Objection against bhAvarUpa-ajnAna on account of vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna in the form of "अहम् अज्ञः"

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

One fascinating discussion in Advaita Siddhi, in ajnAna-pratyaksha-vichArah, is presented as per my understanding below. Learned members may share their views on the correctness of my understanding.

Objection: You accept that ajnAna-pratyaksha is vishishTa-vaishishTya-vishayaka. Because ajnAna-pratyaksha is always qualified with jnAna-virOdhitva and sa-vishayakatva. Without qualified with vishaya or without qualified with jnAna-virOdhitva, there is no perception of ajnAna. ajnAna-qualified-with-these-two-visheshaNa appears in Atman. Therefore, ज्ञानविरोधित्व-सविषयकत्व-विशिष्ट-अज्ञान-विशिष्ट-आत्मन: प्रत्यक्षम् एव अज्ञानस्य प्रत्यक्षम्। Therefore, विशिष्टस्य-अज्ञानस्य वैशिष्ट्यम् आत्मनि भासते। अतो अज्ञानस्य प्रत्यक्षं विशिष्ट-वैशिष्ट्य-विषयकमेव। In ajnAna-pratIti, AtmA is the visheshya and ajnAna is the visheshaNa. Thus, ajnAna has visheshaNatA. The visheshNatA-avachchhedaka are jnAna-virOdhitva and sa-vishayakatva. Thus, before vishishTa-vaishishTya-avaghAhi-jnAna i.e. ajnAna-pratyaksha, you need to have visheshaNatA-avachchhedaka-prakAraka-jnAna. And thus, the contradiction would remain because the vishaya-jnAna will lead to cessation of ajnAna.

Answer: There is no pramANa that visheshaNatA-avachchhedaka-prakAraka-jnAna has kAraNatA towards vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna. 

Let us understand the theory. When we say दण्डी पुरुषः, here purusha is visheshya and danDa is visheshaNa. This दण्डी पुरुषः is vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna.

The danDa has, therefore, visheshaNatA. And the visheshaNatA-avachchhedaka is danDatva.

Now, danDatva-vishishTa-danDa-jnAna is called visheshaNatA-avachchhedaka-prakAraka-jnAna.

The claim of the opponent is that without such visheshaNatA-avachchhedaka-prakAraka-jnAna, there cannot arise vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna i.e. “danDI purushah”. Because, first we know danDatva-vishishTa-danDa and then only danDa-vishishTa-purusha-jnAna can arise.

Similarly, like दण्डी पुरुषः, we have अहम् अज्ञः। Here, AtmA is akin to purusha and ajnAna is like danDa. And like danDatva, there are savishayakatva and jnAna-virOdhitva. Therefore, before the knowledge अहम् अज्ञः, we need to determine savishayakatva and jnAna-virOdhitva. And ajnAna-vishaya having been known, there would no longer remain ajnAna. Thus, contradiction remains in bhAvarUpa-ajnAna paksha, so claims pUrvapakshI.

SiddhAntI explains - This very idea that there is a vishishTa-vAishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna being kArya and there is a preceding visheshaNatA-avachchhedaka-prakAraka-jnAna as kAraNa is untenable as there is no pramANa therefor.

Let the knowledge “दण्डी पुरुषः” be kArya, fine, but the kAryatA-avachchhedaka is simply pratyaksha-tva and not vishishTa-vAishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna-tva. And the kAraNatA-avachchhedaka is not visheshaNatA-avachchhedaka-prakAraka-jnAna-tva, rather indriya-sannikrishTa-tva. When such a simple already accepted (क्लृप्त) kArya-kAraNa-bhAva is available, what is the need to accept a new kAryatA-avachchhedaka and kAraNatA-avachchhedaka.

Similarly, in case of वह्निमान् पर्वतः, the kAryatA-avachchhedaka is anumiti-tva and not vishishTa-vAishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna-tva. Similarly, kAraNatA-avachchhedaka is vyApti-jnAna-tva and not visheshaNatA-avachchhedaka-prakAraka-jnAna-tva.

Similarly, for upamiti-jnAna and shAbda-jnAna.

The crux of the matter is - the kArya-kAraNa-bhAva can be explained by क्लृप्त-कार्य-कारण-भाव only and there is no need to imagine new avachchhedakAs for kAryatA and kAraNatA.

Objection: If we accept different kAryatA-avachchhedaka and kAraNatA-avachchhedaka for the four jnAna such as pratyaksha-jnAna, anumiti-jnAna, upamiti-jnAna and shAbda-jnAna, then how can we justify the definite feeling of vishishTa-vAishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna-tva?

