Is pot-abhAva bhAvarUpa

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om,

In advaita-siddhAnta, vishesha-abhAva such as pot-abhAva is held to be avidyA-kArya. 

Nirvishesha-abhAva such as horns of hare is, however, not considered as avidyA-kArya.

BhAshyakAra has clearly presented an invincible anumAna in ghaTa-bhAshya. 

अपि च, चतुर्विधानामभावानाम् , घटस्येतरेतराभावो घटादन्यो ष्टः — यथा घटाभावः पटादिरेव, न घटस्वरूपमेव । न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? भावरूप एव । एवं घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात् , घटेन व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम् ।

My question to the followers of SSSS ji:

Do you accept that pot-abhAva is bhAvarUpa?

If yes, then whether prakAsha-abhAva is bhAvarUpa?

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, asked and already answered, again and again, Please, let's move on. 🙏🙏🙏

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBC4QhG1FDv-eQ0Ger2d0Zy3r5TzNuEYHahRiB21q-JAw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

This is SSSSji on the Ghata bhasya passage: 

BB 23
api ca, caturvidhānāmabhāvānām , ghaṭasyetaretarābhāvo ghaṭādanyo ṣṭaḥ — yathā ghaṭābhāvaḥ paṭādireva, na ghaṭasvarūpameva । na ca ghaṭābhāvaḥ sanpaṭaḥ abhāvātmakaḥ ; kiṃ tarhi ? bhāvarūpa eva । evaṃ ghaṭasya prākpradhvaṃsātyantābhāvānāmapi ghaṭādanyatvaṃ syāt , ghaṭena vyapadiśyamānatvāt , ghaṭasyetaretarābhāvavat ; tathaiva bhāvātmakatābhāvānām । evaṃ ca sati, ghaṭasya prāgabhāva iti na ghaṭasvarūpameva prāgutpatternāsti । atha ghaṭasya prāgabhāva iti ghaṭasya yatsvarūpaṃ tadevocyeta, ghaṭasyeti vyapadeśānupapattiḥ । atha kalpayitvā vyapadiśyeta, śilāputrakasya śarīramiti yadvat ; tathāpi ghaṭasya prāgabhāva iti kalpitasyaivābhāvasya ghaṭena vyapadeśaḥ, na ghaṭasvarūpasyaiva । athārthāntaraṃ ghaṭādghaṭasyābhāva iti, uktottarametat ।
BB 23
BHĀṢYA - Moreover, among the four kinds of abhāva-s (Sw.M translated as negations), the jar’s itaretara-abhāva (mutual exclusion, or anyōnyabhāva) is seen to be other-than-the-jar. For example, a jar’s abhāva is a cloth (or another thing), but not the jar itself (svarūpa).
So, the cloth, an abhāva of the jar in this context, is not abhāva-rūpa (nonentity) but a positive entity (bhāva-rūpa [1]). Similarly, the (other abhāva-s) prāg, pradhvaṃsa, and atyanta abhāva-s (respectively, abhāva-s before birth/creation, after death/destruction, and complete, like hare’s horn) must also be other than the jar. Because (these three abhāva-s) we say are jar’s abhāva-s, using the same term (śabda) jar as we do when we say ‘jar’s itaretara-abhāva’. These abhāva-s are also positive entities (bhāva rūpa) just like itaretara-abhāva. This being so, prāg abhāva does not mean that the jar’s svarūpa is not there before its birth [2]. Moreover, if by saying prāg abhāva you are pointing jar’s svarūpa, then to say ‘there is (abhāva) of jar’ is incongruous.
If you use it merely as a fancy, as in the expression, "the body of the stone sculpture," then the phrase 'the prāg abhāva of a jar' would only mean that it is the imaginary abhāva that is mentioned in terms of the jar [3], and not the jar itself. If, on the other hand, you say that the abhāva of a jar is something other than it, we have already answered the point [4].
———-
SSSS Footnotes:
1. The mīmamsaka-s say, every entity is bhāva (positive) from its own svarūpa, and it’s in abhāva when viewed from another object. Following this school, the vyavahāra bheda of jars and clothes, of bhāva and abhāva is expounded here. Imagining bheda in abhāva is wrong, say Tai.U.Bh (9, introduction), BSBh 2.1.18 (449), BGBh 18.48 (546) - all these from pāramartha drsti. So, no contradiction here.
16
2. Here Tīka (Ānandagiri) says- ghata is anādi, ananta, advaya, and sarvātma. But this is not seen in the bhāsya.
3. In ‘abhāva of jar,’ if bheda is imagined, then abhāva will be imagined; then to say, jar is non-existent would be incongruous.
4. Because abhāva is bhāvātmaka, one cannot say svarūpa is non-existent. If it is said that the svarūpa of jar is non-existent before birth, then it is said so (to set up) the defect discussed next.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

asked and already answered, again and again, Please, let's move on. 🙏🙏🙏

No categorical answer has ever been provided to this simple question.

Let us stop here. No need to move on. It is a central concept.

Simple questions:

1. Is pot-abhAva bhAvarUpa?

2. Is pot-abhAva made of three guNAs namely sattva, rajas and tamas?

You take help from SSSS Ji's footnotes or from whatever source, but come up with precise answers. Don't copy-paste. Be clear.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Dear Sudhanshuji, 

Your various arguments of pot abhava - three gunas - abhava bhavarupa - pratiyogi are all based on the ontological considerations not epistemological. Avidya and adhyasa are epistemological errors not existential entities. The same logic simply does not apply.  

The snake illusion does not require the snake to exist; it arises from misperception, not from a positive ontological snake. Similarly, ignorance need not have a positive existence to explain the concealment of Brahman. 

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBAFjyOWfyahKHBo-MvJb9q8cDgANDD9zzsOQHGaX_c5LQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Let us not digress. Let us leave everything aside and consider only the following questions in light of anumAna presented by BhAshyakAra in ghatA-bhAshya. Leave discussion of avidyA-adhyAsa etc. 

Please try the following:

1. Is pot-abhAva bhAvarUpa?

2. Is pot-abhAva made of three guNAs namely sattva, rajas and tamas?

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

Your various arguments of pot abhava - three gunas - abhava bhavarupa - pratiyogi are all based on the ontological considerations not epistemological. Avidya and adhyasa are epistemological errors not existential entities. The same logic simply does not apply.  

 

 

praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Shortly, I was wondering how Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji holding POT in his hand and trying to prove bhAvarUpa mUlAvidyA 😊 If I remember correctly Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji, few years back, had written some post on ghata bhAshya, it is more of pre-existence of kArya in kAraNa and it is not about brahmAshrita mUlAvidyA and IMO, here bhAshyakAra has no intention of proving pre-existense of bhAvarUpa mUlAvidyA!!  I don’t know how our tArkika Sri SudhAnshu prabhuji is trying to prove apple holding orange in his hand!! 😊  Ghata bhAshya rather a good source to understand kArya ananyatva with kAraNa  and kArya (pot) ever existence with kAraNa (clay).  Simply it is all about mAya satkArya vAda, the existence of kArya in the kAraNa prior to its vyAkruta rUpa.   

 

More of this if time permits next week.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

BHASKAR YR

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Michael Chandra Cohen
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2024 9:17 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Cc: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Is pot-abhAva bhAvarUpa

 

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvGs%2B3VSA3SiO0qMUnNaWdx7gNZniYb%3DkPjVHOMH2xQ9Sg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Bhaskar ji.

Shortly, I was wondering how Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji holding POT in his hand and trying to prove bhAvarUpa mUlAvidyA 😊 If I remember correctly Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji, few years back, had written some post on ghata bhAshya, it is more of pre-existence of kArya in kAraNa and it is not about brahmAshrita mUlAvidyA and IMO, here bhAshyakAra has no intention of proving pre-existense of bhAvarUpa mUlAvidyA!!  I don’t know how our tArkika Sri SudhAnshu prabhuji is trying to prove apple holding orange in his hand!! 😊  Ghata bhAshya rather a good source to understand kArya ananyatva with kAraNa  and kArya (pot) ever existence with kAraNa (clay).  Simply it is all about mAya satkArya vAda, the existence of kArya in the kAraNa prior to its vyAkruta rUpa.   

Please be on the topic. The anumAna presented by BhAshykAra is simple and clear. न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? भावरूप एव । एवं घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात् , घटेन व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम. 

I will repeat the question:

1. Is pot-abhAva bhAvarUpa?

2. Is pot-abhAva made of three guNAs namely sattva, rajas and tamas?

Just simple, plain, clear questions. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Bhaskarji, 

Your response just quoted inspires clarity on this issue. Sudhanshuji may disagree but I believe we will always disagree. There needs to be a last word rule that ends a topic, it seems to me. 

