[Advaita-l] [advaitin] How jnAnAbhAva can cause adhyAsa !!??

[Bhaskar YR]

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.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar