[Advaita-l] Shankara accepts BhAvarUpa ajnana BSB 4.1.15

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sudhanshu Ji,

Is it correct to say that ajAti vAda does not admit of any creation. It
indeed does admit of mAyic creation.

Please clarify.

Regards

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:10 PM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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.
> >>>
> >>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>