhinna-chaitanya is called vyAvahArika-sattA, avasthA-ajnAna-avachchhinna-chaitanya is called prAtibhAsika-sattA. Whereas chaitanya is pAramArthika-sattA. Just as pot-avachchhinna-space, room-avachchhinna-space and space are not different, similarly mUla-ajnAna-avachchhinna-chaitanya i.e. vyAvahArika-sattA, avasthA-ajnAna-avachchhinna-chaitanya i.e. prAtibhAsika-sattA and chaitanya i.e. pAramArthika-sattA are not different. Their difference is stated only with respect to the upAdhi. The statement of their relative reality, as stated by BhAshyakAra by using the term "relative reality" in इह पुनः व्यवहारविषयमापेक्षिकं सत्यम् , मृगतृष्णिकाद्यनृतापेक्षया उदकादि सत्यमुच्यते is only on account of difference in upAdhi. SattA-wise they are same.

PNji made a subtle but valid technical point, it seems to me.

You are searching for subtlety Michael ji. If despite going through 10 pages written by him, you are still searching for some subtle point, then please rest assured - there is no subtlety.

All these years, you have put up with my lack and often imprecise language with generosity which enabled some otherwise good conversations and analysis. Surely PNji is worth a bit of the same.

Sometime when there is enough motivation, I will comment on his second post.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Michael Chandra Cohen

unread,

Sep 13, 2024, 8:08:59 AM9/13/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

//If you are ok with these conclusions and these "make sense" to you, then you should not have any problem with what I say. Because I say the same thing. If you are not ok with these conclusions, then you can yourself appreciate the "difficulty".//

Honestly, I don't wish to defend PNji -Regardless, you have interacted with PNji often enough to appreciate his thinking

//mUla-ajnAna-avachchhinna-chaitanya is called vyAvahArika-sattA,//

what does avachchhinna mean? I am assuming some sort of connection between ajnana and chaitanya. Are you putting an upadhi upon chaitanya and calling it an avastha satta? We are saying recognize deep sleep as the only avastha.

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAcjK%3DpnQRQiJwAxczND424pMmpVSgTpF27VvQ9%3DALdow%40mail.gmail.com.

Venkatraghavan S

unread,

Sep 14, 2024, 2:28:24 AM9/14/24

to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

The position that Sri SSS adopts is essentially the position of the mAdhva / naiyyAyika.

Firstly the naiyyAyika.

Sri SSS also seems to be arguing like a naiyyAyika - he says न हि ज्ञानं प्रमाणगम्यम् , येन तदभावोऽपि प्रमाणगम्यः स्यादिति शङ्क्येत | येनैव त्वनुभवेन गम्यते ज्ञानं, तेनैव ज्ञानाभावस्याप्यनुभवान्न कस्यापि कुचोद्यस्यात्र संभवोऽस्ति |

It is the naiyyAyika who holds that as a rule, the pramANa which is the means for the knowledge of the pratiyogi, must also be the pramANa for the knowledge of its abhAva too. There is no reason therefore, to hold that if jnAna is sAkshi-vedya, its abhAva also must be sAkshi-vedya only.

For the naiyyAyika, there is no separate pramANa called anupalabdhi itself, whereas for us, abhAva is only known through anupalabdhi. If one took Sri SSS' postulate to its logical conclusion, all instances of abhAva can similarly be cognised through the pramANa that is necessary to cognise the pratiyogi.

For example, consider the anumAna - प्रतियोग्यभावः न अनुपलधिगम्यः, अभावत्वात्, ज्ञानाभाववत् . If jnAna abhAva was sAkshi vedya, then it is not anupalabdhi-gamyah (not known via anupalabdhi), and hence every abhAva can be known by some other pramANa itself, leaving no scope for anupalabdhi pramANa's application.

Therefore, Sri SSS' position essentially is a rejection of anupalabdhi pramANa in toto.

Next, here is how Sri SSS argues like a mAdhva. In the advaita siddhi chapter on ajnAna being the object of perception, the nyAyAmRtakAra, a mAdhva, argues the very same thing - that jnAna abhAva can be known by the sAkshi itself - which the siddhikAra completely refutes.

ननु- तदा ज्ञानाभावोऽपि स्वरूपेणैव भासताम्। सप्रतियोगिकत्वेनाभावज्ञान एव प्रतियोगिज्ञानस्य हेतुत्वाद्। अन्यथा `प्रमेयम्' इति ज्ञानेऽप्यभावो न भासेतेतिचेन्न।
The nyAyAmRtakAra asks - Let the svarUpa of the absence of cognition also be known by the sAkshi itself. The requirement that the cognition of absence needs the cognition of its counterpositive, only applies where the cognition of absence is revealed as the cognition of the absence having a particular X as a counterpositive. If this is not admitted, the cognition "everything is knowable" would not reveal absence.

To explain. prameyatva (knowability) is said to be kevalAnvayi (universally true) by the naiyyAyika. That is - everything is knowable. For this to be universally true, abhAva also has to be knowable. However, if it is argued that every instance of abhAva jnAna requires pratiyogi jnAna, then absence would not be part of the "everything" in the cognition "everything is knowable", ie abhAva would not have prameyatva, if some relaxation of the "abhAva jnAna requiring pratiyogi jnAna" rule is not admitted.

The siddhikAra rejects this. He says.

साक्षिणा तावन्न स्वरूपेणाभावावगाहनम्, तस्य साक्षात्साक्ष्यवेद्यत्वात्।
The sAkshi cannot reveal the svarUpa of absence like that, because that (absence) is not capable of being directly revealed by the sAkshi.

What he is saying is that the sAkshi can only reveal that to which it has a connection (svasambaddham prakAshayati). That sambandha needs a yogyatA - the object should be capable of reflecting the sAkshi in it. The mind, thoughts etc, being sattva-guNa pradhAna, are able to reflect the sAkshi (they become sAkshi abhivyanjaka). The abhivyakti of sAkshi by absence is not possible. Absence can be cognisable by the sAkshi only if a vritti objectifying absence appears in front of it, because it is only the abhAva jnAna vritti that is capable of reflecting the sAkshi. Without a vritti, abhAva cannot be directly perceived by sAkshi.

If this is not admitted (ie that the sAkshi can only see the vRtti, it can see abhAva itself), then the entirety of pratikarma-vyavasthA can be set aside. How can one explain that the sAkshi that is "here", can view an object out there, without the vRtti bringing the object into contact with the sAkshi?

It also leads to sarvajnatva Apatti. That is, if abhAva can be viewed by the sAkshi, then what is to stop every object in the entire universe being viewed by the sAkshi without the intervention of a vRtti.

Thus this argument of Sri SSS that the sAkshi itself can see abhAva leads to several flaws, namely: 1) the rejection of anupalabdhi pramANa in its entirety 2) pratikarma-vyavasthA being totally dismantled 3) and the ridiculousness of sarvajnatva for all!

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCc_b1ZorDfbO73YmjRBqUmOx0BdzXrcECbovAxR1w9rA%40mail.gmail.com.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 14, 2024, 8:14:08 AM9/14/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji.

Many thanks for the insightful post. Thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

The position that Sri SSS adopts is essentially the position of the mAdhva / naiyyAyika.

Firstly the naiyyAyika.
Sri SSS also seems to be arguing like a naiyyAyika - he says न हि ज्ञानं प्रमाणगम्यम् , येन तदभावोऽपि प्रमाणगम्यः स्यादिति शङ्क्येत | येनैव त्वनुभवेन गम्यते ज्ञानं, तेनैव ज्ञानाभावस्याप्यनुभवान्न कस्यापि कुचोद्यस्यात्र संभवोऽस्ति |

It is the naiyyAyika who holds that as a rule, the pramANa which is the means for the knowledge of the pratiyogi, must also be the pramANa for the knowledge of its abhAva too. There is no reason therefore, to hold that if jnAna is sAkshi-vedya, its abhAva also must be sAkshi-vedya only.

For the naiyyAyika, there is no separate pramANa called anupalabdhi itself, whereas for us, abhAva is only known through anupalabdhi. If one took Sri SSS' postulate to its logical conclusion, all instances of abhAva can similarly be cognised through the pramANa that is necessary to cognise the pratiyogi.

For example, consider the anumAna - प्रतियोग्यभावः न अनुपलधिगम्यः, अभावत्वात्, ज्ञानाभाववत् . If jnAna abhAva was sAkshi vedya, then it is not anupalabdhi-gamyah (not known via anupalabdhi), and hence every abhAva can be known by some other pramANa itself, leaving no scope for anupalabdhi pramANa's application.

Therefore, Sri SSS' position essentially is a rejection of anupalabdhi pramANa in toto.

Yes, indeed. SSSS ji does not accept anupalabdhi pramANa. And without any good reason therefor.

Pot is known through pratyaksha. But pot-abhAva cannot be known through pratyaksha, on account of absence of indriya-sannikarsha and on account of absence of tAdAtmya between anAvrita-jIva-chaitanya and anAvrita-vishaya-chaitanya through a vritti.

