[Advaita-l] [advaitin] RE: pratiyogI-jnAna being mandatory for abhAva-jnAna

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

AUM SUdhanshuji, Thank you for your response. I fear you continue to
interpret some kind of positive factor abhava ignorance rather a lack of
knowledge hence our disagreement.

-SSSS: "The illusory manifestation is totally non-existent in any form or
at any time apart from the place, time and form in which it was perceived
-SS response: It is non-existent even at the place, time and form of its
manifestation and not only at "apart from". SSSS ji should have mentioned
this. I don't know why he skipped that.
-*mcc: Yes, 'apart from' skipped or not makes no difference and only
confirms SSSS's position. *

SS: "At the time of negation, one understands the traikAlika-abhAva. At the
time of error, one does not understand the traikAlika-abhAva. That is the
difference."
-*mcc: I don't follow. Whether understanding or not,  there is no snake and
never was a snake. The mere perception of a thing doesn't account for its
existence. And please don't let the hare's horn resurface intending to
create a distinction in non-existence. Whether a perception does not exist
or a non-appearing conception does not exist, makes no difference to
non-existence. *

SS: "Mere rope cannot be confused for snake. It is rope+ajnAna that is
confused for snake. Rope alone is never confused."
*mcc: Agreed but here is where you insist on '+ajnAna' as a positive
ignorance in addition to rope. Error of the fact of rope is sufficient,
there is no need to add anything positive to the error. Consider the
ignorance concerning the perception of a flat earth or two moons - error of
the fact is sufficient  *

SS: can x-abhAva-jnAna occur without x-jnAna.
*mcc: I believe, answered just above.*

SS: "Knowledge does not happen without an object of knowledge."
*mcc: agreed. Mirage requires sand as snake requires existing rope - remove
mirage and sand is as it ever was, so too, with snake and rope. *
,
SS: "Singular inactive Brahman cannot give rise to even a mistake. So, a
non-existent apparent avidyA needs to be accepted, from its own frame of
reference, to explain appearance."
*mcc: Again agreed but the devil is in the details and the term,
'apparent,' means something fundamentally different to vyakhana karas and
Sankara Bhasya such that the former are accused of misinterpreting Bhasya,
Advaita hani and nirmoksa vada by positing the continued appearance of form
despite the falsification of adhyasa. *

*are we making any headway or just rehashing our entrenched views? If you
understand my thinking and believe I understand your thinking, what are to
gain? *
*with respect and regards, mcc*

