[Advaita-l] Shankara accepts certain things as BhAvarUpa apart from Brahman

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Subbu ji

On Wed, 4 Sept, 2024, 1:57 pm V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> In the Shankara Prasthana traya bhashya we come across Shankara explicitly
> naming certain entities as *bhAvarUpa*.  These entities are not Brahman.
> Here are some examples:
>
> In the introduction to the Bh.Gita 3rd Chapter:
>
> न तावत् नित्यानां कर्मणामभावादेव भावरूपस्य प्रत्यवायस्य उत्पत्तिः कल्पयितुं
> शक्या, ‘कथमसतः सज्जायेत’ (छा. उ. ६ । २ । २)
> <
> https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Chandogya/devanagari?page=6&id=Ch_C06_S02_V02&hl=%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%A5%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%83%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A4
> >
> इति
> असतः सज्जन्मासम्भवश्रुतेः
>
> Here, the pratyavAya, sin, accruing from non-performance of nitya/vihita
> karma, ordained duties, is held to be bhAvarUpa by Shankara. Actually
> Shankara is denying the idea that non-performance, an abhAva, cannot give
> rise to a sin that is bhAvarupa.  What is important is that the concept of
> sin is bhAvarUpa for Shankara. Sin is not a tangible object. It is not
> Brahman. Yet Shankara holds it to be bhAvarUpa. Any punya or papa is
> bhAvarUpa for Shankara. For such a one alone gives rise to the effect of
> sukha and duhkha.
>
> बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम्प्रथमोऽध्यायःद्वितीयं ब्राह्मणम्मन्त्र १ - भाष्यम्
> (pointed by Sudhanshu Shekhar)
>
> ………। न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? भावरूप एव । एवं घटस्य
> प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात् , घटेन……
>
>
> ऐतरेयोपनिषद्भाष्यम्प्रथमः अध्यायःद्वितीयः खण्डःमन्त्र ५ - भाष्यम्  Here
> Hunger and Thirst are bhAvarUpa.
>
> ………। स ईश्वर एवमुक्तः ते अशनायापिपासे अब्रवीत् । न हि
> युवयोर्भावरूपत्वाच्चेतनावद्वस्त्वनाश्रित्य
> अन्नात्तृत्वं सम्भवति । तस्मात् एतास्वेव अग्न्याद्यासु वां युवां देवतासु………
>
> Hunger and thirst are also not tangible effects but experienced no doubt.
> For that reason alone they are bhAvarUpa. They are not Brahman.
>
> *Vartika: Sureshwaracharya;*
>
>
> बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यवार्तिकम्
>
> ……… नाभावयोर्मिथो योगोऽवस्तुत्वाभेदतस्तयोः ।। अभावभावयोस्तद्वद्भावरूपेषु का
> भिदा ।। ९२४ ।। ………
>
> There is no difference between two bhAvarUpa objects.  They belong to the
> category of existing entities.
>
> However, in all the above cases it must be noted that this 'existence' is
> not something independent of Brahman the Existence.  These are created and
> then get an existence. Just like a pot that enjoys existence after creation
> and not before creation and after disappearance/destruction. Brahman
> Existence is not thus conditional.  It is absolute.
>
>
> So, we have Shankara accepting everything that is non-Brahman to be
> bhAvarUpa.  One can easily see that this does not fault Shankara to be
> committing Advaita Haani 😀 The criterion for Shankara is: If it can create
> an effect, is experienced, then it is bhAvarUpa.
>
> warm regards
>
> subbu
> _______________________________________________
> 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


Thank you for drawing attention to the fact that pApa etc being bhAvarUpa.
Sometimes I notice this is either missed or glossed over viz., do
"concepts" have bhAvarUpatvaM or not.

If I were to visualise, imagine a vast ocean, is it bhAva-rUpa? If so, what
is it's upAdAna-kAraNam.
(My understanding is that yes indeed it is bhAva-rUpa and sAxI bhAsya. And
chaitanyaM delimited by that imagined object is experienced.
antaHkaraNa-vRttyavacchinna-caitanyaM is present)

Sometimes it's assumed that only an external object (indriya-pratyaxa) has
an upAdAna kAraNam.

Advaita siddhAnta asserts that even mental concepts, emotions like anger
etc have a material cause.

Om
Raghav




>