Regards, michael

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBqocXsf_UTAJ2gwr%3DgoLd1PDfYm_OKj6o-VvbW6%2BuvTg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

There needs to be a last word rule that ends a topic, it seems to me. 

I am asking simple yes/no questions to have clarity and further discussion. And you are not answering. It shows lack of clarity of basic concepts.

1. Is pot-abhAva bhAvarUpa?

2. Is pot-abhAva made of three guNAs namely sattva, rajas and tamas?

Regards 

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji,  

I have answered several times in different ways but none of my responses appeals to you and I don't want to get pulled into another back and forth discussion.

When I read passages such as Karika 2.17,  just posted online here, I cannot imagine that Bhasya can be interpreted such to justify a bhavarupa avidya. Sankara is quite clear here. 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Dear sir,

I have answered several times in different ways but none of my responses appeals to you and I don't want to get pulled into another back and forth discussion.

Why are you answering it in "different ways", when the question is yes/no? Simple thing - again - is pot-abhAva bhAvarUpa? Is pot-abhAva composed of three guNAs?

Regards.

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji

 Since no meaningful reply came up, I shall take the liberty of some friendly "banter" as they say in cricket.

Our friendly neighborhood abhAva-vAdins probably realise that SSS ji has definitely and clearly rejected bhAShyakAra's ghaTa bhAShya.  They should be bold and form a 20th century prakriyA -  their "coming out" moment is awaited,  to reject the clear logic of bhAShyakAra that pot-abhAva is also bhAvarUpa. न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? भावरूप एव । 

By not answering your simple question - "do you accept the logic given in bhAShya" - they seek to "contextualise" the anumAna of bhAShyakAra viz., they are saying ऊपर ऊपर से, "don't take such nyAyas in bhAShya literally and seriously. C'mon!!  There is a higher "intention" and "purpose" behind such logic offered in bhAShya to counter the Buddhists etc and establishing kArya-kAraNa-ananyatvaM. So we should gloss over all such inconvenient bhAShya logic and stay with "bhAShyAxara bhAva" without getting toooo logical about everything. After all, which reasonable modern 21st century educated intelligent smart clever scientific person following "common sense" would accept the bhAShya anumAna that  "ghaTAbhAva" is also "bhAvarUpa" even if it is clearly logically asserted by bhAShyakAra." 

So, Sudhanshu ji, you might get only hit and run tactics as response - "let's move on" like the nomads and slash-and-burn shifting agriculturalists,  to some other tangential passage from bhAShya.

 Just when the SSS ji followers thought they had wriggled out of the Eskimo-predicament, now there is a नई मुसीबत् viz., they are caught in the Pot-predicament (ie SSS ji and followers are rejecting brihadAraNyaka ghaTa bhAShya and not ready to go by its logic, except where it suits their pre-conceived conclusion about the intention and purpose of bhAShyakAra which only they are privy to).

If one goes all the way and stays course with logic of bhAShya and Sri MS, it will land the followers of Sri SSS in deep trouble....or they might sing 

"ye kahaan aa gaye hum....yon hi saath chalte chalte"....

Om

Raghav

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBqocXsf_UTAJ2gwr%3DgoLd1PDfYm_OKj6o-VvbW6%2BuvTg%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Very well said Raghav ji. 

I can fully appreciate their difficulty. However, as a sincere seeker, one should never gloss over such fundamental concepts and "move on".

Since the first time I read this anumAna, till today, it has consistently appeared to me as one of the most important sections of entire bhAshya.

What a remarkable thing -- abhAva is bhAvarUpa.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste,

Even in the Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashya Bhasyakara says 

प्रध्वंसाभावोऽप्यारभ्यत इति न सम्भवति अभावस्य विशेषाभावाद्विकल्पमात्रमेतत् । भावप्रतियोगी ह्यभावः । यथा ह्यभिन्नोऽपि भावो घटपटादिभिर्विशेष्यते भिन्न इव घटभावः पटभाव इति, एवं निर्विशेषोऽप्यभावः क्रियागुणयोगाद्द्रव्यादिवद्विकल्प्यते । न ह्यभाव उत्पलादिवद्विशेषणसहभावी । विशेषणवत्त्वे भाव एव स्यात् ।

pradhvaṁsābhāvō'pyārabhyata iti na sambhavati abhāvasya viśēṣābhāvādvikalpamātramētat । bhāvapratiyōgī hyabhāvaḥ । yathā hyabhinnō'pi bhāvō ghaṭapaṭādibhirviśēṣyatē bhinna iva ghaṭabhāvaḥ paṭabhāva iti, ēvaṁ nirviśēṣō'pyabhāvaḥ kriyāguṇayōgāddravyādivadvikalpyatē । na hyabhāva utpalādivadviśēṣaṇasahabhāvī । viśēṣaṇavattvē bhāva ēva syāt ।

To say that pradhvamsAbhāva, — non-existence of a thing after destruction, — is produced is only a play of words, as nothing can be a quality (विशेष) of non-existence. Non-existence is indeed only the opposite of existence. Just as existence, though one and the same throughout, is yet distinguished by cloth, pot, and so on, — e.g., we speak of the existence of a cloth, the existence of a pot, and so on, — so also, though abhāva or non-existence is in itself devoid of all distinctions, yet it is spoken of as different and in association with different acts or qualities as though it were a substance etc. Non-existence cannot, indeed, co-exist with attributes as the blue lotus co-exists with its attributes. If it were possessed of attributes, then it would come under the category of bhava or being.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCz%3DSwL6b99oxKXk0OtmOic45wiphd7%3DEp5gFQ0868zXw%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Jaishankar Ji,

In terms of Tai Bhashya, wherein it is stated in my understanding, abhAva including pot abhAva is vikalpa, and hence not bhAvarUpa, how would you respond in one word whether pot abhAva is bhAvarUpa or not. Yes or no.

Regards

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAOkLS-F6Pvbfi_zPSn%2BDP%2B%2B%2BW1GnCAb4pe3WyxsPVnx1j9w90g%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

I mean in terms of Tai Bhashya.

Regards

[Akilesh Ayyar]

I am not a scholar, and I have no opinion on the underlying issue being debated. 

However — doesn’t the answer to the below question depend on what precisely is the character of the pot-abhava? For example, a cloth is pot-abhava and is bhavarupa. But are not the horns of a hare also pot-abhava — and abhavarupa? 

Akilesh

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCN-3ZctcVGdNr7Wq-knXwLOvoEf6Yr5D0YGTcmY%3D8U1g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Jaishankara Narayan, Please tell us how your Taitiriya citation supports bhavarupa avidya. .

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAJbmbsFBw6mA7CC8iLdMJ_Um81ukBnP1vhGH4CAqzkCxytCT_g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

The Anandagiri TIkA to this section sheds light on this question. 

He says: स्वरूपपररूपाभ्यां सर्वं सदसदात्मकमिति हि वृद्धाः । तथा च पटादेः स्वेनाऽत्मना भावत्वं घटतादात्म्याभावात्तदभावत्वं चेत्यव्याहतिरित्यर्थः ।

The cloth as itself is bhAvAtmaka, and in the sense of not having tAdAtmya with the pot, is abhAvAtmaka. The same can be extended to atyantAbhAva of the pot on the ground too. As the ground, it is bhAvAtmaka; as the absence of the pot, the very same ground is abhAvAtmaka. 

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCN-3ZctcVGdNr7Wq-knXwLOvoEf6Yr5D0YGTcmY%3D8U1g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkat ji,

This is fine. 

The point remains that pot-abhAva, of either of the four kinds, is proved to be bhAvarUpa i.e. avidyA-kArya i.e. triguNAtmaka. It is not nihswarUpa like nirvishesha-abhAva such as horns of hare. 

Pot-abhAva has two concepts - either identical with adhikaraNa or different from adhikaraNa. In either case, it is triguNAtmaka avidyA-kArya.

Do you have any different understanding?

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Akilesh ji.

However — doesn’t the answer to the below question depend on what precisely is the character of the pot-abhava?

True.

For example, a cloth is pot-abhava and is bhavarupa.

True.

But are not the horns of a hare also pot-abhava — and abhavarupa? 

No. 

Pot-abhAva is not nihswarUpa. Horns of hare are nihswarUpa. 

Pot-abhAva is avidyA-kArya. Horns of hare are not avidyA-kArya. 

Pot-abhAva is prameya and known through anupalabdhi-pramANa. Horns of hare are not known through any pramANa as they are not prameya.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

On Nov 29, 2024 at 6:15:08 PM, Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Akilesh ji.

However — doesn’t the answer to the below question depend on what precisely is the character of the pot-abhava?

True.

For example, a cloth is pot-abhava and is bhavarupa.

True.