//whereas for us, abhAva is only known through anupalabdhi//

We can have abhAva-jnAna through anumAna, arthApatti as well. Isn't that so?

For example, in advaita siddhAnta, jnAna-abhAva is known through either anumAna pramANa or arthApatti pramANa. Neither pratyaksha nor anupalabdhi no sAkshi-vedyatA can work here. Please share your views.

Next, here is how Sri SSS argues like a mAdhva. In the advaita siddhi chapter on ajnAna being the object of perception, the nyAyAmRtakAra, a mAdhva, argues the very same thing - that jnAna abhAva can be known by the sAkshi itself - which the siddhikAra completely refutes.

ननु- तदा ज्ञानाभावोऽपि स्वरूपेणैव भासताम्। सप्रतियोगिकत्वेनाभावज्ञान एव प्रतियोगिज्ञानस्य हेतुत्वाद्। अन्यथा `प्रमेयम्' इति ज्ञानेऽप्यभावो न भासेतेतिचेन्न।
The nyAyAmRtakAra asks - Let the svarUpa of the absence of cognition also be known by the sAkshi itself. The requirement that the cognition of absence needs the cognition of its counterpositive, only applies where the cognition of absence is revealed as the cognition of the absence having a particular X as a counterpositive. If this is not admitted, the cognition "everything is knowable" would not reveal absence.

To explain. prameyatva (knowability) is said to be kevalAnvayi (universally true) by the naiyyAyika. That is - everything is knowable. For this to be universally true, abhAva also has to be knowable. However, if it is argued that every instance of abhAva jnAna requires pratiyogi jnAna, then absence would not be part of the "everything" in the cognition "everything is knowable", ie abhAva would not have prameyatva, if some relaxation of the "abhAva jnAna requiring pratiyogi jnAna" rule is not admitted.

The siddhikAra rejects this. He says.

साक्षिणा तावन्न स्वरूपेणाभावावगाहनम्, तस्य साक्षात्साक्ष्यवेद्यत्वात्।
The sAkshi cannot reveal the svarUpa of absence like that, because that (absence) is not capable of being directly revealed by the sAkshi.

What he is saying is that the sAkshi can only reveal that to which it has a connection (svasambaddham prakAshayati). That sambandha needs a yogyatA - the object should be capable of reflecting the sAkshi in it. The mind, thoughts etc, being sattva-guNa pradhAna, are able to reflect the sAkshi (they become sAkshi abhivyanjaka). The abhivyakti of sAkshi by absence is not possible. Absence can be cognisable by the sAkshi only if a vritti objectifying absence appears in front of it, because it is only the abhAva jnAna vritti that is capable of reflecting the sAkshi. Without a vritti, abhAva cannot be directly perceived by sAkshi.

If this is not admitted (ie that the sAkshi can only see the vRtti, it can see abhAva itself), then the entirety of pratikarma-vyavasthA can be set aside. How can one explain that the sAkshi that is "here", can view an object out there, without the vRtti bringing the object into contact with the sAkshi?

Many thanks for sharing this wonderful section from Advaita Siddhi. Indeed saddening to see the view of MAdhvAs being presented as advaita siddhAnta by SSSS ji.

There is one more thing.

SAkshI-jnAna is always an aparoksha-jnAna. Meaning thereby, sAkshI-jnAna must have aparoksha-vishaya. BAla-bodhinI so beautifully presents it - यः प्रमाणान्तराविषयोऽपि साक्षात्स्फुरति, तस्यैव अनात्मवस्तुनः साक्षिवेद्यत्वमङ्गीक्रियते.

Now, abhAva is paroksha-vishaya. BAla-bodhinI says - अभावस्तु न साक्षात्फुरति, परोक्षज्ञानमात्रवेद्यत्वात्‌ । अनुपलब्धिप्रमाणगम्यत्वाच्च । अतोऽभावः परोक्ष एव।

Hence, sAkshI-jnAna can never have abhAva as vishaya. [SAkshI-jnAna has to have aparoksha-vishaya AND abhAva is a paroksha-vishaya].

It also leads to sarvajnatva Apatti. That is, if abhAva can be viewed by the sAkshi, then what is to stop every object in the entire universe being viewed by the sAkshi without the intervention of a vRtti.

True. But then he could very well say that indeed, everything is known by SAkshI, [by following VivaraNa - sarvam vastu jnAtatayA ajnAtatayA..]. One more ingredient in the hotchpotch!!

Thus this argument of Sri SSS that the sAkshi itself can see abhAva leads to several flaws, namely: 1) the rejection of anupalabdhi pramANa in its entirety 2) pratikarma-vyavasthA being totally dismantled 3) and the ridiculousness of sarvajnatva for all!

Very well summarized!!

Just one thing I wish to add - for the sake of completion and for the sake of those who wish to know as to how in advaita siddhAnta then jnAna-abhAva, present in sushupti, is known.

jnAna-abhAva cannot mean swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva because swarUpa-jnAna is eternal. It has to be pramANa-jnAna-abhAva i.e. absence of antah-karaNa-vritti-janya-jnAna.

Now,

JnAna-abhAva cannot be known by sAkshI [for the reasons explained above].
jnAna-abhAva cannot be known by pratyaksha. (Because there cannot be indriya-sannikarsha with abhAva and also because pratyaksha is a pramANa and it would require antah-karaNa-vritti, which would imply presence of jnAna (and thus jnAna-abhAva would not be present)
jnAna-abhAva cannot be known by anupalabadhi, because anupalabdhi is a pramANa and it would require antah-karaNa-vritti, which would imply presence of jnAna (and thus jnAna-abhAva would not be present)

Further, as explained, knowing jnAna-abhAva implies pratiyogI-jnAna i.e. jnAna-jnAna which would render jnAna-abhAva impossible.

So, jnAna-abhAva in advaita siddhAnta is explained to be known by arthApatti. VivaraNa - the zenith of human thought - puts the siddhAnta-rahasya succinctly and nonchalantly as under:

एवमुत्थितस्य ज्ञानाभावपरामर्शोऽपि ज्ञानविरोधिनोऽज्ञानस्यानुभूततया स्मर्यमाणस्यानुपपपत्त्यैव प्रमीयते, नानुस्मर्यते.

Thus, jnAna-abhAva is not recollected. It is not a smriti. It is a pramA. Not by anupalabdhi, not by pratyaksha, not by sAkshI, but by arthApatti.

Many thanks to Shri Rahul ji for pointing this section in VivaraNa Prameya Sangrah to consolidate my understanding of this topic. I was sure that it has to be arthApatti because there is no other possibility. He helped me locate the exact section. https://archive.org/details/Vivarana.Prameya.Sangrah.by.Vidyaranya.Swami/page/n231/mode/2up

Advaita Siddhi holds an additional way. ajnAna is vyApya and jnAna-abhAva is vyApaka. If I have pot-ajnAna, then it is always associated with the fact that I do not have pot-jnAna. So, ajnAna is vyApya whereas jnAna-abhAva is vyApaka. And thus recollected bhAvarUpa-ajnAna in sushupti is inferred through anumAna to be co-present with jnAna-abhAva.

So, in waking, there is smriti of sAkshi-bhAsya ajnAna in sushupti, but there is pramA of jnAna-abhAva through either anumAna or arthApatti.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Michael Chandra Cohen

unread,

Sep 14, 2024, 9:18:30 AM9/14/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com

Namaste Bhaskarji,

Thanks for simplifying and clarifying a discussion I couldn't follow. I wonder however, whether space in an empty vessel and the effect of your absence upon your kids are appropriate examples for abhavarupa avidya. Both space and physical absence are material absences while agrahana is presumed only because from the perspective of adhyasa. Adhyasa is causeless, naisargaika and wholly dependent upon not knowing the Self which is different from causation.

regards

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 1:08 AM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

praNAms

Hare Krishna

Problem with the subject query is : we have preconceived notion that adhyAsa is an effect, it has a beginning started at some point of time and there must be a cause for it. But Sri SSS says when kArya-kAraNa itself is within the purview of adhyAsa how can the question about cause for adhyAsa be entertained !!?? adhyAsa is not kriya which can find its starting time. It is there as beginningless (anAdi) no need for finding the cause for it. Yes AtmAnAtma adhyAsa is not logically possible as both have mutually very contradictory in nature. That is reason even bhAshyakAra in adhyAsa bhAshya admits : adhyAsO mithyA iti bhavitum yuktaM. But as a matter of fact the adhyAsa is there and experienced in our day to day transaction so it cannot be argued that it is not there.

