[Advaita-l] [advaitin] SSSS on the controversy between mulav7idya and abhavarupa - directly and simply explained as per SSSS

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

>
> Namaste Venkat ji.

abhAva itself is bhAvarupA says the bhAshyakAra!
>

It is such an important concept to understand.

As we know ghaTa-abhAva is anupalabdhi-pramANa-vedya.

An objection arises: as per siddhAnta, abhAva is not different from
adhikaraNa. So, pot-abhAva has to be adhikaraNa-swarUpa. That means,
pot-abhAva is identical to the ground. Now, ground is pratyaksha-vedya. So,
where is the requirement of anupalabdhi-pramANa?

Ground is pratyaksha. Pot-abhAva is identical to ground. So, pot-abhAva
i.e. ground is pratyaksha. anupalabdhi-pramANa is useless.

Here, it is answered. vyAvhArika-vishesha-abhAva is not identical to
adhikaraNa. It is a different mithyA vastu (other than ground) and is hence
anirvachanIya and triguNAtmaka. And it hence requires a separate pramANa
named anupalabdhi as pratyaksha cannot grasp it. (And also pratyaksha is
utilised in pratyaksha of ground).

Only pAramArthika-abhAva is accepted in siddhAnta as adhikaraNa Brahman
swarUpa.

Further, those siddhAntI who admit all abhAva as adhikaraNa swarUpa, don't
admit anupalabdhi at all. However, even in their case, abhAva being
identical to locus is bhAvarUpa.

So, vishesha-abhAva is always accepted as triguNAtmak, anirvachanIya and
mithyA.

That is why I always wonder, even if SSS ji holds avidyA to be
jnAna-abhAva, how does it matter? It still remains mithyA, triguNAtmaka,
anirvachanIya.

I have raised this query several times in their group citing the ghaTa
bhAshya anumAna of BhAshyakAra, but no sustainable answer came up.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.