[Advaita-l] [advaitin] A smart inference by Shankara

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

The main point of discussion was as copied below from my initial post on
the topic

//  Reg **positive** term for avidyA.

Any number of scholars like Prof Hiriyanna, Prof Suryanarayana Shastri, Dr
Kunhan Raja, Prof TMP Mahadevan, Alladi Mahadeva Shastri etc have termed
avidyA as **positive** in many of their texts.

Sri Goda Venkateswara Shastrinah, in his talks covering Advaita Siddhi,
terms avidyA/ajnAna as **positive** entity (using the English word) at many
places. He specifically mentions, concerning bhAva-vilakshaNa of avidyA,
 that the word **bhAva** here should be understood as Brahman, and that it
is meant to distinguish them as both are termed anAdi //.

Rest of the discussion was incidental.

Regards

On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 1:20 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
>
> The explanation makes sense to me.
>
> I haven't followed the discussion, so I don't know if Chandramouliji is
> restricting the meaning of bhAvatva to Brahman alone or not.
>
> I guess the implication of this is that avidyAkArya is anirvachanIya
> because it is sadasatvilakshaNa, while continuing to be "bhAva". avidyA is
> anirvachanIya while it is bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa!
>
> This is the main charge that SSS and his followers and dvaitins level
> against vyAkhyAnakAras and advaita, respectively - their argument is that
> if something is abhAva-vilakshaNa, it must be contradictory to advaita.
>
> To dvaitins, the answer is that despite the world being bhAva, it is still
> only sadasatvilakshaNa.
>
> When that is the case, the answer to SSS is even more straight forward -
> avidyA is not even bhAva in our construct, so for it to contradict
> sat-advaita is a complete impossibility!
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2024, 00:07 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Chandramouli ji and other learned members.
>>
>> I would like to present the argument in simpler language for benefit of
>> everyone including myself. I would request other learned members to kindly
>> go through the write-up and please comment whether what is explained makes
>> sense.
>>
>> avidyA is defined as jnAna-nivartyA, anAdi and bhAvarUpa. अनादि भावरूपं
>> यद्विज्ञानेन विलीयते। तदज्ञानमिति प्राज्ञा लक्षणं संप्रचक्षते।।
>>
>> BhAvarUpa is explained as both bhAva-vilakshaNa and abhAva-vilakshaNa. न
>> च – अभावविलक्षणाविद्यादौ #भावविलक्षणत्वमसम्भवि, परस्परविरोधादिति – वाच्यम्
>> ; #भावत्वाभावत्वयोर्बाधकसत्त्वेन #तृतीयप्रकारत्वसिद्धौ
>> परस्परविरहव्यापकत्वरूपविरोधासिद्धेः, #परस्परविरहव्याप्यत्वरूपस्तु विरोधो
>> नैकविरहेणापरमाक्षिपति ।
>>
>> The bone of contention is regarding the ambit of word "bhAva" in
>> bhAva-vilakshaNa as a constituent of bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa.
>>
>> While Chandramouli ji holds that "bhAva" in bhAva-vilakshaNa refers only
>> to Brahman, I hold it to also include prAtibhAsika-avidyA-kArya such as
>> shuktirUpya and vyAvhArika-avidyA-kArya such as ghaTa.
>>
>> The discussion in Advaita siddhi makes it amply clear that "bhAva" in
>> bhAva-vilakshaNa include ghaTa and shuktirUpya and does not merely refer to
>> Brahman.
>>
>> The issue is extremely important and requires full attention for clear
>> understanding.
>>
>>
>> *How exactly does "bhAva" in bhAva-vilakshaNa refer to ghaTa? *
>>
>> The siddhAntI says that there are bAdhaka for accepting bhAvatva of
>> avidyA as well as for accepting abhAvatva of avidyA. Due to the presence of
>> bAdhaka, one is constrained to accept that avidyA is both bhAva-vilakshaNa
>> as well as abhAva-vilakshaNa. In this context, siddhAntI presents an anumAna
