[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Is pot-abhAva bhAvarUpa

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

Pot abhava is dependent upon pot - pot is its bhava and absence of pot also
belongs to pot. Absence of pot does not possess independent existence.
Darkness depends upon light. It doesn't have an independent, substantial
existence. That seems clear.

regards.

On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 6:21 AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshu ji
> I think the answer was already given albeit in a roundabout way , but no
> harming in confirming with them.
>
>
> It was indicated by SSSS followers that the words of SSSS are to be
> accepted as authoritative...I.e., effectively a pramANa. If logic
> contradicts those words, we have to not accept such logic.
> (SSSS-matas-tarkam anusandhIyatAm). Because if we are clever, logic can be
> used to prove almost anything. So SSSS-words and "anubhava" (i.e., the
> highly subjective "commonsensical" assumptions like "everyone knows AND
> experiences that darkness is just absence of light" , "we all experience
> the sun moving in the sky everyday from dawn to dusk" kind of statements
> which are exalted as "anubhava") trumps any anumANa you may present.
>
> So I am afraid you will only get a cut-and-paste meandering non-answer
> about how you are should not take such anumANa outside of its "context".
>
> Fact is, that anumAna remains valid and has to be not contradicted by other
> assertions and postulates we may make.
>
> Last answer from them is that, that anumAna does not hold for
> pot-jnAnAbhAva; the anumAna only implies adhikaraNa-bhAvatvaM and not
> pot-abhAva etc as a separate entity.
>
> But i hope you get a clear response... :)
>
> Om
> Raghav
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 6 Dec, 2024, 10:39 am Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Hari Om Bhaskar prabhu ji.
> >
> > Let us leave aside everything and concentrate on the argument presented.
> > Suppose, a ten-year boy comes before you and presents this argument by
> > saying - uncle, I can prove to you that a vishesha-abhAva is not like
> horns
> > of hare. It is bhAvarUpa. And he presents his argument as follows -
> > चतुर्विधानामभावानाम् , घटस्येतरेतराभावो घटादन्यो ष्टः — यथा घटाभावः
> > पटादिरेव, न घटस्वरूपमेव । न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ?
> > भावरूप एव । एवं घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात्
> ,
> > घटेन व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम् ।
> >
> > He says that this anumAna proves without a doubt that any
> vishesha-abhAva,
> > be it pot-abhAva, chair-abhAva, cloth-abhAva etc, is bhAvarUpa.
> >
> > What would be your reaction? Would you agree with this anumAna-pramANa?
> If
> > not, then how would you refute him?
> >
> > Let us restrict to this much and not go beyond to mUlAvidyA etc. Let us
> > move forward step-by-step.
> >
> > Regards.
> > Sudhanshu Shekhar.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>