[Advaita-l] [advaitin] 'BhAva' cannot be a product of 'abhAva' - Shankara

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Subbhu, SSSSji does not wish to consider abhava some kind of ontic
something that opposes bhavarupa avidya. Rather, it is taken as agrahana -
an epistemic 'not knowing' the cause, as it were, of viparita jnana or
adhyasa. 'As it were' because all causation is recognized as a product of
adhyasa therefore anadi. Cause, as it were, is simply a way of speaking,
pratipatti krama, or the idea of adhyasa itself presupposes not knowing the
Truth. Sankara, on the other hand, following your citations, is referring
to abhava considered as an ontic cause that cannot produce an effect.

Pranam, mcc



On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 2:56 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Shankara has, in a few places across the Bhashyas, has reiterated that
> abhAva cannot give rise to an effect that is bhAva,  In other words,
> non-existence cannot give rise to an existent.
>
> BSB 2.2.26:
>
> नाप्यभावः कस्यचिदुत्पत्तिहेतुः स्यात् , अभावत्वादेव, शशविषाणादिवत् ।
> अभावाच्च भावोत्पत्तावभावान्वितमेव सर्वं कार्यं स्यात्; न चैवं दृश्यते,
> सर्वस्य च वस्तुनः स्वेन स्वेन रूपेण भावात्मनैवोपलभ्यमानत्वात् ।
>
> In the context of the cause of the world being abhAva, non-existence,
> proposed by the Buddhist :
>
> [Non-existence, abhAva, can't be the cause of anything, like the hare's
> horn, etc.  (Hare's horn, etc. can't give rise to any effect.)  If one were
> to admit an effect arising from abhAva, non-existence, then such an effect
> has to be endowed with abhAva, non-existence.  But such a situation is mot
> noticed./experienced.]
>
> The same idea is reiterated in the next sutra bhashya too.
>
> In BGB 4.18, in the context of 'non-performance of ordained action cannot
> result in any pratyavaaya, sin:
>
> नापि नित्यानाम् अकरणात् अभावात् प्रत्यवायभावोत्पत्तिः, ‘नासतो विद्यते
> भावः’ (भ. गी. २ । १६)
> <https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Gita/devanagari?page=2&id=BG_C02_V16&hl=%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%87%20%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%83> इति
> वचनात् ‘कथं असतः सज्जायेत’ (छा. उ. ६ । २ । २)
> <https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Chandogya/devanagari?page=6&id=Ch_C06_S02_V02&hl=%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%A5%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%83%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A4> इति
> च दर्शितम् असतः सज्जन्मप्रतिषेधात् । असतः सदुत्पत्तिं ब्रुवता असदेव
> सद्भवेत् , सच्चापि असत् भवेत् इत्युक्तं स्यात् । तच्च अयुक्तम् ,
> सर्वप्रमाणविरोधात् ।
>
> Shankara cites the Bh.Gita verse: 2.16 which says, in this context, 'from
> non-existence, asat, there can't be an existent, sat, originating. Also the
> Chandogya Upanishad says: How indeed can sat, existent, arise from asat,
> non-existence? A consequence would be: asat alone is sat and sat is asat.
> This is illogical and not supported by any pramana.
>
>
> In the Taittiriyopanishat bhashyam:  In the same context as the above,
> Shankara reiterates: from non-performance, which is abhAva, there can't
> arise an effect called pratyavaaya, a positive effect:.
>
> अन्यथा हि अभावाद्भावोत्पत्तिरिति सर्वप्रमाणव्याकोप इति ।
>
> Thus, as per Shankara, abhAva, whether it is jnAnAbhAva or anything, there
> can be no effect that is cognizable.  If Avidya/Ajnanam is held to be an
> abhAva (jnAnAbhAva), the effect of adhyAsa and anartha samsara, can't be
> admissible. However, the entire shAstra, as declared by Shankara at the end
> of the AdhyAsa bhAshya:
>
> अस्यानर्थहेतोः प्रहाणाय आत्मैकत्वविद्याप्रतिपत्तये सर्वे वेदान्ता
> आरभ्यन्ते ।
>
> The Vedantas (Upanishads) have for their purpose the
> eradication/dispelling of the cause of anartha, misery.
>
> Shankara accepts the misery experienced by all to be a bhAva and not some
> abhAva.  Thus, for Shankara, the cause of this bhAva misery, cannot be an
> abhAva.  It has to be necessarily a bhAvarUpa avidya/ajnAnam.
>
> From the shruti and smriti cited by Shankara and what he himself has said
> it is clear that the world, experience of samsAra, etc. are all bhAvarUpa
> and not abhAvarUpa.  It is another context altogether that the GaudapAda
> KarikA teaches ajAtivAda, na nirodho na chotpattih...na mumukshuh na vai
> muktah as the ParamArthatA.  Even there, that ParamArtha is not an abhAva.
>
> Om Tat Sat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/CAKk0Te2Taf8vnwACcfjEmKAr8k2SimTYzfCeEj%2BP7ErFE3MvNQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2Taf8vnwACcfjEmKAr8k2SimTYzfCeEj%2BP7ErFE3MvNQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>