[Advaita-l] 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.