But are not the horns of a hare also pot-abhava — and abhavarupa? 

No. 

Pot-abhAva is not nihswarUpa. Horns of hare are nihswarUpa. 

How do we know what pot-abhava is or isn’t without examination? It just means “the absence of a pot.” Clearly “the horns of a hare” are incompatible with the presence of a pot. Thus they certainly qualify as the absence of a pot. So it would seem, based on that, that pot-abhava could be nihswarupa.

Pot-abhAva is avidyA-kArya. Horns of hare are not avidyA-kArya. 

Again, why not? What then is the karya for the horns of a hare? In fact, even more than other things, it would seem that the karya for an erroneous idea like the horns of a hare would be — avidya!

Pot-abhAva is prameya and known through anupalabdhi-pramANa. Horns of hare are not known through any pramANa as they are not prameya.

If the horns of a hare are not prameya, then how do we know what they are or are not? For example, we know that they are nihswaroopa. Clearly this requires some pramana.

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBD%3DxzWqN3k5Cg24UoHLUVk5085PNr7a4b4B8UuupUub_w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

I don't subscribe to the view of abhAva being any thing, so I don't accept that it is a thing different to the adhikaraNa. To hold it as different to the adhikaraNa is simply a case of tuShyatu durjana, when dealing with naiyyAyikas.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBeuwASujKmiEvPvg4D6gTaG_66JuacQOwMYcyRiznL1w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkat ji.

I don't subscribe to the view of abhAva being any thing, so I don't accept that it is a thing different to the adhikaraNa. To hold it as different to the adhikaraNa is simply a case of tuShyatu durjana, when dealing with naiyyAyikas.

There are two options:

1. pot-abhAva is identical to adhikaraNa, say ground. So, pot-abhAva = ground.

2. pot-abhAva is different from adhikaraNa, say ground. So, pot-abhAva !=ground.

In 1, certainly pot-abhAva is triguNAtmaka as ground is triguNAtmaka.

In 2 also, pot-abhAva being a mithyA-vastu different from adhikaraNa ground, is vishaya-of-anupalabdhi-pramANa. And hence, it is triguNAtmaka.

So, whether pot-abhAva is accepted as identical or different from adhikaraNa based on different models, the bottom-line is the same. Pot-abhAva is triguNAtmaka.

I am using the concept of triguNAtmaka just to pre-empt the possibility of getting lost in bhAvarUpa/abhAva etc.

Neither Brahman nor nirvishesha-abhAva are triguNAtmaka. Only avidyA, bhAvAtmaka-avidyA-kArya and abhAvAtmaka-avidyA-kArya are triguNAtmaka.

So, pot-abhAva has to be triguNAtmaka. There is no other option.

P.S.

The four-fold division of vishesha-abhAva is not preferred in advaita as only atyanta-abhAva is sufficient to explain all cognitions of abhAva. This atyanta-abhAva is of two types - atyanta-abhAva-not-contradictory-to-nishedhya (AA-1) and atyanta-abhAva-contradictory-to-nishedhya (AA-2).

The example of AA-1 is world-abhAva-in-Brahman, snake-abhAva-in-rope. This snake-abhAva/world-abhAva in respective adhikaraNa is not contradictory to the presence of nishedhya i.e. snake/world. Both can be co-present.

The example of AA-2 is pot-abhAva on ground. This pot-abhAva is contradictory to presence of nishedhya i.e. pot.

AA-1 is necessarily adhikaraNa-swarUpa in siddhAnta.

AA-2 is either adhikaraNa-swarUpa or different therefrom depending on the prakriyA.

So, except for pAramArthika-abhAva which is Brahman, and nirvishesha-abhAva which is horns of hare, all other vishesha-abhAva are triguNAtmaka avidyA-kArya, whether or not they are identical with adhikaraNa or different therefrom. For detailed presentation, please see pages 5-8 of https://sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/the-concept-of-atyanta-abhava.pdf

Please share your views. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Akilesh ji.

 

How do we know what pot-abhava is or isn’t without examination? It just means “the absence of a pot.”

We are examining it. You go to a room and you aver -- there is pot-abhAva in this room. It is a conclusive error-free knowledge which has pot-abhAva as the object. There might not be pot-abhAva in another room. But in this room, there is pot-abhAva. That is your error-free, definite knowledge. Pot-abhAva may be present, may be absent. We are examining what vastu pot-abhAva is. That is why I asked -- is pot-abhAva triguNAtmaka.

 

Clearly “the horns of a hare” are incompatible with the presence of a pot.

What do you mean? How are horns of hare being stated as compatible/incompatible/whatever with pot-presence? I do not understand it.

 

Thus they certainly qualify as the absence of a pot. So it would seem, based on that, that pot-abhava could be nihswarupa.

This does not make any sense to me. When we say pot-abhAva, there is a pratiyOgI namely pot whose abhAva is the object of pramA. In case of horns of hare, there is no pratiyOgI. There is nothing like horns of hare. When we says "abhAva of horns-of-hare", all that we mean is abhAva of shashIyatva in shringa OR abhAva of shringavattva in shasha. It has no similarity with pot-abhAva

Pot-abhAva is sa-pratiyOgika-abhAva whereas horns of hare are nish-pratiyOgika-abhAva.

 

Again, why not? What then is the karya for the horns of a hare?

Nothing. It is vastu-shUnya. प्रतीत्यभावेऽपि असतो असन्नृशृङ्गमिति विकल्पमात्रेणैव सर्वोपपत्तेः । तदुक्तं-‘शब्दज्ञानानुपाती वस्तुशून्यो विकल्प' इति

 

In fact, even more than other things, it would seem that the karya for an erroneous idea like the horns of a hare would be — avidya!

Ok, so if someone does not know that hares have no horns, for them - horns of hare are indeed avidyA-kArya. But for those who know hares have no horns, horns of hare are vastu-shUnya and not avidyA-kArya. 

 

If the horns of a hare are not prameya, then how do we know what they are or are not? For example, we know that they are nihswaroopa. Clearly this requires some pramana.

pramANa is required only for those entities which have some swarUpa. 

Horns of hare, barren woman's son etc are by definition a contradiction in itself. Their impossibility of perception is evident by their definition. For e.g. barren woman is defined as a woman with no son. So, to aver barren woman's son is contradiction in itself and hence gives rise to the impossibility of its perception. We do not need a pramANa for that.

PramANa gives rise to pramA. PramA means vishaya-AkAra-antah-karaNa-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya. Since there is no vishaya namely horns of hare, there can be no vishaya-AkArA-antah-karaNa-vritti. And hence no pramA. And accordingly, no pramANa.

That is why "horns of hare" are stated to be transacted through vikalpa-vritti.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

 

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

On Nov 29, 2024 at 9:45:53 PM, Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Akilesh ji.

 

How do we know what pot-abhava is or isn’t without examination? It just means “the absence of a pot.”

We are examining it. You go to a room and you aver -- there is pot-abhAva in this room. It is a conclusive error-free knowledge which has pot-abhAva as the object. There might not be pot-abhAva in another room. But in this room, there is pot-abhAva. That is your error-free, definite knowledge. Pot-abhAva may be present, may be absent. We are examining what vastu pot-abhAva is. That is why I asked -- is pot-abhAva triguNAtmaka.

By going into a room, we know that there is pot-abhava in the room because we know what pot-bhava is, and in the perception of the room we see no such thing, and thus we know that there is pot-abhava.

 

Clearly “the horns of a hare” are incompatible with the presence of a pot.

What do you mean? How are horns of hare being stated as compatible/incompatible/whatever with pot-presence? I do not understand it.

Just like in the room above, we consider “the horns of a hare” — and in this concept we can notice a  distinct lack of pot-bhava, and thus we can know equally well that this is pot-abhava. 

 

Thus they certainly qualify as the absence of a pot. So it would seem, based on that, that pot-abhava could be nihswarupa.

This does not make any sense to me. When we say pot-abhAva, there is a pratiyOgI namely pot whose abhAva is the object of pramA. In case of horns of hare, there is no pratiyOgI. There is nothing like horns of hare. When we says "abhAva of horns-of-hare", all that we mean is abhAva of shashIyatva in shringa OR abhAva of shringavattva in shasha. It has no similarity with pot-abhAva

Whether or not there’s a pratiyogi for horns-of-hare is not relevant, since we’re not talking about horns-of-hare-abhava. We are talking about horns-of-hare, period. We don’t need the “abhava” part — we just need to take the horns of hare as it is. Of it, we can ask: is there the presence of pot-bhava? Clearly not. So it could be said, then, to be pot-abhava.

Pot-abhAva is sa-pratiyOgika-abhAva whereas horns of hare are nish-pratiyOgika-abhAva.

