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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Putran Ji,

Reg  // One question is whether English writers like you mentioned have
translated...... //,

Just wanted to clarify that all the writers I had mentioned are Indians
and  not English writers. But the texts I had referred were written by them
in english language.

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>
> .
>