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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, I appreciate your advocating the virtues of personal
effort; however, categorically dismissing a rich inquiry based on the
Intelligent analysis of an unbiased machine is itself effortless. I will
replicate Chat's response in my own words.

You must know very well your question is paradoxical and cannot be answered
by a simple yes or no. Nuance is necessary. Pratiyogi or the positive
existence of absence.is a counter intuitive reasoning accepted in Nyaya and
Advaita. However, accepting it as an argument to justify the existence of a
mithya ajnana or fundamentally positive False Ignorance is as logically
unwarranted as its implication of the absurdity of a 'True Ignorance'.

There is no independent absence of a thing. Absence of a pot depends upon
the physical presence of a pot. Absence is simply a notion dependent upon
something other than itself. We never perceive the absence of a pot
directly without reference to pot.  Thus, absence is relational only.

Pot and its absence as well as all existence and non-existence are
superimpositions. They are mithya. Mithya is an illusory appearance - valid
only within vyavaharika drsti just like appearance in svapna. Mithya is not
some-thing, just as dream phenomena is not some-thing.

How can some-thing be resolved by knowledge alone? Superimposed waking and
dream phenomena can be resolved by knowledge as long as they are known to
be wrong ideas appearing as real phenomena. That should be as clear as
waking up from a dream negates the dream in toto, just like seeing the rope
negates that there ever was a snake in the rope.  .

Further, absence is an effect. Whatever is its cause, all effects are
vacambaram vikara namadeham, name only.

Further still, as photons are necessary to see light, what are the elements
necessary to see darkness? Darkness is just the absence of photons of
light.

and then to conclude, I ask you to handle these objections to your
insistence on the ignorance and darkness as a positive substance:

   1. Darkness would have to coexist with light in some locus, which is
   never observed.
   2. It would require independent perception, which never happens without
   reference to the absence of light.
   3. Its perception would have to contribute to empirical functionality,
   but all functionality attributed to darkness (e.g., night, shadows) is
   explained through the absence of light.






On Sat, Dec 7, 2024 at 7:24 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Michael ji
>
> Answer precisely:
>
> 1. Is pot-abhAva distinct from pot or is pot-abhAva identical to pot?
>
> 2. Is pot-abhAva bhAvarUpa?
>
> You are free to seek guidance from anyone, including Chatgpt. However,
> instead of doing cut-paste, you state the answer in your words as your
> considered view, if you accept that view.
>
> Chatgpt does not stand a chance in any argument. So, cut-paste does a poor
> job in an argument.
>
> Let us be fixed on the discussion. The two questions are precise and
> yes/no type. However, it will test the basic understanding. (In fact, there
> are direct bhAshya statement for both questions.)
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
>>