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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Michael ji,

The implication of Sri SSS' position - that avidyA is jnAna abhAva - the
absence of knowledge, is not merely epistemic, it also is ontic. The
absence of knowledge cannot be an existent entity in his conception. To
deny existence, to say something is absent, is entering the realm of
ontology, even if in this case, it is to deny the presence of knowledge.

If it were otherwise, i.e. the absence of knowledge, was some "existent"
entity, all the concerns that Sri SSS has with an bhAvarUpa avidyA, would
apply equally to his stance too.

That being the case, such a non-existent entity cannot give rise to an
"existent" effect, such as adhyAsa. If Sri SSS alleges otherwise, he would
contradict experience and the explicit words of the bhAShya that Sri Subbu
and others have pointed out.

So we are left with the only alternative remaining to justify his position,
the one that you pointed out - that adhyAsa logically presupposes jnAna
abhAva. That is, jnAna must be absent for adhyAsa to occur. If this was the
nature of "causation" that was meant, this logical postulate would be
worded thus:

1) If jnAna was present, adhyAsa wouldn't occur. It is observed that
adhyAsa occurs, jnAna must be absent.

2) However, there is an equally valid alternative logical postulate. The
shruti says that Brahman is svaprakAsha, self evident. However, common
experience is that it is not evident to most. Therefore, it follows that
there must be some "thing" that obstructs that otherwise natural knowledge
of the self.

Based on this logical postulate, it is postulated that the "thing" which
obscures the otherwise natural cognition of the self is ignorance. The
absence of knowledge cannot be the thing, because by virtue of it being
absent, is not a thing. Further, being absent, it cannot obscure.

Now the postulation of this thing called ignorance does not invalidate
postulate 1. Because when jnAna is absent, ignorance continues to exist.
However, when it is present, ajnAna cannot exist, and nor can its product,
adhyAsa.

However, if ignorance were jnAna abhAva, postulate 2 is invalidated. There
is no way to explain why the svaprakAsha Brahman isn not immediately and
directly known by all.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan




On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 6:58 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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>
>> .
>>
> --
> 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/CAAz9PvFMw7LDPP_dKTsSEvwuT%3DhUaS%2BXOB__Xc7oY_zN9_CLAg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvFMw7LDPP_dKTsSEvwuT%3DhUaS%2BXOB__Xc7oY_zN9_CLAg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>