>>
>> विनाशी भावः सादि:, घटवत् .
>>
>> SiddhAntI says that it is a rule that whichever entity is both vinAshI
>> and bhAva, then it has to be sAdi. He gives an example of घट , which has
>> both vinAshitva and bhAvatva resulting into sAditva.
>>
>> Now, avidyA is accepted as vinAshI and anAdi. If avidyA were to be bhAva,
>> then by this anumAna, it would turn to be sAdi. That will be contradictory
>> to definition.
>>
>> Hence, avidyA cannot be accepted as bhAva.
>>
>> Now, the anumAna took ghaTa as drishTAnta and accepted bhAvatva to be
>> present therein. Based on this, the bhAvatva of avidyA was rejected.
>>
>> It is thus amply clear that bhAva in bhAva-vilakshaNa accepts ghaTa as an
>> example of bhAva, which is rejected for avidyA being bhAva-vilakshaNa.
>>
>> Hence, it is proved that vyAvhArika-avidyA-kArya such as pot is included
>> in the ambit of word "bhAva".
>>
>> Please refer to the first para in page 1097:
>> https://archive.org/details/xlhS_advaita-siddhi-sanskrit-with-commentary-bala-bodhini-by-yogendra-natha-sharma-ed/page/n451/mode/2up
>>
>>
>> *How exactly does "bhAva" in bhAva-vilakshaNa refer to shuktirUpya?*
>>
>> The opponent gives an anumAna to prove that avidyA cannot be anAdi. It
>> says, whatever is jnAna-nivartya and abhAva-vilakshaNa is necessarily sAdi.
>> For example, shuktirUpya, which is negated by knowledge and is
>> abhAva-vilakshaNa. Similarly, since avidyA is accepted to be
>> abhAva-vilakshaNa as well as jnAna-nivartyA, it must be sAdi. Hence, the
>> lakshaNa which said that avidyA is anAdi is asambhava.
>>
>> SiddhAntI replies that the anumAna presented is sOpAdhika anumAna. Here
>> upaadhi means something which is vyApaka of sAdhya but non-vyApaka of
>> sAdhana. He goes on to state that bhAvatva is the upAdhi.
>>
>> He says that since bhAvatva is present in drishTanta i.e. shuktirUpya,
>> but is absent in paksha i.e. avidyA, this anumAna is faulty anumAna.
>>
>> This statement by siddhAnti proves that shuktirUpya is accepted as bhAva.
>> (दृष्टान्ते शुक्तिरजते भावत्वं वर्तते। पक्षीकृतायामविद्यायां भावत्वं
>> नास्ति।)
>>
>> Please refer to page 1095:
>> https://archive.org/details/xlhS_advaita-siddhi-sanskrit-with-commentary-bala-bodhini-by-yogendra-natha-sharma-ed/page/n449/mode/2up
>>
>>
>> Thus, to the best of my ability, I have demonstrated that the word
>> "bhAva" in bhAva-vilakshaNa covers both vyAvahArika and prAtibhAsika
>> avidyA-kArya.
>>
>> This seems so obvious to me. I would request other members to comment
>> whether they see any problem in this?
>>
>> If someone asks -- how can such an avidyA - which is both
>> bhAva-vilakshaNa and abhAva-vilakshaNa - be upAdAna of bhAva such as ghaTa
>> and shuktirUpya and upAdAna of abhAva such as pot-abhava.
>>
>> Then the answer is:
>>
>> Complete sAjAtya in upAdAna and upAdeya is not required. Some sAjAtya is
>> required.
>>
>> So, bhAva such as ghaTa and shuktirUpya as well as avidyA have
>> abhAva-vilakshaNatA in common.
>>
>> abhAva such as pot-abhava and avidyA have bhAva-vilakshaNatA in common.
>>
>> So, there is no incongruity in avidyA being the upAdAna of both
>> bhAva-avidyA-kArya and abhAva-avidyA-kArya despite itself being both
>> bhAva-vilakshaNA and abhAva-vilakshaNA.
>>
>> Regards.
>> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "advaitin" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBARy9Ja8P0dnWTo0WgJE6hhnt7VtHFHmmrpHp6-3pyo-Q%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBARy9Ja8P0dnWTo0WgJE6hhnt7VtHFHmmrpHp6-3pyo-Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEkhYTv90UhDEm93FzRajnY9mEKwTKUDcij4dcGP8bwgLA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEkhYTv90UhDEm93FzRajnY9mEKwTKUDcij4dcGP8bwgLA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>