[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: avidya vs maayaa - What is the difference? - Part 6

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Venkatraghavan:2) Coming to bhAvarUpa vs abhAvarUpa of avidyA. So when Isay ignorance is bhAvarUpa, I mean the "cover" or AvaraNa is thebhAva. If what you mean is a lack of knowledge of a thing, it denotes theabsence of a vastu, and hence abhAvarUpa. So in the above example, if you saidthat Chemistry ignorance simply means the absence of Chemistry knowledge in themind (which is different from Chemistry knowledge being covered by ignorance,such a Chemistry ignorance would be abhAvarUpa.-----------Sada: Yes I realize that – What I implied is that very classificationcame into picture since there were objections to associate avidya with vikshepa. Without getting into hair-splittingarguments and counter arguments of vastutvam of ignorance, I just want toinsure that ignorance without vikshepa is not illogical or ashaastreeyam. Yesit may not agree with Advaita Acharyas position. We are trying at arrive whatis the truth and how logically we can present it without complicating theissues and without violating Vedanta Shaastra. ----------------------Venkatraghavan:Therefore the conundrum is a) does all knowledge of everypossible thing in all three periods of time already exist in every jIva mind,covered by ignorance or b) does all knowledge not exist in the jIva mind, butthe nature of ignorance is the absence of knowledge, abhAvarUpa?----------------Sada: The first part is answered above. The second partis OK if one wants to use that name. vyavahaarika knowledge rests with Iswara(thus the creation) and jeeva can gain that knowledge by appropriate pramaanawhere ignorance is removed in the individual mind, as pramaata.--------------------------- Ventraghavan:This problem is circumvented in advaita, by postulatingthat a) ignorance is located in the object delimited consciousness, as opposedto the mind and b) the nature of ignorance has both AvaraNa and vikshepa. Thisallows ignorance to be bhAvarUpa (ie cover the object in question), and at thesame time not require that all object-knowledge be pre-existent in the limitedjIva mind. ----------Sada: I am not sure if that is required, if the knowledgerests with Iswara and he is not different from the creation. Jeeva has to makeeffort to gain the objective knowledge. Interestingly objective knowledgecannot be fully known since the more one knows the more it opens up – as onebecomes super specialist of narrower and narrower field. Jeeva can never removehis ignorance of objective knowledge. In essence the more one knows, the more herealizes that what he knows is very little. ----------------------------Venkatraghavan:In advaita shAstra that I have come across, ignorancewhich is inert in nature, can only be located in consciousness. Sada: You mean reflected consciousness. There are onlytwo – jeeva and Iswara. Since Iswara is sarvajna, we cannot say ignorance islocated in Him. As I see, ignorance can only be with jeeva. --------------------Venkatraghavan:However, that ignorance is not postulated in theperceiver's mind-delimited consciousness, but the object-delimitedconsciousness.  Sada: Venkatraghavanji – Here is how I explain - I use the lightexample to illustrate perceptual knowledge. The same white light is falling onall objects. However red objects look red since all other colors of VIBGAR areabsorbed and only red color is reflected. Similarly blue object looks bluesince blue is reflected and no other colors. This is the theory of colors.  Likewise, the all-pervading sat chit ananda,as though falls on inert object, then only sat is reflected not chit andananda. When it falls on subtle body, not only sat but chit is also reflectedand not ananda. By reflecting consciousness they appear to be conscious entityjust as by reflecting sunlight moon appears to be a luminous entity.  Ananda is also reflected if the mind remainscalm and serene. Hence, objects being inert only existence is expressed in theform of ruupa (attributes) and naama. In essence reflection depends on thereflecting medium. Now coming back to our topic, objects cannot have ignorancesince they are inert. Ignorance can only be with mind that can reflect chit aschidaabhaasa. This is my understanding of Adviata. Rope has just existence since it is inert. In semidarkness, depending on the sense capability, only partial attributes of therope are perceived by the mind – as 5ft long, soft when stepped on and lying onthe alley, etc. These attributes are common (sadRisyam) between rope and snake.Hence when the mind re-cognizes the object based on the cognition and usingmemory, it jumps to the conclusion that it is a snake. The ignorance is in themind, because of partial attributive knowledge, mind projects a snake where therope is.  Not sure I understandconscious-delimited by an object- If that means only sat, then it is OK.aitadaatmya idam sarvam tat satyam – sa aatma – the main topic of thatdiscussion was sat – eva idam agra aaseet. To be continued