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

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Sorry for the late reply.  Unfortunately, sometimes,  my bread earning profession does not allow my passion on vedAnta discussion to boom 😊 BTW, my discussion will always sounds like an interrogation but kindly don’t think that way, just I am used to this style and don’t know the better way.  Hope you would understand my limitation.

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.
You can take it as tattvAnyatvAbhyAm anirvachanIyam. Shankara Bhagavatpada mentions it 2-3 times in the sUtrabhAShya.


Ø     So, shankara is saying abhAva vilakshaNa type avidyA which is neither bhAva nor abhAva rUpa but it is tattvAnyatvAbhyAm anirvachanIyam.  So, with this definition can we now say, abhAva vilakshaNam avidyA cannot be determined as brahman (tattva)  or abrahman (atattva / anAtma) since this type of avidyA is inexplicable!!??  Now the question is when we already conceded that something is anirvachaneeyaM, how can we deterministically  put forth our point that yatkinchit avidyA / abhAva vilakshaNam IS neither bhAva nor abhAva !!??  how can it become nirvachaneeya like this  ?? Do you want me to take this anirvachaneeya abhAva vilakshaNa avidyA in saMshaya category to understand that abhAva vilakshaNa avidyA cannot be categorized either brahman or abrahman ??  Please clarify.   BTW, as you know,  as per my advaita dictionary ‘mAyA’ is anirvachaneeya NOT avidyA and bhAshyakAra too says mAya is (like nAma & rUpa) tattvAnyatvAbhyAm anirvachaneeyaM ( sUtra bhAshya 1.4.3 for example).  And avidyA is nirvachaneeya as it has been clearly defined by bhAshyakAra that it is like agrahaNa, saMshaya and vipareeta grahaNa (for example geeeta bhAshya 13.2).  So, I am finding it difficult to accept your definition i.e. yatkinchit avidyA = abhAva vilakshaNa = tattvAnyatvAbhyAm anirvachaneeyaM.


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.

You can call agrahaNAtmaka avidyA as jnAnAbhAva if you want,


  *   Kindly let me know if you have any other definition for agrahanAtmaka avidyA other than jnAnAbhAva.

but all the brihadAraNyaka bhAShya is saying is *yadi* ajnAnam jnAnAbhAvamiti *ucyate* tadApi tat jnAnenaiva nivartate, not ajnAnasya jnAnAbhAvatvarUpatvAt tat jnAnenaiva nivartate. The purpose of the quote is to say that only jnAna removes ajnAna, not to prove the abhAvarUpatva of ajnAna.


Ø     I am lost here.  Don’t you think bhAshyakAra here talking about various lakshNa-s of avidyA and all those lakshaNa-s will be eliminated completely by the dawn of jnana ??  And abhAvarUpatva of ajnAna is ONE of those avidyA laksha-s.  yadi jnAnAbhAvaM ( here abhAva of his knowledge that he is brahman) yadi saMshaya, yadi vipareeta jnAnam (that he is BMI) all will go away by jnana.  These three lakshaNam-s Uchyate ajnAnaM clearly says bhAshyakAra where is the room for us to think that ajnAna is NOT jnAnAbhAva here in this context!!??


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 ??
No, I don't understand the relevance of that here.


Ø     When paripUrNa jnana (pratiyOgi) is there ( like when the bottle full of pickle is there where is the room to put chutney in that ?? ) in the dharmee (buddhi) how can a residue of avidyA find place there in that dharmee ??  When the jnana  abhAva is completely filled by pratiyOgi paramArtha jnana where is the place to find the avidyAlesha in that same dharmee??  This is my doubt.


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.
Of course. The jnAna abhAva is not the abhAva of the thing on the table, but the abhAva of the jnAna.


Ø     And jnAnAbhAva is kevala shabda vikalpa says somewhere bhAshyakAra.  Like we address parabrahma tattva as Atma, brahma etc.

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".
Yes, but visheSha abhava cannot have sAmAnyadharmatvAvacChinna pratiyogitAkatvam. The pratiyogitAvacChedakam of a visheSha abhava has to be some visheSha dharma only. So if you say you don't know something specific about your computer, unless you know what that specific thing is, you cannot say that you don't know that specific thing. But if you know that specific thing, you cannot not know it. If you insist that a particular absence can have a generic attribute of counterpositiveness, then even a ground with a pot on it can be said to be a ground without pot.


Ø     Please simplify this.  What I am trying to say here is, when the computer is NOT there on my table, I say there is abhAva of the vastu called computer on my table by the virtue of my previous knowledge this is something ‘different’ from ajnAna about that computer.  Likewise when through shruti / Acharya vAkya etc. when I get the knowledge of Atman (say intellectual understanding) it is still not the jnana (in literal sense) of the Atman to label myself as jnAni.  I am talking about the ‘abhAva’ of this type of jnana despite having the knowledge of Atma jnana.  Here computer jnana and computer abhAva is not jnana virOdhi whereas when we talk about jnana abhAva type ajnAna it is obviously jnana virOdhi and when we talk about jnana abhAva it is again not a bhAva like computer abhAva jnana, it is jnana virOdhi, shabda vikalpa type of absence which we for our comforts saying jnana abhAva.  Still I am not sure whether I am conveying my understanding properly!!?? But hope you got my point.

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)
So what?


Ø     Kindly see above, since Advaita jnAnam is manOvrutti mAtraM, jnana as pratiyOgi  would take place in the dharmee buddhi where there is an absence of correct knowledge (jnana  abhAva)

What is pratiyOgi jnana here??
pratiyogi is nAnatva vishiShTam. Which jnAna I have through pratyakshAdi.


Ø     According to the context, I am trying to convey here pratiyOgi vidya / jnana is ahaM brahmAsmi type of Atmaikatva jnana or sarvAtma bhAva which annihilates the avidyA completely (asarvatvaM, anAtmatvaM) without any trace.  The absence of this knowledge i.e. sarvAtma bhAva is jnAnAbhAva and Atmaikatva jnana / sarvAtma bhAva is pratiyOgi.  Since pratiyOgi jnana is jnana virOdhi, we cannot say abhAva of the jnana is also type of bhAva rUpa jnana since both are mutually contradictory like tamaH prakAsha.


>  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.
That is why it was that said by bhAvarUpa all that is meant is abhAva vilakshaNam.


Ø     Which is again something similar to yatkimchit avidyA.  By the way which vyAkhyAnakAra explained yatkinchit avidyA as abhAva vilakshaNaM and anirvachaneeyaM as well ??


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.
The term padArtha in nyAya is used for both abhAva and bhAva rUpa vastu. So there is no requirement that it becomes an existent thing just because of padArtha.


  *   Sorry, I did not know that as I have not studied nyAya.  My apologies.


Also, abhAva vilakshaNa does not necessarily mean bhAva either. In advaita, when we say jagat is sadasat vilakshaNa, we don't say it is sat just because it happens to be asat vilakshaNa.


Ø     Yes, and on the same lines, we cannot say jagat (mAya / kArya) is asat just because it is sat vilakshaNam (brahma / kAraNa).  As you know a detailed analysis about this available in sUtra bhAshya.  But applying this prakriya to abhAva vilakshaNa yatkinchit avidyA or bhAva rUpa avidyA is something news to me.  Anyway, since as per some both avidyA and mAyA are synonyms they don’t find any difficulty in alternatively replacing mAyA with avidyA and avidyA with mAya wherever it is mentioned.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar