[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: avidyA is adhyasta (superimposed) in AtmA

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

On Fri, 24 Jan, 2025, 3:49 pm Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> //I is quite stubbornness to find the kAraNa for the adhyAsa.//
>
> //What is the cause of adhyAsa?? Obviously, it is the abhAva of the
> vidyA.//
>
> So, notwithstanding the imputation of stubbornness, you have explained
> abhAva to be the cause of adhyAsa!! Interesting!!!
>
>
> Ø     First one is said to emphasize the stand of bhAshyakAra, second one
> is to appease the thirst of the people who want to see everything in the
> prism of kArya-kAraNa vAda 😊
>
>
>
> Be that as it may, let us see whether your claim of vidyA-abhAva as cause
> of adhyAsa is in accordance with BhAshya!
>
>
> Ø     Look at your experience before playing anything with bhAshya :  what
> would be the reason behind seeing the snake instead of rope??  Is it not
> lack of knowledge of an existing thing and seeing one thing for another??
>
> Now, this claim of yours positing abhAva as a cause is evidently negated
> by BhAshyakAra as below:
>
> निर्विशेषस्य त्वभावस्य कारणत्वाभ्युपगमे शशविषाणादिभ्योऽप्यङ्कुरादयो
> जायेरन्; न चैवं दृश्यते ।
>
> नाप्यभावः कस्यचिदुत्पत्तिहेतुः स्यात् , अभावत्वादेव, शशविषाणादिवत् ।
>
> (BSB 2.2.26)
>
> When BhAshyakAra has in so many words emphatically rejected any
> possibility of abhAva as hetu, to hold that jnAna-abhAva is "obviously" the
> cause of adhyAsa is naturally incorrect. Isn't it?
>
>
>   *   Perhaps you might be sitting in your personal library and picking
> the totally irrelevant quotes like this to prove your theory.  Anyway let
> me check this adhikaraNa purport and come back to you.  I reckon like ghata
> bhAshya which you have quoted to prove even abhAva is also bhAva completely
> out of context, this one too in all probability of the same order.  By the
> way you advocate the jagat bhrAnti vAda, how do you reconcile your theory
> with that of above quote??  By the way, when we say abhAva is the cause it
> does not mean jnAnAbhAva giving the birth to adhyAsa and for the adhyAsa,
> jnAnAbhAva is the upAdAna.  In short, the ignorance of the jeeva about
> himself ( the lack of knowledge about himself) is called avidyA, ajnAna,
> aviveka etc.  This not knowing is ekarUpa and no need to cut this abhAva
> into somany pieces to query whether it is  prAgabhAva, pradvamsAbhAva,
> anyonyAbhAva, atyanta abhAva etc. etc. when it comes to svarUpa ajnAna it
> is simply ‘not knowing’ without any prefixes and suffixes. In this sense it
> is ekarUpa ( na cha avidyA kevala vaishamyasya kAraNam ekarUpatvAt)  Why is
> it ekarUpa?’ because, it is the absence of the knowledge which cannot be
> different in different jeeva-s.  This avidyA makes room for wrong
> understanding.  Lack of rajju jnAna leads to sarpAvalOkana (lack of svarUpa
> jnAna leads to dehAtmabhAva) and this is anartha hetu emphasizes
> bhAshyakAra.
>
>
>
>   *   And now to your pet question : how logical it is to say from abhAva
> there is bhAva?? In other words, if avidyA is non-existent in the form of
> jnAnAbhAva, how can it give birth or can be a cause to adhyAsa,  which is
> an actually existent and experiencing one ? To answer this I say : we will
> have to first understand that when we say jnAnAbhAva type of avidyA is the
> cause of adhyAsa, it is not in the sense of upAdAna or nimitta like what
> you (mUlAvidyAvAdins) do : it only gives room for adhyAsa, it is just an
> excuse, in a pretext.  Like for an example, an empty space covered by
> cobwebs.  Here available empty space neither upAdAna nor nimitta for
> cobwebs.  Likewise lack of svarUpa jnAna gives room for misconception but
> this lack of knowledge neither material nor efficient cause for the
> vipareeta pratyaya.


Namaste Prabhuji
This idea of " jnAnAbhAva giving a 'pretext', opportunity or space for the
vipareeta grahaNa " is a more obvious mistake in SSSS interpretation of
bhAShya.

There is no dRShTAnta where a mere absence is sufficient to explain much
less cause anything.

In the cobwebs example, there is another existent entity, the spider which
causes the cobwebs, with space being an avAntara kAraNam.

There is no dRShTAnta anywhere, where abhAva alone is enough to explain the
arising of something else.

In this regard the pUrva mImasaka position on "akaraNe pratyavAyah" has
been declared wrong by Sri Shankara if it is assumed to say that
"non-performance of nitya karmas" causes pratyavAya . A mere abhAva cannot
account for an existent something. Not doing nitya karma leads to a doSha
of pratyavAya. But it's really the past wrong pApa which are fructifying
without obstruction.

 Not seeing the red traffic light leads to an accident. But it's the other
incoming car that causes the accident.

The cobwebs example (like the eskimo example) is also, sadly, incorrect.


Om
Raghav



Enough said on this.


> And hence, all the rest of your write-up is in contradiction to the
> BhAshya and is accordingly summarily rejected.
>
>
> Ø     Its all depend on how judiciously you pick these quotes, is it not??
> 😊
>
> If you wish point-wise rebuttal, please repudiate the argument adduced by
> BhAshyakAra precluding the possibility of abhAva as a cause.
>
>
> Ø     See above, I think I have already said the same thing in another
> thread as well.  How the pratiyOgi vidya that I am brahman which removes
> the avidyA.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>