[Advaita-l] BhAvarUpatva of vishesha-abhAva

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,

Yes. Everything other than Brahman being avidyAkArya, abhAva is
triguNAtmaka only. abhAva also has drshyatva hetu, being the object of
anupalabdhi pramANa, and hence mithyA. That being the case, it is
triguNAtmaka

Some references:

1) Brihadaranyaka upaniShad bhashya1.2.1 (ghaTa bhAShya) - abhAva is
bhAvAtmaka, hence triguNAtmaka - अपि च, चतुर्विधानामभावानाम् ,
घटस्येतरेतराभावो घटादन्यो दृष्टः — यथा घटाभावः पटादिरेव, न घटस्वरूपमेव । न
च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? भावरूप एव । एवं घटस्य
प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात् , घटेन
व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम् ।

2) Advaita Siddhi, avidyAlakshaNopapattih - abhAva is jnAnanivartya, hence
triguNAtmaka
आत्मत्वस्यैवोपाधित्वात्।
न चात्यन्ताभावान्योन्याभावयोः
साध्याव्याप्तिः।अधिकरणातिरिक्तस्यानिवर्त्यस्यात्यन्ताभावादेरनभ्युपगमात्।
Same upAdhi for the pUrvapakshi's anumAna as the other email. The opponent
says that there is sAdhya avyApti for Atmatvam in the case of
atyantAnyonyAbhAva. Meaning atyantAbhAva and anyonyAbhAva have the sAdhya
of anivartyatva (according to him), but don't have the supposed upAdhi of
Atmatvam.

The siddhikAra says we do not accept anivartyatvam for atyantAbhAva unless
you take atyantAbhAva being adhikaraNAtmaka, which in avidyA's case means
Brahman, which is anivartya.

Thus atyantAbhAva and anyonyAbhAva have jnAna nivartyatvam. If they do,
they are mithyA (3rd definition of mithyA) and are triguNAtmaka.

3) Advaita siddhi dvitIya mithyAtva lakshaNam - niShedha has drShyatva as
niShedhyatAvacChedakam and hence undergoes niShedha itself, ergo abhAva is
mithyA.

एवञ्च प्रकृते अपि निषेधबाधकेन प्रतियोगिन: प्रपञ्चस्य निषेधस्य च बाधनात् न
निषेधस्य  बाध्यत्वे अपि प्रपञ्चस्य तात्त्विकत्वम् । उभयोरपि
निषेध्यतावच्छेदकस्य दृश्यत्वादेस्तुल्यत्वात्

4) Vedanta Paribhasha - anupalabdhi pariccheda - vyAvahArika abhAva has
mAyA as upAdAnam

नह्युपादानोपादेययोरत्यन्तसाजात्यम् तन्तुपटयोरपि तन्तुत्वपटत्वादिना
वैजात्यात् यत्किञ्चित्साजात्यस्य मायया अनिर्वचनीयघटाभावस्य च
मिथ्यात्वधर्मस्य विद्यमानत्वात् ।
अन्यथा व्यावहारिकं घटाभावं प्रति कथं मायोपादानमिति कुतो नाशङ्केथाः ।

In response to the charge that an illusion of absence (abhAva bhrama,
prAtibhAsika abhAva) cannot be a product of mAyA because mAyA being
bhAvarUpa, cannot be the material cause of an illusory  absence, for if it
did, the absence would also be bhAvArUpa, the paribhAShAkAra asks, why
didn't you ask the same question for vyAvahArika abhAva - implying even a
vyAvahArika abhAva is mAyAkArya only, and hence triguNAtmaka.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 5:00 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Hari Om,
>
> Are vishesha-abhAva such as pot-abhAva, cloth-abhAva etc, which are known
> by anupalabdhi pramANa, triguNAtmaka?
>
> Kindly share references to texts also, if any.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>