Answer: See, blue-rUpa originates from different material, pot originates from different material. Thus, the kAryatA-avachchhedaka of blue-rUpa and pot are blue-ness and pot-ness respectively. Yet, when they combine, then their combined form is enough to give rise to a specific buddhi, namely नीलघटत्व, blue-pot-ness. There is no need to search for a different kAryatA-avachchhedaka. The combined form of separate kAryatA-avachchhedaka is enough to give rise to singular buddhi. Similarly, दण्डी पुरुषः has pratyakshatva as kAryatA-avachchhedaka, वह्निमान् पर्वतःhas anumititva as kAryatA-avachchhedaka. But, seen together, they appear to have vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna-tva. There is no need to say that vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna-tva is separate kAryatA-avachchhedaka. It just arises like blue-pot-ness on account of the combination of pratyakshatva and anumititva. Advaita Siddhi, p. 1137, says - विशिष्टवैशिष्ट्यबुद्धित्वेन विशेषणतावच्छेदकप्रकारकज्ञानत्वेन च कार्यकारणभावे मानाभावात् , प्रत्यक्षत्वादिरूपेण पृथक् पृथक् क्लृप्तकार्यकारणभावेनैवोपपत्तेः विशिष्टवैशिष्ट्यबुद्धित्वस्यार्थसमाजसिद्धत्वात्.

OR ELSE,

Even if we accept for the time being that visheshaNatA-avachchhedaka-prakAraka-jnAna-tva is the kAraNatA-avachchhedaka and vishishTa-vAishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna-tva is the kAryatA-avachchhedaka, still there are some situations where visheshaNatA-avachchhedaka-prakAraka-jnAna is not possible at all. There, you also hold the vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna to arise as follows - First visheshaNa-jnAna in visheshya AND then visheshaNAntara-jnAna in visheshaNa. So, let the same logic be applied in all cases.

For example, let us take - नीलघट-वान् चैत्र:. Here, Chaitra is visheshya and blue-pot is the visheshaNa. The visheshaNatA-avachchhedaka is blue-ness. Now, this knowledge नीलघट-वान् चैत्र: can sometimes be preceded by a doubt in the form of “घटो नीलो न वा, whether the pot is blue or not”. Thus, there is no visheshaNatA-avachchhedaka-prakAraka-jnAna in the form of neelatva-jnAna but the jnAna immediately before the jnAna नीलघट-वान् चैत्र: is samshaya-jnAna. There, the vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna i.e. नीलघट-वान् चैत्र:, arises in the form of विशेष्ये विशेषणं तत्र च विशेषणान्तरम्। That is first we know visheshya-pot and then we come to know blue-ness.

Similarly, in case of अहम् अज्ञः, first there will be visheshya-AtmA-jnAna, then the visheshaNa-jnAna i.e. perception of ajnAna, and then the visheshaNa of ajnAna, such as savishayakatva and jnAna-virOdhitva, are perceived.
Hence, there is no contradiction in the bhAvarUpatva of ajnAna.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bandaru Viswanath]

Hi Sudhanshu,

Just a nit-pick.

When we say दण्डी पुरुषः, here purusha is visheshya and danDa is visheshaNa. This दण्डी पुरुषः is vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna.

This is not a vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna, but just vishishTa-jnana. 

An example of a vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna would be गोपिका घटविषिष्टमक्षिकावती.

Thanks

Viswanath

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBXW_tSQMEt2WGGh42PjGZpo9G9Amo93D%2BB4uj7Jhp-xg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Viswanath ji.

Pl check the image.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bwh7sza3mda32z4rw2exi/tempFileForShare_20241220-220950.jpg?rlkey=6v6kf8p3wo292v4306gul10c4&st=73u1e9w0&dl=0

Why can't the jnAna of दण्डत्व-विशिष्ट-दण्ड-वान् पुरुष:, which is what we meant by jnAna of  दण्डी पुरुषः, be vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna?

This is not a vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna, but just vishishTa-jnana. 

Even if we qualify danDa by danDatva dharma?

An example of a vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna would be गोपिका घटविषिष्टमक्षिकावती.

Certainly. Understood.

Regards.

[V Subrahmanian]

Will this be a candidate for the concept being discussed:  vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna?  Just trying to understand. 

तस्य यथा कप्यासं पुण्डरीकमेवमक्षिणी तस्योदिति नाम स एष सर्वेभ्यः पाप्मभ्य उदित उदेति ह वै सर्वेभ्यः पाप्मभ्यो य एवं वेद ॥ ७ ॥  Chandogya Upanishad. 

