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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,
I hope you don't mind me if I don't reply to everything in your email.

The point of this discussion is not to convince anyone of the rightness of
one position and wrongness of the other, but merely to explain one's
position so that even if we don't achieve agreement on the issues, we can
at least achieve an understanding of what the other person is saying.

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019, 12:27 Bhaskar YR, <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> 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  ??
>
Because it is not anirvachanIya meaning inexpressible, it is
tattvAnyatvAbhyAm anirvachanIya, meaning inexpressible as sat or asat.

> 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.
>
> It is what we have been discussing - sadasatvilakshaNa rUpa / abhAva
vilakshaNa rUpa / bhAva rUpa avidyA. If you want the definition of such an
avidyA, it is anAdibhavarUpatve sati jnAnanivartyA.

> 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.
>
It is a sopAdhika bhrama, as long as the upAdhi (prArabdha / body /mind) is
present, the appearance of illusion persists even if the ignorance is
destroyed.

>
> Ø     And jnAnAbhAva is kevala shabda vikalpa says somewhere
> bhAshyakAra.  Like we address parabrahma tattva as Atma, brahma etc.
>
I am not sure where this is, but without context, it is difficult to gauge
its relevance. If the meaning is yathAshrutam then it would equally apply
to the general definition of vikalpa vritti (whose objects are tucCha) in
yoga sUtra - shabdajnAnAnupAti vastu shUnyo vikalpa:, but I doubt that
bhAShyakAra would say ajnAna is tucCha in nature, because he talks quite
often about how this world, Ishvara's Ishvaratvam, jIva's jIvatvam is
avidyAkalpitam.

In any case, if jnAna abhAva means presence of sAmAnya jnAna but absence of
visheSha jnAna, how does one even know what these visheSha-s are? If one
knows them, then how can one say there is absence of the knowledge of
visheSha-s? If one doesn't know them, then how can one say what one doesn't
know is absent?

To avoid this, if it is said I have sAmAnya jnAna of viSheSha, but not the
visheSha jnAna of viSheSha-s, how does one know what is the visheSha jnAna
of viSheSha? For this, one would have to postulate another sAmAnya jnAna of
the visheSha jnAna of the visheSha which is known, and a visheSha jnAna of
the visheSha jnAna of the visheSha, which is not known. But how is that the
nature of absence? It would need another sAmAnya and visheSha jnAna,
leading to infinite regress and infinite number of jnAna-s. And even in the
end, the question remains how does one know if that something is absent
without knowing what that thing is.

To make matters worse, we started off expecting to cognise the abhAva of
one jnAna and all we ended up is cognising the existence of many jnAna-s.

> 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.
>
This has been elaborated in other emails in the thread. You may want to
read them to see if the explanation there makes sense.


> 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)
>
The same principle applies for bhAvarUpa ajnAna also.

> 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.
>
Do you mean pratiyogi jnAna is abhAva jnAna virodhi? If so, that is
correct. But I still don't see why it would rule out bhAva rUpa ajnAna. It
is only if ajnAna is abhAvarUpa that its cognisance requires pratiyogi
jnAna. If it is bhAvarUpa, there is no requirement for pratiyogi jnAna to
cognise ajnAna. It is sAkshi vedya, that is, it is revealed by sAkshi
without the need for a pratiyogi jnAna in the form of a pramANa vritti.

> 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 ??
>
The ones I have been exposed to mean it to be sadasatvilakshaNa rUpa
avidyA. Some call it bhAvarUpa, some call it abhAva vilakshaNa, but the
object is the same. Madhusudana sarasvati says that by bhAvarUpa it means
abhAva vilakshaNa.

Again, please only take this email as something for information purposes,
it is not meant to disprove anything or convince anyone.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

>
>