[Advaita-l] [advaitin] what is abhava?

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Sudhanshu ji
Thank you for your patience in reiterating and summarizing what you had
written in earlier posts. It helps to recap the main points now and then in
the flurry of exchange of posts.

Does what you said about atyantAbhAva alone being acceptable in siddhAnta
(as in the case of mithyA rope-snake and tucchaM horns of a hare entities),
still stand?

Perhaps what the word ekarUpa used by Bhaskar ji means is - If there is
only one category of abhAva (I e., atyanta abhAva) accepted, one could say
it is just "ekarUpa" in the language employed by SSS adherents. But then
what of prAgabhAva which is accepted by SSS ji?


Om
Raghav

On Mon, 16 Sept, 2024, 7:41 pm Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Michael ji. Raghav ji.
>
> Mimamsa speaks of 4 kinds of abhava - prior, subsequent, mutual and
> > absolute. Aren't these all material abhava-s?  When SSSSji refers to
> > abhavarupa avidya, which abhava is he referring to?
> >
>
> This is the question I had been asking to SSSS Ji's followers. And I was
> getting no response. Bhaskar ji said that it is some eka-rUpa abhAva, which
> is meaningless.
>
> SugamA explains that it is jnAna-prAk-abhAva.
>
> So, suppose I say I have Russian-language-ajnAna, it is like
> prior-non-existence-of Russian-language-jnAna. When I learn Russian, this
> prior-non-existence will be removed for ever.
>
> So, ajnAna can be prior-non-existence-of-Brahma-jnAna in my buddhi. And
> when I get Brahma-jnAna, this prior-non-existence will be gone for ever.
>
> Or, ajnAna can be prior-non-existence-of-jnAna-sAmAnya.
>
> He follows it up by saying that this jnAna-prAk-abhAva is anubhava-gamya
> and not known through pramANa. Basically, SSSS ji is saying that this
> jnAna-abhAva is known by sAkshI.
>
> Traditional teachings reject both of these. You are well aware of how we
> reject abhAva-hood of ajnAna.
>
> Further, prAk-abhAva is rejected in siddhAnta with great clarity and logic.
> If you go through it, you will be immediately convinced. I, for example, am
> completely convinced. SSSS ji would be certainly aware of that. So, he
> should have rebutted that while proposing jnAna-prAk-abhAva. But he has
> not.
>
> Regarding, sAkshi-jnAna, abhAva being a paroksha-vishaya cannot be vishaya
> of sAkshI-jnAna which is by definition aparoksha-jnAna and hence has
> aparoksha-vishaya.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>