Now the question : what is the cause for this adhyAsa?? If I am right nowhere bhAshyakAra raised this question and answered it. For the queries like: why do the common man commits or entertain adhyAsa?? Why does he / she wrongly reckon Atman and anatman each for the other?? he categorically answers adhyAsa is quite natural in workaday transactions (satyAnrutena mithuneekrutya ahamidaM mamedamiti ‘naisaigikOyaM lOkavyavahAraH). What we can conclude from this is that the inability to distinguish between Atman and anatman is itself the cause for adhyAsa. Due to this reason that this inability to distinguish and discern is verily avidyA of the nature of agrahaNa (non-comprehension / jnAnAbhAva), it can be further amounts to saying that the avidyA of the nature of jnAnAbhAva is responsible for wrong knowledge (adhyAsa). In the geeta bhAshya when discussing the kshetra-kshetrajna vichAra bhAshyakAra clarifies this beyond any doubt : kshetra (anatman) and kshetrajna (Atman) although both theses are of entirely having different nature having misconceived (vipareeta grahaNa / adhyAsa) each for the other (saMyOga). For this saMyOga the ABSENCE OR LACK OF NOT DISTINGUISHING between kshetra svarUpa and kshetrajnasvarUpa IS ITSELF THE CAUSE. So it is quite evident that as per bhAshyAkAra for the adhyAsa, agrahaNa is the cause and here agrahaNa is absence or lack of knowledge. And this agrahaNa itself called as ‘nimitta, hetu, kAraNa, beeja for the adhyAsa. And it has been admitted and explained here agrahaNa being the cause for adhyAsa but not in the sense of kAraNa-kArya process to argue that there was kAraNa at one point of time and it produced the kArya at another point of time. And in the bhAshya avidyA of the nature of jnAnAbhAva is also called ajnAna, apratibOdha, anishchaya, anavagama, anavabOdha, tamas etc. Sri SSS clarifies that : because of the reason that agrahaNa and anyathAgrahaNa both have been called as avidyA alone in bhAshya, if there is this word ‘avidyA’ used in a particular place, then we will have to discern as to what exactly is its meaning according to the context and circumstances.

Now, again, the query about : how this abhAva can cause adhyAsa?? As said above abhAva is not the cause in the sense it is material cause for adhyAsa like clay for the pot. I think I have explained this in one of my previous mails : am empty vessel can give room for anything / everything in its available space, it does not mean emptiness of the vessel is the direct material cause for the things in the vessel. If I am not there at home, my kids would involve in all types of mischievous activities but when I come back home they sit quite. Here my absence at home cannot be the material cause it is just nimitta (nepa mAtra says Sri SSS in Kannada). Likewise when I do not have the knowledge that I am brahman (abhAva), all types of sundry thoughts occupy my mind (adhyAsa) and causing me to suffer from rAga and dvesha. But when I realized my sva-svarUpa automatically these misconceptions go away. This explanation is quite in line with our lOkAnubhava and no need for any dry logical explanations to prove or refute abhAva cannot be the cause for adhyAsa. In short kAraNAvidyA is nothing but non-perception (agrahaNa) and kAryAvidyA is anyathAgrahaNa and saMshaya. Hence the agrahaNa (jnAnAbhAva) regarding the real nature of the self is the causal ignorance and mithyAjnAna / adhyAsa and saMshaya are effective ignorance. There is no place for fourth type of avidyA in this scheme of explanation.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625719823D747B3C17C0772849A2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]

unread,

Sep 14, 2024, 10:29:47 AM9/14/24

to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Venkatji and Sudhanshuji,

On Sat, Sep 14, 2024, 5:44 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji.

Many thanks for the insightful post. Thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

Thanks for sharing an excellent analysis with quotations.

It is laughable that while SSS followers have accused vyAkhyAna followers as using shuShka tArka, their own prakriyAkRt SSS ji has ended up defining and describing jnAnabhAva as a shuShka tArkika and further also as a mAdhva, who are prachChanna tArkikas! There is clearly complete virodha with bhAshya. It is not shuddhashAnkaraprakriyA but bhAShyavirodhinI prakriyA! 😄

Also, differentiating ajnAna as sAkShipratyakSha, and jnAnabhAva as inferred either through anumAna or arthApatti, was absolute perfection.

gurupAdukAbhyAm,

Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]

unread,

Sep 14, 2024, 10:31:48 AM9/14/24

to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Pls read jnAnabhava as jnAnAbhAva in the last para.

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] */

Venkatraghavan S

unread,

Sep 14, 2024, 8:15:55 PM9/14/24

to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula

Namaste Sudhanshu ji

On Sat, 14 Sept 2024, 20:14 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

//whereas for us, abhAva is only known through anupalabdhi//

We can have abhAva-jnAna through anumAna, arthApatti as well. Isn't that so?

I meant the asAdhAraNa kAraNa is anupalabdhi pramANa. In my view, the cognition of present abhAva has to be by anupalabdhi only.

For example, in advaita siddhAnta, jnAna-abhAva is known through either anumAna pramANa or arthApatti pramANa. Neither pratyaksha nor anupalabdhi no sAkshi-vedyatA can work here. Please share your views.

The vivaraNa example that you shared is talking of the recollection in the waking state of the ajnAna anubhava in suShupti and through that, inferring that there was jnAna abhAva in deep sleep through arthApatti. That is, it is an inference of past abhAva.

SAkshI-jnAna is always an aparoksha-jnAna. Meaning thereby, sAkshI-jnAna must have aparoksha-vishaya. BAla-bodhinI so beautifully presents it - यः प्रमाणान्तराविषयोऽपि साक्षात्स्फुरति, तस्यैव अनात्मवस्तुनः साक्षिवेद्यत्वमङ्गीक्रियते.

Now, abhAva is paroksha-vishaya. BAla-bodhinI says - अभावस्तु न साक्षात्फुरति, परोक्षज्ञानमात्रवेद्यत्वात्‌ । अनुपलब्धिप्रमाणगम्यत्वाच्च । अतोऽभावः परोक्ष एव।

Hence, sAkshI-jnAna can never have abhAva as vishaya. [SAkshI-jnAna has to have aparoksha-vishaya AND abhAva is a paroksha-vishaya].

Indeed.

One point that I wish to add. The viShayatva of the vRtti by the sAkshi is because of an AdhyAsika sambandha (see the chapter dRg-dRshya-sambandha).

So if the sAkshi needs to have sambandha with the object for it to perceive it, it follows that there is an object there! How can there be a sambandha between the sAkshi and nothing? A connection is always between two things.

As the bhAShyakAra argued in the ghaTa bhAShya, sambandha is always dviniShTha - किञ्चान्यत् ; प्रागुत्पत्तेः शशविषाणवदभावभूतस्य घटस्य स्वकारणसत्तासम्बन्धानुपपत्तिः, द्विनिष्ठत्वात्सम्बन्धस्य ।

It also leads to sarvajnatva Apatti. That is, if abhAva can be viewed by the sAkshi, then what is to stop every object in the entire universe being viewed by the sAkshi without the intervention of a vRtti.

True. But then he could very well say that indeed, everything is known by SAkshI, [by following VivaraNa - sarvam vastu jnAtatayA ajnAtatayA..]. One more ingredient in the hotchpotch!!

There is a difference though - for the sAkshi to know anything, it needs a vRtti (either as an object or as a means to objectify). For the perception of "internal" things such as thoughts, the sAkshi needs the thoughts (vRtti) as an object of the sAkshi, or for "external" things like pots, the sAkshi needs the vRtti to bring that object into contact with the sAkshi. Absence of thought cannot be an object of the sAkshi, because the process of objectification is the creation of a sambandha with the sAkshi. And a sambandha needs two sambandhI-s.

So yes, sAkshi has the capacity to know everything, but there has to be a vRtti for each thing. Ishvara has the vRtti (mAyA) for each thing, so He is sarvajna. We don't - so we are not. The sAkshi is the same, whether it is Ishvara or you and I.

If you say that without the vRtti itself the sAkshi can see (Sri SSS holds that the sAkshi can see abhAva, without a vRtti objectifying abhAva), then you or I can be sarvajna too!

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

Venkatraghavan S

unread,

Sep 14, 2024, 8:45:35 PM9/14/24

to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula

Namaste,

So yes, sAkshi has the capacity to know everything, but there has to be a vRtti for each thing. Ishvara has the vRtti (mAyA) for each thing, so He is sarvajna.

Before anyone objects to this, let me also say that there is an alternative view that Ishvara directly sees everything without the need for a vRtti, which is also fine. In fact, in such a view, the difference between Ishvara and us is even more stark.

The sAkshi in Ishvara sees everything without requiring a vRtti as a means - but even He, has vRttis and the things of this world as the object of His vision.

Whereas, the sAkshi in jIva-s needs vRtti-s to see - as means and/or object, depending on whether they are internal or external. Thus in this view too, abhAva cannot be the object of the sAkshi!

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 14, 2024, 10:12:13 PM9/14/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta, Venkatraghavan S

Namaste Venkat ji.

I meant the asAdhAraNa kAraNa is anupalabdhi pramANa. In my view, the cognition of present abhAva has to be by anupalabdhi only.

How do I know that I have Russian-language-jnAna-abhAva, which is a present abhAva?

If we say that Russian-language-jnAna-abhAva, which is present, is known through anupalabdhi, then it would require prior knowledge of pratiyogI. That means we need to have Russian-language-jnAna-jnAna which implies Russian-language-jnAna (as an adjective) which would render the impossibility of Russian-jnAna-abhAva. [This is what we present as an objection to the opponent. If we accept present jnAna-abhAva to be known through anupalabdhi, then this objection will apply against us also.]

