[Advaita-l] Pratyavaha

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Anandji,

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 7:32 PM Anand N via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> But I have also heard that Sankara rejects this in the final analysis.

Now I want to understand the context in which it is being rejected.
>
The rejection is of pratyavAya as a new doSha generated by the absence of
something, meaning non-performance of nityakarma, as it is understood by
the pUrvamImAMsaka. The rejection is not of pratyavAya itself. It can be
understood in the following manner: pratyavAya accrues in such a manner
that the nityakarma acting as a kavacha against some pApa earned earlier,
can no longer act as kavacha and that pApa fructifies bringing duHkha. This
is misconstrued by the pUrvamImAMsaka as a fresh pApa, whereas vedAntI says
that it is old accumulated pApa acting out since it has no counter of
protective nityakarma. In other words, positive pApakarma has resulted in
pApaphala that is waiting to act out, unless countered by nityakarma. With
no nityakarma, it acts out and that is pratyavAya-doSha.

Is it because, from no action being done, there cannot be a negative effect
> of Pratyavaha?
>
Yes, it something like not wearing an armour in the battlefield. That mere
absence of wearing the armour won't hurt the person, but the arrows shot
(by others) is the cause for hurt. There is a huge difference between them.
A positive pApa cannot be born out of a zero karma, else Vedanti will have
no argument against shUnyavAdIs.


> Is it like saying, I did not do anything either right or wrong, hence there
> can be no effect of
> dosha being born out of it?
>
It is not as simple as that, technically. The RNas which are there are to
be paid back. Loosely, Chaitra's mere absence of not paying money to a bank
is not the cause of legal action in the world, as Maitra is also not paying
any money to the bank. However, the former has taken the money from the
bank that they want back, while latter has taken no money.

>
> Is there a clear standpoint as to if it is accepted or rejected by
> Advaitins?
>
I hope this is clarified in the above.

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */