[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Kilogram concluded

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Chandramouliji,

I am not sure how what you have written is different to what I have.
Proving that prAgabhAva is of the nature of existence, ie have
bhAvAtmakatA, is refuting prAgabhAva.

Regards
Venkatraghavan


On Tue, 3 Sept 2024, 20:45 H S Chandramouli, <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Venkat Ji,
>
> Reg  // To this, Shankaracharya establishes the causal state of the world
> prior to its creation by stating that prAgabhAva , prior absence too is
> *of* the nature of some existence (not the paramArtha sat of Brahman, not
> the vyAkRta form of existence that is present post its creation, but some
> subtle form of existence //,
>
> My understanding is slightly different. The Bhashya follows the same
> approach as stated in BSB BSB 2-2-11  // *इममभ्युपगमं   *तदीययैव प्रक्रियया
> व्यभिचारयति //
>
> // By following this line of argument of the atomists (VaisheshikAs)
> themselves, the aphorist shows that such a postulate is not invariably true
> //.
>
> Bhashya follows the line of argument of the naiyyAyika himself and refutes
> his stand. Advaita SiddhAnta does not admit of some existence to prAgabhAva.
>
> This is in accordance with the talk on this part of the Bhashya by Sri MDS.
>
> As per Advaita SiddhAnta, abhAva is vikalpa only. A few citations below.
>
> TUB , Sambandha Bhashya // प्रध्वंसाभावोऽप्यारभ्यत इति न सम्भवति अभावस्य
> विशेषाभावाद्विकल्पमात्रमेतत् । भावप्रतियोगी ह्यभावः ।//
>
> BUB 2-2-26  //  ‘नासतोऽदृष्टत्वात्’ इति । नाभावाद्भाव उत्पद्यते । //
>
> Regards
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 5:36 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Dennis ji,
>>
>> I am afraid in the section of the bhAShya that is under discussion, the
>> opponent is not the kshaNikavijnAnavAdin (the momentary consciousness
>> school), but the naiyyAyika, the logician.
>>
>> If you recall, the raison d'etre of the entire ghaTabhAShya is the
>> establishment of satkAryavAda - to justify the upaniShadic statement नैवेह
>> किञ्चनाग्र आसीन्मृत्युनैवेदमावृतमासीत् - "In the beginning there was
>> nothing whatsoever here, only death existed, enveloping all this".
>>
>> The logician's contention is that the world (the effect) did not exist
>> prior to its creation - i.e. his position is one of asatkAryavAda. In his
>> view, there was the world's prior absence, prAgabhAva then - and not the
>> world itself in a subtle state, as argued by the satkAryavAdin.
>>
>> To this, Shankaracharya establishes the causal state of the world prior
>> to its creation by stating that prAgabhAva , prior absence too is not the
>> nature of some existence (not the paramArtha sat of Brahman, not the
>> vyAkRta form of existence that is present post its creation, but some
>> subtle form of existence. To do this, he uses the principle of induction,
>> thus -
>>
>> 1) anyonyAbhAva, is one of the four types of absence admitted by the
>> naiyyAyika.
>> 2) anyonyAbhAva is of the nature of some existence - the pot which is
>> different to the cloth, is an existent entity different to it.
>> 3) therefore, prAgabhAva and the two other forms of absence, are also of
>> the nature of some existence, different in some form to the entity - like
>> in the case of anyonyAbhAva.
>> 4) that being the case, the world too had some existence prior to its
>> creation.
>>
>> Yes, there is a discussion refuting the kshaNikavijnAnavAdin, which
>> commences with the words सादृश्यादन्वयदर्शनम् , न कारणानुवृत्तेरिति चेत्
>> and goes on until अतः सिद्धः प्राक्कार्योत्पत्तेः कारणसद्भावः ॥ The object
>> of discussion is the existence of the cause prior to the creation of the
>> effect - which the shUnyavAdin (nihilist) and the kshaNikavijnAnavAdin
>> (momentary consciousness school) reject. ie between the portions of the
>> bhAShya quoted above, the topic is the existence of the kAraNa -
>> satkAraNavAda - against opponents who hold the opposite view -
>> asatkAraNavAda.
>>
>> Whereas the discussion that is the subject matter here is not one of the
>> prior existence of the *cause* (which is denied by the vijnAnavAdin, but
>> accepted by the naiyyAyika), but the prior existence of the* effect* -
>> which is denied by the naiyyAyika. Therefore, what Shankaracharya chooses
>> to do is use the naiyyAyika's own terms (prAgabhAva etc) and methodology
>> (anumAna) against him to show that even he has to admit the error of his
>> position.
>>
>> Perhaps we are complicating matters, but it is in trying to follow the
>> flow of the bhAShya. You too will have to justify the reason why the
>> bhAShya flows in the sequence of topics that it does. If not to us, at
>> least to yourself.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 3 Sept 2024, 16:05 , <dwaite at advaita.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I have investigated and thought about this for another couple of days. I
>>> will put together an essay covering my understanding of the entire topic
>>> for the book I am currently writing; but I will post this to Advaita
>>> Vision. The essay will probably be fairly long and in two or three parts
>>> for the blog, so it will be several weeks before the complete material is
>>> available – I will then post the link.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, here is (what may well be) the essence of my conclusion:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This section (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad Bhāṣya 1.2.1) from Śaṅkara is not
>>> concerned with providing a roundabout argument for the positive existence
>>> of ‘ignorance’, via the route of demonstrating that ‘darkness’ is a
>>> positively existing thing. On the contrary, he is just using his
>>> exceptional logical skills to demonstrate that the notion of ‘momentary
>>> consciousness’ promulgated by the Yogācāra Buddhists is incoherent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If it makes sense to us to think about the existence of an actual thing
>>> like a pot before it has been made or after it has been smashed, then there
>>> must be a persistence of consciousness over time. The physical pot may well
>>> exist only for a short time but the word ‘pot’ and our ‘fore-knowledge’ and
>>> ‘after-knowledge’ of that particular pot are not restricted by the time
>>> period. Therefore Kṣaṇika-vāda must be false.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ‘Darkness’ and ‘ignorance’ do not enter the equation. As usual, it is
>>> the post-Shankarans who complicate the issue!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Dennis
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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/000f01dafdd8%2416329d30%244297d790%24%40advaita.org.uk
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/000f01dafdd8%2416329d30%244297d790%24%40advaita.org.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>>
>> --
>> 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/CAL34aE%3DB-%3DMdVVpb0XTpKWqFMz6LmviLSHPZ-BLdVrA0V-Qo%2BA%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3DB-%3DMdVVpb0XTpKWqFMz6LmviLSHPZ-BLdVrA0V-Qo%2BA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> 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/CAEs%2B%2BdM6wShVFO%3DPWypXK1wDSbJWutQocTmxq3h%2Bd7taGZ79EA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdM6wShVFO%3DPWypXK1wDSbJWutQocTmxq3h%2Bd7taGZ79EA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>