तस्य एवं सर्वतः सुवर्णवर्णस्याप्यक्ष्णोर्विशेषः । कथम् ? तस्य यथा कपेः मर्कटस्य आसः कप्यासः ; आसेरुपवेशनार्थस्य करणे घञ् ; कपिपृष्ठान्तः येनोपविशति ; कप्यास इव पुण्डरीकम् अत्यन्ततेजस्वि एवम् देवस्य अक्षिणी ; उपमितोपमानत्वात् न हीनोपमा |

regards

subbu

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCPgTxFPOsKYVCaJsAgq_uG3VMB%2BirtjJshaQQBY0xyrg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji,

As I understand, if A is the visheshya having B as the visheshaNa, which in turn has C as visheshaNa, then A has C-vishishTa-B-vaishishTya. 

VaishishTya = vishishTa-tva.

So, in the ChhAndOgya case, the knowledge अरुणनेत्रवान् पुरुषः, is a clear example of vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna. 

A = purusha, B = aruNa-netra, C = aruNatva.

It is like नीलघटवान् चैत्रः. Here, A = Chaitra, B = neela-ghaTa, C = neela-tva.

I don't think upama will play any role..so, whether that aruNa is like lotus or kapyAsa, that hardly matters.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bandaru Viswanath]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,

Why can't the jnAna of दण्डत्व-विशिष्ट-दण्ड-वान् पुरुष:, which is what we meant by jnAna of  दण्डी पुरुषः, be vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna?

I don't disagree with you. I would not have emailed if you had written that दण्डत्व-विशिष्ट-दण्ड-वान् पुरुष as the example for vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna, as opposed to दण्डी पुरुषः which is a classical example for vishishTa-jnana. 

Now using danDa-sAmanyatA to convert a vishishTa-jnana to a vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna is required for your argument ? If you take a different example of vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna as गोपिका घटविषिष्टमक्षिकावती, would siddhanti still argue that visheshaNatA-avachchhedaka-prakAraka-jnAna doesn't have kAraNatA towards vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna ?

I am yet to go through your email fully, so I may be mistaken, but can I say that the sufficiency of is only in cases where the sAmanyatA can be used  convert a vishishTa-jnana to a vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna ? 

Thanks

Viswanath

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCPgTxFPOsKYVCaJsAgq_uG3VMB%2BirtjJshaQQBY0xyrg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Viswanath ji,

Many thanks for insightful comments. 

 

I don't disagree with you. I would not have emailed if you had written that दण्डत्व-विशिष्ट-दण्ड-वान् पुरुष as the example for vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna, as opposed to दण्डी पुरुषः which is a classical example for vishishTa-jnana. 

I understand you. However, if you look at the context of the discussion, it is regarding the analysis of "अहम् अज्ञः". You would agree that "अहम् अज्ञः" is exactly like "दण्डी पुरुषः". Since we already know that danDa in  "दण्डी पुरुषः" is qualified by danDatva, just as ajnAna in "अहम् अज्ञः" is qualified by savishayakatva and jnAna-virOdhitva, the text did not elaborately write दण्डत्व-विशिष्ट-दण्ड-वान् पुरुष as an example of vishishTa-vaishTya-avagAhi-jnAna (VVAJ). However, I completely agree with you that for better clarity, it should have been written. Otherwise there would appear no difference between jnAna wherein only visheshya-visheshaNa are there without any visheshaNAntara AND the jnAna where visheshaNantara is present.   

 

Now using danDa-sAmanyatA to convert a vishishTa-jnana to a vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna is required for your argument ?

The idea was to simply explain what is VVAJ.

 

If you take a different example of vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna as गोपिका घटविषिष्टमक्षिकावती, would siddhanti still argue that visheshaNatA-avachchhedaka-prakAraka-jnAna doesn't have kAraNatA towards vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna ?

Yes. Certainly. In advaita siddhAnta, we just don't accept that visheshaNatA-avachchhedaka-prakAraka-jnAna has any kAraNatA towards VVAJ. We hold that klripta-kArya-kAraNa-bhAva is enough to explain VVAJ.

 

I am yet to go through your email fully, so I may be mistaken, but can I say that the sufficiency of is only in cases where the sAmanyatA can be used  convert a vishishTa-jnana to a vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna ? 

Please go through the write-up. It is based on ajnAna-pratyaksha-vichArah section in Advaita Siddhi. I look forward to reading your considered view. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

the concept of vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna is critical in understanding the sAkshi-bhAsyatva of bhAvarUpa-ajnAna. A phenomenal discussion is present in ajnAna-pratyaksha-vichAra of Advaita Siddhi. LaghuchandrikA has introduced additional dimensions therein. Prima facie, they appear to be quite intimidating. 

I have made an effort to understand this section as explained by BAlabOdhinI and by Swami Vishuddhananda Giri ji, in his book published by DakshinAmUrty MaTha. I have written my understanding in the form of a PDF. 

I request learned members to kindly go through it and point out infirmities in my understanding, if any. The PDF can be downloaded from https://sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/a-conceptual-understanding-of-vishishta-vaishishtya-avagahi-jnana.pdf

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.