[Advaita-l] HH Sri Paramananda Bharathi Swamiji attained mukti

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Venkatraghavanji - PraNAms 
A simple question for my clarity.
Ghata abhaava can be positive knowledge since it is part of pramaana - existence expressed as the absence of a well-defined entity based on my prior memory or samskaara. 
To overcome that I gave an example of gaagaabuubu - the prior samskaara is not there. If I ask can you, can see the gaagaabuubu in the room? Since you have no prior samskaaa of gaagaabuubu - the first question will be - what is gaagaabuu or its attributive content. Until that is clear - its existence or non-existence cannot be established. 
The ignorance of what is gaagaabuubu or lack of its prior samskaara or avidyaa - can it be bhaava ruupa. Non-apprehension can't lead to miss apprehension or viskepa.
Hari Om!Sadananda

 

    On Saturday, August 3, 2019, 02:42:48 AM PDT, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:  
 
 Dear Subbuji,
What you say is true, but in my view, in the context of the ghaTa bhAShya,
shankarAchArya is not even going to paramArtha, even on a vyAvahArika
level, he is proving that abhAva is bhAvAtmakam.

To explain, the intent of the bhAShyakAra is to establish satkAryavAda here
- the existence of the effect in the cause before creation, and in the
cause after destruction. The naiyyAyika views both these as different types
of absence.

So with a view of establishing satkAryavAda, shankarAchArya is setting out
to prove that even what is viewed as abhAva, is actually bhAvarUpa. He uses
the example of anyonyAbhAva to make that argument. He says in the pratIti
"paTa: ghaTo na", the difference which is the object of the pratIti, is
viewed as an abhAva, anyonyAbhAva, by the naiyyAyika. ShankarAchArya's
argument is that the absence of the pot in the cloth is nothing but the
cloth, which is an existent entity. It is not possible that a cloth
containing the absence of the pot, is of the nature of absence. Then what?
It is an existent thing only.
यथा घटाभावः पटादिरेव, न घटस्वरूपमेव ।न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं
तर्हि ? भावरूप एव ।
एवं घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात् , घटेन
व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम् ।
In the same way, the prior absence of the pot, the post destruction absence
of the pot, the absolute absence of the pot are entities different from the
pot (they are different from the pot, because they are all defined in
relation to the pot, so they cannot be a part of the pot's svarUpa itself)
- and here is what is crucial for us - *in the same way, they are **all
bhAvarUpa*.

But what does the bhAvarUpatva of abhAva mean? It means that the pot is
present in its sUkshma avasthA before and after creation. So the
bhAvAtmakatva of prAgabhAva and pradhvamsa abhAva is the sUkshmAvasthA of
the pot / kArya. As far as atyantAbhAva is concerned, that has nothing to
do with the pot, it is nothing but the ground on which the absence of the
pot is postulated.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 2:47 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 3:43 AM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
>>
>> 3) Anyway, let us leave that also aside. If you read the ghaTa bhAShyam of
>> the brihadAraNyaka (1.2.1) carefully, ShankarAchArya makes a profound
>> statement. According to him, abhAva itself is bhAvarUpa.
>> "न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? *भावरूप एव* । एवं घटस्य
>> प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात्, घटेन
>> व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात्
>> , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; *तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम् ।"  *Like anyonyAbhAva,
>> all
>> the other abhAva-s prAg, pradhvamsa, atyantAbhAva are all of the nature of
>> bhAva.
>>
>
> Dear Venkat ji,
>
> Very interesting post.  From the above bhashya lines, I would think that
> since in Advaita Brahman is the only Real, the only existent entity without
> a second of any type, and since this Existence can never go out of
> existence, (na abhavo vidyate satah), the very idea of abhava is untenable
> in the ultimate point of view. Abhava of anything (which has to be in
> vyavahara only) is also a superimposition in Brahman, a manifestation,
> vivarta, of Brahman, and hence it is all only bhaava rupa.
>
> I would like to hear your view on this.
>
> warm regards
> subbu
>
>>
>> If abhAva itself is bhAvarUpa, what purpose is served by saying avidyA is
>> abhAvarUpa?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org