[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Objection against bhAvarUpa-ajnAna on account of vishishTa-vaishishTya-avagAhi-jnAna in the form of "अहम् अज्ञः"

[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


On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 5:28 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> --
> 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+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBXW_tSQMEt2WGGh42PjGZpo9G9Amo93D%2BB4uj7Jhp-xg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBXW_tSQMEt2WGGh42PjGZpo9G9Amo93D%2BB4uj7Jhp-xg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>