[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: avidya vs maayaa - What is the difference? - Part 5

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

PraNAms- Continuing this discussion -----------------
Venkatraghavan:What you are saying is very interesting - It appears thatin delinking
AvaraNa and vikshepa, you are proposing a new theory of epistemology also.

1) Typically, in advaita shAstra, ignorance (AvaraNa) covers objects
(viShaya), whereas you are proposing that ignorance covers knowledge and
that pramANa (which is another vritti, thought in your view?) removes the
covering of ignorance from knowledge.----------------Sada:
Venkatraghavanji – PraNams I do not think I am proposing any new epistemology here.I know you know but just stating for clarification.   Any objective knowledge –cannot be permanent since theobject itself is not permanent. Object is defined by Nyaaya as praak abhavapratiyoginee– counter to its previous non-existence. Any objective knowledgeinvolves triad – pramaata, prameyam and pramaana – by mutual exclusion, theyare finite and any finite is not permanent as it is a part of jagat whichcontinuously changes. Here pramaata is taken as mind with chidaabhaasa – sincepure consciousness cannot be a pramaata.   To the degree that a particular chair is permanent –knowledge of that chair can be permanent to that degree. Chemistry knowledge ispermanent only to the degree that it is permanent. Instead of a particularchair, if one has knowledge of ‘chair’ in general which Nyaaya calls it as ‘jaati,and makes it as though permanent, from their categories, that knowledge ofchair jaati is more permanent.  FromVedanta point only knowledge of permanent is permanent,and therefore eternaland therefore real – satyam jnaanam anantam. Knowledge of the object – sans theobject – can be permanent if the attention is on the consciousness than on theobject of consciousness – prati bhoda viditam matam. The knowledge of that permanentor eternal one cannot be gained since it is aprameyam. Just for the record, Ihave presented ‘critical analysis of Vedanta Paribhasha’ in my website – www.advaitaforum.org. ------------------------Venkatraghavan:So, when you use the "I am ignorant ofChemistry" example, what you are saying is that the entire subject ofChemistry exists already in my mind, but most of it is covered by ignorance. 

Sada:  Sorry I did notmean that way. Even if Chemistry knowledge is relatively permanent, that doesnot mean that the local mind has the knowledge, only  covered by ignorance. That permanency belongto jagat with Iswara behind it. 

It is like I am wearing dark glasses and therefore cannotsee anything – from my reference everything is covered by darkness. Even if Iremover my glasses, I still have to look into microscope or telescope to seethings that cannot be seen otherwise. In essence, proper pramaana has tooperate for pramaa to occur even if the objects for me to see are there. Sameway, it is not the mind that has that knowledge but knowledge is available inthe universe, and the permanency of that objective knowledge depends on thepermanency of the object itself. This is not different from conventionalEpistemology. -----------------------Venkatraghavan:
As and when right pramANa of Chemistry comes to clear upcertain portions of that covered knowledge, that knowledge that is pre-existentin the mind becomes discovered, as it were. It's only if *all* knowledge is heldto be present in the mind that the statement "ignorance coversknowledge" can be held to be true. --------------
Sada: I will modify your statement to –  theknowledge should exist in the creation rather than in the mind of jeeva. Thatknowledge does not have to rest with the mind of jeeva. For the dream creation, yes. Knowledge of the dream worldis in the mind of the waker, since waker’s mind with chidaabhaasa acts asIswara of the dream world. In essence knowledge exists with Iswara not in jeeva’smind. For jeeva to discover he has to use appropriate pramaana. 

To be continued