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

[sreenivasa murthy]

 Dear Sri Venkataraghavan,
You have written : "It is a beginningless bhAvarUpa AvaraNa located in consciousness, like a cloth covering the pot."As I was reading the above a couple of questions / doubts arose . I request you kindly to help me in understanding the above statement of yours.
(1) The beginningless bhavarupa Avarana, is it covering consciousness like a cloth covering pot ?(2) Does the beginningless bhavarupa Avarana is inside the consciousness like the cloth in the pot?(3) I am a conscious being possessing consciousness. So far I have not been to perceive the beginningless bhavarupa Avarana covering my consciousness. Will you kindly help me to cognize that beginningless bhavarupa Avarana which is covering my consciousness or which is within my conscioueness.(4) If i am not inquisitive too much can you share with me how you have personally come to know the existence of beginningless bhavarupa Avarana?

I will be very grateful to you for the kind help you are going to render to me.With respectful namaskars,Sreenivasa Murthy



    On Sunday, 4 August, 2019, 1:11:22 pm IST, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:  
 
 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
>
_______________________________________________
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