[Advaita-l] Whether darkness is bhava - Vivarana Prameya Samgraha of Shri Vidyaranya

[V Subrahmanian]

In continuation of the mail below, we can conclude that 'anything that is
experienced is a positive, bhAvarUpa, entity.'  Even the abhava that is
cognized by the anupalabdhi pramana is a positive entity. Only hare's horn
type of atyanta abhava, tuccha, entities can't be a positive entity because
they are not experienced by the help of any pramana. Thus the deciding
factor for something to be a bhAvarupa entity is its experiencability.

regards
subbu

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 11:54 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> While commenting on the mantra सत्यं च अनृतं च सत्यमभवत् ”satyam cha
> anRtam cha Satyam abhavat’ (Taittiriya Up. II.6) Sri Shankaracharya says:
> satyam = vyavaharavishayam since this is being mentioned in the context of
> ‘sRishti’ of the world. He adds: this is not paramArthasatyam (absolute
> reality) since Brahman alone indeed is paramArtha satyam. This
> vyavaharavishayam satyam is only Apekshikam, relative, empirical.
> He explains: when compared to the water in a mirage, the water (that we
> actually use for drinking, etc.) is real. This is what is meant by
> ‘vyavaharika satyam’.
> That which is not thus real is anRtam, unreal.
> सत्यं च व्यवहारविषयम्, अधिकारात्, न परमार्थसत्यम्; एकमेव हि परमार्थसत्यं
> ब्रह्म । इह पुनः व्यवहारविषयमापेक्षिकं मृगतृष्णिकाद्यनृतापेक्षया उदकादि
> सत्यमित्युच्यते । अनृतं च तद्विपरीतम् । किं पुनरेतत् सर्वं सत्यमभवत्
> परमार्थसत्यम् ।//satyam cha vyavahaaraviShayam, adhikArAt, na
> paramaarthasatyam; ekameva hi paramaarthasatyam Brahma. iha punaH
> vyavahaaraviShayamaapekShikam mRgatRShNikAdyanRtaapekShayA udakAdi
> satyamucyate. anRutam cha tadvipareetam. kim punaretat sarvam satyamabhavat
> paramArthasatyam…//
>
> From the above bhashya we understand that even the anRta, like mirage
> water, shuktr-rajatam etc. is also bhAvarUpa. The mantra says: Brahman
> 'became' all this. Only hare's horn is not admitted as bhAvarupa as it is
> abhAva, atyanta abhava. That is why this category has not been included by
> the above shruti. Bhavarupa does not also mean paramarthika satyam.
>
> regards
> subbu
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 11:01 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Sudhanshu ji
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > 1. //Shankara clearly says that tamas, included in the list and tejas as
>> > well...constitute the adhidaivatam and that they are all devatas // You
>> > mean tamas i.e. the outside darkness itself is the adhidaivata?
>>
>>
>>
>> Every adhidevatA has an adhibhautika aspect. This adhibhautika aspect too
>> is bhAvarUpA. That adhibhautika aspect does not physically constrain them
>> like in the case of lower beings like human beings. We are asked to face
>> the physical Sun and address him with mantras etc. So the physical or
>> adhibhautika aspect of a devatA is inseparably associated with him. At the
>> same time, the devatAs can assume forms and teach and be taught like Surya
>> was taught by Krishna (in a previous incarnation) and Surya taught
>> Yajnavalkya and Manu etc.
>>
>> For many of us, it's easier to conceive of the inseparable connection
>> between this physical Universe as a whole and the 'devatA' viz., VirAt,
>> whose form we are experiencing. He pervades this physical universe but can
>> also assume specific forms in certain contexts of Bhaktapur and rishis etc
>> . Each devatA is an aspect of this One cosmic devatA and enjoys a similar
>> *inseparable* connexion with some adhibhautika entity like sUrya, manas,
>> tamaH, dik etc.(whether sthUla or sUxma).
>>
>> When
>> > Prithivi does not refer to the astronomical prithivi, then how can tamas
>> > refer to the outside darkness? Tamas represents Mritya devata. That is
>> > quite clear.
>>
>>
>>
>> When this physical Earth is worshipped or in some cases
>> exploited/disrespected, then Prithvi devatA is worshipped or in those
>> other
>> cases disrespected. Prithvi devatA is not unrelated to the physical
>> Prithvi, as you suggest. It's only that they (devatAs) have the power to
>> assume anthropomorphic forms at will. That's why they are exalted and not
>> merely physically constrained  like humans who 'live in' bodies. Since
>> Shruti is not just doing  anuvAda of physical realities, the word Prithvi
>> in Shruti  is not referring merely to the adhibhautika physical Earth but
>> it refers to the adhidevatA aspect whose adhibhautika manifestation is
>> experienced by us as this physical Earth.
>>
>> >
>> > 2. The question is whether a devata must necessarily refer to a positive
>> > objective entity. There is no such rule. For example direction.
>>
>>
>> Are you suggesting that direction (dik), is also abhAvarUpA? In the
>> shrauta
>> paramparA, dik is also bhAvarUpa (it is experienced positively as 'ayam
>> daxiNah paxaH' etc., as Subbuji mentioned) and it's devatAs are ishAnan,
>> niRRta etc.
>>
>> This word bhAvarUpa does not mean it has to be something grossly
>> objectifiable like chairs etc. The sUxma entities like manas etc are
>> apanchIkRta and yet they represent the  adhibhautika aspect of  a devatA.
>> It's  not as if the  adhibhautika  aspect of an adhidevatA has to be only
>> be made of pancIkRta bhUtas like in the case of the physical Sun etc. As I
>> understand, both tamaH and dik are bhAvarUpa and they have adhibhautika
>> (darkness and direction) and adhidaivika aspects. So your example of dik
>> only shows that dik and tamas are both bhAvarUpas.
>>
>>
>> Om
>>
>> Raghav
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>