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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji

Thank you for your lucid post dusting away the intellectual cobwebs of
vague thinking and outlining the the nature of asAdhAraNa kAraNa-s etc and
how a pratibandhaka is defined.


In the example of space providing a context for cobwebs to arise, I note
the following

stuff-abhAva (a.k.a. space) = sAdhAraNa kAraNa
stuff-bhAva = pratibandhaka
spider = asAdhAraNa kAraNa (a.k.a puShkala kAraNa?)
Cobwebs = kArya

stuff-abhAva causes cobwebs

"stuff" satisfies the pratibandhaka definition viz.,

 "even with the asAdhAraNa kAraNa (puShkala) of spider being present, the
kArya or effect called cobwebs are still not produced because the
pratibandhaka called stuff is (fully) present leaving no space in the
room."

If the above is correct, then I observe that there is  the dissimilarity in
the case of adhyAsa (kArya)

svarUpa-jnAna-abhAva = sAdhAraNa kAraNa
svarUpa-jnAnam = pratibandhaka
adhyAsa = kArya

'svarUpa-jnAna-abhAva "causes" adhyAsa' is the claim.

But puShkala kAraNa = ??? (Not available)
(svarUpa-jnAna-abhAva has already been allotted the sAdhAraNa kAraNa slot,
so it cannot be both sAdhAraNa and asAdhAraNa kAraNa. If it is indeed
occupying both slots,  we just call it asAdhAraNa kAraNa, which would
contradict the basic SSS position that it's not nimitta or upAdAna.)

Long and short of it is that - to say that something is causing ie., by
merely providing a context or pretext (aka sAdhAraNa kAraNam) for a given
kArya, there has to necessarily be some other puShkala kAraNa. Otherwise,
the idea of a pratibandhaka whose abhAva is asAdhAraNa kAraNa for a kArya
to occur, is meaningless. I understand the SSS position is that the
asAdhAraNa kAraNa of svarUpa-jnAna-abhAva is being claimed to be both
necessary but also *sufficient* to cause adhyAsa.

If asAdhAraNa kAraNa alone is sufficient for a kArya to come into being
even without a puShkala kAraNa, then even a tiger can manifest in the given
space/context instead of cobwebs.  The kArya-kAraNa niyati is itself
destroyed.

