[Advaita-l] Shankara accepts BhAvarUpa ajnana BSB 4.1.15

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 1:42 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste V Subramanian ji,
>
> 1. This whole discussion of BSB 4.1.15 is valid only in
> srishTi-drishTi-vAda. In drishTi-srishTi-vAda, which is the
> mukhya-VedAnta-siddhAnta, prArabdha is not accepted to continue. There is
> only one jIva and there can be no avidyA-lesha or bAdhita anuvritti post
> cessation of ajnAna by jnAna.
>

Namaste


In DSV there is no bandha too; the 'na nirodho na chotpattih..' is what is
applicable there. Only in that view can prarabdha not exist since the
world/jiva/karma/bandha/ itself did not exist in the first place.  Hence no
mukta and moksha too.

>
> 2. Having said that, it no way contradicts bhAvarUpa-tva of ajnAna.
>
> 3. //the bAdhita or bAdhayogya mithyajnAna is not any abhAva but a
> bhAvarUpa
> (akin to an existent).//
>
> BhAvarUpa is not akin to an existent. It is as non-existent as horns of
> hare. It merely appears to exist whereas abhAva does not appear to exist.
>


The 'rUpa' part of bhAvarUpa, is similar to the rUpa in 'smritirUpaH
paratra purvadrishTa avabhAsaH' of the adhyAsa bhaShya.  There the 'rUpa'
part means 'akin to a smriti (not smriti itself).  Here, it is as though
existent and not actually existent. Only then it can be kAryakshama, be
capable of producing effects.

>
> traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitvam implies utter non-existence of ajnAna.
>

Yes, this is exactly the purport of 'na nirodho na chotpatttih...'



> Thus, bhAvarUpa is not akin to existent. It is non-existent.
>

regards
subbu



>
> 4. The bhAvarUpatva of ajnAna is established by the fact that it is
> sAkshi-bhAsya. It is neither sat nor asat.
>
> However, existentially, it is same as asat. It is non-existent.
>
> Regards.
>
>