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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Putran Ji,

As I mentioned earlier, the word *positive* for avidyA is used quite often
in english texts covering Advaita SiddhAnta. I have not come across
anywhere any specific mention of bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa in respect of such
usage. Prof Hiriyanna does indeed mention in one place that the word
bhAvarUpa for avidyA is generally used in Advaita SiddhAnta as connoting
*not abhAvarUpa*. I tried my best to locate this reference but somehow it
has eluded me this time round. I will certainly provide it any time I
locate the same.

Just saw your latest post. Sri Goda Shastrinah referred to only the
specific instance of lakshaNa/definition of avidyA while identifying bhAva
with *sat* or *Brahman*. It was not in any universal sense. My
understanding also is the same.

In my view, the word bhAva, unless otherwise stated, is in fact used in
literature to denote all entities in Creation. Perhaps in all DarshanAs as
well. In Advaita SiddhAnta of course it covers all anirvachanIya entities.
The difference between these entities and avidyA is that all these are
produced, have a beginning (sAdi)  while avidyA is anAdi. But both are
subject to destruction (sAnta). Since Brahman/*Sat* is the only other
entity which is also anAdi, there is a specific need to distinguish between
them. Hence in the definition of avidyA, where it is stated to be bhAva
vilakshaNa, the word bhAva is to be understood as addressing Brahman/*Sat*.
Sri Goda Shastrinah referred to only this specific definition of avidyA
while making this statement. Whether it is applicable elsewhere was not
covered by him in his talk.

Reg  // One question is whether English writers like you mentioned have
translated and discussed bhava, abhava, their Vilakshana, and if so, also
their difference or equivalence with sat, asat, mithya. Since understanding
the same siddhanta but in terms of bhava etc. seems central to
post-shankara acharyas, we would expect previous scholarship on how these
terms are same or different from sat etc //,

To the best of my knowledge they are covered only in texts which are highly
polemical in nature, and not in general texts covering Advaita SiddhAnta.

Regards

On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 6:02 PM putran M <putranm4 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaskaram Chandramouli-ji
>
> I don't fully follow all the terminology in these discussions. Am used to
> sat etc. but not bhava etc.
>
> However, "positive" was one issue where I had pointed out a discrepancy
> between Sudhanshu-ji and Venkataraghavan-ji earlier and asked for
> clarification and consensus. In his recent reply, Sudhanshu-ji stated "The
> word "positive" can be used for denoting "bhAvarUpa". That is not the issue
> as long as it is understood that bhAvarUpa is bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa. All
> the respectable names which you have taken would certainly have meant
> bhAva-abhAva-vilakshaNa by their usage of "positive". "
>
> I took it as acceptance for its usage provided potential confusion is
> avoided.
>
> The other issue that is the main topic now was also indicated by you
> before. Whether sat, asat mithya/anirvachaniya cover everything to be
> talked about; (and whether bhava, abhava, their vilakshana constitute a
> different carving out of "everything" or are equivalent to sat etc.)
>
> From what I am reading, they denote something different even though the
> totality of both constructs is "everything". So the union of Bh U aBh U
> B-ab-Vil = Sat U asat U mithya (which is what you also seemed to assert);
> *but* Bh is not same as Sat, etc.
>
> One question is whether English writers like you mentioned have translated
> and discussed bhava, abhava, their Vilakshana, and if so, also their
> difference or equivalence with sat, asat, mithya. Since understanding the
> same siddhanta but in terms of bhava etc. seems central to post-shankara
> acharyas, we would expect previous scholarship on how these terms are same
> or different from sat etc.
>
> thollmelukaalkizhu
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 3:29 AM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>>> .
>>>
>> --
>> 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/CAEs%2B%2BdOrGvU7oUyOaDD_VeN0MWHxqpy5b19D7sHi1to9vNWb3w%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdOrGvU7oUyOaDD_VeN0MWHxqpy5b19D7sHi1to9vNWb3w%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/CAKqm3-o3r-Ba3%2BLP3SCN8gLu2QWt2bs8ji8vQ%3D-3Hz0Eb7_ArA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-o3r-Ba3%2BLP3SCN8gLu2QWt2bs8ji8vQ%3D-3Hz0Eb7_ArA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>