Whether pot-abhava is always sa-pratiyOgika-abhAva is precisely what we are looking at right now. It cannot simply be accepted without examination.

 

Again, why not? What then is the karya for the horns of a hare?

Nothing. It is vastu-shUnya. प्रतीत्यभावेऽपि असतो असन्नृशृङ्गमिति विकल्पमात्रेणैव सर्वोपपत्तेः । तदुक्तं-‘शब्दज्ञानानुपाती वस्तुशून्यो विकल्प' इति

It may be vastu-shunya, but that does not solve the problem. It is being referred to, is it not? So whatever is being referred to requires a cause. A vikalpa is not nothing; it too requires a karya.

 

In fact, even more than other things, it would seem that the karya for an erroneous idea like the horns of a hare would be — avidya!

Ok, so if someone does not know that hares have no horns, for them - horns of hare are indeed avidyA-kArya. But for those who know hares have no horns, horns of hare are vastu-shUnya and not avidyA-kArya. 

Even for those who know it, that knowledge requires a cause.

 

If the horns of a hare are not prameya, then how do we know what they are or are not? For example, we know that they are nihswaroopa. Clearly this requires some pramana.

pramANa is required only for those entities which have some swarUpa. 

Horns of hare, barren woman's son etc are by definition a contradiction in itself. Their impossibility of perception is evident by their definition. For e.g. barren woman is defined as a woman with no son. So, to aver barren woman's son is contradiction in itself and hence gives rise to the impossibility of its perception. We do not need a pramANa for that.

We do need one. How do we know something is a contradiction by definition? That requires knowledge, and thus a pramana. Our knowledge of what a woman is, and what barren means, and then the use of inference to draw conclusions about the meaning of a barren woman — these all require pramanas.

PramANa gives rise to pramA. PramA means vishaya-AkAra-antah-karaNa-vritti-pratibimbita-chaitanya. Since there is no vishaya namely horns of hare, there can be no vishaya-AkArA-antah-karaNa-vritti. And hence no pramA. And accordingly, no pramANa.

That is why "horns of hare" are stated to be transacted through vikalpa-vritti.

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCtPQCu%3DQy5Pr3DeCWe_2A4NY7cPJmCq25DW8kd8zBAKg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Akilesh ji.

What is your point?

1. Are horns of hare triguNAtmaka?

2. Is pot-abhAva triguNAtmaka?

Regards.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

On Nov 29, 2024 at 10:46:34 PM, Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Akilesh ji.

What is your point?

My point was simply pointing out the ambiguous answer to the question of whether pot-abhava is bhavarupa.

1. Are horns of hare triguNAtmaka?

Presumably not.

2. Is pot-abhAva triguNAtmaka?

It’s going to be an exactly analogous situation to the argument about bhavarupa. The answer would seem to be: it depends.

Regards.

--
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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBDk75brcLU9fDzgvR8NA4eY_0vvxJ2dFX8c6Bp%3DbTS2zQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Akilesh ji.

My point was simply pointing out the ambiguous answer to the question of whether pot-abhava is bhavarupa.

There is no ambiguity. Just the concepts need to be properly and rigorously appreciated. 

 

1. Are horns of hare triguNAtmaka?

Presumably not.

2. Is pot-abhAva triguNAtmaka?

It’s going to be an exactly analogous situation to the argument about bhavarupa. The answer would seem to be: it depends.

From your answer, it is obvious that you are making a distinction between horns of hare and pot-abhAva. You hold horns of hare as non-triguNAtmaka, whereas pot-abhAva as sometimes triguNAtmaka and sometimes not. So, a distinction is made out. 

Pot-abhAva is abhAva-with-pratiyOgI whereas horns-of-hare is abhAva-without-pratiyOgI. They are fundamentally different. The former is triguNAtmaka-avidyA-kArya as demonstrated by the anumAna of BhAshyakAra in BUB 1.2.1, and the latter (horns of hare) are non-triguNAtmaka, vastu-shUnya. 

//By going into a room, we know that there is pot-abhava in the room because we know what pot-bhava is, and in the perception of the room we see no such thing, and thus we know that there is pot-abhava.//

Fine. (Though there is a great concept involved here, I will not digress there)

//Just like in the room above, we consider “the horns of a hare” — and in this concept we can notice a  distinct lack of pot-bhava, and thus we can know equally well that this is pot-abhava.//

There is no vastu analogous to "horns of hare". The vikalpa-vritti of mind is not the vastu "horns of hare". While the vikalpa-vritti has a distinct lack of pot-bhAva, we cannot say that 'horns of hare' have a lack of pot-bhAva. Hence, we cannot say that horns of hare is pot-abhAva.

You are equating vikalpa-vritti with horns of hare. That is incorrect. While the vikalpa-vritti, which is non-jnAna, certainly is pot-abhAva (anyOnya), the horns of hare cannot be said to be pot-abhAva.

You can counter-question: 

Q: Are horns-of-hare pot?

A: Certainly not.

Q: Then horns-of-hare are pot-abhAva as they do not have pot-bhAva.

A: Well, horns-of-hare are not an object of perception, whereas pot-abhAva is an object of perception. Hence, horns of hare are not pot-abhAva either. Therefore, as per your logic horns of hare should be equated with pot-abhAva-abhAva i.e. pot. That would be erroneous. 

Since horns-of-hare is a non-vastu, it is distinct from every other vastu, whether pot-bhAva or pot-abhAva. 

Therefore, we should not never equate pot-abhAva with horns of hare, as it will land you into accepting horns of hare as pot also.  

//Whether or not there’s a pratiyogi for horns-of-hare is not relevant, since we’re not talking about horns-of-hare-abhava. We are talking about horns-of-hare, period. We don’t need the “abhava” part — we just need to take the horns of hare as it is. Of it, we can ask: is there the presence of pot-bhava? Clearly not. So it could be said, then, to be pot-abhava.//

As discussed above. There is no vastu named horns of hare. And hence, the question "of it" cannot be asked.

Horns-of-hare itself is nishpratiyOgika-abhAva. 

//Whether pot-abhava is always sa-pratiyOgika-abhAva is precisely what we are looking at right now. It cannot simply be accepted without examination.//

The moment you say pot-abhAva, you admit pratiyOgI named pot. There is no possibility of pot-abhAva being nishratiyOgika.

//It may be vastu-shunya, but that does not solve the problem. It is being referred to, is it not? So whatever is being referred to requires a cause. A vikalpa is not nothing; it too requires a karya.//

Yes. So vikalpa-vritti of mind which is different from pramANa-vritti is admitted. 

//Even for those who know it, that knowledge requires a cause.//

As discussed. 

//We do need one. How do we know something is a contradiction by definition? That requires knowledge, and thus a pramana. Our knowledge of what a woman is, and what barren means, and then the use of inference to draw conclusions about the meaning of a barren woman — these all require pramanas.//

There is a definite sense in which the concept of pramANa-prameya-pramA is used in VedAnta. That is rigorous and technical. We do not use it in a general or casual sense. 

We know what a woman is, and we know as to what it means to be barren. Hence, we know the impossibility of the perception of a barren woman's son. From this, it does not mean that a barren woman's son is known by pramANa as per the definition of pramANa. Vikalpa-vritti is however admitted. 

Basically, pot-abhAva has shabda-ajanya-vritti-vishayatva whereas barren woman's son/horns of hare do not have shabda-ajanya-vritti-vishayatva. [Please check Advaita Siddhi: Drishyatva PrakaraNa].

Thus, horns of hare and pot-abhAva are like chalk and cheese. The former is nihswarUpa non-triguNAtmaka vastu-shUnya, whereas the latter is triguNAtmaka avidyA-kArya.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Sudhanshu ji,

Can we ask this question to determine whether or not pot-abhava and horns-of-hare are of the same status?

Is the horns-of-hare an object, viShaya, for anupalabdhi pramANa?

In the case of pot-abhAva we can say: Had pot been there, it would have been an object of perception. 

In the case of horns-of-hare this can't be said.  

warm regards

subbu

--

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCYoiew85dC1vX7RF56waie4JZVrqaYVSHZFW%2BWYGzQnw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

On Nov 30, 2024 at 4:27:19 AM, Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Akilesh ji.

My point was simply pointing out the ambiguous answer to the question of whether pot-abhava is bhavarupa.

There is no ambiguity. Just the concepts need to be properly and rigorously appreciated. 

 

1. Are horns of hare triguNAtmaka?

Presumably not.

2. Is pot-abhAva triguNAtmaka?

It’s going to be an exactly analogous situation to the argument about bhavarupa. The answer would seem to be: it depends.

From your answer, it is obvious that you are making a distinction between horns of hare and pot-abhAva. You hold horns of hare as non-triguNAtmaka, whereas pot-abhAva as sometimes triguNAtmaka and sometimes not. So, a distinction is made out. 

There is a distinction, but there is also a sense in which they are the same. That’s because pot-abhava is a class of things, not all of which are the same in all respects. That is in fact my point.

A cloth is pot-abhava. It is also distinct from pot-abhava, because a cloth can be used to wipe things, whereas pot-abhava cannot always be used to wipe things. For example, air is pot-abhava. It cannot be used to wipe things. 

//Just like in the room above, we consider “the horns of a hare” — and in this concept we can notice a  distinct lack of pot-bhava, and thus we can know equally well that this is pot-abhava.//

There is no vastu analogous to "horns of hare". The vikalpa-vritti of mind is not the vastu "horns of hare". While the vikalpa-vritti has a distinct lack of pot-bhAva, we cannot say that 'horns of hare' have a lack of pot-bhAva. Hence, we cannot say that horns of hare is pot-abhAva.

The vikalpa-vritti is not horns of hare, but it nevertheless tells us the characteristics of horns of hare. We know horns of hare is niswaroopah. How do you know this? Based on what? Based on the vritti, obviously. 

You are equating vikalpa-vritti with horns of hare. That is incorrect. While the vikalpa-vritti, which is non-jnAna, certainly is pot-abhAva (anyOnya), the horns of hare cannot be said to be pot-abhAva.

I am not equating the vikalpa-vritti with horns of hare. However, when one asks whether X is pot-abhava, one must the concept of it to answer the question. For example, when one says of a room. is it pot-abhava? In order to know this, one must examine the concept of a room first and compare it with one’s experience in order to ensure that what one is looking at is actually a room.

In the same way, the vikalpa of horns of hare gives us a pointer to what horns of hare is, even if it is not itself that. And that vikalpa tells us that universally, horns of hare cannot have pot-bhava; thus it is pot-abhava.

 

You can counter-question: 

Q: Are horns-of-hare pot?

A: Certainly not.

That only proves my point. Of course it is not a pot; thus it is pot-abhava.

Q: Then horns-of-hare are pot-abhAva as they do not have pot-bhAva.

A: Well, horns-of-hare are not an object of perception, whereas pot-abhAva is an object of perception. Hence, horns of hare are not pot-abhAva either. Therefore, as per your logic horns of hare should be equated with pot-abhAva-abhAva i.e. pot. That would be erroneous. 

No, you’ve assumed without proof that pot-abhava is an object of perception. That’s exactly what is being debated.

Since horns-of-hare is a non-vastu, it is distinct from every other vastu, whether pot-bhAva or pot-abhAva. 

That would be irrelevant. 

Therefore, we should not never equate pot-abhAva with horns of hare, as it will land you into accepting horns of hare as pot also.  

Nope. As above, you’re assuming pot-abhava is an object of perception rather than merely being the absence of the characteristic of pot-bhava.

//Whether or not there’s a pratiyogi for horns-of-hare is not relevant, since we’re not talking about horns-of-hare-abhava. We are talking about horns-of-hare, period. We don’t need the “abhava” part — we just need to take the horns of hare as it is. Of it, we can ask: is there the presence of pot-bhava? Clearly not. So it could be said, then, to be pot-abhava.//

As discussed above. There is no vastu named horns of hare. And hence, the question "of it" cannot be asked.

The question of “it” can be asked, since you’ve asked a question of “it” in saying that “the question of it cannot be asked.” 

//We do need one. How do we know something is a contradiction by definition? That requires knowledge, and thus a pramana. Our knowledge of what a woman is, and what barren means, and then the use of inference to draw conclusions about the meaning of a barren woman — these all require pramanas.//

There is a definite sense in which the concept of pramANa-prameya-pramA is used in VedAnta. That is rigorous and technical. We do not use it in a general or casual sense. 

We know what a woman is, and we know as to what it means to be barren. Hence, we know the impossibility of the perception of a barren woman's son. From this, it does not mean that a barren woman's son is known by pramANa as per the definition of pramANa. Vikalpa-vritti is however admitted. 

So how is it known, then, if not by pramana? “We know… we know….” You keep saying this. On what basis is this knowledge if not pramana?

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBCYoiew85dC1vX7RF56waie4JZVrqaYVSHZFW%2BWYGzQnw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji.

Can we ask this question to determine whether or not pot-abhava and horns-of-hare are of the same status?

Precisely. This question seeks to prove that pot-abhAva (for that matter, any vishesha-abhAva) is mithyA triguNAtmaka vastu, whereas horns-of-hare are non-triguNAtmaka, asat and tuchchha.

Is the horns-of-hare an object, viShaya, for anupalabdhi pramANa?

Certainly not. Because in case of anupalabdhi of horns-of-hare, there is no yogyatA. And it is the yogyA-anupalabdhi and not anupalabdhi-per-se which is the pramANa. 

In the case of pot-abhAva we can say: Had pot been there, it would have been an object of perception. 

In the case of horns-of-hare this can't be said.  

Yes. This is perfect. That is why anupalabdhi of horns-of-hare has no yogyatA.

Regards.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Akilesh  ji.

There is a distinction, but there is also a sense in which they are the same. That’s because pot-abhava is a class of things, not all of which are the same in all respects. That is in fact my point.

A cloth is pot-abhava. It is also distinct from pot-abhava, because a cloth can be used to wipe things, whereas pot-abhava cannot always be used to wipe things. For example, air is pot-abhava. It cannot be used to wipe things. 

True. But all of them are triguNAtmaka bhAvarUpa (as proved in bhAshya तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम् ).

Let us take a straight wooden stick. You can burn it and cook food. You can also use it to make a pot. The causality of the stick vis-a-vis cooking is delimited by wood-ness whereas the causality of the stick vis-a-vis pot is delimited by stick-ness.

Similarly, the causality of pot-abhAva vis-a-vis wiping things is delimited by cloth-ness whereas air-ness-vishishTa-pot-abhAva does not have this capability. For e.g. a golden stick can cause a pot, but cannot cause cooking.

What it means is the following - while pot-abhAva can have distinct adjectives namely cloth-ness, air-ness etc, the bottom line remains the same -- that pot-abhAva is a triguNAtmaka bhAvarUpa vastu.

So, pot-abhAva-tva-vishishTa-pot-abhAva is triguNAtmaka vastu. That is the claim. This is present in all visheshya-pot-abhAva no matter what the visheshaNa is.

Now, the moment you include horns-of-hare within the ambit of pot-abhAva, a problem would come.

How?

You agree that horns-of-hare is non-triguNAtmaka. Now, I will present an anumAna - शशविषाणम् त्रिगुणात्मकम्, घटाभावात्, पटवत्. 

If you accept horns-of-hare as pot-abhAva, you cannot refute this anumAna and it will lead to you accepting shasha-vishANa as triguNAtmaka, which will be contrary to your position. 

So, while it is true that pot-abhAva can refer to many "things" such as air, cloth etc having diverse properties, it cannot refer to horns-of-hare, as it will lead to horns-of-hare becoming triguNAtmaka through the application of anumAna. 

 

The vikalpa-vritti is not horns of hare, but it nevertheless tells us the characteristics of horns of hare. We know horns of hare is niswaroopah. How do you know this? Based on what? Based on the vritti, obviously. 

Sir, it is not that horns-of-hare is something which has a property nihswarUpatva. When we say horns-of-hare is nihwarUpa, all we mean is, "hares have no horns" or "there exists no horn which has shashIyatva (belonging-ness-to-hare). 

A vritti arises namely vikalpa-vritti with zero object corresponding to it. 

It does not mean that "characteristics" of horns-of-hare are being spoken about through vikalpa-vritti.  एवं च शशशृङ्गं नास्तीत्युल्लिखन्त्या अपि बुद्धेः शशे शृङ्गाभाव एव विषयः । गवि शशशृङ्गं नास्तीत्यस्या अपि गवाधिकरणकशृङ्गे शशीयत्वाभावो विषयः, अनन्यगतिकत्वात् ।

I am not equating the vikalpa-vritti with horns of hare. However, when one asks whether X is pot-abhava, one must the concept of it to answer the question. For example, when one says of a room. is it pot-abhava? In order to know this, one must examine the concept of a room first and compare it with one’s experience in order to ensure that what one is looking at is actually a room.

In the same way, the vikalpa of horns of hare gives us a pointer to what horns of hare is, even if it is not itself that. And that vikalpa tells us that universally, horns of hare cannot have pot-bhava; thus it is pot-abhava.

Let us take a cloth. It is pot-abhAva. Right? Both as per you and me.

Now, is horns-of-hare cloth? No, as per you. That means, as per you, horns-of-hare is cloth-abhAva. That means horns-of-hare is abhAva of pot-abhAva ( =cloth).

