[Advaita-l] Shankara accepts certain things as BhAvarUpa apart from Brahman

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Shankara Prasthana traya bhashya we come across Shankara explicitly
naming certain entities as *bhAvarUpa*.  These entities are not Brahman.
Here are some examples:

In the introduction to the Bh.Gita 3rd Chapter:

न तावत् नित्यानां कर्मणामभावादेव भावरूपस्य प्रत्यवायस्य उत्पत्तिः कल्पयितुं
शक्या, ‘कथमसतः सज्जायेत’ (छा. उ. ६ । २ । २)
<https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Chandogya/devanagari?page=6&id=Ch_C06_S02_V02&hl=%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%A5%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%83%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A4>
इति
असतः सज्जन्मासम्भवश्रुतेः

Here, the pratyavAya, sin, accruing from non-performance of nitya/vihita
karma, ordained duties, is held to be bhAvarUpa by Shankara. Actually
Shankara is denying the idea that non-performance, an abhAva, cannot give
rise to a sin that is bhAvarupa.  What is important is that the concept of
sin is bhAvarUpa for Shankara. Sin is not a tangible object. It is not
Brahman. Yet Shankara holds it to be bhAvarUpa. Any punya or papa is
bhAvarUpa for Shankara. For such a one alone gives rise to the effect of
sukha and duhkha.

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम्प्रथमोऽध्यायःद्वितीयं ब्राह्मणम्मन्त्र १ - भाष्यम्
(pointed by Sudhanshu Shekhar)

………। न च घटाभावः सन्पटः अभावात्मकः ; किं तर्हि ? भावरूप एव । एवं घटस्य
प्राक्प्रध्वंसात्यन्ताभावानामपि घटादन्यत्वं स्यात् , घटेन……


ऐतरेयोपनिषद्भाष्यम्प्रथमः अध्यायःद्वितीयः खण्डःमन्त्र ५ - भाष्यम्  Here
Hunger and Thirst are bhAvarUpa.

………। स ईश्वर एवमुक्तः ते अशनायापिपासे अब्रवीत् । न हि
युवयोर्भावरूपत्वाच्चेतनावद्वस्त्वनाश्रित्य
अन्नात्तृत्वं सम्भवति । तस्मात् एतास्वेव अग्न्याद्यासु वां युवां देवतासु………

Hunger and thirst are also not tangible effects but experienced no doubt.
For that reason alone they are bhAvarUpa. They are not Brahman.

*Vartika: Sureshwaracharya;*


बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यवार्तिकम्

……… नाभावयोर्मिथो योगोऽवस्तुत्वाभेदतस्तयोः ।। अभावभावयोस्तद्वद्भावरूपेषु का
भिदा ।। ९२४ ।। ………

There is no difference between two bhAvarUpa objects.  They belong to the
category of existing entities.

However, in all the above cases it must be noted that this 'existence' is
not something independent of Brahman the Existence.  These are created and
then get an existence. Just like a pot that enjoys existence after creation
and not before creation and after disappearance/destruction. Brahman
Existence is not thus conditional.  It is absolute.


So, we have Shankara accepting everything that is non-Brahman to be
bhAvarUpa.  One can easily see that this does not fault Shankara to be
committing Advaita Haani 😀 The criterion for Shankara is: If it can create
an effect, is experienced, then it is bhAvarUpa.

warm regards

subbu