Instead, let us see the following:

I know that I have Russian-language-ajnAna. Because ajnAna is sAkshi-bhAsya and Russian-language acts as an avachchhedaka. So, Russian-language-ajnAna is sAkshi-bhAsya.

Now, I have a vyApti-jnAna, wherein ajnAna is hetu and jnAna-abhAva is sAdhya:

यत्र यत्र अज्ञानम्, तत्र तत्र ज्ञानाभाव:, यन्नैवं तन्नैवं, यथा ज्ञानवति (ज्ञानाभाव-अभाव-वति) मयि अज्ञानं नास्ति. [sAdhya-abhAva implying hetu-abhAva is present in drishTAnta]

So, by applying this vyApti, I do an anumAna - I have Russian-ajnAna (hetu), therefore, I have Russian-jnAna-abhAva (sAdhya).

So, Russian-jnAna-abhAva, which is a present-abhAva and not a past-abhAva, is known by me through anumAna. And not through anupalabdhi.

What is the error in this understanding?

I agree with you on the vritti-thing. However, some eka-deshI who accepts bhAvarUpa-avidyA, not SSSSji, can argue - let there be an abhAva-AkArA-avidyA-vritti. What is the problem? Then there can be perception of abhAva of by sAkshI.

So, we need to respond to that -- this kalpanA of abhAva-AkArA-avidyA-vritti is not possible. Because, this would imply that abhAva is shining in an aparoksha-manner being sAkshi-vedya. Whereas abhAva is necessarily paroksha.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Venkatraghavan S

unread,

Sep 14, 2024, 10:59:58 PM9/14/24

to Sudhanshu Shekhar, Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

What I meant is that the direct experience of the abhAva (with the caveat I later make about it not being pratyaksha) can only be through anupalabdhi.

If I go to my friend's house and his wife tells me he is not at home, I get a knowledge of my friend's absence in his home. That is shAbda jnAna of my friend's abhAva. However this is an indirect knowledge, I haven't seen that he is absent, I have been told so, and because I trust my friend's wife to be truthful, know that he is absent.

However, that experience is very different from my going to his house, checking all the rooms and concluding that he is not at home. The absence of my friend at his home that I gain there is through anupalabdhi pramANa.

So I am not saying that abhAva cannot be the object of vRtti-s arising by other means, rather, the point is that the direct experience of the abhAva is only through anupalabdhi pramANa.

But that in itself doesn't make anupalabdhi a pratyaksha, because the asAdhAraNa kAraNa for the rise of such an abhAva jnAna is the anupalabdhi of the pratiyogi, not the sannikarSha with the pratiyogi that is needed for pratyaksha.

As Anandagiri AchArya says in the TIkA to mANDUkya kArikA bhAShya 1.2, which I had shared 2-3 weeks ago - अग्रहणस्य च ग्रहणप्रागभावस्य नापरोक्षत्वमिन्द्रियसन्निकर्षाभावादनुपलब्धिगम्यत्वाच्च ।
The AchArya makes both the points - agrahaNa (jnAna abhAva here) cannot have aparokshatvam because of sannikarSha abhAva, it is also known through anupalabdhi.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 14, 2024, 11:16:35 PM9/14/24

to Venkatraghavan S, Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Venkat ji.

Thanks for the clarification.

Please also share your views regarding whether present jnAna-abhAva is anupalabdhi-pramANa-gamya or anumAna-pramANa-gamya?

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Venkatraghavan S

unread,

Sep 14, 2024, 11:33:42 PM9/14/24

to Sudhanshu Shekhar, Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

On Sun, 15 Sept 2024, 10:12 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with you on the vritti-thing. However, some eka-deshI who accepts bhAvarUpa-avidyA, not SSSSji, can argue - let there be an abhAva-AkArA-avidyA-vritti. What is the problem? Then there can be perception of abhAva of by sAkshI.

So, we need to respond to that -- this kalpanA of abhAva-AkArA-avidyA-vritti is not possible. Because, this would imply that abhAva is shining in an aparoksha-manner being sAkshi-vedya. Whereas abhAva is necessarily paroksha.

If one is going to postulate something, why not postulate anupalabdhi as the karaNam for knowing jnAna abhAva also? That would apply to both jnAna abhAva and ghaTa-paTAdi abhAva. Whereas I am assuming such an ekadeshi agrees with ghaTa-abhAva being anupalabdhi gamya and only proposes abhAva AkArA avidyA vRtti for the case of jnAna abhAva.

However, the more important point is the moment you accept anupalabdhi pramANa's requirement for the cognition of jnAna abhAva, to say that there is no jnAna at all, would be falsified. It is like going to a silent cave and loudly declaring "How silent it is here". That very statement destroys the silence. Similarly to hold that "jnAna abhAva is known" as an avidyA-abhAva-vAdi is a logical fallacy.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 15, 2024, 12:18:40 AM9/15/24

to Venkatraghavan S, Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Venkat ji.

If one is going to postulate something, why not postulate anupalabdhi as the karaNam for knowing jnAna abhAva also? That would apply to both jnAna abhAva and ghaTa-paTAdi abhAva. Whereas I am assuming such an ekadeshi agrees with ghaTa-abhAva being anupalabdhi gamya and only proposes abhAva AkArA avidyA vRtti for the case of jnAna abhAva.

See, the ekadeshI can argue like the following:

I accept that jnAna-abhAva cannot be known by anupalabdhi on account of reasons adduced by you. It is a self-destruction like speaking in a silent cave. Similarly, I agree that jnAna-abhAva cannot be known by pratyaksha for reasons adduced by you.

But what is preventing me to accept an abhAva-AkArA-avidyA-vritti? After all, when there is an abhAva-bhrama, say ghaTa-abhAva-bhrama in a place where ghaTa is present --- there, both you and me do accept ghaTa-abhAva-AkArA-avidyA-vritti.

Similarly, let me accept sAkshi-vedyatA of ghaTa-abhAva through ghaTa-abhAva-AkArA-avidyA-vritti as well. (Please note that this can be said by bhAvarUpa-avidyA-vAdI. SSSS ji cannot use this option because abhAva-avidyA cannot have vritti)

To this, the only logical response which appears to me is to distinguish the nature of abhAva -- that it is a paroksha-vishaya and hence cannot be subject to aparoksha-jnAna of sAkshI. {abhAva-bhrama, on the contrary, would be aparoksha}. Kindly share your view.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Venkatraghavan S

unread,

Sep 15, 2024, 2:07:22 AM9/15/24

to Sudhanshu Shekhar, Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

See, the ekadeshI can argue like the following:

I accept that jnAna-abhAva cannot be known by anupalabdhi on account of reasons adduced by you.

To clarify, for a bhAvarupa ajnAna vAdin, it is not a problem that anupalabdhi (or any vRtti for that matter) is needed for the cognition of jnAna abhAva, because for me there is a bhAvarUpa ajnAna that is not jnAna abhAva.

I hold that the object of the cognition "I don't know anything" is a bhAvarUpa ajnAna, not jnAna abhAva. So, even if anupalabdhi reveals that there is jnAna abhAva, what is revealed is bhAvarupa ajnAna only! Therefore the existence of anupalabdhi vRtti does not invalidate the cognition "I don't know".

Whereas the jnAna-abhAvavAdin who holds that there is no bhAvarUpa ajnAna, cannot have any means of explaining the cognition of jnAna abhAva. It cannot be done by sAkshi alone. If done with a vRtti, there is no longer jnAna abhAva. It is self defeating.

But what is preventing me to accept an abhAva-AkArA-avidyA-vritti? After all, when there is an abhAva-bhrama, say ghaTa-abhAva-bhrama in a place where ghaTa is present --- there, both you and me do accept ghaTa-abhAva-AkArA-avidyA-vritti.

Similarly, let me accept sAkshi-vedyatA of ghaTa-abhAva through ghaTa-abhAva-AkArA-avidyA-vritti as well. (Please note that this can be said by bhAvarUpa-avidyA-vAdI. SSSS ji cannot use this option because abhAva-avidyA cannot have vritti)

If it is avidyAvRtti that is needed to know ghaTa abhAva, such an abhAva jnAna cannot be a pramA. Every cognition of absence would end up being a bhrama.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 15, 2024, 2:30:29 AM9/15/24

to Venkatraghavan S, Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Venkat ji.

To clarify, for a bhAvarupa ajnAna vAdin, it is not a problem that anupalabdhi (or any vRtti for that matter) is needed for the cognition of jnAna abhAva, because for me there is a bhAvarUpa ajnAna that is not jnAna abhAva.

I hold that the object of the cognition "I don't know anything" is a bhAvarUpa ajnAna, not jnAna abhAva. So, even if anupalabdhi reveals that there is jnAna abhAva, what is revealed is bhAvarupa ajnAna only! Therefore the existence of anupalabdhi vRtti does not invalidate the cognition "I don't know".