So, as per you, horns-of-hare is not only pot-abhAva but also abhAva of pot-abhAva. Do you agree?

That only proves my point. Of course it is not a pot; thus it is pot-abhava.

 

No, you’ve assumed without proof that pot-abhava is an object of perception. That’s exactly what is being debated.

Pot-abhAva is known by pot-anupalabdhi. Right? It is gives rise to abhAva-pramA which is a vritti. Pot-abhAva is vishaya of that vritti. And that vritti is not produced by shabda. So, pot-abhAva has shabda-ajanya-vritti-vishayatva. Therefore, pot-abhAva has drishyatva i.e. it is an object of perception. 

That pot-abhAva has drishyatva i.e. shabda-ajanya-vritti-vishayatva is clearly accepted in VedAnta and is logically proved also. Where is the scope of debate?

Now, once it is understood that pot-abhAva has drishyatva, it automatically implies that it cannot be horns-of-hare as shabda-ajanya-vritti-vishayatva is not present in horns-of-hare.

Hence proved that horns-of-hare is distinct from pot-abhAva.

Since horns-of-hare is a non-vastu, it is distinct from every other vastu, whether pot-bhAva or pot-abhAva. 

That would be irrelevant. 

Come on sir. This is very much relevant.

 

Therefore, we should not never equate pot-abhAva with horns of hare, as it will land you into accepting horns of hare as pot also.  

Nope. As above, you’re assuming pot-abhava is an object of perception rather than merely being the absence of the characteristic of pot-bhava.

As discussed above. Also, your presentation violates bhAshya which clearly holds that vishesha-abhAva such as pot-abhAva is bhAvarUpa. 

"Merely the absence of characteristic of pot-bhAva" is triguNAtmaka-bhAvarUpa-vastu. That is what is being discussed. And that cannot be non-triguNAtmaka non-vastu such as horns of hare.

The question of “it” can be asked, since you’ve asked a question of “it” in saying that “the question of it cannot be asked.” 

😀  Nice. The point remains - horns-of-hare is a non-vastu. It does not and cannot have a sambandha with anything. I mean, there can be a pot-abhAva in this room. Can there be a horns-of-hare in this room? 

See, horns-of-hare is a nirvishesha-nishpratiyOgika-abhAva. It does not have a pratiyOgI or anuyOgI. When you say pot-abhAva, there is a vishesha here. Pot. There is a pratiyOgI and anuyOgI. 

To equate pot-abhAva with horns-of-hare is downright incorrect, therefore, on following counts:

1. It turns horns-of-hare into triguNAtmaka-vastu through the anumAna - शशविषाणम् त्रिगुणात्मकम्, घटाभावात्, पटवत्.
2. Horns-of-hare have no drishyatva on account of absence of shabda-ajanya-vritti-vishayatva whereas pot-abhAva possesses shabda-ajanya-vritti-vishayatva.
3. Horns-of-hare is nishpratiyOgika-abhAva without any pratiyOgI or anuyOgI. Whereas pot-abhAva has definite pratiyOgI pot, with pot-ness as pratiyOgitA-avachchhedaka and definite anuyOgI such as room etc.  
   
   

So how is it known, then, if not by pramana? “We know… we know….” You keep saying this. On what basis is this knowledge if not pramana?

Sir, we say -- we know "horns of hare is nihswarUpa", "horns of hare does not exist" etc. It does not mean that there exists something called horns-of-hare having property nihswarUpatva and that is known by pramANa.

All it means -- is that -- there exists no horns with shashIyatva -- or -- there exists no hare with horns. एवं च शशशृङ्गं नास्तीत्युल्लिखन्त्या अपि बुद्धेः शशे शृङ्गाभाव एव विषयः । गवि शशशृङ्गं नास्तीत्यस्या अपि गवाधिकरणकशृङ्गे शशीयत्वाभावो विषयः, अनन्यगतिकत्वात् ।

So, all it tells is about the horn-abhAva in hare, or about shashIyatva-abhAva in horn. It does not imply that horns-of-hare is being known by pramANa.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

On Nov 30, 2024 at 9:40:14 PM, Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Akilesh  ji.

There is a distinction, but there is also a sense in which they are the same. That’s because pot-abhava is a class of things, not all of which are the same in all respects. That is in fact my point.

A cloth is pot-abhava. It is also distinct from pot-abhava, because a cloth can be used to wipe things, whereas pot-abhava cannot always be used to wipe things. For example, air is pot-abhava. It cannot be used to wipe things. 

True. But all of them are triguNAtmaka bhAvarUpa (as proved in bhAshya तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम् ).

In the future, if you could please give exact scriptural citation when quoting, that would be helpful. 

In this case, that is, Br.U.B. 1.2.1, Sankara is giving a specific explanation in the context of trying to prove the prior existence of unseen things that nevertheless shall manifest in the future. That is, effects must exist in prior form in their causes.

He uses the example of a jar, and talks about its absence having to be something positive, something existent, prior to its manifestation, or there would be insuperable explanatory problems in its later manifestation.

Note that he’s referring to what the jar before its manifestation must be, and then reviews its possible negations, and concludes that whatever it must be before its manifestation, that must have some prior form and existence.

This is an entirely different question than asking “Of what may we say ’this is not the jar’”? 

In fact, actually, in this very passage Sankara contemplates in passing the question we are debating. He writes: “…if the jar before its manifestation be an absolute nonentity like the proverbial horns of a hare, it cannot be connected either with its cause or with existence…”

Note that Sankara does not then write that the horns of a hare cannot be “jar-abhava” because that would violate some logical injunction; rather, it cannot be the locus of the jar before its manifest existence. That’s a very, very different question. 

 

The vikalpa-vritti is not horns of hare, but it nevertheless tells us the characteristics of horns of hare. We know horns of hare is niswaroopah. How do you know this? Based on what? Based on the vritti, obviously. 

Sir, it is not that horns-of-hare is something which has a property nihswarUpatva. When we say horns-of-hare is nihwarUpa, all we mean is, "hares have no horns" or "there exists no horn which has shashIyatva (belonging-ness-to-hare). 

A vritti arises namely vikalpa-vritti with zero object corresponding to it. 

It does not mean that "characteristics" of horns-of-hare are being spoken about through vikalpa-vritti.  एवं च शशशृङ्गं नास्तीत्युल्लिखन्त्या अपि बुद्धेः शशे शृङ्गाभाव एव विषयः । गवि शशशृङ्गं नास्तीत्यस्या अपि गवाधिकरणकशृङ्गे शशीयत्वाभावो विषयः, अनन्यगतिकत्वात् ।

Your Sanskrit phrase contradicts what you are saying. If all that is meant is “hares have no horns” — then Sankara would not have referred to the horns of hare as “an absolute nonentity” in Br.U.B. 1.2.1. Because the absence of horns is hares is simply a fact, and that fact exists, and is trigunatmaka. 

I am not equating the vikalpa-vritti with horns of hare. However, when one asks whether X is pot-abhava, one must the concept of it to answer the question. For example, when one says of a room. is it pot-abhava? In order to know this, one must examine the concept of a room first and compare it with one’s experience in order to ensure that what one is looking at is actually a room.

In the same way, the vikalpa of horns of hare gives us a pointer to what horns of hare is, even if it is not itself that. And that vikalpa tells us that universally, horns of hare cannot have pot-bhava; thus it is pot-abhava.

Let us take a cloth. It is pot-abhAva. Right? Both as per you and me.

Now, is horns-of-hare cloth? No, as per you. That means, as per you, horns-of-hare is cloth-abhAva. That means horns-of-hare is abhAva of pot-abhAva ( =cloth).

So, as per you, horns-of-hare is not only pot-abhAva but also abhAva of pot-abhAva. Do you agree?

That’s a rather strange way to come to that conclusion. A rose is also cloth-abhava. By your logic, that means a rose is abhava of pot-abhava (=cloth). So as per you, a rose is not only pot-abhava but also abhava of pot-abhava. 

That only proves my point. Of course it is not a pot; thus it is pot-abhava.

 

No, you’ve assumed without proof that pot-abhava is an object of perception. That’s exactly what is being debated.

Pot-abhAva is known by pot-anupalabdhi. Right?

Not necessarily. That’s one way it is known. It could also be known by anumana.

It is gives rise to abhAva-pramA which is a vritti. Pot-abhAva is vishaya of that vritti. And that vritti is not produced by shabda. So, pot-abhAva has shabda-ajanya-vritti-vishayatva. Therefore, pot-abhAva has drishyatva i.e. it is an object of perception. 

That pot-abhAva has drishyatva i.e. shabda-ajanya-vritti-vishayatva is clearly accepted in VedAnta and is logically proved also. Where is the scope of debate?

