[Advaita-l] [advaitin] A smart inference by Shankara

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,

The explanation makes sense to me.

I haven't followed the discussion, so I don't know if Chandramouliji is
restricting the meaning of bhAvatva to Brahman alone or not.

I guess the implication of this is that avidyAkArya is anirvachanIya
because it is sadasatvilakshaNa, while continuing to be "bhAva". avidyA is
anirvachanIya while it is bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa!

This is the main charge that SSS and his followers and dvaitins level
against vyAkhyAnakAras and advaita, respectively - their argument is that
if something is abhAva-vilakshaNa, it must be contradictory to advaita.

To dvaitins, the answer is that despite the world being bhAva, it is still
only sadasatvilakshaNa.

When that is the case, the answer to SSS is even more straight forward -
avidyA is not even bhAva in our construct, so for it to contradict
sat-advaita is a complete impossibility!

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Sun, 18 Aug 2024, 00:07 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Chandramouli ji and other learned members.
>
> I would like to present the argument in simpler language for benefit of
> everyone including myself. I would request other learned members to kindly
> go through the write-up and please comment whether what is explained makes
> sense.
>
> avidyA is defined as jnAna-nivartyA, anAdi and bhAvarUpa. अनादि भावरूपं
> यद्विज्ञानेन विलीयते। तदज्ञानमिति प्राज्ञा लक्षणं संप्रचक्षते।।
>
> BhAvarUpa is explained as both bhAva-vilakshaNa and abhAva-vilakshaNa. न च
> – अभावविलक्षणाविद्यादौ #भावविलक्षणत्वमसम्भवि, परस्परविरोधादिति – वाच्यम् ;
> #भावत्वाभावत्वयोर्बाधकसत्त्वेन #तृतीयप्रकारत्वसिद्धौ
> परस्परविरहव्यापकत्वरूपविरोधासिद्धेः, #परस्परविरहव्याप्यत्वरूपस्तु विरोधो
> नैकविरहेणापरमाक्षिपति ।
>
> The bone of contention is regarding the ambit of word "bhAva" in
> bhAva-vilakshaNa as a constituent of bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa.
>
> While Chandramouli ji holds that "bhAva" in bhAva-vilakshaNa refers only
> to Brahman, I hold it to also include prAtibhAsika-avidyA-kArya such as
> shuktirUpya and vyAvhArika-avidyA-kArya such as ghaTa.
>
> The discussion in Advaita siddhi makes it amply clear that "bhAva" in
> bhAva-vilakshaNa include ghaTa and shuktirUpya and does not merely refer to
> Brahman.
>
> The issue is extremely important and requires full attention for clear
> understanding.
>
>
> *How exactly does "bhAva" in bhAva-vilakshaNa refer to ghaTa? *
>
> The siddhAntI says that there are bAdhaka for accepting bhAvatva of avidyA
> as well as for accepting abhAvatva of avidyA. Due to the presence of
> bAdhaka, one is constrained to accept that avidyA is both bhAva-vilakshaNa
> as well as abhAva-vilakshaNa. In this context, siddhAntI presents an anumAna
>
> विनाशी भावः सादि:, घटवत् .
>
> SiddhAntI says that it is a rule that whichever entity is both vinAshI and
> bhAva, then it has to be sAdi. He gives an example of घट , which has both
> vinAshitva and bhAvatva resulting into sAditva.
>
> Now, avidyA is accepted as vinAshI and anAdi. If avidyA were to be bhAva,
> then by this anumAna, it would turn to be sAdi. That will be contradictory
> to definition.
>
> Hence, avidyA cannot be accepted as bhAva.
>
> Now, the anumAna took ghaTa as drishTAnta and accepted bhAvatva to be
> present therein. Based on this, the bhAvatva of avidyA was rejected.
>
> It is thus amply clear that bhAva in bhAva-vilakshaNa accepts ghaTa as an
> example of bhAva, which is rejected for avidyA being bhAva-vilakshaNa.
>
> Hence, it is proved that vyAvhArika-avidyA-kArya such as pot is included
> in the ambit of word "bhAva".
>
> Please refer to the first para in page 1097:
> https://archive.org/details/xlhS_advaita-siddhi-sanskrit-with-commentary-bala-bodhini-by-yogendra-natha-sharma-ed/page/n451/mode/2up
>
>
> *How exactly does "bhAva" in bhAva-vilakshaNa refer to shuktirUpya?*
>
> The opponent gives an anumAna to prove that avidyA cannot be anAdi. It
> says, whatever is jnAna-nivartya and abhAva-vilakshaNa is necessarily sAdi.
> For example, shuktirUpya, which is negated by knowledge and is
> abhAva-vilakshaNa. Similarly, since avidyA is accepted to be
> abhAva-vilakshaNa as well as jnAna-nivartyA, it must be sAdi. Hence, the
> lakshaNa which said that avidyA is anAdi is asambhava.
>
> SiddhAntI replies that the anumAna presented is sOpAdhika anumAna. Here
> upaadhi means something which is vyApaka of sAdhya but non-vyApaka of
> sAdhana. He goes on to state that bhAvatva is the upAdhi.
>
> He says that since bhAvatva is present in drishTanta i.e. shuktirUpya, but
> is absent in paksha i.e. avidyA, this anumAna is faulty anumAna.
>
> This statement by siddhAnti proves that shuktirUpya is accepted as bhAva.
> (दृष्टान्ते शुक्तिरजते भावत्वं वर्तते। पक्षीकृतायामविद्यायां भावत्वं
> नास्ति।)
>
> Please refer to page 1095:
> https://archive.org/details/xlhS_advaita-siddhi-sanskrit-with-commentary-bala-bodhini-by-yogendra-natha-sharma-ed/page/n449/mode/2up
>
>
> Thus, to the best of my ability, I have demonstrated that the word "bhAva"
> in bhAva-vilakshaNa covers both vyAvahArika and prAtibhAsika avidyA-kArya.
>
> This seems so obvious to me. I would request other members to comment
> whether they see any problem in this?
>
> If someone asks -- how can such an avidyA - which is both bhAva-vilakshaNa
> and abhAva-vilakshaNa - be upAdAna of bhAva such as ghaTa and shuktirUpya
> and upAdAna of abhAva such as pot-abhava.
>
> Then the answer is:
>
> Complete sAjAtya in upAdAna and upAdeya is not required. Some sAjAtya is
> required.
>
> So, bhAva such as ghaTa and shuktirUpya as well as avidyA have
> abhAva-vilakshaNatA in common.
>
> abhAva such as pot-abhava and avidyA have bhAva-vilakshaNatA in common.
>
> So, there is no incongruity in avidyA being the upAdAna of both
> bhAva-avidyA-kArya and abhAva-avidyA-kArya despite itself being both
> bhAva-vilakshaNA and abhAva-vilakshaNA.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBARy9Ja8P0dnWTo0WgJE6hhnt7VtHFHmmrpHp6-3pyo-Q%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBARy9Ja8P0dnWTo0WgJE6hhnt7VtHFHmmrpHp6-3pyo-Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>