[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Kilogram concluded

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Reg  // To this, Shankaracharya establishes the causal state of the world
prior to its creation by stating that prAgabhAva , prior absence too
is *of* the
nature of some existence (not the paramArtha sat of Brahman, not the
vyAkRta form of existence that is present post its creation, but some
subtle form of existence //,

My understanding is slightly different. The Bhashya follows the same
approach as stated in BSB BSB 2-2-11  // *इममभ्युपगमं   *तदीययैव प्रक्रियया
व्यभिचारयति //

// By following this line of argument of the atomists (VaisheshikAs)
themselves, the aphorist shows that such a postulate is not invariably true
//.

Bhashya follows the line of argument of the naiyyAyika himself and refutes
his stand. Advaita SiddhAnta does not admit of some existence to prAgabhAva.

This is in accordance with the talk on this part of the Bhashya by Sri MDS.

As per Advaita SiddhAnta, abhAva is vikalpa only. A few citations below.

TUB , Sambandha Bhashya // प्रध्वंसाभावोऽप्यारभ्यत इति न सम्भवति अभावस्य
विशेषाभावाद्विकल्पमात्रमेतत् । भावप्रतियोगी ह्यभावः ।//

BUB 2-2-26  //  ‘नासतोऽदृष्टत्वात्’ इति । नाभावाद्भाव उत्पद्यते । //

Regards

On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 5:36 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Dennis ji,
>
> I am afraid in the section of the bhAShya that is under discussion, the
> opponent is not the kshaNikavijnAnavAdin (the momentary consciousness
> school), but the naiyyAyika, the logician.
>
> If you recall, the raison d'etre of the entire ghaTabhAShya is the
> establishment of satkAryavAda - to justify the upaniShadic statement नैवेह
> किञ्चनाग्र आसीन्मृत्युनैवेदमावृतमासीत् - "In the beginning there was
> nothing whatsoever here, only death existed, enveloping all this".
>
> The logician's contention is that the world (the effect) did not exist
> prior to its creation - i.e. his position is one of asatkAryavAda. In his
> view, there was the world's prior absence, prAgabhAva then - and not the
> world itself in a subtle state, as argued by the satkAryavAdin.
>
> To this, Shankaracharya establishes the causal state of the world prior to
> its creation by stating that prAgabhAva , prior absence too is not the
> nature of some existence (not the paramArtha sat of Brahman, not the
> vyAkRta form of existence that is present post its creation, but some
> subtle form of existence. To do this, he uses the principle of induction,
> thus -
>
> 1) anyonyAbhAva, is one of the four types of absence admitted by the
> naiyyAyika.
> 2) anyonyAbhAva is of the nature of some existence - the pot which is
> different to the cloth, is an existent entity different to it.
> 3) therefore, prAgabhAva and the two other forms of absence, are also of
> the nature of some existence, different in some form to the entity - like
> in the case of anyonyAbhAva.
> 4) that being the case, the world too had some existence prior to its
> creation.
>
> Yes, there is a discussion refuting the kshaNikavijnAnavAdin, which
> commences with the words सादृश्यादन्वयदर्शनम् , न कारणानुवृत्तेरिति चेत्
> and goes on until अतः सिद्धः प्राक्कार्योत्पत्तेः कारणसद्भावः ॥ The object
> of discussion is the existence of the cause prior to the creation of the
> effect - which the shUnyavAdin (nihilist) and the kshaNikavijnAnavAdin
> (momentary consciousness school) reject. ie between the portions of the
> bhAShya quoted above, the topic is the existence of the kAraNa -
> satkAraNavAda - against opponents who hold the opposite view -
> asatkAraNavAda.
>
> Whereas the discussion that is the subject matter here is not one of the
> prior existence of the *cause* (which is denied by the vijnAnavAdin, but
> accepted by the naiyyAyika), but the prior existence of the* effect* -
> which is denied by the naiyyAyika. Therefore, what Shankaracharya chooses
> to do is use the naiyyAyika's own terms (prAgabhAva etc) and methodology
> (anumAna) against him to show that even he has to admit the error of his
> position.
>
> Perhaps we are complicating matters, but it is in trying to follow the
> flow of the bhAShya. You too will have to justify the reason why the
> bhAShya flows in the sequence of topics that it does. If not to us, at
> least to yourself.
>
> Kind regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Sept 2024, 16:05 , <dwaite at advaita.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> I have investigated and thought about this for another couple of days. I
>> will put together an essay covering my understanding of the entire topic
>> for the book I am currently writing; but I will post this to Advaita
>> Vision. The essay will probably be fairly long and in two or three parts
>> for the blog, so it will be several weeks before the complete material is
>> available – I will then post the link.
>>
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile, here is (what may well be) the essence of my conclusion:
>>
>>
>>
>> This section (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad Bhāṣya 1.2.1) from Śaṅkara is not
>> concerned with providing a roundabout argument for the positive existence
>> of ‘ignorance’, via the route of demonstrating that ‘darkness’ is a
>> positively existing thing. On the contrary, he is just using his
>> exceptional logical skills to demonstrate that the notion of ‘momentary
>> consciousness’ promulgated by the Yogācāra Buddhists is incoherent.
>>
>>
>>
>> If it makes sense to us to think about the existence of an actual thing
>> like a pot before it has been made or after it has been smashed, then there
>> must be a persistence of consciousness over time. The physical pot may well
>> exist only for a short time but the word ‘pot’ and our ‘fore-knowledge’ and
>> ‘after-knowledge’ of that particular pot are not restricted by the time
>> period. Therefore Kṣaṇika-vāda must be false.
>>
>>
>>
>> ‘Darkness’ and ‘ignorance’ do not enter the equation. As usual, it is the
>> post-Shankarans who complicate the issue!
>>
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>> --
>> 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/000f01dafdd8%2416329d30%244297d790%24%40advaita.org.uk
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/000f01dafdd8%2416329d30%244297d790%24%40advaita.org.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> 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/CAL34aE%3DB-%3DMdVVpb0XTpKWqFMz6LmviLSHPZ-BLdVrA0V-Qo%2BA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DB-%3DMdVVpb0XTpKWqFMz6LmviLSHPZ-BLdVrA0V-Qo%2BA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>