Now, once it is understood that pot-abhAva has drishyatva, it automatically implies that it cannot be horns-of-hare as shabda-ajanya-vritti-vishayatva is not present in horns-of-hare.

Hence proved that horns-of-hare is distinct from pot-abhAva.

So that undermines this argument.

It’s been interesting, but I think we’ve both made our points, and I will leave the last word on the subject to you.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Akilesh ji.

In the future, if you could please give exact scriptural citation when quoting, that would be helpful. 

List of all references used in this discussion so far:

1. अपि च, चतुर्विधानामभावानाम् , घटस्येतरेतराभावो घटादन्यो ष्टः — यथा घटाभावः पटादिरेव, न घटस्वरूपमेव । न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? भावरूप एव । एवं घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात् , घटेन व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम् ।    (Br. U. B. 1.2.1)
2. वस्तुतस्तु – शब्दाजन्यवृत्तिविषयत्वमेव दृश्यत्वम् ; अन्यथा शशविषाणं तुच्छमित्यादिशब्दजन्यवृतिर्विषये तुच्छे व्यभिचारस्य दुरुद्धरत्वात् । एवं च सति शुद्धस्य वेदान्तजन्यवृत्तिविषयत्वेऽपि न तत्र व्यभिचारः; तुच्छशुद्धयोः शब्दाजन्यवृत्तिविषयत्वानभ्युपगमात् । (Advaita Siddhi. Drishyatva-hetu-vichArah)
   
3. न च- शृङ्गादिकं योग्यतया व्याप्तमेवेति वाच्यम्; तावता हि शृङ्गाभाव एव योग्यानुपलब्धिसंभवः, न त्वलीकाभावे । एवं च शशशृङ्गं नास्तीत्युल्लिखन्त्या अपि बुद्धेः शशे शृङ्गाभाव एव विषयः । गवि शशशृङ्गं नास्तीत्यस्या अपि गवाधिकरणकशृङ्गे शशीयत्वाभावो विषयः, अनन्यगतिकत्वात् । (Advaita Siddhi, nishedha-pratiyOgitva-anyathA-anupapatti-vichArah)
   
4. प्रतीत्यभावेऽपि असतो असन्नृशृङ्गमिति विकल्पमात्रेणैव सर्वोपपत्तेः । तदुक्तं-‘शब्दज्ञानानुपाती वस्तुशून्यो विकल्प' इति । (Advaita Siddhi, anirvachanIyatve-arthApatti-vichArah)

In this case, that is, Br.U.B. 1.2.1, Sankara is giving a specific explanation in the context of trying to prove the prior existence of unseen things that nevertheless shall manifest in the future. That is, effects must exist in prior form in their causes.

He uses the example of a jar, and talks about its absence having to be something positive, something existent, prior to its manifestation, or there would be insuperable explanatory problems in its later manifestation.

Note that he’s referring to what the jar before its manifestation must be, and then reviews its possible negations, and concludes that whatever it must be before its manifestation, that must have some prior form and existence.

This is an entirely different question than asking “Of what may we say ’this is not the jar’”? 

In fact, actually, in this very passage Sankara contemplates in passing the question we are debating. He writes: “…if the jar before its manifestation be an absolute nonentity like the proverbial horns of a hare, it cannot be connected either with its cause or with existence…”

Note that Sankara does not then write that the horns of a hare cannot be “jar-abhava” because that would violate some logical injunction; rather, it cannot be the locus of the jar before its manifest existence. That’s a very, very different question. 

It all boils down to the conclusion by BhAshyakAra that pot-abhAva is bhAvarUpa. His conclusion is this: तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम्.  

By a simple anumAna based on that of BhAshyakAra, it is easily proved that pot-abhAva is triguNAtmaka: घटस्येतरेतराभाव: सन्पट: त्रिगुणात्मकः। एवं घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि त्रिगुणात्मकता , घटेन व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव त्रिगुणात्मकताभावानाम् ।  If you cannot refute this anumAna, then you are duty bound to accept the triguNAtmakatA of pot-abhAva and hence non-identity with horns-of-hare.

Sir, if your argument of horns-of-hare as pot-abhAva is accepted, then it will lead to vitiating the argument by BhAsyakAra. See, what he says -  न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? भावरूप एव । If horns-of-hare comes within the ambit of pot-abhAva (being a class-of-things including horns-of-hare), then this statement by B न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? भावरूप एव । is invalid. Because the opponent would say -  घटाभावः सन् शशविषाणम् अभावः, न तु भावरूपः. So, the argument presented by BhAshyakAra will not proceed forward.

The very fact that BhAshyakAra takes pot as an example of pot-anyOnya-abhAva and not horns-of-hare, and goes on to show its bhAvarUpatva is proof enough to conclude that horns-of-hare is beyond the ambit of pot-abhAva.

Your Sanskrit phrase contradicts what you are saying. If all that is meant is “hares have no horns” — then Sankara would not have referred to the horns of hare as “an absolute nonentity” in Br.U.B. 1.2.1. Because the absence of horns is hares is simply a fact, and that fact exists, and is trigunatmaka. 

I would request a bit more serious and prolonged application of mind to appreciate the non-contradiction. 

That’s a rather strange way to come to that conclusion. A rose is also cloth-abhava. By your logic, that means a rose is abhava of pot-abhava (=cloth). So as per you, a rose is not only pot-abhava but also abhava of pot-abhava. 

What is the problem sir? Pot and pot-abhAva are two distinct mithyA vastu. Rose is different from both of them. It does not contradict Shankara as pot, pot-abhAva and rose are all bhAvarUpa, triguNAtmaka vastu. Problem would be if pot-abhAva is stated to be non-triguNAtmaka horns-of-hare.

Not necessarily. That’s one way it is known. It could also be known by anumana.

By which anumAna do you know pot-abhAva? Pl write.

 

So that undermines this argument.

It’s been interesting, but I think we’ve both made our points, and I will leave the last word on the subject to you.

There is nothing like last word of mine or yours. This concept is one of the pillars of advaita in my understanding. We can come back to this after a pause of couple of days. I had summarized my understanding in the previous post:

To equate pot-abhAva with horns-of-hare is downright incorrect, therefore, on following counts:

1. It turns horns-of-hare into triguNAtmaka-vastu through the anumAna - शशविषाणम् त्रिगुणात्मकम्, घटाभावात्, पटवत्.
2. Horns-of-hare have no drishyatva on account of absence of shabda-ajanya-vritti-vishayatva whereas pot-abhAva possesses shabda-ajanya-vritti-vishayatva.
3. Horns-of-hare is nishpratiyOgika-abhAva without any pratiyOgI or anuyOgI. Whereas pot-abhAva has definite pratiyOgI pot, with pot-ness as pratiyOgitA-avachchhedaka and definite anuyOgI such as room etc.  

Further, as mentioned before in this write-up, pot-abhAva is triguNAtmaka is proved by : घटस्येतरेतराभाव: सन्पट: त्रिगुणात्मकः। एवं घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि त्रिगुणात्मकता , घटेन व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव त्रिगुणात्मकताभावानाम् । 

I will summarise your view and stop there, unless you have something to add:

1. Pot-abhAva is a class of things having diverse properties. A rose, cloth, air are all pot-abhAva. All of these are triguNAtmaka.
2. Horns-of-hare despite being a non-entity is different from pot. There is no pot-bhAva in horns-of-hare. Hence, horns-of-hare can also be said to be pot-abhAva.
3. Since horns-of-hare is non-triguNAtmaka, pot-abhAva also can be non-triguNAtmaka.
4. Thus, whether pot-abhAva is triguNAtmaka or non-triguNAtmaka depends on the context. Sometimes, pot-abhAva can be trigunAtmaka, sometimes it cannot be.

Please note that you are silent on all the three points mentioned by me. First, your view turns horns-of-hare into triguNAtmaka vastu and thus vitiates your point. Second, you do not counter drishyatva. Third, you are silent on visheshatva of pot-abhAva whereas horns-of-hare is nirvishesha. 

Further, the anumAna presented now in this post also proves pot-abhAva as triguNAtmaka.  Please take up each of them and present your arguments.

Regards,

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Jaishankar Narayanan]

Namaste Michael ji,

Bhaasyakaara is clear that abhAva cannot be associated with any Guna, kriya etc. If for transactional purposes (vyavahAra) you talk about an abhAva like jnAna-abhAva or pot abhAva, it is bhAvarupa only. That is why ajAna has to be jnAna virodhi and not jnAna-abhAva.

With love and prayers,

Jaishankar

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Jaishankar ji.

Very well explained.

One should also be clear about the relationship between ajnAna and jnAna-abhAva.

JnAna-abhAva is known by pramAtA through arthApatti-pramANa/vyatirekI-anumAna. Whereas ajnAna is sAkshi-bhAsya.