Sorry. I don't follow you.

Let us concentrate on siddhAnta. We accept bhAvarUpa ajnAna. However, we do accept jnAna-abhAva also which is distinct from bhAvarUpa ajnAna.

The vishaya of pratIti "I don't know anything" is indeed bhAvarUpa ajnAna. But it does not imply that we do not admit jnAna-abhAva. In fact, jnAna-abhAva (distinct from bhAvarUpa ajnAna) is also present there.

So, as per siddhAnta, in your opinion, what is the pramANa for knowing jnAna-abhAva.

I feel it (present jnAna-abhAva) can be through anumAna, wherein bhAvarUpa-ajnAna is vyApya and jnAna-abhAva is vyApaka. Advaita Siddhi also seems to mention the same. BhAvrUpa ajnAna is sAkshi-bhAsya and acts as hetu resulting into jnAna of sAdhya (jnAna-abhAva).

न च तर्हि प्रातरनुभूतचत्वरे गजज्ञानाभावज्ञानं कथमिति वाच्यम् ; ज्ञानानुपलब्ध्यैवेत्यवेहि । अनुपलब्धिज्ञानं च भावरूपाज्ञानेन लिङ्गेन ।

https://archive.org/details/Advaita.Siddhi.by.Madhusudana.Sarasvati/page/n578/mode/1up

Please note that jnAna-abhAva is being known by using vyApti-jnAna through anumAna. Hence, jnAna-abhAva-jnAna is not jnAna-karaNa-ajanya. Hence, it is not being known through anupalabdhi-pramANa which is necessarily jnAna-karaNa-ajanaya.

So, I feel jnAna-abhAva in siddhAnta is held to be known through anumAna (and through arthApatii also. But certainly not through anupalabdhi).

JnAna-abhAva cannot be known through pratyaksha/anupalabdhi/sAkshI as discussed.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Venkatraghavan S

unread,

Sep 15, 2024, 3:52:14 AM9/15/24

to Sudhanshu Shekhar, Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,

I don't quite understand what you are saying. Let us take the siddhi quote you had shared - न च तर्हि प्रातरनुभूतचत्वरे गजज्ञानाभावज्ञानं कथमिति वाच्यम् ; ज्ञानानुपलब्ध्यैवेत्यवेहि । अनुपलब्धिज्ञानं च भावरूपाज्ञानेन लिङ्गेन ।

The siddhikAra is saying bhAva rUpa ajnAna is the linga for the cognition of jnAna abhAva (anupalabdhi jnAnam = upalabdhi abhAva jnAnam = jnAna abhAva jnAnam). bhAvarUpa ajnAna is not a jnAna karaNa, so the cognition of jnAna abhAva born from it, is jnAna karaNa ajanya only. The definition of anupalabdhi as ज्ञानकरणाजन्याभावानुभवासाधारणकारणमनुपलब्धिरूपं प्रमाणम् is met.

1) It is jnAna karaNa ajanya - the linga for it is bhAvarUpa ajnAna, which is not a type of jnAna. The cognition of ajnAna is not a jnAna either. As ajnAna is sAkshi bhAsya, its cognition is not a "jnAna", for one to argue that the cognition of jnAna abhAva that it leads to, is jnAna-karaNa-janya. It is not a case like dhUma jnAna leading to vahni jnAna, where the dhUma jnAna is an antahkaraNa vRtti.

Therefore, what you are referring to as an anumAna of jnAna abhAva with bhAvarUpa ajnAna as the hetu / vyApya / linga is in fact not an anumAna at all, but an anupalabdhi.

2) jnAna abhAva jnAna is a case of abhAva anubhava - one is directly aware that there is no cognition. It is not a case like the shAbda abhAva jnAna (like someone telling me that my friend is not at home).

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 15, 2024, 4:29:13 AM9/15/24

to Venkatraghavan S, Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Venkat ji.

I don't quite understand what you are saying. Let us take the siddhi quote you had shared - न च तर्हि प्रातरनुभूतचत्वरे गजज्ञानाभावज्ञानं कथमिति वाच्यम् ; ज्ञानानुपलब्ध्यैवेत्यवेहि । अनुपलब्धिज्ञानं च भावरूपाज्ञानेन लिङ्गेन ।

I am sorry for not being clear enough.

Advaita Siddhi follows the above quote by this: तथा हि-पूर्वकालेऽहं, गजज्ञानाभाववान्, गजाज्ञानवत्त्वात् , यन्नैवं तन्नैवम् , यथा गजज्ञानवानहमिति, एवं सर्वत्राज्ञानस्य ज्ञानाभावव्याप्यत्वेन तदनुमापकत्वम् ।

AchArya is explaining as to how bhAvarUpa ajnAna is the linga. He gives the anumAna:

the morning-me (paksha),

gaja-ajnAna (linga),

ghaja-jnAna-abhAva (sAdhya).

vyatirekI-drishTAnta: me-with-gaja-jnAna (sAdhya-abhAva) [is co-present with gaja-ajnAna-abhAva]

So, AchArya says that ajnAna is everywhere vyApya and jnAna-abhAva is vyApaka. एवं सर्वत्राज्ञानस्य ज्ञानाभावव्याप्यत्वेन तदनुमापकत्वम्. Similarly, everywhere, ajnAna implies jnAna-abhAva on account of ajnAna being the vyApya of jnAna-abhAva.

So, what happens is this. We know ajnAna on account of it being sAkshi-bhAsya. Thereafter, through anumAna, we infer jnAna-abhAva.

We employ the anumAna: यत्र यत्र अज्ञानम्, तत्र तत्र ज्ञानाभाव:, यन्नैवं तन्नैवं, यथा ज्ञानवति (ज्ञानाभाव-अभाव-वति) मयि अज्ञानं नास्ति

[This anumAna is not presented in Advaita Siddhi. This is just created by me to convey my point and is directly based on the example given of gaja-jnAna-abhAva.]

So, if you observe, bhAvarUpa-ajnAna is the linga in the anumAna through which we infer the sAdhya jnAna-abhAva. This is happening on account of vyApti-jnAna. Therefore, jnAna-abhAva-jnAna is jnAna-karaNA-janya and not jnAna-karaNa-ajanya.

Hence, it cannot be called anupalabdhi.

The siddhikAra is saying bhAva rUpa ajnAna is the linga for the cognition of jnAna abhAva (anupalabdhi jnAnam = upalabdhi abhAva jnAnam = jnAna abhAva jnAnam). bhAvarUpa ajnAna is not a jnAna karaNa, so the cognition of jnAna abhAva born from it, is jnAna karaNa ajanya only. The definition of anupalabdhi as ज्ञानकरणाजन्याभावानुभवासाधारणकारणमनुपलब्धिरूपं प्रमाणम् is met.

But how from bhAvarUpa-ajnAna linga, we have jnAna-abhAva-jnAna is the question. It is through vyApti-jnAna.

1) It is jnAna karaNa ajanya - the linga for it is bhAvarUpa ajnAna, which is not a type of jnAna. The cognition of ajnAna is not a jnAna either. As ajnAna is sAkshi bhAsya, its cognition is not a "jnAna", for one to argue that the cognition of jnAna abhAva that it leads to, is jnAna-karaNa-janya. It is not a case like dhUma jnAna leading to vahni jnAna, where the dhUma jnAna is an antahkaraNa vRtti.

Therefore, what you are referring to as an anumAna of jnAna abhAva with bhAvarUpa ajnAna as the hetu / vyApya / linga is in fact not an anumAna at all, but an anupalabdhi.

As discussed above.

2) jnAna abhAva jnAna is a case of abhAva anubhava - one is directly aware that there is no cognition. It is not a case like the shAbda abhAva jnAna (like someone telling me that my friend is not at home).

Then what is the point of presenting this anumAna - पूर्वकालेऽहं, गजज्ञानाभाववान्, गजाज्ञानवत्त्वात् , यन्नैवं तन्नैवम् , यथा गजज्ञानवानहमिति? Clearly ajnAna is vyApya and jnAna-abhAva is vyApaka. And the jnAna-abhAva-jnAna is by applying the vyApti-jnAna.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Venkatraghavan S

unread,

Sep 15, 2024, 5:09:17 AM9/15/24

to Sudhanshu Shekhar, Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Sudhanshu ji

On Sun, 15 Sept 2024, 16:29 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am sorry for not being clear enough.

Advaita Siddhi follows the above quote by this: तथा हि-पूर्वकालेऽहं, गजज्ञानाभाववान्, गजाज्ञानवत्त्वात् , यन्नैवं तन्नैवम् , यथा गजज्ञानवानहमिति, एवं सर्वत्राज्ञानस्य ज्ञानाभावव्याप्यत्वेन तदनुमापकत्वम् ।

AchArya is explaining as to how bhAvarUpa ajnAna is the linga. He gives the anumAna:

the morning-me (paksha),
gaja-ajnAna (linga),
ghaja-jnAna-abhAva (sAdhya).
vyatirekI-drishTAnta: me-with-gaja-jnAna (sAdhya-abhAva) [is co-present with gaja-ajnAna-abhAva]

So, AchArya says that ajnAna is everywhere vyApya and jnAna-abhAva is vyApaka. एवं सर्वत्राज्ञानस्य ज्ञानाभावव्याप्यत्वेन तदनुमापकत्वम्. Similarly, everywhere, ajnAna implies jnAna-abhAva on account of ajnAna being the vyApya of jnAna-abhAva.