Om
Raghav



On Thu, 30 Jan, 2025, 1:43 pm Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Hare Krishna Bhaskar prabhu ji,
>
>  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 😊
> >
>
> So, do you hold that bhAshya presents avidyA as cause of adhyAsa for those
> who want to see in the prism of kArya-kAraNa-vAda?
>
> What is your position?
>
> (i) avidyA is identical to adhyAsa
> (ii) avidyA is cause of adhyAsa.
> (iii) In paramArtha (i), but in vyavAhara (ii)?
>
> Please clarify your position.
>
> 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??
> >
>
> I will come to my explanation a little later. Let us first examine your
> claim of abhAva as a cause of adhyAsa.
>
> 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.
> >
>
> Please check the adhikaraNa and get back. Because BhAshya clearly negates
> any possibility of abhAva being stated as a cause of anything.
>
> 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.
> >
>
> Make a study and come back. I have merely reproduced bhAshya which presents
> anumAna - both in BSB 2.2.26 and also in ghatA-bhAshya. You know that
> anumAna is a pramANa. You need to repudiate it if you want to hold a
> contrary view. You cannot wish away fire-smoke-anumAna by citing context.
> You need to repudiate the anumAna.
>
> And that vishesha-abhAva is bhAvarUpa is proven by BhAshyakAra in
> ghatA-bhAshya through irrefutable anumAna. I don't know how you refuse to
> accept that even without refuting the anumAna.
>
> By the way you advocate the jagat bhrAnti vAda, how do you reconcile your
> > theory with that of above quote??
> >
>
> Because for me, the cause of bhrAnti (adhyAsa) is abhAva-vilakshaNa ajnAna.
> So, no contradiction with bhAshya. Simple.
>
> 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.  Enough said on this.
> >
>
> Let us revise some basic concepts. For any kArya, there are some
> asAdhAraNa-kAraNa and several (in fact nine) sAdhAraNa-kAraNa. Space and
> time are two such sAdhAraNa-kAraNa (except of course in case of space and
> time themselves). So, in case of cobweb example, space is that
> sAdhAraNa-kAraNa. As you might agree, space is not abhAva. So, that does
> not really help.
>
> But I understand what you actually have in mind. By space, you basically
> mean to say that there is absence of pratibandhaka. So, let us understand
> the concept of pratibandhaka first:
>
> It means something which negates the production of effect despite cause
> being present. So, cause is present and yet effect is not being produced --
> so, we propound the concept of pratibandhaka. So, lamp is there, oil is
> there, match-box is there, activity of lighting the lamp is there --- but,
> wonder of wonders, lamp-light is not there! Why!!! There is a
> pratibandhaka. There is wind.
>
> So, wind-abhAva i.e. pratibandhaka-abhAva becomes a cause for effect. And
> we do say - since there is no wind, the lamp is lit. And wind-abhAva is
> neither material nor efficient cause of lamp-light.
>
> So, pratibandhaka is defined as पुष्कलकारणे हि सति कार्योत्पादविरोधि
> प्रतिबन्धकम्।
>
> Similarly, spider is there, fully zealous and healthy to produce cobwebs
> and yet.. there are no cobwebs. Why? Because the room is jam-packed with
> stuff. There is pratibandhaka.
>
> Thus, what you really meant by postulating space as the cause of cobwebs is
> actually pratibandhaka-abhAva.
>
> You are postulating ajnAna as jnAna-abhAva to be the cause of adhyAsa in
> the sense of pratibandhaka-abhAva by relying on the analogy of cobwebs.
> Since there is swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva i.e. since there is
> pratibandhaka-abhAva, there is adhyAsa in the form of viparIta-pratyaya
> which is "actually existent and experiencing one".
>
> Let us see how tenable it is to extend the concept of pratibandhaka to
> ajnAna.
>
> Your claim basically is; swarUpa-jnAna is pratibandhaka for adhyAsa. Since
> there is pratibandhaka-abhAva when there is swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva, adhyAsa
> manifests. And hence, as in case of cobwebs, we can say -
> swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva leads to adhyAsa.
>
> *This argument is incorrect on account of non-satisfaction of definition of
> pratibandhaka*.
>
> As we saw, pratibandhaka is defined as पुष्कलकारणे हि सति कार्योत्पादविरोधि
> प्रतिबन्धकम्। *Now there is no situation wherein pushkala-kAraNa of adhyAsa
> is present alongwith swarUpa-jnAna being present leading to non-production
> of adhyAsa. Therefore, swarUpa-jnAna cannot be postulated as
> pratibandhaka.*
>
> And therefore, it cannot be stated that ajnAna, in the sense of
> swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva, is the cause of adhyAsa just as space (stuff-abhAva)
> is stated to be the cause of cobweb. Basically, just as stuff is
> pratibandhaka of cobweb, similarly swarUpa-jnAna cannot be said to be the
> pratibandhaka of adhyAsa.
>
> I would like to add that pratibandhaka-abhAva is also a sAdhAraNa-kAraNa
> accepted for all effects. However, being vishesha-abhAva, it is accepted as
> bhAvarUpa in siddhAnta.
>
> The above discussion is explained succinctly in VivaraNa as under:
>
> ननु कथं मिथ्याज्ञानं अध्यासस्य उपादानम् तस्मिन् सति अध्यासस्य उदयात् असति च
> अनुदयात् इति ब्रूमः।। *ननु अध्यासस्य प्रतिबन्धकं तत्त्वज्ञानं तदभावश्च
> अज्ञानं इति प्रतिबन्धकाभावविषयतया अज्ञानस्य अध्यासेन अन्वयव्यतिरेकौ
> अन्यथासिद्धौ*,* नैतत् सारम्;पुष्कलकारणे हि सति कार्योत्पादविरोधि
> प्रतिबन्धकम्। न च अध्यासपुष्कलकारणे सति तत्त्वज्ञानोदयः।
> तस्मान्नाज्ञानादय-व्यतिरेकौ  प्रतिबन्धकाभावविषयौ। *तथापि विरोधिसंसर्गाभाव
> इति चेत्, न;कार्यस्य कारणापेक्षा हि प्रथममुत्पद्यते, न
> विरोधिसंसर्गाभावापेक्षा। तस्मात् प्रथमापेक्षितकारणक्लृत्पिमेव
> अन्वयव्यतिरेकौ न्यायसहितौ कुर्वाते।
>
> The sum and substance of the above-discussion is as under:
>
> 1. abhAva cannot be a cause of any effect as proved by BhAshyakAra in BSB
> 2.2.26 - निर्विशेषस्य त्वभावस्य कारणत्वाभ्युपगमे
> शशविषाणादिभ्योऽप्यङ्कुरादयो जायेरन्; न चैवं दृश्यते। नाप्यभावः
> कस्यचिदुत्पत्तिहेतुः स्यात् , अभावत्वादेव, शशविषाणादिवत् ।
>
> 2. pratibandhaka-abhAva, accepted as a sAdhAraNa-kAraNa in NyAya for all
> effects, is bhAvarUpa as per anumAna of ghaTa-bhAshya - एवं घटस्य
> प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात् , घटेन
> व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम् ।
>
> 3. An anumAna cannot be wished away by hiding behind context. It is like
> smoke-fire anumAna. It works everywhere.
>
> 4. pratibandhaka-abhAva works in case of spider-cobweb but does not work in
> case of swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva because the definition of pratibandhaka is not
> satisfied. There is no situation wherein swarUpa-jnAna is present along
> with cause-of-adhyAsa. So, swarUpa-jnAna-abhAva cannot be stated as
> pratibandhaka-abhAva.
>
> Thus, it is clear that ajnAna cannot be held as abhAva in accordance with
> bhAshya and logic.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.3+
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>