On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 5:14 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Michael ji.
>
> //"The illusory manifestation is totally non-existent in any form or at
> any time apart from the place, time and form in which it was perceived.//
>
> It is non-existent even at the place, time and form of its manifestation
> and not only at "apart from". SSSS ji should have mentioned this. I don't
> know why he skipped that.
>
> //And at the time of cancellation its whole being is seen to have been
> exhausted in its manifestation in that way at that place."//
>
> At the time of negation, one understands the traikAlika-abhAva. At the
> time of error, one does not understand the traikAlika-abhAva. That is the
> difference.
>
> //This is explained by Bhasyakara as the correction of an apparent
> conjunction between snake and rope by the negation of the apparency upon
> the only ever existing rope without the possibility of any kind of positive
> ignorance being assumed//
>
> Mere rope cannot be confused for snake. It is rope+ajnAna that is confused
> for snake. Rope alone is never confused.
>
> //I have simplified but hope it will not be taken as a substitute for
> SSSSji's clarification. Here are links to the exact pages for more
> clarification and depth regarding this issue. Kindly consider//
>
> I saw it. Merely quoting BhAshyakAra does not help. One has to answer the
> questions. And one such basic question is this -- can x-abhAva-jnAna occur
> without x-jnAna.
>
> //Are you ignoring SSSS's refutation?//
>
> What is his refutation here?
>
> //There is no proper appearance in time or space to require a previous
> positive pratiyogin.//
>
> What is "proper appearance"? There is appearance of snake. Who can deny
> it? All VivaraNa is saying is that there is a snake-abhava there. VivaraNa
> says that there is traikAlika-snake-abhAva in rope. The place where snake
> appeared, at that very place, there is traikAlika-abhAva of snake. That is
> what is mithyAtva of snake. What is wrong in it?
>
>
> //There is simply right knowledge dismissing wrong knowledge//
>
> Knowledge does not happen without an object of knowledge. You dispute this
> and I will ask you to define knowledge and mechanism of arising of
> knowledge. Please note that the discussion is being held in SDV.
>
>
> //and that "At the time of the cancelling cognition, the question of
> whether the world does or’ does not exist in the Absolute becomes totally
> irrelevant."//
>
> World does not exist in Brahman. There is traikAlika-abhAva of world in
> Brahman. World exists nowhere. It has no existence.
>
> There is merely sat-tAdAtmya because of which one says - world is. This
> sat-tAdAtmya is equally mithyA and merely appears while it is non-existent.
>
> The question is relevant when world appears and appears to exist. Enquiry
> shows that - world is like snake, it merely appears while it is not.
>
> Singular inactive Brahman cannot give rise to even a mistake. So, a
> non-existent apparent avidyA needs to be accepted, from its own frame of
> reference, to explain appearance.
>
> Regards.
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, 15:24 Michael Chandra Cohen, <
> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sudhanshu Shekharji, pranam.
>>
>> Often you have raised this pratiyogin objection against an abhavarupa
>> avidya however it is based on some kind of existential positive abhava
>> entity as opposed to a mere absence of knowledge. That seems to be an
>> original argument made in the Ishta Siddhi and apparently repeated in the
>> Vivarana but is addressed by SSSS in chapter 12 of his Vedanta Prakriya
>> Pratyabinna/The Method of the Vedanta. SSSSji first cites the original
>> objection and then offers the correct view with support from Sankara in
>> Gita 13.26.
>>
>> "The illusory manifestation is totally non-existent in any form or at any
>> time apart from the place, time and form in which it was perceived. And at
>> the time of cancellation its whole being is seen to have been exhausted in
>> its manifestation in that way at that place."
>>
>> This is explained by Bhasyakara as the correction of an apparent
>> conjunction between snake and rope by the negation of the apparency upon
>> the only ever existing rope without the possibility of any kind of positive
>> ignorance being assumed
>>
>> I have simplified but hope it will not be taken as a substitute for
>> SSSSji's clarification. Here are links to the exact pages for more
>> clarification and depth regarding this issue. Kindly consider
>>
>> Regards, MCC
>>
>>
>> https://archive.org/details/the-method-of-the-vedanta-a-critical-account-of-the-advaita-tradition-swami-satchidanandendra/page/n845/mode/2up
>>
>> https://archive.org/details/the-method-of-the-vedanta-a-critical-account-of-the-advaita-tradition-swami-satchidanandendra/page/n791/mode/2up?view=theater
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 6:49 AM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <
>> advaitin at googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji
>>>
>>> Hare Krishna
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to know this from avidyA-vidyA perspective.  Hence I asked
>>> that doubt.  To talk anything about Atma jnAna we should have had knowledge
>>> about it  ‘then’ and feeling the absence of the same ‘now’.  If this query
>>> not related /applicable to this then I have least interest in knowing
>>> anything further.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>>>
>>> bhaskar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The question is very simple BhAskar ji. In order to know whether there
>>> is abhAva of ushkalanta in the room, one has to first know what is
>>> ushkalanta.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, x-abhAva-jnAna in the room requires x-jnAna.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is what advaita teachings holds.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was interested to know if any other Indian Philosophy branch holds
>>> contrary view.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB66387D933A920A9F02AF652084B72%40VI1PR06MB6638.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB66387D933A920A9F02AF652084B72%40VI1PR06MB6638.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>>
>>