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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

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.
>

I am not dismissing Chatgpt's answer. I am merely asking you to not
cut-paste it. You understand its reply, reproduce in your own words as your
opinion and then put forward for discussion. That is welcome.

You must know very well your question is paradoxical and cannot be answered
> by a simple yes or no. Nuance is necessary.
>

No. The questions namely "1. Is pot-abhAva distinct from pot or is
pot-abhAva identical to pot? 2. Is pot-abhAva bhAvarUpa?" are not
paradoxical. These are well-structured and definite questions having
definite answers. Moreover, they have been specifically dealt with in
bhAshya with definite answers.

Pratiyogi or the positive existence of absence.is a counter intuitive
> reasoning accepted in Nyaya and Advaita.
>

We are concerned only with the bhAvarUpatA of abhAva. There is no
requirement of discussion on pratiyOgI, as the bhAvarUpatA of pratiyOgI is
well accepted by everyone.


> 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'.
>

Let us put on hold the discussion related to ajnAna. Let us concentrate on
pot-abhAva.


> 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.
>

Sir, I had given you a specific anumAna. Instead of countering the
argument, you are repeating your premises. When the opponent puts forward
an anumAna, you are supposed to counter it and not merely repeat your
beliefs. It does not serve any purpose. The anumAna is as under -
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 ।
Try again.

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.
>

1. Is pot an illusory appearance?
2. Is pot-abhAva an illusory appearance?


> 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.
>

If that "some-thing" is caused by ignorance, it can be resolved by
knowledge alone and by nothing else. Wrong-idea is also "some-thing". It is
not horns of hare. If wrong-idea being some-thing can be removed by
knowledge, any other some-thing caused by ignorance can as well be removed
by knowledge.


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

Very nice. However, we need to distinguish between nirvishesha-abhAva
(horns of hare) and vishesha-abhAva (pot-abhAva). While the former-abhAva
is not an effect, the latter-abhAva is an effect.


> 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.
>

We will come to darkness. Let us first understand pot-abhAva.


> 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.
>
>
Let us restrict to pot-abhAva. Let us understand the phenomenal anumAna
presented by BhAshyakAra in ghaTa-bhAshya. Let us first understand that
pot-abhAva is bhAvarUpa or not. Once that is clear, all other discussions
such as on darkness, ajnAna will make sense. First and foremose, however,
is to understand pot-abhAva.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.