[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Sanskrit talk on Avidya - Exactly the ongoing discussions in our forums

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Ananta Chaitanya ji.

Now, I have a Q, for some closure or flow of the thorough ongoing
>> discussion at least from your side:
>>
> 1) what kind of abhAva is this pramANagamya jnAnAbhAva?
> 2) Is the doSha that we point out to SSS calling jnAnAbhAva prAgabhAva
> applicable here too on expected pratiyogijnAna? If not, why not?
> 3) If yes, how would we resolve it?
>

1. abhAva is accepted to be of only one type and that is atyanta-abhAva.
So, this jnAna-abhAva is also atyanta-abhAva.

2. If we check VivaraNa Prameya Sangraha, page 53-54 of Achyuta Granthamala
series - it says - प्रत्यक्षाभाववादे तु धर्मिप्रतियोगिनोरात्मज्ञानयोः
प्रतीतौ “मयि ज्ञानं नास्ति” इति एतादृशं ज्ञानाभावप्रत्यक्षं व्याहन्येत ।
तयोरप्रतीतौ च हेत्वभावादेव तत्प्रत्यक्षानुत्पादः । ननु सर्वत्र व्यवहारो
ज्ञानस्य फलत्वेन लिङ्गं भवति; तल्लिङ्गाभावेन ज्ञानाभावोऽनुमीयते इति चेद् ,
न; तदापि धर्म्यादिप्रतीत्यप्रतीत्योरुक्तदोषात् । षष्ठमानगम्यो ज्ञानाभाव इति
भट्टमतेऽपि अयमेव दोषः ।

It transpires from this that dharmI-pratiyOgI requirement is applicable
when jnAna-abhAva is accepted to be known through either pratyaksha or
anupalabdhi (without recourse to arthApatti). (The second option is neither
our claim nor of the opponent. So, it is ignored.)

However, in VivaraNa explanation, jnAna-abhAva is known through arthApatti,
(or through anupalabdhi using arthApatti). VivaraNa says -
एवमुत्थितस्य *ज्ञानाभावपरामर्शोऽपि
*ज्ञानविरोधिनोऽज्ञानस्यानुभूततया *स्मर्यमाणस्यानुपपत्त्यैव* *प्रमीयते*
*नानुस्मर्यते*।

Thus, the defect which arises in case of abhAva-pratyaksha-vAdI or BhATTa
is not applicable in our case.

3. As above.

I am more interested in this discussion than the SSS side answering them. I
> don't expect you to get a thorough investigation that you have been trying
> to get at from the ongoing discussion, a kind of a jalpa, if not saMvAda.
> Maybe you will have better luck than many in years on both the lists, but I
> don't think so.
>

Actually, I too don't expect any meaningful conclusion from my discussions
with them. My main intention in my interactions is revision of my
understanding.


> I suggest you take the pUrvapakSha yourself and continue as above, so that
> silent interested readers know that you have your heart in the right place
> in this inquiry and discussion. I am sure that many like me are immensely
> impressed by the patience and maturity that you and Raghavji have shown, setting
> aside snide remarks.
>

Ji. Sure. Thanks for the encouragement.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.