When you say ajnAna implies jnAna abhAva, what kind of jnAna is this vyApti? Isn't this vyApti itself anupalabdhi - Because it is jnAna karaNa ajanya?

Kind regards

Venkatraghavan

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 15, 2024, 6:03:34 AM9/15/24

to Venkatraghavan S, Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Venkat ji.

When you say ajnAna implies jnAna abhAva, what kind of jnAna is this vyApti? Isn't this vyApti itself anupalabdhi - Because it is jnAna karaNa ajanya?

I don't feel that this vyApti itself is anupalabdhi. We are employing a specific anumAna. And presenting a vyatirekI drishTAnta therefor. We have evidences for that from pratyaksha. It is like any other vyApti.

I mean ajnAna => jnAna-abhAva is not that obvious. (P =>Q)

So, we look for (~Q => ~P). There is evidence for that. Whenever there is abhAva of jnAna-abhAva, there is absence of ajnAna. So, utilising that, we present ajnAna => jnAna-abhAva.

I mean to convey -- if this anumAna were not employed, we may not have the knowledge of jnAna-abhAva even if we knew ajnAna through sAkshI.

That is why SiddhikAra says -- since ajnAna is vyApya of jnAna-abhAva, we get to know jnAna-abhAva through the linga of ajnAna.

The anubhava of jnAna-abhAva is born by applying this vyApti with drishTanta. Hence, it seems to me that jnAna-abhAva-anubhav is jnAna-karaNa-janya.

Do you follow Hindi Venkat ji. I may share some excerpt from Hindi commentary by Swami Vishuddhananda Giri Ji of Dakshinamurthy Math. This concept is crucial and I thank you for continued involvement in discussion.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

Venkatraghavan S

unread,

Sep 15, 2024, 7:01:10 AM9/15/24

to Sudhanshu Shekhar, Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,

Sure, I can understand Hindi. Please share the Swamiji's commentary.

My pramANa for the view that jnAna abhAva is anupalabdhi gamya is the TIkAkAra's words - अग्रहणस्य च ग्रहणप्रागभावस्य नापरोक्षत्वमिन्द्रियसन्निकर्षाभावात् अनुपलब्धिगम्यत्वाच्च.

In all cases, the anupalabdhi can be phrased as a vyApti. The Vedanta Paribhasha defines the yogyatva of anupalabdhi as follows.

अनुपलब्धेर्योग्यता च तर्कित-प्रतियोगिसत्त्वप्रसञ्जित-प्रतियोगिकत्वम् ।

The yogyatA of anupalabdhi is having as its counterpositive an upalabdhi which is implied by the existence of the object.

That is, it can be formulated in the form. if X exists, it will be seen. If it is not seen, it does not exist. That is true for each of the following.

1) If jnAna is present, the sAkshi would know it. The sAkshi does not know it, therefore, jnAna is absent.

2) If Devadatta is home, he will be seen. He is not seen, therefore, he is not at home.

You are saying 1 is anumAna, but presumably willing to say that 2 is anupalabdhi. I don't understand the need to differentiate the two. Happy to be corrected of course.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

H S Chandramouli

unread,

Sep 17, 2024, 7:23:10 AM9/17/24

to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste.

If the views of Sri SSS were to be understood as his unique version of eka sattA vAda, will the arguments take a different form ?. Will there be more acceptance of his stand?.

I am not claiming that Sri SSS himself says so. I am just thinking out loud possibilities.

Regards

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEnM2OtEYH7opFDne%2B%2Be0LDiHX%2BA27KqUHzxR4pkih4CcA%40mail.gmail.com.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 17, 2024, 7:54:35 AM9/17/24

to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

If the views of Sri SSS were to be understood as his unique version of eka sattA vAda, will the arguments take a different form ?. Will there be more acceptance of his stand?.

I am not claiming that Sri SSS himself says so. I am just thinking out loud possibilities.

In all the prakriyA of Advaita vedAnta, bhAvarUpatva of avidyA is an inalienable feature.

SSSS Ji's view cannot be accomodated in tradition because of this fundamental deviation from bhAvarUpa avidyA.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

H S Chandramouli

unread,

Sep 17, 2024, 8:00:25 AM9/17/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Sushanshu Ji,

In any or all of the *traditional* ekasattA vAda prakriyas concerning Advaita SiddhAnta, is bhAvarUpa avidyA accepted ?.

Regards

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBcCiRHqjwQS1fyXz-Q-3crdODMjL1bk7oC3m6T2gCUNA%40mail.gmail.com.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 17, 2024, 8:06:43 AM9/17/24

to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

In any or all of the *traditional* ekasattA vAda prakriyas concerning Advaita SiddhAnta, is bhAvarUpa avidyA accepted ?.

Yes. All prakriyAs, not only Eka-sattA-vAda, but all prakriyAs, namely sattA-traividhya-vAda, eka-jIva-vAda, nAnA-jIva-vAda, SDV, DSV -- everywhere bhAvarUpA avidyA is accepted.

It is a fundamental tenet across all prakriyAs.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

H S Chandramouli

unread,

Sep 17, 2024, 8:15:53 AM9/17/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Thanks for the confirmation. I thought eka sattA vAda does not admit of anything as bhAvarUpa, let alone avidyA.

Regards

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAaXFB59T0mmb9cVa_D%2BOSiarF-XGs8b8No59OC4cUofg%40mail.gmail.com.

H S Chandramouli

unread,

Sep 17, 2024, 8:17:00 AM9/17/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste.

I meant anything other than Brahman.

Regards

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 17, 2024, 8:40:31 AM9/17/24

to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

I just feel amazed and overwhelmed by the depth of VivaraNa. Each statement is so deep. In one line he presents ESV and STV. Later AchAryAs explained it in great detail.. but for VivaraNAchArya, all it took was just one sentence..

Objection: ननु तवापि "अस्ति" इति प्रतिपन्नस्यानिर्वचनीयत्वे अनुभवविरोधः समानः,

तन्न-

SiddhAntI: इदन्तासंसर्गवत् रजतस्य शुक्तिकासत्तासंसर्गोऽयमवभासते, न रजतस्यापरसत्त्वम्।। (Eka-sattA-vAda)

अथवा--

त्रिविधं सत्त्वं-परमार्थसत्त्वं ब्रह्मणः, अर्थक्रियासामर्थ्यसत्त्वं मायोपाधिकमाकाशादेः, अविद्योपाधिकसत्त्वं रजतादेः सति परमार्थसत्त्‌वापेक्षया अनिर्वचनीयमिति, नानुभवविरोधः यथानुभवमर्थसत्त्‌वाभ्युपगमात्।। (SattA-traividhya-vAda)

Regards

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

H S Chandramouli

unread,

Sep 17, 2024, 9:04:50 AM9/17/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

The two alternatives given in VivaraNa, can they not be understood as corresponding to the two ways in which the observed shukti-rajata is presented after bAdha. Namely as नेदंरजतम्(nedaMrajatam) (First alternative you have interpreted as ESV) and नात्र रजतम्(nAtra rajatam) (Second alternative you have interpreted as STV).

I am not sure if this interpretation also holds good as my knowledge of Sanskrit is limited. But having seen the two alternatives discussed in Advaita Siddhi concerning the second definition of mithyAtva, thought this might also be a possibility. Open to correction.

Regards

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAQ6yLh6Z1oYFYhO%2B9r_BNr5PrkAV7mL16avOuUTWsCCA%40mail.gmail.com.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 17, 2024, 10:08:47 AM9/17/24

to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

The two alternatives given in VivaraNa, can they not be understood as corresponding to the two ways in which the observed shukti-rajata is presented after bAdha. Namely as नेदंरजतम्(nedaMrajatam) (First alternative you have interpreted as ESV) and नात्र रजतम्(nAtra rajatam) (Second alternative you have interpreted as STV)

I don't think so sir. Because, the opponent has raised an objection. The siddhAntI is answering that. Both the answers must be intended to respond to same objection, referring to same pratIti.

Objection is -- you hold that silver is mithyA. But there is clear experience - silver is. So, this experience of isness-of-silver is contradictory to mithyAtva-of-silver because as per you, there is traikAlika-atyanta-abhAva of silver. So, how can there be experience - silver is.

Answer - there would be contradiction if is-ness belonged to silver. But is-ness is of shuktikA. Not of silver. Hence, there is no contradiction. There is no is-ness of silver. (ESV)

Or else, even if is-ness is accepted of silver, still there is no contradiction with its mithyAtva. Because, I will modify the definition of mithyAtva. The pratiyogitA-avachchhedaka of atyanta-abhAva will not be rajata-tva (as in ESV) but will be pAramArthikatva. So, even though rajata has prAtibhAsika-sattA, there is no pAramArthikatva in it. Hence, mithyaatva is not contradicted. (STV)

VedAnta ParibhAshA in the end portion of anumAna pramANa is explaining this very section . And it beautifully writes - अस्मिन् पक्षे (sattA-traividhya-vAda-pakshe) घटादेर्ब्रह्मणि निषेधो न स्वरूपेण, किन्तु पारमार्थिकत्वेनैवेति न विरोध:

Both the answers must be referring to same pratIti.

Further, ‘this is not silver’ indicates anyonya-abhAva of prAtibhAsika-rajata vis-à-vis vyAvahArika-rajata and conveys mithyAtva of prAtibhAsika-rajata by arthApatti. ‘There is no silver here’ conveys mithyAtva of prAtibhAsika-rajata directly by definition as it objectifies the atyanta-abhAva of prAtibhAsika-rajata in shell. I don't think that is the context here. Here, the response is to the pratIti "mithyA vastu asti" like "silver is" or "pot is".

Hope I could communicate clearly.

Regards

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

H S Chandramouli

unread,

Sep 17, 2024, 12:07:44 PM9/17/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Reg // the opponent has raised an objection. The siddhAntI is answering that. Both the answers must be intended to respond to same objection, referring to same pratIti //,

The discussion is centred around mithyAtvam. There is no reference to ESV vis a vis STV. Why should the answer then be related to ESV?.

Reg // Objection is -- you hold that silver is mithyA. But there is clear experience - silver is. So, this experience of isness-of-silver is contradictory to mithyAtva-of-silver because as per you, there is traikAlika-atyanta-abhAva of silver. So, how can there be experience - silver is //,

The objection is ** you hold that silver is mithyA because of traikAlika-atyanta-abhAva of silver. But the response **this is not silver** does not lead to that conclusion. Hence the definition is wrong **. There is no reason to bring in the idea of ESV at all. The discussion is as per STV thus far.

Reg // Because, I will modify the definition of mithyAtva //,

There is no need for that. You have yourself stated ** Further, ‘this is not silver’ indicates anyonya-abhAva of prAtibhAsika-rajata vis-à-vis vyAvahArika-rajata and conveys mithyAtva of prAtibhAsika-rajata by arthApatti**. You should have added at the end **leading to the same definition as already declared**.

This is specifically brought out in AS dvitIya mithyAtvam while harmonizing the apparently contradictory stands of VivaraNa and Sri ChitsukhAchArya. You may like to refer AS page 123 onwards as well as the commentary thereon, SatyAnandaprabhOdhikA of Swami VishuddhAnandagiri Vol 1 page 36. This is a text strongly recommended by you only as a *must read*. If anyone is particularly interested, I can copy paste the relevant portion.

I am now quite convinced that my understanding is correct.

Possibly the discussion is moving away from the main topic of the thread.

Regards

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCAB72mNDOUrn7_PKNor23Tw3YSem7d%2B1netcR23f%2B2Rg%40mail.gmail.com.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 17, 2024, 1:40:55 PM9/17/24

to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Chandramouli ji.

Are you under the impression that ESV and TSV in the impugned VivaraNa statement is my imagination?

The discussion is centred around mithyAtvam. There is no reference to ESV vis a vis STV. Why should the answer then be related to ESV?.

You should check the index prepared by S Subramanya Shastri ji in PanchpadikavivaraNa book by Dakshinamurthy MaTha. Please see the index reference for page no. 100 at the following link:

https://archive.org/details/DQJe_panchapadika-of-sri-padmapadacarya-with-the-commentaries-of-vivarana-tattvadipan/page/n64/mode/1up

Page no 100, where the impugned statement of VivaraNa occurs is categorised as एकसत्तावाद-सत्तात्रैविध्यवादयोः निर्देश:

Page no 100 is at https://archive.org/details/DQJe_panchapadika-of-sri-padmapadacarya-with-the-commentaries-of-vivarana-tattvadipan/page/n168/mode/1up

So, it is crystal clear, as certified by S Subramanya Shastri ji that the impugned VivaraNa statement is regarding ESV-TSV. I don't think I need to say anything further unless you dispute the scholarship of Shastri ji.

The objection is ** you hold that silver is mithyA because of traikAlika-atyanta-abhAva of silver. But the response **this is not silver** does not lead to that conclusion. Hence the definition is wrong **. There is no reason to bring in the idea of ESV at all. The discussion is as per STV thus far.

You may recheck your conclusions in light of evidence provided. I am not responding to other comments of yours. I have elaborated my understanding in unambiguous terms and with lot of precision. I have nothing more to add.

However, I wish to know your final take on whether you agree with Subramanya Shastri Ji's categorisation or not.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

H S Chandramouli

unread,

Sep 18, 2024, 4:21:58 AM9/18/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

What a question.

The text referred to by you, the Index has a title ** एकसत्तावाद-सत्तात्रैविध्यवादयोः निर्देश:** for page 100. Page 100 itself has one small paragraph from VivaraNa which does not mention even once the words ** एकसत्तावाद ** or ** सत्तात्रैविध्यवाद **. It is just your inference as to what the terms relate to.

The translation by Prof PS Shastri of the relevant portion of VivaraNa on page 100 is copied below.

// Objection: But the silver is apprehended as real and not as 'anirvacaniya'. Is this not contrary to experience ?

Reply: Just as the thisness (idanta) has the 'samsarga' with the silver, what appears (avabhasate) is the 'shuktika satta samsarga' (relation of the being of shukti). This is not a new, 'sattva' of silver. The reality of the shukti is apprehended as the reality of silver.

Or, we accept three degrees of reality (sattvam). Ultimate reality (Paramartha sattvam) is that of Brahman. Then there is the empirical reality which has the ability to bring about the objects and actions. This is conditioned, by maya and it is manifested in the form of akasa etc. Then there is a third degree of reality which is conditioned by "avidya'; and it is apprehended in the form of silver etc., in erroneous cognition. Considered with reference to ultimate reality, the third degree of reality is called 'anirvacaniya'. As such it is not contrary to experience. Following experience we accept the reality of the object here also //.

It should be clear from the above what the Index title means. I need not have to explain. What I had stated earlier in no way contradicts Sri Subramanya Shastri Ji's categorization. On the other hand, the translation copied above exactly tallies with my earlier observation.

Regards

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCq-w2sM2n7TAmaDwF1Dwjma_tWiD5BZEh1qwagboi-VQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 18, 2024, 4:44:23 AM9/18/24

to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Fine Chandramouli ji.

I don't have anything to say further.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 20, 2024, 4:32:01 AM9/20/24

to Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Hari Om,

I would like to thank Venkatraghavan ji for the off-Gmail discussion in this context. I present here my considered conclusion:

In waking, the jnAna-abhAva, present in sushupti, is known through arthApatti which is essentially vyatirekI-anumAna. This jnAna-abhAva is jnAna-mAtra-abhAva (because antah-karaNa is merged).

In waking, the jnAna-abhAva, present in waking, is known through arthApatti/vyatirekI-anumAna/anupalabdhi. This jnAna-abhAva is not jnAna-mAtra-abhAva (because antah-karaNa is present).

The word "jnAna" in jnAna-abhAva refers to antah-karaNa-vritti and not avidyA-vritti. jnAna refers to that which is virodhI of ajnAna. avidyA-vritti not being virodhI of ajnAna is not included in jnAna-abhAva.

It is incorrect to hold that present jnAna-abhAva is known in waking only through anupalabdhi. jnAna-abhAva or for that matter any abhAva is not exclusively known through anupalabdhi pramANa. They can be known by anumAna and arthApatti as well. But since abhAva-jnAna arising from anumAna/arthApatti is jnAna-karaNa-janya, they are different from anupalabdhi-pramA which is jnAna-karaNa-ajanya.

This is evident from the following reasoning:

Any abhAva-pramA arising through anupalabdhi-pramANa necessarily uses a vyApti wherein ajnAna is vyApya and jnAna-abhAva is vyApaka. Otherwise, there would be anavasthA dosha in anupalabdhi. Still, since the vyApti is used in pre-penultimate stage and not penultmate stage, it remains jnAna-karaNa-ajanya.

How?

Everyone agrees on - If x were present, there would be x-upalabdhi.

The proponent of anupalabdhi says:

Since there is x-upalabdhi-abhAva, there is x-abhAva.

The opponent says:

Just as x-abhAva cannot be known by pratyaksha, x-upalabdhi-abhAva cannot be known by pratyaksha either.

So, just as you needed x-upalabdhi-abhAva to know x-abhAva, you need x-upalabdhi-upalabdhi-abhAva to know x-upalabdhi-abhAva.

So, there is anavasthA.

The siddhAntI replies: not so. X-upalabdhi-abhAva is not required to be known by another anupalabdhi. However, instead, it is known by anumAna.