How do we know about jnAna-abhAva? By the following anumAna - यत्र यत्र अज्ञानं, तत्र तत्र ज्ञानाभाव:, यन्नैवं तन्नैवम्, यथा घटज्ञानवति (घटज्ञानाभावाभाववति) मयि घटाज्ञानं नास्ति (घटाज्ञान-अभाव: अस्ति).

Thus, ajnAna is an aparOksha-vishaya being sAkshi-bhAsya whereas jnAna-abhAva is a parOksha-vishaya being non-pratyaksha pramANa-gamya.

Such beautiful subtle distinction between jnAna-abhAva and ajnAna is missed by people. VivaraNa however clinches it --

एवमुत्थितस्य ज्ञानाभावपरामर्शोऽपि ज्ञानविरोधिनोऽज्ञानस्यानुभूततया स्मर्यमाणस्यानुपपत्त्यैव प्रमीयते नानुस्मर्यते।

So conceptually, so clearly the distinction between ajnAna and jnAna-abhAva is brought out. Sheer unfortunate that people are equating these two on account of not understanding the siddhAnta elucidated in sampradAya.

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAOkLS-E19X9-5KAH%2BGXrOxSthJug_NJGJFJyW9RZ7Ux3HVaDHw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Om Bhaskar prabhu ji.

Let us leave aside everything and concentrate on the argument presented. Suppose, a ten-year boy comes before you and presents this argument by saying - uncle, I can prove to you that a vishesha-abhAva is not like horns of hare. It is bhAvarUpa. And he presents his argument as follows - चतुर्विधानामभावानाम् , घटस्येतरेतराभावो घटादन्यो ष्टः — यथा घटाभावः पटादिरेव, न घटस्वरूपमेव । न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? भावरूप एव । एवं घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात् , घटेन व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम् ।  

He says that this anumAna proves without a doubt that any vishesha-abhAva, be it pot-abhAva, chair-abhAva, cloth-abhAva etc, is bhAvarUpa.

What would be your reaction? Would you agree with this anumAna-pramANa? If not, then how would you refute him?

Let us restrict to this much and not go beyond to mUlAvidyA etc. Let us move forward step-by-step.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Michael ji 

Answer precisely:

1. Is pot-abhAva distinct from pot or is pot-abhAva identical to pot?

2. Is pot-abhAva bhAvarUpa?

You are free to seek guidance from anyone, including Chatgpt. However, instead of doing cut-paste, you state the answer in your words as your considered view, if you accept that view. 

Chatgpt does not stand a chance in any argument. So, cut-paste does a poor job in an argument.

Let us be fixed on the discussion. The two questions are precise and yes/no type. However, it will test the basic understanding. (In fact, there are direct bhAshya statement for both questions.)

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, I appreciate your advocating the virtues of personal effort; however, categorically dismissing a rich inquiry based on the Intelligent analysis of an unbiased machine is itself effortless. I will replicate Chat's response in my own words.

You must know very well your question is paradoxical and cannot be answered by a simple yes or no. Nuance is necessary. Pratiyogi or the positive existence of absence.is a counter intuitive reasoning accepted in Nyaya and Advaita. However, accepting it as an argument to justify the existence of a mithya ajnana or fundamentally positive False Ignorance is as logically unwarranted as its implication of the absurdity of a 'True Ignorance'.

There is no independent absence of a thing. Absence of a pot depends upon the physical presence of a pot. Absence is simply a notion dependent upon something other than itself. We never perceive the absence of a pot directly without reference to pot.  Thus, absence is relational only. 

Pot and its absence as well as all existence and non-existence are superimpositions. They are mithya. Mithya is an illusory appearance - valid only within vyavaharika drsti just like appearance in svapna. Mithya is not some-thing, just as dream phenomena is not some-thing. 

How can some-thing be resolved by knowledge alone? Superimposed waking and dream phenomena can be resolved by knowledge as long as they are known to be wrong ideas appearing as real phenomena. That should be as clear as waking up from a dream negates the dream in toto, just like seeing the rope negates that there ever was a snake in the rope.  . 

Further, absence is an effect. Whatever is its cause, all effects are vacambaram vikara namadeham, name only.  

Further still, as photons are necessary to see light, what are the elements necessary to see darkness? Darkness is just the absence of photons of light. 

and then to conclude, I ask you to handle these objections to your insistence on the ignorance and darkness as a positive substance: 

1. Darkness would have to coexist with light in some locus, which is never observed.
2. It would require independent perception, which never happens without reference to the absence of light.
3. Its perception would have to contribute to empirical functionality, but all functionality attributed to darkness (e.g., night, shadows) is explained through the absence of light.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

Namaste Sudhanshuji, I appreciate your advocating the virtues of personal effort; however, categorically dismissing a rich inquiry based on the Intelligent analysis of an unbiased machine is itself effortless. I will replicate Chat's response in my own words.

I am not dismissing Chatgpt's answer. I am merely asking you to not cut-paste it. You understand its reply, reproduce in your own words as your opinion and then put forward for discussion. That is welcome.  

You must know very well your question is paradoxical and cannot be answered by a simple yes or no. Nuance is necessary.

No. The questions namely "1. Is pot-abhAva distinct from pot or is pot-abhAva identical to pot? 2. Is pot-abhAva bhAvarUpa?" are not paradoxical. These are well-structured and definite questions having definite answers. Moreover, they have been specifically dealt with in bhAshya with definite answers.

Pratiyogi or the positive existence of absence.is a counter intuitive reasoning accepted in Nyaya and Advaita.

We are concerned only with the bhAvarUpatA of abhAva. There is no requirement of discussion on pratiyOgI, as the bhAvarUpatA of pratiyOgI is well accepted by everyone. 

 

However, accepting it as an argument to justify the existence of a mithya ajnana or fundamentally positive False Ignorance is as logically unwarranted as its implication of the absurdity of a 'True Ignorance'.

Let us put on hold the discussion related to ajnAna. Let us concentrate on pot-abhAva.

 

There is no independent absence of a thing. Absence of a pot depends upon the physical presence of a pot. Absence is simply a notion dependent upon something other than itself. We never perceive the absence of a pot directly without reference to pot.  Thus, absence is relational only. 

Sir, I had given you a specific anumAna. Instead of countering the argument, you are repeating your premises. When the opponent puts forward an anumAna, you are supposed to counter it and not merely repeat your beliefs. It does not serve any purpose. The anumAna is as under - चतुर्विधानामभावानाम् , घटस्येतरेतराभावो घटादन्यो ष्टः — यथा घटाभावः पटादिरेव, न घटस्वरूपमेव । न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? भावरूप एव । एवं घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात् , घटेन व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम् ।  Try again.

Pot and its absence as well as all existence and non-existence are superimpositions. They are mithya. Mithya is an illusory appearance - valid only within vyavaharika drsti just like appearance in svapna. Mithya is not some-thing, just as dream phenomena is not some-thing. 

1. Is pot an illusory appearance? 

2. Is pot-abhAva an illusory appearance?

 

How can some-thing be resolved by knowledge alone? Superimposed waking and dream phenomena can be resolved by knowledge as long as they are known to be wrong ideas appearing as real phenomena. That should be as clear as waking up from a dream negates the dream in toto, just like seeing the rope negates that there ever was a snake in the rope.

If that "some-thing" is caused by ignorance, it can be resolved by knowledge alone and by nothing else. Wrong-idea is also "some-thing". It is not horns of hare. If wrong-idea being some-thing can be removed by knowledge, any other some-thing caused by ignorance can as well be removed by knowledge.

 

Further, absence is an effect. Whatever is its cause, all effects are vacambaram vikara namadeham, name only.  

Very nice. However, we need to distinguish between nirvishesha-abhAva (horns of hare) and vishesha-abhAva (pot-abhAva). While the former-abhAva is not an effect, the latter-abhAva is an effect.

 

Further still, as photons are necessary to see light, what are the elements necessary to see darkness? Darkness is just the absence of photons of light. 

We will come to darkness. Let us first understand pot-abhAva.

 

and then to conclude, I ask you to handle these objections to your insistence on the ignorance and darkness as a positive substance: 

1. Darkness would have to coexist with light in some locus, which is never observed.
2. It would require independent perception, which never happens without reference to the absence of light.
3. Its perception would have to contribute to empirical functionality, but all functionality attributed to darkness (e.g., night, shadows) is explained through the absence of light.

Let us restrict to pot-abhAva. Let us understand the phenomenal anumAna presented by BhAshyakAra in ghaTa-bhAshya. Let us first understand that pot-abhAva is bhAvarUpa or not. Once that is clear, all other discussions such as on darkness, ajnAna will make sense. First and foremose, however, is to understand pot-abhAva.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.