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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Michael ji.

How is reason to accept pot's absence by virtue of cloth as a positive
> entity? It is absurd on the face of it. That needs to be the starting
> point. If so, the burden of proof is on Mulavidyavada.
>

Sir. I have merely reproduced what BhAshyakAra said. He said that -
"pot-anyonya-abhAva, being cloth, is not abhAva. It is bhAvarUpa. न च
घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? भावरूप एव ।" These are the words of
AchArya. Where is the question of burden of proof and where is absurdity!!

What is this "transactional through pot"? Are you saying absence is
> transactional," like darkness covers light?  Sankara discusses "shade" and
> Rahu as abhavarupa despite having affections like coolness (US 18.40).
>

Again these are words of BhAshyakAra - घटेन व्यपदिश्यमानात्वात्. One uses
pot-prAk-abhAva, pot-atyanya-abhAva, pot-dhvansa-abhAva in terms of pot. I
am very very literal to what AchArya said. Nothing like Rahu/darkness etc.


What is imprecise, precisely? jar abhava due to anyonya abhava is only
> imagined, a quibble/vikalpa, as bhavarupa of clothes, Tait Intro below. I
>

Let us focus on anumAna presented by AchArya in ghaTa-bhAshya. TaittirIya
is talking about nirvishesha-abhAva such as horns of hare.

In fact Michael ji, I have stated whatever I had to say in simplest
possible manner. I cannot simplify it any further. If someone can refute it
logically, I am all ears. But it is difficult for me to simplify any
further. Whatever you quoted of SSS ji does not address the issue at hand.

The anumAna I presented based on remodelling of BhAshyakAra's anumAna
proves that vishesha-abhAva such as pot-abhava is triguNAtmaka, and this is
central siddhAnta of advaita. I reproduce the anumAna for the sake of
completion -


   - *घटान्योन्याभावः सन्पटः त्रिगुणात्मकः। (pot-anyonya-abhAva is
   triguNAtmaka, being cloth)*
   - *घटस्य प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि त्रिगुणात्मकत्वम् , घटेन
   व्यपदिश्यमानत्वात् , घटस्येतरेतराभाववत् ; (pot-atyanta-abhAva,
   pot-prAk-abhAva, pot-pradhvamsa-abhAva are triguNAtmaka, on account of
   having transactability through pot, like pot-anyonya-abhAva)*
   - *तथैव त्रिगुणात्मकताभावानाम् । (Therefore abhAvAs have
   triguNAtmakatA.)*


You should take clear position. Is pot-abhava triguNAtmaka? If not, then
how your position is not contradicted by ghaTa-bhAshya-anumAna?

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.