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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

This is SSSSji on the Ghata bhasya passage:

BB 23
api ca, caturvidhānāmabhāvānām , ghaṭasyetaretarābhāvo ghaṭādanyo ṣṭaḥ —
yathā ghaṭābhāvaḥ paṭādireva, na ghaṭasvarūpameva । na ca ghaṭābhāvaḥ
sanpaṭaḥ abhāvātmakaḥ ; kiṃ tarhi ? bhāvarūpa eva । evaṃ ghaṭasya
prākpradhvaṃsātyantābhāvānāmapi ghaṭādanyatvaṃ syāt , ghaṭena
vyapadiśyamānatvāt , ghaṭasyetaretarābhāvavat ; tathaiva
bhāvātmakatābhāvānām । evaṃ ca sati, ghaṭasya prāgabhāva iti na
ghaṭasvarūpameva prāgutpatternāsti । atha ghaṭasya prāgabhāva iti ghaṭasya
yatsvarūpaṃ tadevocyeta, ghaṭasyeti vyapadeśānupapattiḥ । atha kalpayitvā
vyapadiśyeta, śilāputrakasya śarīramiti yadvat ; tathāpi ghaṭasya
prāgabhāva iti kalpitasyaivābhāvasya ghaṭena vyapadeśaḥ, na
ghaṭasvarūpasyaiva । athārthāntaraṃ ghaṭādghaṭasyābhāva iti, uktottarametat
।
BB 23
BHĀṢYA - Moreover, among the four kinds of abhāva-s (Sw.M translated as
negations), the jar’s itaretara-abhāva (mutual exclusion, or anyōnyabhāva)
is seen to be other-than-the-jar. For example, a jar’s abhāva is a cloth
(or another thing), but not the jar itself (svarūpa).
So, the cloth, an abhāva of the jar in this context, is not abhāva-rūpa
(nonentity) but a positive entity (bhāva-rūpa [1]). Similarly, the (other
abhāva-s) prāg, pradhvaṃsa, and atyanta abhāva-s (respectively, abhāva-s
before birth/creation, after death/destruction, and complete, like hare’s
horn) must also be other than the jar. Because (these three abhāva-s) we
say are jar’s abhāva-s, using the same term (śabda) jar as we do when we
say ‘jar’s itaretara-abhāva’. These abhāva-s are also positive entities
(bhāva rūpa) just like itaretara-abhāva. This being so, prāg abhāva does
not mean that the jar’s svarūpa is not there before its birth [2].
Moreover, if by saying prāg abhāva you are pointing jar’s svarūpa, then to
say ‘there is (abhāva) of jar’ is incongruous.
If you use it merely as a fancy, as in the expression, "the body of the
stone sculpture," then the phrase 'the prāg abhāva of a jar' would only
mean that it is the imaginary abhāva that is mentioned in terms of the jar
[3], and not the jar itself. If, on the other hand, you say that the abhāva
of a jar is something other than it, we have already answered the point [4].
———-
SSSS Footnotes:
1. The mīmamsaka-s say, every entity is bhāva (positive) from its own
svarūpa, and it’s in abhāva when viewed from another object. Following this
school, the vyavahāra bheda of jars and clothes, of bhāva and abhāva is
expounded here. Imagining bheda in abhāva is wrong, say Tai.U.Bh (9,
introduction), BSBh 2.1.18 (449), BGBh 18.48 (546) - all these from
pāramartha drsti. So, no contradiction here.
16
2. Here Tīka (Ānandagiri) says- ghata is anādi, ananta, advaya, and
sarvātma. But this is not seen in the bhāsya.
3. In ‘abhāva of jar,’ if bheda is imagined, then abhāva will be imagined;
then to say, jar is non-existent would be incongruous.
4. Because abhāva is bhāvātmaka, one cannot say svarūpa is non-existent. If
it is said that the svarūpa of jar is non-existent before birth, then it is
said so (to set up) the defect discussed next.

On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 12:38 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Sudhanshuji, asked and already answered, again and again, Please,
> let's move on. 🙏🙏🙏
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 10:29 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <
> sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hari Om,
>>
>> In advaita-siddhAnta, vishesha-abhAva such as pot-abhAva is held to be
>> avidyA-kArya.
>>
>> Nirvishesha-abhAva such as horns of hare is, however, not considered as
>> avidyA-kArya.
>>
>> BhAshyakAra has clearly presented an invincible anumAna in ghaTa-bhAshya.
>>
>> अपि च, 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* ।
>>
>> My question to the followers of SSSS ji:
>>
>> Do you accept that pot-abhAva is bhAvarUpa?
>>
>> If yes, then whether prakAsha-abhAva is bhAvarUpa?
>>
>> Regards.
>> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBC4QhG1FDv-eQ0Ger2d0Zy3r5TzNuEYHahRiB21q-JAw%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBC4QhG1FDv-eQ0Ger2d0Zy3r5TzNuEYHahRiB21q-JAw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>