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

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sri Michael,
The Swamiji in section 131 says:

(I'm taking the liberty of splitting this into paragraphs and numbering
them for easier comprehension and enumerating the ideas contained for
easier reference)

"1. However the point was made by the opponent that if it was accepted that
the failure-to-awaken, which is not a reality but a negation, was accepted
as the cause of wrong knowledge then that would amount to (the absurd
position of) accepting that being came out of non-being.

2. But that was not right either. If failure-to-awaken is non-being, do you
mean to say that its result, wrong knowledge is real being, that you should
query whether being was made to come out of non-being?

3. And one does not get rid of one's difficulties by dismissing
'failure-to-awaken' and summoning positive Ignorance to take its place. For
positive Ignorance too must be non-being, since it is capable of being
abolished by knowledge. No real being can be demolished by knowledge".

1 is indeed the criticism where we left off a couple of days ago. To this,
the above answer from the Swamiji was provided. If we look at 2 and 3,
Swamiji is using the terms "being" and "non-being". These essentially
correspond to paramArtha sat and vyAvahArika sat respectively.

However, there is another classification within vyAvahArika sat, which the
Swamiji has ignored - presence and absence. That is, there is a vyAvaharika
presence and a vyAvahArika absence. Both presence and absence, being
vyAvahArika are, to use Swamiji's terminology, "capable of being abolished
by knowledge".

So the original charge that we are making is that the "failure to awaken"
is a vyAvahArika absence. Ignorance for us a is a vyAvahArika presence.
When we debate whether ignorance is bhAvarUpa or abhAvarUpa, the debate is
not whether ignorance is pAramArthika sat or vyAhArika sat - rather the
debate - for us - is whether it is a vyAvahArika presence or vyAvahArika
absence.

So in 1, the question we are asking is - as the "failure to awaken" is a
vyAvahArika absence, how can it give rise to a wrong- knowledge whose
nature is a vyAvahArika presence? For such a notion is *as absurd* as the
one where 'being' can arise from 'non-being'.

The reply we would give to 2 is - we are not saying that wrong knowledge is
'being', nor that 'failure to awaken' is 'non-being'. We are saying that
'failure to awaken' is a vyAvahArika absence, and such an absence cannot
give rise to a vyAvahArika presence such as wrong knowledge.

To 3, our reply is - yes, positive Ignorance is non-being. And it is is
capable of being abolished by knowledge. However, such a positive
Ignorance, of the nature of a vyAvhArika presence, is capable of resulting
in a wrong knowledge which is of the nature of a vyAvahArika presence.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Sat, 21 May 2022, 16:50 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
>