[Advaita-l] Shankara accepts BhAvarUpa ajnana BSB 4.1.15

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste.

//Is a Jnani / mukta admitted in DSV? If yes, then prarabdha has to be
admitted. If no, then it will be within the 'na nirodho...' concept.//

If we check eka-jIva-vAda-vichAra in Advaita Siddhi, which is same as
drishTi-srishti-vAda (EJV and DSV are synonyms as per SiddhAnta Bindu),
jnAnIs are not admitted. All references thereto are arthavAda.

However, that does not automatically imply na nirodho, na utpatti because
one jIva is admitted. His bondage and mukti is admitted. However,
jIvanmukti is not admitted. In ajAti, there is no creation. In DSV, there
is creation.

I was looking for the citation that rUpa in bhAvarUpa is similar to rUpamin
smriti-rUpa.


//In the term 'bhAvarUpa' too, the rUpa part is to show that it is 'like'
an existent and not really existent.//

I haven't really seen anything like this in my study. BhAvarUpa is just to
indicate its abhAva-vilakshaNa-tA and not to posit similarity with bhAva.
That is however a non-issue as long as its utter non-existence is admitted.
Basically, my point is, ontologically, bhAvarUpa is same as tuchcha.


//In the case of a pot that exists, it has come into existence having been
produced.Or in terms of Vedanta, the existence of clay, the cause, inheres
in the effect, the pot. Such is not the case with the aaropita sarpa; it
appears to exist during the bhrama. Hence bhAva'rUpa'.//

Such differentiation again is made in SDV only. In DSV, which is
mukhya-VedAnta-siddhAnta, everything is prAtibhAsika only. Whether it is
clay-pot or rajju-sarpa.


On Wed, 30 Aug 2023, 15:46 V Subrahmanian, <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste
>
> Is a Jnani / mukta admitted in DSV? If yes, then prarabdha has to be
> admitted. If no, then it will be within the 'na nirodho...' concept.
>
> You asked:
>
> Any citation for stating that usage of word rUpa in bhAvarUpa is like
> smriti-rUpa? ChitsukhI states bhAvarUpa word itself is used to signify mere
> abhAva-vilakshaNa-tA. It says --
> भाव-अभाव-विलक्षणस्य-अज्ञानस्य-अभावविलक्षणत्वमात्रेण भावत्व-उपचारात्।
>
> My response: the upachArAt in the above is itself conveying the meaning of
> 'rUpa' in the term bhAvarUpa. It is only aupachArika bhAvatva and not
> mukhya bhAvatva.
> In the Ratnaprabha commentary for the word 'smRtirUpa' of the adhyasa
> bhashya this is said:
>
> स्मृतिरूप इति ।
>
> स्मर्यते इति स्मृतिः सत्यरजतादिः *तस्य रूपमिव रूपमस्येति स्मृतिरूपः ।
> स्मर्यमाणसदृश इत्यर्थः । *
>
>
> The Bhamati says:
>
> स्मृतिरूप इति ।
>
> *स्मृते रूपमिव रूपमस्येति स्मृतिरूपः* ।
>
>
> In the term 'bhAvarUpa' too, the rUpa part is to show that it is 'like' an
> existent and not really existent.  In the case of a pot that exists, it has
> come into existence having been produced.Or in terms of Vedanta, the
> existence of clay, the cause, inheres in the effect, the pot. Such is not
> the case with the aaropita sarpa; it appears to exist during the bhrama.
> Hence bhAva'rUpa'.
>
>
> regards
>
> subbu
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 2:41 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <
> sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> //In DSV there is no bandha too; the 'na nirodho na chotpattih..' is what
>>> is applicable there. Only in that view can prarabdha not exist since the
>>> world/jiva/karma/bandha/ itself did not exist in the first place.  Hence no
>>> mukta and moksha too.//
>>>
>>
>> DSV does have concepts of bandha and moksha as bhAvarUpA avidyA is
>> admitted. Its removal amounts to Moksha. The verse 'na nirodho na cha
>> utpatti' applies to ajAtivAda and not to DSV which does talk of srishTi. It
>> states drishTi i.e. vritti-upahita-chaitanya to be srishTi. ajAti admits no
>> srishTi, no bandha, no moksha, no drishTi, no whatever.
>>
>> ajAti is different from DSV. sAra-sangraha-TIkA on 2.83
>> Samkshepa-ShArIraka may be perused.
>>
>>>
>> //The 'rUpa' part of bhAvarUpa, is similar to the rUpa in 'smritirUpaH
>>>> paratra purvadrishTa avabhAsaH' of the adhyAsa bhaShya.  There the 'rUpa'
>>>> part means 'akin to a smriti (not smriti itself).  Here, it is as though
>>>> existent and not actually existent. Only then it can be kAryakshama, be
>>>> capable of producing effects.//
>>>>
>>>
>> Any citation for stating that usage of word rUpa in bhAvarUpa is like
>> smriti-rUpa? ChitsukhI states bhAvarUpa word itself is used to signify mere
>> abhAva-vilakshaNa-tA. It says --
>> भाव-अभाव-विलक्षणस्य-अज्ञानस्य-अभावविलक्षणत्वमात्रेण भावत्व-उपचारात्।
>>
>> //
>>
>>> traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitvam implies utter non-existence of ajnAna.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, this is exactly the purport of 'na nirodho na chotpatttih...'//
>>>
>>
>> traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitvam is the definition of mithyA which is
>> same as bhAvarUpa. This is admitted in both SDV and DSV because bhAvarUpA
>> mithyA avidyA is needed to explain srishTi, be it through DSV or through
>> SDV.
>>
>> In ajAti, there is no srishTi. There is hence no need of any mithyA
>> bhAvarUpA avidyA either.
>>
>> The definition ensures that there is no loss of Advaita even in SDV and
>> DSV because bhAvarUpa is ontologically same as horns of hare. But it does
>> not appear correct to equate it to 'na nirodho na cha utpatti' which is
>> ajAti.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>>