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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,
I asked your question to Chatgpt, " Is pot-abhAva different from pot? Or is
it identical to pot? "
Fo the sake of simplicity, I've omitted the Nyaya-Vaiseshika Analysis.

The relationship between *pot-abhāva* (the absence of the pot) and the *pot*
itself is a nuanced topic in Indian philosophy, particularly in *Nyāya*,
*Vaiśeṣika*, and *Advaita Vedānta* schools, which discuss existence,
absence, and negation in metaphysical terms.

   - *Advaita Vedānta Analysis:*
   -
      - In Advaita, existence and non-existence (bhāva and abhāva) are
      ultimately appearances within *Brahman*, the absolute reality.
      However, even within the empirical realm (vyavahāra), pot-abhāva
is treated
      as separate from the pot because non-duality (advaita) does not negate
      empirical distinctions.

Pot-abhāva is *different* from the pot because it represents the absence or
negation of the pot and cannot exist simultaneously in the same locus as
the pot. However, they are conceptually linked because the absence is
defined only in relation to the presence of the pot.
*In another thread, I will post Chat's response to: "pratiyogi points to
the positive existence of absence. That would mean darkness is something
other than the absence of light. provide opposing argunments" *

On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 8:39 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Michael ji.
>
> Pot abhava is dependent upon pot - pot is its bhava and absence of pot also
>> belongs to pot.
>
>
> Is pot-abhAva different from pot? Or is it identical to pot?
>
> Absence of pot does not possess independent existence.
>>
>
> Ok. But what is it? Different from or identical to pot?
>
>
> Darkness depends upon light. It doesn't have an independent, substantial
>> existence. That seems clear.
>>
>
> We will come to it. First let us understand pot-abhAva.
>
> Regards.
>
>>