[Advaita-l] jnAnAbhAva (was HH Sri Paramananda Bharathi Swamiji attained mukti)

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sadaji,

Yes there also ignorance is bhAva rUpa only. It is not being called bhAva
rUpa because ignorance is pramANa janita jnAna (that would be a
contradiction in terms).

It is a beginningless bhAvarUpa AvaraNa located in consciousness, like a
cloth covering the pot.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan


On Sat, 3 Aug 2019, 18:53 kuntimaddi sadananda, <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> 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
>