I know x-upalabdhi-abhAva through x-ajnAna by employing the following anumAna:

यत्र यत्र अज्ञानम्, तत्र तत्र उपलब्ध्यभावः, यन्नैवं तन्नैवम्, यथा घटोपलब्धिवति मयि घटाज्ञानं नास्ति।

So, by this vyatirekI anumAna, which is essentially arthApatti, I infer x-upalabdhi-abhAva (vyApaka) from x-ajnAna (vyApya).

So, I go and look for Devadatta in his home. He is nowhere to be seen. From this, I don't conclude Devadatta-upalabdhi-abhAva. When Devadatta is not seen by me in his home, I get a sAkshi-bhAsya Devadatta-ajnAna. This Devadatta-ajnAna becomes the vyApya in vyatirekI anumAna. And I infer Devadatta-upalabdhi-abhAva.

Thereafter, I can pretty well employ anupalabdhi-pramANa to conclude Devadatta-abhAva.

The crux is this: x-perception-abhAva is inferred by using vyatirekI-anumAna wherein sAkshi-bhAsya x-ajnAna is vyApya and x-upalabdhi-abhAva is vyApaka.

BAlabodhinI says: उपलब्धेर्विषयविषयकं भावमूतम्‌ अज्ञानं साक्षिसिद्धम्‌ ; साक्षिसिद्धेन अज्ञानेन उपरब्धेरभावोऽनुमीयते इति न अनवस्थागन्धोऽपि । साक्षिसिद्धेन भावमूताज्ञानेन अनुमित उपलब्ध्यभाव: उपलभ्याभावः बोधयति । स च बोधः परोक्षरूप एव।

https://archive.org/details/xlhS_advaita-siddhi-sanskrit-with-commentary-bala-bodhini-by-yogendra-natha-sharma-ed/page/n561/mode/2up

Now, this clearly proves that upalabdhi-abhAva is a known from anumAna-pramANa whereas upalabhya-abhAva is known from anupalabdhi-pramANa.

Thus, no rule can be made that present-abhAva is known only from anupalabdhi-pramANa. While upalabdhi-abhAva is jnAna-karaNa-janya, upalabhya-abhAva is jnAna-karaNa-ajanya. That is the distinction.

Having said that, jnAna-abhAva can also be known from anupalabdhi. There is no incorrectness in that:

If jnAna were there, there would be jnAna-upalabdhi.

Since there is jnAna-upalabdhi-abhAva, there is jnAna-abhAva.

There is nothing wrong in this anuaplabdhi-pramANa. But this is not the exclusive pramANa.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

H S Chandramouli

unread,

Sep 20, 2024, 7:47:13 AM9/20/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

I hope this does not sound like the famous story of a person who after listening to Ramayana the whole night, asked in the morning what is the relation between Rama and Sita.

Does any of this apply to anAdi jnAnAbhAva?. JnAnAbhAva understood as *absence of knowledge*. Even just a yes or no answer would suffice for me. I wont indulge in a debate.

Regards.

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAA-ieamJD5HHM18o4E2tSZbqvFqxwYw47Yn9zh8ACJnQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 20, 2024, 8:09:52 AM9/20/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com

Respected Chandramouli ji.

I hope this does not sound like the famous story of a person who after listening to Ramayana the whole night, asked in the morning what is the relation between Rama and Sita.

Not at all. The topic is deep enough. And I don't mind even if it amounts to going to the first post (though in the instant case it is not).

Does any of this apply to anAdi jnAnAbhAva?. JnAnAbhAva understood as *absence of knowledge*. Even just a yes or no answer would suffice for me. I wont indulge in a debate.

jnAna-abhAva present in sushupti is jnAna-mAtra-abhava. It is neither anAdi nor endless. It is present only in sushupti. It is absent in waking and dream. In waking and dream, there are vishesha-jnAna-abhAva, which again are with beginning and end being localized to waking and dream.

While avidyA is anAdi, jnAna-abhAva is not anAdi. I cannot give yes/no answer because there is nothing like "anAdi jnAnAbhAva" as far as my knowledge goes. I will be happy to be corrected, as always.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

H S Chandramouli

unread,

Sep 20, 2024, 8:35:56 AM9/20/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

The entire edifice of Creation stands on the fundamental foundation of *absence of knowledge* (partial though) of the true nature of Chaitanya/Brahman/Atman, with or without an obstacle or a veiling. Hence the doubt is valid.

Regards

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCeeNN%2BPm1zsEbpgGJjBvCjDz%2Bx4DpEOJY8Oy_DAdY7%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

H S Chandramouli

unread,

Sep 20, 2024, 8:39:55 AM9/20/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

avidyA is anAdi, jnAna-abhAva are anAdi simultaneously.

Regards

H S Chandramouli

unread,

Sep 20, 2024, 9:44:20 AM9/20/24

to Sudhanshu Shekhar, Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Let there be AvaraNa. That itself means *absence of knowledge* jnAna-abhAva. In fact that is the definition of AvaraNa in Advaita SiddhAnta. Swami Sureswaracharya explains AvaraNa that way only. I need to search for the citation. I cannot recollect offhand. It is certainly anAdi. Not sAdi.

Regards

On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 6:38 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Respected Chandramouli ji.

//The entire edifice of Creation stands on the fundamental foundation of *absence of knowledge* (partial though) of the true nature of Chaitanya/Brahman/Atman, with or without an obstacle or a veiling. Hence the doubt is valid.//

The entire edifice of creation stands on the fundamental foundation of *bhAvarUpa ajnAna* of the true nature of Brahman - which is impossible without an AvaraNa. jnAna-mAtra-abhAva or jnAna-abhAva has no fundamental role.

//avidyA is anAdi, jnAna-abhAva are anAdi simultaneously.//

jnAna-abhAva is jnAna-mAtra-abhAva (available only in sushupti) or jnAna-vishesha-abhAva (available in waking/dream). Both are sAdi and sAnta.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar

unread,

Sep 20, 2024, 9:51:30 AM9/20/24

to H S Chandramouli, Advaitin, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta

Respected Chandramouli ji.

Let there be AvaraNa. That itself means *absence of knowledge* jnAna-abhAva. In fact that is the definition of AvaraNa in Advaita SiddhAnta.

ajnAna is the hetu, jnAna-abhAva is the sAdhya. They are distinct. JnAna-abhAva is known through pramANa. ajnAna is known by sAkshI.

Regards.

Bhaskar YR

unread,

Sep 25, 2024, 3:01:24 AM9/25/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com

praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Thanks for simplifying and clarifying a discussion I couldn't follow. I wonder however, whether space in an empty vessel and the effect of your absence upon your kids are appropriate examples for abhavarupa avidya. Both space and physical absence are material absences while agrahana is presumed only because from the perspective of adhyasa. Adhyasa is causeless, naisargaika and wholly dependent upon not knowing the Self which is different from causation.

Ø Kindly pardon me for the very belated reply. For those who have agreed that adhyAsa is anAdi and anatha these explanations are absolutely not necessary. However there are some logicians who are eager to find out the cause for the adhyAsa. For them we have to explain this someway. Hence I tried to explain them by giving the examples of empty vessel and my absence at home. First of all Sri SSS several times clarifies that avidyA as jnAnAbhAva and adhyAsa as misconception are not in cause and effect sequential order because cause and effect itself is adhyAsa. Since when adhyAsa?? The question, itself, presupposes the time and time itself is adhyAsa / adhyArOpita. Hence he said each and every question and socalled answer we give is invariably within the sphere of adhyAsa where pramAtru-pramANa-prameya-pramiti hold sway. Some logicians may pose a question : If avidyA is kevala jnAnAbhAva, a non-existent thing how can this can be caused adhyAsa which you,yourself experiencing as existing on day to day basis?? Can a non-existing thing produce an existing or experiencing thing like adhyAsa?? To answer this we have to give some loukika examples like above to say that avidyA as jnAnAbhAva is the cause of adhyAsa not in the sense of upAdAna or nimitta kAraNa like mUlAvidyAvAdins argue. It only gives room to adhyAsa (like an empty mind (svarupa jnAna abhAva) can accommodate all type of sattva rajotamOguNa vrutti-s. It is an excuse, pretext.

BTW, Sri SSS does not give these examples but explains abhAVa is nepamAtra for the adhyAsa and when you get rid of adhyAsa being the jnAna svarUpa svayaM prakAshita Chaitanya you would realize that there was / is / never will be avidyA or adhyAsa.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

Bhaskar YR

unread,

Sep 25, 2024, 3:10:42 AM9/25/24

to adva...@googlegroups.com, A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula

praNAms Sri venkataraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Therefore, Sri SSS' position essentially is a rejection of anupalabdhi pramANa in toto.

I don’t know where Sri SSS categorically rejects the anupalabdhi pramANa not aware where he advocated it as valid pramANa either, basically what he says is all pramANa-prameya etc. are adhyAsa purassara as one cannot go forward with this pramANa-prameya vyavahAra unless he himself takes as pramAtru that is again adhyAsa and adhyArOpita. But somewhere I read that this pramANa is rejected by vArtikakAra. May be in bruhad vArtika, I don’t know the reference.

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward