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

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Raghav ji. Venkatraghavan ji. Ananta Chaitanya ji.

As we saw, advaita vedAnta is not concerned with prAk, pradhvamsa and
anyonya-abhAva {At some places, it uses them following NyAya}. It accepts
atyanta-abhAva though. There also, it prefers atyanta-abhAva being
adhikaraNa-swarUpa. However, it allows atyanta-abhAva to be other than
adhikaraNa in some prakriyA as demonstrated below.

When we say that there is atyanta-abhAva of A in B, there are three
entities involved: A (nishedhya), B (adhikaraNa) and AA (nishedha/abhAva).

Now, this AA can be of two types. AA-non-contradictory-with-A (AA-1) and
AA-contradictory-with-A (AA-2).

This is understood as follows:

the "atyanta-abhAva of pot" on ground is virodhI (contradictory) with
"pot". They cannot be present together. If pot is present,
pot-atyanta-abhAva cannot be present and vice-versa. Thus,
pot-abhAva-on-ground is an example of AA-2. *This AA-2 can be either ground
or different from ground, depending on siddhAnta-prakriyA*.

the "atyanta-abhAva of illusory snake" in rope is not necessarily
contradictory with "snake". Here, the atyanta-abhAva-of-snake is of two
types. AA-1, wherein atyanta-abhAva-of-snake-is-non-contradictory-to-snake.
This AA-1 is present along with snake. *This AA-1 is necessarily identical
to rope*.

AA-2, wherein atyanta-abhAva-of-snake-is-contradictory-to-snake, this  AA-2
cannot be present along with snake. *This AA-2 can be either rope or
different from rope, depending on siddhAnta-prakriyA*.

So, at time t1, I saw illusory-snake-in-rope and at time t2, I did not see
illusory snake in rope. At time t1, AA-1 is present in rope along with
snake. AA-2 cannot be present in rope at time t1. At time t2, AA-2 is
present in rope. AA-1 is also present at time t2.

So, we saw that AA of A in B can be of two types. AA-non-contradictory-with
A (AA-1) and AA-contradictory-with-A (AA-2).

Now, the following are the salient features:

*AA-non-contradictory-with-A (AA-1)*

   1. In case of snake-rope, AA-1 is necessarily rope.
   2. In case of world-Brahman, AA-1 is necessarily Brahman.
   3. AA-1, whether pAramArthika-abhAva or vyAvahArika-abhAva, is
   necessarily adhikaraNa-swarUpa.

*AA-contradictory-with-A (AA-2)*

   1. In case of pot-ground, there is no AA-1. All we have is AA-2. And
   this AA-2 can be either ground or different from ground, depending on the
   prakriyA.
   2. AA-2 cannot be pAramArthika-abhAva. It has to be vyAvahArika-abhAva.
   And hence, it can be either adhikaraNa-swarUpa or different from
   adhikaraNa, depending on the prakriyA.
   3. In case of snake-abhAva-in-rope, this AA-2 can be either rope or
   different from rope, depending on the siddhAnta-prakriyA.

*To illustrate again*

In case of pot-ground, if there is pot-abhAva on ground. This
atyanta-abhAva can be either ground or different from ground, depending on
sidddhAnta-prakriyA. [This is so because pot-abhAva is necessarily
contradictory to pot and pot-abhAva is a vyAvahArika-abhAva. This is an
example of AA-2]

In case of snake-rope, by the word snake-abhAva, we can mean two type of
snake-abhAva. First, snake-abhAva which is contradictory to snake (AA-2)
and second, snake-abhAva-non-contradictory-with-snake (AA-1). The
snake-abhAva-which-is-not-contradictory-with-snake (AA-1) is necessarily
identical to rope. The snake-abhAva-which-is-contradictory-to-snake (AA-2)
can be either rope or different from rope, depending on siddhAnta-prakriyA.

All the above are so far in SDV context.

In case of DSV, wherein vyAvahArika-prAtibhAsika division is not admitted,
the dream-example is taken.

In case of dream-snake appearing to be imagined in dream-rope, the
snake-abhAva, whether AA-1 or AA-2 are all prAtibhAsika. So, our discussion
of vyAvahArika-abhAva/pAramArthika-abhAva would fail. There, we need to see
entire dream-world vis-a-vis Brahman just as we saw AA-1 in SDV above.

A tabular representation is as under:

*Nature of atyanta-abhAva*

*atyanta-abhAva-of-A-not-contradictory-to-A (AA-1)*

*atyanta-abhAva-of-A-contradictory-to-A (AA-2)*

vyAvahArika-atyanta-abhAva

Mandatorily adhikaraNa-swarUpa

Either adhikaraNa-swarUpa or different from adhikaraNa

pAramArthika-atyanta-abhAva

Mandatorily adhikaraNa-swarUpa

Not possible

In case where atyanta-abhAva is not accepted to be adhikaraNa-swarUpa,
atyanta-abhAva is known from anupalabdhi pramANa.

In case where atyanta-abhAva is accepted to be adhikaraNa-swarUpa, either
anupalabdhi-pramANa is not accepted. Or anupalabdhi is accepted to know the
adhikaraNa, abhAvatva-prakArakatvena. [ न च–एवमनुपलब्धेः पार्थक्येन
प्रमाणत्वोक्तिरयुक्ता, प्रमेयानतिरेकादिति - वाच्यम् ; अतिरिक्ताभाववादिमत
एवं तदुक्तेः, अतिरिक्ताभावानभ्युपगमेऽपि अभावत्वप्रकारकज्ञाने
तत्प्रामाण्योपपत्तेश्च ।]

I have prepared the above write-up with lot of precision and care. I would
request learned members to point out infirmities and errors, if any.

*References:*

*For vyAvhArika-abhAva/pAramArthika-abhAva*:
https://archive.org/details/yqiG_tattva-anusandhanam-with-advaita-chinta-kaustubam-of-sri-mahadevananda-saraswati/page/n294/mode/1up

*For virodhI-atyanta-abhAva and non-virodhI-atyanta-abhAva*:   न च–त्वन्मते
योग्यत्वमपि ब्रह्मणि मिथ्येति तदत्यन्ताभावोऽपि वाच्यः, तथाच कथं
तदत्यन्ताभावानधिकरणत्वमिति वाच्यम् ; योग्यत्वविरोध्यत्यन्ताभावस्य
विवक्षितत्वात् , स्वाश्रयनिष्ठात्यन्ताभावस्य मिथ्यात्वप्रयोजकस्य
स्वाश्रयनिष्ठत्वेनैवाविरोधित्वात् । [Advaita Siddhi - BrahmaNah
SwaprakAsha-lakshaNatva-vichArah]

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.