[Advaita-l] Paul Hacker on Avidya in Brahma Sutras

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Sri Venkatraghavan, namaste
*Something from nothing is good epistemology, bad ontology. avidya is an
epistemological error upon an ontological reality. An epistemological
agrahana commonly produces an effect - not knowing the train's schedule;
forgetting the wife's birthday. Name and form is all that accounts for what
we call jagat.    *

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 12:40 PM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Praveen ji,
> Indeed. That adhyAsa is a samsArahetu cannot be in doubt - asya
> *anarthahetoh* prahANAya AtmaikyavidyApratipattaye sarve vedAntA
> Arabhyante, says the bhAShyakAra.
>
> If such an adhyAsa is anartha hetu, it must be bhAvarUpa. If that is not
> accepted, then it will be a case of a non-existent thing leading to a
> bhAvarUpa samsAra consisting of kartRtva / bhoktRtva / rAga/ / dveSha. So
> whatever is the type of bhAvarUpatva that is conceded by ajnAna
> abhAvavAdin-s for adhyAsa and samsAra, is the same bhAvarUpatva that is
> accepted ajnAna bhAvavAdin-s.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:15 AM Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Namaste Venkatji,
> >
> > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 11:13 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Re the contention that bhAvarUpatva of avidyA is a post Shankara
> >> construct, there is a very interesting passage in the bRhadAraNyaka
> bhAShya
> >> to the mantra 4.3.20 where the bhAvrUpatva of avidyA is indicated:
> >>
> >> तथा अविद्यायामप्युत्कृष्यमाणायाम् , तिरोधीयमानायां च विद्यायाम् ,
> >> अविद्यायाः फलं प्रत्यक्षत एवोपलभ्यते — ‘अथ यत्रैनं घ्नन्तीव जिनन्तीव’
> इति ।
> >> When ignorance increases and knowledge is suppressed, the results of
> >> ignorance are directly perceived i.e. - "now, if he feels like he was as
> >> though being killed, or as though being overpowered".
> >>
> > ...
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the Brihad bhAShya quotations. There is another issue that I
> > keep pointing out to those who object to avidyA being bhAvarUpa that if
> it
> > is abhAvarUpa, then it cannot be any kind of kAraNa to anything, let
> alone
> > saMsAra. If they argue that mAyA, "different from avidyA" is the kAraNa,
> > still adhyAsa has to be accepted as a kAraNa for individuality. If
> adhyAsa
> > is same as avidyA, avidyA being abhAvarUpa, and any kind of kAraNa, would
> > leave us with no possibility of rejecting shUnyavAda wholesale! A
> > non-existent avidyA/ adhyAsa contributing to any saMsaraNa or delusion or
> > whatever it contributes to, is no better than shUnyavAda.
> >
> > Somewhere in Taittiriyabhashya, if memory serves right, Bhagavan
> > Bhashyakara says that even Naiyyayika's prAgabhAva is different from this
> > shUnya of yours to a Bauddha pUrvapakSha, the former being a padArtha
> while
> > the latter complete non-existence.
> >
> > gurupAdukAbhyAm,
> > --Praveen R. Bhat
> > /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> > That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>