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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Sri Michael
I think you got the general point being made that it's not only in the case
of brahmAtma GYAnam but also in empirical cases like rope-snake etc that
the idea of avidyA as a bhAvarUpa (or yat kincit bhAvarUpa) is being
maintained.

The consistent position is that all vRttis of bhrama GYAnam (of even
physical objects like snakes on ropes etc experienced, are a modification
or vikAra) of avidyA.

The basic epistemological process of knowledge in vedAnta is different from
how most people would view it. It involves removal or destruction of an
existent entity called avidyA (centred on that particular object) by a
corresponding vRtti. When the knowledge occurs and a rope is perceived as a
rope etc., the vRtti which destroyed the ignorance of the rope revealing it
for what it is,  is referred to as an 'antaHkaraNa vRtti'. And when a rope
is perceived as a snake, the avidyA itself is modified to assume the form
of the snake - it's an 'avidyA vRtti'.

The divergence between avidyA being a bhAvarUpa or abhAvarUpa entity, is
better discussed with empirical cases of bhrama GYAnam like rope-snake etc.
It's not just w.r.t Brahman that such an ontological aspect to avidyA is
being asserted by mainstream Advaita vedAnta.

Lastly the question of whether adhyAsa itself is bhAvarUpa or not is moot.
If it is, then it cannot be sublated, as per the argument against avidyA
being bhAvarUpA. If adhyAsa is given empirical reality , then the same can
be said for avidyA too.

Also, there is an idea that all cause-effect is "within time" and hence we
cannot ask the question "what causes adhyAsa". However this is not tenable
because questions such as "what causes the arising of time itself" can be
logically and meaningfully framed and need to be addressed, which is
mUlaaavidyA etc., do.

Om
Raghav


Om
Raghav




On Fri, 20 May, 2022, 2:43 am Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>