[Advaita-l] BhAvarUpatva of vishesha-abhAva

[Bhaskar YR]

So when we say tucCha has abhAva vilakshaNatva abhAva, those words have no padArtha to correspond to it - if there was, it would be bhAvarUpa, not tucCha.

praNAms Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna

I don’t have any exposure to tarka to talk sensible in these matters.  This is just a doubt from layman's point of view on your above statement.  You are saying (or implying) that bhAvarUpa has a corresponding padArtha and since avidyA is bhAvarUpa that (mUla) avidyA is like a vastu ( padArtha) that which really existing is it not??  And if the padArtha is existing and available for cognition (upalabdhi) and we are trying to have the knowledge of it (prama) why anupalabdhi pramANa is being used for the existing thing!!??  Or as per tarkashAstra these words 'pardArtha', abhAva, upalabdhi, anupalabdhi etc. have  some other meaning than something we generally use ??  Please clarify.  

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar