[Advaita-l] Shankara accepts BhAvarUpa ajnana BSB 4.1.15

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:02 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste.
>
> //Is a Jnani / mukta admitted in DSV? If yes, then prarabdha has to be
> admitted. If no, then it will be within the 'na nirodho...' concept.//
>
> If we check eka-jIva-vAda-vichAra in Advaita Siddhi, which is same as
> drishTi-srishti-vAda (EJV and DSV are synonyms as per SiddhAnta Bindu),
> jnAnIs are not admitted. All references thereto are arthavAda.
>

What I meant was whether the eka jiva, upon enlightenment, remains over as
a Jnani? If the answer is 'Brahman alone is', then it is no different from
na nirodho....paramArthatA.

>
> However, that does not automatically imply na nirodho, na utpatti because
> one jIva is admitted. His bondage and mukti is admitted. However,
> jIvanmukti is not admitted. In ajAti, there is no creation. In DSV, there
> is creation.
>
> I was looking for the citation that rUpa in bhAvarUpa is similar to
> rUpamin smriti-rUpa.
>
>
> //In the term 'bhAvarUpa' too, the rUpa part is to show that it is 'like'
> an existent and not really existent.//
>
> I haven't really seen anything like this in my study. BhAvarUpa is just to
> indicate its abhAva-vilakshaNa-tA and not to posit similarity with bhAva.
> That is however a non-issue as long as its utter non-existence is admitted.
> Basically, my point is, ontologically, bhAvarUpa is same as tuchcha.
>

Seen in the light of 'sacchEnna bAdhyEta,* asacchEnna pratIyEta*', the
equating of bhAvarUpa to tuchchA would not be agreeable. The assigning of
'bhAvarUpatva' to the adhyasta vastu is meaningful in the definition of
sadasadvilakshana. abhAva-vilakshaNa-tA is exactly articulated in the
definition.

regards
subbu

>
> //In the case of a pot that exists, it has come into existence having been
> produced.Or in terms of Vedanta, the existence of clay, the cause, inheres
> in the effect, the pot. Such is not the case with the aaropita sarpa; it
> appears to exist during the bhrama. Hence bhAva'rUpa'.//
>
> Such differentiation again is made in SDV only. In DSV, which is
> mukhya-VedAnta-siddhAnta, everything is prAtibhAsika only. Whether it is
> clay-pot or rajju-sarpa.
>
>
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023, 15:46 V Subrahmanian, <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste
>>
>> Is a Jnani / mukta admitted in DSV? If yes, then prarabdha has to be
>> admitted. If no, then it will be within the 'na nirodho...' concept.
>>
>> You asked:
>>
>> Any citation for stating that usage of word rUpa in bhAvarUpa is like
>> smriti-rUpa? ChitsukhI states bhAvarUpa word itself is used to signify mere
>> abhAva-vilakshaNa-tA. It says --
>> भाव-अभाव-विलक्षणस्य-अज्ञानस्य-अभावविलक्षणत्वमात्रेण भावत्व-उपचारात्।
>>
>> My response: the upachArAt in the above is itself conveying the meaning
>> of 'rUpa' in the term bhAvarUpa. It is only aupachArika bhAvatva and not
>> mukhya bhAvatva.
>> In the Ratnaprabha commentary for the word 'smRtirUpa' of the adhyasa
>> bhashya this is said:
>>
>> स्मृतिरूप इति ।
>>
>> स्मर्यते इति स्मृतिः सत्यरजतादिः *तस्य रूपमिव रूपमस्येति स्मृतिरूपः ।
>> स्मर्यमाणसदृश इत्यर्थः । *
>>
>>
>> The Bhamati says:
>>
>> स्मृतिरूप इति ।
>>
>> *स्मृते रूपमिव रूपमस्येति स्मृतिरूपः* ।
>>
>>
>> In the term 'bhAvarUpa' too, the rUpa part is to show that it is 'like'
>> an existent and not really existent.  In the case of a pot that exists, it
>> has come into existence having been produced.Or in terms of Vedanta, the
>> existence of clay, the cause, inheres in the effect, the pot. Such is not
>> the case with the aaropita sarpa; it appears to exist during the bhrama.
>> Hence bhAva'rUpa'.
>>
>>
>> regards
>>
>> subbu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 2:41 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <
>> sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> //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.//
>>>>
>>>
>>> DSV does have concepts of bandha and moksha as bhAvarUpA avidyA is
>>> admitted. Its removal amounts to Moksha. The verse 'na nirodho na cha
>>> utpatti' applies to ajAtivAda and not to DSV which does talk of srishTi. It
>>> states drishTi i.e. vritti-upahita-chaitanya to be srishTi. ajAti admits no
>>> srishTi, no bandha, no moksha, no drishTi, no whatever.
>>>
>>> ajAti is different from DSV. sAra-sangraha-TIkA on 2.83
>>> Samkshepa-ShArIraka may be perused.
>>>
>>>>
>>> //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.//
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> Any citation for stating that usage of word rUpa in bhAvarUpa is like
>>> smriti-rUpa? ChitsukhI states bhAvarUpa word itself is used to signify mere
>>> abhAva-vilakshaNa-tA. It says --
>>> भाव-अभाव-विलक्षणस्य-अज्ञानस्य-अभावविलक्षणत्वमात्रेण भावत्व-उपचारात्।
>>>
>>> //
>>>
>>>> traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitvam implies utter non-existence of ajnAna.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this is exactly the purport of 'na nirodho na chotpatttih...'//
>>>>
>>>
>>> traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitvam is the definition of mithyA which is
>>> same as bhAvarUpa. This is admitted in both SDV and DSV because bhAvarUpA
>>> mithyA avidyA is needed to explain srishTi, be it through DSV or through
>>> SDV.
>>>
>>> In ajAti, there is no srishTi. There is hence no need of any mithyA
>>> bhAvarUpA avidyA either.
>>>
>>> The definition ensures that there is no loss of Advaita even in SDV and
>>> DSV because bhAvarUpa is ontologically same as horns of hare. But it does
>>> not appear correct to equate it to 'na nirodho na cha utpatti' which is
>>> ajAti.
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>>>