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

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

PraNAms to everybody 

 

I have been following the arguments to the extent I canunderstand.

 

I am not sure why Bhasarji is keeping silent.

 

In the final analysis, as I see, the fundamentals remain thesame - whether the avidya is bhaava ruupa or abhaava ruupa. The truth is - I donot know my true nature hence I am taking myself other than what I am - I havehalf baked knowledge - I know that I exist and I know that I am a consciousentity - what I do not know is I am also the source of happiness - the lastfact arises since I do not recognize that I am that limitless Brahman (anantam)and scripture says anantam eva anandam - or limitless alone is pureunconditional happiness. Thus not knowing my complete nature, I commit the mistakeof seeking happiness by fulfilling desires and thus get into a vicious circle.If this is the case, would it make any difference if my not knowing fully aboutmyself is bhava ruupa or abhaava ruupa? The solution to the problem remains thesame - I have to know that I am pure Brahman and hence not only I am sat andchit but also ananda swaruupam. End of the story.

 

However, I would ask one question out of curiosity.Providing three cases.

 

1. Someone asked me if I know Chemistry. I have never heardof it. I would ask back what is it? I do not know? - He gives me some descriptionsto arise my curiosity and ask me to go a Chemistry teacher to learn. Chemistryknowledge destroys my chemistry ignorance - but of course not my Physicsignorance. Likewise, when someone points out logically that I am the verysource of happiness that I am seeking and to know my true nature scripture asksme to go to that teacher who knows the Self-Knowledge. Of course what good willit do to me, if he knows about himself, since I want to know about myself andnot about his-self? 

 

Anticipating my question, scriptures the self that he knowsthe self in all - sarva bhuutastam aatmanam sarva bhuutani ca aatmani.Convinced by the argument, I naturally try to approach a qualified teacher. 

 

2. I am sitting in a pitch dark room - I cannot seeanything. Someone asked if there is a chair in the room. All I can say is thatI do not know since I cannot see. It may be there or may not be there - theanswer is anirvacaneeyam. 

 

Now I ask is darkness covering the presence of absence ofthe objects so that I cannot see. Is it bhaavaruupa or abhaava ruupa. 

 

Of course, the fellow asks me how do you know that it isdark? I have to say 'I can see it is dark'. Sounds like bhaavaruupa.  I see that I cannot see anything - 

 

3. Another case - In the deep sleep state, ignorance coverseverything since I do not know 'anything' - hence no desire for anything - na kanchana kaamam kaamayata - saysMandukya. 

 

Hence I have a complete absence of all subject-objectduality.

 

A question was posed in Upadesha sahasree (I think) when thestudent claims that since I do not know anything including the existence ofmyself - it proves that the deep sleep state proves that I am nothing. For thatthe teacher responds - your very question proves your existence in the deepsleep state since you know that you did not know anything during that state. 

 

Is ignorance of everything including myself (my mind, Ipresume here) - is it bhaava ruupa or abhaavaruupa. Next question - would thatmake any difference.

 

Could not resist posing these questions out of curiosity.

 

Hari Om!

 

Sadananda

    On Saturday, May 21, 2022, 11:50:41 AM EDT, Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:  
 
 I believe SSS generally responds best to the various astute comments
offered by Sri Dwivedula, Bhat & Venkatraghavan. Here is link to a short
reflection in SSS's, The Heart of Sri Samkara, his original abhava rupa
avidya = adhyasa argument. ""In truth, Ignorance is not the effect or cause
of anything, so the question of its cause is illegitimate". Through the
reasoning contained in section 131, the entire question of need for an
efficient positive cause is rendered moot. In the second link from the same
text, SSS discusses cause of waking with some profound insight. Please
consider -
https://archive.org/details/TheHeartOfSriSankara/page/n161/mode/2up
https://archive.org/details/TheHeartOfSriSankara/page/n65/mode/2up?q=39&view=theater



On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:41 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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