[Advaita-l] HH Sri Paramananda Bharathi Swamiji attained mukti

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Or just take bhAva rUpa avidyA to mean it is abhAva vilakshaNa.

>  Does it mean there is an intermediate status for avidyA between bhAva rUpa and abhAva rUpa and which can be termed as  abhAva vilakshaNam ??  Kindly let me know where can I find the reference in prasthAna traya bhAshya.  

The important thing is that ajnAna cannot mean jnAna abhAva. 

>  the bhAshyakAra himself clearly describes the avidyA lakshaNa-s i.e. agrahaNa, saMshaya & vipareeta pratyaya, we call here agrahaNAtmaka avidyA as jnAnAbhAva.  If you have any other definition for this please let me know.  And bhAshyakAra in bruhadAraNyaka clearly says : yadi jnAnAbhAvaM, yadi saMshaya jnAnaM yadi vipareeta jnAnaM vA uchyate 'ajnAnaM' iti sarvaM hi tat jnAnenaiva nivartate.  I am really surprising you are arguing avidyA / ajnAna is NOT jnAnAbhAva !!??  or is there any difference between ajnAna and avidyA when you are insisting the 'important thing that ajnAna cannot mean jnana abhAva !! ??  please clarify.  


If so, then one would necessarily need pratiyogi jnAna to cognise abhAva. But if jnAna itself is pratiyogi, one would need to know jnAna to cognise ajnAna, which is a contradiction in terms.

>  If that is the case how can a jnAni can cognize his avidyAlesha when pratiyOgi jnana is there don’t you see any contradiction here ??  I would like to look at it this say.  For example in front of me there is computer I have the knowledge of its existence on the table.  If some housekeeper shifted the computer from its place then I would say computer is not there on my table, that means through computer jnana (that it was there on my table earlier ) I will now be talking about its absence (abhAva).  But when I say I don’t know about computer it is something different from 'abhAva'  of the thing on my table.  I have the computer shaped  buddhi vrutti  (i.e. sAmAnya jnana of computer as just like box etc.)but I will not be having the jnana about the intricacies of computer (yathArtha jnana or vishesha jnana) We may call this absence of vishesha jnana when having the sAmAnya jnana of computer as "abhAva jnana or jnAnAbhAva of computer".  When we talk about jneya  ajnAna we don’t get any buddhi vrutti about this ajnAna hence it is called jnAnAbhAva.  Your contradiction can easily be solved when we know that Atman is beyond jnAnAjnAna and advaita jnana is too manOvrutti ( Advaita jnAnaM manOvrutti mAtraM, manasyaivevamAptavyaM neha nAnAsti kiMchana) What is pratiyOgi jnana here??  The jnana / vidyA is sarvAtma bhAva or samyaK darshana or Atmaikatva darshana, where would this pratyaya has to be there ?? it has to be in buddhi (manaH) through vAkya janita jnana.   When there is an absence of this pratyaya in buddhi it is called abhAva of that pratyaya hence avidyA / ajnAna means abhAva of this samyak pratyaya.  Hence agrahanAtmaka avidyA is always called abhAva only which is there in sushupti also which vyAkhyAnakAra-s say kAraNAvidyA / mUlAvidyA or bhAvarUpa avidyA which is NOT jnAnAbhAva.  At the best for the arguments sake we can attribute bhAvarUpa only to second and third lakshaNa-s of avidyA i.e. vipareeta / anyathA grahaNa and saMshaya not to the agrahaNa it has to be always abhAvarUpa only.  And this jnAnAbhAva is the 'nepa mAtra' kAraNa for other two problems i.e. saMshaya & vipareeta pratyaya.  In the absence of svarUpa jnana only we get the mithyA jnana that I am BMI.  

>  In short since avidyA as such is jneya it cannot  have the existence (bhAva) whatsoever in jnAtru (kshetrajna) this has been clarified by bhAshyakAra in Geeta bhAshya, nAbhAvO vidyate sataH and if this avidyA is bhAvarUpa vastu or that which something vilakshaNam from abhAva it cannot be annihilated through vidyA na hi bhAvAnAM niranvayO nirupAkhyO vinAshaH saMbhavati it is just because of the simple fact vidya / shAstra is  jnApakaM na tu kArakaM.  

Better to say ajnAna is abhAva vilakshaNa padArtha that is sAkshi vedyam.

>  when we already categorized avidyA as 'padArtha' no matter whatever nomenclature we tried to label,  it becomes an existent thing.  If you permit me to say, terming avidyA as abhAva vilakshaNam and it is neither bhAva rUpa nor abhAva rUpa,  is just an attempt to obfuscate the issue further.  Anyway this is IMHO.  You are welcome to disagree with me.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar