[Advaita-l] [advaitin] A kilogram of darkness please

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste  Sudhanshuji,

--तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम्. meaning please
--//The word bhAvarUpa here is not "in the sense of being considered to
exist". It has been demonstrated by BhAshyakAra to be like cloth, in the
pot-abhAva example. He has taken cloth as an example of bhAvarUpa.//
from fn1 below referring cloth as example of pot-abhava:
"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."


Sri Kumarji translated and posted in SAV group though you, Sudhanshuji, did
not substantively respond although you did offer some nice peripheral
observations (not included here).  Sri Kumarji's pedagogy in presentation.



*** All Abhāva-s (absence, negations) are bhāva rūpa (positive entity) ***
POST #8 (previous posts in the first comment below; full bhāsya in uploaded
file):
*Now*:. Some schools (naiyāyikā, mimāmsaka) talk of 4 kinds of abhāva-s
(before creation of jar, after destruction of jar, complete absence of jar,
and mutual exclusion such as jar not-existing in cloth). Each of these four
abhāva-s of the jar point to a positive entity, and the jar as effect
exists before its creation.
*So far:* Upaniṣad (Br.U. 1.2.1) started with “There was nothing whatsoever
here in the beginning.”
The nihilist: Yes! There was neither effect nor cause.
Vedantin: No, *both were there (existent).* An effect, a jar for example,
is possible only when there is a cause such as lump-of-clay. *In the
beginning, the cause covered the effect* (the world).
Opponent: Cause was not there because to create jar (world) the
lump-of-clay (cause) must have been there, but śruti says there was nothing.
Vedantin: *Cause persists (anuvṛtti) in all products.*
Opponent: No need for a cause. World is a series of products coming and
going. Persistence is due to “similarity” and not due to cause. *Vedantin*:
Similarity is a type of inference which is subordinate to direct
observation (pratyakṣa). Don’t you directly see clay particles persisting
from lump to jar? Also, *manifestation itself is an indicator of the cause.
So also existence in time through notions of past and future jars* such as
jar-to-be, jar-that-was.
Questions for POST #8:

   1. Is the notion of abhāva applicable from a pāramārtha dristi? (Hint:
   See SSS fn #1 and references there.)
   2. If Mūlāvidya is the covering identified as mṛtyu or death in the
   upanishad verse of ghaṭa bhāṣya, would that Mūlāvidya be bhāvarūpa? If yes,
   is there support for the answer in bhāṣya? If not, is that identified prior
   to mṛtyu as bhaāvarūpa, and with support from bhāṣya?

Read on —
BHĀṢYA - Moreover, among the four kinds of abhāva-s (absence, 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 is 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.
   2. If abhāva is bhāva padārtha different from pratiyogi, then it means a
   positive entity different from the jar. Just as the positive cloth has
   anyōnya abhāva with respect to the jar, why not the prāg abhāva be positive
   with respect to the jar? This is the sense here. 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 a jar is non-existent before birth, then
   it is said so to (set up) the defect discussed next.

Continuing…
BHĀṢYA - Moreover, if the jar before its manifestation be an complete
abhāva (nonentity) like the proverbial horns of a hare (śaśaviṣāṇavat), it
cannot be connected either with its cause or with existence (sat), for
connection requires two positive entitles. If it is said to be connected
with things that are inseparable, it would be incorrect. For, we cannot
conceive of an inseparable connection between an existent and a
non-existent thing. Separable or inseparable connection is possible between
two positive entities only, not between an entity and a nonentity, nor
between two nonentities. Therefore, we conclude that the effect does exist
before it is manifested.

Here is Sri Kumarji''s full translation of SSSSji's notes on Ghata Bhasya
-- Hope it is informative

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10Do3FlNxgKLVGu_xDB2wSwFe7wXjt9wx/view?usp=drive_link

On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 8:32 AM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Dennis ji.
>
> You have not replied to the central point. I will try again.
>
> Let us concentrate. Even if darkness, as you say, is absence-of-light, how
> is it not bhAvarUpa? BhAshyakAra proves in Br.U.B. 1.2.1 that abhAva are
> bhAvarUpa (this is not common sense. this is advaita-siddhAnta-rahasya). He
> makes a clear statement -- तथैव भावात्मकताभावानाम्. And He did not make a
> statement just like that -- he gave solid anumAna for that.
>
> So, either you refute His statement by counter logic, or accept that
> prakAsha-abhAva, which you hold as darkness, is bhAvarUpa.
> Be specific to the topic please.
>
> //I would have thought that all Śaṅkara is saying in Br.U.B. 1.2.1 is that
> darkness is the word we use to refer to an absence of light. Since we all
> know what we mean when we speak of ‘darkness’, in that sense it can be
> considered to ‘exist’.//
>
> BhAshya is clear. Pot-abhAva, whether it is prAk, pradhvamsa, anyonya or
> atyanta -- is bhAvarUpa. Further, all such vishesha-abhAva, be it
> pot-abhAva, cloth-abhAva, chair-abhAva, food-abhAva, are bhAvarUpa. The
> word bhAvarUpa here is not "in the sense of being considered to exist". It
> has been demonstrated by BhAshyakAra to be like cloth, in the pot-abhAva
> example. He has taken cloth as an example of bhAvarUpa.
>
> So, please ponder over this and respond as to how even your acceptance of
> darkness being prakAsha-abhAva militates against its bhAvarUpatva.
>
> 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 on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBqGa2f706MaXPozdj580k3zN52fGtzuRDNp7c0K10yow%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBBqGa2f706MaXPozdj580k3zN52fGtzuRDNp7c0K10yow%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>